But as for me and my house ...
Courtesy of Breitbart.com
by BEN SHAPIRO 24 Dec 2012
While liberals on Twitter pointed at the shooting of four firefighters in upstate New York as evidence that more gun control is necessary, NBC News reports that the gunman, one William Spengler, was already banned from owning guns. Spengler served 17 years in prison for killing his grandmother with a hammer in 1980. He was convicted only of manslaughter, and was paroled in 1998. It seems that stronger sentencing for convicted murderers might be a more worthwhile goal of liberals seeking to prevent gun violence.
Spengler shot the firefighters just before 6 a.m. ET in Webster, New York. He’d set the fire, then waited for the firefighters to show up before shooting them. “It does appear that it was a trap that was set,” said Webster Police Chief Gerald Pickering. “People who get up in the middle of the night to fight fires, they don’t expect to get shot and killed.”
Spengler shot himself.
New York already has some of the most stringent gun laws in the nation. Felons, like Spengler, are already barred by law from owning guns according to federal law.
Brand USA was established in May, 2011, under the Travel Promotion Act of 2010 to "increase inbound travel to the United States, resulting in increased U.S. exports and increased employment", according to the website. While the program was to be funded through a combination of private and public support, a $10 fee was to be assessed on travelers from countries who participate in the Visa Waiver Program to be deposited in a special fund in the U.S. Treasury.
The Act specifies that Brand USA can draw from this fund if it receives matching donations from the private sector. In 2012 Brand USA received two dollars from the Treasury for every private dollar it collected and one dollar from the Treasury for every private dollar in subsequent years. The Act allows only 20% of the donations be received be in cash - the remainder in in-kind donations.
Unfortunately, this effort has been an economic boon only to those associated with the 'public-private' company. The Daily Caller reports it obtained documents revealing "extensive waste and mismanagement at the public-private partnership".
The Washington Free Beacon reports in its article, “The Cronyism Board Tourism Board Stacked with Obama Cronies” that numerous Brand USA Board members were 'heavy' contributors to President Obama and Democratic campaigns. Documents show that many members of the Board of Directors of Brand USA are also significant cash contributors to the corporation. Of the eleven members of the board, eight have made cash contributions to the corporation. The board members were appointed by John Connor, director of the Office of White House Liaison at the U.S. Department of Commerce. Mr. Connor led Obama’s LGBT outreach efforts in the northeastern U.S. during the 2008 presidential campaign.
An October Congressional report, “Initial Investigation of Brand USA and the Department of Commerce’s Oversight,” detailed some of the partnership's unusual activities. And KTS Business Consulting performed a comprehensive audit of Brand USA the agency’s management.
According to the audit, “Although The Brand USA has a mission statement, not one staff member was able to recite it.” “Furthermore, a majority of the staff did not have any idea what the mission was. … It became very clear that The Brand USA needs a strong vision. Staff’s responses were all varied, and it identified that there is not a consensus on the direction of the organization." Further, Brand USA "[s]taff spends money without any checks and balances or funds tied to a budget.”
The Report highlights serious concerns about how the federal matching funds were spent and asserts abuses by Brand USA in its pursuit of unjustified federal funds, and alleging Brand USA has refused to fully respond to Congressional inquiries.
The October 1, 2012 deadline (when “donations” to Brand USA were reduced to a one-to-one value) created an urgency at Brand USA that led to numerous questionable donations.
Amtrak donated $10,000 in cash, in addition to train tickets, corporate information technology support, and 22 luxury baseball seats. These weren't just good seats, but located in the 'Lincoln Suite'. Forbes.com reported, “[t]he Lincoln Suites, starting at $300,000 per year, include access to the private Stars and Stripes membership club, a private entrance off the main concourse, and inside the suite, marble countertops with an induction heating range to keep catered food warm.” How does a luxury night at a baseball game further Brand USA’s mission?
Amtrak defended its contributions, stating they originated from ticket revenue; however, Amtrak's ticket revenue is not easily distinguishable from federal taxpayer funds provided to the company - currently, $1.5 billion annually. Essentially, Brand USA received additional federal funds from Amtrak.
