Friday, August 30, 2013

Congress needs a Brain

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

British Parliament Debates War With Syria, U.S. Congress Vacations

August 29, 2013 by
As chatter about the prospect of the United States going maverick in Syria continues, the Nation’s international peers are receiving praise from some U.S. lawmakers for taking a more thoughtful approach to intervening in the Middle Eastern conflict.
Representative Scott Rigell (R-Va.) lauded the British Parliament on Thursday, noting that U.S. lawmakers are still on recess— despite the President’s war rhetoric— while the Brit lawmakers have robustly debated a resolution on military intervention in Syria.
The Parliament, he said, is having a debate, while the United States is not. “Given the history our two Nations,’ he continued, “there is a bit of irony here.”
Rigell said that he is happy to see that the evident slowing in British momentum towards military action has made the White House pull back “just a bit.” The lawmaker also noted that Congressional approval prior to intervention would be a sign of strength for the U.S.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) also noted the absence of Congressional debate on the matter.
Cruz tweeted:
View image on Twitter

Thursday, August 29, 2013

NY Times: Putin Incensed by Obama's 'Bored Kid' Remark

A comment by President Obama that Vladimir Putin looked "like the bored kid in the back of the classroom" apparently "infuriated" the Russian president, The New York Times reported Wednesday.

The comment came Aug. 9 at a news conference concerning a showdown with Putin over Edward Snowden, the former defense contractor who leaked top-secret details of the National Security Agency's surveillance programs.

Putin ultimately gave Snowden temporary asylum over the objections of Obama, and the president was asked about his working relationship with the Russian leader.

Editor's Note: 22 Hidden Taxes and Fees Set to Hit You With Obamacare. Read the Guide to Protect Yourself.

"I know the press likes to focus on body language, and he's got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom. But the truth is that when we're in conversations together, oftentimes it's very productive," Obama said.

The president went on to say that he didn't have "a bad personal relationship with Putin," and that "when we have conversations, they’re candid, they’re blunt; oftentimes, they’re constructive."

But Putin was not amused — and the remark just "intensified" Putin's suspicion of Obama, as did his abrupt cancellation of a meeting scheduled for next week in Moscow, The Times reported.

"The comment infuriated" Putin, The Times said, citing an unnamed Russian official.




© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Biden Said He Will Impeach The President For War Not Approved By Congress… In 2007

August 28, 2013 by
If President Barack Obama launches an attack on Syria without full Congressional approval, do you think Vice President Joe Biden will attempt to have him impeached?
On Tuesday, we brought you Constitution-friendly Obama, circa 2007; today, we will revisit a Biden of the same vintage.
In 2007, Senator Biden said that he would absolutely do everything possible to impeach President George W. Bush if he attacked Iran without first gaining Congressional approval.
Via Seacoast Online, November 29, 2007:
Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.
Biden spoke in front of a crowd of approximately 100 at a candidate forum held Thursday at Seacoast Media Group. The forum focused on the Iraq war and foreign policy. When an audience member expressed fear of a war with Iran, Biden said he does not typically engage in threats, but had no qualms about issuing a direct warning to the Oval Office.
“The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach,” said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience.
Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president.
Biden spent a great deal of time talking about illegal wars and impeaching President Bush around that time.
Chris Matthews: “You said that if the President of the United States had launched an attack on Iran without congressional approval that would have been an impeachable offense. Do you want to review that comment you made? Well how do you stand on that now?”
Biden: “Yes I do. I want to stand by the comment I made. The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don’t say those things lightly, Chris, you’ve known me for a long time. I was chairman of the judiciary committee for 17 years or its ranking member. I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole United State Senate pointing out the President has no constitutional authority…to take this nation to war against a county of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that but I would lead an effort to impeach him. The reason for my doing that, I don’t say it lightly, I don’t say it lightly. I say it because they should understand that what they were threatening, what they were saying, what it was adding up to be, what it looked like to the rest of the world we were about to do would be the most disastrous thing that could be done in this moment in our history that I could think of.”

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Syria

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Jesse Jackson and the Tea Party

featured-img
By Katherine Connell, The National Review
Jesse Jackson has no doubt that on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, Republican opposition to President Obama’s policies is motivated by racial animus reminiscent of the Civil War-era South. “The tea party is the resurrection of the Confederacy, it’s the Fort Sumter tea party,” Jackson told Politico’s Glenn Thrush.
Jackson, who Thrush describes as the man “who more than anyone occupies the no man’s land between his mentor King and Obama,” is “absolutely” convinced that attempts to thwart the president’s agenda are motivated by his race.
The question “To what degree is the partisan gridlock that is frustrating his attempts to govern racially driven?” is one that President Obama himself is “begging to ask,” according to Pulitzer Prize–winning author Taylor Branch. The president can’t broach the topic, Branch said, because “the slightest mention of race could alienate the millions of white Americans who voted for him.”
The half-dozen aides Thrush interviewed for the article disagree with this assessment, saying that they have never heard Obama suggest that race is a factor in the opposition he faces from the GOP.

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/08/27/unreal-jesse-jackson-says-tea-party-resurrection-confederacy%E2%80%99#ixzz2dD1Kehfw

Obama Flag Resurfaces at March on Washington

featured-imgYesterday a U.S Flag whose stars were replaced with a picture of President Obama resurfaced at the March On Washington.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Short Answers to Common Questions about Social Security

