Woman Who Could Not Afford ObamaCare Tries to Kill President

Photo Credit – The Blaze

After the initial report of mayhem in Washington D.C. and the originally reported shooting of a guard in the Capitol, it changed to that a woman, with a baby in her car, tried to ram the barriers in front of the White House in an attempt to kill the president after not being able to afford ObamaCare… an ever disappointing promise for many.

The facts on this event have been a disorganized moving target, but it now appears that the woman did not have a gun, that the car chase by police after the unarmed suspect led to the Capitol where it was reported that a guard or policeman was shot by a stray police bullet.

Capitol has re-opened within about an hour after shots were fired but the actual events are still evolving.

*The latest update is that the suspect tried to get through a check point at the far southern point of what is now considered White House grounds, blocks away from the actual White House.  The President was never in danger.  It seems that the suspect was hit and killed, but that is not verified, and the baby was not hit and is fine.  It also now appears that the formerly reported shooting of the guard or policeman was a false reporting and that the policeman injured himself in the police car crash below… one police car hitting another.

*(4:22p.m.) It has now been confirmed that the suspect, who appears to be an African-American, is dead and although the officer was hurt during the impact of their cars, no officers were killed.  A witness reports that she was shot in the head; not confirmed.  It appears that the suspect backed into a police vehicle at one point, but short of trying to escape she did not appear to be violent or have any weapons. So did the police over-react? Was there excessive force used?

*(4:52P.M.) The questions are now surfacing… Why are there no photos of the baby or of a baby being removed from the car.  If there was a baby, with the back windows of the car blown out, was that baby injured?  Could this situation have been accelerated by bad judgment?  Why is any normally released information not being released, yet nobody bothered to blur out the the victim’s car license plate number on many photos?  Why was it originally reported that this was a reaction to the woman’s disappointed with ObamaCare and now that fact has already been buried?

What this incident does do is add a whole new dynamic to the ObamaCare debate and perhaps a glimpse into the reality for many who will find themselves in the same place as this woman… feeling duped by the President’s promises surrounding ObamaCare. 

At this point there is much speculation, but there seem to be more questions than answers. 

AskMarion~

Blaze Report: Shots Fired Outside U.S. Capitol; One Officer Injured (Live Updates HERE) 

Related: 

• Capitol Hill Shooting
• Video

A woman driving a black Infiniti with a young child inside tried to ram through a White House barricade Thursday, then led police on a chase toward the Capitol, where police shot and killed her, witnesses and officials said.

Tourists watched the shooting unfold on Constitution Avenue outside the Capitol as lawmakers inside debated how to end a government shutdown. Police quickly locked down the entire complex temporarily, and both houses of Congress went into recess.

Read our previous posts and updates below to see how it all unfolded.

UPDATE 7:25 p.m. ET: Via the Hartford Courant:

A Stamford dental hygienist with a history of mental health issues was killed after a chase and shooting near the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, a source with knowledge of the investigation said.

The source said Miriam Carey, 34, was the woman who was driving the black Infiniti coupe with Connecticut license plates that tried to pass a security check point at the White House, led police on a chase through central Washington and died after being shot near the U.S. Capitol.

–

UPDATE 6:06 p.m. ET: Police would not reveal any information on the female suspect, but they did confirm that she has been “pronounced” dead.

There were two officers injured during the pursuit, and both are in good condition, police said.

The child who was traveling in the suspect’s car is reportedly in protective custody.

–

UPDATE 5:35 p.m. ET: The Washington Posts says that the suspect involved in the incident was a woman in her 30s and that a child taken from the car could be as young as one. The Post also cites two sources who say the woman did not have a gun.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas) told Fox News the woman was “African-American.”

–

UPDATE 5:15 p.m. ET: Eyewitnesses describe the frantic scene in the aftermath of the incident.

“I didn’t really have time to think; if I had I probably wouldn’t have gone outside,” one witness told TheBlaze’s Oliver Darcy.

“I really didn’t know what to think. I heard the seven or eight shots. There were dozens of officers. So much so that you really couldn’t even see what was happening. There were officers in police vehicles on every side, swarming, and more coming in every second.”

