Former Marine & Border Patrol Agent Confronts Open Borders Supporters in Murrieta – Must See Video

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

former Marine confronts open borders people

Hat/Tip to The Federalist Papers.org.

Those who advocate for open borders don’t even begin to understand the “Cloward-Piven-ness” of what they are wishing for. Overloading the system and tearing it down from within has long been a strategy of the left. But this young patriot understands it. In the video he confronts open borders supporters in Murrieta and he does so with grace, passion and courtesy. Yet no one doubts his sincerity, his compassion or his first hand knowledge of what he’s speaking to.

His respect and love for this country run deep. He must have gotten it from his parents who immigrated here LEGALLY from Mexico to give their son a better life, and it looks like they’ve done a great job. He is a veteran, who sacrificed and defended his country, and now he continues to defend her as a border patrol agent.

As a parent, and grandparent, myself I can say that his parents have every right to be proud of him.

.

Share

A Way to Meaningfully Resist ObamaCare?

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

What if you could say “nyet comrade” to ObamaCare with minimal consequences?  After all, if people  cam resist ObamaCare, they can save themselves from many of the negative consequences.  And, it’s a great way to be subversive, and help hasten them collapse of that system.  Dean Clancy, in an article at the Washington Times, discusses his concept as to how…

Under Section 1501 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we’re required to certify on our yearly tax return whether we have “acceptable” coverage. However, the Internal Revenue Service is forbidden to use any penalty to enforce the mandate, except for a user-fee payment, which the IRS can only collect at the end of the year out of any tax refund we may be owed. This means we can simply sidestep the fee by carefully adjusting our withholdings to avoid being owed a refund. As for the amount, it’s comparatively small: in 2014, just $95, or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, rising to $695 or 2.5 percent of income in 2016 and thereafter. It’s a pittance compared to the cost of compliance.

So, if Dean Clancy has this right, we can make sure we break even with the IRS, and there is no penalty.  In all reality we shouldn’t be feeding the beast any more than needed anyway, so sending them extra money is something we might just want to avoid.  After all, why feed the enemy of freedom-the state, more than is absolutely necessary?

Clancy also has some ways to get  insurance, and still not fully comply with ObamaCare…

Not comfortable with being uninsured? No worries. You can still take a bold stand and preserve your freedom by taking the four steps I call “peaceful non-compliance”:

1) Go outside of the “exchange” and buy a high-quality, high-deductible health plan that meets your needs.

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

2) Pay cash for routine medical expenses.

3) Open a Health Savings Account, which allows you to pay for care with pre-tax dollars (and if you can, make the maximum allowable contribution each year).

4) Consider supplementing your insurance with critical illness coverage, which pays a lump sum in case of a specific diagnosis.

So, there are ways to get the kind of insurance that you can use, and at the same time, be outside of the ObamaCare tyranny.

Just as a note, I am NOT suggesting that anyone commit tax evasion.  Follow all relevant tax laws.  What Clancy is suggesting is that we use what appears to be a loophole in the law that allows people out of the penalty by not having an income tax refund from which to deduct the ObamaCare penalty.  Will regressives scoff at this?  Of course they will.  I would simply suggest that we are using the Cloward-Piven strategy, and for regressives,  that is a perfectly acceptable means to achieve change.  After all, we’re just following that fine example.  Then, they couldn’t possible disagree without being hypocrites, right?

Note:  I’m discussing the statements and opinions of someone else in this post.  Do not mistake this blog post for legal advise.  While I hope this works, and I personally pan on using this strategy, I cannot guarantee any outcomes.  Consider this at your own risk.

Share

Medicare: Cloward-Piven for Medicare Cloward-Piven?

Share

Confused by the title?  Well, there is a reason for it.  Once central assertion is that much of the Obama administration’s policies concerning health care are part of a larger Cloward-Piven type strategy.  For those of you that might be new to all of this, the Cloward-Piven strategy is name after two leftists, one of which, Francis Fox Piven, is still living.  The strategy is rather simple.  The idea is to target a system (the original system targeted welfare), and put never ending levels of stress on it until it breaks.  Then, the system falling apart creates a crisis, which requires more government as a solution.  So, to achieve change, you break something so badly, that the resulting “crisis” justifies more government spending, intervention, and most importantly, power.  So, let’s take a look at how our would-be regressive masters are using health care, and Medicare in particular, to break health care. 

Medicare hasn’t seen an increase to payments in 15 years. Obama took $700 billion plus out of future payments to Medicare doctors and hospitals to “pay for” the free Obamacare.

Costs go up all the time to provide services, but the income has not.  And, it’s an intentional thing.

Fewer US doctors are enrolling Medicare patients. Payment rates combined with insufferable rules make it hardly worth anyone’s wile.

If Doctors don’t even break even treating Medicare patients, they have no incentive to see them, and. a greater incentive to reject them.

In three years, the number of health professionals rejecting Medicare has tripled! Others are limiting the number of Medicare patients they take in.

Currently, 9,539 physicians who had accepted Medicare opted out of the program in 2012, up from 3,700 in 2009. That compares with 685,000 doctors who were enrolled as participating physicians in Medicare last year.

Note that this has gotten even worse in Obama’s Presidency, and since the passage of ObamaCare, it surviving it’s legal challenges, and Obama’s re-election.  And why should Doctors trust Medicare, Obama took hundreds of millions out of it to fund ObamaCare.

