Monday, August 12, 2013

Union letter to Pelosi and Reid (Obamacare)

News Review ^ | 8/02/13 | James P. Hoffa

Dear Leader Reid and Leader Pelosi:

When you and the President sought our support for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), you pledged that if we liked the health plans we have now, we could keep them. Sadly, that promise is under threat. Right now, unless you and the Obama Administration enact an equitable fix, the ACA will shatter not only our hard-earned health benefits, but destroy the foundation of the 40 hour work week that is the backbone of the American middle class.

Since the ACA was enacted, we have been bringing our deep concerns to the Administration, seeking reasonable regulatory interpretations to the statute that would help prevent the destruction of non-profit health plans. As you both know first-hand, our persuasive arguments have been disregarded and met with a stone wall by the White House and the pertinent agencies.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Rule of the Republicrats

American Thinker ^ | AUG 12,2013 | Todd Keister

Senator Rand Paul is one of a handful of members of the Congress that possesses a set of principles. He stands for the principles of the American Revolution -- put simply, human liberty.
The result has been vicious attacks by leaders of the Republican side of the ruling cartel. Epic fail presidential candidate John McCain has referred to Senator Paul as a "whacko bird," and Senator Lindsey Graham, who has said he's "glad" that the NSA is spying on every American's calls and emails, has called Senator Paul's concerns for civil liberties "ridiculous." The latest attack has come from Governor Christie who referred to Senator Paul's "libertarianism" as "dangerous thought."
The attacks against the Senator are revealing; when it comes to the monolithic and unbridled power of the state over its subjects, the Republicans and Democrats are in complete agreement with their "friends across the aisle."
They love having the power to control every aspect of your personal and business life; They are comfortable with the 150,000-plus pages of federal regulations, hundreds of unconstitutional agencies, government surveillance, perpetual war, confiscatory taxation, and all the other trappings of an authoritarian state. Their only real point of disagreement is who gets to be in charge.
Sure, when it comes to specifics, there are glaring differences. Barack Obama wants to cripple businessmen and destroy the energy industry with taxation and regulation, while Mitt Romney wanted to loosen the government's stranglehold just enough to keep the producers working to fund the government; but neither candidate would have dreamt of removing the yoke of slavery from American citizens and businesses and returning to a state of liberty as enshrined in the constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Votes for Mortgages: If you liked the subprime crisis, you'll love what the feds are cooking up now!

American Thinker ^ | 08/12/2013 | Joe Dantone

Fannie and Freddie have been in operation for decades without problems until recently. Fannie began in 1938 as a quasi-governmental agency making affordable homes available to people by making the financing easier and funds more readily available by establishing a secondary market for mortgages.
Previously banks had held onto their mortgages in a system called portfolio mortgages and were made mostly to their own account holders. With the homes as collateral, the banks then lent out that same money again to other local borrowers. If you remember the scene from It's a Wonderful Life when there is a run on the bank, you can visualize how that works when confidence in the system disappears.
With a secondary market for mortgages, banks could recoup their money rather than keeping it tied up. The result was that banks could loan out the same funds 5-6 times.
If there were a run, they could cover it. That stabilized the whole banking system in the eyes of the public. It also led to mortgage loans being more readily available, and the ability to do business with banks across the country and lenders whom borrowers never saw. Millions of people bought homes that way.
The president thinks that the government will be able to dictate terms in that market without actually having a stake in it.
Maybe, but this won't do anything but create a venue for new kinds of interference.
In the wake of Obama's announcement, the FHA revealed that it is going to dictate the racial makeup of neighborhoods in the future. Neighborhoods will have to be in compliance with affirmative action dictates despite the Supreme Court's hinting that the days of affirmative action are near their end.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Rodeo clown mocks Obama at Missouri State Fair; state leaders denounce antics! (BUTT>>>crowd loved it!)