Published: May 2013
Developed to accompany
Social Security Finances: Findings of the 2013 Trustees Report
Social Security Brief #42, May 2013
1. Who are Social Security’s trustees and why do they issue an annual report? Social Security has six trustees: the Secretaries of the Treasury, of Labor, of Health and Human Services; the Social Security Commissioner; and two public trustees, who by law must be from different political parties, are appointed by the President, and must be confirmed by the Senate. They issue an annual report on Social Security’s finances to give Congress and the public ample time to consider any changes that may be warranted to keep the program’s income and outgo in balance over the entire 75-year period for which Social Security’s financial estimates are made.
2. How can the trustees know what’s going to happen 75 years from now? They can’t; no one can. Still, they provide essential guidance to policymakers responsible for ensuring that Social Security can pay all scheduled benefits. So the trustees make three long-range financial forecasts — high-cost, low-cost, and intermediate — and use the intermediate estimate as the basis for projecting income, outgo, and possible imbalances. The one sure thing is that the trustees’ 75-year estimates can never be precisely accurate and will change from year to year.
3. The trustees talk about a projected 75-year shortfall as a “percent of payroll.” What do they mean? Why not just talk about dollars? Workers’ earnings — employers’ payrolls — are the main source of Social Security financing. Calculating program costs as a percentage of the payrolls covered by Social Security avoids the complications that would arise from using dollar figures to measure the cost of one set of benefits in one time period versus another set of benefits in another time period when the value of a dollar is different.
4. Last year the trustees projected that the 75-year shortfall would average 2.67 percent of payroll. This year they’re projecting 2.72 percent of payroll. Why the difference? The main reason for the change is the one-year advance in the 75-year projection period, which is now 2013-2087. The substitution of a relatively high-cost year (2087) for a lower-cost year (2012) inevitably increases the projected shortfall somewhat, unless offset by other factors. The trustees noted that the projected date when Social Security’s reserves will be depleted (if Congress takes no action in the meantime) remains unchanged: 2033.
5. How have the Great Recession and slow recovery affected Social Security? Because of high unemployment and stagnant wages, income from workers’ earnings has been somewhat lower than expected. And because many laid-off workers find themselves forced to claim Social Security as soon as they can, outgo for benefits has been somewhat higher than expected.
6. So do economic downturns doom Social Security? On the contrary, Social Security’s long-term financing enables the program to ride out even sustained downturns in a volatile market economy, just as it was designed to do. During rough times Social Security functions as a giant economic shock absorber. In 2012 Social Security pumped nearly $775 billion into the economy in the form of benefit payments that maintained the purchasing power of more than 56 million beneficiaries and their families.
7. But isn’t Social Security contributing to the national debt? Social Security cannot contribute to the debt because by law it cannot borrow money. Since 1935 Social Security has collected $16.3 trillion and paid out $13.6 trillion, leaving a balance of $2.7 trillion in the trust funds at the end of 2012.
8. But last year the program spent more on benefits than it collected in payroll taxes. So is it going broke? No. Social Security has three sources of income: payroll taxes, income taxes on benefits paid to higher-income recipients, and interest earned on its reserves. Social Security is still accumulating reserves through interest earned on the money in its trust funds. The reserves are projected to increase from $2.7 trillion at the end of 2012 to $2.9 trillion at the end of 2020. After that, if Congress has not acted in the meantime to increase revenues or lower benefits, the reserves would start to be drawn down to help pay benefits.
9. But the media sometimes refer to Social Security’s “cash-flow imbalance.” Is it running out of cash? No. The term “cash flow” as used in the unified federal budget refers to the program’s annual income and outgo without counting interest earned by the trust fund reserves. If interest is ignored, income was less than outgo in 2012. But interest is part of Social Security’s total income, and the U.S. Treasury is firmly obligated to pay the interest due to the trust funds – an obligation just as firm as the commitment of the United States to any other holder of U.S. Treasury bonds. With interest income included, Social Security had a $54 billion surplus in 2012.
10. If the reserves are used up to help pay benefits, will Social Security be bankrupt? No. “Bankruptcy” means having no funds. Although the trustees estimate that the reserves will be depleted in 2033 (but only if Congress has not acted in the meantime), revenue continuing to come into Social Security from payroll taxes and income taxes on benefits paid to higher-income recipients would cover about 75% of scheduled benefits. It is this shortfall — not bankruptcy — that lawmakers need to address.
11. Are there ways to fix Social Security’s shortfall without cutting benefits? Yes. Many public opinion surveys, including a recent NASI study (PDF),[1] have found that most Americans would rather pay somewhat more to keep Social Security strong than cut benefits for current or future beneficiaries. For example, gradually increasing the contribution rate from 6.2% to 7.2% and gradually removing the cap on earnings taxable for Social Security could address the shortfall and pay for modest benefit improvements.
12. Social Security’s Disability Insurance (DI) trust fund will soon be depleted. What can be done? Social Security pays benefits from two legally separate trust funds: Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI). Of the 6.2% of earnings that workers and employers each pay to Social Security, 5.3% goes to OASI and 0.9% goes to DI. Policymakers could keep DI in balance for the next 75 years by raising the DI rate from 0.9% to 1.1%. Alternatively, they could temporarily reallocate part of the OASI tax rate to the DI fund to equalize the two funds over the next 20 years. Congress has reallocated the tax rate between DI and OASI many times in the past without controversy and could do so again.[2]
13. Will the retirement of the baby boomers overwhelm Social Security? No. The baby boomers’ retirement did not catch Social Security by surprise. Benefit reductions that were enacted 30 years ago, including gradually raising the age of eligibility for full benefits from 65 to 67, are still phasing in and have slowed spending for future benefits. In addition, the boomers’ tax contributions throughout their working years have helped cover the cost of their retirement.
14. Some commentators claim that Social Security is simply unaffordable. Is this true? A widely accepted way to evaluate the affordability of Social Security — or other major systems such as health care, education, or defense — is as a share of the entire economy, or gross domestic product (GDP). Social Security was 5.0% of GDP in 2012 and is expected to increase to 6.2% of GDP by 2035, when all of the baby boomers will have retired; then it is expected to decline slightly and level off at 6.0% to 6.2% thereafter. By way of comparison, the projected increase until 2035 is smaller than the increase in national spending for public education when the baby boomers were children. Social Security is affordable, and surveys show that Americans are willing to pay for it.

Sunday, August 25, 2013

Could Syria Spark WWIII?


By Alan Caruba

Who recalls that one of the reasons Americans approved the invasions of Iraq was the fact that Saddam Hussein had used poison gas to kill Kurds?

Now we are told that Bashar al-Assad, Syria’s strongman, has used poison gas to defeat the rebels trying to overthrow him, but the attack killed civilians and came in the wake of news that Assad has been steadily gaining ground over the rebels.

The war has seen the slaughter of an estimated 100,000 Syrians. Why use poison gas at this point?

