Is A Guaranteed Minimum Income Next? ~~ J.D. Longstreet

Stolen from Faultline USA

About a year and a half go, I wrote of my concern that the Obama Administration would soon seek a guaranteed minimum income for every American. As we have watched the the unemployment benefits extended and extended and extended again and again, one must wonder if, in the end, that isn't exactly where we are headed. My concern has not slacked one iota.

Below is the article, shortened a bit. I hope you find it informative and enlightening. ... JDL

**************************************

If the Obama Administration and his fellow Socialist/Marxist/Progressives (who camouflage themselves as democrats) in the US government aren't sent packing in November, I fully expect the next step in securing a socialist state in America is a guaranteed annual (minimum) income for every American.

Think about it. It is one of the few steps remaining that would solidify the hold government has on every man, woman, and child in America.

We know from the records that the welfare rolls have increased exponentially under Obama. Recently, changes were made by Presidential Executive Order to redefine "work" allowing even more applicants for welfare to be added to the welfare rolls. Why? Could it be the Obama Administration is deliberately attempting to "crash" the US welfare system? If so -- why?

I contend -- that is exactly what is happening.

If I an correct, then we are actually seeing the "Cloward-Piven Strategy" at work. We are observing the foundation, the groundwork -- if you will -- for establishing a guaranteed annual (minimum) income for American citizens. It is very, very, worrisome. But -- it is only the latest move by our socialist leaders to break America so they can re-mold her in the image of their choosing, which is, unarguably a socialist/Marxist state.

America is in a death spiral, dear reader. If the American electorate doesn't shake itself out of this stupor in which it is currently wallowing and come out swinging like the people we like to think we are, we are going to lose our liberty, our individual freedom, and our country.

What we are talking about here is "a government-ensured guarantee that all citizens unconditionally receive an income sufficient to meet their basic needs." SOURCE

Look around you. Consider the extremely high percentage of Americans already on what we call "Welfare" and consider, too, that nearly half of all Americans currently receive some form of government monetary assistance every month and then -- ask yourself what will happen to America's economy if Americans are guaranteed an annual income whether they work and contribute to our society or not.

Let's look a bit closer: What is a BIG? It is a Basic Income Guarantee. "The basic income guarantee (BIG) is a government insured guarantee that no citizen's income will fall below some minimal level for any reason. All citizens would receive a BIG without means test or work requirement. BIG is an efficient and effective solution to poverty that preserves individual autonomy and work incentives while simplifying government social policy. Some researchers estimate that a small BIG, sufficient to cut the poverty rate in half could be financed without an increase in taxes by redirecting funds from spending programs and tax deductions aimed at maintaining incomes." SOURCE

Here's more: "The Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) is a government ensured guarantee that no one's income will fall below the level necessary to meet their most basic needs for any reason. As Bertrand Russell put it in 1918, "A certain small income, sufficient for necessities, should be secured for all, whether they work or not, and that a larger income should be given to those who are willing to engage in some work which the community recognizes as useful. On this basis we may build further." Thus, with BIG no one is destitute but everyone has the positive incentive to work. BIG is an efficient, effective, and equitable solution to poverty that promotes individual freedom and leaves the beneficial aspects of a market economy in place." SOURCE

OK. So, how would we pay for it? Those who advocate the BIG say (above): " ... could be financed without an increase in taxes by redirecting funds from spending programs and tax deductions aimed at maintaining incomes."

HUH?

That's strange because just a bit lower on the page we find this: "The most commonly cited source of revenue for BIG is the income tax. Most proposals combine a basic income guarantee with a flat tax on income. Charles Clark estimates that a flat income tax rate of less than 40% would be enough to finance all current government spending and a BIG large enough to eliminate poverty." SOURCE

I have to wonder if "less than 40%" means 39.99%?

It's coming. How can I be so sure? Because the next attempt at a BIG for the US will be only the latest iteration. The movement for a guaranteed income has been around for a long time. A quick check for advocates of a guaranteed income at Wikipedia brought some surprises. For Instance: American revolutionary Thomas Paine advocated a basic income guarantee to all US citizens as compensation for "loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property" (Agrarian Justice, 1795).

French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte echoed Paine's sentiments and commented that 'man is entitled by birthright to a share of the Earth's produce sufficient to fill the needs of his existence' (Herold, 1955).

In 1962, economist Milton Friedman proposed a Negative Income Tax coupled with a flat tax in support of a guaranteed minimum income.

In 1963, Robert Theobald published the book Free Men and Free Markets, in which he advocated a guaranteed minimum income (the origin of the modern version of the phrase).

In 1966 the Cloward–Piven strategy advocated "overloading" the US welfare system to force its collapse in the hopes that it would be replaced by "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".

In his final book Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? (1967) Martin Luther King Jr. wrote: "I am now convinced that the simplest approach will prove to be the most effective — the solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income." -—from the chapter titled "Where We Are Going".

In 1968, James Tobin, Paul Samuelson, John Kenneth Galbraith and another 1,200 economists signed a document calling for the US Congress to introduce in that year a system of income guarantees and supplements.

In 1973, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote The Politics of a Guaranteed Income in which he advocated the Guaranteed Minimum Income and discussed Richard Nixon's GAI proposal.

We encourage you to read the article at Wikipedia

There are references to other advocates of a national guaranteed income in the article at Wikipedia, but I think you get the idea.

Oh, and while you are on the Wikipedia page, scroll down and check out the list of suggested means of funding for a national guaranteed income. But -- be sure you are sitting down before you do.

A guaranteed income for all Americans is the worst idea for America since, well, Obamacare!

Item number two in the The Black Panther Party: Platform and Program includes the following statement: "We believe that the federal government is responsible and obligated to give every man employment or a guaranteed income." SOURCE

As I mentioned above -- I have to wonder if the massive increase in the number of Americans on Welfare under the Obama Administration is in keeping with the Cloward–Piven strategy which suggests overloading the US welfare system forcing it to collapse and setting the stage for a guaranteed income for all Americans. You can read more on the Cloward-Piven strategy here.

I cannot even begin to tell you how deeply, deeply, opposed to the entire idea of a guaranteed annual income for all Americans I am. The American republic would be crushed and wiped out by internal rot!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The only way to make this work is to tax everyone at a 70% rate.  Not just the rich, but everyone.  Think how that would go over.

We can laugh now, but Moonbat ideas like this one has a way of becoming reality.  And after the debacle of Obamacare do we really want this to be enforced upon us?  And if the Democrats get the House back they will do this.  Just a warning.

How Many Of America’s “Poor” Are Like This Lady And Her Husband?