NBC News ^ | 8/11/2013 | Erin McClam

Announcers at the Missouri State Fair rodeo are under fire for comments they made during a bull-riding event as participants mocked a clown dressed as President Obama. NBC's Mara Schiavacampo reports.
A rodeo clown at the Missouri State Fair put on a mask of President Barack Obama, and an announcer asked an enthusiastic crowd whether they wanted to see “Obama trampled by a bull,” according to a witness and video posted online.
Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, said through a spokesman that the antics were “disrespectful and offensive,” and Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder, a Republican, said on Twitter: “We are better than this.”
A fair-goer, Perry Beam, posted his account on social media. Video of the stunt aired by NBC affiliate KSHB in Kansas City, Mo., records a rodeo announcer saying, “We’re gonna smoke Obama, man.”
“The crowd went absolutely nuts,” Beam told KSHB.
Beam said another clown ran up to the one wearing the Obama mask and played with the lips on the mask. About 15 minutes into the performance, a bull got too close and the clown in the mask had to leave, Beam told The Associated Press.
“They mentioned the president’s name, I don’t know, 100 times. It was sickening,” Beam told the AP. “It was feeling like some kind of Klan rally you’d see on TV.”
The Missouri State Fair, in a statement emailed to NBC News, called the performance disrespectful and said: “We strive to be a family friendly event and regret that Saturday’s rodeo badly missed that mark.”
A spokeswoman told NBC News that State Fair representatives would not immediately answer questions beyond the statement.
The Missouri Rodeo Cowboy Association, in its own statement, said it was “dealing with the situation firmly and quickly.”
“The Sport of Rodeo is not meant to be a political platform,” the association said. “We are taking measures by training and educating our contract acts to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.”
Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, pointed out in a statement that the State Fair gets taxpayer money and said that young people who attended got the wrong lesson about political discourse.
“Missouri is better than this, and I expect someone to be held accountable,” she said.

Obama Thinks Only He can Save Us from His Reckless Policies ^ | August 12, 2013 | Michael Schaus

Speaking to a group of Veterans, President Barack Obama tried to make his case for ending the sequester. “We’ve got these reckless, across-the-board budget cuts called the sequester that are hitting a lot of folks hard,” Obama said. One can only assume these are the same “across the board” and “reckless” cuts that he proposed as part of the 2011 Budget Control Act, and let go into place by refusing to compromise on entitlement spending early this year. The President went on to say that without the repeal of these “reckless” cuts (which were passed with bi-partisan approval, and signed by his hand) disabled veterans should expect a reduction in benefits.
The President was speaking to the group about disability claims, and benefits for disabled veterans. The president touted the “progress” the Federal Government is making in reducing the backlog of claims. Currently, there are around a half a million disabled vets who are backlogged in the system. A true testament to government-run healthcare. (Good news. . . This inefficient, ineffective, backlogged system is likely to reflect the future of Healthcare in a post-Obamacare world.)
With the tone of an innocent bystander, the President explained that Congress recklessly slashed the budget (um. . . More on that in a minute) and will soon begin slashing benefits for veterans, unless Legislators start acting more liberal. According to Obama, the “reckless” act of reducing the growth in government spending by $85 billion per year is going to result in massive chaos. Of course, our Federal Reserve is printing that much, and injecting it into the economy, every month with their Quantitative Easing program. . . But, yeah, “reckless.”
At one point Obama explained, “going forward, the best way to protect the VA care you have earned, is to get rid of this sequester.” Yeah. . . Or – ya know – pass a budget. But, I guess that might be asking too much of Harry Reid. Of course, Obama’s comments brought up a number of questions. First of all, Obama indicated that benefits have so far remained untouched because of his personal intervention, saying “I made it clear that your veteran’s benefits are exempt from this year’s sequester.” And for a man who can unilaterally elect not to implement certain provisions of his own healthcare law, it would seem he’d have no problem sheltering VA benefits moving forward. If he can, with the stroke of his pen, selectively implement any law as he sees fit. . . Why exactly do we need to rid ourselves of the sequester?
The President railed against a budget cut – that was actually a reduction in the growth of spending – that he proposed in an effort to blackmail Republicans into going along with a debt increase. And more than that, he acted as if he was merely a spectator in the process that may – or may not – lead to certain budget cuts that could – or could not – lead to peripheral damage that might – or might not – impact VA benefits.
Of course, we could also ensure VA benefits moving forward by streamlining the process, and eliminating bureaucratic red tape. We could potentially pass a budget through both houses of Congress and have the President sign it. We could reduce our spending in other areas, and re-prioritize our increasing tax revenue. According to our campaigner in chief, however, the only answer resides in doing exactly what he says.
What is so miraculous about the President’s remarks, is his attempt to deflect any responsibility, while simultaneously handing out stealthily veiled ultimatums. His message was clear: Only he can protect VA benefits. . . If congress (read: Republicans) does exactly what he thinks they should.
More miraculous than Obama’s uncanny ability to act like a spectator of Washington DC politics, is the media’s willingness to perpetuate this narrative. In a sane world, with honest reporting, the President’s comments about improving disability backlogs, fretting over future budget cuts, and “saving” the VA from “reckless” sequester cuts would have been met with righteous indignation. Next we will hear that only Obama can save the American people from the impacts of Obamacare.
And, unfortunately, our media will tag along with the White House narrative; no matter how responsible Obama is to the crises he’s claiming to fix.

