Tag Archive: government


SILLY PARENTS. YOU COULDN’T POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT’S GOOD FOR YOUR KIDS.
When I was a kid, my mom would pack our lunches before sending us off to school. Not every day, but a vast majority of the time. She wanted us to have the healthiest food possible when we weren’t at home, and she couldn’t always count on our schools to provide that for us.

I can just imagine how my parents would have reacted if I had come home with a note from school like the one that parents received recently from a Richmond, Virginia, school district. The note from the school board informed parents that from now on, if they wanted to have their kids eat lunches that were prepared at home instead of in the school cafeteria, they would have to provide a doctor’s note explaining why.

I wish I could say I was surprised by this latest attempt by our government to control us, but I wasn’t. Actually, I’m surprised they waited this long to stick their noses in this aspect of our lives. But assuming that it was coming doesn’t make it any easier to stomach. What they’re doing is telling parents that they have to pay for a doctor’s visit in order to give their kids nutritional food to eat for lunch at school rather than the GMO-laden, preservative-filled, deep-fried, fattening foods often served up by our public schools.

But you know what? Even if the schools served fresh fruits and vegetables to the kids every day and I wanted my kid to eat a sandwich and a cookie, I should have the right to do that without a doctor’s note. It should be my right as a parent to feed my kids whatever I want to feed them without governmental interference.

Of course, this isn’t really about food at all. It’s just more of the same garbage that the government continues to dish out and spoon-feed us almost every day. It’s all about controlling people. They want to control what you say and do, where and when you go somewhere, and who you communicate with. It’s all part of their never-ending attack on individual rights.

How would you respond if a school sent home a note such as that with your child or grandchild? I’d love to hear what you have to say about this.

Should Churches Be Subsidized For Preaching Politically Correct Propaganda?
Posted by Frederick Meekins on November 23, 2014 at 9:39amView Blog
In compliance with the state mandate to curb storm water run off, the Prince George’s County Department of the Environment is considering a proposal that would waive the unpopular impervious surface property tax assessment for their properties if churches agree to preach environmentally friendly sermons or engage in other forms of mental conditioning.

What’s the big deal, some will ask.

After all, does the Bible not teach us to be good stewards of God’s creation?

God’s word also instructs the believer to be on guard against wolves in sheep’s clothing.

If governments grant tax code favors to religious organizations for ideological compliance in regards to one issue, what is to prevent them from doing so in regards to more controversial matters?

In the name tolerance and diversity, what if governments granted tax and regulatory relief to congregations supporting gay marriage?

What if a government wanted to promote pluralism and inclusion by lavishing all manner of benefits upon a church that agreed not to lift the name of Jesus above all names but instead only reference a nondescript generic God or no God at all but rather just the Ultimate Concern as formulated by Paul Tillich?

How about putting the shoe on the other foot for a moment?

What if to bolster declining birthrates a government lavished tax favors upon churches promising to preach prolife messages?

It is said that the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Advocates insist that that the program is strictly voluntary.

However, government programs that start off voluntary can easily end up becoming mandatory.

Anybody remember the assurances of if you like your healthcare plan you can keep your healthcare plan?

From one perspective, the program is completely voluntary with no government shocktroops raiding churches failing to put in the environmental upgrades or enunciating church dogma in such a way to win the approval of the state (at least not yet anyway).

Yet from another perspective, aren’t churches that refuse to have their very thoughts policed in this manner punished by having to pay the tax?

Courts have forbidden graduation prayers for being less of a mental intrusion.

By Frederick Meekins

Uh oh: New York Times creates big trouble for tax-dodging Obama ally Al Sharpton
POSTED AT 7:21 PM ON NOVEMBER 18, 2014 BY NOAH ROTHMAN

On Tuesday, The New York Times took its readers inside the city’s exclusive Four Seasons Restaurant where Al Sharpton celebrated his 60th birthday party at what was dubbed his “party for a cause.”

“Mayor Bill de Blasio and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo hailed him as a civil rights icon,” the profile of New York City-based activist and MSNBC began. “President [Barack] Obama sent an aide to read a message commending Mr. Sharpton’s ‘dedication to the righteous cause of perfecting our union.’ Major corporations sponsored the lavish affair.”

It is a spectacular raise for an agitator who began his career inciting race riots outside of Freddy’s Fashion Mart, ruining the lives of the men who were falsely accused of raping Tawana Brawley, and serving as an FBI informant after affiliating with the mafia and expressing interest in securing a hefty amount of cocaine.

