INTERPOL is granted immunity from U.S. law

did obama ask congress NO Americans or our  Congress was not asked? Why Does Interpol Need Immunity from American Law? You just can’t make up how brazen this crowd is. One week ago, President Obama quietly signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law. … That is, Interpol’s property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives are now considered inviolable. This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.

Executive Order Amended Immunizing INTERPOL In America — Is The ICC Next? [Scroll down] For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL’s central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with “inviolable archives” from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds

interpole washingtonAmerican sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure.

What is Barack Obama doing? Some distressing civil liberties questions must be asked about an ever-lengthening list of decisions, proposals, and observations by President Obama. To begin, Obama is the first president to give an international law enforcement organization like Interpol free rein within the territorial confines of this nation, presumably not excluding the arrest and exportation of Americans to be charged with crimes under international law. Put simply, this means the Constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land in America.

Interpole enviromental police Why Immunity for Interpol?

 I asked here a week ago why President Obama decided it was suddenly necessary to place the international police agency, Interpol, above the constraints of American law. There has been no answer, but the question is is not going away — not until the President explains himself.

Obama Order Strips Americans of Constitutional Rights. While our “Constitutional Scholar” president insists on full Constitutional rights for terrorists, he has at least attempted to repeal the 4th Amendment protections for Americans, with particular impact on the men and women in the U.S. military. An Executive Order dated December 17 grants full diplomatic immunity to INTERPOL, the International Criminal Police Organization. This Obama Order immunizes INTERPOL from “search and seizure,” from all tax laws, from the Freedom of Information requirements, and puts INTERPOL above the jurisdiction of American Law Enforcement, American Courts, and the Constitution itself.

Interpol Immunity. Finally, today, we get at least an attempt at an explanation of President Obama’s dead-of-night decision on December 16 to grant Interpol — the international police force — immunity from American law. … The biggest problem with President Obama’s immunity grant is that it came without any explanation. The administration can’t or won’t explain why a president — whose administration is notoriously indifferent to American sovereignty — suddenly decided Interpol needed to be freed from the U.S. Constitution and other American law.

Interpol — Fascist Friends. [Scroll down slowly] Interpol insisted it ‘went out of business’ during the Second World War, and repeatedly told Congress this. But, evidence showing the exact opposite was later provided! Also, a June 1940 Interpol document openly says that the ‘Prague Butcher’, Reinhard Heydrich, ran Interpol during the war. He is the one who ‘masterminded’ the ‘final solution’. He was appointed to head Interpol a few months after Interpol’s 1939 Convention in Berlin, by “the SS and chief of the German police, Heinrich Himmler”. As head of Interpol, he engineered details of the ‘final solution’, with Interpol heads and leading Nazis, including Adolph Eichmann.

Obama’s Secret Vault: [Glenn] Beck spoke for a host of other government watchdogs when he said on the air: “We’ve been asking ever since it was signed: Why? Who can tell me what special interest group asked for this? If it were about terror, why not tell us that when he signed it? This Congress attacks our CIA and FBI, but Interpol gets immunity? Why? It makes no sense.”

interpole badgeThe United States Has Been Sold Out And The International Police Have Arrived. Government is about power. … A dictatorial police state must have a police force. Pres. Obama’s Executive Order 12425 gave diplomatic immunity inside America to Interpol, the International Criminal Police, immunity denied to the CIA, FBI and American police. Interpol ignores Habeas Corpus. There’s no Interpol right to an attorney. Diplomatic Immunity means Interpol can investigate and keep secret files on American citizens. Interpol issues its own arrest warrants without Constitutional oversight. Interpol files assisted Germany in “the final solution.”

The more integrated the world becomes, the more likely it becomes that we will see nightmarish global tyranny someday.

obama lies7.jpg 2

Watch Obama’s actions, not his words! By his actions he will show you where America is headed.

The more integrated the world becomes, the more likely it becomes that we will see nightmarish global tyranny someday. It is very frightening to think of what People very evil might do if they had the chance to run the entire planet.

Once our national sovereignty is gone, it will be incredibly difficult to get back. If the American people don’t take a stand while they still can, their children may wake up someday as citizens of a very oppressive “global regime“.

When it comes to Barack Obama, one of the most important things to understand is that he is a committed globalist. He firmly believes that more “global governance” (the elite don’t like to use the term “global government”) will make the world a much better place. Throughout his time in the White House, Obama has consistently sought to strengthen international institutions such as the UN, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. At every turn, Obama has endeavored to more fully integrate America into the “global community”. Since he was elected, Obama has signed a whole host of new international economic agreements.

He regularly speaks of the need for “cooperation” among global religions and he has hosted a wide variety of different religious celebrations at the White House. Obama once stated that “all nations must come together to build a stronger global regime“. If you do not want to live in a “global regime” that is just too bad. To globalists such as Obama, it is inevitable that the United States of America will be merged into the emerging global system. Obama has issued a new executive order that seeks to “harmonize” U.S. economic regulations with the rest of the world. This new executive order is yet another incremental step that is pushing us closer to a North American Union and a one world economic system. Unfortunately, most Americans have absolutely no idea what is happening.

The American people need to understand that Barack Obama is constantly looking for ways to integrate the United States more deeply with the rest of the world. The globalization of the world economy has accelerated under Obama, and this latest executive order represents a fundamental change in U.S. economic policy. Now federal regulators will be required to “harmonize” their work with the international community. The following is how this new executive order was assessed in a recent Businessweek article….

Obama’s order provides a framework to organize scattered efforts to promote international regulatory cooperation, the chamber’s top global regulatory official said today.

“Today’s executive order marks a paradigm shift for U.S. regulators by directing them to take the international implications of their work into account in a consistent and comprehensive way,” Sean Heather, vice president of the chamber’s Center for Global Regulatory Cooperation, said in an e-mailed statement.

Members of the Obama administration are touting this as a way to “reduce regulation”, but the truth is that this is much more about aligning ourselves with the rest of the world than anything else.

Obama’s “Information Czar”, Cass Sunstein, authored a piece in the Wall Street Journal in which he stressed the need to eliminate “unnecessary regulatory differences across nations” so that the United States can compete more effectively in our “interdependent global economy”. The end result of this process will be that we will now do things much more like how the rest of the world does things…. ???????

In an interdependent global economy, diverse regulations can cause trouble for companies doing business across national boundaries. Unnecessary differences in countries’ regulatory requirements can cost money, compromising economic growth and job creation. Think of divergent requirements for car headlights, or the labeling of food, or standards for container sizes.

Recognizing this, President Obama’s Jobs Council has called for U.S. agencies to better align U.S. regulations with those of our major trading partners. And the president is issuing another executive order, “Promoting International Regulatory Cooperation,” with a simple goal: to promote exports, growth, and job creation by eliminating unnecessary regulatory differences across nations.

NWO PresidentsDid these five New World Order Presidents ask the American People if they wanted Global Governance?

But a one world economic system is not going to arrive overnight. Initially, it is much more likely that there will be a very strong push toward North American integration first. The goal will be to shape North America into an integrated regional economic unit similar to the EU. Cass Sunstein discussed how this new executive order will affect North American integration on the White House website.