Ted Cruz's Pastor Father Wows Crowd with Obamacare Speech!

Monday, 12 Aug 2013 11:12 AM

By Lisa Barron
More . . .
A    A   |
   Email Us   |
   Print   |
In a fiery address over the weekend, Sen. Ted Cruz's father told a crowd of Christian conservatives in Iowa that the United States is edging toward socialism under President Barack Obama, as he joined his son in denouncing Obamacare.

According to ABC News, Texas pastor Rafael Cruz also offered a veiled comparison of Obama to Cuban leader Fidel Castro as he spoke of being a Cuban immigrant who fled the perils of socialism at the time of Castro's communist revolution and later became a U.S. citizen.

In an apparent reference to Obama's 2008 campaign theme of "hope and change," Cruz told the annual summit of the conservative Family Leader group that Castro was "a young charismatic leader" who "rose up, talking about hope and change" to convince people to follow his revolution.

Story continues below after video.

As he continued with his anti-Obama speech, the 74-year-old pastor warned his audience, "This administration has both their hands in your pocket. They're going to take everything you have."

He charged that the Obama administration has relaxed views on same-sex marriage and other social issues that are aimed at undermining the traditional family structure and eliminating religion.

"Socialism requires that government becomes your god," he said at one point. "That's why they have to destroy the concept of God. They have to destroy all loyalties except loyalty to government."

Referring specifically to Obama's healthcare-reform law, the elder Cruz said it likely  would kill some older Americans.

"Let me tell you, our lives are under attack," he said, adding: "Obamacare is going to destroy the elderly by denying care, by even, perhaps, denying treatment to people who are in catastrophic circumstances."

Pastor Cruz also complimented his son, who is believed preparing a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, noting that even before taking office the younger Cruz toured Texas giving speeches on conservative topics.

The senator spoke later in the day, urging once again that the country get behind his call to repeal Obamacare. He was among several Republicans addressing the Family Leader summit, most of them mounting Obamacare attacks.

Pastor Cruz reportedly is scheduled to take part later this month in a "Defund Obamacare Tour" organized by the Heritage Foundation. 

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

Rep. James Clyburn: Dems ‘will be running’ on ObamaCare in 2014

The Hill ^ | 08/12/2013 | Keith Laing

The House assistant Democratic leader said on Sunday that his party will campaign on President Obama’s controversial healthcare law in 2014.
“We will be running on ObamaCare in 2014,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“In fact, we set it up to run on it in 2014,” he continued. “We fully expect to run on it; we expect to win on it. The American people will be the winner.” Clyburn noted that major provisions of the law are expected to go into effect on Oct. 1 and Jan. 1, 2014, leaving Democrats little choice but to make healthcare a part of their midterm election campaigns.
The Obama administration announced last month that they were delaying a mandate for companies that employ more than 50 people to offer healthcare until next year, which Republican critics suggested was a sign of trouble for the law.
Clyburn said he was not worried about potential glitches to the law making it harder to elect Democrats to Congress.
“If you go back to the founding of the country, every time we do something big, we have to go back and fix it,” he said. “We had to fix Social Security; we had to fix Medicare; and we’re going to have to fix ObamaCare because people change, things change, needs change.”
Clyburn said the healthcare law would become more popular in 10 years, drawing parallels to the early years of Social Security and Medicare.
“We’re not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater,” Clyburn said of Republican efforts to repeal the law.
“A lot of people do not understand the tax benefits that can come along with this, and when they do understand, it becomes very popular,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Founding Principles Worth Guiding America Then and Now ^ | August 12, 2013 | Terry Paulson

Whether it was finding the solid ground in writing the Declaration of Independence that would justify and drive a revolution or defining the core rights that would guide the crafting for our Constitution, our Founding Fathers held firmly to core principles that would help them navigate through unchartered waters.

Every improvement is the result of change, but not every change is an improvement. Our Founding Fathers had to find a compass to give them a true north as they sorted through the choices and changes our emerging country faced.