So, stagnant reimbursement, and taking it’s funding for ObamaCare is creating a scenario in which no one wants to treat Medicare patients.  This will cause a crisis.  Of course, the government will step in to save the elderly from the problems that government created in the first place.  First, they will blame someone else for the problem, and then, they will propose more of the same as the solution!

Oh, and for the title?  Medicare is a huge part of the medical care delivery system in the US.  With the population growing, it will continue to grow.  So, if you want to kill of the health care industry, you have to collapse Medicare.  To essentially make it suck is a great way to make that happen.  Doctors will avoid it, patients will have a hard time getting care.  People will complain.  The MSM will show us tearjerkers about how granny is suffering, and it’s all because of…

Not the government, but greedy doctors!

New government regulations will be needed to take care of this government induced program.  Of course, that will fail too, but thge regressives will blame yet someone else.

Share

ObamaCare Rate Hikes Coming: The Young will Suffer Accordingly

Share

We told you that ObamaCare would increase insurance rates.  But no one wanted to listen.  However, soon the low information crowd won’t have a choice.  

The Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein notes that Rhode Island has given its first hints about new Obamacare insurance premiums. Everyone’s rates will go up significantly compared to inflation. But as expected, the heaviest burdens fall on everyone except large, self-insuring employers, which have long been required to cover pre-existing conditions after a waiting period.

Phil writes:

For small employers and individuals, rates will now be over $300 per month. But read the fine print, and that represents the “base” rate for a 21 year-old. ”Final rates will differ based on a subscriber’s age and the benefits he or she chooses,” the insurance regulator said in a press release. This means that older and sicker people in the state could pay significantly more than this rate.

Just to get an idea of the rate shock that young Rhode Islanders could experience, I visited the Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island website. I found that an individual under 25 years old could currently purchase plans ranging from $96 to $196 per month. However, the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island “base” rate for a 21 year-old once the health care law kicks in will be $314, according to the insurance commissioner, or more than triple what some younger Rhode Islanders could pay under the pre-Obamacare status quo.

Remember that business about student loans — “don’t double my rate?” This is going to cost a whole lot of college grads especially a whole lot more than the $7 per month that market interest rates would cost them on their student loans.

OK, we’ve known that rates were going to increase.  But, what the overall goal?  That’s covered too.

The whole point of Obamacare’s individual mandate (or tax, or whatever) is to get healthy young people into the pool to pay more and bring prices down for sick and old people. If insurance becomes cost-prohibitive for the young, and if as a result any significant number decides it’s better to pay fines (sorry, taxes), then all prices on everyone else will rise even more. This is what people are referring to when they talk about a “death spiral” in the health insurance market. (Premiums rise, forcing people to drop, forcing premiums still higher, forcing more people to drop, etc.) 

Didn’t we say that ObamaCare was Cloward-Piven for private insurance?

Share

Elections have Consequences: Health Insurance Premiums to Hit $20,000?

Share

obamacare

A reliable axiom would be that government intervention makes thing far more expensive.  Cars, gasoline, and pretty much anything that the government controls or regulates become more expensive.  And with the re-election of Barak Obama, a lot of democrat voters just priced themselves out of the health insurance market.  CNS News has why…

Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.

The IRS’s assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.

Lol, $20,000 a year?  Doesn’t this fly in the face of Obama’s promise to lower premiums?  Does this jive with Obama’s claim that if people liked their plan, they could keep it?  Why isn’t the media reporting this?

Oh yeah, they don’t report news critical of dear leader.

Here’s a littler more…

For those wondering how clear the IRS’s clarifications of this new “penalty” rule are, here is one of the actual examples the IRS gives:

“Example 3. Family without minimum essential coverage.

“(i) In 2016, Taxpayers H and J are married and file a joint return. H and J have three children: K, age 21, L, age 15, and M, age 10. No member of the family has minimum essential coverage for any month in 2016. H and J’s household income is $120,000. H and J’s applicable filing threshold is $24,000. The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.

“(ii) For each month in 2016, under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the applicable dollar amount is $2,780 (($695 x 3 adults) + (($695/2) x 2 children)). Under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the flat dollar amount is $2,085 (the lesser of $2,780 and $2,085 ($695 x 3)). Under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the excess income amount is $2,400 (($120,000 – $24,000) x 0.025). Therefore, under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the monthly penalty amount is $200 (the greater of $173.75 ($2,085/12) or $200 ($2,400/12)).

“(iii) The sum of the monthly penalty amounts is $2,400 ($200 x 12). The sum of the monthly national average bronze plan premiums is $20,000 ($20,000/12 x 12). Therefore, under paragraph (a) of this section, the shared responsibility payment imposed on H and J for 2016 is $2,400 (the lesser of $2,400 or $20,000).”

OK, you’ve seen it, in the words of the IRS.  Now, what is this supposed to accomplish?  It’s what we’ve called it all along; Cloward-Piven for the health insurance industry, driving people into dependence on government for their health care.  The difference between the tax and the premium is so drastic, that no one in their right mind would purchase insurance.  So, the idea is to kill private insurance.  After all, if you are sick, or have a sick family member, you won’t be inclined to go against the government that provides the health care.

Just as planned.

Oh, and to the people that will no longer have insurance, just remember that elections have consequences.