Brand USA also attempted to collect over $10 millions dollars in federal funds for the market value of advertising it received free of charge from newspaper articles and television interviews, and the value of time spent by the company's Chairman. A 2 1/2-minute interview with Travel Channel International was valued at $4.9 million by the company; and, an interview with Eurosport was given a value of $272,172. A $4.9 million donation alone would have netted the company almost $9 million in federal funds.
Board members also inflated 'expenses' as donations. One trip to London by Board member, Randy Garfield (Disney Destinations), listed the total cost of round trip airfrare from Orlando to London as $10,037.60, although the roundtrip direct flight on British Airways from Orlando to London was $1,951.92. Tom Klein of Sabre Holdings, listed a $379 in car fare between meetings on October 5, 2011, and $95 on November 11, 2011, with hotel charges of $365. The fare from Union Station to the Capitol Hilton was $13. The distance from the Corporation for Travel Promotion to Reagan National Airport is 5.5 miles, and taxi fare is $24. And, the General Services Administration permits a maximum per diem for lodging in Washington D.C. of $183.
Fortunately, the Department of Commerce refused the above 'donations'.
Brand USA is less than two years old and has a spending record that rivals any government agency, including:
Chief Communications Officer, Anne Madison, insists that 85% of the organization’s funding is spent on marketing and programs to meet its goals. Madison claims an increase of 12% for Canadians' “intent to visit” the U.S., 14% for Japanese, and 14% in the United Kingdom since Brand USA's launch. However, actual numbers to prove such increases are not accessible. What value does 'intent' have?
Brand USA was established to increase tourism and create jobs: a proposal which would have meager economic impact, at best. It seems the only jobs it has created is for those who are involved with the partnership.
I submit - once again - responsibility and accountability are non-existent at the federal level these days.
President Barack Obama’s Chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness (jobs czar) continues his position at General Electric. Jeff Imelt, endorsed China's socialist state in a December 10th interview, saying, “state-run communism may not be your cup of tea, but their government works.”
China’s government is presently updating the country’s infrastructure; especially, coal-fired and nuclear power plants, electricity transmission lines, and railway lines. General Electric builds and exports all of these items; and, therefore, has not been impacted as greatly by the deep, four-year-long recession.
Meanwhile, back in the U.S.(S.R.), Obama’s economic management has consisted of enormous increases in spending: welfare (not including Obamacare), aid to immigrants, homosexuals, and unmarried people, and tens of billions on green energy companies (at least two have claimed bankruptcy and also received tax relief in addition to free taxpayer funds). Unlike China, U.S. citizens and companies have been doubly encumbered by environmental regulations, including the forced purchase of 'new generation' energy saving products. Guess who manufactures those products? General Electric (and other companies).
Obama's efforts cannot spur economic growth; and, can only drain the already suffering economy and overwhelm the taxpayer with decades of maintaining the cost of the debt, with no ability to pay it off. Yet, Obama wa
Very telling of the state of the U.S. economy is Imelt's statement that in the next three years: “we will sell more [energy producing gas-turbines] in Algeria than the United States.”
Is there any wonder why we are in the predicament we are in?
It all began with Margaret Sanger (1879 – 1966), a nurse who popularized the term ‘birth control’, opened the first birth control clinic, established the organization that eventually became the Planned Parenthood Foundation of America (PPFA), and contributed to a Supreme Court case legalizing contraception in the United States.
Influenced by her mother’s 18 pregnancies resulting in 11 children in 22 years, her father's atheism, and the suffering she saw in her nursing career from self-induced abortions, Sanger believed birth control would enable women to lead healthier lives and obtain greater equality in society. If one takes only these facts into account Sanger did some good for women in society.
Margaret Sanger claimed to be Episcopalian; however, she admitted that traveling the world influenced her belief of developing the "divine within us" by works we perform. This is from Theosophy: teachings which are ancient Babylonian in origin. (See Video @ 1:57-@ 2:34) I will go into these beliefs in a later article under the Biblical History tab.
Sanger advocated mandatory sterilization of ‘insane and feebleminded’ people:
"Our failure to segregate morons who are increasing and multiplying . . . demonstrates our foolhardy and extravagant sentimentalism." Margaret Sanger, from "The Pivot of Civilization.”
"The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."
"The undeniably feebleminded should indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind.” Both quotes from Margaret Sanger, article in the Birth Control Review, 1921.