Stolen from Observations

The way that many welfare recipients think was revealed in a call to a radio talk show on KLBJ-AM in Austin, Texas. Lucy, a 32 year-old married mother of three, whose parents also had been on welfare, said this about her situation:

“I just wanted to say while workers out there and people like you that are preaching morality at people like me that are living on welfare, can you really blame us? I mean, I get to sit home, I get to go visit my friends all day, I even get to smoke weed, and people that I know that are illegal immigrants, that don’t contribute to society, we still going to get paid. Our check’s going to come in the mail every month and it’s going to be on time. And we get subsidized housing, we even get presents delivered for our kids at Christmas. Why should I work?”

“So you know what? You all get the benefit of saying, ‘Oh, look at me. I’m a better person,’ because you all are going to work. We’re the ones getting paid. So can you really blame us?”

Asked if her husband works, she said he does sometimes, but “he doesn’t really see the need for it.” Has she ever worked? “A couple of times.” Does she ever feel guilty about gaming the system and taking money other people have earned? “But you know, if someone offers you a million dollars, would you walk away from it? It’s easy to preach morality, and that’s the only reason why I called. It’s easy to say, ‘Well, yeah, you know, you’re making your living off of other people’s backs.’ But, you know, if somebody gave you a million dollars, and said that, here, you don’t got to work for it, no strings attached. Here, just take it, you can do whatever you want to do with it. You would take it, too.”

The host asked if she was calling in on an “Obamaphone” (a cell phone provided by the federal government) and she answered that she was. Then, when asked how much she received each month, she said she only pays $50 a month for rent that should be $600, so that’s $550, $425 in food stamps, $150 for her electric bill, and $100 on her water bill from the City of Austin. That comes to $1,225 a month, $14,700 a year, just less than the current federal minimum wage. Plus the cell phone.

She also said that when you are in government programs, “they are always coming to you and offering more programs,” and will even pay you to go to find out about where you can get more money. “They encourage you to stay on the programs.”

Asked if her money was cut off, would she get up every day and go to work, she said, “yes, I’d have to.”

This situation makes perfect sense to people like Lucy and her husband, who never learned the lesson that mature, responsible human beings make their own way in life, and who now live a relatively comfortable life without having to do anything to help themselves. They are a product of the failed War on Poverty for which we can thank President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), the namesake of the radio station Lucy called. They are among a large and growing number of Americans being taught that the government will take care of them, and they don’t have to do well in school, or learn a trade, or look for a job, or do much more than draw breath.

Last year the Census Bureau reported that 46 million Americans were in “poverty.” But how many of those are really poor and need some help, and how many are like Lucy and her hubby; playing a system that allows those eager for a free ride to get one?

Census Bureau data reveals the following about people classified as “poor”: eighty percent of poor households enjoy air conditioning; nearly three-fourths own a car or truck, and 31 percent own two or more cars or trucks, nearly two-thirds subscribe to cable or satellite television, 50 percent own a personal computer, and one in seven owns two or more computers; 43 percent subscribe to Internet access; one-third own a wide-screen plasma or LCD television; one-fourth own a digital video recorder system, such as a TiVo; more than half of poor families with children own a video game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation.

Poverty ain’t what it used to be.

It isn’t government’s job to help individuals who are down on their luck, and as the War on Poverty has demonstrated, it does a lousy job of it. And it surely isn’t government’s job to give taxpayer’s money to people who don’t really need it, or to actively recruit people who don’t need welfare onto welfare roles. That is the epitome of government disservice, and elected official’s self-service.

George Bernard Shaw’s famous quote has been used a lot recently, but it has never been truer than today: “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

Is A Big, Bloated Federal Government Necessary?

Since the Obama Regime has shut down parts of the US government in order to hurt Americans and put the blame on the Republican Party, I have been wondering do we really need a big Federal government?  After all the National Parks are shut down, TSA agents are not being paid, families of troops killed in action aren't receiving any funds from the government, and private charities are stepping to fill the void.

Now it is announced that states will be allowed to open National Parks with their own money.

First, it was a foundation stepping up to cover the cost of death benefits for America's fallen soldiers.

Now, states are starting to come forward to fill the roles that the federal government has abandoned amid the partial government shutdown.

The latest example is Utah, whose governor announced overnight that the state struck a deal with the U.S. Department of Interior to re-open five national parks -- using Utah taxpayer dollars.

Gov. Gary Herbert signed an agreement to pay the National Park Service up to $1.67 million to re-open eight total sites in the state for up to 10 days.

"Utah's national parks are the backbone of many rural economies and hard-working Utahns are paying a heavy price for this shutdown," Herbert said in a written statement. His office said the parks -- including Zion and Bryce Canyon -- will start opening on Friday and be fully operational by Saturday.

The deal comes after the Interior Department agreed to let states use their own money to open some parks amid the partial shutdown. Governors from Utah and three other states -- South Dakota, Arizona and Colorado -- had asked for that authority.

Though the states would have to front their own money to the federal government, they acted in part out of concern that local communities were losing hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost tourism revenue due to the parks' closure.

Figures compiled by a coalition of retired park service workers indicate that, in total, some 700,000 people a day would have been visiting the parks and that the surrounding areas are losing $76 million in visitor spending per day.

But the national parks are hardly the only function of the federal government affected by the partial shutdown -- or threatened by the possibility that Congress does not raise the debt ceiling by an Oct. 17 deadline. If that deadline is missed, the Treasury Department warned an array of payments might not be sent out, including Social Security checks, Medicare reimbursements and military salaries.

The Los Angeles Times reports that California is weighing whether to step up to cover the cost of some federal programs, like food stamps and assistance for pregnant women, if they are threatened in the coming weeks.

Earlier this week, charity group The Fisher House Foundation stepped in to cover the cost of the $100,000 death benefits that are typically paid to families of fallen soldiers. Those payments stopped after Congress and the White House failed to reach a spending agreement by midnight Oct. 1. President Obama, though, signed a bill late Thursday that would once again allow the federal government to pay those benefits.

Meanwhile, Republicans lawmakers and Obama are at last talking about a possible agreement to resolve the budget and debt stalemate.

A proposal from House Republicans to approve a short-term increase in the debt ceiling was met with resistance during a White House meeting on Thursday.

But as House Republicans continued to revise their plan, Senate Republicans were planning to meet with Obama on Friday morning.

SOURCE

Veterans and their families will not be receiving any checks next month if Obama doesn't get his way.  Fisher House is paying the families of the fallen instead of the government.  And now individual states are paying for the NATIONAL parks.

It is time to cut all the pork out of the budgets, cut the entitlement programs and come out with a leaner, trimmer, more financially sound budget and nation.

The 46 Traitors Who Want To Give Away Our Gun Rights To The United Nations

Stolen from Patriot's Corner

I have highlighted the traitor from my state in RED.