Sharpton has been described as Obama’s “go-to man on race” by the well-connected Politico reporter Glenn Thrush. He was contacted directly in August by Valerie Jarrett amid spiraling violence in Ferguson, Missouri, and was deployed to deescalate the situation. Well before Obama’s reelection, Sharpton emerged as one of the president’s most valued outreach figures. In 2010, The Wall Street Journal revealed that Sharpton was tasked to tamp down the “increasingly public criticism in the black community over his economic policy.”

The value Sharpton represented to the Obama White House perhaps made it easier to overlook the fact that, as The Times reported, the MSNBC host is a serial tax evader and violator of the public trust.

“Mr. Sharpton has regularly sidestepped the sorts of obligation most people see as inevitable,” The Times reported, “like taxes, rent, and other bills.”

Records reviewed by The New York Times show more than $4.5 million in current state and federal tax liens against him and his for-profit businesses. And though he said in recent interviews that he was paying both down, his balance with the state, at least, has actually grown in recent years. His National Action Network appears to have been sustained for years by not paying federal payroll taxes on its employees.
“With the tax liability outstanding, Mr. Sharpton traveled first class and collected a sizable salary, the kind of practice by nonprofit groups that the United States Treasury’s inspector general for tax administration recently characterized as ‘abusive,’ or ‘potentially criminal,’ if the failure to turn over or collect taxes is willful,” The Times report continued.

This is just the kind of economic treason that the president spent much of his reelection campaign railing against, only the public was lead to believe that Obama the populist crusader was railing against businessmen and women who exclusively voted Republican.

The Patriot Post
Immigration Executive Order — All Smoke and Mirrors
The Demos’ REAL “Immigration Reform” Strategy
By Mark Alexander

Nov. 19, 2014

“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” –George Washington1 (1783)

So, the Imperial President2 claims that, because Republicans are not passing the immigration “reform” legislation that best suits the Democratic Party’s3 political agenda, he is going to bypass Congress and issue an executive order (EO).

Don’t believe it.

Oh, Barack Obama is going to center stage Thursday night to set up his EO play, and sign that diktat Friday in Las Vegas – a fitting venue for a gutless gamble by a “big hat, no cattle” dude rancher. But what is the Demos’ real strategy?

In leftist parlance, “immigration reform” means providing a jackpot to illegal aliens – giving them official status so they can work and receive all associated taxpayer-subsidized services like housing, schooling and medical care. Once integrated, the second step is to provide a fast-track to citizenship. In other words, for Democrats, immigration reform means, first and foremost, seeding a large constituency.

But is Obama really attempting to give millions of illegal immigrants worker status?

In 2008, then President-elect Obama declared, “I can guarantee that we will have, in the first year, an immigration bill that I strongly support.” In 2009 and 2010, Obama had the benefit of Democrat Party control of both the House and Senate, however, his congressional Demos never passed an amnesty bill and thus he did not sign one.

Why?

Because he and his fellow Democrats were just pandering to Latinos; they had no intention of passing legislation to provide worker permits for five to 10 million illegal immigrants.

Why?

Because another larger and more critical Democrat voter constituency is composed of low-income Americans4, whom the Left baits with class warfare rhetoric5 centered on issues like “living wages” and increasing the minimum wage.

As my daughter, a university student working toward a business degree, framed this issue, “Labor inflation results in wage deflation.” In other words, the Democrats really don’t want to dump millions of immigrant laborers, who are willing to take low wages, onto their dependable American low-income constituency, because that will, in effect, drive wages even lower.

This is a fundamental supply-and-demand equation.

Just before Democrats were shellacked during the midterm “Republican wave6,” Obama borrowed a line from The Gipper for a national campaign interview: “Ronald Reagan used to ask the question, ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’ In this case, are you better off than you were in six? And the answer is, the country is definitely better off than we were when I came into office.” But according to BO, the problem is the American people “don’t feel it,” and he insisted, “The reason they don’t feel it is because incomes and wages are not going up.”

Of course, the reason for wage stagnation is that Obama’s economic “recovery” policies7 have been a colossal failure. On top of that, the influx of cheap illegal immigrant labor effectively caps any increase in wages for unskilled workers.

Democrats argue raising the minimum wage will protect their low-wage constituents, but that is a fabrication. As the Congressional Budget Office made clear, artificially increasing wages will decrease employment8.

The issue of immigrant labor undermining the ability of low-income earners to achieve a “living wage” is nothing new. A primary reason Abraham Lincoln did not emancipate slaves at the onset of the War Between the States is that the influx of black labor into northern markets competing for jobs held by white laborers would have undermined Lincoln’s political support9 from the latter.

