Funding Pakistan, but Military Suspends U.S. Tuition Assistance

The disconnect in Washington continues. While warning us of increased security lines at airports, the TSA pushed through a $50 million deal to buy new uniforms. The USDA warned they will not be able to monitor the food you eat, but will forge ahead with its partnership with the Mexican government on food stamps. There’s also the release of thousands of illegal immigrants from jail by the Homeland Security department, which has posted more than 100 job openings this month alone.There’s the closing the White House to public tours, but they’re giving 139 staffers six-figure salaries! The list of hypocrisy in this government goes on and on, but this latest example of sequester hype may take the cake.

The Pentagon is cutting assistance for American troops! According to members of Congress, the Marines spent $47 million to help graduate 50,000 military members last year.That money represents just a tenth of a percent of the Pentagon’s budget.The Army offered similar assistance by giving $4,500 annually for courses and more than 200,000 soldiers participated in the program.

Here’s the hypocrisy of it all

We’re cutting these programs, but are still spending nearly $13 million on education aid in Pakistan! Where hatred against the U.S. is at record levels! That $13 million is just a fraction of the $370 million we’ve spent on all forms of nondefense aid to Pakistan in 2012, and another $1.5 Billion to Egypt. This administration is really missing a golden opportunity here with this sequester. Instead of acting like a two-year old and throwing a temper tantrum, laying people off, closing the White House, and making other big spectacle cuts, why not really look at where the money is going.Look at smart ways to meet the new budget requirements.

No one’s telling you to never spend another dime. We just ask that for once you spend that money wisely!

Obama has left us with an awesome feeling of depression when we look at the national debt and realize that he’s planning on “solving” that problem by taking whatever else he let us keep during his first four years

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2013/03/19/funding-pakistan-military-suspends-us-tuition-assistance#ixzz2OQZrwQq9

Now they want to kill the elderly when they come to collect the money due them in their old age.

Agendized bureaucrats and their minions in the medical community do not possess an inherent right to hasten that journey because they view us as a drain on the financial coffers of the State, or because stupid men believe the populations of the nations are responsible for cyclic weather change and floods and droughts. And, by reducing the population of the United States we will somehow make the world a better place. The sole purpose for euthanizing the elderly is to reduce the drain on a bankrupt Social Security and Medicare system. The government of the United States not only stole the Social Security Trust Fund to finance the Progressive Democrats Welfare State, now they want to kill the elderly when they come to collect the money due them in their old age.

hillary-in-blue-hijab-300x205

Bill Clinton was so concerned about AIDS that on Nov. 12, 1993 as Hillary’s Health Security Act was in its death throes, he suggested that a provision be added to the bill mandating a one-time screening for AIDS be done on all US citizens. Clinton also proposed having the CDC require every citizen with full-blown AIDS to be confined to AIDS sanatoriums until they were no longer contagious, or until they died. The sanatoriums were to be situated in sparsely-populated areas of the country. Upon admission, patients would be required to sign living wills with euthanasia previsions that could be triggered by proxy when their healthcare providers deemed them to be “terminal.” The AIDS provision Clinton wanted to add to Hillarycare does not appear to be in Obamacare. However, the same federal Health Board that will be charged with the responsibility of doing the cost analysis on the merits of keeping the elderly alive versus denying them lifesaving procedures will also be responsible for preparing a cost analysis on the value of keeping terminally-ill AIDS victims alive on the public dime.It’s interesting to note that the gay and lesbian population actively campaigned for Clinton in 1992 and 1996.  Just as- the elderly—the primary target of the Obamacare Health Board—actively campaigned, and voted, for Barack Obama in 2008.               , And try to convince the gay and lesbian community that, if Hillarycare hadn’t failed, most of them would be spending their final days in an isolated AIDS sanatorium somewhere in the Badlands. And the blue-haired seniors in Florida and Arizona may find that their next flare-up of irritable bowel syndrome, or their next broken hip, might land them in a terminal care unit of their local hospital where those who linger while dying go to die, instead of sitting around bragging about their latest hospital adventure at the assisted living center.

Obama_1_nose_in_the_air_cropped  Obamacare, which supersede all current health options (including those offered by private carriers) enacted into law, your signing a living will that requires all extraneous means be used to prolong your life will not save, or prolong, your life for one minute if the Health Board rules that you have exhausted your “healthcare options.” The Health Board will hold the power of life and death over healthcare recipients who are construed to have either terminal or catastrophic illnesses, or, if they are victims of expensive chronic illnesses that historically drain financial resources without healing the patient, the Board will have the right to deny procedures or surgery even though they may enhance the quality of life of the patient

The 15-member Obama Health Board was created under HR 1, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The board will gain its authority from HR 3200, The America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. The board, which the legislation purports to be an advisory panel created to perform cost analysis of all phases of the stimulus plan is, in reality, a panel of physicians and healthcare providers whose role it will be to determine at what point it is no longer cost productive to sanction the use of taxpayer dollars to save the life of a patient who requires a surgical procedure, medical procedure or lifesaving medications to correct a medical malady that threatens the life of an elderly patient or someone with a catastrophic illness.

The American people—thanks to Hillary Clinton—now have a more complex understanding of how, by design, universal healthcare puts into place the foundation of regulations that will allow government to control not only the lives of the people, but their mobility as well. Universal healthcare provides government with the platform that will surreptitiously allow them to, ever so slowly, steal the liberty of the People under the guise of taking care of them.