The new Executive Order will build on work that is already underway. We have started close to home, with President Obama launching Regulatory Cooperation Councils with Prime Minister Harper of Canada and President Calderon of Mexico. The Councils are implementing work plans to eliminate or prevent the creation of unnecessary regulatory differences that adversely affect cross-border trade; to streamline regulatory requirements; and to promote greater certainty for the general public and businesses, particularly small- and medium-sized enterprises, in the regulation of food, pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology, and other areas. The United States and Canada released the United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC) Joint Action Plan last December. In February, we announced the United States-Mexico High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Council (HLRCC) Work Plan.

Most Americans have absolutely no idea how far plans to integrate the United States, Canada and Mexico have advanced.

Last year, Barack Obama signed an agreement to create a “North American security perimeter” and most Americans never even heard about it because the mainstream news networks almost entirely ignored it.

But this is exactly what the globalists want. They don’t want people to become alarmed by these moves toward North American integration. In fact, a document uncovered by Wikileaks shows that those involved in the effort to integrate North America believe that an “incremental” approach is best. Apparently they believe that small moves toward integration are less likely to alarm the general population. The following is from an article that appeared in The National Post last year….

The integration of North America’s economies would best be achieved through an “incremental” approach, according to a leaked U.S. diplomatic cable.

The cable, released through the WikiLeaks website and apparently written Jan. 28, 2005, discusses some of the obstacles surrounding the merger of the economies of Canada, the United States and Mexico in a fashion similar to the European Union.

“An incremental and pragmatic package of tasks for a new North American Initiative (NAI) will likely gain the most support among Canadian policymakers,” the document said. “The economic payoff of the prospective North American initiative … is available, but its size and timing are unpredictable, so it should not be oversold.”

If the people of Canada, and United States were told that there was a plan to merge all three economies, there might be massive protests to stop it, and the globalists do not want that.

A few years ago, the “Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America” (SPP) that was being promoted by President George W. Bush started to generate quite a bit of negative publicity. That caused those seeking to integrate the economies of North America to back off for a little while.

NWO Presidents

5 New world Order Presidents Have sold America.

“recolonization of humans into dense cities”. Does the term “recolonization” really need any further explanation?

Today, our estimated population is 310 million people. Yet, the 11 megacities are only expected to house six million people each.

310,000,000 million Americans – 66,000,000 megacity dwellers

244,000,000 missing Americans

But as an article by Jerome Corsi last year detailed, the eventual goal is to turn North America into another version of the eurozone. That includes a common currency for North America called the “amero”….

The SPP in the administration of President George W. Bush appeared designed to replicate the steps taken in Europe over a 50-year period following the end of World War II to transform an economic agreement under the European Common Market into a full-fledged regional government, operating as the European Union, with its own currency, the euro, functioning as the sole legitimate currency in what has become known as “the eurozone.”

The concern under the SPP has been that the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, could be evolved into a regional government, the North American Union, with a regional currency, the amero, designed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Mexican peso and the Canadian dollar.

So will we ever see the “amero” replace the U.S. dollar?

Hopefully not.

If the globalists try to introduce the “amero”, it would probably be after a horrible financial crisis in which the U.S. dollar falls apart. The “amero” would be heralded as the “solution” to the problems that were plaguing the dollar.

If there ever is a move to get rid of the U.S. dollar for an international currency of some kind, the American people will need to resist it with all of their might.

The more integrated the world becomes, the more likely it becomes that we will see nightmarish global tyranny someday. It is very frightening to think of what someone very evil might do if they had the chance to run the entire planet.

Once our national sovereignty is gone, it will be incredibly difficult to get back. If the American people don’t take a stand while they still can, their children may wake up someday as citizens of a very oppressive “global regime”.

Hillary more of the same

The Supreme Court today decided it will not hear a lawsuit challenging the death panels in Obamacare

the forgotten ones The forgotten ones

“Repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) is critical to prevent the rationing of life-saving medical treatment,” said Burke Balch, J.D., director of National Right to Life’s Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics. “The IPAB would recommend drastic limits for the Department of Health and Human Services to impose on what Americans are allowed to spend out of their own funds to save their own lives and the lives of their families

The Supreme Court today decided it will not hear a lawsuit challenging the death panels in Obamacare

The Supreme Court today decided it will not hear a lawsuit challenging the death panels in Obamacare that pro-life groups strongly opposed because they involve rationing health care and potentially denying lifesaving medical treatment — putting patients’ right to life at risk

A lawsuit filed against the IPAB eventually reached a liberal federal appeals court, which threw out the lawsuit. Today, the Supreme Court said it would not take the case.

The high court left intact a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that threw out the lawsuit.

The court’s action in an unsigned order was a victory for Obama administration, which has faced a barrage of legal challenges to the 2010 Affordable Care Act, often called Obamacare. The court is currently weighing a separate case challenging health insurance subsidies that are key to Obamacare’s implementation. A ruling is due by the end of June.

In the case that the justices rejected on Monday, Arizona-based business owner Nick Coons and Dr. Eric Novack, an orthopedic surgeon, sued in 2011 in litigation backed by a conservative legal group.

Among other things, they challenged the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, a 15-member government panel dubbed by some Republicans as a “death panel” because of its intended role in trimming costs within Medicare, the government healthcare program for the elderly and disabled.

Lower courts threw out the lawsuit. In its August 2014 ruling, the appeals court said that the plaintiffs had not shown they had suffered any harm that they could sue over.

In a letter to members of the Subcommittee on Health, National Right to Life noted that “[t]he Obama law directs the Board to issue recommendations to limit what ordinary citizens and their health insurance coverage can pay for medical treatment so as to prevent it from keeping up with the rate of medical inflation.”

The letter also noted that in order to “implement these recommendations, the Department of Health and Human Services is empowered to impose so-called ‘quality’ and ‘efficiency’ measures on health care providers. Doctors who violate a ‘quality’ standard by prescribing more life-saving medical treatment than it permits will be disqualified from contracting with any of the health insurance plans that individual Americans, under the Obama Health Care Law, will be mandated to purchase.”

“Simply put, the IPAB is bad medicine,” added Balch. “It is outrageous that a government entity would be allowed to dictate and limit what Americans could spend – of their own money – to save their own lives.”

The IPAB has come under question before and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius faced questions from members of Congress over the board last year before she resigned from the office.

“The Independent Patient Advisory Board makes recommendations to Congress,” Sebelius said. “It is forbidden by law to do exactly what the Republican budget plan does. They may not shift costs to seniors. They may not change benefits.”

Rep. Joe Pitts, a pro-life Pennsylvania Republican, said there is “widespread opposition” to IPAB.

This is not surprising, since the decisions of the board will become law by a fast track process that will bypass the usual legislative procedures, in effect superseding the customary jurisdiction of committees like this one,” said Pitts.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has said the IPAB “could lead–not only to the death of patients, but also to the death of innovation.”

This Board, made up of 15 unelected members of the President’s choosing, will be the sole authority over what kind of care–if any–we receive,” he explained. “Starting in 2015, IPAB will be tasked with bringing down medical costs–and unless Congress can find a super-majority to oppose them, IPAB’s recommendations will carry the force of law.”