Read more in our separate post.

UPDATE 5:33 p.m. ET: Suspect’s, now said to be, 1-year-old child is said to be in protective custody and doing fine.

UPDATE 5:06 p.m. ET:  An onsite reporter said that all witnesses were removed from the area after her shooting, including one who said the suspect appeared to be just a scared woman…

UPDATE 5:06 p.m. ET:  The report of a baby in the car has now been changed to a 3 to 5 year old; still no photos or reported citings of the child?!?

UPDATE 4:42 p.m. ET:  Sen. Richard Blumenthal (R-Conn.) tells NECN that the black car involved in Thursday’s police chase had Connecticut plates.

NBC Connecticut is also reporting that the “car involved in the incident outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday is owned by a Connecticut resident, NBC News learned.”

WASHINGTON, DC – OCTOBER 03: A police officer checks out a car on grass with his canine near the U.S. Capitol October 3, 2013 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The US Capitol and the White House were placed on lockdown after an ‘active shooter’ situation was reported. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

UPDATE 4:26 p.m. ET: Fox News’ Chad Pergram reports that the female suspect involved in the car chase near the U.S. Capitol is deceased.

Tweeter: Chad Pergram ✔@ChadPergram -  Capitol Hill sources confirm suspect in WH/Capitol incident is deceased.  -  1:19 PM - 3 Oct 2013

–

UPDATE 4:25 p.m. ET: New video of a late model black (possibly G-35 Sports Coup) car involved in the incident has emerged

UPDATE 4:05 p.m. ET: Executive Director of the American Center for Law and Justice Jordan Sekulow witnessed some of the chaos that unfolded on Thursday and recalled the surreal incident in an interview with TheBlaze.

Sekulow says he could see the crime scene outside his office window in Washington, D.C. He also said there were sirens before gun shots rang out.

“Then we hear, ‘boom, boom, boom!’ and someone said, ‘that’s gunfire, everybody needs to get down,’” he recalled. “There was what I can only describe as an army of police responding at what is literally our intersection.”

–

UPDATE 4:00 p.m. ET: New video obtained by NBC News shows people running away after shots were fired outside the U.S. Capitol on Thursday.

UPDATE 3:51 p.m. ET: Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer is now telling a local Fox affiliate that the incident split into two locations. In other words, there are two crime scenes that police are investigating.

That seems to be corroborated by TheBlaze’s own Oliver Darcy, who reports Capitol Police have told him they have “multiple crime scenes.”

Gainer said there were shots fired at both locations and the suspect sped away from the first incident and fled to the second crime scene.

Reports indicate that the female suspect rammed a security barricade near the White House before speeding away and being stopped by police at the second crime scene.

UPDATE 3:44 p.m. ET: TheBlaze’s Oliver Darcy reports live from Washington, D.C.:

–

UPDATE 3:30 p.m. ET: Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer told a local Fox affiliate that the incident does not appear to be related to terrorism and is an isolated incident.

He also said it appears that shots were fired by law enforcement. It’s unclear if the suspect involved in the incident ever fired shots or if all shots were fired by police.

The child who was reportedly in the suspect’s car was taken to the hospital but she was not believed to be injured, Gainer said.

During a press conference, the police chief said it appears that no officers were shot in the incident. Injuries sustained by one officer after reportedly being struck in his squad car are not believed to be life threatening.

–

UPDATE 3:24 p.m. ET: TheBlaze’s Oliver Darcy is on the scene at the U.S. Capitol. We will continue bringing you breaking updates.

Tweet:  Oliver Darcy@oliverdarcy: Capitol police tells me they have "multiple crime scenes" they are trying to secure near Capitol.  -  12:22 PM - 3 Oct 2013

–

UPDATE 3:06 p.m. ET: Fox News confirms that a female driver tried to ram the security barrier at the White House with her car. Ed Henry reports Capitol Police then chased the suspect toward the Capitol.

Fox also reports the woman had a child in the car, whose status is unknown.