Like Obamacare, Hillarycare also contained provisions to ration healthcare to the elderly and also to catastrophically-ill people whom statistics said would drain the finite resources of the public healthcare system and bankrupt it if caps were not placed on catastrophic care.The specific language that deals with the rationing of healthcare to the elderly found in The America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (which was drafted in part by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

 

Massive fraud on the part of our nation’s leaders, who have plundered every cent of the Social Security Trust Fund

Massive fraud on the part of our nation’s leaders, who have plundered every cent of the Social Security Trust Fund and the surplus that was specifically earmarked 1983 by President Regan for the retirement of the baby boomers.”future Presidents knew and took the money regardless.
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.
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.In a 1960 ruling by the United States Supreme Court, the court ruled that nobody has a “contractual earned right“ to Social Security benefits.
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.”
Obama has proved he has no use for the elderly and Hillary has been heard to say some deeply offensive comments on America’s elderly. Obama Care was never about us,it is about power for the progressive Democrats.as they speed to their Global Government.
The ruling class Progressive Democrat elites a have promised everything and delivered nothing but failure and economic slavery to our bloated leviathan called the U.S. Government

Barack Obama: The Naked Emperor

Somalia-drones-ObamaBarack Obama: The Naked Emperor
By David Icke

I am writing this in the last days of 2008 as I watch with dismay as vast numbers of people across the world, including many who should know better, have been duped by the mind-game called Operation Obama. Even people with some understanding of the conspiracy have said things like: ‘Well, at least he’s not Bush’ and ‘Well, at least it’s great to see such a new spirit of hope’. No, he’s not Bush – he’s potentially far more dangerous; and what is the use of a spirit of ‘hope’ if it’s based on a lie? In fact, what use is ‘hope’ at all? Obama’s wife, Michelle, who I wouldn’t trust to tell me the date in a calendar factory, said that ‘everything begins and ends with hope’. Utter nonsense. Hope is a meaningless emotion because its fruits are always in the future and, by definition, never in the NOW. Hope is like riding a carousel horse; no matter how fast you go you never get closer to the one in front. The idea, however, is to persuade you to stay on the horse, despite the evitable disappointment, in the ‘hope’ that things will change. But they don’t because the very system is designed to prevent it.

That’s the way ‘hope’ is employed by the dastardly and devious- take the crap we are giving you now in the ‘hope’ that things will get better (but we know they won’t). Barack Obama is a purveyor of ‘hope’ because his masters want the people to accept what they are given now in the hope that good times will come. Just do what we demand, oops, sorry, Barack demands, and in return he’ll inspire you to hope that it is all leading to the Promised Land. It isn’t, but, by the time you realise that, it’s too late.

What terrifies the manipulators is that people will abandon hope, as a future, sometime-never projection, and start to demand fairness, justice and freedom now. To avoid this nightmare they need to keep those desires as something to aspire to, not to actually have. Thus, their man, Obama, sells ‘hope’ as a diversion technique, a holding position, to keep the masses from truly rebelling. We have no job, no food on the table and our home has been foreclosed, but at least we have ‘hope’. Phew, thank goodness for that. ‘I’m hungry, mum, can I have some hope, please?’ ‘I’m so sorry, darling, you can’t have hope today, only tomorrow – hope is always tomorrow.’ ‘So will I eat tomorrow, mum?’ ‘We can hope so now, dear, but when we get to tomorrow, we can only hope it’s the next day.’ On and on it goes. That’s how ‘hope’ works. Or rather doesn’t.

Obama’s predominant mantra has been ‘change’. Indeed, his massively-funded, record-breaking campaign was based on that one word – change. This is a technique used by Bill Clinton and many others and it is highly effective because, at any point, the system ensures that most people are not happy with the way life is. So, when you don’t like the status quo, ‘change’ can be a potent message, even if, like Obama, you don’t say what it means. It has been vital to his success, and that of his controllers, that he has never specified what his ‘hope’, ‘change’, and that other mind-control trigger-word, ‘believe’, were referring to in terms of policy and the way society in general will be affected. Hope for what? Change what? Believe in what? To answer those questions with specifics would have been fatal to Obama’s appeal.

I studied the military/government mind-control programmes and techniques in great detail for many years during the late- 1990s and across 2000, and the Obama ‘phenomenon’ is the most blatant mass-mind control operation you could wish to see.

At its core the plan has been to make Obama the focus of everything you hope for, believe in and want to change. This is why it has been crucial for him not to specify and detail what is meant by his ‘hope, ‘change’ and ‘believe’. However, I can tell you what those words mean in the context of the Obama mind-game. They mean whatever you decide they mean or want them to mean. The idea is for you to project all that you stand for onto him and so he becomes the symbol of you and how you see the world.
Specifics would destroy that ‘I am whatever you want me to be’ scenario and so you don’t get any detail, just ‘hope’, ‘change’, and ‘believe’. They don’t want him to be seen only as ‘the Messiah’; they also want him to be Abraham Lincoln, JFK, or Buddha – anyone you choose to project on him, for he is a blank page, blank screen and empty suit. Obama is a make-your-own, do-it-yourself leader, a projection of your own mind. (If you are still asleep, that is. If you are in any way awake, he’s an open book.) ‘I am whatever you want me to be, for I am just a projection of you. And I got a big smile, see.’
There is no more powerful way of manipulating people than to tell them what they want to hear and to keep shut about anything they wouldn’t like. Double-glazing salesmen are trained to pick up in general conversation what their target likes and dislikes and to respond accordingly in the way the product is sold. The technique is simply to tell the potential buyer what you have gleaned they want to be told.
Obama comes from the same stable, but on a massively bigger scale and with a whole network of advisors and controllers steeped in the art of manipulating minds, opinions and actions. Obama’s written-for-him speeches are not from the heart, but from the autocue. The ‘heart’ bit comes from extensive training and his Bill Clintonesque ability to ‘mean it when he says it’, a state of delivery that goes beyond mere acting.

Tony Blair was trained in the same way. But if you take a step back and look at these people dispassionately you can clearly see the techniques they consciously employ. Blair is the most blatant fraud in the way he delivers a line, stops in mid-sentence for emphasis and looks down for fake emotional effect. Obama is a little more slick, but, from where I have been looking this past year, not much. And how have people not seen those cold eyes just above the painted smile? You can watch his mind working, turning between autocue screens to his left and right, then straight down the camera for his key messages. From-the-heart orators don’t do that; they are too immersed in what they are feeling and saying to give even a passing thought to where they are looking or how the line is delivered. I worked in television for more than a decade, often reading autocue while a director spoke in my ear telling me what cameras to look at. I have, since the early 1990s, spoken my truth on public stages across the world. I know, therefore, the difference between artificial autocue delivery and body language and talking from the heart without a script.

