Fox News and Democratic Political Analyst Kirsten Powers Loses Her Health Insurance

October 25, 2013 in "Liar in Chief", Obama's America 2016, ObamaCare, Obamanation, Oust Obama, President Obama, Progressivism, Propaganda, Redistribution of Wealth, Repeal Obamacare, Socialism, The Hope and The Change, Treachery

Kirsten Powers portraits by Len Spoden PhotographyThe following are our “Dear Leader” and “Deceiver in Chief” Barack Hussein Obama’s unmitigated lies: “It’s going to bring down skyrocketing costs. It’s going to save families money. It’s going to save businesses money. It’s going to save government money.” Megan Kelly: “That promise that “if you like your plan you can keep it . If you like your doctor you can keep him is not proving true for millions of Americans.” Daily Beast Columnist, Fox News Political Analyst, and Obama and Democratic Party staunch supporter, Kirsten Powers say, “Right!”

She goes on to say that she received the same letter as “everyone else” that her Health Insurance plan was being terminated and that in her exchange, if she wants to keep her $2500 deductible, her insurance will go from $160/ month to $300/ a month or an increase of  87.5% .

Just Another Obama Lie Which He Hopes Will Cause Republicans to Cave on Sequestration

February 27, 2013 in Abuse of Power, Anarchist, Debt Crisis, dictator, Economic Deception, Fiscal Cliff, Generational Theft, Indoctrination, Intimidation, Liars, Obamanation, Political Deception, President Obama, Propaganda, Redistribution of Wealth, Socialist, Treason, White House Fraud, Who Is Barack Hussein Obama?

Barack Hussein Obama invented Sequestration

Obama LaughingNow it looks like Obama and his Thugs miscalculated on Sequestration. They have been using the imminent implementation of Sequestration to conspire with their media minions  in attempting to coerce the Republicans to once again cave to  Community organizer’s wicked lying  propaganda rants that have increased in volume and intensity as we approach the February 1st implementation.

The Republicans didn’t cave immediately and thereby created  a potentially disastrous political dilemma for Our Dear Leader. His political cohorts are telling him that if Sequestration becomes effective and the sky doesn’t fall, Barack will have a sever credibly problem, even among his loyal supporters.

If you take a look at the GDP math below that shows about a half cent hit for every non sequestrated GDP dollar, or even if you don’t, there is only one unquestionable conclusion that becomes evident.

Obama’s rants on Sequestration are a contrived comedy about  “Much A do about Nothing ”

That’s Right! There is no appreciable affect on our economy, even if he jawbone’s Ben Bernake  into saying so!

Call Your Senators and Representatives and tell them to let Sequestration to go into affect so that we can bring our $16.6T ever increasing Debt Crisis under control!

Analyses of Sequestration Affect on 2013 GDP:

The size of a nation’s economy is the total value of the spending on goods and services in the nation in a year. This spending occurs in the form of transactions within and between these three sectors. The flip side of this spending is production, because you can buy only what has been produced. So we can also measure an economy based on its production. Therefore, when you add up all of these transactions—and the value of foreign trade—the result is gross domestic product, or GDP. The formula for GDP is:

GDP = C + I + G + (Ex – Im)

where “C” equals spending by consumers,
“I” equals investment by businesses,
“G” equals government spending and
“(Ex – Im)” equals net exports, that is, the value of exports minus imports. Net exports may be negative.

According to Infoplease the  composition of GDP breaks down roughly as follows:

Consumption:   65%

Investment:       15%

Government:     20%

Net Exports:     0.0%

The CBO Projection for 2013 GDP is $16.198Trillion

2013 without Sequestration

C = $16.198T X .65 =10.5287 Trillion

G = $16.198T X .2 = $3.2396 Trillion

I =  $16.198T  X .15 =$2.4297 Trillion

2013 with Sequestration  

Assumes that the only variable is the $85B removed from  G, the Government Budget Contribution  while  C, I  remain constant

$16.198T – .085T =$16.113 T

C = $10.5287 Trillion

G = $3.2396T- .$085T = $ 3.1546 Trillion

I =  $2.4297 Trillion

What is the affect of Sequestration on GDP?

(Sequestration GDP  divided by Non-Sequestration GDP   minus 1) x 100 = Percent

($16.113T/ $16.198T) -1  = 0.0099 = .99% or about 1%

The $85B in Sequestration would reduce GDP by 1-cent for  every dollar of a  Non Sequestration GDP.

 

Since one-half of the $85T in Sequestration is slated for FY 2014, Sequestration will reduce the  FY 2013 Sequestration GDP  by about one-half a penny  for every  Non Sequestration dollar.