The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass was so angry with Lincoln for delaying the liberation of some slaves that he scarcely contacted him before 1863, noting that Lincoln was loyal only “to the welfare of the white race.” Apparently, more than a few Latino politicos are equally disenchanted with Obama’s failure to provide immigrant work permits.

So what of Obama’s EO?

The Demo strategy is to craft that EO in such a way that Republicans can successfully chip away at it, primarily by defunding and de-authorizing key components of its implementation, as well as by issuing legal challenges. Thus, Democrats will receive credit from both their legal and illegal Latino constituencies for, ostensibly, attempting to provide them with nine million10 Permanent Residency or Employment Authorization cards. Then they can blame those “obstructionist” Republicans for blocking them.

This week, Senate Democrats, in a letter to Obama supporting his EO plan, made clear their intent to share in the political fruits of this charade.

Obama, as we’ve often noted, is a master of the BIG Lie11, and, just like the litany of lies12 that he and his party used to deceive Americans into supporting ObamaCare13, they are also deceiving millions of Americans into believing Democrats support both “living wages” and “immigration reform.”

Apparently, Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) got it right when he interrupted Obama’s 2009 introduction of ObamaCare to a joint session of Congress and the nation. “You lie! You lie!” Wilson memorably yelled.

Indeed, “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American voter,” in the words of ObamaCare architect Jonathan Gruber14, are also applicable to Obama’s low-wage and Latino constituencies in regard to amnesty by EO. Of course, there is plenty of evidence that Obama constituents are too ignorant to know they’re being duped – after all, they elected him. Twice.

Not only do Democrats assume their constituents are too stupid to understand Obama’s amnesty EO subterfuge, but Obama is willing to, once again, turn constitutional Rule of Law15 on end to accomplish this deceit.

Last week, Obama declared his intent to issue the immigration EO: “I indicated to Speaker Boehner several months ago that if in fact Congress failed to act I would use all the lawful authority that I possess to try to make the system work better.”

Of course, “lawful authority” is whatever Obama defines it to be at a given time. He was against unlawful executive orders16 before he was for them.

On March 31, 2008, candidate Obama said, “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.”

But having failed to pass immigration reform in his first two years in office when he owned the House and Senate, and then having lost control of the House in the 2010 midterm election, Obama repeatedly pleaded in Latino forums17 that he had no power to implement the changes he’d promised. Rebuffing calls that he legislate by executive order, Obama insisted, “I am not a dictator. I’m the president. … If in fact I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress then I would do so. … I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

Obama may not have implemented his immigration policies by EO, but he certainly suspended enforcement of immigration laws with an executive order.

But by 2014, with his singular centerpiece legislation – ObamaCare – falling apart, and Democrats putting as much distance between him and them as possible, Obama believed the only way his party could stave off a resounding defeat in the midterm election was if he delivered Latino votes.

He began the year promising, “Where Congress isn’t acting, I’ll act on my own. … I’ve got a pen … and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward.” In other words, when Republicans don’t give Obama what he wants on immigration, he will pull an executive order end run.

Obama has broadly demonstrated his willingness to end-run our Constitution via EO, most notably his so-called “climate change18” policies and his repeated rewrites of ObamaCare13.

Asked about his revised position to implement amnesty by executive order, Obama regurgitated this spin: “Well, actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress. … There are certain limits to what falls within the realm of prosecutorial discretion in terms of how we apply existing immigration laws.”

Of course, that is just more constitutional obfuscation.

Despite his faux devotion to our Constitution, Obama has wantonly violated his oath to “to Support and Defend19” it.

Though Obama claims to be a “professor of constitutional law,” a genuine constitutional scholar, George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley, a self-acknowledged liberal Obama supporter, has issued severe criticism20 of Obama’s “über presidency,” his abuse of executive orders and regulations to bypass Congress.

According to Turley, “When the president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a concern. There’s no license for going it alone in our system, and what he’s done, is very problematic. He’s told agencies not to enforce some laws [and] has effectively rewritten laws through active interpretation that I find very problematic.”

He continued: “What’s emerging is an imperial presidency, an über presidency. … When a president can govern alone, he can become a government unto himself, which is precisely the danger that the Framers sought to avoid in the establishment of our tripartite system of government. … Obama has repeatedly violated this [separation of powers] doctrine in the circumvention of Congress in areas ranging from health care to immigration law to environmental law. … What we are witnessing today is one of the greatest challenges to our constitutional system in the history of this country. We are in the midst of a constitutional crisis with sweeping implications for our system of government. … We are now at the constitutional tipping point21 for our system. … No one in our system can ‘go it alone’ – not Congress, not the courts, and not the president.”