The U.S. was drawn into the Vietnam War with the false assertion that forces of the north had fired on U.S. naval ships, but it later came out that the attack was minor and hardly constituted a reason to make the huge commitment that led to the long war; one that it lost. Lyndon B. Johnson got the nation into that war with what is widely acknowledged to have been, at best, an exaggeration of the incident.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq, while America was still engaged in Afghanistan, was yet another ill-fated decision. Indeed, it can be argued that after driving al Qaeda out of Afghanistan following 9/11 there was no reason for American military to remain. The U.S. began to depart Iraq in 2011 and it has returned to chaos as the Sunni-Shiite conflict grinds on.

Was the poison attack a “false flag” incident intended to draw the U.S. into yet another Middle East war?

Is there any reason to believe that U.S. military involvement in Syria would have a better outcome than Iraq or Afghanistan?

Naturally, though, observers will speculate who might have initiated the attack, but most certainly one can rule out Russia and Iran, allies of Assad. The Israelis have no reason to want to see an expanded war in Syria. Israel has had a de facto peace with the Assad father and son dictators since the 1967 war.

Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon, would surely want to see a quick end to the Syrian civil war because all are trying to deal with a humanitarian disaster involving over a million refugees that have fled the conflict, but there is little reason to attribute a false flag operation to them.

Would the rebels—an assortment of Syrian freedom fighters augmented by al Qaeda groups—use poison gas to draw the U.S. and the West into the conflict? The answer to that is yes.

The most striking attribute of the Obama administration has been its failure to make any good judgments about the Middle East other than to get out or “lead from behind.” Much of this is attributable to the foreign policy advisors he has gathered around him; high level appointees of his national security council and in the CIA have a very Islam-friendly attitude that led them to believe that the U.S. could encourage democracy in a region that has no democratic history to build upon. His latest appointment, the new United Nations ambassador is missing in action; no one seems to know where she is.

The fact is that U.S. presidents have been making bad judgments when it comes to war since LBJ. Clearly, the decisions by Bush41 and Bush43 have not been met with success and, just as clearly, Americans do not want to see our military committed to another conflict in the Middle East.

Obama’s decision to support the ouster of Mubarak, the former Egyptian dictator, led to a short term in office by a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood that, in turn, led to massive demonstrations against him and his removal by the Egyptian military. By then the nation was suffering an economic breakdown with hundreds of thousands facing starvation. Only humanitarian support from Saudi Arabia has prevented this. The U.S. continues to dither over aid to the Egyptian military that has been a reliable ally for decades.

Even Turkey that has had a secular government elected an Islamist who has become unhinged by events. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan went from being Obama’s touted friend and partner to an offensive anti-Semite claiming Israel was behind Syria’s civil war. Obama has consistently misjudged who to support in the region.

As this is being written, American navel assets are being moved closer to Syria and American military have set up a command post in Jordan in the event an intervention is deemed necessary.

Writing in The Washington Times, Judson Phillips says, “This is Obama’s perfect war. It is perfect because there are no American interests involved, no reason for America to be involved, and no matter who wins the Syrian civil war, America loses.”
Most certainly, whether he decides to get in or stay out, it would come at a time when the Obama administration has forfeited any claim to leadership in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world. At this point, that is likely to be seen as Obama’s greatest legacy.

A century ago in 1913, neither Europeans, nor Americans could have imagined that World War I would begin the following year. The situation in Syria reeks of the same uncertainties and outcome.

© Alan Caruba, 2013

NSA

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Saturday, August 24, 2013

(IBD) CSI ObamaCare: Affordable Care Act To Have Own Police - You Have The Right To Remain Silent

Police State: The administration is building a detective  squad that will target consumers and companies that don't follow ObamaCare's  rules. The game of "good cop, bad cop" has arrived in American health care.
It was bad enough to know that an Internal Revenue Service that targets the  political opponents of the Obama administration between partying on the taxpayer  dime would be in charge of monitoring compliance with ObamaCare's individual  mandate via our tax returns.
Now, the Daily Mail, which lodged a Freedom of Information Act with Health  and Human Services, reports that the agency has hired a bevy of criminal  investigators as we continue to learn what is in the Orwellian-named Affordable  Care Act.
Never did we imagine that buying insurance and going to the doctor or  providing coverage to employees would come under the full-time purview of  federal criminal investigators.
On the day in 2010 that President Obama signed the bill into law, HHS got  authority from the Office of Personnel Management to make as many as 1,814 new  hires under an emergency "Direct Hiring Authority" order.
The agency was authorized to hire 50 criminal investigators to ensure  compliance with mandatory provisions and regulations. But as is typical with an  administration with no respect for the Constitution and the law, HHS  unilaterally upped that number to 86.
Of course these investigators won't be digging into the Obama  administration's lack of compliance with its own law. A president doesn't have  the legal authority to decide what parts of the law he wants to obey; the  Constitution does not grant him that authority.
But that's exactly what Obama is doing with Obama-Care.

Rush Limbaugh Inks New 3-Year Deal, Contract 'Really Never in Doubt'

Calling himself America's "Doctor of Democracy" and "America's Truth Detector," conservative talk superstar Rush Limbaugh announced a new three-year deal on Friday with Cumulus Media, which includes a move from WABC to WOR in New York.

"The bottom line is, no change for you," Limbaugh said on his radio show. "Wherever you're listening to this radio show today, you're gonna be able to hear it on Jan. 2, 3, whenever I get back from the traditional Christmas break. There will be no interruption to you. There will be no change. The radio program is as strong or stronger than ever. It will be everywhere you are used to listening to it now."

Politico reported last month that Cumulus Media would not renew "The Rush Limbaugh Show" after negotiations with Premiere Networks, the division of Clear Channel that distributes the program.

"The last month, if you read Politico or anything that linked to Politico or CNN or ABC or anywhere else, you were reading that it was over for me. That I was bad news for broadcast stations," Limbaugh told listeners. "They could not sell advertising and all of this was because of me and the controversy I engender and therefore I wasn't gonna be gone overnight, but three to four years, and that's it. Fini, totala completa, out of there, gone. Once and for all the left would be rid of me."

On Friday, Limbaugh said that the yearlong negotiations ended this week with a new deal, and that "it was really never in doubt, but I don't want to do my own version of negotiating here."