Please share this with as many as you can and I say these traitors are no better than the master they serve in the regime, Obama.PatriotUSA

Traitors (46 of them) Over the weekend, we came four votes away from the United States Senate giving our Constitutional rights over to the United Nations. In a 53-46 vote, the senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms, and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo. Astonishingly, 46 of our United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power. Here are the 46 senators that voted to give your rights to the U.N.

  Baldwin (D-WI)
  Baucus (D-MT)
  Bennet (D-CO)
  Blumenthal (D-CT)
  Boxer (D-CA)
  Brown (D-OH)
  Cantwell (D-WA)
  Cardin (D-MD)
  Carper (D-DE)
  Casey (D-PA)
  Coons (D-DE)
  Cowan (D-MA)
  Durbin (D-IL)
  Feinstein (D-CA)
  Franken (D-MN)
  Gillibrand (D-NY)
  Harkin (D-IA)
  Hirono (D-HI)
  Johnson (D-SD)
  Kaine (D-VA)
  King (I-ME)
  Klobuchar (D-MN)
  Landrieu (D-LA)
  Leahy (D-VT)
  Levin (D-MI)
  McCaskill (D-MO)
  Menendez (D-NJ)
  Merkley (D-OR)
  Mikulski (D-MD)
  Murphy (D-CT)
  Murray (D-WA)
  Nelson (D-FL)
  Reed (D-RI)
  Reid (D-NV)
  Rockefeller (D-WV)
  Sanders (I-VT)
  Schatz (D-HI)
  Schumer (D-NY)
  Shaheen (D-NH)
  Stabenow (D-MI)
  Udall (D-CO)
  Udall (D-NM)
  Warner (D-VA)
  Warren (D-MA)
  Whitehouse (D-RI)
  Wyden (D-OR)

This needs to go viral. These Senators voted to let the UN take our guns. They need to lose the next election. We have been betrayed. 46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.

A National Shouting Match On Racism

Stolen From Faultline USA

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
************************************

As a Southerner, I am used to -- well, allow me to rephrase that: as far as it is possible, I am used to being called a racist, a bigot, a redneck, and several other epithets that I refuse to print here. That is not to say that I am comfortable with them, I am not. Nevertheless, again, as a southerner, hardly a day goes by that such disparaging words are not used, in reference to yours truly, singularly, as an individual, or collectively, as a member of the politically conservative right, or regionally, as a Southerner.

I suppose the thing about all this infantile name calling that troubles me most is the utter hypocrisy of those using such hurtful language. I have learned as an adult that many, if not most, of those tossing about such colorful, yet hollow charges, are soaked in ignorance of the origins of such words and the history of the my region of America, and indeed, the history of America itself.

For instance -- before the American Civil War, (you know -- the war we Southerners refer to, and think of, as “The War for Southern Independence,”) it was the Democratic Party, that had a death grip on the Southern States, which our young scholars have been erroneously, taught were the only slave holding states in the country.

That is far from the truth, very far. The Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic States, including Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, had legally sanctioned slavery in the 17th, 18th and even part of the 19th centuries.

This may come as a shock to you but… not only were black people enslaved in the North for over two hundred years, but the vast majority of all slave trading in America was done by northerners. Yes, we did just say: “The VAST Majority….” Remarkably, half of all North American voyages involved in the slave trade originated in Rhode Island, and all the northern states benefited. This is a fact much hidden from the youthful eyes of America’s young scholars for many, many, decades. In fact, many of those folks who so piously refer to Southerners as racists (because of our ancestors participation in the detestable trade) themselves hail from regions (and, yes, even families) that made fortunes on the trade of African blacks into slavery.

Shocked? You needn’t be. It has been SOP in America’s public (Government) school system for many years. It is the foundation of the ignorance from which springs the scurrilous charges made against so many of my ancestors and yes, even this scribe today.

I tell you this so you will be less shocked when we say that much of the name calling of southerners and politically right conservatives is coming from Representatives and Senators, of those Northern States who desperately want to paint all members of the political right as racists, and bigots.

There is also a statement made, time and again, which goes something like this: Blacks, or, if you prefer, African-Americans, cannot be racists because they lack power or clout. That is absolutely pure, unadulterated nonsense, clap-trap, BS, horse hockey, and a few other things we dare not print for general consumption. If one human hates another because of the color of his skin, regardless of the color of his own, that is bigotry. We see it everyday, as well, or hear it referenced every day in the music popularly known as “Rap” Music and "Hip-Hop" music.

The left claims to want a national “conversation” about racism in America. They don’t, of course. If they did they’d stop using the first sentences out of the mouths of members of the right to label them racists, which simply shuts off all conversation instantly.

No. The left does not want a national confab on racism in America. It is a ploy, that’s all.

White America has grown tired of pretending not to see the overt racism of the left. We’ve grown exceedingly resentful of being used as a punching bag and we’re beginning to punch back.

The national conversation on racism in America, the left claims to want, may yet materialize – in the streets of the nation’s cities as black and white mobs clash. It will be a conversation of the fist and club and, eventually, the gun.

Nobody in their right mind wants this to happen. But that is exactly where America is headed once the last straw is applied to the camel’s back.

I DO realize the weight of the words above. I DO realize, as well, that until we are ready, as a people, as a nation, to face up, honestly, to the racism of the left -- and the black community in particular – then it is a non-starter. Until that time a civil conversation will not be had for it cannot be had.

The best we can hope for is the continued stand-off and the barely concealed hatred boiling just beneath the surface. The plain truth is, I believe, the very best we can hope for is that the black community will continue to pretend they're not racists and the white community will continue to pretend that it doesn't notice black racism.

No, there will be no national conversation on racism. There WILL be more shouting matches, bruised egos, and hurt feelings, which will do nothing to salve the wounds of the vicious national argument on racism.

WE Americans have tried for 237 years to hold the people of the country together in some sort of union -- even with the numerous cracks and fault lines running between us. Today those cracks and fault lines have become chasms. And some are un-crossable. This is one of them.

Americans Have Been Sequestered By Their Elected Public Servants

By James Shott

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University has produced an economic report using The Budget and Economic Outlook: FY 2013 to 2023 from the Congressional Budget Office that paints the true picture of the impact of the sequester on federal spending.

It has become standard practice in recent years for the federal government to spend more than a trillion dollars above what it takes in. In 2013 the budget deficit will be a little over $900 billion, adding nearly another trillion dollars to the national debt. According to Mercatus, the government planned to increase spending by $2.54 trillion through 2023. That represents an increase in government spending of 72 percent over ten years.

And then came the sequester, which President Barack Obama told us would wreak all sorts of havoc on the government and the nation, throwing tens of thousands of Americans out of work, and all manner of other horrors.