When asked by Fox News host Megyn Kelly how he would respond “to those who say many presidents have issued executive orders on immigration,” Turley responded, “This would be unprecedented, and I think it would be an unprecedented threat to the balance of powers. … I hope he does not get away with it.”

Over on Obama’s MSNBC network, even leftist commentator Lawrence O’Donnell finds the prospect of Obama’s executive amnesty diktat daunting. He asked Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) about Obama’s authority to issue an EO22 giving work permits to millions of illegal immigrants: “No one at the White House has been able to give me the legal justification for the following component of the president’s plan. … Has the White House told you – what is the legal justification for the president to create a new category of beneficiaries for work documents? How can that be done without legislation?”

Of course, Welch could not answer O’Donnell, because there is no such authority.

Before the midterm election, Obama declared, “Make no mistake, [my] policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.” Make no mistake: The American people resoundingly rejected his policies on November 4.

That notwithstanding, Obama has dismissed the election results23. Perhaps he believes his immigration EO artifice will deliver enough Latino voters to Democrat candidates in 2016 to hold the presidency and regain the Senate, and somehow that will restore his “Dear Leader” status. After all, more than a million illegal immigrants24 were unlawfully registered to vote in the midterm election, particularly in states where Democrats have thwarted efforts to require voter IDs25.

The bottom line for Republicans is that they need to drive home four points.

First, the “immigration reform” pledges by Obama and his Democrats are disingenuous because they would undermine the Left’s entire “living wage” platform. But Democrats believe their low-income and Latino constituencies are too stupid to understand this ruse. Remember: “Labor inflation results in wage deflation.”

Second, as Dr. Turley noted, Obama is willing to trash the Constitution in order to advance his ruinous policies. Republicans need to use his abject abuse of power and the threat it poses to Liberty as a constitutional teachable moment.

Third, any debate about immigration26 is useless unless it begins with a commitment to securing our borders first27. As Ronald Reagan28 declared, “A nation without borders is not a nation.” Likewise, it must address the issue of so-called “birthright citizenship29,” which is a gross misinterpretation of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

And last, Republicans need to embrace the fact that Liberty is colorblind30. It’s not a “white thing.” Essential Liberty31 is timeless. And because it transcends all racial, ethnic, gender and class distinctions, it will appeal to all freedom-loving people when properly presented.

Time to see what the incoming House and Senate Republican majorities are made of!

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis

Links

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/12704

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/27481

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/9235

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/14816

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/22892

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/30689

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/19290

http://patriotpost.us/articles/28852

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3181

http://patriotpost.us/articles/30185

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/22209

http://patriotpost.us/articles/30967

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/22065

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31072

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/7324

http://patriotpost.us/articles/30958

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31089

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/25733

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3192

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31094

http://jonathanturley.org/2014/03/10/the-constitutional-tipping-point/

http://patriotpost.us/posts/31090

http://patriotpost.us/posts/30710

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/30609

http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/29/latest-reason-oppose-amnesty-voter-fraud-2/

http://dailysignal.com/2014/11/13/10-point-immigration-plan-obama-follow/

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2762

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/8891

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/6932

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/23173

http://patriotpost.us/alexander/3467

SEATTLE’S MINIMUM WAGE CRASH: $15 to ZERO! Profits Tumble!
November 16, 2014 By Bill Chandler

Seattle, Washington, one of the strongest remaining bastions of liberal philosophy left in the country, passed a phased-in $15 minimum wage law earlier this year. The highest minimum wage in the country. The vote was unanimous and the throng outside cheered, but for many this is a loss from which they will never recover. It is a blow to the profitability of businesses that they just can’t take.

Even the left-leaning Seattle Times expressed concern wondering if Seattle had indeed “gone too far.”

According to the National Review Hotline, Kathrina Tugadi owner of Seattle’s El Norte Lounge, no longer hires musicians for her restaurant, she said she can’t justify expenses that don’t directly “add to the bottom line.” And, she says, hours will have to be cut: El Norte Lounge plans to stop serving lunch and only serve dinner.

“I am concerned about my business and others in the community, but it isn’t just about any one business. It’s about how the entire economic community,” she said. El Norte may be unable to remain open once the ordinance is fully in effect, she said. Even Pagliacci Pizza, a Seattle-area pizza chain, is moving its call center and some of its production facilities outside the city. That’s a lot of job loss, a lot of new people with a new wage of ZERO.

Socialist Council-member Kshama Sawant was the main proponent of the $15 ordinance. She and her supporters denied that the policy change would hurt businesses in the city. In one interview, Sawant said there need be “no unintended consequences.”