Share

College Students Hammered by ObamaCare-Just in Time for the Election

Share

Yesterday, I asked the question, which is worse, being Obama’s enemy, or his friend?  That line resonates a bit more today, given that college students, who overwhelmingly supported Obama in 2008, are being repaid for that support-in higher insurance rates thanks to ObamaCare.  The Lonely Conservative has more…

College students who purchase their health insurance policies through their colleges may be in for a shock when they get the bill. Colleges all over the country are raising premiums drastically to cover the costs associated with Obamacare. In North Carolina, where Democrats are hoping young voters will help them win the state, the costs have skyrocketed.

But as the president fights to keep the conservative-leaning state in his column this November, education officials here are complicating his campaign message by citing “Obamacare” as a reason for the rising cost of student health insurance plans on campuses from Asheville to Wilmington.

In April, Tom Ross, the president of the University of North Carolina system, sent a letter to the university’s board of governors announcing that students should brace for a hike in the cost of university-provided insurance plans.

Ross explained that at least 64,000 North Carolina college students – roughly a third of those enrolled in the state’s 17 public universities – should expect to see “substantial” increases in health coverage costs for the 2012-2013 academic year.

“Based on more than three semesters of actual claims experience, as well as the new provisions of the Affordable Care Act, we are facing large increases in premiums for our students,” Ross wrote in the letter.

In North Carolina, college students are required to have proof of health insurance, either through their university, their parents or a private provider.

Students who purchase insurance plans from North Carolina public universities this fall will be shelling out $709 per semester. That’s up significantly from a cost of $460 per semester last year.

Get over to The Lonely Conservative, as there is even more.

We warned that ObamaCare would increase costs.  Anyone with a half necrotic brain could have recognized that.  But, people continued to push for ObamaCare, and now they are reaping the “rewards” for that support.  It has to be noted that this is part of the Cloward-Piven of ObamaCare-to increase costs and reduce availability, causing the health care system to crash and burn under the weight of those increased costs.  That would give our regressive friends the justification to take it over entirely.

Let’s add college students to the increasingly long list of Obama client groups that are now staring up at the bottom of the bus.

How ya likin’ that “change?”

 

Share

The Department of Labor: Family traditions turned upside down

Share

I was fortunate to grow up in the country.  My first paying job was working on a farm. From the time I was 14 until 16 years of age, I spent my summers rotating around the local area between three separate farms working for a couple of dollars an hour haying.  I was taught at a very young age that work meant something.  It was what men did to provide for their families.  Work was so important to my grandfather that his dying wish was when he passed on he would be wearing his work boots.   He believed that hard work was the foundation success was built on.   When I turned 16 I was hired to work on a township road crew; however I continued to work on part-time basis helping a local farmer until I graduated from high school.  I look back on those years with a deep appreciation for everything I learned about work and about life.

One of the farms I worked on was my uncle’s farm.  It was a small family farm two houses down the road from our house.  During the summer months it was always an all hands on deck family event when it was time to hay.  I worked side by side with my cousins loading 70 pound small round bales of hay on a wagon, unloading them and storing it in the haymow.  It was hard work done in 80 plus degree weather.  I spent most of my time working in a haymow that was easily 10 degrees higher than the outside temperature.  At the end of the day we would chug down about a gallon of unsweetened ice tea as a strong sense of accomplishment washed over us.  When the work was done and all the hay was stored away in the haymow it was time to play.  We never once felt like we were being abused or we were working in some kind of sweat shop.  We understood the dangers of working around moving equipment and always had a healthy respect for it.  We worked together as a family unit to accomplish a goal because that’s what families did.  We felt as if we were part of something special.  We learned at a young age about the importance of hard work and achieving success.  I acquired skills working around the farm that I still use to this day.  The truth is I was blessed to have this opportunity because so many kids never had a chance to experience the natural high you get after completing a hard day’s work.  Now the Department of Labor is telling us this was a bad thing.

Most of you have heard how the Department of Labor is proposing a regulation that will prevent kids who grow up on farms from basically doing all things my cousins and I did working on a farm.  These masterminds in Washington D.C. believe that somehow a child doing chores on a family farm equates to a violation of child labor laws.  This wonderful family farm tradition is now being demonized by an unfeeling bureaucratic system that cares more about how something is done than what is actually getting done.   We’re supposed to ignore the fact that this is how family farms have operated in America since before our independence.  Now some D.C. bureaucrat is saying we’ve been wrong all along and that these children should not be subjected to these working conditions.  They want to crack down on these sweatshops.   Not only does this open another door for the government to replace the parent, but it also takes away the opportunity for our young people to learn a valuable skill at a very young age.  Can someone please tell me where in the constitution it authorizes some government official the power to usurp the rights of the parent?  Once again there is no provision in the constitution that permits this because the constitution is a document designed to RESTRAIN the federal government from doing exactly this.

Below is a video of Senator Jerry Moran discussing this issue on Fox News.