In addition to ABC News, WJLA is also reporting that a female suspect was shot and killed. There are also conflicting reports saying that the female suspect has been taken into custody.

 

Executive Director of the ACLJ Jordan Sekulow tweeted the following picture that shows a black car surrounded by police:

Tweet: Jordan - Sekulow@JordanSekulow -  This appears to be the vehicle that crashed in police station at 2nd/Constitution #capitolhillshooting  -  11:52 AM - 3 Oct 2013

Police have reportedly lifted the lockdown at the U.S. Capitol.

–

There are reports of shots fired near the U.S. Capitol, according to several news organizations. There are unconfirmed reports of one officer injured and possibly others.

The shots came from outside not inside the U.S. Capitol, Reuters reports. Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) also reported hearing shots fired.

Police say the U.S. Capitol had been put on a security lockdown since reports of possible shots fired outside the building emerged. However, the lockdown was lifted at around 3 p.m. ET.

Several news organizations are reporting that one suspect is in custody.

Another source tells ABC News that a female suspect is reportedly dead on scene at U.S. Capitol.

Credit: Tampa Bay Times reporter Alex Leary (@learyreports)

Fox News is reporting that the shooting may have been the result of a high-speed car chase that began outside the U.S. Capitol.

People standing outside the Supreme Court across the street from Congress were hurried into the court building by authorities.

In a notice distributed by email, the U.S. Capitol Police advised everyone to “close, lock and stay away from external doors and windows.The notice said gunshots have been reported on Capitol Hill. There are unconfirmed reports of an officer injured.

Executive Director of the ACLJ Jordan Sekulow was able to capture a photo of at least one person being carried out on a stretcher following the reports of shots fired.

Source: Twitter, @JordanSekulow

en. Bob Casey, D-Pa., told reporters he was walking from the Capitol to the Senate Russell Office Building across the street when he noticed several police officers driving fast up Constitution Avenue on motorcycles.

“Within seconds of that,” Casey said, “we heard three, four, five pops,” which he assumed were gunshots. He said police ordered Casey and nearby tourists to crouch behind a car for protection.

In about two minutes, he said, the officers moved everyone into the Capitol.

FBI agents rushed to the scene and Senate Sergeant at Arms Terrance Gainer confirmed: “There are reports of injuries.

This is an evolving story… so check back for updates.

Marion Algier – Cross-Posted at Ask Marion

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,White House,you be the judge,shooting,Washington D.C.,shootings,TheBlaze,News,Breaking News,NewsMax,Mental Illness,Disappointment,ObamaCare Costs,low-informed voters,ObamaCare Surprises,ObamaCare Consequences

Ruling By Decree

Obama’s Rule by Decree

Barack Obama has never been clear on the distinction between sovereign and servant, between the American people and those, including himself, elected to do the people’s business. We saw that yet again this week with the president’s unilateral rewrite of the Bataan Death March known as the Affordable Care Act — Obamacare. For this president, laws are not binding expressions of the popular will, but trifling recommendations to be ignored when expedient.

The collapse of law — not just Obamacare but law in general — is the Obama administration’s most egregious scandal. With the IRS here, Benghazi there, and Eric Holder’s institutionalized malevolence crowding the middle, it gets little direct attention. Perhaps it is so ubiquitous, so quotidian, that we’ve become inured to it.

Above all else, though, the office of the president was created to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. For this president, to the contrary, law is non-existent — and not merely law in the traditional sense of our aspiration to be “a nation of laws, not men.” Obama has contorted the law into a weapon against our constitutional order of divided powers and equal protection for every American.

As with most things Obama, this Olympian outrage springs from a kernel of propriety. We want our laws enforced, particularly when they reflect basic obligations of government in a free, civil society. Nevertheless, we know that the resources of government are finite, that laws are numerous and elastic, and that a federalist system implies a significant enforcement role for states. Thus, our legal system is premised on executive discretion. Not every law can or should be enforced to its fullest extent — nobody would want to live in that sort of society. To execute the laws faithfully is to remain mindful of the federal government’s essential but finite role in our framework and to concentrate its limited resources on enforcement of the most vital laws.