Margaret Sanger believed sterilizing the "unfit," "irresponsible and reckless," and those "whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers" would be the "salvation of American civilization”; also stating, "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped."
In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League (ABCL) that later merged with other groups to become Planned Parenthood. The historical record reveals the underlying motives and resulting actions of those involved in the organizations.
In March, 1925, ABCL member, Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. Harvard graduate, Lothrop Stoddard, was another racist colleague of Sanger. Stoddard wrote, The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy and described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." Colleague, Dr. Harry Laughlin, promoted cleansing America's human "breeding stock" to rid it of "bad strains".
In 1916, Sanger asserted the use of birth control was "mandated" in situations, such as, "when parents, though normal, had subnormal children", "when husband and wife were adolescent", and "when the earning capacity of the father was inadequate"; because "… anyone, no matter how ignorant, how diseased mentally or physically, how lacking in all knowledge of children, seemed to consider he or she had the right to become a parent.”
Here are some sample titles of articles in Birth Control Review, founded by Sanger in 1917:
The ‘Negro Project’
Dr. Gamble's November, 1939, memorandum, "Suggestion for Negro Project," proposed methods for major birth-rate reductions in the black population: eugenics. According to the project proposal, “The mass of Negroes, particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the [population] increase among Negroes…is from that portion…least intelligent and fit, and least able to rear children properly.” The proposal suggested hiring three or four “colored Ministers, preferably with social service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities” to give the organization's reasons for birth control. The proposal also suggested the organization place black leaders in positions where they would appear to be in charge as a way to offset the extermination plot perception. Sanger responded, "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten that idea out if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
The ABCL presented birth control as both a vehicle to economic improvement and a positive health measure for mother and living children. The Chicago Defender (a periodical for the African American community) of January 10, 1942, contained an article avowing birth control as a remedy for economic woes , since ". . . it raises the standard of living by enabling parents to adjust the family size to the family income," and reassurance that birth control " . . . is no operation. It is no abortion. Abortion kills life after it has begun. Birth Control is neither harmful nor immoral." [Note: Abortion was considered murder.]
In 1942, Planned Parenthood Negro Division board member, Bishop David H. Sims, offered his assistance to begin the "softening process"; and, by 1949, the ‘Negro Project’ had a foothold with acceptance by most black leaders. But, the African American community was not as quick to accept the propaganda.
Donald B. Strauss, chairman of Planned Parenthood-World Population, continued efforts toward acceptance of Planned Parenthood by appealing to the Democratic party to amend their stated policies on birth control in 1964. By 1970, Planned Parenthood president, Alan Guttmacher, noted successes in the tax-subsidized birth control programs stating, "Birth control services are proliferating in areas adjacent to concentrations of black population." Guttmacher suggested other organizations and not Planned Parenthood promote the doctrine that ‘normal’ American families contain 2.1 children; maintaining that family size would decrease if abortion and contraception were easily accessible and government funded. However, Guttmacher admitted that controlling the world population could eventually require enforcement which is what the UN and global government is working toward.
Despite its internally-stated intentions, Planned Parenthood’s publicized image continued to be tolerance and minority participation. The birth control movement, Sager claimed, freed the mind from "sexual prejudice and taboo, by demanding the frankest and most unflinching re-examination of sex in its relation to human nature and the basis of human society.”
Maybe so, but the movement also created a myriad of issues with which society has since struggled: promiscuity, rampant teenage pregnancy, single-parenthood, and erosion of the family (the bedrock of society), etc. However, it must be noted that the societal issues Planned Parenthood created reinforce the perceived need for its continued existence, and even its expansion.
Eugenics, Not Choice
Let us not forget Sanger’s declaration that the disabled and the African American should not reproduce, the basis of eugenics. Eugenics, envisioned by Francis Galton (Charles Darwin's cousin), seeks to create improvement of the human population through planned 'breeding'; and, eliminates those who Galton thought were inferior: African Americans and the disabled. It was popular until Adolph Hitler.
Through its continued pandering to the youth and minorities while utilizing monetary support from the taxpayer, Planned Parenthood has grown to include 129 affiliates, operating around 800 ‘health centers’ that assist about 5 million women per year. Its website puts it this way:
“Millions of women face unplanned pregnancies every year. If you are deciding what to do about an unplanned pregnancy, you have a lot to think about. You have three options — abortion, adoption, and parenting.”