He compared his situation to President Obama's promise that Americans could keep their health insurance.

"If you like this station, you get to keep this station," he said. "I'm not gonna take this station away from you and force you to go to a new one, as Obama's doing with your healthcare. He said if you like your doctor, you like your plan, you get to keep it. No, you don't. You're gonna lose your doctor; you're gonna lose your plan."

Then he dubbed himself the "Doctor of Democracy" and "America's Truth Detector." He attributed the move from WABC in the highly coveted New York market to the fact that WOR is owned by his syndication partner, Clear Channel Communications.

He added, "And as the Doctor of Democracy, the deal you have with your doctor isn't changing. You get to keep your doctor. You get to keep your plan. You get to keep your station. Nothing's changing, and it really never was gonna change," he explained. "These were just public negotiations, which normally don't occur in public. But the media got involved.

"So the point is, the past month in the drive-by media I was over, it was finished," he said. "You better listen while you can because I was gone, I was ineffective, I was a has-been, it was old news, whatever happened on this program."

Friday, August 23, 2013

Banks robbed Americans during bailouts - don’t be fooled again

by Jason Kendall, contributing columnist | June 05, 2013
In between parties, vacations, repealing Obamacare for the 37th time and naming post offices, someone in Congress has an idea. Apparently, the bailouts of the American banking industry did not have the outcome Congress desired. Shocking that the strategy of blindly handing billions of dollars to bankers has yet to do much good for anyone except, of course, bankers.
The Terminating Bailouts for Taxpayer Fairness Act was introduced in the Senate in April, and if it survives from the onslaught of banking lobbyists, the bill may be able to do some good.
The act would require banks with more than $500 billion in assets to keep capital reserves of about 15 percent, about twice the current amount. Simple enough, but if you don't understand the impact of this on big banks, don't worry - just look at their response and you can see the threat this poses.
Before you question the motives of this bill, let's take a look at the 2008 bailout and what the banks have done with your money.
The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 gave billions to banks, whether they were financially healthy or not. Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson threatened Congress that America would lose more than $5.5 trillion in wealth and the "world economy" would collapse if Wall Street did not get $700 billion. It was such a scary moment that the Senate added another $150 billion - you know, to cover the vig.
Well, what happened?
Let's start with the money loaned to help reduce mortgage deficiencies; this was one of the main justifications for the bailout. Most large banks took bailout money but failed to modify home loans. This is why they are constantly being sued.
Next, millions in bailout funds went directly to pay bonuses for bankers. Priceless.
Even more interesting is that your money is probably in the banks of the Federal Reserve. Up until 2008, the money banks had to give to the Fed gained no interest. The money was there to help stabilize banks. By not charging interest, banks would invest any access money, over what they had to put into the Fed, into the marketplace. Now that the Fed is paying interest, why would they invest that money elsewhere? Before the 2008 bailout, only about $2 billion was held in the reserve - now there is more than $1.6 trillion earning $5 billion in interest yearly.
The Fed printed money, Congress gave it to banks and the banks then returned it to the Fed in order to earn interest on that money.
Lastly, and to lock your children further into debt, in 2010, Congress and the president established the Small Business Lending Fund, loaning community banks $30 billion to invest. What did these banks do? They paid back their TARP loans from the 2008 bailout. The banks were given taxpayer money to loan but the money was instead used to pay back loans that the taxpayers had originally loaned them. They were bailed out of their bailout.
Former President George W. Bush said, "Fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again." The saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Americans were not fooled - they were

What Happened to the $2.6 Trillion Social Security Trust Fund?

Here’s how President Barack Obama answered CBS’s Scott Pelley’s question about whether he could guarantee that Social Security checks would go out on August 3, the day after the government is supposed to reach its debt limit: “I cannot guarantee that those checks [he included veterans and the disabled, in addition to Social Security] go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue.  Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
And Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner echoed the president on CBS’s Face the Nation Sunday implying that if a budget deal isn’t reached by August 2, seniors might not get their Social Security checks.
Well, either Obama and Geithner are lying to us now, or they and all defenders of the Social Security status quo have been lying to us for decades.  It must be one or the other.
Here’s why: Social Security has a trust fund, and that trust fund is supposed to have $2.6 trillion in it, according to the Social Security trustees.   If there are real assets in the trust fund, then Social Security can mail the checks, regardless of what Congress does about the debt limit.
President Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, explained all this last February in USA Today:
“Social Security benefits are entirely self-financing.  They are paid for with payroll taxes collected from workers and their employers throughout their careers.  These taxes are placed in a trust fund dedicated to paying benefits owed to current and future beneficiaries. … Even though Social Security began collecting less in taxes than it paid in benefits in 2010, the trust fund will continue to accrue interest and grow until 2025, and will have adequate resources to pay full benefits for the next 26 years.”
Notice that Lew said nothing about raising the debt ceiling, which was already looming, and it shouldn’t matter anyway because Social Security is “entirely self-financing” and off budget.   What could be clearer?
Unconvinced, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote a subsequent column questioning Lew’s assertions.  “This [Lew’s] claim is a breathtaking fraud.  The pretense is that a flush trust fund will pay retirees for the next 26 years.  Lovely, except for one thing: The Social Security trust fund is a fiction. … In other words, the Social Security trust fund contains—nothing.”
Social Security status-quo defenders have assured us for the past 25 years that Social Security is fully funded—for the next 25 years, or 2036.  So if there are real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund—$2.6 trillion allegedly—then how could failure to reach a debt-ceiling agreement possibly threaten seniors’ Social Security checks?
The answer is that the federal government has borrowed all of that trust fund money and spent it, exactly as Krauthammer asserted.  And the only way the trust fund can get some cash to pay Social Security benefits is if the federal government draws it from general revenues or borrows the money—which, of course, it can’t do because of the debt ceiling.

Rand Paul: Obama 'Flouting the Law' by Continuing Aid to Egypt

   President Barack Obama is "directly flouting the law" by not immediately cutting off financial aid to Egypt following the ouster of President Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky says.

Paul pointed to the federal law that says the United States will not give money to countries operating under a coup — a designation the Obama administration has not given.