“The Board could deny payment for certain care or medications, change the service options doctors have, and drive expensive, life-saving treatments out. Instead of discussing the options with your doctor, IPAB will be sitting at the controls in Washington making health decisions for you,” Perkins explained.

“What should control health care isn’t IPAB. It isn’t even Congress. What should control health care is the relationship between doctors and patients. Injecting more government into the equation only punishes patients and squeezes out the cutting-edge science that could treat them. This is just one more reason to contact your congressmen and tell them to not rest until ObamaCare is laid to rest,” Perkins said.

Balch said one of the big pro-life concerns with Obamacare is that it “requires the Independent Payment Advisory Board to make recommendations, which the federal Department of Health and Human Services is given coercive power to implement, effectively to limit what private nongovernmental resources Americans are allowed to devote to health care for their family so that they cannot even keep up with the rate of medical inflation.”

“In short, the Board will play a crucial role in limiting the ability of Americans of all ages to spend their own money to save their own lives,” Balch said. “While public attention seems focused on the Board’s impact on Medicare, too many overlook how it is charged with crafting measures that will result in the denial of life-saving medical treatment – rationing– for people of any age.”

Share this story:

We should not care about anything else that divides us other than saving our constitution

when your country is telling you no It’s a humiliating failure of a Congress whose members seem to going their own way while we see the Dems sticking together under their maniac Progressive Leadership. The Dems rule with a heavy hand in their quest to bring maxist ideology to America. Many believe they threaten sane democratic members to not support their reelection ect..

Newt Gingrich was the only candidate that could gather the Republicans to do right for the American people. He had done it before and could have done it again. There was no one that could whip the congress into shape and force them together.. Only Newt. He had the —– you know whats to do it. And he does not like to fail. He is confident.strong and has done it before. Well Newts time is passed and we must look to a leader willing to fight for our country again. Perhaps Ted Cruz is that leader.

Some of the Tea Party still want the perfect get along politicians. And libs keep spouting compromise.. “Sorry but get a grip”. We are talking about our country and what our fore fathers fought and died for. Compromise is for the losers and, we cannot lose the Country that made us the greatest, that gave us the lifestyle never before seen in the working class.” Obama and his handlers refuse to compromise. . We are loosing our freedoms by executive orders.

My father was working class. He worked very hard at times two jobs and was able to give us a home a new car every few years and even the first Color TV’s .on a working class salary. College was affordable and if you were poor you could work and go to school. Many of my age became the best and brightest.What has happened to us that we have allowed Politically Correct Socialist spin to shape public opinion. Most are afraid to speak up and say stop no more!!! The majority has let the minority run over us. And now we are sure to become the minority if we do not pull together. Aside from millions of illegal immigrants most Americans have no idea that over one hundred thousand legal immigrants come every month. That is over a Million a year. Just for Democrat votes. Think about it. This really is our last chance to put our country on the right path again. If we fail mediocracy will kill the American dream for our country and our children.

Let Conservatives that came to washington with a mandate to change things take over and we the real majority put men like Ted Cruz ,Rand Paul in the White House. We will not be sorry. With a Dem President and a Dem Senate and our weak leadership in the Congress ( that has no idea how to pick the battles) it’s just impossible. We need one of the new Congressmen to take the leadership with, a tiger for the Constitution as their President.

Don’t blame the new congress. Blame the old Dems and Republicans. leadership in Congress and Senate we can rid ourselves of Rhino’s. And save our country

7,076 new regulatory rules have been issued under the President in just his first several months. he campaigned against regulations and more than 14 MILLION more Americans are on food stamps 
Obama was again dealing away Social Security by trying to reduce payroll tax by two percentage points, which will divert an estimated $120 billion from the SS trust fund. The resulting debt is shifted to the general treasury for repayment, increasing the deficit and the excuse to link Social Security with the debt .Compromising the future solvency of Social Security with a payroll tax holiday.Obama has swapped a $13 trillion bailout of Wall St. for cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, as well as education.

You can see the weakness in the the Conservative Party. Its not all their fault. It is the lack of a strong leader who will pull them together.And call out the weasels in the party like McCain and Graham. “We should not care about anything else that divides us other than saving our constitution. to get us on the right path again . Dividing Americans on issues is how Obama, Hillary, Holder and those with their same Ideology came to power.

As we have learned The Obama Progressives do not care about our people or country but having Americans under their thumb. Saving The United States Of America is not the Job for A Rhino Compromising President. we only ask that he fights for our Constitution and appoints Judges that follow this perfect document containing our fundamental laws: a document outlining the basic principles by which our country is governed.

2016 is upon us and its the last chance. Obama administration has put all the regulations and new laws in place and now in his second term he is implementing them. They are prepared to fight and the Fema Camps and UN soldiers are readyto assist.

Do not take my word for start to study by using the internet. Already information is dissapearing. when you search the propaganda comes up first so go back far enough in the search engine.

If we do not start to think as warriors we will get the Progressive Obama America the, uninformed voted for.

Obama commands our air force to fly in with his Muslim Pals and bomb another sovereign state.(Syria) He already sent bombs in Americas name and gave our alli Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood.How many innocents are being bombed to hell by this maniac we call President.

note: Egypt has thrown out Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood President.

 ROTHSCHILD BANKING CABAL MET TO DISCUSS DEPOPULATION

Obama trying to find a way to avoid having to repay the looted Social Security money…

The Forgotten Ones

The orgotten Ones

…by:Dr. Allen Smith

When Obama said that he cannot guarantee that Social Security checks will go out if the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised, it’s time to take a closer look at why politicians are pushing to cut this vital program.

The Social Security Trust Fund should currently have $2.5 trillion in surplus. So how is it that these checks could stop being issued if the debt ceiling isn’t raised? Economics professor Dr. Allen Smith, author of The Looting of Social Security: How The Government is Draining America’s Retirement Account, has been reporting on the theft of Social Security funds for years. As he sums it up:

“The government’s $2.5 trillion debt to Social Security is the real reason that so many politicians want to cut benefits. They are trying to find a way to avoid having to repay the looted money…

I: It’s Time to Tap the Empty Social Security Trust Fund

AP writer, Stephen Ohlemacher, sent shock waves throughout the nation with his story, “Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam’s IOUs.” Social Security has been running large surpluses ever since the enactment of the 1983 payroll tax hike, and was projected to continue running surpluses until at least 2016. Instead, Ohlemacher reports that the cost of Social Security benefits will exceed payroll tax revenue by approximately $29 billion this year, because of the severe recession which has reduced payroll tax revenue at the very time that many unemployed Americans have been forced to retire early. (severe recession?? Did not obama give a payroll tax cut which reduces SS income from payrolls?????)