We were told that the sequester was a cut to government funding levels, but that was not true. The sequester wasn't cutting anything, merely reducing the amount of additional money government got each year over the previous year, so that over that 10-year period spending would only increase by $2.40 trillion. With the reductions in spending increases under the sequester, spending would still increase by 68 percent over ten years. Instead of spending an average of $540 billion more each year, government could only spend $400 billion more each year. What a hardship.

Putting this equation in dollar amounts that people can identify with, let's say that you earn $43,000 a year, -- the average wage in the U.S. -- and your employer told you that each year for the next ten years you would get paid $2,540 more than the previous year. But then the company had a financial crisis and was only able to pay you $2,400 more than last year, about 5.5 percent less. Would you have to sell your second car to make ends meet? Would you have to move to a less expensive home, or eat only bread and beans? Would your life really change at all because your pay raise was $140 less than you expected?

Actually, you could spend money on things just like you did the preceding year, and have money left over.

Returning to the federal situation, how could the government having $400 billion more to spend in FY 2013 than it had in FY 2012 cause such horrific results as those the president warned us about? Well, because those in the position to create horrific results decided to make the most of the situation, and create as much pain as possible.

And why would they do that? Quoting that famous socialist philosopher, former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, "Never let a serious crisis go to waste." In other words, use this situation to help you achieve your selfish goals by creating a lot of pain and blaming it on your political opponents.

And how would they do that? Well, when faced with two possible areas to spend less, where one was painful and the other wasn't -- such as not filling government positions opened through attrition (painless) or releasing illegal alien criminals back onto the streets (painful and dumb), these public servants choose to release illegal alien criminals. Of course, everyone with common sense recognizes that decision is stupid and dangerous, but common sense is unwelcome in this entirely political situation. What matters most to these malpracticing public servants is causing enough pain to get the people to clamor for relief from the painful decisions, and restore things to their pre-sequester status.

This is the path that Barack Obama and the other big spenders chose to try to reverse the sequester that was originally their brain child. It is revealing that the president refused to accept the authority to decide how best to accomplish spending a little less than originally envisioned, which was offered to him by U.S. Senators Pat Toomey (R-PA) and James Inhofe (R-OK), who authored an alternative to give him discretion to allocate the sequester’s cuts largely as he sees fit. Mr. Obama, who never is responsible for anything bad, wanted no part of it, because then whatever pain couldn't be avoided would be his responsibility.

The president wants to blame new economic problems on the sequester. But the actual effects of the sequester are only to reduce budget increases by an amount small enough that competent managers could adequately and nearly painlessly deal with. But, of course, the president turned down that authority.

The real pain and suffering that occurs after the sequester took effect will have resulted primarily from decisions deliberately made to cause pain for no better reason than to allow the president and our other employees in government to create a situation that benefits them and their spending addiction.

This behavior is the antithesis of the ideal of public service and should earn every public servant who indulges in it a quick ejection from their job. Unfortunately, many Americans are more concerned with outcomes than with following an honorable process to achieve them.an honorable process to achieve them.

Democrats Say The Darnest Things!

Hat Tip to Texas Fred

Once again one of the greatest idiots of the House has spoken up and shown her ignorance.

Houston Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee has the conservative blogosphere in a tizzy again today. The target of right-wing wrath is the liberal Democrat’s contention that Congress should look “carefully at how we reform entitlements that are not handouts but they are earned.”

Video of Jackson Lee’s speech quickly ricocheted around the Internet. Comments on a Fox News blog post were almost universally negative: The Houston lawmaker was labeled “a disgrace” and “increasingly appalling.”

Some critics immediately assumed that Jackson Lee was talking about “welfare” programs, Food Stamps and other social safety net programs that are frequently deemed “entitlements” in the bureaucratic language of Washington.

But two of the three “entitlements” mentioned in her speech are not means-tested programs but government guarantees to elderly Americans who pay into the trust funds for those programs through their entire on-the-job earnings. The third, Medicaid, is a government health-care program that largely benefits the poor.

Here’s what Jackson Lee said on the House floor:

“I believe it should be pronounced here today, that the reform of the entitlements based upon shipshod, reckless, deliberations — or should I say actions — are a non-starter,” she said.

Among the non-starters listed by Jackson Lee:

• Raising the eligibility age for Medicare
• Carelessly considered Medicaid changes
• Changes in Social Security, which, she said, “is solvent.”

“So, I would say move quickly to pass the middle class tax cuts that would be for all Americans — 100 percent [of Americans] up to $250,000,” she said. “And let’s think about moving into 2013, how we make this economy better by looking carefully at how we reform entitlements that are not handouts but they are earned.”

Source

You can watch the video and see hear her own words:



Click here if the video doesn't load.

For the record Social Security is NOT solvent and if something isn't done to repay the fund it will fail in 15 to 20 years.

For the record raising the eligibility age from 65 to 67 will help slow the insolvency of Social Security by 5 years.  It is a start back towards solvency.

Medicaid is forcing states to go broke.  More and more funds (usually earmarked for other programs) are being spent on Medicaid.  We were promised that Obamacare would correct this problem.  I guess that is another lie about Obamacare that has been broken.

I am amazed at the voters of the 18th District in Texas (Houston Area) would keep sending this idiot back to Congress time and time again.  Have they no common sense?  Do they not see that this woman (I refuse to call her a lady.) is nothing but a joke among her colleagues?  Then again, they did go overwhelmingly for Barack Hussein Obama.

I guess this is just a sample of the stupidity we are to be subjected to for the next 2 years.  Perhaps in 2 years the people of the 18th District will finally gain some self-respect, some intelligence and vote her out of office.  But don't hold your breath.

Moonbat Alert!!!

This May Be A Little Simplistic....

...But it is worth a little laugh.

Sent via Facebook:

Are you a Democrat, Republican, or a Southerner????

Here is a little test that will help you decide!!!!

The answer will be found by posing the following question:

You are walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children.

Suddenly, a Terrorist with a huge knife comes around the corner, locks eyes with you, screams obscenities,
raises the knife, and charges at you....

You are carrying a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP, and you are an expert shot.
You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.
What do you do?

THINK CAREFULLY AND THEN SCROLL DOWN:

Democrat's Answer:

Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
What is a Kimber 1911 cal. 45 ACP?
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Is he really a terrorist? Am I guilty of profiling?
Have I ever done anything to him that would inspire him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Does the pistol have appropriate safety built into it?
Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, and what kind of message does this send to society and to my children?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me, or would he be content just to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
Should I call 9-1-1?
Why is this street so deserted?
We need to raise taxes, have paint & weed day.
Can we make this a happier, healthier street that would discourage such behavior.
I need to debate this with some friends for a few days and try to come to a consensus.
This is all so confusing!