"There never should have been any debate. The law's explicit. If you have a military coup or a military takeover, the aid has to end unless you want a president who disobeys the law," Paul told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.

"This president is directly flouting the law and he's in direct disobeyance of the law. So, no, there's no question. The aid has to end.


Paul, who is considering a run for president in 2016, said following the law of the land is not up for debate.

"You can debate whether aid's a good idea and it's a bad idea, but the law you don't get to debate. You have to change the law if you don't like the law," he said.

"All of these Republicans who stand up and beat their chest and say, 'Oh, we're the party that's the rule of law and we criticize the Muslim Brotherhood for not obeying the rule of law.'

"Well, it's a valid criticism only if you obey the rule of law. … Our law says when an elected government is toppled, there's no wiggle room. You have to end the aid."

Rand likened the coup debate to a fight among youngsters.

"It's more like third-grade playground. … People say, 'Well, yeah, it's a coup, but you can't make me say it's a coup.' So it's a bunch of third-graders on the playground saying you can't make me," he said.

Thursday, August 22, 2013

Filner & Weiner

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Is US Paying for UN to Teach Hate?

Controversial documentary explores Gaza camp teaching Palestinian children to hate Jews, glorify martyrs and support jihad — a message it is able to convey thanks in part to funding provided by a United Nations agency whose largest contributors are US taxpayers. Bailey Comment:When has the US Government ever ask the American Tax Payer if they want to give any money at all to the UN? The tax payer does not control the purse strings, the government does!

Perry Seeks Obamacare Cash, Despite Opposition to Law

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, one of the country's most outspoken critics of Obamacare, is now in discussions with the administration about qualifying for $100 million in funds from the health care program to help the state's disabled and elderly.

According to Politico, Texas health officials are working to win approval from the administration to fit Obamacare's optional Community First Choice program into the state's existing Medicaid framework.

"Efforts are underway to develop and submit an application to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for participation," a spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services, told Politico.

The program is designed to provide more community-based support and in-home treatment to the disabled and elderly, and 12,000 Texans would stand to benefit.

The move surprised some in Texas, especially after the state refused to set up an insurance exchange or expand Medicaid as envisioned in the new health care law. Earlier this month, Perry also publicly criticized Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius for promoting Obamacare during a visit to Texas.

Now critics are accusing Perry of hypocrisy, something that could come back to haunt the retiring governor in the event he decides to make a second presidential bid in 2016.

Ginny Goldman, director of the Texas Organizing Project, told Politico that "it's simply a shame that Perry is willing to accept $100 million in Affordable Care Act dollars that would help some" in the state, while rejecting billions in Obamacare funds through a Medicaid expansion that could help 1.5 million Texans.




© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

Hillary

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Benghazi decision 'surely is a Clinton protection operation'

Charles Krauthammer told viewers Tuesday on "Special Report with Bret Baier" that the State Department's reinstatement of four officials who had been put on leave after the Benghazi attacks illustrates the Department's refusal to hold anyone accountable.
 "This is the definition of how to conduct a stonewall," Krauthammer, a syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor, said of Secretary of State John Kerry's decision to put the officials back to work.
 "The new Secretary of State looks at this and says, essentially, these people were not responsible, or they don't really carry any accountability - they are back on the job, as you say, without ever missing a paycheck, and no one is held responsible."
Krauthammer added, "whatever the intent was, it surely is a Clinton protection operation, in effect."

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Cruz Renounces Canadian Citizenship

Image: Cruz Renounces Canadian CitizenshipSen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, who was born in Canada to a mother who held U.S. citizenship, said he has no problem renouncing his citizenship to the Great White North, even though there appears to be no legal reason for him to do so, reports ABC News.com.

According to most legal scholars and Cruz himself, the Texas senator is 100 percent American and his Canadian citizenship is a mere technicality that would not prevent him from a possible Presidential run in 2016.

Still, Cruz said he’s ready to sever ties with Canada.

“Now the Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship,” Cruz said.

“Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. senator, I believe I should be only an American.”

Over the weekend, Cruz released a copy of his birth certificate to the Dallas Morning News, which showed he was, in fact, born in Calgary, Canada, on Dec. 22, 1970.

An expert in Canadian law concluded that meant “he’s a Canadian.”

A spokesperson for Cruz initially denied the senator’s Canadian’s origins.

“Sen. Cruz became a U.S. citizen at birth, and he never had to go through a naturalization process after birth to become a U.S. citizen,” said Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier.

“To our knowledge, he never had Canadian citizenship, so there is nothing to renounce.”

Many believe Cruz announced his intention to renounce his so-called Canadian citizenship as a way to appease those who might be uncomfortable with his place of birth.


Sunday, August 18, 2013

New White House 'Butler' Film Criticizes Reagan

A biographer of former President Ronald Reagan said some scenes in "Lee Daniels' The Butler" may amount to what he describes as "Hollywood malpractice" if they turn out to be based on anything other than facts.

Paul Kengor, who wrote two books about the late president: "The Crusader" and "God and Ronald Reagan," took particular issue with a scene in which Nancy Reagan invites White House butler Cecil Gaines and his wife to a dinner party only for the couple to feel out of place, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

"The screenwriter and makers of this film better have some hard evidence for this," Kengor told the publication. "I hope they have at least some quotes somewhere from the butler saying he felt like a prop. If they don’t, then they should be ashamed of themselves. If they don’t, then this is Hollywood malpractice."

Other biographers of the nation’s 40th president have also slammed the film, which opened widely on Friday and is based on the story of Eugene Allen, an African American who worked at the White House for more than three decades, from 1952-1986. He is named Gaines in the film, a role that is played by Forrest Whitaker.

Kengor also told the Reporter that the film appears to depict President Reagan as racially insensitive and indifferent to apartheid.

“Ronald Reagan was appalled by apartheid, but also wanted to ensure that if the apartheid regime collapsed in South Africa that it wasn’t replaced by a Marxist-totalitarian regime allied with Moscow and Cuba that would take the South African people down the same road as Ethiopia, Mozambique, and, yes, Cuba,” Kengor said. “Clearly, blacks in South Africa lost rights under apartheid, but Communism was a far greater infringement . . . In Communist nations, people were literally lined up and slaughtered — and starved — on mass scales. Has everyone forgotten this?”