Am I being sensitive that abortion is first on their list?
“If you're trying to decide if parenting is the right option for you, you may find it helpful to list the advantages and disadvantages of having a child. Think about what advantages or disadvantages are most important to you. Consider your feelings and values about raising a child, and what you want for your life and for your family or future family.”
Won’t Junior just be thrilled that his mother made a ‘Pros’ and ‘Cons’ list like he was a car! But, there’s more …
“What are Some of the Advantages and Disadvantages of Parenting?
“Though parenting is hard work, it brings many rewards. Being a parent can be exciting and deeply rewarding. It can help you grow, understand yourself better, and enhance your life.
“But parents often give up a lot for their children. Meeting a child's needs can be very challenging.
“Many people find that having a child can test even the strongest relationship. And if you are single parenting, you may find it more difficult to find and keep a relationship.”
I'm not surprised: It’s all about ‘me’! What will having a child do to enhance my life, what will I have to give up, and – gasp – I may never find a husband! Is Planned Parenthood reflecting societal views or influencing them?
In fact, Planned Parenthood claims to promote choice, but their website is slanted toward abortion, making it appear widespread and not a big deal: “Abortions are very common. In fact, 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old.”
How many adoptions do they assist with among this same group of women?
The actions of Planned Parenthood have been and continue to be destructive to the family; and, therefore, to the nation.
Admittedly, American women have reaped rewards from birth control. But, for every gain there is also loss.
Smaller families resulted in the appearance of an increased standard of living, but that was actually in response to the two-person, wage-earning, married couples that became the norm in 1980s when home prices began skyrocketing (due to Congressional mandates of the 1970s which made it mandatory for banking institutions to offer a percentage of loans to the underprivileged and increased demand). Families have since struggled with balancing 'needs' and 'desires' while living within their means. (This was part of the second step in erosion of the family: a major factor in the fall of every society in history.)
Is the American family better financially or in the ‘happiness’ quotient today? Not by a long-shot. The 'benefits' Sanger utilized to promote her agenda have never been achieved despite billions of taxpayer dollars being given to and promises made by Planned Parenthood.
Sanger's intent was revealed via the articles published in Birth Control Review. Then, Sanger and those involved in her organizations formed a plan, secretly cultivated society to implement that plan, and continue to work secretly toward completing it. The foundational motivations of Planned Parenthood, and the destructive actions taken as a result, should be the deciding factors for eliminating the organization.
Planned Parenthood refuses to concede that their founder was less interested in creating a better life for all women than creating a world befitting her theosophical, racist and eugenics beliefs, because it would be their undoing to admit it still works toward those goals.
The devious methodology used to implement the secret mission statement behind this organization denies equality in the ‘reproductive rights’ it espouses to promote, is blatant coercion, and is just as deplorable as genocide.
My final observation is this: If someone offers you something for nothing, the cost is usually greater than you imagined.
In this case, the offer was freedom and equality for women; the cost was our collective souls and our nation.
The media called us 'conspiracy theorists', as if we were crazy. I repeat, if Woodward and Bernstein weren't conspiracy theorists, Watergate would have simply been a local robbery story. (What was in the safe that was important enough for the Warren commission to disallow into testimony in their second review of the Kennedy assassination?)
We will need a survival guide as ObamaCare hits the American public with at least 20 new taxes (as more people read the new law, they are recognizing more and more taxes it contains), requiring more government expansion and Internal Revenue Service employees to oversee the imposition of those taxes on U.S. citizens.
While more and more Americans call for tax reform to a flat tax which would eliminate the need for the IRS, tax code and the indebtedness of Americans to pay for the unnecessary IRS policing arm of the federal government, Congress how revealed, once again, that it is not a servant to the people but a master over them.
There were those who warned of increased costs and death panels and the media laughed. Why do you think that is? Because the media has been enlisted to advance the propaganda of the global regime for decades. Kennedy warned the media and us.
Do you think I'm crazy? Keep reading.
The National Review published its view of the Top Ten Worst Things in ObamaCare:
The effects of the new taxes are obvious.