Republican's Answer:

BANG!

Southerner's Answer:

BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!  BANG ! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Click..... (Sounds of reloading)
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
BANG!
Click

Daughter: 'Nice grouping, Daddy!  Were those the Winchester Silver Tips or Hollow Points?!

Son: 'Can I shoot the next one?!'

Wife: 'You are NOT taking that to a Taxidermist!

Jackson Out!

What voters refuse to do, Jesse Jackson Jr. did himself.  Citing his "health" problems, he resigned from the US House of Representatives effective today.

Illinois Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. resigned Wednesday from Congress amid a cloud of health and legal problems that have intensified in recent months.

The nine-term congressman left Washington unexpectedly in June, leaving fellow Capitol Hill lawmakers, his staff and voters to learn several weeks later that he was being treated for a bipolar disorder.

In Jackson’s resignation letter to House Speaker John Boehner, he cited both health problems and a federal investigation.

“For seventeen years I have given 100 percent of my time, energy and life to public service. However, over the past several months, as my health has deteriorated, my ability to serve the constituents of my district has continued to diminish,” Jackson wrote. “I am aware of the ongoing federal investigation into my activities and I am doing my best to address the situation responsibly, cooperate with the investigators, and accept responsibility for my mistakes, for they are my mistakes and mine alone.”

A Boehner spokesman confirmed the letter had been received on Capitol Hill.

Jackson, the son of civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, was easily re-elected earlier this month despite not having appeared in public since this summer.

The federal investigation is purportedly focusing on whether Jackson misused campaign money.

In addition, the House Ethics Committee has been looking into whether Jackson was involved in discussions about raising money for imprisoned former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's campaign in exchange for an appointment to President Obama's vacated Senate seat.

However, Jackson’s resignation would effectively end the House probe, though members will issue a final report.

Jacksons’ resignation means the 112th Congress that ends next month has 241 Republicans and 192 Democrats. The other vacancy is Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a California Democrat who resigned in August.

Jackson came to Congress in a special election in Dec. 1995 to succeed another embattled Illinois Democratic congressman, Rep. Mel Reynolds. He went to jail for sex misconduct chargers and resigned several months before the special election.

The 47-year-old Jackson defeated five Democrats and Four Republicans in the primary and then won the special election.

Source

Jackson never ran a campaign this last election season.  He was reelected in a "Black" district and it was his "name" that reelected him, not any work in Congress that he did for his constituents.  No he is a Jackson and thus "entitled" to whatever he wants.  The federal investigation has been focused on this use of campaign funds to buy new furniture for his home, his mistress' home, his wife's office, etc...

Now is the time to place a decent, hardworking man or woman in that seat.  Whether it is a Democrat or Republican is not the point, what the people of the 2nd district of Illinois need is a decent representative.

Obama Administration Denies Mother Answers About Her Son’s Murder

Stolen From Hat Tip to Observations

Why is my son dead?

That is all Pat Smith wants to know. Her son, computer specialist Sean Smith, was one of the four Americans killed on September 11th in the terror attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya. A month after she buried her son, a month after everyone all the way up to the president of the United States promised her answers, she says she is still awaiting those answers.

“That's a funny subject,” Mrs. Smith said. “I begged them to tell me what was -- what happened. I said I want to know all the details, all of the details no matter what it is, and I'll make up my own mind on it. And every one of them, all the big shots over there told me that -- they promised me, they promised me that they would tell me what happened. As soon as they figure it out.”

“No one, not one person has ever, ever gotten back to me other than media people and the gaming people,” she said. “Hillary promised me. Joe Biden -- Joe Biden -- they all told me that -- they promised me. And I told them please, tell me what happened. Just tell me what happened.”

The attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was a made-in-Washington disaster, a result of naive foreign policy consisting of apology and appeasement – projecting weakness surpassing even that of Jimmy Carter.

Every other world leader defends and promotes his country, but Barack Obama agrees with our critics and apologizes for America. His pusillanimous posture sent a message to our enemies, and they have acted on our well-advertised weakness.

And now in the face of that inglorious policy failure in Libya, Mr. Obama has retreated to doing what he does best: passing the blame. “We didn’t do that; it was that video.”

Suggesting that an anti-Muslim video that hardly anyone on Earth had seen was responsible for that attack was ridiculous on its face, and was almost immediately discredited. Still, the administration continued to blame the video for about two weeks, before finally admitting what everybody else already knew: it was a planned terrorist attack. It then shifted blame to intelligence agencies for providing the administration bad information.

But, as time passed, the tawdry details emerged, showing that the State Department under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stubbornly refused to provide additional security forces for Libya as repeatedly requested.

The leader of the military security team in Tripoli, Lt. Col. Andrew Wood of the Utah National Guard, told various TV outlets that he and other embassy officials unsuccessfully attempted to extend his team’s tour of duty in Libya because of mounting security concerns. “The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there,” Colonel Wood said. “Diplomatic security remained weak.”

A former security officer, Eric Nordstrom, said he was told in a phone call in July that the deployment of a 16-member American military site security team based in Tripoli could not be prolonged, according to a report by The New York Times. Although the Africa Command that oversaw the unit was willing to extend the deployment, the State Department said “no.”

Mr. Nordstrom told a Congressional committee recently he tried to improve security by asking for 12 agents, only to be told by a State Department official that he was asking for the “sun, moon and the stars.” “It was abundantly clear: we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident,” Mr. Nordstrom said. “And the question that we would ask is, again, how thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?” We now know the answer.

Although he is still a State Department employee, Mr. Nordstrom expressed strong frustration in trying to work with the Department. “It’s not the hardships,” he said. “It’s dealing and fighting against the people, programs and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me.” And he made this revealing comment: “For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

There is no way the administration can fix this colossal, deadly screw-up, but it could at least keep its word by honoring Mrs. Smith’s loss and help give her peace in her hour of grief.

Mr. Obama should drop the cover-up and come clean with the American people. That means admitting the dramatic failure of his foreign policy, and admitting to playing petty politics to distract the public. However, accepting responsibility isn’t in the Obama Playbook, especially this close to the election.

 

I Would Notice The Difference

The Veteran's Administration says that families cannot tell the difference between live and recorded music playing taps at military funerals.  That it doesn't matter.

As budget cuts are set to silence live performances of Taps at military funerals in New York, one military bugler told FoxNews.com the iconic musical piece should always be performed by an Honor Guard musician.

Jari Villanueva, director of the Maryland National Guard Honor Guard and a bugler at thousands of military funerals, said having a phony hornsman hold up an instrument while a recording plays isn’t befitting of the somber task of burying a veteran. Yet, the piped-in version is what mourners will hear at virtually all New York military funerals beginning Oct. 1, due to a 25 percent reduction in federal funding for the state's Military Forces Honor Guard.