After more than two centuries, it is understandable that our citizens and leaders can find themselves on autopilot. We honor our founding documents by putting them on the wall or in a vault. But in our abundance and arrogance, it's far too easy to ignore them in making the current decisions that are shaping our country's future. Unfortunately, core rights and liberties are being lost in the name of "transformational change."

Russ Walden was a CEO who knew the power of a page. He would claim that if you can't write on one page the principles that define you as a leader, you will likely be rudderless in a rapidly changing world. His one page of core statements served him well. He would use it making tough decisions. He would share it with others as they came on to his team--"They deserved to know how I made decisions before they took the job."

I couldn't help but wonder what might have been on the page our Founding Fathers would have crafted to guide them through the decisions they made in those early years. Here's my guess on what might have been on their page:

Never let the force of a majority take away the rights of an individual.

Establish no right that is not given to all equally or that obligates another citizen for anything more than non-interference.

Measure the success of government, not by how many services it provides, but by how many citizens are free and effective in meeting their own needs.

Never sacrifice tomorrow's liberties for today's temporary needs for security.

Protect the property rights of citizens to enjoy and control the fruits of their own labor and investments.

Refuse to expend the money of constituents for benevolence best done by individual charities or local governments.

Promote and preserve a sound, free-enterprise economy and protect economic freedoms--the freedom to work, the freedom to enjoy the rewards one earns, the freedom to own and control one's property, and the freedom to participate in a free market.

Protect the right of individual self-defense, the spirit of resistance in defense of liberty, and the right to bear arms.

Protect "we the people" from the abuse of government by creating checks and balances between branches that prevent hasty change, unnecessary regulations, or government tyranny.

Ensure and promote the free expression of religion without ever establishing any state religion or denomination.

Ensure freedom of speech that allows people to criticize their government, express unpopular opinions, or even express offensive comments without fear of government reprisal or criminal persecution.

Establish, fund and maintain a vibrant and effective military force appropriate for the time and the threat that preserves the security of our country.

Finally, ensure that all citizens, from the poorest to the richest, will equally pay their fair share of the cost of maintaining our Constitutional Republic--freedom isn't free.

Our Founding Fathers are not around to endorse or sign this list, and I'm sure they would amend, delete and add to what I have written. But what is clear is that too many of our leaders today would run from this list like they do from Washington when tough work needs to be done to ensure life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for generations to come.

Interior Secretary: I don't want any climate-change deniers in my department!

The Washington Examiner ^ | 8-12-13 | Sean Higgens

Buried in a lengthy Washington Post article about President Obama’s environmental policy is an illuminating anecdote about just how debatable the administration views climate change — namely, not at all:

In an agency-wide address to employees Aug. 1, (Interior Secretary Sally) Jewell took the unusual step of suggesting that no one working for her should challenge the idea that human activity is driving recent warming. “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior,” she said.

The address does not appear to be posted on the department’s website, so the Washington Examiner can only go by the Post’s presumably third-hand version. Still, it raises some interesting questions: What would happen to somebody at the department who raised some skepticism regarding Jewell’s take on climate change? Would they be in danger of losing their job?
For example, what if that person posted a news article pointing out that the global temperatures have been flat for the last two decades?
Presumably somebody at the Interior Department knows the answers to these questions. Whether they’re willing to talk openly about them is another question.

'Oprah's a liar': Sales assistant in Swiss racist handbag row denies telling TV host that she could not view item because she couldn't afford it! ^ | 8/12/13 | Allan Hall 

The saleslady went on: 'This is not true. This is absurd. I would never say something like that to a customer. Really never. Good manners and politeness are the Alpha and the Omega in this business.
'I don't know why she is making these accusations. She is so powerful and I am just a shop girl.
'I didn't hurt anyone. I don't know why someone as great as her must cannibalize me on TV.
'If it had all taken place as she claimed, why has she not complained the next day at the wedding of Tina Turner with Trudie Goetz, my boss? She was there also at the Turner wedding as a guest. I don't understand it.
'I spoke to Oprah Winfrey in English. My English is okay but not excellent, unfortunately.
'I didn't know who she was when she came into the store. That wouldn't have made any difference if I had.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