Here are some effects already taking place on healthcare:
Hospitals are attempting to plan for cuts they face and warn of bankruptcy. In the case of at least one top-rated hospital, they freely admit that they cannot make enough budget cuts to offset the shortfall ObamaCare will cause and are warning staff it will be more difficult to provide good patient care.
Example: Nursing care for patients under observation will not be paid under ObamaCare and reimbursement for the patient's room is limited to $400 per day. It has been widely reported that the need for nurses is still great; however, hiring of new nurses was frozen months ago as hospitals became aware of the limitations imposed by ObamaCare. Nurses will care for a greater number of patients. This fact alone will an effect on the ability to provide patient care.
Hospitals will be graded and paid based upon patient satisfaction surveys. With the drain on hospital services due to the cuts in payments from ObamaCare, how many patients do you think will give the hospital a good rating? Hospitals foresee receipts from the federal government reduced further as their ability to provide hotel-like services patients demand diminishes through budget cuts.
Doctors who came to the United States to study and practice are presently seeking to leave the U.S.
A greater number of surgeries will be performed outpatient due to the cuts in payments from ObamaCare; and, as the need to cut costs increases, the availability for surgical intervention will become increasingly scarce. We are already seeing the effects of nationalized healthcare upon the medical system in this country - and it is just as the Canadians and Britons warned.
The young and healthy will do reasonably well; but, those with infirmities and health concerns will find it increasingly more difficult to obtain the healthcare we have become accustomed to, and which people from around the globe have come to the United States to procure.
I find it absurd that the American public was horrified when indifferent panels of the insurance companies denied patients medical care in the past, but are willingly giving that power to another indifferent panel in the federal government. With insurance costs already skyrocketing and predicted to keep rising, do you really believe these government panels will put patient needs above cost? (This link will allow you to listen to a neurologist who learned what is in store for the elderly 'units' - care based upon age.)
This is why I have linked government healthcare with population reduction.
It is simply another portion of the 'globalist' Illuminati plan. It is Satanic in origin. (Those who don't believe in the Adversary of God will be quite surprised when it is revealed!) And, it has a two-fold result, to bankrupt the United States and reduce the global population. It is reminiscent of the Third Reich. Only the young, healthy and most perfect specimens who can perform the work required by the regime will be allowed to live.
They envision a world with two classes. The elite who hold all wealth and power and the serf who performs the work necessary. There were many practice events, including the French Revolution, Soviet Union, and Hitler's Germany. You have been prepared with propaganda and age-old occult practices for the New Age and New World Order and they are moving purposefully toward its implementation. Yet, few speak out against it and the media promotes the propaganda.
The cattle are now in the pen, being readied for the chute into the processing plant. When will you finally wake up?!? When see your loved ones dying and the responsible parties are in your own government? It will be far too late!
I received an e-mail again today about continuing the fight against the United Nations gun ban Treaty. The following is from the Washington Times.
Please note that where ** appears, emphasis has been added to the original text.
EDITORIAL: Gun ban back on Obama’s agenda
More flexible administration revives U.N. arms treaty
That didn’t take long. Less than a day after President Obama's re-election, the administration breathed new life into the United Nations' previously comatose treaty regulating guns.
Last July, the U.N. General Assembly began formal discussion of the Arms Trade Treaty, which seeks to establish “common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.” Talks on the controversial agreement were put on indefinite hiatus after the United States requested an extension to the time allotted to negotiate the agreement (**). Gun rights supporters blasted the treaty as it inched toward approval, and many suspected U.S. procedural maneuvers were intended to delay the treaty so it wouldn’t become a topic of discussion during the election. It appears these suspicions were correct since “indefinite” turned out to mean until hours after Mr. Obama was re-elected.(**)
The administration line is that the treaty applies only to firearms exports and poses no threat to domestic gun owners.(**) “We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout,” an administration official said. “We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms.”
It is hard to take the White House response seriously. The treaty instructs countries to “take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty.” The agreement’s language is so broad, vague and poorly defined it could be stretched in a variety of ways that would pose a threat to the Second Amendment.(**) Treaty backers also want to insert provisions forcing ratifying states to promote a variety of fashionable left-wing causes including “sustainable development,” even though they have nothing to do with the arms trade.