What it all boils down to is that, in order to pay full benefits, Social Security will have to come up with an extra $29 billion to supplement the inadequate payroll tax revenue. Where will that money come from? It will have to come from increased taxes or from borrowed money. “Wait a minute!” some readers will say. Hasn’t Social Security been receiving surplus revenue ever since the 1983 payroll tax hike? Isn’t there supposed to be approximately $2.5 trillion in the Social Security trust fund? The answer to both questions is yes. But there is a problem. Every dollar of that surplus Social Security revenue has already been spent by the government. Much of it went to fund wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The rest has been spent on other government programs.

The American people were not supposed to find out about the great Social Security scam for another six years, and the government was hoping to continue to receive surplus money from the Social Security contributions of working Americans for at least that long. But the inevitable day of reckoning has come, six years sooner than anybody expected. And the government of the United States has been caught with its hand still in the empty Social Security cookie jar.

For more than a decade, I have been trying to expose the Social Security scam just like Harry Markopolos was trying to expose the Bernie Madoff scam. But nobody would listen. If anyone deserves credit for helping the government to keep its dirty secret for so long, that honor should go to the AARP and the NCPSSM. I have been members of both organizations for years and I have tried very hard to get their cooperation in exposing the fraud. But they have refused to have anything to do with me. Instead, they have continued to bombard their members and the public with misinformation. They have argued that the trust fund is full of “good-as-gold” U.S. Treasury Bonds that could be used to pay full Social Security benefits until at least 2037 without any changes. In reaction to Olemacher’s AP story, Barbara Kennelly, president of the NCPSSM, responded with the following words, “Good luck to the politician who reneges on that debt. Those bonds are protected by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. They’re as solid as what we owe China and Japan.”

It has been clear for quite some time that the trust fund contained no real assets. David Walker, Comptroller General of the GAO, stated on January 21, 2005, “There are no stocks or bonds or real estate in the trust fund. It has nothing of real value to draw down.” On April 5, 2005, President George W. Bush finally acknowledged the empty trust fund by saying, “There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that future generations will pay—will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs.”

If there was any doubt remaining, with regard to whether or not the trust fund contains any real assets, that doubt should have been removed by the following words in the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report:

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

There is nothing ambiguous about the above words. They make it clear that the government does not receive any cash income from the alleged interest payments on the trust fund IOUs. The interest payments are made in the form of additional worthless IOUs. The government cannot sell the IOUs because they are not marketable and have no cash value. The IOUs simply represent a debt of one branch of the government (the Treasury Department) to another branch of government (Social Security). They cancel each other out.

The Social Security surplus revenue should have been saved and invested in public-issue, marketable Treasury bonds. These bonds are “good as gold” and default-proof. They are the kind of U.S. Treasury bonds that are owned by China and Japan, Bill Gates, pension funds, and every other serious investor that owns Treasuries. If the Social Security surplus had been invested in public-issue marketable Treasury bonds, as it could have been, and should have been, Barbara Kennelly would be correct in saying that the Social Security holdings are “as solid as what we owe China and Japan.” Unfortunately not a single dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue was saved or invested in anything. It was all spent, and, once money is spent, there is nothing left to invest.

The government cannot, and will not, ever default on any of its public issue, marketable Treasury bonds because of the panic it would create in world markets and the damage it would do to the nation’s worldwide credibility. But Congress has the legal authority to default on its debt to Social Security, and, if it should do so, the outside world would probably view it primarily as an internal matter between the United States Government and its citizens. One of the least known facts about Social Security is that, although the government does have a moral obligation to pay Social Security benefits to those who have earned them, the government does not have a legal obligation to do so.

In a 1960 ruling by the United States Supreme Court, the court ruled that nobody has a “contractual earned right” to Social Security benefits. Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act specifically states, “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.” According to the above strong language, Congress could do whatever it wanted to do with regard to changing or even eliminating Social Security.

Early on, some did not take the language seriously because they thought it was probably unconstitutional. However, in 1960, in the case of Fleming v. Nestor, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of benefits to Nestor, even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits In its ruling, the Supreme Court established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits “is not a contractual right.” As a result of the 1960 Supreme Court ruling, the future of Social Security is totally in the hands of Congress and the President. They have the legal authority to amend any and all parts of the Social Security Act, as well as the authority to either increase or decrease Social Security benefits.

II: The Social Security Fraud Has Finally Been Exposed

On December 13, 2010, the highly respected Kansas City Star, winner of eight Pulitzer Prizes, published an editorial entitled, “The myth of the Social Security trust fund,” which included the following statement:

A lot of people speak of those IOUs as if they can be pulled out and exchanged for money to pay benefit checks. They can’t. As the Clinton administration budget of 2000 explained, the securities in the Trust Fund ‘do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Those special-issue bonds can only be redeemed by raising taxes, cutting spending elsewhere, or borrowing — exactly what the government would have to do if the Trust Fund didn’t exist. The Trust Fund, said the Clinton budget message, ‘does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.

On December 20, distinguished business columnist, Allan Sloan, seven-time winner of the prestigious Loeb award, business journalism’s highest honor, called the trust fund “a mirage” in his Washington Post column. In the column, titled, “New tax law reveals the mirage of the Social Security trust fund,” Sloan wrote:

My problem with the trust fund is that it’s a snare and a delusion for people who think that it makes Social Security financially sound. It doesn’t do that, because having government IOUs in a government trust fund doesn’t make it any easier for the government to cover Social Security’s cash shortfalls than it would be if there were no trust fund.

These are not new revelations. I have spent the past decade relentlessly trying to expose the Social Security fraud, and prominent government officials were screaming out the warnings two decades ago.

On October 13, 1989, Senator Ernest Hollings of SC stood on the Senate floor and warned, “…the most reprehensible fraud in this great jambalaya of frauds is the systematic and total ransacking of the Social Security trust fund…in the next century…the American people will wake up to the reality that those IOUs in the trust fund vault are a 21st century version of Confederate bank notes.”

The Kansas City Star editorial and Allan Sloan’s Washington Post column seem to have stunned the AARP and the NCPSSM into silence. These organization have repeatedly claimed that the Social Security surplus is invested in U.S. Treasury bonds just like those held by the Chinese government. They have battled my efforts to get this same message out for a decade, but they seem to have had the wind knocked out of them by the Star and Allan Sloan. So far, they have made no attempt to rebut either of the two articles. The AARP and the NCPSSM have been claiming for years that the trust fund holds enough assets to pay full Social Security benefits until at least 2037, when, in fact, in the words of the Kansas City Star, it has no “real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.”

The Kansas City Star and Allan Sloan have exposed the trust fund myth so clearly that I think the national debate will now turn to how and why the United States government violated both the public trust and federal law for a quarter-century in a way that caused a major transfer of income from the lower and middle class to the richest of all Americans. By imposing a hefty increase in the regressive payroll tax in 1983, and then using a large portion of the new revenue to offset the lost revenue resulting from the unaffordable income tax cuts that went primarily to the richest Americans, the United States government engineered a major transfer of income from the lower and middle classes to the richest of all Americans. NOT TRUE!!!

So where does that leave Social Security? The approximately $2.5 trillion in surplus revenue, generated by the 1983 payroll tax hike, rightly belongs to the Social Security trust fund and to American workers who paid the extra taxes. But the money is all gone — “borrowed” or “stolen” by the federal government and spent for general government operations. None of the money was saved or invested in anything, so the trust fund contains no real economic assets with which to supplement the payroll tax which will become inadequate to pay full benefits after 2015.