“Taps, when it’s played by a live, professional musician, is much better than having a machine play it,” Villanueva said Wednesday. “No matter how you think you can hold the instrument, it doesn’t really appear that you’re playing it.”

Villanueva, who has performed Taps at countless military funerals, including at Arlington National Cemetery, said digital bugles have long been used by military officials during funerals due to the few qualified musicians available.

“But it’s much better to have a live player; it’s just more of an emotional thing,” he said. “The playing of Taps is open to musical interpretation. I play it a little slower, and hold out notes a little differently.”

A 25 percent cut in the $3.3 million in federal funding for New York’s Military Forces Honor Guard in fiscal year 2013 led to a 29 percent reduction in the program that funds Honor Guard units, said Eric Durr, a spokesman for the New York National Guard.

Due to that reduction, Durr said New York State will no longer hire musicians to play Taps as of Oct. 1 unless someone volunteers services free of charge.

“Since about 2003, the New York National Guard has been using the electronic bugle for most [funerals],” Durr said. “Prior to that, it was basically a guy with a boom box, so the electronic bugle is much nicer.”

In a statement to FoxNews.com, the Veterans of Foreign Wars said it was “extremely disheartened” to learn of the development.

“We were extremely disheartened to hear that the playing of Taps is being viewed more as an expense item than a necessary tribute to a fallen American patriot,” the statement read. “It's disrespectful to the families because our military and veterans ask for so little in return compared to what is risked and often given.”

According to federal guidelines, the burial of an eligible veteran shall consist of no less than two members of the armed forces, including one member of the parent service of the deceased veteran.

“The honor detail will, at a minimum, perform a ceremony that includes the folding and presenting of the American flag to the next of kin and the playing of Taps,” a Department of Defense website reads. “Taps will be played by a bugler, if available, or by electronic recording. Today, there are so few buglers available that the Military Services often cannot provide one.”

Durr said more than 300 military funerals per month staffed by the Honor Guard will be affected. He said no complaints had been received regarding the policy shift. The use of electronic bugles at military funerals has been in use since as early as 2003 under authorization by President George W. Bush as the number of Iraq War deaths and the growing number of deceased World War II veterans stretched resources.

“This is not a new thing. Most [funerals] have been done this way in the state since 2003,” Durr said. “We’re providing the services required by law. Our guys are very professional; they do a very good job.”

Electronic bugles, however, are not foolproof, according to Louis DiLeo, of Seaford, N.Y., who has played more than 7,000 funerals in New York since he was contracted in 2006. DiLeo told Stars and Stripes malfunctioning devices have marred military funerals.

“It’s sad, because this has been a time-honored tradition for 150 years,” he told the newspaper. “It shows the families that we care that much more. Taking live Taps away takes away the human element.”

Villanueva, meanwhile, said that while the electronic version is an “acceptable” alternative, nothing beats the real thing.

“I would hope there’s support for live players,” he said. “As a bugler and someone who has Taps close to my heart, I’d much rather have it performed live. But it’s the way of the world right now with budgets.”

Source

It DOES matter.  It is a point of honor.  Taps is the sending of a warrior home.  A final good-bye.  Instead to the Liberals it is nothing worth keeping.  Don't have the money, just throw it out.  Replaced with a recording.

Backtrack! And Really Fast!

Yesterday the Democrats approved of a platform that took out G-d and gave Jerusalem to the Arabs.  Today they must have seen the polls and did a 180.

The Democratic Party has restored references in its official platform to "G-d" and to Jerusalem as the recognized capital of Israel.

The move comes after some had complained that the platform approved Tuesday omitted those references, which were included in the 2008 platform.

Many in the audience booed after the convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, ruled that the amendments had been approved despite the fact that a large group of delegates objected.

He called for a vote three times before ruling.

The party reinstated language from the 2008 platform that said "we need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential."

The platform also now includes what advisers said was Obama's personal views on Jerusalem.

Source

Obama's real view on Jerusalem was the original language, not this backtrack to appear friendly to Jewish voters.  The truth is Barack Hussein Obama will allow if not help Iran to develop an nuclear weapon.  Help the Iranians launch said weapon at Israel.  And help the Arab world massacre 7 million Jews.  A million more than his idol Adolf Hitler killed.

Hispanics The New Black: Part III - Mistaken Identity

Who are you? The answer speaks volumes. One man responds: Christian, family man, American and, well — my heritage is Hispanic. God, family, and country – that is what most Americans believe in, value most, and will fight for. It defines us as a people with a common purpose. “Being American” binds us even as some seek to racially divide and segment us. As one American patriot with a Hispanic surname put it on being Latino: “The National Council of La Raza does not speak for all Latinos because all Latinos are not about anti-American, subversive radical Chicano interests.” Liberal media attempts to portray that Hispanics have a singular mind-set of racial separatism of “Chicanos first.” It is an insult, a bofetada, to all who are “Americans first.” Though Liberal media suppresses that American-Hispanics are vastly divided over illegal immigration, the fact is, there are far-reaching consequences for all U.S. citizens.

The big question Americans ask of immigrants is: Are you here to give or are you here to take? Children excepted, entering America by breaking the law makes an immigrant “illegal by choice” no matter the country of origin. Hard fact is, many do not come to work or live peacefully. According to Homeland Security, mixed among the illegal immigrant flow are terrorists, hardened criminals, drug dealers and free-loaders who are wreaking havoc after infiltrating primarily inner-city neighborhoods. A young, Black woman called talk radio frantic that her neighborhood was now distressed and dangerous having been overrun by illegal immigrants. American-Hispanics complained that their tax dollars and hard-pressed community services are being drained by people who are not Americans. Are the Black and Hispanic callers “racists” or do they wage legitimate complaints as hard-working, tax paying, child-raising Americans?

In addition to being “illegal,” it is the immigrant that free-loads that represents much of the friction in the political debate? Democrats are quick to use the “R-word” – racism – but not the “R-word” – responsibility. Roberto Gonzalez, CEO of the 2000-strong Clear Lake, TX Tea Party, opposes the attitude that Americans are racists if they reject illegal immigration in any of its manifestations: “As legal immigrants in the late 1960s, my family and I fled communism. We came here with the mission to become Americans and we did so to become part of all that makes this country great. We cannot sit by and have our laws ignored by politicians who take an oath to uphold the rule of law and then proceed to choose the laws they want to ignore. We cannot afford the burden of paying the tax liabilities for those who cross the border, remain under the radar and use this country for their purposes without any responsibility whatsoever.”