Obama, I repeat, is coming from the autocue, not the heart. Obama’s speeches are a mass of mind-control techniques and Neuro-Linguistic-Programming, or NLP, and they are carefully constructed to implant beliefs and perceptions into the mind of the viewer. Click here for a description of his psycho-babble, headed An Examination of Obama’s Use of Hidden Hypnosis Techniques in His Speeches.
As I keep emphasising, the whole Obama circus is an exercise in mass mind control and it has been so successful because so many people live their lives in a permanent state of trance.

All of which brings me to the parallels with Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and similar regimes throughout history. Obama may not look like Hitler, nor sound like Hitler, but the themes are just the same. Germany was in a terrible state economically and militarily in the 1930s in the aftermath of the First World War and the reparations inflicted on the country . From amid the chaos came the man that Germans saw then in much the same way that so many see Obama today. His name was Adolf Hitler and his oratory and rhetoric, again supported by a ritualistic presentation founded on mind-control techniques, made him appear to be the German ‘messiah’, the German Obama.

Hitler promised ‘change’, ‘hope’ and something to ‘believe in’ amidst the consequences of war and financial collapse. He spoke to vast rallies of adoring followers and a mass movement emerged in support of Hitler’s vision of a new tomorrow.
As the writer Webster Tarpley points out, fascism in its true sense is not just a Police State imposed by a tiny hierarchy. It might end up like that, but first it is brought to power by a mass movement from within the people who have no understanding of what the ‘change’, hope’ and ‘believe’ they are being offered really means. They just know that they want some because, as with Obama, they make it mean what they want it to mean. Only later do they see, to their horror, what they have signed up for. Obama’s America …

There may seem to be a world of difference, but the techniques are just the same.

Obama is far more dangerous than Bush because he can sell a line to those who are in the trance while Boy Bush could not do that on anything like the same scale. Bush was a transparent with no communication skills He could never be the figurehead to inspire a mass movement of the people to support some vacuous ‘hope’, ‘change’ and ‘believe’ when they don’t even know what those words are supposed to mean. But Obama clearly can, because he has. One of ‘his’ (his controllers’) prime targets are the young, just as they were with the Nazis and the Hitler Youth Movement. If you think this parallel is far-fetched then have a look at this video to see how extreme Obama worship has already become for some young people. Hitler Youth was just the same.
 WorldNetDaily website reported: ‘The official website of President-Elect Barack Obama, Change.gov, originally announced that Obama would “require” all middle school through college students to participate in community service programs; but after a flurry of blogs protested children being drafted into Obama’s proposed youth corps, the website’s wording was softened.   Originally, under the tab “America Serves”, Change.gov read, “President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in under served schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. “Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year,” the site announced.’

Obama said in a speech in July 2008 in Colorado Springs that he wanted to see a ‘civilian national security force’ that would be as powerful and well-funded as the Marines, Navy and Air Force. As Joseph Farah, founder of WorldNetDaily, wrote: ‘If we’re going to create some kind of national police force as big, powerful and well funded as our combined U.S. military forces, isn’t this rather a big deal? I thought Democrats generally believed the U.S. spent too much on the military. How is it possible their candidate is seeking to create some kind of massive but secret national police force that will be even bigger than the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force put together?
Is Obama serious about creating some kind of domestic security force bigger and more expensive than that? If not, why did he say it? What did he mean?’ Obama meant, amid the flowery words, that he’s not in favour of either peace or freedom. He is a front-man demagogue for the same force that controlled Boy Bush, Clinton, Father Bush, Carter, ad infinitum; but the difference is that he has been hyped to such hysterical proportions that he will be allowed to get away with far more than they were, at least until reality dawns on the mass ranks of his hypnotised supporters. And, clearly, that could take some time. The cabal will be anxious to squeeze every minute from Obama’s honeymoon period and we expected to see events move quickly after his inauguration in January.

When I was a journalist 30 years ago, I came across a technique that some tabloid newspaper reporters would use to get someone to speak with them. They would work in pairs with the first one knocking on the door of some distressed family who didn’t want to talk with the media. He would tell them he was from a newspaper he didn’t really work for and treat them with aggression and contempt to make them even more upset. He would then leave and his colleague would knock on the door, tell them the real newspaper he was from, and act like Mr. Nice Guy. He would say that he understood completely how upsetting the other man must have been, but ‘if you will only speak to me exclusively I will make sure that the other man, nor anyone like him, won’t bother you again’. They usually agreed and the scam was complete.
Much the same thing is happening with regard to Bush and Obama.The Illuminati controlled Bush for eight years and led the country into foreign wars and financial chaos (bad guy/problem); now the ‘Democratic’ wing, led by the infamous Zbigniew Brzezinski, has brought forth the ‘saviour’, Barack Obama, to lead us into the sunshine with ‘hope’ and ‘change’ (good guy/solution). Hence even some more aware people say: ‘At least he’s not Bush’.

Apart from the unspecified ‘hope, ‘change’ and ‘believe’, few have any idea what Obama’s policies are. Public perception comes from having an ‘image’ of him, or a self-projection, not the fine print because Obama doesn’t do fine print until the votes are cast and even then he will hide it in his windbag words. :There is an ‘image’ that Obama is against war, but no he’s not. He says he’s against the invasion of Iraq, though we saw what he did about that in office. How can a man calling for more troops, including European troops, to be sent to Afghanistan be against war? He has also said he is prepared to bomb Pakistan and use military force to stop Iran building nuclear weapons and he has appointed Hillary ‘Let’s bomb ‘em’ Clinton (Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations) as Secretary of State and re-appointed Bush’s ‘Let’s bomb ‘em’ Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates (Bilderberg Group, Council on Foreign Relations).