[subscribe2]

Obama Continues His Raid on Medicare that Exploits Senior Citizens’ Medical Insurance

February 21, 2013 in Abuse of Power, Accountability, Medicare, ObamaCare, Political Deception, President Obama, President Ronald Reagan, Redistribution of Wealth, Taxiation with Representation

Screwed AgainRonald Reagan’s “nine most terrifying words in the English language.” are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”

Barack Hussein Obama  and the Democrat Party proves the point with their promises to provide universal medical coverage that actually turns out to make draconian cuts to Medicare that will eliminate every remaining private Senior Citizen Medicare Advantage insurance plan in the United States.

Seniors have not only borne the brunt of artificially low interest rates by  “Helicopter” Ben Bernanke’s Fed Policies, but now endure ever decreasing funding for Medicare. This fits in with Obama’s redistribution of wealth and absolute power ideology. Take from the rich give to the poor, take from the old give to the youg, etc. You get the idea.

“Projected Medicare savings from Obamacare don’t improve the program. Instead, they pay for other new programs created under the law that aren’t even for seniors.By slashing reimbursement rates instead of introducing real reform, the health law jeopardizes seniors’ access to providers. ”

“…the Obama administration revealed that it would be significantly reducing funding for Medicare, a move that one health insurance analyst said “would turn almost every plan in the industry unprofitable.”

 

WITH ELECTION OVER, OBAMA ANNOUNCES MEDICARE CUTS TO FUND OBAMACARE

Breibart.com

by DR. SUSAN BERRY 20 Feb 2013

During the 2012 election campaign, Democrats denied that ObamaCare made $716 billion in cuts to Medicare in order to provide funding toward $1.9 trillion in new entitlement spending over the next ten years.

In an announcement on Friday, however, the Obama administration revealed that it would be significantly reducing funding for Medicare, a move that one health insurance analyst said “would turn almost every plan in the industry unprofitable.”

Health insurance stocks tumbled following the announcement that a big chunk of the Medicare cuts would come from the popular Medicare Advantage program, a market-oriented system in which participants can choose coverage by a private company that contracts with Medicare to provide all Part A and Part B benefits.

According to health care analyst Carl McDonald, the new rates proposed by the Obama administration will have the net effect of reducing payments to Medicare Advantage plans by seven to eight percent in 2014. McDonald projects:

If implemented, these rates and the program changes CMS [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] is suggesting would be enormously disruptive to Medicare Advantage, likely forcing a number of smaller plans out of the business and creating disarray for many seniors.

According to Richard Foster, former chief actuary to the Medicare program, ObamaCare’s cuts to Medicare Advantage will likely force half of its current participants back into the old Medicare program, originated in 1965. It is estimated that this change will cost Medicare enrollees an average of $3,714 in 2017 alone.

Democrats have long been unfriendly toward the Medicare Advantage plan, which was passed as part of the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1997 and has seen tremendous growth over the past 10 years. Today, more than 25 percent of seniors receive their health benefits through Medicare Advantage.

Regarding the cuts, America’s Health Insurance Plans’ (AHIP) president Karen Ignagni said, “Washington cannot tax and cut Medicare Advantage this much and not expect seniors to be harmed.”

Last year it was revealed that, while AHIP was openly supporting ObamaCare and working on a deal with the White House, it was also secretly funneling over $100 million to the Chamber of Commerce to be spent on advertising designed to convince Americans that the new legislation should be defeated.

The administration’s proposal is open to outside comments until March 1st, ahead of the final announcement of the cuts on April 1st.

Read more at:   http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/02/20/With-Election-Over-Obama-Announces-Medicare-Cuts-To-Fund-ObamaCare

[subscribe2]

Sequestration: The Facts About the Policy

February 19, 2013 in Debt Crisis, Debt Limit, Economic Deception, Economy, Political Deception, Political Incompetence, Propaganda, Redistribution of Wealth, Sequestration, White House Fraud

Islam ThreatSequestration does not cut spending, it simply reduces the rate-of-increased  spending

The Military is 1/4 of the Budget  yet it is taking 1/2 of the Sequestration Budget Hits

America at Risk: Budget Cuts Threaten Military Readiness

Sequester Main Points:

On the sequester “cuts” not being real cuts:
  • The so-called sequester “cuts” aren’t even real cuts! This year the government will spend more of your money than they did last year, and next year they will spend even more. If you spent more money year after year, you wouldn’t say you were cutting spending, so why does Washington get away with it?
  • Overspending is overspending, no matter which way you look at it. Spending $800 that you don’t have on your credit card instead of $1000, doesn’t mean you cut $200 of spending. It means you’re still overspending by $800.
  • Only an extremist would want to stop the sequester. As the National Taxpayers Union said, it is a starting point, not a finish line. Politicians will never actually cut spending if we let the spending radicals like Nancy Pelosi stop us from taking this small step forward.
  • The amount of the so-called “cuts” would be enough to run the government for only 4.5 days, and the spending radicals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want us to believe that the sequester will be “devastating.”