I believe it is time for the public to demand, in a very strong way, that the government make arrangements to repay its debt to Social Security. It is futile for the AARP and the NCPSSM to continue to insist that Social Security is in fine shape and has enough assets to pay full benefits until 2037. This just isn’t true. What the organizations need to do now is put political pressure on the government to move quickly to enact legislation that would require the repayment of the looted money, as it is needed, over the next 27 years. There is no way that the government could possibly come up with the $2.5 trillion in the near future, given the budget crisis. But it can make a legal commitment to repay the money in installments. Will that happen? Not without major political pressure from the majority of Americans. The AARP and the NCPSSM have frittered away the past ten years when the problem could have been resolved. If the looting could have been stopped when I first began actively urging such action in 2000, the trust fund would today hold approximately $1.5 trillion (the amount looted during the past 10 years) in “good-as-gold” real assets. Instead, it holds no real economic assets.

The reason I don’t believe the government will honor its debt to Social Security without major political pressure is that it does not legally have to repay the money. The government certainly has a moral obligation to do so, but, because of a 1960 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, it has an out. In the case of Fleming v. Nestor, the Court ruled that nobody has a “contractual earned right” to Social Security benefits. This ruling was based on Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act which specifically states, “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this ACT is hereby reserved to the Congress.” Based on this strong language, Congress could do whatever it wanted to do with regard to changing or even eliminating Social Security.

Many people argue that the government could not default on its debt to Social Security because of the effect such action would have on financial markets and the nation’s public image. If the government held the same kind of real bonds that are traded on world markets, this would be true. Public-issue, marketable U.S. Treasury bonds are default-proof, and that is the kind of bonds that the Social Security surplus revenue was supposed to be invested in. If this had been done, Social Security would be in fine shape today. But, instead of using the surplus Social Security revenue to buy such bonds in the open market, the government chose to spend the money and issue IOUs to replace the spent money.*** These IOUs are non-marketable and could not be sold to anyone, even for a penny on the dollar. The government has the legal authority to declare these IOUs null and void. Since these IOUs are not traded, such action would have little effect on financial markets, and foreign governments would probably consider such action as an internal matter between the American government and its citizens.

The Social Security trust fund does not hold any real economic assets that can be drawn down to pay future benefits. That is an indisputable fact today, and it has been true ever since the 1983 payroll tax hike was enacted. Every dollar of the $2.5 trillion in surplus revenue, generated by the payroll tax hike, has been spent on programs unrelated to Social Security, leaving nothing to save or invest.

A few United States Senators tried to sound the alarm two decades ago, and I have dedicated the past ten years of my life to trying to alert the public to the awful truth about the Social Security trust fund. For more than a quarter of a century, the United States government, under five presidents, has hoodwinked the American public into believing their Social Security contributions would be used for future Social Security benefitsToday, thanks to the efforts of the editorial board of the Kansas City Star, and thanks to the courage and competence of Allan Sloan and a few other journalists, the big bad secret is finally out, and I think it is too late to get this cat back in the bag.

President Obama is the fifth president to participate in the great Social Security scam, but he has the dubious distinction of being the president, on whose watch, the Social Security time bomb, activated 25 years ago by President Reagan, will run out of time. All of the previous administrations knew that spending Social Security revenue, as if it were general revenue, was wrong and was a violation of both federal law and the public trust. But, they all had the luxury of knowing that the raided Social Security money would not be needed to pay benefits while they were still in office. However, President Obama learned early in his presidency that, unless the government ended the raiding and began repaying the money that had already been raided, Social Security would face a major financial crisis during his presidency.

Beginning in 2015, and every year after that, payroll tax revenue will be insufficient to pay full benefits. This was known in 1983 when the Social Security “fix” was enacted. The plan was to draw down the large reserve that is supposed to be in the trust fund and use that money to supplement payroll tax revenue so that full benefits could be paid until 2037. But that money has already been spent, so the government will have to come up with the money again to repay the $2.54 trillion that it embezzled. This might be manageable in the early years, when the difference between benefit costs and payroll tax revenue is minimal. But, each year, the amount of money needed to replace the looted money gets bigger and bigger. For example, Social Security will run a deficit of approximately $41.4 billion in 2010. But in 2020, the Social Security deficit will have grown to $101.4 billion. Five years later, in 2025, the Social Security shortfall will be $274.6 billion. In 2035, the government would have to come up with an astronomical $621.9 billion in order to pay full Social Security benefits.

When President Obama first saw these numbers, he must have almost gone into a state of shock. ( NO he found it Joyfull as he could cause the caouse he planned on even faster.)His predecessors left him with a lot of problems that can plainly be seen by the public—two wars, a collapsed economy, and a gigantic deficit and debt. But the embezzlement of the Social Security trust fund money was done without public knowledge, President Obama cannot just kick the can farther down the road as his four predecessors have done. He must find a way to raise the money to repay the government’s debt to Social Security, or cut Social Security benefits so the money will not have to be repaid.

Embezzlement is a crime, and every participant (all the presidents and members of Congress who supported the practice) knew they were committing a crime against the American peopleTie to 4 more years and the obama puppet will bring republican rivals to court or just use it as threats as they used the people’s Social Security money as general revenue over the past 25 years. Some individuals, such as the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, attempted to end the raiding 20 years ago. On September 27, 2000, I launched my decade-long campaign to expose the Social Security scam with an appearance on CNN News to discuss my then newly-published book, The Alleged Budget Surplus, Social Security, and Voodoo Economics. For the past 10 years, I have been warning, as forcefully as I could, that a day of reckoning would come, at which time the government might consider defaulting on its huge Social Security debt. But nobody wanted to listen. That day of reckoning is now upon us.

V: Censored Social Security Book Back in Print

When my book, The Looting of Social Security: How The Government is Draining America’s Retirement Account, was published by a New York publisher in 2004, I thought my long battle to expose the truth about the Social Security trust fund was almost won. But that book met with foul play, and was removed from the market before many people had the opportunity to read it.

Early reviews revealed just how provocative the book was going to be. The Boston Globe reported, “… With dismal clarity, Smith lays out the step-by-step history of how a national pension plan was transformed into an outright shakedown of working people” and ALA Booklist said, “Smith has written a scathing account of massive fraud on the part of our nation’s leaders, who have plundered every cent of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus that was specifically earmarked by Regan for the retirement of the baby boomers.”

On February 26, 2004, I appeared on CNBC, to respond to Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, who had called for Social Security benefit cuts the previous day. I held my book in front of the camera and said, as forcefully as I could, “Alan Greenspan should be ashamed of himself for what he is not telling the American people.” I now believe that this public criticism of the Fed chairman may have been the final nail in the coffin of The Looting of Social Security, which was very critical of Greenspan’s role in making the looting of the trust fund possible.