So that’s the ‘change we can believe in’, then. Obama isn’t against war at all and, if his controllers have their way, he will engage the US in even more foreign conflicts with the troops sent to their deaths, and the deaths of their targets, on a wave of oratory from the dark suit with the black face who would never go where he’s sending them.

He claims to be a ‘uniter’, but unity in and of itself is not the issue. Nazi Germany had unity in the early years of the war, but was that a good thing? What matters is what the unity is designed to achieve and Obama’s much-vaunted ‘unity’ is to ‘inspire’ a mass movement to support the Orwellian plans of the Illuminati.
His constant rhetoric about ‘bringing people together’ can be used to justify the ‘coming together’ of the United States, Canada and Mexico in the North American Union;
it can be used to concede America’s sovereignty to the ‘coming together’ of the ‘world community’ (world dictatorship);
it can be used to unite the believers in their opposition and condemnation of non-believers, which is precisely what happened in Nazi Germany with the book-burning and violent suppression of those who challenged the Hitler regime.
. The potential of Obama Mania is endless when it comes to selling fascism as ‘hope, change’, ‘freedom’ and a ‘New America’, or ‘New World’ Order
it would not be difficult for Obama in the current climate.He’s already talking about compulsory community service for middle school, high school and college students and creating a peoples’ army in America. That’s why I say Obama is far more dangerous to freedom than Bush. In the last eight years Bush could only get part of the way to fascism – Obama has the potential to finish the job, for all the reasons I have mentioned and more.

You only have to look at the cabal behind Obama, and those he has already appointed to his administration team, to see what his ‘change’ is truly planned to be. His mentor, svengali and main controller is Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, and the co-founder, with David Rockefeller, of the Illuminati’s Trilateral Commission. Brzezinski has admitted publicly that he began to fund and train what he would call today ‘terrorists’ in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviet-controlled government in the capital, Kabul, in the late 1970s. The idea, he said, was to entice the Soviet Union to invade Afghanistan to protect the Kabul regime and thus give the rival superpower ‘their Vietnam’. The plan worked at the cost of a million Afghan lives during the Soviet occupation from 1979 to 1989, a consequence that troubles Brzezinski not at all.
Brzezinski’s ‘freedom fighters’ would become known as the ‘Mujahideen’ and later the Taliban and what is claimed to be ‘Al-Qaeda’. This is the man behind ‘anti-war’, Barack Obama. It was common knowledge that President Carter would do nothing involving foreign policy without the okay from Brzezinski, the co-founder of the Trilateral Commission which chose Carter for president. It is one of many great ironies of the Obama presidency that he was demanding massive troop reinforcements to be sent to Afghanistan to fight the Taliban terrorists who were initially armed, trained and organised by Brzezinski, the man behind Obama. As Morpheus says in The Matrix: ‘Fate, it seems, is not without its sense of irony’. if they are Brzezinski’s targets, they are Obama’s targets.

The Trilateral Commission and the wider Brzezinski network, including Illuminati fronts like the Ford Foundation, have now chosen Obama and the situation will be the same. Brzezinski will call the shots; Obama’s job is simply to sell them to the people. This is rather alarming when you think that it had been said Brzezinski wants to trigger a war involving Russia and China.?????

‘Obama’s’ policies come straight from Brzezinski’s books. Here is one Brzezinski quote you might recognise and it was made before Obama ran for president: ‘Needed social reassessment … can be encouraged by deliberate civic education that stresses the notion of service to a higher cause than oneself. As some have occasionally urged, a major step in that direction would be the adoption of an obligatory period of national service for every young adult, perhaps involving a variety of congressionally approved domestic or foreign good works.’
Now where have I heard that before? As an Illuminati operative, Brzezinski’s aim is to create a world government, central bank, currency and army – a global dictatorship – underpinned by a microchipped population connected to a global computer/satellite system. He wrote a book in 1970, Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, in which he described the global society that he and the Illuminati seek to impose:

‘The technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite, unrestrained by traditional values. Soon it will be possible to assert almost continuous surveillance over every citizen and maintain up-to-date complete files containing even the most personal information about the citizen. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities.’ He also said in the same book nearly 40 years ago: ‘Today we are again witnessing the emergence of transnational elites … [Whose] ties cut across national boundaries … It is likely that before long the social elites of most of the more advanced countries will be highly internationalist or globalist in spirit and outlook … The nation-state is gradually yielding its sovereignty … Further progress will require greater American sacrifices.
More intensive efforts to shape a new world monetary structure will have to be undertaken, with some consequent risk to the present relatively favorable American position.’
And what does his puppet, Obama, now say that Americans have to do to bring about ‘change’? ‘Make sacrifices’. As Mrs. Demagogue, Michelle, said: ‘We need a different leadership because our souls are broken. We need to be inspired … to make the sacrifices that are needed to push us to a different place.’ You can bet that this will include sacrificing more sovereignty and freedom on the road to the global dictatorship described by Brzezinski for decades.

Brzezinski’s son, Mark, was an ‘advisor’ to the Obama campaign (doing what his father told him) and, in line with the American one-party-state, his other son, Ian, was foreign policy advisor to the McCain campaign (doing what his father told him). His daughter, the Obama-supporting Mika Brzezinski, reported the campaign for MSNBC television.
 Obama has been the chosen one for a long time, a fact known only to a few in the deep inner circle, and his relationship with Brzezinski almost certainly goes back to the start of the 1980s when he attended the Ivy League, and big-time Illuminati, Columbia University where Brzezinski was head of the Institute for Communist Affairs. Obama simply will not talk in any detail about this period. He has been covertly funded and supported ever since by the Trilateral Commission and its network of foundations connecting into the Ford Foundation, for whom Obama’s mother worked.