Saturday, August 17, 2013

Jane Richard

Jane Richard is just seven years old, but she bears the scars of the Boston marathon bombing attack that killed her brother, eight-year-old Martin. She is missing her left leg below the knee. The family has now released a picture of little Jane smiling and standing on her crutches. featured-img

Friday, August 16, 2013

Egypt & Obama

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Reggie Love: Obama Played Cards during bin Laden Raid

Aug 14, 2013
Print This Post Print This Post Reggie Love: Obama Played Cards during bin Laden Raid
By Todd Starnes
President Obama played cards the night Osama bin Laden was killed because he didn’t want to be in the Situation Room, according to his former body man.
FOLLOW TODD ON FACEBOOK — CLICK HERE!!
Reggie Love told a gathering in Los Angeles that the president and three others sat around a table in the private dining room to play spades.
“Most people were down in the Situation Room and (Obama) was like, ‘I’m not going to be down there. I can’t watch this entire thing,’” Love recalled. “We must have played 15 games of spades.”
Love made the revelation in Los Angeles during a private briefing hosted by The Artists and Athletes Alliance. Video of the remarks were posted online but have since been removed.

More and more this "average bill" is being passed by irresponsible parents onto the hard working taxpayers.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Obamacare Limit on Consumer Costs To Be Delayed a Year

The implementation of Obamacare is suffering another setback,  after it was discovered that a rule establishing a maximum limit in the out-of-pocket expenses people may have to spend on their own health care will be delayed until 2015.

The health care law stipulates that individuals will not have to spend more than $6,350 per year on their own, including deductibles and co-payments, while families would not spend more than $12,700.

But a little noticed rule in the legislation grants a one-year grace period to some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits or no limits at all on some costs in 2014, The New York Times reports.

Editor's Note: Should ObamaCare Be Repealed? Vote in Urgent National Poll

The clause was established on the premise that insurers and employers may need more time to streamline the way they administer coverage and upgrade their computer systems to centrally keep track of individual out-of-pocket expenditures.

"We knew this was an important issue. We had to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers, which told us that their computer systems were not set up to aggregate all of a person's out-of-pocket costs. They asked for more time to comply," an unnamed senior administration official told the Times.

The delay is bad news particularly for people with chronic illnesses, including cancer and disabilities, many whom have tens of thousands of dollars a year in out-of-pocket expenses for treatment and medications.

The news represents the second significant delay in the roll-out of the president's signature health care plan. In July, the administration announced it will not require employers to provide health insurance for their workers until 2015, prompting a wave a criticism about the viability of the law and the renewal of calls to repeal the program.

Tuesday, August 13, 2013

How The Corrupt Establishment Is Selling Moral Bankruptcy To America

August 13, 2013 by
Morality is a highly misunderstood component of human nature. Some people believe they can create moral guidelines from thin air based on their personal biases and prejudices. Some people believe that morality comes from the force of bureaucracy and government law. Still, others believe that there is no such thing; that morality is a facade created by men in order to better grease the wheels of society.
All of these world views discount the powerful scientific and psychological evidence surrounding Natural Law — the laws that human beings form internally due to inherent conscience, regardless of environmental circumstances. When a person finally grasps inborn morality, the whole of the world comes into focus. The reality is that we are not born “good” or “evil.” Rather, we are all born with the capacity for good AND evil, and this internal battle stays with us until the end of our days.
PHOTOS.COM
Every waking moment we are given a choice, a test of our free will, to be ruled by desire and fear, or to do what we know at our very core is right. When a man silences his inner voice, the results can be terrible for him and those around him. When an entire culture silences its inner voice, the results can be catastrophic. Such a shift in the moral compass of a society rarely takes place in a vacuum. There is always a false shepherd, a corrupt leadership that seeks to rule. Rulership, though, is difficult in the face of an awake population that respects integrity and honor. Therefore criminals must follow these specific steps in order to take power:
Pretend To Be Righteous: They must first sell the public on the idea that they hold the exact same values of natural law as everyone else. The public must at first believe that the criminal leaders are pure in their motives and have the best interests of the nation at heart, even if they secretly do not.
Pretend To Be Patriotic: Despots often proclaim an untarnished love of their homeland and the values that it was founded upon. However, what they really seek is to become a living symbol of the homeland. They insist first that they are the embodiment of the national legacy, and then they attempt to change that national legacy entirely. A corrupt government uses the ideals of a society to acquire a foothold, and when they have gained sufficient control, they dictate to that society a new set of ideals that are totally contrary to the original.
Offer To “Fix” The Economy: Tyrants do not like it when the citizens under them are self sufficient or economically independent. They will use whatever methods are at their disposal including subversive legislation, fiat currency creation, corporate monopoly and even engineered financial collapse in order to remove the public’s ability to function autonomously. They will begin this process under the guise that the current less-controlled and less-centralized system is “not safe enough,” and that they have a better way to ensure prosperity.
Offer To Lend A Hand: Once the population has been removed from its own survival imperative and is for the most part helpless, the criminal leadership moves in and offers to “help” using taxation and money creation, slowly siphoning the wealth from the middle class and raising prices through inflation. Eventually, everyone will be “equal”; equally poor that is. In the end, the whole nation will see the rulership as indispensable, for without them, the economy would no longer exist and tragedy would ensue.
Create External Fear: Once in place, the criminal leadership then conjures an enemy for the people, or multiple enemies for the people. The goal here is to create a catalyst for mass fear. When the majority of people are afraid of an external threat, they will embrace the establishment as a vital safeguard. When a society becomes convinced that it cannot take care of itself economically, little coaxing is required to convince them that they are also not competent enough to take care of their own defense. At this point, the establishment has free reign to dissolve long cherished freedoms while the masses are distracted by a mysterious threat hiding somewhere over the horizon.
Create Internal Fear: They move the threat from over the horizon, right to the public’s front door, or even within their own home. The enemy is no longer a foreigner. Now, the enemy is the average looking guy two houses over, or an outspoken friend, or even a dissenting family member. The enemy is all around them, according to the establishment. The public is sold on the idea that the sacrifice needed in order to combat such a pervasive “threat” is necessarily high.
Sell The People On The Virtues Of Moral Relativism: Now that the populace is willing to forgo certain liberties for the sake of security, they have been softened up enough for reprogramming to begin. The establishment will tell the people that the principles they used to hold so dear are actually weaknesses that make them vulnerable to the enemy. In order to defeat an enemy so monstrous, they claim, we must become monstrous ourselves. We must be willing to do ANYTHING, no matter how vile or contrary to natural law, in order to win.
Honesty must be replaced with deceit. Dissent must be replaced with silence. Peace must be replaced with violence. The independent should be treated with suspicion. The outspoken treated with contempt. Women and children are no longer people to be protected, but targets to be eliminated. The innocent dead become collateral damage. The innocent living become informants to be tortured and exploited. Good men are labeled cowards because they refuse to “do what needs to be done,” while evil men are labeled heroes for having the “strength of will” to abandon their conscience.
Thus, the criminal leadership makes once honorable citizens accomplices in the crime. The more disgusting the crime, the more apt the people will be to defend it and the system in general, simply because they have been inducted into the dark ceremony of moral ambiguity.
The actions of the state become the actions of all society. A single minded collectivist culture is born, one in which every person is a small piece of the greater machine. And, that which the machine is guilty of, every man is guilty of. Therefore, it becomes the ultimate and absurd purpose of each person within the system to DENY the crime, deny the guilt, and make certain that the machine continues to function for generations to come.
Though we have already passed though most of the above stages, Americans are still not yet quite indoctrinated into the realm of moral relativism. This is, though, swiftly changing.