This is what happens in an America when the constitution is ignored by unelected bureaucrats who could care less about our rights.  It turns our traditions and history as a nation on its head and forces us to live in an America that’s upside down.  It was in 2008 when Michelle Obama said we would need to change our traditions and history.  Welcome to Obama’s America.  This is just another attempt to fundamentally change who we are as a people and we must stop it.  The more we allow these elected or unelected bureaucrats to regulate every aspect of our lives the more we lose as a people and as a nation.  The more we become enslaved.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post:  The Sentry Journal

Share

ObamaCare Damage Roundup: It Costs Almost Twice as Much as Promised, and Millions Might Lose Their Plans

Share

Are Conservatives and Libertarians prophetic?  Or do they just have a good grasp of the obvious?  While I’d like to think that we’re able to see the future, the reality is that we can integrate information from a variety of sources, and make reasonable predictions about future events.  Consider ObamaCare-when we were told that Congress had to pass it “so we can see what is in it.”  While the contents were supposedly a mystery, promises were made, like it being revenue neutral, costing approximately $900,000,000,000 over the first ten years.  However, Conservatives pointed out that there were many accounting tricks done to meet that number, and that the likely cost would be significantly higher.  After all, Medicare overran it’s cost projections by an order of magnitude, just as most all government entitlements do.  Why would ObamaCare be any different? Well, the CBO has proved that assertion to be quite correct.  Michele Malkin has the details…

Earlier in the week the CBO found that the “Affordable Care Act” is going to make health care so affordable that it will cost at least twice as much as originally advertised:

The Congressional Budget Office has extended its cost estimates for President Obama’s health care law out to 2022, taking in more years of full implementation, and showing that the bill is substantially more expensive — twice as much as the original $900 billion price tag.

In a largely overlooked segment of the CBO’s update to the budget outlook released Tuesday, the independent arm of Congress found that the bill will cost $1.76 trillion between now and 2022.

That only counts the cost of coverage, not implementation costs and other changes.

So then, just as we predicted, the law is going to cost almost twice as much as originally projected!

But, at least we’re going to keep our own plan, just as President Obama promised, right?

Well, that too appears to have been something of a fabrication.  Again, reality interferes with the narrative…

As many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage because of President Obama’s healthcare reform law, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in a new report Thursday.

The figure represents the worst-case scenario, CBO says, and the law could just as well increase the number of people with employer-based coverage by 3 million in 2019.

The best estimate, subject to a “tremendous amount of uncertainty,” is that about 3 million to 5 million fewer people will obtain coverage through their employer each year from 2019 through 2022.

Hmm, it looks like a lot of people are going to lose their plans.  There have already been anecdotal evidence of people losing their plans.  I would predict that will only get worse.  The reasoning is simple…the law places so many demands on the system (Cloward-Piven) that many companies will drop their coverage and pay the related fine, as it is cheaper.  Also, many companies may change to less expensive plans.  Either way, I think it’s safe to predict that a lot of people will be sent to the public system, and eventually, less and less private plans will be available-just as the regressives want.

This is just the beginning folks.  It’s going to get worse.

Share

Don’t Hire the Person Without a Diploma? You Might be Guilty of Discrimination

Share

Remember being told that you can’t even get a basic job without a high school diploma?  It’s been the standard for years.  Hopefully, a HS diploma means that a candidate can read, write, and have at least basic math skills.  Or, if a candidate graduated from a Vo-Tech, you might assume that they have specific job-related skills that you are looking for.  At the minimum, a diploma at least shows that a candidate had the persistence to complete HS.

But, it appears that the days of the HS Diploma having any relevance at all is over.  Because, if you do not hire a job seeker for not having one, you might be guilty of discrimination.  Bunkerville has the details…

President Obama used his recess appointment power to appoint Feldblum and two others to the commission on March 27, 2010.Geidner, Chris, “Recess Appointment for Feldblum,” Metro Weekly, March 27, 2010.(1)

Minn Lawyer:

The  final regs implementing the  ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) are now available on the Federal Register website.  ”Like the law they implement, the regulations are designed to simplify the determination of who has a “disability” and make it easier for people to establish that they are protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),” the EEOC’s website states.

But I digressed:

Employers are facing more uncertainty in the wake of a letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission warning them that requiring a high school diploma from a job applicant might violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The “informal discussion letter” from the EEOC said an employer’s requirement of a high school diploma, long a standard criterion for screening potential employees, must be “job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” The letter was posted on the commission’s website on Dec. 2.

My first reaction is that children with disabilities have access to a wealth of resources, mandated by state and federal law.  They MUST be provided, and there are numerous organizations that will advocate for children with disabilities, and even sue school districts for failing to provide those resources.  So, I then have to question, is this a means to give HS dropouts the ability to sue employers?  Is this just another slice of Cloward-Piven for businesses of all sizes?

Share

You Mean That ObamaCare is Cloward-Piven for Private Insurance?

Share

Regulars here at the CH 2.0 will remember that we’ve been covering ObamaCare since the beginning.  We were able to predict most, if not all, of the negative aspects of the law-not because of any particular brilliance on our part, but because we connected the dots, and listened to what supporters of the legislation were saying.  In response to those predictions, we were called “fear mongers,” liars, and were accused of being employed by the insurance industry.  Then, when people started losing their plans, and their doctors, and some have even lost their jobs, the silence from our critics has been rather deafening.  When statists started discussing “death panels,” and rationing, there was suddenly silence from the Democratic-MSM propaganda machine.  It would seem that It’s not easy to be right, especially when our adversaries are so transparently wrong.

The evidence, however, just keeps on coming.  On Friday, Rick Ungar, writing for Forbes, was celebrating a piece of ObamaCare, that he believes, is certain to kill the private insurance industry.

That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.