Historically, immigrants have sought to build a strong and prosperous America. Today, many come to temporarily escape their own countries’ economic or social failures and look to use America as a swinging door without the intentions of obtaining legal status. In an ugly Machiavellian display, those who come “to take” want America to show allegiance to them without first showing allegiance to America. Intermingled with immigrant workers, blanket amnesty grants the criminals, human traffickers, drug dealers and free-loaders with residency as well. Armed with faked documents, an overloaded verification system would be no barrier. Inner-city neighborhoods would become fodder for “legalized” criminals. American-Hispanics are justifiably leery of selling-out to any amnesty-for-votes, quick-fix strategy that serves Democrat ambitions. Frederick MacHado represents the best of those who choose America first

Frederick MacHado knows who he is: “I was born in Nicaragua, Central America, and moved to the United States in 1980, the same year that Ronald Reagan was elected President. My pursuing the American dream has taken many years of my life, beginning with learning the English language and attaining some academic degrees. Soon after my arrival, I realized that, “America” and the American people are open to immigrants who work hard and want to succeed. Nevertheless, over thirty years, I have seen with sadness and surprise how the Hispanic media makes journalism full of biases and distortions to the point that, the news and perspective that they offer are often manipulative, and in many cases inaccurate…and far from being respectful to the Latinos.” Dr. MacHado epitomizes the “R-word” – responsibility. His degrees include a Master in Business Administration, Doctor of Ministry from Minnesota’s Bethel Theological Seminary and Doctor of Psychology from California Southern University in June 2007, where he graduated magna cum laude and now works in Clinical Psychology.

America is strengthened by contributions of a blended people who choose to be American. Today, what separates America most is a President that creates and uses racial divide as a political strategy. In a racist frenzy, after a 2008 in-party spat, the Obama camp insinuated that Bill Clinton was a racist, forcing a former American President to openly declare on ABC News, “I am not a racist.” Obama and the Democrats sidelined immigration issues for two years while holding total control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency. Overlooked by most is that Democrats also controlled Congress from 2007-2010 with their majority vote and still did nothing. Democrats view Hispanics as La Raza-style radical voters, rather than a constituency suffering the financial pain of Obama’s catastrophic economic policies. They contend that race warfare works with the majority of Black voters, why not Hispanics? Elevated to the highest office in the land — President of the United States — Obama portrays himself as the perpetual victim as he self-servingly denounces everyone who opposes him as a “racist.” In doing so, he diverts criticism from his unfulfilled campaign promises. Promises that now re-surface — during his bid for re-election — as future promises to those gullible enough to once more believe him.

Liberal Democrats have for years, in the cruelest of political chicanery, downplayed that everyone coming to America must learn English. In 2010, Obama promised to improve educational opportunities for Hispanics, but failed to deliver. Instead, Obama’s doublespeak blocked freedom of school choice for Hispanic and Black parents – diverting their children off the pathway to success. Obama has steadfastly backed power-laden teachers unions that protect inept teachers. Speaking before the NAACP, Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney criticized the rampant educational inequality facing Black schoolchildren: “If equal opportunity in America were an accomplished fact, Black families could send their sons and daughters to public schools that truly offer the hope of a better life. Instead, for generations, the African-American community has been waiting and waiting for that promise to be kept.” Romney pointed to the hopes of Black parents for the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program that would allow low-income students to attend private schools instead of substandard and deficient public schools: “Yet, President Obama has attempted to eliminate the program at every turn. [Liberal] policymakers stand in the way of poor kids succeeding in better schools of their parents’ choice.”

Seeing the same fate for their children and tired of the empty promises of Democrat-backed teachers unions, American-Hispanic families in Adelanto, CA took matters into their own hands. They pulled the “Parent Trigger” that gives them, under California law, the power to take over a failing school and turn it into a high-performing Charter School. To defeat the parents, the opposition attempted voter fraud. Forced into court, the judge ruled in favor of the families. Parent Revolution released a statement: “This is a historic victory for the courageous parents of Desert Trails [School]. These parents refused to give-up, even after losing two school board votes in the wake of an illegal rescission campaign riddled with fraud and forgeries. These parents took on the most powerful special interests in the state, and they won.” Calling it a “revolution,” parents of the majority Hispanic student body took on California’s big Democrat machine and a powerful Teachers Union. In the face of parental outrage, local-area Democrats backed down, distancing themselves from the unions. The American-Hispanic parents of Desert Trails are examples for the dejected parents of Black children in D.C. who were overpowered by Obama forces. All parents who are forced to send their children to substandard schools with substandard teachers now have a glimmer of hope as they fight for their children’s futures.

Roberto Gonzalez, Frederick MacHado and the parents of Desert Trails know who they are. They are Americans. God, family and country is a slogan of both personal and national identity. It binds this great nation of immigrants. It is who we are and we protect it as if the freedoms and futures of America’s children depend on it. For all Americans, along with that of a proud son of a single mother who left Mexico, legally entered America, worked three jobs, refused welfare, paid her taxes and raised educated children — the question remains to immigrants coming from across the globe: Are you here to give or are you here to take? If it is the former, the best way to begin, under the laws of the United States, is with the Oath of Allegiance that reads in part:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic…; so help me God.
 
Then, for God, family and your country, place your right hand over your heart and vow:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

 
PREVIOUS ARTICLES: 

Click on: HISPANICS THE NEW BLACK: Part I – THE DEMOCRAT TRAP
 
Click on: HISPANICS THE NEW BLACK: Part II – NOWHERE TO RUN

I Thought I Have Heard It All From Obama

First there were (and still are) the raffles for a date with the President, First Lady and whatever idiot Hollywood "Star" of the week, then asking newlyweds, birthday gals/guys, etc... for their presents instead of the happy couple, etc... receiving them, and now this: right from the campaign:

I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign, if things continue as they have so far.

I'm not just talking about the super PACs and anonymous outside groups -- I'm talking about the Romney campaign itself. Those outside groups just add even more to the underlying problem.

The Romney campaign raises more than we do, and the math isn't hard to understand: Through the primaries, we raised almost three-quarters of our money from donors giving less than $1,000, while Mitt Romney's campaign raised more than three-quarters of its money from individuals giving $1,000 or more.

And, again, that's not including the massive outside spending by super PACs and front groups funneling up to an additional billion dollars into ads trashing me, you, and everything we believe in.

We can be outspent and still win -- but we can't be outspent 10 to 1 and still win.

More than 2.2 million Americans have already chipped in for us, and I'm so grateful for it. As we face this week's fundraising deadline, can you make a donation of $3 or more today?

Every donation you make today automatically enters you to join Michelle and me for one of the last grassroots dinners of this campaign -- today is your last chance to get your name in.