On the President’s flip-flop:

  • As the president’s own press secretary admitted, the sequester was President Obama’s idea in the first place. American families are tired of him playing politics and blaming others for his own ideas.
  • In July 2011, a White House fact sheet praised the deal that gave us the sequester as “a win for the economy and budget discipline.” At the time, President Obama said it didn’t impact the middle class or working families. Now he says it does. He was either lying then, or he’s lying now.

 Other points:

  • What is the sequester anyway? In a nutshell, the sequester is a deal that the President signed into law that says the government will overspend a little less this year than they did last year. That’s it. So they’re still overspending.
  • A recent poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw & Company Research shows that 73% of Americans want the government to cut spending, while only 15% want increased spending. The time is now to do what the majority of the American people want done.
  • Everyone agrees that we need to reduce the deficit. Let’s start now by keeping the sequester in place, and making the politicians keep their promises, and uphold the laws they pass.
  • We need to become an economically sustainable nation. The sequester is a step in the right direction. Don’t let politicians and their well-connected friends stop this little bit of badly-needed progress.
  • Recently, Nancy Pelosi said that cutting Congressional pay would undermine their “dignity.” Could she be any more insulting? What about the dignity of the millions of Americans that are still out of work? Or the dignity of younger generations that will be burdened by the massive debt that paid politicians like Nancy Pelosi have racked up? What’s undignified is making a promise to the American people that you will cut spending and then trying to weasel your way out of it when the time comes, hoping that you’ll be retired before the bills come due.

 

The Heritage Foundation

Morning Bell: Spending Cuts Are Happening, One Way or Another

Amy Payne February 19, 2013 at 7:32 am

Federal budget cuts called “sequestration” are scheduled to hit in just 10 days. The sequestration cuts are not perfect—they’re a blunt instrument to cut spending, rather than a deliberative plan that sets priorities, trims entitlements, and cuts other spending. But they are law. It would be better to replace them with smarter cuts, but the reality is that Washington has to start cutting spending now. Real program reforms and a balanced budget are the only way to solve our continuing fiscal crises. So it is critical that Congress keep its word and follow through on these spending cuts to prove it is serious about bringing our budget into balance over the next 10 years. Now that the March 1 deadline is approaching, the President is urging Congress to offset the sequestration budget cuts with more tax increases. That’s simply unacceptable, says Heritage’s Grover M. Hermann Senior Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs, Patrick Louis Knudsen: “President Obama has already pocketed a $618 billion tax increase, so simply holding the line against taxes is a given.” Lawmakers shouldn’t be fooled by the President’s rhetoric on a “balanced” approach to sequestration or any other budget issue—that simply means he’s looking to raise taxes again. Instead, they should be focusing on true balance—balancing the federal budget in the next 10 years. Producing a budget would be a start, but balancing that budget is the way to put the country back on track. Knudsen explains:

Government spending and debt are both too high, and thisthreatens all Americans with a weaker economy and a lower standard of living. Every opportunity to reduce spending and put the government on the path to a balanced budget must be taken. Anything less is a path to defeat.

We need spending cuts that are targeted to the programs that need reforms—the entitlements that are the major drivers of our growing deficit. Sequestration leaves many programs like Social Security, welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid untouched, while having devastating effects on national security. Trying to use defense cuts to balance the out-of-control entitlement spending while we still face growing threats (Russia, China, Iran, and al-Qaeda affiliates) is a fool’s errand that will create a hollow military and do nothing to fix economic troubles. But if Congress does not replace the sequestration cuts with smarter cuts—like eliminating Obamacare funding or other ineffective programs—then the sequestration cuts will be our first step toward getting serious about federal spending. The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

[subscribe2]

Is Agenda 21 an International Conspiracy?

February 18, 2013 in Agenda 21, Climate Change, Global Warming, Redistribution of Wealth, United Nations

Capture Is Agenda 21 an International Conspiracy?

The Honourable Ann Bressington  Independent MLC  Member of the Legislative Council) in South Australia, has reached  that undeniable conclusion.

In a segment of her speech captured in the accompanying video, she very adroitly ties together, The Club of Rome, Agenda 21, The Environmental Movement, and a 10 -Region Global World System which could easily extrapolate into a One World Order of Global Governance.