This is the true ‘bomb’ contained in Obamacare and the one item that will have more impact on the future of how medical care is paid for in this country than anything we’ve seen in quite some time.  Indeed, it is this aspect of the law that represents the true ‘death panel’ found in Obamacare—but not one that is going to lead to the death of American consumers. Rather, the medical loss ratio will, ultimately, lead to the death of large parts of the private, for-profit health insurance industry.

Why? Because there is absolutely no way for-profit health insurers are going to be able to learn how to get by and still make a profit while being forced to spend at least 80 percent of their receipts providing their customers with the coverage for which they paid. If they could, we likely would never have seen the extraordinary efforts made by these companies to avoid paying benefits to their customers at the very moment they need it the most.

So, can private health insurance companies manage to make a profit when they actually have to spend premium receipts taking care of their customers’ health needs as promised?

Not a chance-and they know it. Indeed, we are already seeing the parent companies who own these insurance operations fleeing into other types of investments. They know what we should all know – we are now on an inescapable path to a single-payer system for most Americans and thank goodness for it.

So then, we see that this was built into ObamaCare as Cloward-Piven for the private insurance industry.  We have been claiming that the law was built as a Trojan horse for single payer.  The law will slowly but surely drive the private insurance industry from the playing field, creating a crisis.  A crisis, of course, that government will be all too happy to present a “solution” for.  As we can see, there are people on the left not only agreeing with  this assessement, but also applauding it.

How much more evidence is needed?

Share

Founder of BET doesn't understand what Obama is doing

Share

Robert Johnson, the founder of BET, has apparently been a successful man.  And, as a successful man, he is in the cross-hairs of the President’s math class warfare.  He has spoken out on the President’s recent attacks against the rich successful job creators.

I don’t think that Mr. Johnson is quite understanding the dynamic here. The idea IS to attack the successful for being successful. You see, Mr. Johnson, the regressives are attempting to “fundamentally transform” destroy this country. In order to achieve that end, they have to cause massive economic failure via Cloward-Piven. However as they do so, they are going to cause a lot of misery (actually, that won’t stop). As those being impacted by the misery look for someone to blame, the administration will not allow themselves to take responsibility, so they have to scapegoat someone. That scapegoat is you, Mr. Johnson, or anyone else that has been successful. It doesn’t matter how many people you have hired, how much you have given to charity, or if everyone in the world thinks you’re a great guy-someone has to take the blame for the current economic problems, and the regressives and this administration are never going to accept that regressive policies caused this recession, and that the administration has kept the economy from recovering.

Sorry to say it. Mr. Johnson, but you, and anyone else that has been successful, will be demonized.  After all, we can’t have the sheeple turning on the people leading them to slaughter, can we?  Then again, Alinsky was very clear about demonizing others.

Share

Gridlock: It's not a Flaw, It's a Feature

Share

The pundits often complain of gridlock, and how government cannot get anything “done” for the people.  While we would certainly argue that what is often done does little more than make matters worse, but that isn’t exactly today’s topic matter.  What we are really talking about is the fact that our Founders planned for, and sought to prevent rapid, sweeping changes to government and society.  The American Prospect, a regressive publication, t has a rather interesting article on the subject, and unintentionally makes many points for us…

Washington has ground to a halt, paralyzed by a political division deeper than any we have seen since the days when Abraham Lincoln warned that a house divided against itself cannot stand. “Nothing” also isn’t doing much to commend the American way to other countries. Much of the developing world now sees China and its model of capitalist authoritarianism as more efficient than the creaky workings of democracy. Nations still marvel at the United States, but today, it’s our gridlock that draws the world’s wonder.

It shouldn’t. The current impasse between the Republican House and the Democratic president and Senate has only highlighted what is a chronic—indeed, constitutional—condition: Just as the American people have a bias for action, the American government has a bias for stasis. Governmental gridlock is as American as apple pie.

The root cause of all this inactivity is our peculiar form of democracy. While most democracies are governed by parliamentary systems, our Founders opted for a presidential system, which they consciously booby-trapped with multiple veto points to impede decisive legislative action and sweeping social change.

In America, for instance, presidents take office, but they don’t form a government, as prime ministers do in virtually every other democracy. Presidents can form no more than an executive branch. They appoint cabinet members, sub-cabinet officials, military commanders, ambassadors, and the heads of regulatory agencies. They don’t appoint congressional leaders; often as not, their party may not control either or both houses of Congress. Indeed, the White House, the Senate, and the House have been controlled by the same party during just 8 of the past 30 years. Even when the same party holds Congress and the presidency, the system still fragments power.

That’s the point, dear reader.  Our Founders may have predated Cloward-Piven by almost 200 years by creating a system that is resistant to tyranny.  It has strained attempts to destroy it until the attackers have been broken.  Multiple checks on power prevent rapid or radical changes, in spite of the regressive’s efforts to undo them.  The results, even though we have been badly weakened, are clear.  We have remained strong and prosperous while Europe spent decades burying themselves in socialism, and the Russian, Chinese, and others spent decades slaughtering their own people by the tens of millions.  Those systems allowed for quick and more radical changes, and their populations have suffered accordingly.   It is through the wisdom of the Founders that we have survives as long as we have, especially considering that freedom have been under regressive onslaught for a century or more.   Sadly, the Founders were not able to create a system that is completely immune to tyranny-that’s where we come in.  It is up to us to elect the people needed to restore the Republic.  While the task seems insurmountable, we still must try.  The fate of human freedom, just not in the US, but planet wide, is at state.