The Current Sales Pitch

Just take a look at the attitude of the Barack Obama Administration and the mainstream media towards Edward Snowden and his recent asylum approved by Russia.
The White House, rather than admitting wrongdoing in its support for the NSA’s mass surveillance of American citizens without warrant, or even attempting to deny the existence of the PRISM program, is now instead trying to promote NSA spying as essential to our well being, and wag a shaming finger at Snowden and the Russian government for damaging their domestic spy network. Obama lamented on Russia’s stance, stating that their thinking is “backwards.”
Did I miss something here? I’m no fan of the Russian oligarchy, but shouldn’t Obama and most of the NSA (let alone every other Federal alphabet agency) be sitting in a dark hole somewhere awaiting trial for violating the Constitution on almost every level? Yet, we are instead supposed to despise Snowden for exposing the crime they committed and distrust any country that happens to give him shelter?
Due to public outcry, Obama has attempted to pacify critics by announcing plans to make NSA mass surveillance “more transparent”. First, I would like to point out that he did not offer to end NSA spying on Americans without warrant, which is what a President with any ounce of integrity would have done. Second, Obama’s calls for more transparency have come at the exact same time as the NSA announces its plans to remove 90 percent of its systems administrators to make sure another “Snowden incident” does not occur.
Does this sound like an agency that plans on becoming “more transparent”?
Second, would Obama have called for ANY transparency over the NSA whatsoever if Snowden had never come forward? Of course not! The exposure of the crime has led to lies and empty placation, nothing more.
In the meantime, numerous other political miscreants have hit the media trail, campaigning for the NSA as well as other surveillance methods, bellowing to the rafters over the absolute necessity of domestic spy programs. Fifteen years ago, the government would have tried to sweep all of this under the rug. Today, they want to acclimate us to the inevitability of the crime, stating that we had better get used to it.
Their position? That Snowden’s whistleblowing put America at risk. My questions is, how? How did Snowden’s exposure of an unConstitutional and at bottom illegal surveillance program used against hundreds of millions of innocent Americans do our country harm? Is it the position of the White House that the truth is dangerous, and deceit is safety?
I suspect this is the case considering the recent treatment of military whistleblower Bradley Manning, who has been accused by some to have “aided Al Qaeda’s recruiting efforts” through his actions.
How did Manning do this? By releasing information, including battlefield videos, that were hidden from the public containing proof of U.S. war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Perhaps I’m just a traditionalist and not hip to modern diplomatic strategy, but I would think that if you don’t want to be blamed for war crimes, then you probably shouldn’t commit war crimes. And, if you don’t want the enemy to gain new recruits, you should probably avoid killing innocent civilians and pissing off their families. Just a thought.
So, just to keep track, U.S. government commits war crimes, but is the good guy. Bradley Manning exposes war crimes, and is the bad guy. Moral relativism at its finest. Moving on…
The shift towards moral bankruptcy is being implemented in the financial world as well. Investors, hedge funds, and major banks now surge into the stock market every time the private Federal Reserve hints that it may continue fiat stimulus. When bad news hits the mainstream feeds, people playing the Dow casino actually cheer with glee, exactly because bad economic news means more QE from the Fed. They know that the Fed is artificially propping up the markets. The Fed openly admits that it does this. And they know that our fiscal system is hanging by a thin thread. And you know what, very few of them care.
The Fed created the collapse with easy money and manipulated interest rates, and now, some people cheer them as the heroes of the U.S. financial structure.
The American narrative is quickly changing. There has long been criminality and degeneracy within our government and the corporate cartels surrounding it, but I believe what we are witnessing today is the final step in the metamorphosis that is totalitarianism. The last stage accelerates when the average citizen is not just complicit in the deeds of devils, but when he becomes a devil himself. When Americans froth and stomp in excitement for the carnival of death, and treat the truth as poison, then the transformation will be complete.