“Ladies and gentlemen the origins of the environmental movement as we see it began back in nineteen sixty eight when the Club of Rome was formed.  The Club of Rome  has been described as a crisis think-tank which specializes in crisis creation. The main purpose  of this think-tank was to formulate a crisis that would unite the  world  and condition us to the idea of global solutions to local problems.  In a document called The First Global Revolution authored by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider,  on pages one hundred and four and one hundred and five it stated” in searching  for a new enemy to unite us we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like could fit the bill. All these dangers, of course,  will be caused by human intervention that will require a global response.  That’s the origin of global warming ladies and gentlemen. (Coloring and emphasis in the foregoing paragraph added by Mass Tea Party)

 The Club of Rome published their initial rendering of  the 10-Global Regions as follows:

“On 17, September, 1973, the Club of Rome published a report entitled the “Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System“, which was authored by Eduard Pestel and Mihajlo Mesarovic. The report revealed the Club’s intention to divide the world into ten economic/political regions, called “Kingdoms”, which would unite the entire world under a common leadership. These regions are:

  • North America
  • Western Europe
  • Japan
  • Australia and South Africa
  • Eastern Europe
  • Latin America
  • North Africa and the Middle East
  • Main Africa
  • South and Southeast Asia
  • Centrally Planned Asia

Club of Rome 10 Kingdoms

the Club of Rome planned to divide the entire world into ten economic/political regions, which it refers to as ‘kingdoms’

The term “Kingdoms” was left out, when the plan was released in a book entitled “Mankind at the Turning Point“, which stated that the solutions to the problems of the world could only “be developed in a global context.”

 

 

 

[subscribe2]

 

More Massive Government Entitlement Fraud…Yawn!

February 12, 2013 in Abuse of Power, Deval Patrick, Food Stamp, Fraud, MA, MA Political Machine, Our Dear Leader, Political Machine, President Obama, Redistribution of Wealth, Socialism, Taxachusetts, Welfare, Welfare Fraud, White House Fraud

liquor1What does MA and the Federal Government have in common? The answer is Massive Entitlement Fraud.  The well oiled Progressive Deval Patrick Entitlement machine knows that votes cost and what is better than purchasing votes with Other Peoples Money, or  OPM. Deval is following our Dear Leader in the White House’s lead in insuring that reforms are blocked and vetoed lest they interfere with the quid pro quo  of votes for entitlements.  “According to the Boston Herald, which first reported the veto, the governor berated the legislature’s stab at banning the purchase of specific items like manicures, tattoos, guns, porn, body piercings, jewelry, and bail by saying the move was political grandstanding” at a time when such reforms are already on track elsewhere.

Recently, EBT Fraud beagle,  Shauna O’Connell R Taunton,  reported that the  number of missing  EBT Card cheats had risen  from 17,000 a couple of months ago to 47,000 after an internal investigation.  If we assume that the 47,000 received the average family monthly stipend of $456,  then a measly $257.2M in fraud was skimmed from MA taxpayers.

“Although selling food stamps, known as trafficking, is a federal offense, Massachusetts remains one of the few states without a specific law allowing local authorities to investigate and prosecute retailers who traffic in food stamps. That loophole has made it difficult for local authorities to clamp down on retail traffickers, stores willing to pay recipients half the face value for every dollar they exchange.”

While Deval stonewalls and claims that Welfare Fraud enforcement is difficult at best,  ME has been ramping up its investigations and prosecutions and cracking down on  Welfare Fraud. “[ME]Department of Health and Human Service investigators are better trained. Local police are assisting on more cases. And state prosecutors are devoting more time and resources to putting behind bars people who rip off taxpayers’ money.”

At the Federal level, Our Dear Leader has been ramping up the “Obamaphone” giveaways. While we can’t place the blame on Obama for initiating the program, hats off to Bush 43 for initiating this technological welfare fraud program. In 2008,  $819 Million  was collected from a  tax imposed on every land line telephone subscriber’s bill.  Just another SMART Growth use of   OPM to pay for FRAUD. Last year, since it was a presidential re-election year, Our Dear Leader accelerated the  “Obamaphone Smart Growth” program so that a mere $2.2 Billion was confiscated from “producers”. By the way,  we lucked out. Only “… 41% of their more than six million”  “Obamaphone”  recipients turned out to be fraudulently obtained.

The Wall Street Journal,

Updated February 11, 2013, 9:51 p.m. ET

Millions Improperly Claimed U.S. Phone Subsidies

By SPENCER E. ANTE

The U.S. government spent about $2.2 billion last year to provide phones to low-income Americans, but a Wall Street Journal review of the program shows that a large number of those who received the phones haven’t proved they are eligible to receive them.