A few weeks after my controversial appearance on CNBC, the book mysteriously disappeared from bookstores, nationwide, and was listed as “unavailable” by Amazon.com. I tried to get the rights to the book reverted back to me so I could publish my message elsewhere, but my publisher refused to surrender the rights. Thus the book was effectively killed off, and there was nothing I could do about it. I was unable to pinpoint exactly who was responsible for rendering the book “unavailable,” but a lot of people did not want the contents of the book to become public. Certainly, people in government, such as Alan Greenspan

Although the public knew nothing about it at the time, Greenspan’s February 25, 2004 call for Social Security benefit cuts was the opening salvo in an organized campaign to dismantle Social Security, as we now know it, once George W. Bush was safely elected to a second term. On August 27, 2004, Greenspan again spoke of cutting Social Security benefits during remarks at a symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

“As a nation, we owe it to our retirees to promise only the benefits that can be delivered,” Greenspan said. “If we have promised more than our economy has the power to deliver to retirees without unduly diminishing real income gains of workers, as I fear we may have, we must recalibrate our public programs so that pending retirees have time to adjust through other channels.”

Almost immediately upon his re-election, President George W. Bush made public his plan to partially privatize Social Security. On November 4, 2004, Bush said, “Let me put it this way: I earned capital, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style…I’ve earned capital in this election— and I’m going to spend it for what I told the people I’d spend it on, which is — you’ve heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.”

Like other Americans, there is no way I could have known about the standby plan to privatize Social Security, which was already formulated at the time I appeared on CNBC and publicly challenged Alan Greenspan on Social Security. Therefore, I didn’t realize just how big the potential impact of widespread readership of my book could be on the future plans of the Bush administration. From the administration’s point of view, I’m sure that they were not going to allow my book, or a book by any other author, to sabotage their plan to privatize Social Security. The book was a threat, and the threat had to be dealt with.

What is far more puzzling to me, than the opposition to my book in 2004, is the current effort to discredit me, and the book. I was almost flabbergasted when I learned, just a few weeks ago, that a website that goes by the name of “Medicare and Medicare Programs” launched a smear campaign on September 22, 2010 against me and the book that has been off the market since 2004. You don’t believe me? Click on the following link and it will take you to that website. I tried to find out who owns this website and who is behind this effort, but I was unable to do so. Who is sponsoring this website, and what is their agenda? These things don’t just happen by chance. The five negative reviews, alleged by the website to have been submitted on September 22, 2010, are exact duplicates of “customer reviews” from Amazon.com that were posted in 2004 and 2005.

If the intent of this internet campaign was to stomp out the message of my book, now and forever, their actions have backfired on them. It was in reaction to this campaign that I decided not to allow them to kick a dead book without bringing the book back to life. When I finally regained the rights to “The Looting of Social Security” in 2008, I vowed to re-publish the book, when the time was right, under an arrangement that would guarantee that the book remained in print for as long as anyone wanted to read it.

The smear campaign on the internet has convinced me that the time is now right for the book to be resurrected. Therefore, I am pleased to announce that the book has just been published by Ironwood Publications, under the title, The Looting of Social Security, New release of the book they didn’t want you to read. The new book includes all of the content of the original book, along with a new forward written by Dr. Victor Stoltzfus, President Emeritus, Goshen College, and an afterword written by me that brings the book up to date. The book was officially released yesterday, November 1, 2010.

(I guess to the times the author makes inane claims about tax cuts for the rich was added to keep the progressives at bay.) as he contradicts his facts with the liberal mantra just thrown into a line with no real charge).OH! I forgot theres also a few blame Bush and the rich lines thrown in for good measure. Otherwise the article is excellent.

For an extensive archive of Dr. Allen Smith’s work, visit Dissident Voice.

really you still trust the government

Federal Judge Rules With Grassfire and millions of other law-abiding citizens by ruling President Obama’s “Executive Amnesty” decree is unconstitutional and illegal


immigrant children Is it legal for Obama to bring Children across the Mexican Border and scatter them all over the United States? Does anyone know what has become of every child? Who has taken responsibility for their well being?

central american obama children gang members Obama’s Recent so called children immigrant’s Some are young gang members.

Mexican killers cross our borders every day. Our Government knows this and will not stop the illegal flow. It is Congress who could stop it but many  are threatened by Valerie Jarrett who is reported to have said.    

“After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time.
Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve.”Jarrett, who is considered the single-most influential person in Obama’s White House, says of her relationship with the President that the two think alike. “We have kind of a mind meld… what he wants to do is what I’d want to do.”
 Jarrett’s alarming rant continued…
 There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.Valerie Jarrett’s comments are a chilling forecast of things to come for conservatives and people of faith.

Obama is given another four years in the White House!

WHAT ELSE HAS TO BE SAID TO ALERT AMERICANS TO THE REAL STATE OF AMERICA ! ! !

    Mexican origin gang and one of the most powerful drug cartels in the world. Killing people is daily routie for Los Zetas members. As of 2012, Los Zetas has control over 11 states in Mexico, making it the drug cartel with the largest territory in the country


islam wants world sharia

Muslim Immigration To U.S. Staggering — More Evidence Obama Is Attempting To Change America Read more below http://www.westernjournalism.com/muslim-immigration-u-s-staggering-evidence-obama-attempting-change-america/#qZrIxZH05ip05oEJ.99

Between 2010 and 2013, the Obama administration imported almost 300,000 new immigrants from Muslim nations — more immigrants than the U.S. let in from Central America and Mexico combined over that period… Many of the recent Muslim immigrants are from terrorist hot spots like Iraq, where the Islamic State operates. From 2010-2013, Obama ushered in 41,094 Iraqi nationals from there… House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mike McCaul called the new policy “a federally sanctioned welcome party to potential terrorists.”
Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/muslim-immigration-u-s-staggering-evidence-obama-attempting-change-america/#qZrIxZH05ip05oEJ.99

 

 Federal Judge Rules With Grassfire

A federal judge agrees with Grassfire and millions of other law-abiding citizens by ruling President Obama’s “Executive Amnesty” decree is unconstitutional and illegal!Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell said of the ruling, “it underscores what the President has already acknowledged publicly 22 times: He doesn’t have the authority to take the kinds of actions he once referred to as ‘ignoring the law’ and ‘unwise and unfair.’

In that same breathe, McConnell also had a message for Senate Democrats who voiced opposition to the President’s lawless actions, urging them to “end their partisan filibuster and fully fund the Department of Homeland Security.”Prior to the Southern Court ruling, Democrats were filibustering House legislation that funded DHS, but prevented taxpayer dollars from being used on executive amnesty. With Obama’s “Executive Amnesty” plan now suspended, Senate Republicans like John Thune (R-SD) are calling for Democrats to “lay down their arms and drop their filibuster of the House-passed DHS funding bill.”

+ + Message To Senate Democrats: “Stop Obama’s Executive Amnesty”!

Despite the ruling, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), says Democrats are still “united” and plan to continue blocking the DHS funding bill that would stop Obama’s executive amnesty, adding, DHS funding “should not be used as ransom by Republicans, period.”In other words, Democrats will continue to aid and abet Obama’s criminal activity.