Though the treaty is supposed to be about “gun exports,” its provisions can still be applied domestically. (**) Activist judges adjudicating cases arising under the treaty and enabling legislation could see to that. The definition of international commerce could follow the same expansive logic liberal courts have used to redefine “interstate commerce.” Anything that indirectly or incidentally affects the trade in arms would fall under its control.
A ratified treaty, with constitutional authority, could be interpreted in a way that applies to any imported weapon or round of ammunition, those made with foreign components, those containing imported materials, those that might some day be exported, and those capable of being exported.(**) If it affects the overall arms market, it could be said to be part of “international” trade, even if the item never leaves our shores. In practice this logic would give the government free rein to regulate all weapons, foreign and domestic. With the election out of the way, the White House can move swiftly to get the treaty through the U.N. General Assembly and up to the Senate by the summer of 2013. Elections have consequences.(**)
[End of Times article]
Executive Order #13609, 'Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation', signed by Barack Obama on May 1, 2012, paved the way for implementation of a UN gun mandate, by committing the United States to standardizing or conforming its laws to international law in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
However, Constitutional limitations have not prevented this administration nor the Clinton or Bush administrations guilty of Constitutional violations.
Executive Order # 13609 can be used to institute gun confiscation regulations without Congressional approval as required for Treaties.
Section 2, Coordination of International Regulatory Cooperation, builds upon Executive Order #12866 of September 30, 1993, with 'international regulatory cooperation': designed to investigate differences between U.S. and international regulatory laws and institute changes in the United States to enable greater cooperation (i.e., enact the same laws here in the United States). If other countries have regulations banning gun ownership (which most do), bringing U.S. law in 'regulatory cooperation' would be a way to remove another Constitutional privilege.
Since Executive Orders bypass Congressional approval, the President can sign a UN Gun Ban Treaty without ratification by Congress. In the past, the President signed Treaties, but they were sent to Congress for ratification. Will that continue?
Infringement on citizens' rights began soon after the United States was formed, but gained ground with the institution of Social Security, imposing servitude upon the citizenry to the federal government. I won't go into that at this time; just suffice it to say that the requirement to obtain a birth certificate and social security number began at that time. The newest members of U.S. society are collateral against the debts of the government. Ingenious!
Why did the framers of our Bill of Rights put the Second Amendment in place? To protect us from our government.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last
resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Every dictator in society removed guns from society before taking control. The international powers behind United Nations want to take control of the United States, because this nation has been the only nation preventing a global government. As the people freely relinquish their rights, one by one, they enable this evil cabal to realize its
Prolonged detention, detaining an American citizen without being charged with a crime, is not legal according to the U.S. Bill of Rights.
A Constitutional lawyer should know this, but that didn't prevent Barack Obama in 2009 from declaring he would fight terrorism with 'prolonged detention' (@ 5:13) by "reshaping the standards that apply" (@ 4:32). What standards?!? Will these 'standards' be broadened to include those like me, who reveal what this 'regime' in the White House is doing? Those who do the job the majority of media has abandoned?
Barack Hussein Obama has constructed the "regime" (@ 5:35) of which he speaks in this video, but it can never be "legal".
Any threat of creating a 'regime' must be terminated, as it is un-Constitutional. The checks and balances of the Constitution must be side-stepped via Executive Order to develop the 'regime' promised in this video.
The campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay? Not only did he not follow through, more detention camps have been added in this country for those who "pose a threat to the United States". (@ 2:30)
December 31, 2011, the president signed into law H.R. 1540, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. Despite Obama's claim that, “My administration will not authorize the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens. Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.” [Traditions??? What about the Constitution!] And,"My Administration will interpret section 1021 in a manner that ensures that any detention it authorizes complies with the Constitution, the laws of war, and all other applicable law." Really? How can we trust you Mister President? You have shown total disregard for the U.S. Constitution repeatedly; and, now you are once again working with the UN to remove another Constitutional right - to possess guns.
Ah-hah! Here's the proof the president didn't change his mind since this report by Maddow:
"I have concluded that section 1022 provides the minimally acceptable amount of flexibility to protect national security. Specifically, I have signed this bill on the understanding that section 1022 provides the executive branch with broad authority to determine how best to implement it, and with the full and unencumbered ability to waive any military custody requirement, including the option of waiving appropriate categories of cases when doing so is in the national security interests of the United States."