“No Unintended Consequences?” Who is she kidding? There are always consequences. In this case the consequences are the businesses that are downsizing, closing and failing, jobs that are lost, and most of all, people whose new hourly wage is ZERO. No unintended intended consequences? Are our politicians really that . . . stupid? Yes, I said it, Stupid. Do they really think taxes are irrelevant, businesses are omnipotent and that they can be drained in the name of politics without “any intended consequences?”

Do our politicians really not understand that our standard of living is the direct result
of one thing . . . the vitality of our businesses?

She went on to state that “any additional costs could come out of ‘extravagant profits’ rather than consumers pockets.” You have got to be kidding me . . . squared! Extravagant profits? Tell that to all the entrepreneurs out there who are trying desperately to make ends meet. Explain that to the mortgage companies they are trying to pay. And please pass that on to those on the street who’s job no longer exists. And, by the way:

where do you think every paycheck every employee has ever received came from?

Yes, Kshama, they came from business, all of them. And where do you think these businesses came from? They came from regular people like you and I who took a chance, rolled the dice, worked hard and were able to provide the people with something of value. All of them, that is where every single business you deplore came from.

You may think there are no intended consequences, but survey results tell a different story. Seattle Time contracted with a survey research firm to contact businesses in a broad range of industries likely to be impacted by the law. These are not businesses you’d describe as extravagant. Not surprisingly, nearly 70 percent of respondents in Seattle said that the $15 minimum wage is causing a “big increase” in their labor costs, and over 60 percent planned to pass on what they could to customers through higher prices.

But, according to Michael Saltsman, research director at the Employment Policies Institute, “price increases are not a silver bullet. After all, were businesses able to raise their prices at will without reducing sales, the minimum wage would be an afterthought. Customers have a choice: If prices increase, they could dine out less often or see one fewer movie a month. That’s why businesses are forced to adapt to a compulsory wage hike in other ways.”

In Seattle, 42 percent of surveyed employers were “very likely” to reduce the number of employees per shift or overall staffing levels as a direct consequence of the law. Similarly, 44 percent reported that they were “very likely” to scale back on employees’ hours to help offset the increased cost of the law. That’s particularly bad news for the Seattle metro area, where the unemployment rate for 16- to 19-year-olds is already more than 30 percent — due in part to Washington state’s already-high minimum wage.

Perhaps most concerning about the $15 proposal is that some businesses anticipated going beyond an increase in prices or a reduction in staffing levels. More than 43 percent of respondents said it was “very likely” they would limit future expansion in Seattle in response to the law. One in seven respondents is even “very likely” to close a current location in the city limits.

Yes, it it always sounds good to give people more free stuff, but once again, everything has a price. I asked a group of sixth graders what they would do. It only took them a few minutes to determine that their only choices were to; fire some employees, raise prices, or go out of business. They also concluded that people won’t come to your store if you charge too much. If sixth graders grasp this, what is wrong with our politicians?

Seattle is the first city in the country to pass a $15 minimum wage. Survey results suggested it will be the first city to find out why it was such a bad idea.

No matter how badly we would like it to be otherwise, there are always a consequences,
and 2+2 will always equal 4.

The U.S. Government Is Borrowing About 8 Trillion Dollars A Year
By Michael Snyder, on September 29th, 2014

National Debt – Public DomainI know that headline sounds completely outrageous. But it is actually true. The U.S. government is borrowing about 8 trillion dollars a year, and you are about to see the hard numbers that prove this. When discussing the national debt, most people tend to only focus on the amount that it increases each 12 months. And as I wrote about recently, the U.S. national debt has increased by more than a trillion dollars in fiscal year 2014. But that does not count the huge amounts of U.S. Treasury securities that the federal government must redeem each year. When these debt instruments hit their maturity date, the U.S. government must pay them off. This is done by borrowing more money to pay off the previous debts. In fiscal year 2013, redemptions of U.S. Treasury securities totaled $7,546,726,000,000 and new debt totaling $8,323,949,000,000 was issued. The final numbers for fiscal year 2014 are likely to be significantly higher than that.

So why does so much government debt come due each year?

Well, in recent years government officials figured out that they could save a lot of money on interest payments by borrowing over shorter time frames. For example, it costs the government far more to borrow money for 10 years than it does for 1 year. So a strategy was hatched to borrow money for very short periods of time and to keep “rolling it over” again and again and again.

This strategy has indeed saved the federal government hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments, but it has also created a situation where the federal government must borrow about 8 trillion dollars a year just to keep up with the game.

So what happens when the rest of the world decides that it does not want to loan us 8 trillion dollars a year at ultra-low interest rates?

Well, the game will be over and we will be in a massive amount of trouble.