As a practical matter, this necessitates selectivity — some laws will go unenforced, some wrongs unaddressed. With a president who acts in good faith, this is not a problem. For example, simple possession of prohibited narcotics is a federal crime. But it is also a state crime. Given the need to prioritize, it is sensible for the feds to focus their efforts on what the federal government was designed for — international and interstate challenges that the states are not well equipped to address. So the Justice Department targets major drug-importation and distribution networks, leaving less serious drug infractions to the local district attorneys. Notice: This does not mean the executive branch is effectively decriminalizing less serious drug offenses in contravention of Congress’s statutes. It means the public’s federal buck goes to where it gets the best bang.

The separation-of-powers principle also has implications for executive discretion. To promote liberty, the Framers constructed a central government of divided authorities in which each branch was given tools to check inevitable encroachments by the others. Congress has an irresistible propensity to enact laws that usurp the powers of the executive and the states, and that erode the rights of the people. But Congress can only write the laws. It must depend on the president to execute them.

A president who believes in good faith that a congressional act is constitutionally invalid may properly decline to enforce it — in fact, he would in good conscience be bound to decline — at least until the Supreme Court has ruled on its validity. Faithfully executing the laws has never mandated that a president enforce unconstitutional statutes.

But note that this is a matter of legal legitimacy, not policy preference. Faithful execution, abiding by the president’s oath of office, means enforcing even those laws a president disagrees with on policy grounds if the laws are plainly constitutional. The Constitution gives Congress a wide berth to enact unwise laws, to say nothing of perfectly sensible laws that are uncongenial to a hard-left ideologue. There is nothing wrong with a president’s working to change those laws; in the meantime, though, he breaks his solemn pledge by failing to enforce them.

Bona fide concerns over resource allocation and constitutionality are narrow exceptions to the general rule that obliges presidents to execute the laws. In Obama’s hands, however, executive discretion has become an affirmative license for lawbreakers. Worse, it has seamlessly devolved into an invitation — an inducement — to official malfeasance. Again, only the executive branch can enforce the law. When executive-branch officials know that illegal actions on their part will not be pursued, they are encouraged to commit them.

Thus, Obama eschews enforcement of the immigration laws not because they are comparatively trivial or adequately covered by state police — indeed, his most notable enforcement efforts are directed not at illegal aliens but at states who dare attempt to see to the law’s faithful execution. Obama’s discretionary non-enforcement is not a good-faith husbanding of federal resources, but a cynical enterprise in rewarding lawbreakers and cultivating them as a dependable political constituency. His Justice Department practices racial discrimination in the enforcement of the civil-rights laws, a grievous betrayal of the Constitution, in order to appease and empower his political base.

The faithful execution of laws is never partisan; under Obama, the execution of laws is intensely partisan. He purports to make “recess appointments” when Congress is not in recess. He skirts Congress’s constitutional war powers by pretending that attacking another country (Libya) is not making war. If his core supporters are damaged by the suffocating laws he champions — most prominently, Obamacare — he claims the power to “waive” their provisions selectively. Meanwhile, huge bureaucracies are encouraged, expressly or by nod-and-wink, to harass the president’s opponents and push forward his redistributionist, production-strangling, Islamist-empowering agenda. The executive order — formerly an intra-branch efficiency device designed to organize the exercise of the president’s constitutional powers and the enforcement of Congress’s laws — has effectively become legislation, the president substituting his edicts for our laws.

In a vibrant, pluralistic society, law as an expression of the sovereign will is unavoidably a product of compromise. In the contentious process, the competing sides bend; they settle on something that neither, given their druthers, would support; and they honorably agree to abide by the result. Under Obama, however, massive laws are enacted — such that no one can conceivably know what the law is. Then the president enforces the parts he approves of, contemptuously disregards the parts that enticed naysayers into compromising, and presumes to amend or repeal inconvenient provisions at his whim.

That is not the rule of law. It is how a dictatorship works.