These dinners represent how we do things differently. My opponent spent this past weekend at a secretive retreat for the biggest donors to both his campaign and the super PACs that support him.

I've got other responsibilities I'm attending to.

Donate today to stand for our kind of politics:

https://donate.barackobama.com/June-Deadline

Thank you,

Barack

I guess the magic has gone from Obama.  He has been having trouble trying to raise money for his campaign, even though he didn't have a primary opponent.  Add that to the extensive spending his campaign is doing, and by October he just might be out of money.  I know the Democrats are scrambling to find funds for their convention in Charlotte, North Carolina:

Democrats canceled a political convention kick-off event at the Charlotte Motor Speedway and will move the activities to Charlotte’s main business district, the convention’s host committee announced.

“While we regret having to move CarolinaFest away from our great partners at the Charlotte Motor Speedway and the City of Concord, we are thrilled with the opportunity that comes with hosting this event in Uptown Charlotte,” said Dan Murrey, the executive director of the Charlotte in 2012 Convention Host Committee.

The move comes as party planners are grappling with a fundraising deficit of roughly $27 million, according to two people familiar with the matter who requested anonymity to discuss internal party politics. With a party ban on direct contributions from corporations, the host committee has raised less than $10 million, well short of its $36.6 million goal, said one of the people.

Murrey said that logistics, not costs, were behind the decision to cancel the Speedway event.

“In order to facilitate public caucus meetings -- and to maximize accessibility, transportation, and proximity of all guests -- we have decided that moving CarolinaFest 2012 to Uptown Charlotte is the best way to achieve that goal,” Murrey said in a statement that the host committee released this morning, after Bloomberg reported last night that it may call off the Speedway festival.

Source

But His Majesty the President will still get the large stadium but without the Temple of Obama that he had 4 years ago.

His Majesty Obama is very upset with that.  After all how will people know that he is the Messiah?  And how will the Democrats worship him?

I wonder if the stands will be 1/2 full as they are at most of his events or will the Democrats fill the stands with the homeless and Occupy Wall Street idiots?

A Drop Of 22 Points In New York!

That is what the latest poll shows President Barack Hussein Obama's numbers in the latest poll conducted by Siena College.

President Obama's support among Jewish voters in the state of New York has dropped 22 percentage points in only a month, according to the results of a just released poll.

The poll, conducted by Siena College, finds that currently President Obama has the support of 51 percent of Jewish voters, while 43 percent are opposed to him. Five percent are undecided. That means, Obama's lead among Jewish voters is at 8 percentage points.

Previously, in Siena's May poll, Obama had the support 62 percent of Jewish New Yorkers, while 32 percent opposed him. That means, last month, Obama's lead among this group of voters was at a strong 30 percentage points.

Those polled were responding to this straight forward question: "If the election for President were held today, who would you vote for if the candidates were [Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, or Don't know]?

Additionally, Jewish voters in New York overwhelmingly believe that America is "headed in the wrong direction" as opposed to "the right track," by a margin of 62 percent to 31 percent.

Perhaps most troubling for President Obama's prospects with Jewish voters were these two questions. "Overall, would you say that you and your family are better off now than you were four years ago, about the same as you were four years ago, or worse off today than you were four years ago?," the poll asked. Only 13 percent of Jewish New Yorkers said that they are better off now, under Obama, while 41 percent said that they are doing worse. (Forty-five percent said they're doing the same.)

And this one: "And how about the country as a whole, Would you say that the United States is in better position now than it was four years ago, about the same as it was four years ago, or worse off today than it was four years ago?" Only 27 percent of Jewish New Yorkers said that the U.S. is in a better position, while 49 percent said America's position is worse. (Twenty-two percent said the position of this country has not changed.)

Source

Now while the Tribe might not vote for Obama, it is not a vote for Romney either.  The same thing happened in 1980.  While many members of the Tribe didn't vote for Carter, they didn't vote for Anderson or Reagan either.  Bugs Bunny got 25% of the Jewish vote (Always vote for the member of the Tribe.).

And now it looks as if the Democrats are getting ready to lose Jewish support (money).

New York City councilman Charles Barron may be on his way to winning the Democratic nomination for Congress in New York's Eighth District, despite a history of racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Israel rhetoric. Barron, who has earned the support of retiring congressman Edolphus Towns, would be representing a district with a sizable Jewish population.

In 2010, he told a reporter that in New York's Crown Heights neighborhood, Jews "only make up 20 percent of the population, but they've always walked these streets as if they owned them, and acted as if they are the only ones in the community that matter."

Barron once referred to a fellow city councilman, who is Jewish, as a "coward" whose actions on the council were to "satisfy the Jewish lobby."

Barron has also called into question the legitimate existence of Israel. "Where should we start [the discussion]?" he said at a Brooklyn church in 2010. "Should we start with the 1906 Zionist Convention, or in 1914, with the Balfour Declaration? With Menachem Begin, the terrorists, all the wars, you want to discuss Israel becoming a state in 1948 when it should not have? Who are the terrorists? You want to talk about the definition of terrorism? How do you define acts of piracy?"

And in 2009, Barron joined former congresswoman Cynthia McKinney on a Viva Palestine convoy to undermine the Israeli blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza, which he has compared to a "concentration death camp." Here's what Barron had to say in 2010 about the blockade:

Israel is out of control. They’re off the hook, they’re out of line; and Barack Obama has to stand strong and so do does Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, to say that this kind of aggressive, terroristic behavior and act of piracy will not be tolerated and the blockade should be lifted immediately, immediately. There’s too many children and women and innocent men of Gaza dying because you’re isolating them and not allowing anything in. It’s like having a concentration death camp. It’s horrible, and the whole world is and should be outraged.

The New York Daily News ran an editorial this weekend warning voters about Barron's views:

A relic of a bitter bygone era, Barron is a former Black Panther who plays a one-note trumpet of racial grievance.


He has called for training teachers in Ebonics. He has labeled housing development “a new wave of Jim Crowism.”


At a 2002 rally in support of reparations for slavery, he said: “I want to go up to the closest white person and say, ‘You can’t understand this, it’s a black thing’ and then slap him, just for my mental health.”

The Daily News instead endorsed Hakeem Jeffries in the June 26 primary. The seat is highly Democratic, and a win in the primary will be tantamount to a general election victory. The Daily News touts Jeffries "in the strongest terms," citing his legal work and his ability to bridge racial and cultural differences across the new diverse district.

Source

Add the anti-Semitic campaign of Bill Pascrell and the Democrats in the Congressional Black Caucus.  And Jews are fleeing the Democratic Party.

Obama has a big problem.  He has a Jewish problem.  He has a big problem with Jewish money, he can't raise any.  I suspect that in November he will get only 12% of the Jewish vote.  G-d willing!