And a question: Does anyone really believe that someone, a ‘man of the people’, would simply appear from apparently nowhere to run the slickest and best-funded presidential campaign in American history? He was chosen long ago by those who wish to enslave the very people that Obama says he wants to ‘set free’.

The sources of Obama funding read like a Wall Street Who’s Who – Goldman Sachs, UBS, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, J.P. Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and so on. No wonder he went back on his pledge to accept the limitations of public funding for his campaign and instead took the no-limit option of ‘private’ funding.
And those people are going to support a candidate who does not represent their best interests?? Oh please.

Obama and his seasoned network of professional manipulators, sorry his ‘campaign team’, sold the lie that he had refused to take funding from ‘lobbyists’, those who are paid to ensure that politicians frame legislation, or block it, in the interests of their clients.

But like everything that surrounds Obama, past and present, it’s a sleight of hand and mouth. They funnelled vast sums of money into the Obama accounts through law firms that represent lobbyists and lobby groups. It provided ‘plausible denial’ about funding from lobbyists while the money poured in from lobby interests via third parties.

Then there is the Jewish financier, George Soros, the multi-billionaire associate of Brzezinski and closely involved with the funding and marketing of Obama. Soros is a former board member of the Illuminati’s Council on Foreign Relations and funds the European Council on Foreign Relations. In short, he is a major insider. You can certainly see the Soros/Brzezinski techniques in the Obama ‘revolution’ in the United States.
It was the complex and secretive network of Soros foundations and organisations, connected to the intelligence agencies of the US and Israel, that trained and funded students in the Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere in the art of mass protest and overthrowing governments. These manufactured protests were sold to the world as ‘peoples’ revolutions’, but it just so happened that when they were over and the old regime was removed the new leaders were those waiting in the wings all along – the puppets of Soros, Brzezinski and their associated networks.

Obama is just more of the same, a big smile with strings attached, and controlled completely by the Illuminati networks that chose him, trained him, sold him and provided his record funding. It was they who kept his many skeletons under wraps, like the gay sex and crack cocaine allegations of Larry Sinclair, and they will continue to do so as long as he jumps to their bidding.

Obama is just another Banksters’ moll prostituting himself for fame and power, and that’s why he supported the grotesque bail-out of the banking system and why he will always put their interests before the people. His financial advisors are straight from the Wall Street ‘A’ list, including Paul Adolph Volker (Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group), the head of the Federal Reserve from 1979 to 1987 and Illuminati to his fingertips. Obama has made him head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which is dominated by insiders, including its staff director and chief economist, Austan Goolsbee, a close Obama associate from the University of Chicago. Goolsbee is an initiate of the infamous Illuminati Skull and Bones Society at Yale University, which also includes Boy and Father Bush. It was Goolsbee who told the Canadian government not to worry about Obama’s attacks on the economic effects of ‘free trade’ agreements because his words were just to win votes in the election campaign.

Another Wall Street insider, the Zionist Timothy Geithner (Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations), was appointed by Obama to be his Treasury Secretary. Geithner was the President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, the most powerful in the private ‘Federal’ Reserve cartel that masquerades as America’s ‘central bank’, and he is a former employee of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the appalling Kissinger Associates. Obama’s Treasury team locks into the inner circle around the Zionist Robert Rubin, the Director and Senior Counselor of Citigroup, co-chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, and economic advisor to Obama. Rubin, a member of the Illuminati Bilderberg Group, was the man behind Citigroup’s strategy of expanding its risk in debt markets which forced it to be rescued by taxpayers’ money.

The very people who caused the financial crisis are being appointed by Obama to decide how to respond to it (more taxpayers’ money for them and their friends).

Rubin was Treasury Secretary to Bill Clinton and was followed in that post by Larry Summers (Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations) – another insider appointed to Obama’s team of ‘change’. Summers is a fanatical supporter of ‘free trade’ (freedom to exploit) and ‘globalisation’ (global dictatorship) and he wrote a memo in 1991, while chief economist to the World Bank, saying that the bank should dump toxic waste in poor countries because the costs of the ensuing ill-health and death would be lower. When the memo was made public, Brazil’s then-Secretary of the Environment, Jose Lutzenburger, told Summers: ‘Your reasoning is perfectly logical but totally insane … Your thoughts provide a concrete example of the unbelievable alienation, reductionist thinking, social ruthlessness and the arrogant ignorance of many conventional ‘economists’ concerning the nature of the world we live in …

If the World Bank keeps you as vice president it will lose all credibility. To me it would confirm what I often said …the best thing that could happen would be for the Bank to disappear.’ Lutzenburger was dismissed shortly after writing this letter while the horrific Summers was made US Treasury Secretary by Bill Clinton and now he has been appointed to head the National Economic Council by Mr. ‘change’, hope’ and ‘believe’ Obama. It’s all a fairy story.

Bloomberg.com reported that the Center for American Progress (CAP), housed just three blocks from the White House, has become a major source for policy initiatives for the Obama Democratic Party. Who funds the Center for American Progress? George Soros.

In fact, except in name and rhetoric, there is no difference in theme between the regimes of Bush and Obama. Bush policy was dictated through Illuminati ‘think tanks’ and so is Obama’s.

Rahm Emanuel, a Chicago-born Congressman, is the son of Benjamin M. Emanuel, who was a member of the murderous Jewish terrorist organisation, Irgun, which helped to bomb and terrorise Israel into existence. The Open Secrets website reports that Emanuel was the top House recipient in 2008 for election contributions from ‘hedge funds, private equity firms and the larger securities/investment industry’. Emanuel was also appointed by Bill Clinton to the board of the mortgage giant Freddie Mac in 2000 and his tenure coincided with a stream of scandals and financial irregularities. It famously had to be bailed out by the taxpayer amid the sub-prime mortgage debacle. Emanuel, like Obama himself, is an asset of the ‘Illinois Combine’, a cross-party network of politicians and business interests that conspires to manipulate Chicago politics for their own benefit. Even before taking over at the White House Emanuel faced calls for his resignation for alleged connections with the Rod Blagojevich scandal.

In December 2008 Blagojevich, the Illinois governor and associate of Obama, was arrested over a conspiracy involving massive corruption and moves to sell Obama’s Senate seat in Chicago made vacant by his election to the presidency. It is yet another example of the staggering web on ongoing and infamous corruption in Chicago by the very networks that spawned Obama.
Obama is uploading his Chicago mob and handing them key positions of national power and influence. And these guys don’t take prisoners. All of this may be many things, none of them pleasant, but ‘change’ it isn’t.

David Axelrod, Obama’s ‘narrator’ and handler. Obama is a monumental fraud who talks a good story, but lives a very different one. He won his first political office as a state senator in Chicago in 1996, not through the power of his policies, but by coldly abusing the electoral process. Instead of running against his opponents and letting the people decide, he had his cronies challenge hundreds of names on the nomination papers of his Democratic primary rivals until they were all forced off the ballot by technicalities. He then ran unopposed.

One of them, Gha-is Askia, says that Obama’s behaviour belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights: ‘Why say you’re for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates? He talks about honour and democracy, but what honour is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?’ Why? Because he would probably have lost and Obama isn’t interested in losing by playing fair. He wants to win by any means necessary.
The only voter-right he’s interested in is the right to vote for him. He has also used his hatchet-men like Axelrod to employ scandal to discredit opponents to ensure his election when the real scandal is the truth about Obama himself. He is a classically corrupt main-chancer spawned from the Chicago political cesspit. His close connections, therefore, to seriously dodgy ‘businessmen’ and fraudsters like the now-jailed slum landlord Tony Rezko are exactly what you would expect. Rezko, yet another snout in the trough of the Illinois Combine, has heavily funded Obama’s political career and that of the now-arrested Rod Blagojevich, and in return they have supported massive sums being paid to Rezko by Chicago taxpayers to run ‘public housing’. These properties were then allowed to fall into such a state of danger and disrepair, including sewage running into kitchen sinks, that they were deemed unfit for habitation by the often black poor that Obama was supposed to be representing as a Senator. Some buildings were so bad they had to be demolished.

Rezko and Obama toured the $1.6 million mansion in Hyde Park, Chicago, which the Obamas bought at $300,000 below the asking price in 2005 while the Rezkos purchased the adjoining land at the full asking price. Some of this land was later bought by the Obamas. Rezko contributed a quarter of a million dollars to Obama’s political career and served on Obama’s Senate campaign finance committee, which raised more than $14 million.

Then there is Obama’s close association with the terrorists, William Ayers and his wife Bernardine Dohrn. In the late sixties Ayers co-founded the terror organisation called the Weather Underground (also known as the Weathermen and similar derivatives) and launched a campaign of bombing public places like the Pentagon and the Capitol Building. Three members were killed making bombs in Greenwich Village.

In 1970 Ayers was said to have described their philosophy as: ‘Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that’s where it’s really at …’ Mr. Ayers himself comes from the home of ‘rich people’.

Bernardine Dohrn said this about the Charles Manson murders: ‘Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach.” William Ayers in 1968. On the day of 9/11 he told the New York Times that he didn’t regret the Weather Underground bombing campaign and believed they didn’t do enough.

The case against Ayers and Dohrn was thrown out because of then illegal wire-taps and Ayers is now a professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar. Ayers recruited Obama to serve as chairman on the $100 million Chicago Annenberg Challenge and they worked together for seven years handing out grants to the ‘educational’ projects of people like … William Ayers. They also worked together on another tax-exempt foundation, the Woods Fund in Chicago, which awarded grants to Obama’s own Trinity United Church, home to his controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright. Obama’s political career was effectively launched in 1995, just after he was made chairman of the Annenberg Challenge, at a meeting at the Chicago home of … William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They have been connected to his circle ever since if the truth be told.
. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge, run by Obama and Ayers, didn’t fund schools directly, but instead insisted that they affiliate with ‘external partners’ who were granted the money. These turned out to be far-left ‘community organisers’ so beloved of Bill Ayers and these groups included the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Obama also conducted ‘leadership training’ seminars with Acorn and its members began to become heavily involved in his political campaigns. It has also been behind efforts to ‘register voters’ (voters most likely to vote for Obama) and Nevada state officials raided Acorn’s Las Vegas office after election authorities accused the group of submitting multiple voter registrations with fake and duplicate names.

Microchip Implants, Are We are going down that slippery slope.

An article in the Orlando Examiner earns a posting here:
Obama’s Orwellian health care vision
October 30, 2009
By Jim Kouri
President, Barack Obama has promised a massive change to “modernize health care by making all health records standardized and electronic.” Part of his ambitious health care program will be the computerizing of medical records of all Americans in order to make the health care process more cost-effective.

But even proponents of Obama’s plan have mentioned that ensuring the privacy of patients’ records in a nationalized computer network will be tricky. There are obvious concerns about hackers and system failures. And new online health record systems, such as Google Health are not currently subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the national health privacy law.

This is especially true when you consider the advocates of implementing a program using so-called ‘v-chips containing all a person’s medical information. No one has said how much information will be contained in those implants. DNA? AIDS information?
With so much information already being compromised within government security systems, how can Obama possibly promise confidentiality of such records?

Although in five years the VeriChip Corp., the US company creating microchip implants, has yet to turn a profit, it has been investing heavily – up to $8 million a year – to create new markets.
The company’s executives have said their present push is the tagging of “high-risk” patients — diabetics and people with heart conditions or Alzheimer’s disease.
In a medical emergency, hospital staff could wave a reader over a patient’s arm, get an ID number, and then, via the Internet, enter a company database and pull up the person’s identity and medical history.
To doctors, a “starter kit” – complete with 10 hypodermic syringes, 10 VeriChips and a reader – costs $1,400, according to information on the Verichip web site. To patients, a microchip implant means a $200, out-of-pocket expense to their physician. Presently, chip implants aren’t covered by private healthcare insurance companies, or by Medicare and Medicaid.

For almost two years, the company has been offering hospitals free scanners, but acceptance has been limited. According to the company’s most recent SEC quarterly filing, 515 hospitals have pledged to take part in the VeriMed network, yet only 100 have actually been equipped and trained to use the system.
Some patients and their families are wondering why they should abandon noninvasive tags such as MedicAlert, a low-tech bracelet, that warns paramedics if patients have serious allergies or a chronic medical condition, for the microchip implants.

In early September, up to 200 Alzheimer’s patients living in the Palm Beach, Florida area were implanted with the microchip by the company VeriChip absolutely free.
The chip, which is about the size of a grain of rice, contains a 16-digit identification number which is scanned at a hospital. Once the number is placed in a database, it can provide crucial medical information. People are already lining up for the VeriChip, but it’s already stirred up controversy.
The story, carried by ABC TV News, caused one reporter to ask, “Is Big Brother watching?”

The relative permanence is a big reason why Marc Rotenberg, of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, is suspicious about the motives of the company, which charges an annual fee to keep clients’ records.
The company charges $20 a year for customers to keep a “one-pager” on its database — a record of blood type, allergies, medications, driver’s license data and living-will directives. For $80 a year, it will keep an individual’s full medical history. In recent days, there have been rumors on Wall Street, and elsewhere, of the potential uses for RFID in humans: the chipping of U.S. soldiers, of inmates, or of migrant workers, to name a few.

In May 2008, a protest outside the Alzheimer’s Community Care Center in West Palm Beach, Florida, drew attention to a two-year study in which 200 Alzheimer’s patients, along with their caregivers, were to receive chip implants. Parents, children and elderly people decried the plan, with signs and placards.
“Chipping People Is Wrong” and “People Are Not Pets,” the signs read. And: “Stop VeriChip.”

Dr. Katherine Albrecht, the RFID critic who organized the demonstration, raises similar concerns on her http://www.AntiChips.com web site.
“Is it appropriate to use the most vulnerable members of society for invasive medical research? Should the company be allowed to implant microchips into people whose mental impairments means they cannot give fully informed consent?” she wrote.
MICROCHIP IMPLANT FAQ
“Microchip Implants: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions” by Katherine Albrecht, Ed.D.Answers 85 of the most commonly asked questions about chip implants, including damning evidence that the VeriChip Corporation misled reporters, regulators, and the public about studies linking chips to cancer.
MICRO CHIP

CityWatcher.com, a provider of surveillance equipment, attracted little notice itself — until a year ago, when two of its employees had glass-encapsulated microchips with miniature antennas embedded in their forearms.
The “chipping” of two workers with RFIDs — radio frequency identification tags as long asgrains of rice, as thick as a toothpick — was merely a way of restricting access to vaults that held sensitive data and images for police departments, a layer of security beyond key cards and clearance codes, the company said. He compared chip implants to retina scans or fingerprinting. “There’s a reader outside the door; you walk up to the reader, put your arm under it, and it opens the door.”Innocuous? Maybe.

But the news that Americans had, for the first time, been injected with electronic identifiers to perform their jobs fired up a debate.“It was scary that a government contractor that specialized in putting surveillance cameras on city streets was the first to incorporate this technology in the workplace,” says Liz McIntyre, co-author of “Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID.”As the polemic heats up, legislators are increasingly being drawn into the fray. Two states, Wisconsin and North Dakota, recently passed laws prohibiting the forced implantation of microchips in humans. Other states, such as Ohio, Oklahoma, Colorado and Florida, are studying similar legislation.
Meanwhile, Oklahoma legislators are debating a bill that would authorize microchip implants in people imprisoned for violent crimes. Many felt it would be a good way to monitor felons once released from prison.

But other lawmakers raised concerns. Rep. John Wright worried, “Apparently, we’re going to permanently put the ‘mark’ on these people.”
Rep. Ed Cannaday found the forced microchipping of inmates “invasive…. We are going down that slippery slope.”

Another drawback to microchip implants is the suspicion that they are linked to cancer in test animals. Opponents of human microchipping are concerned with the speed with which these chips received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration. Opponents such as Dr. Albrecht believe the FDA approval has more to do with politics than medicine.

Opponents believe the government is choosing the most vulnerable citizens for the initial implants — Alzheimer’s patients, the handicapped, retarded, the elderly — but eventually every human being in the US, Mexico and Canada will be required to have the microchip implants if only to keep track of them and their activities.
“Under the federally supported National Animal Identification System (NAIS), digital tags are expected to be affixed to the U.S.’s 40 million farm animals to enable regulators to track and respond quickly to disease, bioterrorism, and other calamities,” according to a Business Week article.

“Opponents have many fears about this plan, among them that it could be the forerunner of a similar system for humans.”To others, the notion of tagging people was Orwellian, a departure from centuries of history and tradition in which people had the right to go and do as they pleased without being tracked, unless they were harming someone else.Chipping, these critics said, might start with Alzheimer’s patients or Army Rangers, but would eventually be suggested for convicts, then parolees, then sex offenders, then illegal aliens — until one day, a majority of Americans, falling into one category or another, would find themselves electronically tagged.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2009m10d30-Obamas-Orwellian-health-care-vision

We dont have to take it anymore. The Obama election says “yes you do”.

The sole purpose for euthanizing the elderly is to reduce the drain on a bankrupt Social Security and Medicare system.

The government of the United States not only stole the Social Security Trust Fund to finance the Welfare State, now they want to kill the elderly when they come to collect the money due them in their old age.

Agendized bureaucrats and their minions in the medical community do not possess an inherent right to hasten that journey because they view us as a drain on the financial coffers of the State or because stupid men believe the populations of the nations are responsible for cyclic weather change Agendized bureaucrats and their minions in the medical community do not possess an inherent right to hasten that journey because they view us as a drain on the financial coffers of the State, or because stupid men believe the populations of the nations are responsible for cyclic weather change and floods and droughts. And, by reducing the population of the United States we will somehow make the world a better place.

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
Thursday, June 28, 2012

If Britain’s socialist healthcare system is a benchmark for what we can expect from Obamacare, hundreds of thousands of elderly patients face being euthanized through “assisted death” techniques designed to cut costs.

The idea that “death panels” would be introduced through Obamacare as a means of rationing healthcare was discussed during an Aspen Institute conference in 2010 when Bill Gates argued that money should not be spent on treating the elderly.

During a question and answer session, Gates implied that elderly patients undergoing expensive health care treatments should be killed and the money spent elsewhere.

Gates said there was a “lack of willingness” to consider the question of choosing between “spending a million dollars on that last three months of life for that patient” or laying off ten teachers.

“But that’s called the death panel and you’re not supposed to have that discussion,” added Gates.

However, Britain’s socialist healthcare system under the NHS has gone light years beyond death panels and actually introduced a method of “care” that actually has the intended effect of euthanizing patients.

In a recent exposé, Patrick Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Kent, revealed that of the 450,000 patients who die annually under the care of the NHS, 130,000 of them were on the Liverpool Care Pathway.

Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) is a process whereby a doctor identifies a patient who is likely to die and that patient is then heavily sedated while treatment is withdrawn, “including the provision of water and nourishment by tube.”

“If we accept the Liverpool Care Pathway we accept that euthanasia is part of the standard way of dying as it is now associated with 29 per cent of NHS deaths,” Pullicino

 You Hillary and you Obama are heinous for pretending to care for what was called our finest generation.And advising euthanizing  our elderly. instead of care and all the morphine progressives say the can have.!!! I believe You Progressives are monsters.

I wonder how this will work when George Soros goes in Hospital (no care and all the Morphine he needs) I doubt it.Its easier to Euthenize others whom you dont know isnt it Hillary?large group we wont take it any more

Installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system

workdoneby Pat Buchanan

With the acts outlined below, Barack Hussien Obama and his
regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding
constituency of voters dependent on big
government; a vast privileged class of public employees (unions) who
work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and
installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme — all devised by
Barack Hussien Obama and handlers using the Cloward and Piven Plan
“Correctly attributed!!” says Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp

The health care bill had very little to do with health
care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions
of hospital and health care workers, as well as
adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will
join government employee unions).
Obama doesn’t care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans
will add trillions to the national debt.
What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of
those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government .
Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill
In the middle of a depression?

Cap & Trade.

Like health care legislation having nothing to do with
health care, Cap & Trade has nothing to do with global warming.
It has everything to do with redistribution of income, with government in
control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama’s biggest contributors.
Those powerful and wealthy unions andcontributors (like GE, which owns NBC,
MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants.
Make Puerto Rico a state. Why?

Who’s asking for a 51st state? Not Puerto Rico.
Who’s asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government
entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression?
Certainly not American taxpayers.

But this has been Barack Hussien Obama’s and his handlers plan all along.
His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and
a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.
Legalize 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants.
Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care
alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America
But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be
counted on to support big government.
Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to
dependent children, food stamps, free medical,
education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security

Stimulus and bailouts.
Where did all that money go?
It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN),
and unions — including billions of dollars to save or
create jobs of government employees across the country
.
It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep
paying union dues.
It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama
almost $1 million in contributions).
A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues).
All those public employees (unions) will vote loyally Democrat to protect
their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America ..
The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak
future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow
more powerful. The ends justify the means.
Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, andjob creators.
Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers,
redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did
nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama).
Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government.
Barack Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to
starve his political opposition.

With the acts outlined above, Barack Hussien Obama and his
regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding
constituency of voters dependent on big
government; a vast privileged class of public employees (unions) who
work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and
installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you’ve got the perfect Marxist scheme — all devised by
Barack Hussien Obama and handlers using the Cloward and Piven Plan

“Correctly attributed!!” says Snopes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/overwhelm.asp

As he has each February for years, Charles W. McMillion of MBG Information Services has compiled the stats on the industrial decline of his country under our free-trade presidents. Here are but a few numbers for the decade from December 2000, the month before George W. Bush took the oath, to December 2010, the end of Obama’s second year.

In that decade, America ran a total of $6.1 trillion in trade deficits, more than our entire economic growth. To finance those 10 years of deficits, America had to borrow $1.553 billion every day.And we wonder why China owns America.

In 2010, our trade deficit in manufactures alone rose 27 percent to $416 billion, far exceeding our trade deficit in crude oil. A decade of such deficits in manufactures has devastated the industrial states.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/267889/

Pat Buchanan

 

The so-called “obstruction” by the GOP may be the only thing saving the middle class from Obama and the democrats.

Barak Obama said he should be held accountable but today wants to be accountable for absolutely nothing save for killing Bin Laden.

As democrats controlled the entire Congress and senate for the first two years of Obama’s term and were able to shove pretty much anything they wanted down the throat of the country it seems appropriate to judge this administration by the effects of the policies put in place by Obama and the democrats from after the time they were enacted.

Democrats labeled last year “the recovery summer” but it did not pan out that way. Obama’s election campaign theme seems to be “It could be worse” but the fact is things are not getting better- especially not for the middle class.Sentier Research has published data that show the middle class to be losing ground consequent to Obama’s policies.

Between June 2009 and June 2011: Barack Obama is a community organizer. He knows how to grow division and class warfare. He knows nothing of growing economies. Left alone in control, democrats created policies that were not only not helpful to the economy and the middle class, they are harmful. The so-called “obstruction” by the GOP may be the only thing saving the middle class from Obama and the democrats.