I would encourage you to read the entire linked article.  It is long, but you will come away knowing another viewpoint.  It’s not something I would agree with, but a look at the Constitution from another perspective makes one think, and thinking is no vice.

Share

The Left Accuses the GOP of "Sabotaging" the Economy: Now, Obama Wants Them to Actually do it

Share

Earlier this month, I discussed the leftist narrative that the GOP is intentionally sabotaging the economy in order to win the 2012 election.  Of course, that claim is nothing more than typical leftist projection, as destroying the economy is something that they have raised to a science.  But, of course, they can’t let a little reality interfere with their narrative.  So, they plod on, hoping that the uninformed swallow the lies, and vote accordingly.

That entire scenario took on a new light with the debt limit debate.  For background, here are some excerpts from the WSJ…

So the fondest Washington hopes for a grand debt-limit deal have broken down over taxes. House Speaker John Boehner said late Saturday that he couldn’t move ahead with a $4 trillion deal because President Obama was insisting on a $1 trillion tax increase, and the White House quickly denounced House Republicans for scuttling debt reduction and preventing “the very wealthiest and special interests from paying their fair share.”

How much is a “fair” share?  As much as the Democrats say, apparently.

• Also starting in 2013 is a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers. That’s estimated to raise $20 billion.

Combined with a similar tax on medical devises in ObamaCare, it will make it harder for granny to afford a pacemaker.  They say Paul Ryan will push granny off the cliff.  Obama is more merciful, allowing her to die in her bed for the lack of equipment.

• Already underway this year is the new annual fee on “branded” drug makers and importers, which will raise $27 billion.

Hell, Obama is even going to make the “pain pill” more expensive.

• Starting in 2018, the bill imposes a whopping 40% “excise tax” on high-cost health insurance plans. Though it only applies to two years in the 2010-2019 window of ObamaCare’s original budget score, this tax would still raise $32 billion—and much more in future years.

This will not be collected, at least at the levels projected, as employers will simply change policies to be just below the limit for the tax.  Of course, people will lose their plans, but we can’t expect Obama to keep his promises, can we?

 And don’t forget a new annual fee on health insurance providers starting in 2014 and estimated to raise $60 billion. This tax, like many others on this list, will be passed along to consumers in higher health-care costs.

And more costs to us.

This is not a complete list, but you get the idea.  Obama’s tax plan will hurt the very people that he is allegedly trying to help.  Most of these items seem to be more Cloward-Piven for the medical industry, hastening it’s elimination, and takeover by single payer.  But all in all, there are a few things that the administration either doesn’t get, or does, and refused to discuss:

1.  The end user pays all taxes:  Businesses large and small face a choice when it comes to taxes; they can increase prices, lay people off, staff reduction by attrition, reduce or eliminate expansion plans or new products, or a combination of any of these.  In the end, it hurts everyone.

2.  Increased taxes provide a disincentive to businesses, so they either cut back, or stop plans for growth.  Less is produced and sold, and therefore, less is taxed.  For some background, this is what happened to the Yacht industry when they GOP caved and passed a luxury tax on expensive items.  You know, so the rich would “pay their fair share…” 

Note that all of these articles are take from different times during the existence of this tax, which was later repealed, but the damage was already done.

According to a survey of the largest boat dealers in Connecticut, conducted by the Marine Retailers Association of America (MRAA), sales of boats costing $100,000 or more have fallen 93 percent, from $7.879 million in 1990 to $ 545,000 for the same period this year. Nationwide, more than19,000 people have been put out of work at boat making plants.

Source

The 1990 budget deal also slapped a hefty luxury tax on boats… to draw more money from wealthy yacht owners. What actually happened? People bought fewer boats. So who really paid the price? The many nonwealthy boat builders who were put out of work by the tax… The [Washington] Post article reported estimates that 25,000 to 30,000 jobs were lost. These effects were so obvious that even the tax raisers in Congress now plan to repeal the yacht tax.

Source

According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues. So the net effect of the taxes was a loss of $7.6 million in fiscal 1991, which means the government projection was off by $38.6 million.

Source

If Obama wants a trillion dollars in new taxes, he should know that they’ll never collect that amount, because the economic activity that can be taxed will decrease.  Or, people will eat the increased cost, and not engage in other economic activities.  No matter what, rather than be of any value, the taxes will likely cause more economic damage.

If the GOP signs on to this, they will cause something unprecedented-they’ll prove the leftist sabotage narrative correct.  They will have sabotaged the economy.

Let’s hope that they don’t live up to their name as the “Stupid Party.”

H/T:  Memorandum

 

Share

Democrats Energy Policies Continue their Assault on Wealth and Jobs

Share

From Powerlineblog:

The Obama administration’s energy policies have been a disaster, assuming that American decline is not your objective. We have written many times about the administration’s efforts to suppress development of our oil resources, but coal is equally important. The United States is blessed with extraordinary deposits of coal, but Obama is determined to prevent us from using it to generate cheap and plentiful electricity. Obama wasn’t kidding when he said, as a candidate, that his policies would cause electricity prices to “skyrocket.”

U.S. News reports that Obama’s EPA is promulgating regulations that will cause hundreds of thousands of Americans to lose their jobs:

Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.

Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group. …

Referring to the analysis of the EPA regulations from National Economic Research Associates, Miller said they would be the most expensive rules ever imposed on power plants.

That was yesterday. Today, American Electric Power announced that it will close down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions to comply with the EPA’s proposed regulations:

Utility giant American Electric Power said Thursday that it will shut down five coal-fired power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with a series of pending Environmental Protection Agency regulations. …

The company, one of the country’s largest electric utilities, estimated that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion in capital investments over the next decade to comply with the regulations in their current form.

The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.

In total, AEP estimated it will have to close five coal-fired power plants by the end of 2014. Six additional plants would see major changes, including retiring some generating units, retrofitting equipment and switching to natural gas.

Of course, the administration is trying to block development of natural gas, too. Of all of the Obama administration’s perverse economic policies, its anti-energy agenda is most likely to make Obama a one-term president.

Our economy is struggling for a reason- Democrats and their policies are crushing human liberty and freedom, attacking wealth and wealth creation, freezing in social and economic structures, limiting mobility and change, and disincentivizing economic growth. Their policies are quite clear- these energy policies are a great example of how Democrats are increasing ‘safety’ or ‘environmental’ regulations that will drive US companies under, kill jobs, and drive business to other nations which have lower standards (thereby causing more harm to people or the environment), resulting in a net loss for society and America. Similar policies are found in healthcare, defense, education, etc. Although Republicans are not perfect- in fact, they are far from it because they are not conservative or libertarian enough- they are usually the better alternative to Democrats in the 2012 election, in Congress, for President, and at state levels.

UPDATE: My buddy conservativesonfire asked “Where is the outrage, CT. Dose nobody pay attention to what is happening and what it will mean?”

The Cloward–Piven strategy and Saul Alinksy Rules for Radicals both teach that change should not come slowly to America and should not come in measured amounts that are brought before the light- rather, Obama and the Democrats believe that change should be rapid, hidden, and such an overwhelming onslaught of liberal policies that one blends into another in a sort of rapid-fire radical agenda that shocks and awes all opposition and collapses resistance to its agenda. Obama typically drops the worst policies on Friday, when the media doesn’t cover them, and by Monday, there is yet another crisis or bad policy or scandal to distract America from the radical agenda of Obama and his Democratic allies.

Original Post: A Conservative Teacher

Share

Glenn Beck Exposes Leftist Plans: Collapse the Economy to Take Power

Share

We’ve talked about Cloward-Piven many times before.  In essence, the Cloward-Piven strategy is meant to undermine and overwhelm a system, or systems, and bring them to a state of collapse.  Then, as the idea goes, the resulting crisis creates an opportunity for “change.”  And, for our left, this “change” will necessarily consist of tyranny.  For some striking evidence of a current Cloward-Piven type plan, take a look at this video from The Blaze.

For our leftists, it isn’t a matter of which system is better, it only matters that the dominant system is not theirs.  And since Marxist states cannot compete with free ones, their only solution is to undermine and destroy the free one.  Such is the underhandedness and deceit that is the left.  They cannot compete in the “free market,” so they will destroy the market.  This is more than the kid that takes his ball and goes home – this is the kid that stabs the ball with a knife so no one can ever play again.

This, my friends, is the left.  Call them Marxists, Fascists, “Progressives,” or whatever label you wish to apply, the result is the same.  These are dishonest, unethical, devious, and reprobate humans that will not rest until they enslave us all.

Related Links:

Left Forum Union Plan to Destablize America: Steve Lerner – Bring Down Stock Market, Redistribute Wealth

Spread The Revolution

Economic Terror Plan for ‘Redistributing Wealth and Power in the Country’

CAUGHT ON TAPE: DEMOCRATS PLAN TO DESTROY US ECONOMY

SEIU Leader Identifies the Left’s Next Villain: JP Morgan Chase

Caught On Tape: A Former SEIU Official’s Plan to Destroy US Capitalism And Redistribute Wealth And Power

Former SEIU official demanded action to destabilize banking system, overthrow capital

SEIU Stephen Lerner Plans to Destabilize Capitalism

What Will They Say About The Blaze Now?

The Memorandum thread can be found here.

 

 

Share

The Next MSM Narrative: Quoting and Exposing Progressives Incites Violence

Share

As most of us know, one of the most powerful weapons wielded by the Right, and particularly, we bloggers, are quotes from prominent “progressives.”  If you remember, we were able to accomplish a great deal in exposing the intent of the public option that was to be included in ObamaCare by quoting President Obama, members of Congress, and other experts in heath care.  Their own words were used against them, as they stated their intentions openly.  Here is an example that I compiled.

Basically, we were able to negate a great deal of the liberal talking points by simply showing what they have said.

Of course, we have been able to show what a wide variety of leftists are planning.  When we are able to hear what they are saying, and look at that through the prism of what they are doing, we can determine their intent with a great deal of accuracy.

The “progressives,” obviously, have never liked this ability. We have been a significant thorn in their sides, and most all efforts, up to now, have been unsuccessful in negating our message.  It’s really not a surprise that they have repeatedly floated the idea of regulating internet content and talk radio.  Of course, those regulations would prevent us from discussing or exposing any of their activities.  On the other hand, the left would be able to spin their propaganda unimpeded.  they would love to return to previous decades, when the major papers and the three broadcast networks could control the flow of information to most Americans.