The Childless By Choice: Both Vanguard And Victims ^ | 08/12/2013 | Don Feder

Time – The Overpriced News Brochure ($4.99 for 60 pages) - had an intense erotic experience with the cover story in its August 12th issue, "The Childfree Life: When having it all means not having children." Please note the choice of words – not childless but childfree, like cancer-free, as if children are a life-threatening disease, which is pretty much the way the contraceptive left views them.
The organ of elite opinion begins by telling us that today "one in five American women will end their child-bearing years maternity-free, compared to 1 in 10 in the 1970s." In this and other statistics cited, Time hears the joyous tread of progress.
For a glimpse of our future, see Europe and Japan.
When I was in Brussels a few years ago, the only women in the city center pushing strollers with more than one child wore head scarves – the fashion future of Europe. Sir Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of Britain, warns: "Europe is dying. We are undergoing the moral equivalent of climate change and no one is talking about it."
Last year, the Japanese bought more adult diapers than baby diapers. In 1990, there were more Japanese over 65 than under 15. By 2050, Japan will have more citizens over 80 than under 15. In 1989, those over 60 were 11.6% of Japan's total population. By 2011, they were 21.2%. Can Time's writers even begin to comprehend what this means for a country, a society, a civilization?
As a solution, the left offers the rationing of medical care, death panels and euthanasia. Or, as Japan's Finance Minister, Taro Aso, put it earlier this year, the elderly should "hurry up and die." Over time, the definition of elderly will expand.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

U.S. Pays $1.5 Mil to Help Brazilian Women Quit Smoking

Judicial Watch ^ | Aug 12, 2013

A Brazilian-born researcher who runs minority health programs at a public university in Alabama has convinced the U.S. government to give her $1.5 million to help women quit smoking in her native country.
A noble cause indeed, but likely not on the high list of the American taxpayers funding the project. Nevertheless, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the nation’s medical research agency, has given the Brazilian researcher, Isabel Scarinci, a five-year, $1.5 million grant to fund her international tobacco-control project.
The goal is to better understand “women and their tobacco-related issues” in the South American country, especially in Scarinci’s Brazilian hometown of Parana. In the last two years alone, the researcher has received north of $560,000 for the initiative, according to NIH records for fiscal years 2012 and 2013.
Here is what Uncle Sam’s generosity is getting us, according to the NIH: “An understanding of women and their tobacco-related issues” as well as the “development of gender-relevant tobacco control efforts.” Wait, there’s more information from the NIH to justify the grant, though it’s unlikely to keep Americans up at night: A “smoking epidemic is rapidly spreading to women in developing countries.”
In Brazil girls are taking up smoking in particularly high numbers, Scarinci tells a university magazine piece celebrating her federal grant. Additionally, it can be hard to convince women in the South American nation of the dangers of smoking and “other risky health behaviors.” The researcher feels a sense of responsibility, saying “I can’t forget where I came from. Twenty years have gone by and their needs haven’t changed. For me, it’s personal.”
At the University of Alabama Scarinci is a preventative medicine expert who specializes in reaching out to “at-risk populations.” As part of her duties she operates several publicly-funded initiatives to promote healthy lifestyles and disease prevention among “Latino immigrants and African Americans in underserved rural communities.” This likely includes illegal aliens.
The Obama administration has made minority health a huge priority and has funded projects accordingly through different federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as well as the NIH, which annually doles out north of $31 billion to hundreds of thousands of researchers at thousands of universities and institutions around the globe.
Earlier this year the NIH hired a Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity as part of a $500 million initiative to boost minority causes in biomedical research and the federal grant process. Under Obama the agency also created a new committee that makes “diversity a core consideration of NIH governance and ensures fairness in the peer review system that erases “unconscious bias related to disparities in research awards.” The plan also implements “implicit bias and diversity awareness training.”

Allen West, Ben Carson and Bill Whittle are Obstructionists (?)

Dan Miller's Blog ^ | August 12, 2013 | danmillerinpanama

This is another “guest post” by The Very Honorable Ima Librul, Senator from the State of Confusion Utopia. He was the first person of consequence to announce changes to the Bill of Rights enacted by President Obama and we are honored to have a post of this caliber by a quintessential Librul such as the Senator. He is a charter member of President Obama’s Go For It Team, a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman of the Meretricious Relations Subcommittee. He is also justly proud of his expertise in the care and breeding of unicorns, for which his Save the Unicorns Foundation has received substantial Federal grants.