I am about to share with you some numbers that were originally reported by CNS News. As you can see, far more debt is being redeemed and issued today than back during the middle part of the last decade…

2013

Redeemed: $7,546,726,000,000

Issued: $8,323,949,000,000

Increase: $777,223,000,000

2012

Redeemed: $6,804,956,000,000

Issued: $7,924,651,000,000

Increase: $1,119,695,000,000

2011

Redeemed: $7,026,617,000,000

Issued: $8,078,266,000,000

Increase: $1,051,649,000,000

2010

Redeemed: $7,206,965,000,000

Issued: $8,649,171,000,000

Increase: $1,442,206,000,000

2009

Redeemed: $7,306,512,000,000

Issued: $9,027,399,000,000

Increase: $1,720,887,000,000

2008

Redeemed: $4,898,607,000,000

Issued: $5,580,644,000,000

Increase: $682,037,000,000

2007

Redeemed: $4,402,395,000,000

Issued: $4,532,698,000,000

Increase: $130,303,000,000

2006

Redeemed: $4,297,869,000,000

Issued: $4,459,341,000,000

Increase: $161,472,000,000

The only way that this game can continue is if the U.S. government can continue to borrow gigantic piles of money at ridiculously low interest rates.

And our current standard of living greatly depends on the continuation of this game.

If something comes along and rattles this Ponzi scheme, life in America could change radically almost overnight.

In the United States today, we have a heavily socialized system that hands out checks to nearly half the population. In fact, 49 percent of all Americans live in a home that gets direct monetary benefits from the federal government each month according to the U.S. Census Bureau. And it is hard to believe, but Americans received more than 2 trillion dollars in benefits from the federal government last year alone. At this point, the primary function of the federal government is taking money from some people and giving it to others. In fact, more than 70 percent of all federal spending goes to “dependence-creating programs”, and the government runs approximately 80 different “means-tested welfare programs” right now. But the big problem is that the government is giving out far more money than it is taking in, so it has to borrow the difference. As long as we can continue to borrow at super low interest rates, the status quo can continue.

But a Ponzi scheme like this can only last for so long.

It has been said that when the checks stop coming in, chaos will begin in the streets of America.

The looting that took place when a technical glitch caused the EBT system to go down for a short time in some areas last year and the rioting in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri this year were both small previews of what we will see in the future.

And there is no way that we will be able to “grow” our way out of this problem.

As the Baby Boomers continue to retire, the amount of money that the federal government is handing out each year is projected to absolutely skyrocket. Just consider the following numbers…

-Back in 1965, only one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid. Today, more than 70 million Americans are on Medicaid, and it is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

-When Medicare was first established, we were told that it would cost about $12 billion a year by the time 1990 rolled around. Instead, the federal government ended up spending $110 billion on the program in 1990, and the federal government spent approximately $600 billion on the program in 2013.

-It is being projected that the number of Americans on Medicare will grow from 50.7 million in 2012 to 73.2 million in 2025.

-At this point, Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years. That comes to approximately $328,404 for every single household in the United States.

-In 1945, there were 42 workers for every retiree receiving Social Security benefits. Today, that number has fallen to 2.5 workers, and if you eliminate all government workers, that leaves only 1.6 private sector workers for every retiree receiving Social Security benefits.

-Right now, there are approximately 63 million Americans collecting Social Security benefits. By 2035, that number is projected to soar to an astounding 91 million.

-Overall, the Social Security system is facing a 134 trillion dollar shortfall over the next 75 years.

-The U.S. government is facing a total of 222 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities during the years ahead. Social Security and Medicare make up the bulk of that.

Yes, things seem somewhat stable for the moment in America today.

But the same thing could have been said about 2007. The stock market was soaring, the economy seemed like it was rolling right along and people were generally optimistic about the future.

Then the financial crisis of 2008 erupted and it seemed like the world was going to end.

Well, the truth is that another great crisis is rapidly approaching, and we are in far worse shape financially than we were back in 2008.

Don’t get blindsided by what is ahead. Evidence of the coming catastrophe is all around you.

New Iranian Law Proposes 74 Lashes for Dog Owners
A new law proposed in Iran would make walking, owning or selling a dog a crime punishable by 74 lashes and a fine of $370 to $3,700.
Sun, November 9, 2014
PrintPrintEmailEmail
An Iranian woman stands in front of a bank as she holds a dog in Tehran. The entrance of dogs and other pets into

A new law proposed in Iran would make walking, owning or selling a dog a crime punishable by 74 lashes and a fine of 10 to 100 million rials ($370 to $3,700). Violators could also be arrested.