As Rachel Maddow summarizes: Obama promised a whole new system outside the purview of U.S. courts and "even outside the military commissions" to indefinitely detain people (not terrorists or prisoners of war, enemy combatants, etc.) who haven't committed a crime (begin at 5:46).
A dedicated liberal, Maddow's consternation at Obama's pronouncement of his plan for indefinite detention is noteworthy, even stating that it is "one of the most radical proposals for defying the Constitution that we have ever heard made to the American people."
I posted this video before, but in case you missed it, here it is again.
The president issued many un-Constitutional Executive Orders his the first term without any Congressional action. With the president, still in the early days of his second term with no re-election, implement the NDAA 2012 law against U.S. citizens? He have been given flexibility, broad authority, and unencumbered ability to do so.
Welcome to the United Socialist States of America. Soon to be part of the new world order.
The Congressional Budget Office released a report in November concerning the expenses exacerbating the federal debt and recommendations to reduce future budget deficits. The report contains one eye-popping scheme.
According to the CBO, the largest potential deficit savings available to lawmakers is entitlements! Specifically - ObamaCare.
In the CBO's list of "options to reduce mandatory spending" and cut the deficit, repealing ObamaCare's massive insurance subsidies would cut federal spending by $150 billion in 2020 alone. Repealing the individual mandate would save another $40 billion, the CBO says.
Compare this with the cost savings of proposed changes to the Social Security and Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67 ($60 billion), reducing Social Security benefits ($30 billion), a Medicare Part D rebate levied against drug manufacturers ($15 billion); and, cutting Social Security disability benefits by 15% ($10 billion). That's a total of $115 billion in 2020; and, while necessary, definitely not near the $190 billion saved by repealing just two pieces of ObamaCare.
The CBO reports that Obamacare will add $1.7 trillion in federal spending over the next 10 years, with annual increases of 6%. Of course, the CBO has repeatedly revised the numbers in ever increasing amounts over the last two years. Consider the fact that the cost projection of every previous federal program has been woefully underestimated. When Medicare began in 1966, costs were 50% greater than expected in its first year; and, two years later, Congress held hearings on the cost issues.
The CBO projects its recommendations would reduce the budget deficit from nearly $1.1 trillion in fiscal year 2012 to about $200 billion in 2022, and debt would decline from 102% in 2011 to 58% of GDP in 2022 if its recommendations are implements. The CBO projections include the significant tax increases and spending decreases, already scheduled to take effect at the beginning of January, 2013; and, its recommendations do nothing to decrease the present debt.
That being said, spending on interest and "entitlement" programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ObamaCare, welfare, etc.) constituted 12% of the 2004 economy (not budget), but the cost of entitlements is estimated to encompass approximately 17% of the economy by 2020.
The CBO warns that without significant changes to ObamaCare, Medicare, Social Security, Welfare, and other entitlement programs, future budget deficits will be much larger and federal expenses as a percentage of GDP will be far greater than the last four-decade average, regardless of future economic and population trends they foresee.
The CBO concluded that "per capita spending on healthcare is likely to continue to grow faster" than the economy as a whole; and, that, ObamaCare in its present form will encourage this trend because it will "substantially increase the number of people who receive federal assistance in obtaining health care."
Insurance subsidies included in ObamaCare presently extend to families with incomes up to $90,000 per year; almost 900% greater than the poverty level for a one-person household and more than 400% over the amount for a four-person household. This entitlement is one area of ObamaCare targeted for reduction by the CBO due to its huge cost (see third paragraph above).
Tax increases in addition to those included in ObamaCare will also be forced upon the ever-diminishing number of American taxpayers.
If you ask me, it's all about selfishness. Some Americans today want to be given everything that those who work long and hard enjoy. They don't care about their children or their children's children. That's their problem.
Whatever happened to, "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." (John F. Kennedy)
I am ashamed of this society - not the society of which Michelle Obama was ashamed about five years ago. American society thirty years ago (maybe 20) would have seen the evil within and expelled it. Now, they welcome it.
A report prepared by the office of the National Intelligence Council of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (“Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds") states, "In terms of the indices of overall power – GDP, population size, military spending and technological investment – Asia will surpass North America and Europe combined." This means that by 2030 the United States will no longer be the world's only superpower.