-Brandon Smith

Sunday, August 11, 2013

19 Very Disturbing Facts About Illegal Immigration That Every American Should Know

Michael Snyder
American Dream
August 10, 2013
Should we roll out the red carpet and allow millions upon millions of thieves, rapists, gang members and drug dealers to come waltzing into this country any time they would like? 
Credit: CBP Photography via Flickr
Credit: CBP Photography via Flickr
Should we broadcast a message to the rest of the world that anyone that can find a way to enter this country and somehow get to a “sanctuary city” can sign up for a plethora of welfare benefits and live a life of leisure at the expense of hard working American citizens?  Yes, those questions sound absurd, but what I have just described will essentially be official U.S. government policy if the immigration bill going through Congress becomes law.  And unfortunately, Democrats now say that they have the Republican votes that they need to get “immigration reform” through the House of Representatives.  If this amnesty bill becomes law, it will encourage even more illegal immigration and it will be one more step toward making the U.S. border essentially meaningless.
Right now, we desperately need the American people to contact their representatives in Congress and demand that they vote against this bill.  Sadly, this is not likely to happen because most Americans have absolutely no idea how negatively illegal immigration is affecting this nation.
The following are 19 very disturbing facts about illegal immigration that every American should know…
#1 57 percent of all households that are led by an immigrant (legal or illegal) are enrolled in at least one welfare program.
#2 According to one study, the cost to U.S. taxpayers of legalizing current illegal immigrants would be approximately 6.3 trillion dollars over the next 50 years.
#3 The Obama administration has distributed flyers that tell illegal immigrants that their immigration status will not be checked when they apply for food stamps.
#4 The Department of Homeland Security says that it has lost track of a million people that have entered this country but that appear never to have left.
#5 One out of every five children living in Los Angeles County has a parent that is in the country illegally.
#6 In one recent year, taxpayers in Los Angeles County spent 600 million dollars on welfare for children of illegal immigrants.
#7 Thanks to illegal immigration, California’s overstretched health care system is on the verge of collapse.  Dozens of California hospitals and emergency rooms have shut down over the past decade because they could not afford to stay open after being endlessly swamped by illegal immigrants who were simply not able to pay for the services that they were receiving.  As a result, the remainder of the health care system in the state of California is now beyond overloaded.  This had led to brutally long waits, diverted ambulances and even unnecessary patient deaths.  At this point, the state of California now ranks dead last out of all 50 states in the number of emergency rooms per million people.
#8 It has been estimated that U.S. taxpayers spend $12,000,000,000 a year on primary and secondary school education for the children of illegal immigrants.
#9 It is estimated that illegal aliens make up approximately 30 percent of the population in federal, state and local prisons and that the total cost of incarcerating them is more than $1.6 billion annually.
#10 The federal government actually has a website that teaches immigrants how to sign up for welfare programs once they arrive in the United States.
#11 The Obama administration recently introduced the very first “unmanned” border station along the Texas-Mexico border.
#12 The Obama administration has sued individual states such as Arizona that have tried to crack down on illegal immigration.
#13 According to the FBI, there are approximately 1.4 million gang members living in our cities.  Illegal immigration has been one of the primary factors that has fueled the growth of these gangs.
#14 As I have written about previously, there are only about 200 police officers assigned to Chicago’s Gang Enforcement Unit to handle the estimated 100,000 gang members living in the city.
#15 Mexican drug cartels make approximately 6.6 billion dollars a year“exporting” illegal drugs to the United States.
#16 It is an open secret that Mexican drug cartels are openly conducting military operations inside the United States.  The handful of border patrol agents that we have guarding the border are massively outgunned and out manned.
#17 According to the Justice Department’s National Drug Intelligence Center, Mexican drug cartels were actively operating in 50 different U.S. cities in 2006.  By 2010, that number had skyrocketed to 1,286.
#18 Overall, more than 55,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico since 2006.  That same level of violence will eventually show up in major U.S. cities unless something dramatic is done about illegal immigration.
#19 It is being projected that the Senate immigration bill will bring 33 million more people to the United States over the next decade.
One of the very few things that the federal government is actually required to do by the U.S. Constitution is to defend our borders, and unfortunately the Obama administration has willingly chosen to leave our borders completely wide open.  In fact, you can go down to the Texas border right now and watch illegal immigrants hop right across the Rio Grande.
Several retired Border Patrol agents recently drafted an open letter to the American people on the subject of illegal immigration, and what they had to say was quite startling.  The following is an excerpt from that letter that was in a recent Breitbart article
“Transnational criminal enterprises have annually invested millions of dollars to create and staff international drug and human smuggling networks inside the United States; thus it is no surprise that they continue to accelerate their efforts to get trusted representatives in place as a means to guarantee continued success,” the Border Patrol agents wrote.
“We must never lose sight of the fact that the United States is the market place for the bulk of transnational criminal businesses engaged in human trafficking and the smuggling, distribution and sale of illegal drugs. Organized crime on this scale we are speaking about cannot exist without political protection.”
According to those retired border agents, by refusing to secure our border the Obama administration is openly facilitating the trafficking of drugs into the United States…
“Most heroin, cocaine, meth, and marijuana marketed in the United States is produced outside of our country, and then smuggled into the United States,” they wrote. “The placement of trusted foreign employees inside the United States is imperative to insure success in continuing to supply the demand, and returning the profits to the foreign organization. Members of these vicious transnational crime syndicates are already well established in more than 2,000 American cities and their numbers are increasing as networks expand and demands accelerate. These transnational criminals present a real and present danger to all Americans, and they live among us.”Sadly, in politically correct America you can’t even talk about the problem of illegal immigration these days without being labeled as a “racist”.
For the record, I believe that all people deserve love and respect no matter what they look like or where they are born.  God created us all and He loves us all very much.  I have long been a very strong advocate for racial reconciliation in this country, and I will continue to be.
And there are tens of millions of Latino-Americans in this country that are hard working, law-abiding citizens.  They have done things the right way, and it is extremely unfortunate that they often get lumped in with millions of illegal immigrants that willingly choose to break our laws.
Unfortunately, we have a system of immigration today that greatly rewards lawless behavior.  We have made coming into this country through the front door exceedingly difficult, but we have left the back door completely wide open.
So hard working, law-abiding people that want to do things the right way are kept out, but those that want to come here and commit crimes or abuse the system are free to come on over any time that they would like.
What sense does that make?
Our immigration system is completely broken, but these days we cannot even have a rational debate about these issues.  In politically correct America, illegal immigrants have become a “favored class” of people that you are never supposed to say anything bad about.
In fact, one activist recently went out and actually got people to sign a petition that said that we should let illegal immigrants out of prison no matter what crimes they have committed
What in the world is happening to this country?
I would love to hear what all of you think.  Please feel free to express your opinion by posting a comment below…
This article was posted: Saturday, August 10, 2013 at 6:07 am

CartoonsTrashyDemsRinos