The Lifeline program—begun in 1984 to ensure that poor people aren’t cut off from jobs, families and emergency services—is funded by charges that appear on the monthly bills of every landline and wireless-phone customer. Payouts under the program have shot up from $819 million in 2008, as more wireless carriers have persuaded regulators to let them offer the service.

Suspecting that many of the new subscribers were ineligible, the Federal Communications Commission tightened the rules last year and required carriers to verify that existing subscribers were eligible. The agency estimated 15% of users would be weeded out, but far more were dropped.

Carriors

A review of five top recipients of Lifeline support conducted by the FCC for the Journal showed that 41% of their more than six million subscribers either couldn’t demonstrate their eligibility or didn’t respond to requests for certification.

The carriers—AT&T T -0.11% Inc.; Telrite Corp.; Tag Mobile USA; Verizon Communications VZ -0.07% Inc.; and the Virgin Mobile USA unit of Sprint NextelCorp. S +0.35% —accounted for 34% of total Lifeline subscribers last May. Two of the other largest providers, TracFone Wireless Inc. and Nexus Communications Inc., asked the FCC to keep their counts confidential. Results for the full program weren’t available.

The program is open to people who meet federal poverty guidelines or are on food stamps, Medicaid or other assistance programs, and only one Lifeline subscriber is allowed per household.

The program, which is administered by the nonprofit Universal Service Administrative Co., has grown rapidly as wireless carriers persuaded regulators to let people use the program for cellphone service. It pays carriers $9.25 a customer per month toward free or discounted wireless service.

Americans pay an average of $2.50 a month per household to fund a number of subsidized communications programs, including Lifeline.

For the carriers, the program is a chance for them to sign up more subscribers and make a small profit, plus more money if customers go over their small initial allotment and need to buy more minutes or text messages. Carriers can set prices for their Lifeline subscribers as the companies wish.

Until last year, FCC rules didn’t require carriers to certify to the FCC that subscribers were eligible. Consumers could self-certify, and in many states documentation wasn’t required.

Carriers said many of the disqualified subscribers simply didn’t reply when asked to prove their eligibility. They also said the FCC rules on self-certification, and the absence of a national database of participants, made it hard to keep ineligible people from signing up.

The FCC said it is investigating allegations that some Lifeline providers violated the rules, though it declined to comment on that probe. Carriers that don’t properly confirm eligibility can be fined up to $150,000 for each violation for each day of a continuing violation, up to a maximum of $1.5 million. In egregious cases, a carrier could lose its ability to participate in the program.

Telrite said it confirms Lifeline eligibility but said it had been difficult to verify the one-phone-per-household rule.

A Verizon spokesman said the “vast majority” of the subscribers removed from its rolls didn’t respond to eligibility checks. While Sprint found that some of its subscribers were no longer eligible, it, too, found that many others didn’t respond, a person familiar with the carrier’s operations said.

AT&T hadn’t detected the ineligible subscribers because customers self-certified under old rules and because some states required the company to provide Lifeline service to people enrolled in certain state assistance programs, according to a person familiar with the company’s thinking.

Tag Mobile didn’t respond to requests for comment.

TracFone Chief Executive F.J. Pollak declined to say how many customers his company shed. Nexus Communications didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Two years ago General Communication Inc. GNCMA +0.37% paid more than $1.5 million to settle allegations that Alaska DigiTel LLC, an Alaskan company it owns, submitted false claims to the FCC for more than four years. General Communication said the alleged misuse occurred before the company took day-to-day control of Alaska DigiTel.

Lifeline users have been a source of subscriber growth in the otherwise saturated U.S. market and helped fuel the expansion of companies like TracFone, now the fifth-largest U.S. wireless carrier.

The FCC until last year allowed consumers to self-certify, without requiring documentation, that they met federal poverty guidelines. Subscribers didn’t have to recertify once they were enrolled in the program, and there were few checks on whether households signed up for more than one cellphone.

“The program rules we inherited were designed for the age of the rotary phone and failed to protect the program from abuse,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said.

The agency pushed through new rules last year, requiring documentation when a Lifeline customer signs up. Consumers also must certify that no one else in their households is using the program. Carriers now have to check a state or federal social-service database to confirm eligibility and must reverify eligibility every year.

Carriers were required by Jan. 31 to report the number of subscribers they had removed from Lifeline as of the end of last year. The data reviewed by The Wall Street Journal came from those reports.

The FCC said new verification procedures saved nearly $214 million last year, and projected total savings over the next three years would reach $2 billion. Disbursements under the program began to drop in the third quarter after 12 consecutive quarters of increases.