That doesn’t sit well with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who says filibustering Democrats need to take a hard look at what they are doing and who they are affecting. “At a time when we face grave national security threats, at home and abroad, it is the height of irresponsibility for the Democrats to block this funding in an extreme attempt to save Obama’s amnesty, which a federal judge has just declared illegal.”

If you are outraged at the dangerous lengths Senate Democrats are willing go to save Obama’s illegal amnesty plan, email and call your senator and congressman and tell them to stop illegal immigration.

 

 

.

The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms,”

government by deceptionIs the Obama administration secretly negotiating treaties with globalist bodies, in violation of the Unites States Constitution? That’s the question on the minds of a number of political watchdogs, who argue that the White House is doing an end run around Congress and the American people in order to lock the country into agreements on the environment, fishing rights and even gun ownership with the United Nations (UN).

On February 7, former Bill Clinton campaign manager Dick Morris dissected a host of international “sneaky treaties” that, he says, “Once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.”

The most egregious of these would be U.S. membership in the International Criminal Court (ICC). This tribunal that has jurisdiction across the globe could prosecute elected U.S. leaders for entering into a war without UN approval. These “crimes of aggression”—even if approved by Congress under an official declaration of war—could still land the president or cabinet members in prison.

The ICC’s reach supersedes the rulings of any U.S. court, thereby posing a serious threat to constitutionally-guaranteed trials by a jury of our peers. A lesser-known aspect of this treaty involves, ironically, the use of America’s military to wage aggressions against those deemed war criminals by the ICC.

Already, Barack Obama has buckled to this ruling body by sending armed forces into Africa to execute an arrest warrant for alleged war criminal Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda. Yet rather than having Congress authorize sending U.S. men and women into action overseas, Obama bypassed them and opted to exert his “executive power.” He justified this decision as an “international obligation.”

Who is our president obligated to: American citizens or the New World Order? Another treaty, one advocating children’s rights, would—at least superficially—protect youths from kidnapping, prostitution and human trafficking. However, if a 14-member panel determines that certain countries like the U.S. aren’t providing enough funding for food, education or clothing to underdeveloped nations, the UN could levy a tax on American citizens and then redistribute this money to Third World countries. Not surprisingly,

A leading proponent for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is Hillary Clinton. In her book It Takes a Village, she wrote: “The village must act in the place of parents. It accepts these responsibilities in all our names through the authority we vest in the government.” These 14-member overlords could also weigh in on what religious teachings, educational material and social attitudes are acceptable.

Interestingly, Hillary’s views on child-rearing dovetail with those of the UNCRC. “They [parents] have to be shown how to do it,” wrote Hillary. “They have to be, in a sense, re-parented to be able to be a good parent.” Hillary is so distrustful of traditional families that she further elaborated.: “Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal diseases or employment and others where the decision—or lack of one—will significantly reflect the child’s future should not be made unilaterally by the parent.”

If these social-engineering thoughts aren’t horrifying enough, Hillary remarked at the University of Texas in 1993, “Let us be willing to remold society by redefining what it means to be a human being in the 20th century, moving into the new millennium.” A third troublesome treaty is known as the Law of the Sea Treaty, or LOST. Over 162 nations have signed or ratified it. Many other nations, such as Turkey and Israel, have stayed out of it. Obama sidesteps the Constitution yet again via executive order

. LOST is being promoted by another Clinton crony, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, who seeks to surrender seas off the coasts of the United States to UN overseers. Although the complexities of this treaty are far too vast to elaborate on here, in a nutshell LOST will acquiesce to a UN council where U.S. companies can drill for oil or fish and which technologies must become global property via a form of intellectual eminent domain. The UN could tax up to 50% of royalties from offshore drilling and redistribute these proceeds to poorer nations.

In another example, the Outer Space Code of Conduct could seriously interfere with the U.S. implementing any type of anti-missile shield to protect itself. Using the feel-good premise of decreasing space debris, in actuality this treaty would jeopardize the U.S. military’s ability to deploy platform-based weapons in space

When it comes to China and India’s rapid development of their space programs and offensive weaponry, are Americans willing to forfeit their safety to the edicts of UN bureaucrats that already view us with such outright enmity?

Obama and Hillary are also targeting Americans’ firearms ownership.

In early April, Sen. Rand Paul issued a statement on this: “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently announced the Obama administration will be working hand in glove with the United Nations to pass a new ‘UN Small Arms Treaty.’ ” The UN Small Arms Treaty is designed to “register, ban and confiscate firearms owned by private citizens like you,” wrote Paul.

Hillary more of the sameSecretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation,

If Washington signs onto this, added Paul, the U.S. would be forced to “enact tougher licensing requirements . . . confiscate and destroy all ‘unauthorized’ civilian firearms . . . ban the trade, sale and private ownership of semiautomatic weapons . . .[and] create an international gun registry.” – See more at: http://americanfreepress.net/?p=4207#sthash.KWS4wdOi.dpuf

update:The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contempt for our fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms,”

The Obama administration is once again demonstrating its contemptLaughing at us not with us.

when your country is telling you no

Obama’s shariah czar Mohamed Magid hands diversity award to Jew-hater Dawud Walid

Originally posted on Florida Seniors Government Watch:

Obamas sharia czar WASHINGTON PLANS FAVOR FOR SHARIAH-RUN SOCIETY Latest from Brunei’s Muslim regime: Banishing Christmas decorations

via Washington plans favor for Shariah-run society.

UNITED NATIONS – On Christmas Eve, religious police in the capital city of the Islamic Sultanate of Brunei ordered business owners to remove Christmas decorations or face arrest.

When Brunei, a tiny oil-rich fiefdom that shares the island of Borneo with Malaysia and Indonesia, adopted Shariah law earlier this year, some questioned whether the harsh penal code that includes amputation and stoning for blasphemy and other crimes would actually be enforced since a third of Brunei’s population is not Muslim. The crackdown on Christmas this year answers the question.

Restaurant and café owners in Brunei’s capital city of Bandar Seri Begawan told reporters they were ordered to remove Christmas decorations from their establishments by authorities who cited Shariah Penal Code Order 2013 prohibiting exhibits of decorations that are…

View original 510 more words

Obama’s FCC Internet Takeover Will Radically Change America

obama and vallery“Net Neutrality” is the first major step of federal control over the Internet.

With the FCC’s decision Thursday to give the federal government massive control over the regulation of the Internet, this has now happened.

As Dick Morris explains in “Power Grab,” this is truly a pivotal move.

Major Internet companies are now subservient to an FCC controlled by Obama and his most liberal minions.

Even after decisive victories for the GOP in the midterm elections, the radical agenda of Obama is being advanced daily.

Morris predicted all of this in “Power Grab.”

Morris’ powerful exposé of Barack Obama — Power Grab: Obama’s Dangerous Plan for a One-Party Nation — rips the lid off of Obama’s scary plan to re-create our nation with a “ruling” single party: the Democratic Party and its most liberal wing!

Obama was not concerned about the congressional elections. He is concerned about the levers of Democratic power, such as getting illegal aliens to vote, increasing entitlements and dependency, intimidating political enemies, and controlling the very circuits of a free society. . . such as the Internet!

This is why Dr. Ben Carson is joining with Dick Morris and warning Americans about this new threat.