This column was published at National Review. It subsequently appeared on AIM.org and Western Journalism

Related:

Video:  Defying the King

Another Posh Vacay…The Obamas To Spend A Week At Martha's Vineyard 

After all… “Living in the White House is Often Like Living in A Prison”

Technorati Tags: Obamaland,Big Brother,Big Brother tactics,dictatorships,Ronald Reagan,speeches,you be the judge,Wild Bill,ObamaCare,Berlin Wall,freedom,EO's,Executive Orders,Immigration,Obama Vacations,White House,WH

White House quietly exempts pampered politicos

WOLF: Tawdry details of Obamacare

By Dr. Milton R. Wolf

If you would like to know what the White House really thinks of Obamacare, there’s an easy way. Look past its press releases. Ignore its promises. Forget its talking points. Instead, simply witness for yourself the outrageous way the White House protects its best friends from Obamacare.

Last year, we learned that the Department of Health and Human Services(HHS) had granted 111 waivers to protect a lucky few from the onerous regulations of the new national health care overhaul. That number quickly and quietly climbed to 222, and last week we learned that the number of Obamacare privileged escapes has skyrocketed to 733.

Among the fortunate is a who’s who list of unions, businesses and even several cities and four states (Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee) but none of the friends of Barack feature as prominently as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

How can you get your own free pass from Obamacare? Maybe you can just donate $27 million to President Obama‘s campaign efforts. That’s what Andy Stern did as president of SEIU in 2008. He has been the most frequent guest at Mr. Obama‘s White House.

Backroom deals have become par for the course for proponents of Obamacare. Senators were greased with special favors, like Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and his Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Democrat Sen. Mary L. Landrieu and her Louisiana Purchase. Even the American Medical Association was brought in line under threat of losing its exclusive and lucrative medical coding contracts with the government.

Not only are the payoffs an affront to our democracy and an outright assault on our taxpayers, the timing itself of the latest release makes a mockery of this administration’s transparency promises. More than 500 of the 733 waivers, we now know, were granted in December but kept conveniently under wraps until the day after the president’s State of the Union address. HHS is no stranger to covering up bad news; in fact, this is becoming a disturbing pattern. Last year, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius hid from Congress until after the Obamacare vote a damning report from the Medicare and Medicaid Office of the Actuary showing Obamacare would cost $311 billion more than promised and would displace 14 million Americans from their current insurance.

For this administration, transparency promises last only until the teleprompter is unplugged.

Backroom deals and cover-ups may be business as usual for Washington, but understanding why the Obama administration protects its friends from Obamacare offers special insight into what the purveyors of the mandate themselves think about their own law. This is key: The waivers aren’t meant to protect victims from unintended consequences of Obamacare; they are meant to exempt them from the very intentional increased costs of health insurance that the law causes. Under Section 2711 of the Public Health Service Act, Obamacare increases the annual cap of insurance benefits, which sounds great - as does everything else in big government - until the bill comes due, in this case, in the form of higher insurance premiums.

In short, the administration has decided that you will face increased health insurance premiums, but special friends in the unions will not. Look closely, and you’ll see not only the White House‘s duplicity but also what the Obama administration really thinks of its crown jewel, Obamacare. White House words say that the annual insurance benefit cap is a feature of the program, but its actions say that it’s a bug.

The question remains: If Obamacare is such a great law, why does the White House keep protecting its best friends from it?

Our democracy cannot allow a president to exercise the unholy power of picking and choosing winners and losers, of choosing who must follow his flawed laws and who gets a free pass. If any American deserves a waiver from Obamacare, then all Americans do.

It was Mr. Obama himself who infamously said, "We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends." This president speaks anything but softly, and Obamacare is his big stick.

It's time to give every American his own waiver: Repeal Obamacare.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist, medical director and cousin of President Obama. He blogs daily at miltonwolf.com.

h/t:  Laredo Tea Party  -  White House quietly exempts pampered politicos

Bill Hemmer

Breaking News: US JUDGE IN FLORIDA REFUSES TO IMPOSE INJUNCTION AGAINST OBAMA HEALTHCARE LAW.