Write to Spencer E. Ante at spencer.ante@wsj.com

A version of this article appeared February 12, 2013, on page A1 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Millions Improperly Claimed U.S. Phone Subsidies.

[subscribe2]

Barack Hussein Obama Continues His Unprecedented Personal Attacks Against Fox News

January 28, 2013 in "Bill of Rights", 1st Amendment, President Obama, Redistribution of Wealth

bill_of_rights_page1Having launched an attack against our Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment entitlement to bear Arms, Barack Hussein Obama is now carrying out a vendetta against our 1st Amendment Rights of  “…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”.  Never in our memory has a U.S. President so openly, so divisively attempted to divide and polarize our country.  After Barack Hussein Obama graduated from that Calderon of radical Progressivism Harvard Law School, he was hired, first as an instructor, and then as an adjunct professor of law, at the University of Chicago Law School. As adjunct professor he taught three courses, including Constitutional Law, from 1992 to 2004. One could argue that perhaps Obama had a clandestine purpose in choosing Constitutional Law; that is to undermine and dismantle the Constitution.  Whether or not you agree that this was his intent, you couldn’t disagree that as a Constitutional Lawyer, Professor and President sworn to uphold the Constitution, he is singlehandedly dismantling it. Why? So that he can redistribute OUR Country’s  WEALTH!

In September last year, Glenn Beck Stated, Back in 1998, Barack Obama was recorded saying, “I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution.”

“He actually believes in redistribution. Okay. This is really the one thing about Barack Obama that he has told the truth about over and over and over again, but nobody will believe him! Nobody! He said it before the last campaign,” Glenn said.

You’d have to be some sort of amazing deity to grow up surrounded by Marxists, communists, socialists, people who are on the FBI watch list because they’re so dangerous. His parents, his grandparents, his mentor, his college professors. He talked about hanging around with them all this college, the Marxists, the radical feminists, the anticolonial isolated. Even his spiritual 20‑year mentor, Jeremiah Wright, all the most important people in his life were strong believers in Marxism and Marxist principles. What chance did this guy ever have to understand capitalism? He’s never been around it. Never.

http://youtu.be/nohChZgtwb8

 

Amnesty Coming Your Way?

January 25, 2013 in Amnesty, Debt Crisis, Economy, Illegal Aliens, Redistribution of Wealth, Welfare, Welfare Fraud

illegal-alien-amnestySenator Marco Rubio in an interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox talked about his plan for “Undocumented  Immigrants.”

Even our so called  rising star Republican political class can’t help but use the same political speak of the Progressive Left, who seek to legitimatize criminal  behavior. According to Title  8 Section Section 1325 of the  US Code of Federal Regulations:

“Improper Entry by Alien,” any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

  • Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
  • Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
  • Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
  • has committed a federal crime.”

Further, one has to question the political motives of Senator Rubio. After all, a similar  Amnesty law to that proposed by Rubio et al, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was signed into law by President Reagan on November 6, 1986 who  called it,  “the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952.”.

IRCA:

  • required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status.
  • made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants.
  • legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants.
  • legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt. About three million illegal immigrants were granted legal status.

The law  turned out to be a complete and utter failure  when you consider that, it did nothing to stem the flow of Illegal Immigration. It  is estimated that we now have 4  to 6 times  the 1986  illegal Alien population,  residing in  the United States when IRCA became law.  Thus Senator Marco Rubio follows  in the footsteps of his political elite  predecessors and ignores George Santayana admonition that, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  

” There is much talk about the need for “comprehensive immigration reform”. With that in mind it would be useful to review what we as a nation learned, or should have learned, from our last big experiment in the field, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).” (Ref: Center for Immigration Studies Article January 2013)

In MA alone 17,000 EBT card holders were unable to be identified in 2012. What percentage of these lost EBT cardholders are  illegal Aliens? What about the fraud perpetrated  by Illegal Aliens that are on Welfare, on Medicare and perpetrate felonious. Criminals that are stealing our hard earned treasure at a time when America faces debt crises after debt crisis and at at a time when every level of government can barely manage to provide care for its legal citizenry. The effect of Amnesty on our economy at this time would be nothing short of devestating.

Doesn’t Senator Rubio understand that the end game for illegal Aliens is a quid pro quo relationship, wherein the Democrat Party keeps them as a permanent government dependent underclass in return for their votes and political support. If Amnesty were to passe, these  Illegal Aliens would then become a permanent dependent American underclass. These demographic trends have been causing dramatic political changes in our Southwestern states and if Amnesty were to be passed, this trend will befall our state as well.