Ben Carson said: “I read ‘Power Grab’ and couldn’t put it down. It thoroughly reveals President Obama’s hidden agenda.”

Many believe that Barack Obama is a lame duck in his last two years.

As Dick Morris reveals, these last two years are absolute critical for Obama’s master plan. . . which is to lock out the Republicans permanently from the White House!

“Power Grab” has become a #1 best-seller and was instantly sold out at Barnes & Noble and other booksellers its first week out.

Get your copy of this best-seller with this offer.

Keep reading below or Go Here Now!

In this blockbuster book, Morris exposes Obama’s ultimate agenda — to turn America into a banana republic ruled by one party.

Ben Carson says it bluntly: “‘Power Grab’ is a must-read for all Americans.”

Dire Warning: Obama Close to Goal

Dick Morris and his co-author, Eileen McGann, say their book is a dire warning to the nation about Obama’s real intentions.

“Power Grab” makes a convincing case that Obama has an overarching strategy in pushing his liberal agenda — one that grabs power from our traditional and bipartisan institutions in favor of a single party: his Democratic Party.

According to Morris and McGann, Obama has promulgated his plan by:

Implementing the biggest power grab of all, Obamacare — one that creates a new, permanent dependency class

Pushing for “immigration reform” that will quickly tip the delicate balance of power in favor of Democrats, giving them a permanent lock on the White House

Pushing “red” states aside by gaining federal control over state-run education systems using the Common Core curriculum

Asserting more control over private business by granting the EPA global governance in the name of climate change, affecting every aspect of our lives

Obama vetoed the Keystone XL bill, effectively blocking energy independence — thereby slowing economic growth and breeding more dependency. And it was predicted in “Power Grab.”

Gutting welfare reform and keeping millions on the dole

Silencing critics by turning over regulation of the Internet to the FCC and eventually the United Nations

The authors write: “Obama is a left-wing president who is desperately determined to impose his radical agenda to transform our democratic government and free market economy into his socialist-style ideal before leaving office in 2016.”

“He’s a president who is obsessively fixated on keeping the left in permanent power by turning our two-party system into a one-party monopoly.”

Obama is close to achieving his goal, Morris and McGann warn. Only you can stop him.

by: Dick Morris and Ben Carson

when your country is telling you no

Patient’s Merely “product” to be Manipulated by Law to Produce Profits for all of the Special Interests.

 

large group we wont take it any more

Eblen Carol · Commented on the Center for the Public Integrity

Unfortunately, the elderly/disabled on Medicare/Medicaid have no idea that their social safety net is managed to provide profit for all of the special interests involved —and we, the patients, are on the bottom of the pile and merely “product” to be manipulated by law to produce profits for all of the special interests.

Unless some of the responsible reporters in Big Media and Big Newspapers tell the American people what is going on, we aren’t going to have this discussion about the constitutionality of unilaterally hastening the dealth of the elderly/disabled on Medicare/Medicaid for the fiscal expediency of the special interests, are we?

When both political parties are complicit, the Executive becomes complicit, and nobody wants to rock the boat If we stopped the unsuccessful spending of our Tax dollars. would the under-the-radar involuntary euthanasia of American elderly/disabled citizens on Medicare/Medicaid be necessary?

The Forgotten Ones

The Forgotten Ones

Because The Congress never clarified the provisions of the 1991 Patient Self Determination Act and the States interpreted it in many different ways, the old folks were left hanging out there on a limb.
Within the past few years, several states have passed legislation to prevent unilateral DNR policies but we see Massachusetts General has had a unilateral DNR Code Policy since 2006 that has, of course, never been tested in the courts. Apparently the concept of “managed medical care” and “managed death” for profit is the new vision of the for-profit sector of our health care industry

DNR “Do Not Resuscitate”, Advance Directives, Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment & End-Of-Life Decision-Making Process, Clin 08.01 Effective Date: March 05, 2009

on of the for-profit sector of our health care industry.

If unilateral DNRs are legal under our Medicare Contract, and this is a contract we can’t refuse, shouldn’t we, the patients be informed when life-saving and life-extending treatments will not be paid for by Medicare and their partner, Big Insurance so that we can pay privately to live as long as is medically possible if this is our desire?

The shame is that there are NO Whistle Blowers who will blow the whistle for the people. We need to get Big Insurance out of our social safety net —-but how?

 

Hillary more of the same

The same framework for the federal regulation that now requires hospitals and other medical care facilities to pressure patients—particularly elderly patients—to sign Living Wills (i.e., euthanasia provisions).That was in Hillary Care ,Today is in ObamaCare .

In violation of the Hippocratic Oath, doctors regularly euthannize patients deemed to be terminally-ill. Among the list of terminal illnesses that can trigger the Living Will death-with-dignity provision is old-age.

Threats, deals got drug companies on board with Obama

By Paige Winfield Cunningham – The Washington Times – Thursday, May 31, 2012

Top administration officials cut backroom deals with the nation’s top drug companies to win support for President Obama’s health care overhaul, threatening them with steeper taxes if they resisted and promising a better financialHYPERLINK \l “” deal for the industry if they acquiesced, according to internal documents released by The House.In some of the key deals, Mr. Obama agreed to drop his long-standing support for letting Americans buy cheaper foreign prescription drugs — something the pharmaceutical industry vehemently opposed — and the drugmakers promised to mount a public campaign to sell the public on the healthHYPERLINK \l “” care legislation.

The material released by House members provides a rare insider look at the wheeling and dealing on Capitol Hill as Mr. Obama tried to shepherd his bill through Congress, in the face of near-unanimous GOP opposition.

The details emerged as House Republicans released emailsHYPERLINK \l “” it obtained during a yearlong investigation into the closed-door negotiations between the White House and lobbyists for drug companies. House Republicans said those negotiations violated the promises of transparency Mr. Obama made during his 2008 campaign.

“We really have now been able to build a case that there was a sequential, planned, organized strategyHYPERLINK \l “” for the White House to trade policy for politics, if you will,” said Rep. Michael C. Burgess, Texas Republican. “They were willing to give up on things they thought were sound principles.”

The documents show that former White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina and health care reform point woman Nancy-Ann DeParle told drug company representatives in June 2009 that if they didn’t cooperate on the initiative, Mr. Obama would demand a 15 percent rebate on Medicare drugs and push to remove the tax deduction for direct consumer advertising — items that could cost the industry $100 billion over the next decade.

The threats appeared to work, and the parties met the next month to hammer out a final deal. The drug companiesHYPERLINK \l “” agreed to pay higher Medicaid rebates and a new health care reform fee to raise $80 billion for the legislation, and promised to run positive television ads about it.

In exchange, the White House gave them direct input into the new policies and promised to let them continue to set their own drug prices.

Ms. DeParle threw in an extra prize HYPERLINK \l “” to reward pharmaceutical companies for their cooperation, saying she and other officials decided to reverse the administration’s position on drug importation, which Mr. Obama supported while running for president.

“I made the decision, based on how constructive you guys have been, to oppose importation on this bill,” she wrote to Bryant Hall, chief lobbyist for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).