Although the bill was proposed by 32 hardline MPs, many of 290 members of Iran’s Majles (parliament) are conservatives who sympathize with the hardliners.

The target of the bill appears to be young people as well as wealthy Iranians who are drawn to imitate Western culture. Even though coming into contact with dogs (especially the mucous membranes) is considered najis (unclean) in Islamic law, dogs are kept as pets by some Iranians. Most owners keep their dogs inside, but some – from the more affluent neighborhoods – can be seen walking their dogs outside, raising the ire of the Iranian morality police.

The legislation, reported in the reformist newspaper Shargh, reads in part, “Anyone who takes a pet like a monkey or a dog in public … damages the Islamic culture.” The legislation also warned that such animals damage “the health and tranquility of the people – particularly children and women.”

According to the new legislation, the animals would be confiscated and sent to a zoo, forest or desert. Dogs used by police, hunters, shepherds, farmers and fishermen are exempt from the legislation.
A similar bill was introduced to the parliament three years ago, but was dropped by MPs after concluded that more important laws were on their agenda.

However, Iranian morality police currently stop dog owners and either warn them or confiscate their animals.General Esmail Ahmadi Moghaddam said two years ago that his force would deal with Iran’s police chief ho carry dogs in public.”

Democrat War On Women Ends With A Whimper
By Adriana Cohen, Boston Herald November 6, 2014 11:55 am                                                                                                                                                                  The war on women is officially over. The midterm election delivered that message loud and clear.

The progressives’ birth-control darling Sandra Fluke, who kickstarted the phony propaganda scheme back in 2012, was sent packing Tuesday. She ran for state Senate in California’s 26th District and lost dramatically — by 21 points — despite being very well-funded. Proof even lots of money can’t fool the people.

In Texas, Wendy Davis, who made a name for herself last year during an infamous 11-hour-long attempt to filibuster a highly controversial Texas abortion bill, lost her bid for governor. And Mark Udall, a rubber stamp for Obama, who ran his hotly contested Colorado Senate race on “women’s issues,” was trounced by Republican Cory Gardner.

Republicans actually advanced women and gave them positions of power and influence.

Republican Mia Love was elected Utah’s first black congresswoman. In Iowa, the GOP’s Joni Ernst is now the state’s first female senator. The same is so for West Virginia’s Sen.-elect Shelley Moore Capito. And the youngest congresswoman in history, 30-year-old Elise Stefanik of New York, was also victorious.

With the mass wave of Republican electorate victories giving the GOP control of both the Senate and the House as well as winning several key gubernatorial seats — in Blue States no less — Democrats would be smart to scrap the bogus war on women ploy once and for all. Americans are simply not falling for it.

In fact, millions of American women across the country elected Republicans to represent them. If there was a real war on women, clearly this massive demographic would’ve voted differently.

What smart American women know is that the most important thing our government can do for us is to protect our safety and freedom. We need leaders in Washington who will support a strong military, possess an effective foreign policy and elect those who will strengthen homeland security.

Right now.

On the economic front, what Republican women understand is that the path to financial independence and the American Dream are two things: a good education and a good job.

Bottom line: There’s hope for America, because midterm results indicate women across this nation are starting to get it.

The GOP might take the White House in 2016 after all.

Adriana Cohen is also a host on “Trending Now” on Boston Herald Radio weekdays from 1 to 3 p.m. Follow her on Twitter @AdrianaCohen16.

Parents to take ‘torture’ of Michael Brown to UN

By St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO) November 5, 2014 11:55 am

Human rights violationsThe parents of Michael Brown are going to a United Nations meeting in Switzerland to speak against civil rights violations, racial profiling and police violence in the United States, according to a St. Louis University assistant law professor who is helping organize the trip.

Lesley McSpadden and Michael Brown Sr. will speak before the 53rd Session of the United Nations Committee Against Torture in Geneva on Nov. 12 and 13, said the professor, Justin Hansford, who has been active in Ferguson protests. He said Brown’s parents are taking their grievances to a world stage because they feel they have not gotten justice from state, local and federal governments in the death of their son, who was fatally shot by Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson on Aug. 9.

Hansford said Brown’s parents are being sponsored by the U.S. Human Rights Network, a nonprofit network of human rights groups. Hansford and others have set up a website to collect donations to send protesters to the conference, he said. Plans for the trip are spelled out on the website fergusontogeneva.org.

McSpadden and Brown could not immediately be reached for comment. Their lawyer, Anthony D. Gray, said they planned to leave Nov. 10.

Hansford said he helped the Brown family get an audience by submitting a paper earlier this fall. He said he hopes the committee helps encourage authorities to take a less militarized approach in their response to future unrest. “The world community will look at it through a human rights lens this time,” he said.