Very few with the Senator's orientation are as candid when articulating it. Facts? Libruls neither need nor want them. Without further delay, here is the Senator’s article:

I have been asked for my views concerning Allen West, Dr. Ben Carson and Bill Whittle, shameless racist obstructionists all -- as is everyone who attacks our loving Father Obama and His noble goals for us, His children. Here are recent videos by each.
Video link
Video link
They are disgusting manifestations of an individualistic racist "conservative" chic which they hope will sweep the nation and "restore" her to their own foolish and hence rejected values. It is indeed fortunate that very few share their obsessively obscene notions and that many moderate Republicans reject at least some of them.

Voting in the spring for the tea party budget developed by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who was Mitt Romney's vice presidential running mate last year, was one thing. But as long as a Democrat occupies the White House, Ryan's budget is little more than a nonbinding wish list — cutting Medicaid, Medicare and food stamps and slashing budgets for domestic agencies funded annually through appropriations bills.Many tenured Republicans, particularly members of the House Appropriations Committee, have viewed Ryan's sweeping cuts as unworkable all along. When more than $4 billion in entirely new cuts came to the House floor in the form of an actual bill for funding transportation and housing programs, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, confronted shaky support from less ardently conservative Republicans and decided to pull the $44 billion package on July 31.
That sparked a frustrated outburst from the committee chairman, Rep. Harold Rogers, R-Ky. He called for abandoning the Ryan budget and starting bipartisan negotiations that would provide appropriators with "a realistic spending level to fund the government in a responsible — and attainable — way."
"Attainable" is code for something that can pass the Senate and get signed by President Barack Obama. That's rarely a recipe for tea party fun.
We need, and hope to get, more bipartisan cooperation of that sort in the future. Can't we all just get along and do what is fair and reasonable?
We hear that since we deem all to be "superior" no one is superior. That's a crock! We, the libruls and our beloved President Obama, are superior in every way. We seek to improve the self-images of others to shield them from wicked lies and hence enable them to understandthe truth -- for example, that we, with President Obama's noble guidance, have already caused Mother Gaia to begin to recover and the oceans to halt their alarming rise; but we still have more to do. Had He and we not already exerted heroic efforts to those ends, many would have died and many others would have been left homeless. Everyone belongs to our benign Government, which seeks only what is best for everyone.
Some may be puzzled that many conservatives refuse to be guided by His true wisdom. As my gracious colleague, Maureen Dowd, wrote on January 10th at The Paper of Record,

WASHINGTON — PRESIDENT OBAMA proved himself a great segue artist Friday, as he smoothly glided from his previously unassailable position on the matter of surveillance to his new unassailable position on the matter of surveillance.There is no moral high ground that he does not seek to occupy. As with drones and gay marriage, he seems peeved that we were insufficiently patient with his own private study of the matter. Why won’t the country agree to entrust itself to his fine mind?
There is only one reason, an obvious one: those who refuse to entrust themselves totally to His fine mind are blatantly racist.
Immigration and welfare
We and President Obama have granted welfare assistance to many -- but by no means enough -- left helpless by Bush economic disasters and have provided for the sustenance of "illegal" immigrants -- who want only to become lawful, happy and contented Democrat voters. Doing that has already stimulated our nation's economy and improved our relations with our dear little Brown brothers and sisters in Mexico. By helping us they help themselves, the best sort of symbiotic relationship possible.

The promotion of the food stamp program, now known as “SNAP” (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), includes a Spanish-language flyer provided to the Mexican Embassy by the USDA with a statement advising Mexicans in the U.S. that they do not need to declare their immigration status in order to receive financial assistance.  Emphasized in bold and underlined, the statement reads, “You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.”
Our wisdom in combining economic and foreign relations benefits is truly a grand thing to behold. Yet even now, despite our efforts, only fifteen percent of all people in the United States receive "food stamp" benefits and the increases seem to have been declining recently; we have miles to go before we sleep. Clearly, we need comprehensive immigration reform and we can't wait. Even President Reagan demanded -- upon seeing the horrid Berlin wall erected to keep pitiful souls from fleeing the harsh capitalist regime in West Berlin to experience the joys of librulism in East Berlin -- "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Many even worse walls remain to be uprooted.
Overwhelming the system so that more deserving refugees can enter may work, partially, as a temporary measure.

Just this past Monday, Border Patrol agents say about 200 people came through the Otay Crossing claiming a quote: “credible fear” of the drug cartels.So many were doing this that they had to close down the processing center and move the overflow by vans to another station.
“They are being told if they come across the border, when they come up to the border and they say certain words, they  will be allowed into the country,” said a person who did not want to be identified on camera.  “We are being overwhelmed.”
It is working nicely.