The following is an article from Real Clear Politics:

Real Clear Politics

Rubio Finds Support on the Right for Immigration Plan

By Scott Conroy  – January 22, 2013

With leaders from both parties calling on Congress to take up immigration reform this year, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has been meeting with news outlets and conservative opinion-shapers to lay out his vision for a plan that would offer temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants. Those applying would have to pass background checks and other tests designed to eventually lead from permanent residency to citizenship.

Though he has not yet introduced legislation, in trumpeting his sweeping proposals Rubio has seized a torch that in recent years burned several similarly ambitious Republican politicians. But in a sign of how quickly the parameters of the debate on this issue have shifted since President Obama’s re-election, prominent conservatives — many of whom were vocal in their opposition to previous similar plans — have been lavishing praise on Rubio’s ideas for reform.

On his nationally syndicated radio show, Sean Hannity said that Rubio’s plan was “probably the most thoughtful bill that I have heard heretofore,” while Fox News colleague Bill O’Reilly called the program “a good one.” Other purveyors of conservative thought, from Grover Norquist to Ralph Reed to David Brody, have also weighed in with positive reactions.

The most important seal of approval thus far may have come from Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, who had until recently been tied to 2012 running mate Mitt Romney’s policy of opposing “amnesty” for illegal immigrants (whom Romney had suggested could be encouraged to “self-deport”).

But Ryan has made clear that he, too, is ready to pivot on the issue.

“Senator Rubio is exactly right on the need to fix our broken immigration system,” Ryan wrote last week in a post on his Facebook page. “I support the principles he’s outlined: modernization of our immigration laws; stronger security to curb illegal immigration; and respect for the rule of law in addressing the complex challenge of the undocumented population. Our future depends on an immigration system that works.”

Rubio spent much of the first half of last year trying to drum up support for his plan to offer visas to the children of illegal immigrants who have served in the military or attended college — an alternative to the Democratic-backed DREAM Act. But when the president issued an executive order that achieved similar ends, Rubio criticized him for having sidestepped Congress.

Since Obama’s re-election, which came with the support of more than 70 percent of Hispanic voters, Rubio’s team has been heartened by the stark sea change they have seen on the issue.

“Overall, the reaction’s been really positive, and there really hasn’t been any significant opposition to it,” Rubio spokesperson Alex Conant said of the senator’s plan. “People have made good points about the proposals, and we welcome a healthy debate. This isn’t something [where] the senator just woke up one morning and decided to do. He’s been thinking about these issues for years now.”

Rubio’s goal is to pass immigration legislation this year, and the political implications for the rising GOP star could be long-lasting. The first-term senator is widely expected to run for president in 2016. If he does, his first political hurdle to overcome would likely be in Iowa, where conservative hardliners on illegal immigration have long held sway.

In the 2008 nominating fight, John McCain’s efforts to promote comprehensive immigration reform were perhaps his greatest challenge in Iowa — where he finished a distant fourth in that year’s caucuses. He was able to recover and win the Republican nomination, but immigration became an unshakeable albatross for a more recent GOP White House hopeful.

When Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggested in a primary debate that people who disagreed with a Texas law offering in-state tuition rates to children of illegal immigrants “don’t have a heart,” the resulting criticism from conservatives grew into a firestorm in the Hawkeye State. Perry’s opponents and right-leaning activists hammered him for the comment, which he was forced to spend precious time on the stump trying to explain away.

But Republican consultant Bob Haus, who helped run Perry’s Iowa campaign, predicted that Rubio’s efforts on immigration reform would not sting him in a similar manner, if he does run in 2016.

“There are now more Republican leaders who are working to craft sensible, workable solutions than trying to simply derail everything,” Haus said. “These leaders are changing the debate. Republicans aren’t just against everything related to immigration. Now they’re for something. That signals a paradigm shift, and it will be a good one for the Republican Party.”

Despite those shifting sentiments on the right, however, there will no doubt be more than a few influential Republican voices in Iowa who remain resistant to Rubio’s proposals. Steve Deace, an influential conservative radio host in the nation’s first voting state, made clear on Twitter last week that he had no intention of getting behind Rubio’s plan.

“Strangely I am not reassured by Bill O’Reilly’s endorsement of Marco Rubio’s amnesty..err..immigration plan,” Deace tweeted.

During the 2012 primaries, Romney largely succeeded in his efforts to stake out a position to the right of his Republican opponents on the issue. But his short-term political gain became a Pyrrhic victory when the general election came around and the Obama campaign was able to paint him as an extremist on the issue.

Some former members of Romney’s team are among those taking that lesson to heart, seeing Rubio’s efforts as both politically savvy and a near necessity for the GOP’s future.