"The United States’ relative economic decline vis-a-vis the rising states is inevitable and already occurring,but its future role in the international system is much harder to assess," the report continues. "With the rapid rise of other countries, the 'unipolar moment' is over and no country – whether the U.S., China, or any other country – will be a hegemonic power."
The intelligence community does not believe the United States will be replaced by another global power and "erection of a new international order". [This should irritate the shadow government that has been working through the United Nations, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, et al, for the new world order.]
The report warns that, "A collapse or sudden retreat of US power would most likely result in an extended period of global anarchy."
I maintain (and there are many like me) that Obama's sole purpose is to bankrupt the United States in order to subjugate its citizens to the United Nations and the world union. In this task, he is doing a great job.
(See Article and Video on the Post: Election Machine Computer Codes)
With the 'hanging chads' of the 2000 election, the American public clamored for more computerized machines by which votes would be unequivocally cast.
We got what we wanted - and increasing assertions of election fraud.
The FBI confiscated thousands of voting machines; but, according to a computer programmer, the FBI won't be able to find the code that changed votes unless the code is reveal to them, first. That means, unless you know the code, you won't ever be able to see that the votes were changed. The voting machines that changed the vote while the voter was still present were the anomaly - those machines were not working properly.
According to some districts, 100% of the votes were cast for Obama, a statistical impossibility. Not according to Mr. Curtis, who was first approached to write such a program in 2000. (See Video below NOW - it's short and worth listening to!)
In addition to the above, claims of voter fraud since the 2000 election are rampant. Here are a few examples of real voter suppression and threats to voter integrity in 2012:
Voter rolls in disorder. The Pew Research Center published a report revealing election rolls in disorder and prime for voter fraud:
The Motor Voter law was conceived, planned and authored by Socialists, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, and is predominantly responsible for the voting mess. Their work gave Americans the 'Cloward-Piven Strategy of Manufactured Crisis'. This is where Rahm Emmanuel got the term, 'Never let a good crisis go to waste'.
ACORN’s 'Project Vote' took up Cloward and Piven’s work once the law was passed. Barack Obama was involved with Project Vote in 1992. Today, Piven serves on the Board of Project Vote; and Obama named his 2012 GOTV campaign, Project Vote. Somehow, I don't think this is a coincidence.
I have moved many times and in each state, when I applied for a driver's license, voter registration was available. But, I had to prove who I was, give my previous address and the state sent a form to the previous state where I was registered to vote, alerting them to remove my name from their voter rolls.
Motor Voter skews voter primes the system for fraud. Section 8, requires that voter rolls be maintained; however, the states are prevented from cleaning voter rolls until repeated attempts are made to contact voters over multiple election cycles before removing those names.
Motor Voter eliminates voter equality. Using the argument that low-income voters are unable to register to vote without government assistance, this law was enacted to facilitate low-income voter registration without documentation, unlike the rest of the population. The excuse for low-income people is that they don't have any way to identify themselves. Do we live in the 1800s? Doesn't everyone have a voice? Can they ask questions? Find out what to do? Do they have electric or phone bill to prove where they live? How does one cash assistance checks? Oh, I forgot, the government sends the cash card. Wait! There's the proof! (I hope.) Still, everyone has a birth certificate or social security number in order to receive government assistance. And, at least one of 'us' has more than one!
So, if you are 'low-income' the rules are different - you have greater right to vote than I do.
James O’Keefe of Project Veritas, the man who exposed ACORN (which led to the indictments against the organization and it's demise) and New Hampshire voter fraud, discovered in September, 2012, 30,000 deceased voters remained on North Carolina's voter rolls. Obama won North Carolina by just 14,000 votes in 2008. [I did some research on O'Keefe and some leftists will do just about anything, including filing false or jaded reports, to discredit this young man. Hey, at least he gets video evidence, Huffington Post!]
So, why do we bother?!? I submit we go back to voting the old-fashioned way: prove who you are, fill in the dot with a pen, and put it in the box. The cards go through a machine that read the dots. If you are not intelligent enough to follow the simple directions, so be it. You had the opportunity to vote.
As for me - I am telling the FBI, Congress, and everyone I can think of about this!
Please Post a Comment or Contact Us Below