“This clearly has to have been orchestrated by somebody,” said former U.S. Attorney for Southern California Peter Nunez. “It's beyond belief that dozens or hundreds or thousands of people would simultaneously decide that they should go to the U.S. and make this claim.”
Unfortunately, it is not the final solution that humanity demands. All walls, physical as well as legalistic, which even now keep too many of our little Brown brothers and sisters from experiencing the joys of librulism in our United States need to be torn down, immediately.
Consider the vast numbers of horridly disabled former economic slaves whom we have already freed from drudgery to embrace the beauties of freedom through Social Security disability payments. Consider the many others who have already left the workforce to pursue their happiness and whom we have, despite heartless conservative opposition, happily supported with unemployment benefits and to whom we will provide superior health care to give them the freedom they need to do what they enjoy doing. That is the very freedom which we strive, day and night, to give to all others less fortunate.
Video link
ObamaCare and the one payer system
English: President Barack Obama's signature on...
We are the true humanitarians and conservatives are the merchants of misery and death. The Affordable Care Act, President Obama's signature legislation, has already vastly improved health care for millions across our brave new nation by causing some money grubbing insurance companies to cease to offer insurance; they demanded higher premiums and we stood steadfastly against their piratical efforts. Soon, we hope to implement "one payer" medical care for allas we have long wanted to do. On that happy day, all medical care will belong to our benign Government.

Las Vegas Sun:

Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.
When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”
The idea of introducing a single-payer national health care system to the United States, or even just a public option, sent lawmakers into a tizzy back in 2009, when Reid was negotiating the health care bill.
“We had a real good run at the public option … don’t think we didn’t have a tremendous number of people who wanted a single-payer system,” Reid said on the PBS program, recalling how then-Sen. Joe Lieberman’s opposition to the idea of a public option made them abandon the notion and start from scratch.
Eventually, Reid decided the public option was unworkable.
“We had to get a majority of votes,” Reid said. “In fact, we had to get a little extra in the Senate, we have to get 60.”
Reid cited the post-WWII auto industry labor negotiations that made employer-backed health insurance the norm, remarking that “we’ve never been able to work our way out of that” before predicting that Congress would someday end the insurance-based health care system.
We are also well on our way to eliminating racism in the United States. Even now, the rate of Blacks born to unwed mothers is at seventy-two percent, a good thing and they lead the way.

The black community's 72 percent rate eclipses that of most other groups: 17 percent of Asians, 29 percent of whites, 53 percent of Hispanics and 66 percent of Native Americans were born to unwed mothers in 2008, the most recent year for which government figures are available. The rate for the overall U.S. population was 41 percent.
Far more needs to be done, so that all babies can be born to unwed mothers and raised by our benign Government rather than by tyrannical married breeders. Only then can our national curse of White racism be eliminated.  The late lamented Trayvon Martin is just likeall other innocent little Black children murdered -- by Whites with the blessing of the White system -- for the mere "sin" of being Black and "uppity." He is Emmett Till. Why does the vile Mr. Whittle even bother with racist nonsense such as this?
Video link
We shall not be moved from our sacred quest. Our beloved nation must be radically transformed if we are to become truly proud of her.
Our nation is our loving Government and that is why she is referred to as female. She is already our really good "nanny" and needs only to have increased authority and power to do everything that any truly good nanny wants to do, to for us. A good nanny does not allow those in her care to starve, to be deprived of medical care or otherwise to suffer needlessly. She also helps her charges to see truth and beauty as they are revealed. Even the parents of these beautiful children taught them to understand the truth, beauty and great humility which sustain President Obama. When, oh when, can all little children have the same benefits as those few?
Video link
They are truly special, just as everyone else must become!
Editor's comments
Senator Librul has candidly outlined librul goals for our future through his and President Obama's nanny state. Perhaps we can elect conservative replacements for "Republican" candidates who favor librul goals. If we don't, librul "Republicans" will be at Senator Librul's side as they destroy what is left of the best in America and bring us the increasing "benefits" of nanny statism.


On the run!


Donde Esta?

Pee his panties!

The Difference



Future Embassy

Back in time.

I voted for OBAMA!


Trained Bear!

Better Care!



The Future!

New Jobs?


Twilight Zone