The Committee against Torture, made up of 10 human rights experts from around the world, monitors an agreement by certain nations not to engage in torture or other inhumane treatment.

 

IS THE MAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE MENTALLY ILL?

By Coach Dave Daubenmire
November 6, 2014
NewsWithViews.com

I am not asking this with my tongue in my cheek. I am as serious as a judge. As I sit here and write, I am listening to Mr. Obama’s press conference. Something is very wrong with this guy. He is either mentally ill or demon possessed. Either choice is a possibility. But something is definitely wrong with him. He seems somehow inhuman.

I’ve lived my entire life in a world of athletic competition. I understand the human emotion that is associated with winning and losing. I grew up with the opening theme of ABC’s Wide World of Sports continuously playing in my head. (If I close my eyes I can hear the voice of Jim McKay bouncing around the corners of my brain.)

“Spanning the globe to bring you the constant variety of sports… the thrill of victory… and the agony of defeat… the human drama of athletic competition… This is “ABC’s Wide World of Sports!”

The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat brings with it emotions. That is why we watch sports. We love the human drama of athletic competition. That’s why we have press conferences after games. We love to hear the emotional reaction to winning and losing.

President Obama is a hollow man. He has no feelings. He feels no emotions. The human drama of competition seems to have no outward effect on him.

Can I be blunt? He got his butt kicked. Every talking head on the tube is pointing the finger at his unpopularity. “The bloom is off of the rose. It is a direct repudiation of his policies. The era of Obama is over.” It is as if everyone knows it but him.

Politics is nothing more than a beauty contest, and Obama has been voted off of the island. But he acts as if he still owns the island. There seems to be no agony in his defeat. It is not normal. His emotions do not line up with reality. He is either sick or he is possessed. I’m not laughing. I am serious.

His party rejected him. The American people rejected him. His fawning media has turned their affections in a different direction, yet he shows no emotion. I watch him on the TV. I watch him in his press conference. I watch his eyes as he responds to the media’s questions. I believe he is a sick, dangerous man.

I Googled the word ‘sociopath’. “A person with a psychopathic personality whose behavior is antisocial, often criminal, and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.”

Bingo. That’s him. That’s the guy living the life of President of the United States.

I went a bit further and Googled “Characteristics of a Sociopath.” Read it for yourself. Permit me to summarize. You recognize his mental illness by these traits.

- An oversized ego.
– Lying and showing manipulative behavior.
– Incapable of showing empathy.
– No lack of shame or remorse.
– Staying eerily calm in dangerous situations.
– Behaving irresponsibly or with extreme impulsivity.
– Having few close friends.
– Being charming —but only superficially.
– Living by the pleasure principle.
– Showing disregard for societal norms.
– Having intense eyes.

The man is either sick or non-human. He does not react like a normal human being.

Consider this from the article:

“Sociopaths can be very charismatic and friendly — because they know it will help them get what they want. “They are expert con artists and always have a secret agenda,” Rosenberg said. “People are so amazed when they find that someone is a sociopath because they’re so amazingly effective at blending in. They’re masters of disguise. Their main tool to keep them from being discovered is a creation of an outer personality.”

As M.E. Thomas described in a post for Psychology Today: “You would like me if you met me. I have the kind of smile that is common among television show characters and rare in real life, perfect in its sparkly teeth dimensions and ability to express pleasant invitation.”

Reading that gives me the willies…how about you?

No emotions. Cold. Calculating. He doesn’t even know that he lost. He is unaware that he has been rejected. He acts as if it is business as usual while the entire Democratic Party is wishing for a moving van out in front of the White House.

In my coaching career I lost a lot of games. I know how it feels. I know how it makes you react. He has destroyed his party. His friends are running for cover. But he acts as if he has just won.

Sociopaths are dangerous. Some famous sociopaths in recent history include Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, and John Wayne Gazy.

You laugh at me. You ridicule what I say because I compare him to serial killers. Go ahead. Laugh. He displays all of the characteristics of the above mentioned goons. They were charismatic and likeable.

Subscribe to NewsWithViews Daily Email Alerts

Email Address *
First Name
*required field
What kind of man plays golf after a young man’s head is chopped off? What kind of man disappears for hours while some of his “employees” are being killed overseas? What kind of man permits a deadly disease to be freely introduced into a society? What kind of man acts as if he won when the whole world watched him lose? What kind of man believes his own lies?

President Obama is either sick or demon possessed. Red flags are everywhere we look.

Will his own party stop him? Will anyone stop him? President Obama is a sick, dangerous man.

I just thought someone needed to point that out.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers