There is the growing sentiment toward secession

There is the growing sentiment toward secession

We’re Going Galt—Packing Up or Thinking Secession, Americans Have Had Enough

Author
By Gretchen Olson

Americans are fed up. They feel ignored by representatives more interested in corporate connections than the Constitution. They protest unelected agencies who spy on them and run their lives at home. They complain about the speaker of the house who refuses to follow the principals of his party.

They cry foul at a president using executive orders to force his agenda. They’re angry at lawmakers who aren’t listening even when they do answer their phones, and as taxpayers are overwhelmed with a bottomless pit of debt. Even state legislators and local officials are under fire for taking the bait from federal departments who now drive local school boards, electricity flow and personal healthcare.

Some just shrug their shoulders and say “What can you do?” A great many others, though, are engaging in the American tradition of migrating and removing themselves to areas of the country where they feel they have more control over their lives.

Not surprisingly, money is a prime motivator. Recent census data confirms movement from fiscally imploding states, such as Illinois, to ones with stronger stewardship.https://www.census.gov/hhes/migration/data/acs/state-to-state.html

  In 2012, the state had a net loss of 70,000 individuals out of 270,000 movers, the largest numbers (more than 20,000 each) to Missouri, Wisconsin, Indiana, Texas and Florida. That year, the Auditor General of Illinois reported a debt of more than $43 billion and according to insiders, the state bill payers complied with the constitutional mandate to balance the budget only by literally leaving unpaid bills in a drawer.

The state also had the second highest unemployment numbers in the country. Governor Pat Quinn’s recently announced “progressive” income tax, which would increase the amount of cash flowing from higher earning households into the state’s annual billion dollar obligations to Medicaid (Obamacare) and union pensions, could spur more migration. California, which managed to take the number one spot as “worst managed state” in a 2013 survey has a similar problem.http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/11/21/the-best-and-worst-run-states-in-america-a-survey-of-all-50-2/2/

  Estimated Census figures put the number of migrating at around 566,000, with a net loss of 70,000 people, similar to Illinois.

Heading to New Hampshire

More than a few may be headed to New Hampshire. There, the Free State Project, has been working since 2003 to bring 20,000 libertarian-minded souls to the “Live Free or Die” state in order to affect public policy there.http://freestateproject.org/

 A decade ago the first organizers solicited votes from concerned citizens around the country interested in relocating to a state where they could establish a strong enough presence mathematically to cement and promote liberty principals. So far, more than 15,000 individuals have committed by name to move within five years of reaching the goal. With fewer than 5000 signatures left, the Free State Project website is already highlighting “Trigger the Move,” a reference to the day pledges top 20,000 and signatories are expected to begin packing.

There is also a movement to encourage liberty-minded Americans to relocate to what popular author and prepping blogmeister James, Wesley Rawles calls “The American Redoubt.” http://www.survivalblog.com/redoubt.html

 The term primarily encompasses conservative mountain states where population density is low and local regulations favor property and gun rights.  Included in that list are Idaho, Utah, Montana, Wyoming and eastern portions of Oregon and Washington. The name references the hidden community of Galt’s Gulch, where industrial leaders lived after abandoning their corporate entities, in Atlas Shrugged, the novel by Soviet-born Ayn Rand. Californians seem to have gotten the word. More than 105,000 moved into those states, especially the neighboring ones, in 2012.

Interest in relocation has also been fueled by highly publicized moves of some popular voices in conservative and liberty media. Former Fox News channel personality Glenn Beck moved from New York City in 2011 to Dallas, where he set up his own subscription television concern.http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/07/11/glenn-announces-move-to-dallas-tx/

  Florida pastor Chuck Baldwin garnered significant attention from like-minded Christians (and the Southern Poverty Law Center)http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/276/Why-We-Are-Moving-To-Montana.aspx

 in 2010 when he left his thriving ministry in Pensacola, and with his entire extended family moved to the hinterlands of Montana, citing deep worries over the future of the country.  And radio and television talk show host, Sean Hannity looks as if he might make good on his threat to relocate in response to New York governor Andrew Cuomo’s recent public remarks that there was no place for “extreme conservatives” in the state. Hannity says he still has a child left to graduate high school, but has already listed one of his New York houses for sale.http://www.zillow.com/blog/2014-02-10/sean-hannity-lists-l-i-home/

Then there is the growing sentiment toward secession. Here, the thinking is: if the state isn’t listening to the people, then the people make their own state. The contemporary inclination to what used to be a 100-year old history lesson has increased significantly since 2009 when Governor Rick Perry teased “you never know what could happen,” in answer to a secession related question at a Texas political rally.

But there has been much more than talk in several states in recent months, primarily among rural counties wishing to part from the growing power of their urban centers.  Several counties in northern California have been toying with the possibility in order to stop the drain on their resources from the southern part of the state, as have frustrated conservatives in northeastern Colorado.  Very recently, news broke about a growing interest by upstate New York to split off from the city, which detractors say is dragging them down and siphoning off their prosperity. Same for promoters of “Western Maryland,” who have similar gripes. They may have an uphill battle; state legislatures must approve the split and none are expected to do so. New Hampshire stands alone as the only state where secession is permitted.

In a country of 320 million, a few hundred thousand folks heading for the hills isn’t much. Yet, enough in one place might make a difference and that’s exactly what the movers are hoping.

NATIONAL SECURITY Working Out the Details of NSA Reform

NATIONAL SECURITY
Working Out the Details of NSA Reform

High-ranking members of the intelligence community and civil liberties advocates are trying to figure out just how the government will go about implementing the changes Barak Obama recently proposed for the NSA.http://patriotpost.us/articles/22836

 But what they've come up with doesn't instill a lot of confidence. Obama called for a number of changes to the government's intelligence gathering infrastructure, including a prohibition on spying on allied leaders and restrictions on gathering and holding data on non-citizens overseas. Both restrictions can, of course, be rescinded if there is a compelling national security purpose – a loophole so broad a Mack truck could drive through it.

One slightly more troubling proposal includes the creation of a privacy advocate that would have a voice in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which currently only hears the government's side of any national security issue. Injecting a third party into this area of the intelligence infrastructure is fraught with problems. National security information could be compromised and legal proceedings could severely gum up legitimate investigations. Just imagine the damage that could be done if the ACLU had a voice in a FISA court.

The biggest issue of debate, however, is just what to do with the massive amounts of data collected by the NSA's phone surveillance program. The president proposed putting the collected information in a third-party repository that the NSA would have to seek permission in order to access. No one is sure exactly what this would look like, but telecommunications companies want no part of it. There is no way to guarantee the safety of the data in the hands of a private enterprise, considering the data hacks that take place in the private sector these days. And if the third-party is some quasi public-private institution (think Fannie Mae for spies), who is to say that the operation can be run without leaks, political shenanigans or costly bureaucratic error?

Little mention is made about what to do with the data the NSA currently possesses; these plans are all concerned with future changes, not retroactive ones. However, The Wall Street Journal reports,http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303636404579393413176249186

 “The government is considering enlarging the National Security Agency's controversial collection of Americans' phone records – an unintended consequence of lawsuits seeking to stop the surveillance program.”

Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper argued this week that none of this would be necessary had the American public been aware of the NSA surveillance program from the start. Clapper thinks that Americans would have been fine with the extent of the program if the government had just explained its necessity right after 9/11. This, of course, doesn't excuse his lying to Congress last year about the existence of the program, but that's okay, too, because Clapper still believes the program is constitutional and effective, despite growing evidence that it is neither.

New Obama Promise

New Obama Promise: If You Like Your Life, You Can Keep It

Liberals are winning wild praise for their candor in admitting problems with Obamacare. It shows you the level of honesty people have come to expect of our liberal friends. Now, liberals are applauded for not lying through their teeth about something.

What are they supposed to say? This Obamacare website is fantastic! And really, haven't you already read all the magazines in your current doctor's office anyway?

The New York Times has described Obama's repeated claim that you could keep your insurance plan and keep your doctor under Obamacare as a mere slip of the tongue: “Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that.”

Misspoke? How exactly does one misspeak, word for word, dozens of times, over and over again?

That wasn't misspeaking – it was a deliberate, necessary lie. Even Democrats couldn't have voted for Obamacare if Americans had known the truth. It was absolutely vital for Obama to lie about people being able to keep their insurance and their doctors.

Of course, it was difficult for voters to know the truth because every time Republicans would try to tell them, the White House and the media would rush in and call the critics liars.

The White House posted a specific refutation of the “disinformation” about not being able to keep your doctor or insurance plan. That claim, the website said, was being disseminated by Republicans “to scare people.”

Their proof consisted of a video of Obama clearly stating, “If you have insurance that you like, then you will be able to keep that insurance. If you've got a doctor that you like, you will be able to keep your doctor.”

A video of someone asserting the very fact in dispute does not rise to the level of “evidence,” but it was more than enough for MSNBC.

Even when pretending to be critical of Obamacare, liberals lie about the real problems. They tell us they're worried about the percentage of young people signing up for Obamacare. The mix of young and old people in Obamacare is completely irrelevant. It won't help if a lot of young people sign up because their premiums are negligible.

To keep the system afloat, what Obamacare really needs is lots of healthy people, preferably healthy older people. Their premiums are astronomical – and they won't need much medical treatment.

Premiums are set by your age, not your health. It doesn't matter if you never go to the doctor. Obamacare punishes you for having a healthy lifestyle. The Obamacare tax is a massively regressive poll tax on the middle-aged and the middle class.

Apart from those who are subsidized, everyone pays the exact same amount in penalties or insurance premiums for his age group. It doesn't matter if you don't make as much money as Bill Gates. Any 58-year-old male who doesn't qualify for a subsidy will pay the same Obamacare tax as Gates.

When Margaret Thatcher tried to impose the same tax per person, as a “community charge,” there were riots in the street.

Our extremely progressive tax system, where nearly half the country pays no income tax at all, and the other half pays about 40 percent of their income, may not be fair. But most people also don't think it's fair to tax a guy making $80,000 a year the identical amount as one making $80 million a year. That's exactly what Obamacare does.

With Obamacare, the Democratic Party has foisted the most regressive tax possible on America. This ruthless assault on the middle class is all so we can have a health care system more like every other country has.

Until now, the United States has had the highest survival rates in the world for heart disease, cancer and diabetes. Cancer comparisons are the most useful because all Western countries keep careful records for this disease.

For all types of cancers, European men have only a 47.3 percent five-year survival rate, compared to a 66.3 percent survival rate for American men.

European women have only a 55.8 percent chance of being alive five years after being diagnosed with any type of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent of American women.

American survival rates for breast, prostate, thyroid and skin cancer are higher than 90 percent. Europeans do not have a 90 percent survival rate for one of those cancers.

The European rates are even worse than they sound because many cancers are not discovered until the victim's death – twice as many as in the U.S. All those cancers were excluded from the study.

Canadian cancer survival rates aren't much better than the European rates – and they've been able to sneak into to the U.S. for treatment! Women in the U.S. have a 61 percent survival rate for all cancers, compared to a 58 percent survival rate in Canada. Men in the U.S. have a 57 percent survival rate compared to 53 percent in Canada.

That's why your insurance premiums have to go through the roof and your Obamacare tax is the same as Bill Gates'. So across the world, we'll all be equal, dying of cancer, heart disease and diabetes as often as everyone else.

It's not that Obama doesn't believe in American exceptionalism; it's that he wants to end it.

Obama’s War on America: Killing Coal to Kill U.S. Electrical Power

If the White House and the EPA is permitted to implement the MATS regulation the economy will dramatically decline. Life in America will resemble that of third world nations. It is entirely based on lies


Author
By Alan Caruba (Bio and Archives)  Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Comments at bottom of page | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
7

President Obama, supported by the Environmental Protection Agency, is seeking to deprive America of the use of its enormous reserves of coal in coal-fired plants that produce the electricity on which the economy and all life in America depends.

This isn’t just a “war on coal”, it is a war on America and one free market think tank, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) has been joined by six major unions to ensure that the EPA’s proposed energy proposal, Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule does not become a regulation that they call “nothing less than industrial sabotage by regulatory means.”

The EPA’s current regulations have resulted in the shut down over more than 150 coal-fired plants over the course of Obama’s first term and his second represents a threat to everyone living in America. We are living through one of the harshest winters in recent years and the 17-year-old cooling cycle which the entire Earth is experiencing promises to last decades.

Commenting on the proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants, Bonner R.Cohen, PhD, a CFACT Senior Policy Analyst laid out the reasons why MATS has no basis whatever in science.http://www.cfact.org/2014/02/06/cfact-to-epa-proposed-power-plant-regs-nothing-less-than-industrial-sabotage/

Any regulation seeking to limit the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere deliberately and deceptively ignores facts that anyone can understand. Bonner spelled out the basic scientific facts, but it is essential to keep in mind that CO2 is essential to all life on Earth, providing the “food” that all vegetation depends.

“Current concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere are 400 parts per million (ppm). Human activities in all their forms account for 4% of that total. The United States is responsible for 3% of that 4%, all the rest of the CO2 in the atmosphere (96% of the total) comes from purely natural causes, such as volcanoes, undersea venting, animal fluctuation, etc.,” said Cohen.

“The total U.S. contribution to atmospheric CO2 is one tenth of 1% or 00.1%. This 0.01% includes the CO2 that is emitted every time one of the approximately 315 million Americans opens his or her mouth to speak, cry, or engage in any verbal activity.” There are seven billion people on Earth contributing CO2 just by exhaling.

“The contribution of coal-fired plants to the U.S., much less global CO2 emissions, is so miniscule that it cannot be measured with any degree of accuracy. And the contribution of those entities targeted by the EPA to the Earth’s climate also cannot be measured. Thus the EPA has absolutely no way of saying how its proposed regulations will affect the climate.”

The EPA is moving toward imposing these baseless regulations despite the fact that China and India have been building coal-fired plants to provide their nations with the energy to expand and compete in the global marketplace. China’s CO2 emission increased by 167% between 1999 and 2009, while the U.S., the second largest emitter of carbon dioxide, emitted 17% over the same 10-year period.

According to an analysis by Climate Central, from 2005-2009, China added coal-fired electricity capacity that is equivalent to the entire U.S. fleet. From 2010-2013, it added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. again. Powered by cheap and abundant coal, China’s economy has lifted 600 million people out of abject poverty and into the middle class over the last two decades.

Carbon dioxide, however, is vital for all life Earth despite decades of lies about it by environmentalists falsely claiming it warms the Earth. It is the food that all vegetation requires in the same way all animal life requires oxygen.

“For EPA to impose carbon-pollution standards that by design will make the introduction of new coal-fired power plants all but impossible is to adapt a policy that by design will drive up the cost of electricity by limiting America’s sources of power,” said Cohen. “The EPA is engaging in a complete fabrication, one that will put an end to an industry that supplies the U.S. with 37% of its electricity.” When Obama took office in 2009, coal-fired plants were providing nearly 50% of U.S. electrical energy.

This is a criminal act against all Americans and one based on the totally false claims about “global warming”, now called “climate change.” The President, during the recent State of the Union speech lied when he said that science was “settled.”

CFACT is not alone in opposing the Obama administration’s attack on the provision of energy. Six unions are petitioning the Senate to hold hearings on the EPA coal plant rules. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and five other unions have sent a letter to top senators on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The United Mine Workers, Boilermakers and Utility Workers said that the proposed rules would result in the closing of 56 gigawatts of coal-fired generation and the loss of approximately 250,000 jobs. These unions have been pushing back against the Obama administration for years at this point.

In 2011 the Congressional Research Service reported that America’s reserves of coal are unsurpassed, accounting for more than 28% of the world’s coal. It estimated that U.S. recoverable coal reserves were approximately 262 billion tons—not including massive, cut difficult to access Alaskan reserves.

The U.S. consumes around 1.2 billion tons of coal a year and our coal reserves add up to centuries of coal use which the White House and the EPA is seeking to deny to all Americans.

If the White House and the EPA is permitted to implement the MATS regulation the economy will dramatically decline. Life in America will resemble that of third world nations. It is entirely based on lies.

Why Obama's Birth Certificate Can't be Believed

Why Obama's Birth Certificate Can't be Believed

By Adrien Nash

The reasons to doubt that Honolulu was the location of Obama's birth are all tied to what is missing.

It begins with the absence of any eyewitness, even the women who gave birth at the supposed same time and place. No one remembers him or her. No photos of proud mother with newborn. Wouldn't someone have taken one of an only child with her firstborn? Not even one photo of pregnancy – the most dramatic event of Ann's young life. No hospital claiming bragging rights as the place that a unique president, a Hawaiian supposedly, was born. No public hospital admissions log that the public is allowed to examine. No “half hand written, and half typed” affidavit “vital record” in possession of the H.DoH that anyone has been allowed to examine even though a supposedly real birth certificate image is fully public, nullifying privacy concerns.

No Hawaiian official has ever referred to an original Hawaiian hospital birth certificate for Obama. No Hawaiian official has ever testified under oath as to anything about Obama's birth record. No Hawaiian official has released a statement that wasn't couched in carefully written, legally ambiguous language. No statement made by any Hawaiian official can be taken as true because of a state and party and ideological bias toward supporting their favorite Hawaiian son – son of one of the most socialistic, welfare-dependent states of all.

The birth certificate image is couched in mystery, with nothing provable about its origin and legitimacy, but everything cloaked in attorney-client privilege, and deliberately so. Even Obama himself was careful to never once mention the long-form birth certificate that he appeared before reporters to present. It was never even allowed in his presence (plausible deniability).

Not a single unbiased, questioning person was allowed to exam what was supposedly created by the Hawaiian DoH. No one can testify that it was not merely a color photocopy of a digital file that was fabricated on a computer using original Obama and non-Obama sources supplied by an insider in the Hawaiian DOH.

No one can explain why the birth certificate of Virginia Sunahara, born within a day of Obama, was missing from the database (and presumably the archive) when inquiry was first made. Nor why her brother was barred by the DoH and a judge from obtaining a copy of her long-form even though she died just days after her birth, nor why her registration number, seen on her short-form, is totally out of sequence when that would have been impossible under the strict administration of Verna Lee – the registrar at that time.

No one can explain how ink came to be located in the exact perfect position in relation to the letter “a” of the stamped signature of the Registrar, Alvin Onaka, to result in an unmistakable appearance of a smiling face. If moved the slightest amount in any direction the effect would not exist. How great does one's gullibility have to be to believe in such an unbelievable coincidence when it can't be dismissed as not being a forger's covert signature mark?

How can Hawaiian officials be believed when their own website proclaims that the digital cyber-image pdf on the White House website is the official certified birth certificate issued by Hawaii? How can an image on a monitor be a certified document? If they can be so sloppy (stupidly or deliberately) with an official government statement, then what else have they been stupidly or deliberately “sloppy” about? How far are they willing to go in their bending of factuality in order to defend their vaunted native son?

How can an image, or a print from it, be certified by any legitimate authority when it is not signed nor embossed and is nothing more than an abstract? – a digital creation from an unknown and unprovable source?

What business or organization in the world would accept a document or contract of major importance without a signature when every legal document created requires one?

Who would buy a million dollar bridge offered by a Nigerian “businessman” based on trusting in a contract stamped with a facsimile of a signature?

Why does the unauthenticated “Letter of Verification” from Hawaii to Arizona Sec. of State Bennet regarding Obama not bear the actual signature of a human being? How can one have confidence that the secretary that wields the registrar's rubber signature stamp ever even consults with the registrar?

How is such an inauthentic substitute for a human signature proof that the person it represents is even alive?

How can Obama's birth place be assured when Hawaii allows and allowed out-of-state births to be registered for the purpose of obtaining a birth certificate, including foreign nationals with one year of residency?

Why did Obama Sr. not capitalize on having an American child when seeking an extension of his Visa in late August 1961? Why would one not conclude that he didn't know of his birth even though the State Dept. did?

Why is the State Department microfilm record of the Customs cards filled-out by persons entering the U.S. in the first week or 10 days of August 1961 missing from the archive, but no others?

Why is there no evidence of a husband & wife marriage between Obama's parents, no witness testimony, no photos of the engaged couple, nor honeymoon, nor place of cohabitation? Why did Obama, or his ghost writer, claim that they lived together for two years when they didn't live together ever? If that can be a lie, what can't be?

Where was Ann Dunham between February and August of 1961? Who can prove or show that she was not living in her familiar, preferred home-environment of Seattle during many of the later months of her pregnancy? Who can show that she did not want to hand her child over to an adoption agency when that is what a note by a federal official in Hawaii states the parents were considering?

Who can show that she didn't resort to seeking adoptive parents in Canada (Vancouver) because no parents in Washington volunteered to adopt?

Who can show that the Hawaiian witness (and future adoring teacher of Obama) who heard the statement by a doctor – “Stanley had a baby” did not hear “Stanley has a baby” – or that either statement indicates the place of birth? And why would anyone make such a statement to someone who didn't even know the person being mentioned?

Why has Obama steadfastly refused to present one of his “two certified copies” to any court under any circumstances? Why has every court folded and caved to Obama even when, in one glaring instance, his lawyer failed to even show up in court?

What naïve fool would assume that Obama-appointed functionaries in the government, including the NSA, IRS, and FBI did not and do not feed his political operatives private information, like that which Harry Reid claimed before the Senate regarding Romney's supposed non-payment of taxes? If one cannot assume that they don't, then what else can't one assume?

What naïve fool would assume that the revelations of Edward Snowden do not reveal anything about how secrets are uncovered and covered-up by government? What naïve fool would assume that key Obama supporters in the Hawaiian government wouldn't justify “the means” used to provide him a way to present the appearance of having a Hawaiian birth certificate by “the ends” of not seeing his presidential legitimacy crack apart and crumble?

Even if none of these possibilities reflect reality, they definitely could and you can't tell the difference between the truth and the lie because none of them have been answered.


FACTS:Liberals are either naive fools, insane, or diabolically evil. None can be trusted with significance. The first can be tolerated, the second might be treated and cured, but there is no hope for the last. Those must be eliminated with extreme prejudice!
Consider a couple more items:
1. Draft: Where is the record of his registry for the Selective Service? Seems appropriate we expect our POTUS to comply with the law and if not patriotic enough to serve his nation in uniform would at least register for the draft as any law-abiding citizen does. Of course, foreign nationals do not need to register for the draft.
2. Mother’s untimely death: Why did Obama’s mother die in a hospital in Hawaii just a couple weeks before his first election? Why was she cremated to prevent autopsy? It certainly removed one person who might have been able to reveal unknown details of Obama’s birth.
3. Change of name: Why did Obama change his name from Barry Sotero? Certainly there are legitimate reasons to do so, some could even be sympathetic to some legitimate reasons. But he changed it to a typical Muslim name. Shades of Cassius Clay; a.k.a. Mohamed Ali. Of course, Obama did not throw his Olympic Gold Medal into the Ohio River. Obama never earned such prestigious honors.
4. Foreign travel to restricted nations: During periods when US State department denied US
 citizens visas to Indonesia, how could Barry Sotero and his family visit Indonesia? Was it because
 they claimed to not be US citizens and traveled without visas?

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX,LIVE OUTSIDE THE CAGE 

America is being put at risk by Barack Obama’s serial national security fraud

America is being put at risk by Barack Obama’s serial national security fraud

Deadly Life-Support for a Threatening Iran

In his State of the Union address last month, President Obama committed national security fraud.  He claimed to have “halted the progress of Iran’s nuclear program and rolled parts of that program back.” Unfortunately, it is becoming ever more apparent that the only thing he’s actually “rolled back” is the sanctions regime meant to halt that program.

For example, the Washington Free Beacon reported Monday that Iranian oil exports have increased by roughly one-quarter in the last month alone. China, Japan, South Korea and India are set to provide what amounts to life-support for the mullahs’ regime by buying vast quantities of the once-off-limits product.  The Indians say they would like to purchase oil “exclusively from Tehran through 2015.”

According to the Free Beacon’s Adam Kredo, “exports of Iranian crude oil jumped to 1.32 million barrels, up from December’s high of 1.06 million barrels, according to data from the International Energy Agency…. The increase runs counter to a promise by the Obama administration that ‘Iran’s oil exports will remain steady at their current level of around 1 million barrels per day.’”

This statistic provides fresh evidence that the Obama administration perpetrated another fraud by declaring that the value to Iran of the deal’s sanctions relief would amount to no more than $7 billion.  In fact, it appears that, thanks to increased oil sales, the mullahs will actually receive cash infusions of over $20 billion.

Since there are no restrictions on the use of even the $4.2 billion in frozen Iranian funds we are obliged under the deal to give back to Tehran – including on March 1st $450 million and a further $550 million on March 7th – and since money is, after all, fungible, it is likely that these windfalls will wind up financing activities that endanger us.

For one thing, Tehran is making plain that its nuclear program is not halted.  Notably, Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif declared last month, “The White House tries to portray [the deal] as basically a dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program. That is the word they use time and again. If you find a single, a single word, that even closely resembles dismantling or could be defined as dismantling in the entire text, then I would take back my comment. We are not dismantling any centrifuges, we’re not dismantling any equipment, we’re simply not producing, not enriching over 5%.”

According to another senior Iranian negotiator, Abbas Aaraghchi, it would “take less than a day” to return to enriching uranium to the 20% level.  In other words, the undoing of the sanctions regime – which is, as a practical matter, effectively irreversible – has been bought in exchange for what amount to gestures by the mullahs that can be immediately negated at will.

It is bad enough that Team Obama was completely snookered on the nuclear program.  But Iran is deliberately adding insult to injury by its simultaneous and increasingly threatening behavior on other fronts.

Notably, Iranian ballistic missile capabilities continue to grow.  Last week, Tehran tested two indigenously produced long-range Bina missiles. U.S. intelligence is said to believe Iran can have a missile capable of reaching the United States within two years. And, thanks to its extensive collaboration with North Korea on nuclear and missile developments – including so-called “space-launch” vehicles, we may face such a threat even sooner.http://mapsof.net/uploads/static-maps/north_korea_flag_map.png

Meanwhile, Iran’s mullahocracy is ramping up the ominous presence and activities of its operatives in our hemisphere. Iranian agents conduct espionage, influence operations and collaboration with enemies of this country – from the region’s dictators to narco-traffickers – under diplomatic cover, the banner of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and that of Hezbollah. No good can come of an emboldened adversary acting with impunity in what should rightly be thought of as our front yard.

The latest addition to this combustible mix is Iran’s announcement that it will begin deploying warships off America’s coasts.  It would be a mistake to discount this development as a symbolic act of no strategic import.  At a time when U.S. naval resources are declining, the task of monitoring and, if necessary, countering such hostile warships may not receive the priority it deserves.

Alternatively, the presence of Iranian naval combatants may distract such attention as the Navy can provide from another threat: tramp steamers equipped to perform the sort of “Scud-in-a-tub” attack of which the blue-ribbon congressional Electromagnetic Pulse Threat Commission warned years ago. Iran has put in place nearly all the required elements of such a strike – specifically, missiles capable of being launched from sea-going platforms, tested to deliver a device to apogee where a nuclear detonation would trigger a burst of electromagnetic energy that could have devastating effects on our electric grid and country.  The one missing ingredient would appear to be a serviceable nuclear weapon. And, thanks to Team Obama, that may also be in the mullahs’ hands in short order.

America is being put at risk by Barack Obama’s serial national security fraud. Will he be held accountable
for it, and corrective actions taken, before we are afflicted by the predictable consequences?

The health of the patient is not even in the equation.

Another way to redistribute individual American’s wealth into the bottomless pit of government control. The health of the patient is not even in the equation.

ObamaCare: The Terrifying Consequences To Healthcare

As the ObamaCare debate rages, we hear much about insurance companies, costs and people’s ability to pay. We hear the policy defended as proponents tell us it will provide healthcare to those who never had it. Of course, these proponents never seem to explain how those who couldn’t afford healthcare when it was a choice can now afford an even more expensive cost now that government mandates it.

However, these debates about the pros and cons of ObamaCare basically focus on money. What about the real issue – healthcare? What will ObamaCare do to our medical system? How will it affect the quality of our care? How will it affect doctor’s decisions as they attempt to take care of our health needs? And, ultimately, in a system controlled by government bureaucrats and government-written manuals – who will really be making the decisions that determine our quality of life? These are the real questions that need to be the center of the debate. And the answers are terrifying.

I recently received a report from an Oncologist, Dr John Conroy, who is fighting the desperate battle to treat cancer.  All of those concerned Americans who wear their pink ribbons and dash for miles in their stop-cancer marathons should take a long hard look at what Dr. Conroy reports to be the future of all American medicine. They may want to start running straight at Congress to save their own lives.

Obviously, Oncology is a very detailed science, difficult for the layman to understand. That’s why American healthcare has always promoted specialists. Let’s begin with a patient who has discovered a lump on her breast. She takes a mammogram, undergoes a biopsy and is found to have adenocarcinoma. She is seen by an Oncologist and certain questions need to be addressed.

As Dr. Conroy explains the process, first, doctors must determine the “Stage” or extent of the disease. The most common system for determining classification of malignant tumors and the extent of a person’s cancer is called the TNM system. “T” measures the size of the tumor and if it’s invaded nearby tissue. “N” determines regional lymph nodes that are involved. “M” measures the distance the cancer has spread from one part of the body to another. These measurements are critical in determining how sick the patient may be.

In fact, there are four stages, classified under the TNM system, with multiple possible results determined by a large variable of TNM data. With an adenocarcinoma cell type under the microscope, there are about 40 pathological (histology) types which could lead to as many as 36,000 possible variable combinations of the cancer. The grade or aggressiveness of the cancer is 10 grades. So, 10?36,000 = 360,000 possibilities. Next, hormone sensitive status = 8 possibilities. So, 360,000 x 8 = 2,880,000 and menopausal status = 5,760,000 possible computer input combinations. These are the possible combinations on just one page of data in staging. So the computer system has to evaluate these combinations.

Whew! That’s a lot of data to determine how sick a patient may be, with what kind of cancer, at what stage. It’s all necessary data to determine the most effective course for treatment. Again, that’s why we have specialists who focus entirely on certain diseases and other maladies that affect our bodies. No one individual could possibly be knowledgeable in all aspects of the human body.

But now, with the growing control by government over health care decisions, things are changing. Over the past several years, a growing number of bureaucrats from insurance companies have been armed with manuals, guidebooks and calculators to step in to the decision making process to decide what treatment procedures are allowed. And it’s going to get far worse under ObamaCare, as a new layer of government bureaucrats is added to affect what doctors can do to save your life.

As Dr. Conroy explains, to look into the body and make a determination on where to start planning treatment, he uses x-rays and cat- scans (c-ts). “I generally cat-scan head to toe and look for metastasis and get a baseline.” However, such decisions for care by the doctors are now being decided by others. Says Dr. Conroy, “In the past, it was ok (to X-Ray and CT), not now. Over the last few years all the X-rays have to be approved, so there are companies now that have algorithms to evaluate your request (for a cat-scan or X- ray).” He explains that these companies, which work in partnership with hospitals and insurance companies, “process thousands of requests a day. “ They decide who gets to use the machines for what purposes. “So,” he explains, “if there’s no headache, then there is no cat-scan of the brain. If a normal chest x- ray is taken, then no cat-scan of the chest.”

Here’s where these rules and regulations start to really get scary. If he, as the doctor, wants to challenge the decision by the company as to whether he can get both a cat-scan and X-Ray, he will call them to do so. “I have to discuss this with the ‘medical director’ who will say yes — if I use certain ‘key’ words” Or the medical director will say “no,” the procedure does not fit the guidelines. Without having the medical background of the doctor or all of the data he has been trained to read, the company medical director can make the call – all based on a manual written to one size fits all!

Meanwhile, the doctor is responsible for the health of his patient, tasked with the job of making the right decision as he is forced to move forward blindly. He’s unable to get the complete information he needs to make an educated evaluation, because a bureaucrat rejected his request for the proper testing. Yet, if the doctor makes the wrong decision and the patient suffers or dies, he is liable for legal action by the patient’s family. He has no legal protection if he missed a lesion in the brain. Says Dr. Conroy, “I am liable, let alone the damage to patient.”

How “Red Tape” Strangles Treatment

The most important detail to expose here is that, while the doctor has had years of training and experience in the field – the medical director does not have to be qualified.

He’s an employee! Dr. Conroy provided a resulting horror story that is certain to be repeated over and over again once ObamaCare gets control of the medical system. He reported, “I had a young patient with Hodgkin’s disease and I needed a follow-up cat-scan of the chest. It was refused (by the company medical director). I challenged the decision (I challenge all of them) and called the company. The medical director was a retired General Practitioner, playing golf in Florida.” Says Dr. Conroy, “the review companies intentionally have out of state physicians as medical directors so they do not have a state license that can be challenged.”

Then there is the massive mountain of paperwork required for each patient and each procedure. The official guideline for treatment paths for patients with malignancy is called “Pathways,” found at www.nccn.com. There are over 30 medical issue paths to choose. A doctor needs to match a pathway with his data, as described above. As mentioned, that can be a huge number of possible combinations. The insurance companies are already restricting treatment options by forcing doctors to accept their approval for therapy, or they won’t pay for it.

Now, follow the bureaucratic ball created by this mass of rules. Explains Dr. Conroy, “We are still on the first visit by the patient, (or second visit if something was challenged). It now takes 45-60 minutes to register a new patient. I get an hour for the history, exam discussion of treatment plan and then we have to load everything into the computer and fill out the required forms. With each patient visit we review all the data for accuracy, and again report it.”

All this for one patient on the first visit. And with each visit it all has to be continually rechecked and reported. If the doctor makes an error on a Medicare bill submission, the fine is $5,000 PER LINE. A typical chemotherapy visit may have 20 or more lines of code per visit. Says Dr. Conroy, “one year we used 250 cc bags of IV fluids for chemotherapy. It was more than enough fluid for treatment, but Medicare retroactively decided not to pay for 250 cc bags so, we had to repay Medicare Reimbursement for all the 250cc bags for an entire YEAR! We then changed to 1000 cc bag, Charged more, threw out most of it but got paid.”

So, now the patient has had surgery, some radiation treatment, and chemotherapy and the cancer is in remission. All of those procedures would have had to go through the bureaucratic review process.

Are there “Death Panels” in ObamaCare?

Let’s say, after treatment, unfortunately, the patient goes into relapse- the cancer returns. In the past, the doctor would start again, repeat treatment and keep the patient alive over multiple cycles of chemotherapy. But things are changing.

Reports Dr. Conroy, “enter the ‘death panels.’ I actually read the ACA law. They are not death panels per say, but panels appointed by the President, NOT reporting to Congress, that establish the funding and treatment for patients.” Those on the appointed panels are not physicians .

And what are the potential results of the decisions of such panels? Dr. Conroy explains what happens through the example of a pediatric lung transplant case, involving a young boy who needed the treatment. According to Dr. Conroy, the case required official approval from Kathleen Sebelius, now the nation’s top healthcare official and in charge of ObamaCare. Ms. Sebelius refused to approve the transplant and the family had to go to a federal court. She followed the official guidelines as outlined in Pathway. According to its rules, the transplant was not approved for a child of that age, so “the kid was out of luck.”

These panels can decide whether care can be provided or refused based on age, finances and the treatment required. That brings us back to the whole debate based on money. This time it becomes the “government’s money”. And, suddenly, when the government decides it doesn’t want to spend “its” money it can become very stingy. It saves money by not providing care for the elderly which it says are a burden to society. Or, in the case of the lung transplant victim – too young. The result is the same if care cannot be provided – death of the patient. Death panels? Perhaps not in name – but in practice. The panels do not report to Congress, but to higher bureaucratic panels As Dr. Conroy describes it, “more like a central committee in the Soviet System.”

Another example provided by Dr. Conroy is the NCCN Guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network). There are a comprehensive set of guidelines detailing the sequential management decisions and interventions for the malignant cancers that affect 97 percent of all patients living with cancer in the United States. In addition, separate guidelines provide recommendations for some of the key cancer prevention and screening topics as well as supportive care considerations.

Explains Dr., Conroy, “they are fantastic for guidance in treatment plans, but imagine writing a program for any of the guidelines and then constantly changing them to meet new changes in care.” He goes on with another example, “Check out the Palliative Care guidelines, there is a section explaining how to order an IV infusion to sedate a terminal patient, the plan is for them to not wake up. The guidelines recommend that nurses who feel uncomfortable ethically with this order should be assigned elsewhere. This is a concern because Hospice is recommended over and over in the guidelines more than ever before.”

This is the real cost savings in ObamaCare, as money runs out, you change the parameters for treatment. Age, stage, and diagnosis care exclude aggressive therapy. In the past, this was a decision of a patient, minister and family, now you have an insurance company/ government IRS agent making an “impartial” decision of no further treatment.

In a progressive secular society, ethics are not based on God or morality or individual wants and needs, but on the “common good” of the state. Concludes Dr. Conroy, “ObamaCare is not about medical care but rather social and government control of the population.”

Over the past decade or more, government rules have been slowly creeping into healthcare decisions, making it more and more difficult for doctors to care for their patients. ObamaCare, and its avalanche of rules and regulations; the reporting required of every doctor; every step of the way in treatment; can only result in short cuts and less care in the medical procedures. The result will be a bureaucratic takeover of the system, as unqualified political hacks will make life and death decisions for patients. It will lead to the end of innovation and advancement of medical treatments. Free thinkers seeking new ways will be swallowed whole by the bureaucratic system. The victim will be the American healthcare system. Quality doctors will quit, and mediocrity will rule the system, just like in every other socialist health care system from England to Canada. Welcome to the coming Utopia of ObamaCare.

The Supreme Court called ObamaCare a tax. And that is exactly what it is. It is not a healthcare system. It is simply another way to redistribute individual American’s wealth into the bottomless pit of government 

control. The health of the patient is not even in the equation.

Appeasement Assures War!

Appeasement Assures War!

America’s Honor Besmirched

It has been said that the quickest way to end a war is to surrender.  Obama has found an even quicker way—surrender BEFORE the war!

In numerous articles we have told our readers how the US is living the 1930s all over again.  Indeed, the world is parroting the foreplay of WW-II as if were a script torn from the pages of one of the bloodiest centuries in human history.

But it’s no play—and if we continue to act out this script we will, inevitably, find ourselves at war beginning on a regional scale then quickly expanding to a global conflagration.

We have  the same sort of narcissistic,  conceited, elite diplomats and politicians in the same positions of power their forerunners occupied in years immediately leading up to World War Two.

The stage is set, the actors are on their marks, and we wait for the curtain to part and the lights to come up.

Our pitifully naive President and our socially and culturally elite  Secretary of State are walking the US into certain military conflict on a major scale simply because they both are in over their heads.



If we paraphrase Winston Churchill’s objection to the Munich agreement back in 1938 (Remember Chamberlain’s “Peace in or time!”):  “Obama had to choose between war and dishonor.  He chose dishonor.  He will have war.”

The threat to the world from Iran equals the threat of Nazi Germany to the world some seventy-five years ago.

Nothing much changes.  Only the players and the backdrops on the stage have changed since. The script remains the same as that which played out three-quarters of a century ago.  Unfortunately, the current crop of leaders of the so-called free world are made of no sterner stuff than were the leaders back then.  The US President has accepted defeat and dishonor at the negotiating table in return for a promise of peace from Iran.  As Churchill said… he shall have war.

Weakness invites war. Perceived weakness also invites war. The very act of SEEKING negotiations with Iran gave rise to a perception of weakness on the part of the United States.  The Persians have been crowing to high heaven of how they have defeated the USA, how the US has surrendered to Iran, etc., etc., ad nauseum.

I have often thought that the current Obama administration does not know the definition of “honor.”  They sure as heck do not understand the value of a nation’s, a people’s honor.  They continue to bring disrepute upon America’s honor.

Once again, Obama has painted himself into a diplomatic corner.  This time, the only option for escaping that corner is military action against Iran.

The folks on the left side of the political spectrum are infamous for stating:  “Nothing is worse than war” and “War solves nothing.”  They are demonstrably wrong on both counts.

Slavery is worse than war.  As for the latter dictum, this very nation, the United States, was born out of war.

Obama’s deal with Iran is nothing more than appeasement. Appeasement brought the world WW-II and appeasement will bring the world WW-III.

For five years we have suffered the indignity of watching our country deliberately removed from it’s leadership position in the hierarchy of nations and assume the attitude of a third-world banana republic. No enemy did this to us. Our very own leaders did it to us.  The leaders WE elected. That means, gentle reader— we did it to ourselves!  We bought and under-wrote Obama’s agenda to diminish America and (some have suggested) encourage and aid the spread of Islam around the world.

Our current President is a great talker.  But that is all.  He is not a leader.  And he is certain not a military leader.  Obama has no concept of military power nor how to apply it.  He is one of the world’s worse diplomats and negotiators.  He is “rolled” (or mugged) every time he approaches a negotiating table.  He comes down heavily on our friends and lightly on our enemies.

I simply cannot believe that the Obama Administration is stupid enough to actually believe their recent appeasement of Iran will, in any way, prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon.

 Iran WILL have a nuclear weapon unless there is military action taken against them devastating enough to slow down, deter, or destroy Iran’s nuclear program.  In any event, Obama has just insured war in the Middle East.

Obama is making exactly the same mistake Chamberlain made in 1938 with his Munich Agreement with Herr Hitler.

Only a fool refuses to learn from the mistakes of the past.

No matter Obama’s concessions to the Iranians, America remains the “Great Satan.”  What in the world would induce Obama and Kerry to even entertain the idea that somehow, some way, Iran will spare America from it’s rage directed at infidels and it’s obsession to create one great caliphate covering the face of the earth?

Obama’s agreement with Iran is the lighted fuse to
World War Three.

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX,LIVE OUTSIDE THE CAGE 

Food was for nourishment, not for entertainment, gorging buffets, or for bourgeois socializing

Food was for nourishment, not for entertainment, gorging buffets, or for bourgeois socializing

Eating to Live Not Living to Eat

I don’ t look at food the same way most Americans do. I grew up on my grandparents’  small farm in the southern Alabama. Everything we ate came from our garden and our livestock—fresh vegetables in season, canned vegetables in winter and spring, goat and cow’ s milk, butter, goat cheese, eggs, smoked meat, lardy bacon, fatty sausages in natural casings, and eggs.

We ate to live; we did not live to eat. Food was for nourishment, not for entertainment, gorging buffets, or for bourgeois socializing. From time to time, adults ate better meals with family and friends at weddings, baptisms, and funerals. Kids were generally not included in such occasions. They stayed home.

When I went to first grade, I moved to the city with my parents, 6 miles away. Our food then came from the benevolent government planners who made us wait every day in endless lines at the grocery store, the butcher store, the dairy store, the bakery, the greengrocer, and the farmer’ s market if we could find food, if the store did not run out, if there was enough for everybody, if we had rationing coupons, and if we could afford it.

Occasionally Grandpa would ride his bike to the city with a fisherman’ s netting bag filled with a dozen eggs, a piece of cheese, one smoked sausage left from the pig he butchered at Christmas, and a live chicken which my Dad killed in the most gruesome way in the yard, by cutting his head off. Mom plucked the chicken after dunking it in boiling water. The poor thing was jumping in agony around the yard. I would not have eaten the chicken except I was starving.

There were restaurants in the city, patronized by the ruling elites because they were the only ones who could afford the pricey meals. Their salaries were huge compared to ours. They received special treatment and gifts of food and services in exchange for loyalty to the Communist Party.

Communist shopping: No EBT, SNAP, or WIC credit cards

Allegiance and love for family and conscience went out the window when the specter of hunger hung in the air. It was easier to snitch on your family when you got extra food each month and were allowed to shop in underground communist party stores laden with abundant supplies from the west; fresh vegetables and fruits year around, expensive wines, liqueurs, beer, juices, chocolates, oranges, bananas, and other fine things that most Americans take for granted. No EBT, SNAP, or WIC credit cards.

Someone who entered such a store explained to me that it was as if you had died and gone to food heaven, that’ s how much food there was everywhere. No money was necessary. All you had to do is sign your name in a book, leave your conscience at the door, and spy on your closest relatives—each monthly report sufficed and you were fed quite well.

My first encounter with a grocery store in America kept me in awe for hours. I could not tear myself away from the shelves, bright lights, the cleanliness, the colorful and hygienic packaging, the refrigeration, and the fresh fruits and vegetables in January! I kept filling the cart with everything, and then remembered that I had a budget, and I would start over. People were laughing, could not understand where I came from, and what we ate.

American buffets are an inexplicable form of gluttony that Europeans have a hard time understanding. Is it an indulgence because food is plentiful, always available without long lines or rationing, and cheap? Why stuff yourself to the brim if you’ve never felt intense hunger pains or experienced near starvation?

As the girth of Americans is expanding, the nanny government is stepping in to regulate portion size, control the type of foods they eat, the salt and sugar intake, and mandate three “healthy” meals in school, replacing the parents as the providers and decision-makers for their children. After all, the children belong to the community, we are told, and they are no longer a parental responsibility.

As small family farms that provide wholesome food are slowly disappearing, replaced by large corporate farms, we are importing more and more food from other countries, putting our food supply in jeopardy, at the whims of exporting countries. Fruits and vegetables are imported from Guatemala, Chile, Honduras, Mexico, Columbia, and other South American markets. Even chicken, seafood, pork, and other meats come from China.

Having to go hungry is a concept that Americans are not willing to entertain. Abundance and endless supply will last forever! As long as the big and mighty government is in charge, we will never want for anything. Self-reliance is not necessary, not even for food. Few people know that grocery stores only supply their stores with food for three days.

We never had “fun” cafeteria food fights or filled the trash cans with free taxpayer-supplied food we disliked like American high school students do. That is because we did not have a cafeteria, the communist state did not feed us, food was so scarce, and we would not have turned down anything edible.

The American journalists in Sochi, accustomed to a life of plenty in our free market-based economy, experienced an unpleasant taste of a communist economy in their hotel rooms; they complained on Twitter—they wanted the comfort provided by our capitalist economy.

Perhaps this experience in Russia will change the rhetoric about the utopian communism, and the nonsensical race for “collectivism, equality, and social justice” will stop. Everything about communism was unjust - it was oppressive, unequal, and inadequate. And it was not just about the lack of food—it crushed the human spirit.

As long as there is plenty of food and no suffering from hunger, people are happy and satisfied, no matter how enslaved their existence may be. As long as there are generous Americans who go to work every day and pay taxes, there is money for welfare for those who either lost their jobs or choose to be on welfare permanently in order to find themselves, relishing in their new-found freedom from the drudgery of work. That is how government officials spin their inability to create jobs for the massively unemployed that would otherwise starve without food stamps and welfare

The Obama doctrine in action!

The Obama doctrine in action!

It raises prices, lowers employment, and doesn't accomplish its goals. 

CBO: $10.10 minimum wage destroys up to a million jobs - won’t do much for the poor

We know Democrats are desperate to raise the minimum wage.  They don’t care what it does to overall employment, or the cost of goods and services, but they do know it sounds good to low-info voters.  If you’re not terribly bright and don’t have a lot of money, this sounds like a sure fire win. After all, there can’t be any downside to a wage increase, right?

Unfortunately, the Congressional Budget Office begs to differ.  In a report released yesterday, the CBO announced that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour (one of the most oft-floated options) has a destructive impact on the overall employment rate, and doesn’t do much to help those living life below the poverty line.

Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects (see the table below). As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers.

At least Nancy Pelosi will be happy.  That’s up to a million more people who would be freed from the horrors of employment, enabling them “to chase their dreams” of becoming authors, sculptors, and painters.

The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate. However, those earnings would not go only to low-income families, because many low-wage workers are not members of low-income families. Just 19 percent of the $31 billion would accrue to families with earnings below the poverty threshold, whereas 29 percent would accrue to families earning more than three times the poverty threshold, CBO estimates.

Moreover, the increased earnings for some workers would be accompanied by reductions in real (inflation-adjusted) income for the people who became jobless because of the minimum-wage increase, for business owners, and for consumers facing higher prices.

How much do you want to bet these numbers are - as usual - optimistic?

Even if they’re dead-on, that means that raising the minimum wage 40% will result in a 0.3% drop in employment. I suppose you could argue “What difference does it make” since, at this point, Obama has given the country the smallest workforce participation rate since 1978. Another 0.3% is nothing compared to the value of a new talking point.

That talking point will be that the $10.10 increase moved up to 1 million people above the poverty line. They probably won’t mention that a up to a million fewer people are actually working. As Charles Krauthammer says, that would be tough to defend since it means you’re helping a some people by obliterating the livelihoods of others.

What this is is a transfer of wealth from some low-income earners to other low-income earners. Some — of course, this is so obvious, it’s not rocket science — some will be better off, will make more, but others are going to lose everything. They’re going to lose all of their income, and they’re going to lose the first step on the ladder into employment, which is the hope for the future. So it’s a high price. You can make your choice, but there isn’t a free lunch. They are running ads saying to give America a raise, as if it’s no cost. It is a cost, and it’s other low income people who will be the ones who pay it.

Never mind that 81% of the families who benefit from this are already above the poverty line. Also, please ignore the fact that those who remain on the low end of the income ladder will actually be worse-off since the CBO says the wage hike will increase the cost of the things they buy. You’re not supposed to be reading the fine print.

When you’re talking about the ravages of “income inequality” more is always better. Got it?

A Stateless, Unconstitutional 'World Citizen' President

A Stateless, Unconstitutional 'World Citizen' President

By Adrien Nash ·

“Dual citizens are 50-50 combo, half-breed citizens of two different nations.”

“No, you can't be a 'partial' citizen, a half-American citizen.”

That is true from the perspective of the two governments. Dual citizens have full citizenship in both nations to which they belong, either by blood or by blood and borders. One can't be born in two different nations but can be born of two different nations when one's parents are of dissimilar nations with different governments, languages, religions, histories, values or traditions. The children of such unions, like the children of different races, do not naturally nor fully belong to either group and yet are viewed by both as citizens because of the granting of citizenship via their laws.

Saying that one can't be a 50-50 citizen – that one must be a full citizen or an alien – is like saying that one must be fully male or fully female. One or the other. But such a view doesn't take reality into consideration because one can be an unnatural gender; namely, a hermaphrodite. Both male and female. Being two things at once is possible but unnatural, and results, in the case of citizenship, in a conflict of nationality.

Citizenship comes with few strings attached, but there are two which many, or most, nations require, and those are the payment of taxes and the obligation of national defense if needed and called. Both governments have laws governing their citizens and aren't inclined to provide exemptions for those with a second nationality because that would impinge on their sovereignty, so a tug-of-war exists between one's obligation to both. That is an unnatural situation due to an unnatural union of disparate origins.

It's the civic equivalent to dogs having off-spring with cats. With Nazis having children with Jews. With Eskimos having children with Africans. Quite dissimilar natures result in off-spring that do not fully belong to either parent's group. But denying the idea of “partial” membership (dual citizenship) resulting from being embraced by both groups is to espouse the nationality equivalent to someone being 200% of a certain thing (political nature).

Racially, it would be like being one hundred percent Negro and 100% Caucasian. That is impossible, and so it is also politically impossible to be 100% of one nation and also 100% of another because one can only be 100% in total – not 200% even though proud governments don't prefer to acknowledge such a bifurcated nature and obligation.

And practically speaking, a conflict never arises for 50% of dual citizens – those who happen to be female, because they are not subject to the full jurisdiction of two nations since they are not obligated to serve in the military in either (Israel being the only exception). If neither nation has a universal draft of all young male citizens, then no potential conflict would arise. The United States was not such a nation (because it had held that the most fundamental obligation of citizenship was national defense) until that historical national policy changed with the abolition of the draft.

Dual nationality is accompanied by another similar form of unnatural citizenship, and that is adopted citizenship – citizenship that one did not inherit; citizenship with which one was not born. There are many analogies to the unnatural change of one's country and citizenship.

Nature versus Surgery

One example would be if one were to change their gender from male to female. That would not be a natural change but a physical change because one is naturally what they are by birth – not surgery.

Naturalization is similar. Naturalization is a form of political surgery. One must sever their born nature and adopt a new political nature. What one was born being is rejected via the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation. That is political surgery that changes one from one thing into another. It does not add another nature to one's existent born nature; it replaces it. Such a citizenship change is a legal-political alteration from one's natural status. It provides one with new legal citizenship. It does not and cannot provide one with natural citizenship.

If one has dual citizenship in two nations that do not allow dual-citizenship for its adult members (while allowing provisional citizenship for its dual-citizen minors) then one must make a choice at adulthood which nation one chooses to belong to.

If neither nation has a policy or law that grants citizenship based on birth within national borders, then one might have provisional citizenship in both nations.

If one has only provisional citizenship in two nations, and, upon reaching the age of majority, one neglects, in both nations, to take the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation (as Kenya required of Barack Obama Jr.), then one's provisional citizenship would expire in both nations (as Obama's Kenyan citizenship did two years after reaching age 21). One would then be a citizen of no nation on earth; a stateless person.

Barack Obama is neither Kenyan nor British since his provisional membership in both was allowed to expire but his supposed birth within U.S. territorial limits did not fulfill the requirement of the 14th Amendment (which grants citizenship to children of aliens if born in the U.S.) because it only covers children of alien fathers who are immigrants since only they are subject to a citizen's obligation to defend his nation via military or civilian service if the draft were to be re-instituted.

Foreign guests are not subject since they are guests and not official members of American society. They aren't legally obligated to register at 18 with the Selective Service since they are not subject to possible conscription into the U.S. military.

Obama's mother's American citizenship was only relevant by law for situations of foreign birth – not native birth. There is no law by which an American mother's citizenship descends to her children if they are born in the United States. The nationality law that provides American citizenship to children of American women only applies in situations of foreign birth. So Obama has no source of U.S. citizenship in actual American law, even if some courts have ignored the law because they didn't understand it and instead simply followed the erroneous over-reaching policy of the executive branch put in place in 1898 by the Attorney General following the Supreme Court's ruling on the 14th Amendment.

Aside from applying that established policy which has no root in actual American law (other than “the law” that the Attorney General ignorantly or deliberately created) Barack Obama is in the truest sense, a stateless person – not an American citizen by actual law or Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and therefore can not be considered what the United States Constitution requires for serving in the office of the President, namely that he be a “natural born citizen”. So he is neither legitimately a U.S. citizen nor the American President. He is instead a stateless fraud.

But some problems are simply too big, too huge, too gigantic to deal with, to handle, to get one's arms around (such as the national debt, the deficit spending, the uncontrolled bureaucracy, the ocean of federal regulations and unfathomable tax code, the military-industrial complex, the secret intelligence complex) and the Obama conundrum is one of them.

No one wants to touch it because it's like an electrified fence or the third rail of the subway line. There are serious consequences to even mentioning it. It might be like daring to claim in 1940 Nazi Germany that Hitler was actually Jewish by ancestry, or that Stalin was actual a Capitalist, or Mussolini was actually a woman. No one would dare go there, especially when Obama's NSA flying monkeys know everything about everyone going back decades.

To correct the travesties that Obama has heaped on America would require pulling out some giant plants by the roots, and we have few if any political gardeners with the knowledge, experience, and courage to even contemplate such a thing.

Life usually holds quite a few surprises, but what is also surprising is when there are no surprises when there should be. Such is the case with the near universal silence regarding the unconstitutional usurpation of the office of President by the Progressive-socialist wing of the Democrat Party via their exalted and adored Marxist messiah whose goal is “to fundamentally transform America”. Meaning that it is fundamentally flawed from the ground up.

How would you feel about a contractor you hired to do some upgrading of your home, who, once you've signed a contract, announces that he intends to tear your home down and rebuild it from the ground up?

Would that sound like something you would think he has the right to do just because he prefers it? What
about your rights?  After all, it's your home, not his, even though he's taken it over.