David Kochel, who helmed Romney’s near-victory in the 2012 Iowa caucuses, suggested that Rubio and other Republicans with their eye on the White House are wise to demonstrate a willingness to be a part of the solution to a difficult challenge.

“I think there will always be some folks in the conservative entertainment industry who will bang away at Republicans who want to work on immigration,” Kochel said. “But it’s a real problem, and not just a party problem. Time to look it in the eye and solve it. We can do it without compromising our principles.”

Read the entire article and comments at:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/22/rubio_finds_support_on_the_right_for_immigration_plan_116748-2.html

Obama To Boehner: “We Don’t Have A Spending Problem” -WJS

January 7, 2013 in Debt Crisis, Economic, Economic Deception, Economy, Fiscal Cliff, Gas Price, Obama-Nomics, Obama's America 2016, Obamanation, President Obama, Propaganda, Quantitative Easing, Redistribution of Wealth, Tax Hike

Obama

Obama To Boehner: “We Don’t Have A Spending Problem” – WJS
Pelosi: More Tax Revenues Must Be Part Of Any Debt Deal
Boehner: Obama Blames “Health Care Problem” For Deficit -WSJ
Democrats Pushing For Another $1 Trillion In Tax Revenue – Rpt

 

Obama to Boehner: ‘We Don’t Have a Spending Problem’

By Ben Shapiro, Breitbart.com

In an interview with Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, newly re-elected House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) opened up about President Obama’s utter unwillingness to cut a single dollar from federal spending. In a stunning admission, Obama reportedly told Boehner, “We don’t have a spending problem.”

Boehner added that President Obama continues to maintain that America’s federal deficit is caused not by governmental overspending but by “a health-care problem.” Said Boehner, “They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system.” Boehner told Obama, “Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with Obamacare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.” Obama eventually replied, “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”

Obama may be tired of hearing Boehner talk about a spending problem, particularly when Obama has been re-elected on the basis of ignoring government spending. Nonetheless, America does have a spending problem, which Obama is steadfastly ignoring. “He’s so ideological himself,” Boehner explained, “and he’s unwilling to take on the left of his own party.” That’s why Obama refused to raise the retirement age for Medicare after agreeing to it. “He admitted in meetings that he couldn’t sell things to his own members,” said Boehner. “But he didn’t even want to try … We could never get him to step up.”

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/government-spending/2013/01/07/obama-boehner-we-dont-have-spending-problem?intcmp=fly#ixzz2HNU1yTAL

MARK STEYN: ‘CLIFF BILL ‘SIGNALS TO WORLD THAT AMERICAN ERA IS OVER’

January 4, 2013 in Congress, Economic Deception, Economy, Fiscal Cliff, Redistribution of Wealth, Taxiation with Representation

Courtesy of: Breibart TV

MARK STEYN: ‘CLIFF’ BILL ‘SIGNALS TO WORLD THAT AMERICAN ERA IS OVER’

FOX NEWS: Fox and Friends’ Brian Kilmeade sat down with best-selling author and columnist Mark Steyn to discuss the bill that was passed last night to avoid the fiscal cliff’s across-the-board tax hikes and spending cuts. President Obama applauded the bill, which raises tax rates only on those making more than $450,000 a year, puts off spending cuts and extends unemployment benefits. It also increases by two percent the Social Security payroll tax on all workers.

But Steyn believes the current spending, which is fueling a rapidly-growing national debt that has surpassed $16.4 trillion, is unsustainable and at some point will have to be supported by more taxes on all Americans.

“In a sense America voted for big government in November. What it didn’t vote for is the willingness to pay for it. We have the biggest gap between revenue and spending of any nation on Earth. So people have got to get real about this. If you want Swedish-style government, you have to pay Swedish-style taxes. And if you don’t, you have to grow up and learn to live within your means,” said Steyn.

The author of the book “After America” went on to point out that if the current debt-fueled spending continues, “you’re basically signaling to the world that the American era is over.”Kilmeade then asked what Steyn what he thinks President Obama plans to do over the next four years to address the situation.

“I think he’s got another agenda. … The thing to do is to get people used to the spending, which is about 25 percent of GDP. If he’s gotten people used to the spending, at some point people will have to pay for it the way the Norwegians pay for it, the way the Belgians pay for it. They will have to pay taxes that match what the government is spending. Obama has figured out if you get ‘em used to the spending, then two, three years down the line the taxes will fall his way,” said Steyn.

See the entire story and comments at: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/02/Mark-Steyn-Out-of-Control-Spending-Signals-to-World-That-American-Era-Is-Over