After the shootings in Tucson, the progressives and their MSM minions attempted to blame the tragedy on Conservative personalities.While that effort, devoid of any actual evidence, has failed, they have managed to insert the civil discourse narrative into the MSM (ironically, while lefty pundits are violating it consistently).  While this will be discarded at a time convenient to the left, it does leaves them with an opportunity…

To expand the meme of “inciting violence” to negate one of our greatest strengths-exposing the words and deeds of leftists.

Powerline had an article that leads to my conclusion this past Saturday…

At the moment, the second most-read article at the New York Times site is this one: “Spotlight From Glenn Beck Brings a CUNY Professor Threats.”

On his daily radio and television shows, Glenn Beck has elevated once-obscure conservative thinkers onto best-seller lists. Recently, he has elevated a 78-year-old liberal academic to celebrity of a different sort, in a way that some say is endangering her life.

Frances Fox Piven, a City University of New York professor, has been a primary character in Mr. Beck’s warnings about a progressive take-down of America. Ms. Piven, Mr. Beck says, is responsible for a plan to “intentionally collapse our economic system.”

Let’s pause there for a moment. First of all, Ms. Piven is not a “liberal academic.” By her own description, she is a radical, a leftist and a Marxist. Nor is she merely an academic; she has been a far-left activist for decades. The Times continues:

Never mind that Ms. Piven’s radical plan to help poor people was published 45 years ago, when Mr. Beck was a toddler. Anonymous visitors to his Web site have called for her death, and some, she said, have contacted her directly via e-mail.

In response, a liberal nonprofit group, the Center for Constitutional Rights, wrote to the chairman of Fox News, Roger Ailes, on Thursday to ask him to put a stop to Mr. Beck’s “false accusations” about Ms. Piven.

“Mr. Beck is putting Professor Piven in actual physical danger of a violent response,” the group wrote. …

Ms. Piven said in an interview that she had informed local law enforcement authorities of the anonymous electronic threats. …

The Nation, which has featured Ms. Piven’s columns for decades, quoted some of the threats against her in an editorial this week that condemned the “concerted campaign” against her.

One such threat, published as an anonymous comment on The Blaze, read, “Somebody tell Frances I have 5000 roundas ready and I’ll give My life to take Our freedom back.” (The spelling and capitalizing have not been changed.)

That comment and others that were direct threats were later deleted, but other comments remain that charge her with treasonous behavior. …

The Center for Constitutional Rights said it took exception to the sheer quantity of negative attention to Ms. Piven.

“We are vigorous defenders of the First Amendment,” the center said in its letter to Fox. “However, there comes a point when constant intentional repetition of provocative, incendiary, emotional misinformation and falsehoods about a person can put that person in actual physical danger of a violent response.” Mr. Beck is at that point, they said.

This is Orwellian on several levels. It is Ms. Piven, not Glenn Beck, who explicitly defends violence, and comes perilously close to advocating it:

I would encourage you to go to the post over at Power Line, and take a look at the full article.

Now, we are all very familiar with the strategy pioneered by Francis Fox Piven, and her late husband.  The Cloward/Piven strategy is the template for many other actions of the left.  All have the same goals; undermine or cripple a system, causing it to collapse, and exploit the resulting crisis in order to achieve greater and greater levels of government control.   While her husband is gone, she continues suggesting revolution, and the violence that comes with it, as a solution to freedom.  Here is a video showing some of her latest suggestions…

And here is a bit more, from Power Line.

Piven was heartened by the recent riots in Greece and England and urged that radicals in America adopt them as a model:

[B]efore people can mobilize for collective action, they have to develop a proud and angry identity and a set of claims that go with that identity. They have to go from being hurt and ashamed to being angry and indignant. [T]he out-of-work have to stop blaming themselves for their hard times and turn their anger on the bosses, the bureaucrats or the politicians who are in fact responsible.

An effective movement of the unemployed will have to look something like the strikes and riots that have spread across Greece in response to the austerity measures forced on the Greek government by the European Union, or like the student protests that recently spread with lightning speed across England in response to the prospect of greatly increased school fees.

Innocent people have died in those riots, and she seems to admire the rioters a great deal.  So who is inciting violence, and who is not?  Of course, the answer to that, based in reality, is irrelevant, as there is a narrative to put forward.

This is the next phase of the info war folks.  When we publish quotes or videos from leftists who are calling for violence, or, at the very least, calling for the end of human freedom, we will be accused of inciting violence.  The idea is simple; instead of looking at the content of what is actually said or is happening, attempt to negate it by saying that it’s a call to violence.  It’s a lie, but that’s the bread and butter of the left, so just be prepared.

H/T: Powerline

Share

Democrats: Running on Empty

Share

The more I hear all the rhetoric and emotionally charged words the left is throwing at tea party candidates and the conservative movement, the more I can see that they have nothing substantial to bring to the table.  They’re running on empty with an economy that is in the toilet and the stench of unsuccessful policies that surrounds them wherever they go.  “Blue Dogs” are now distancing themselves from the party because they realize that the mood of the nation has shifted against the Democrats and their progressive political ideology.  After all they’ve spent the last 20 months under the party leadership of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid ramming their tyrannical progressive agenda and horrible public policy down our throats against our will.

These backward policies that are designed to steal our liberties for our own good have not only hindered economic growth but have also created the infrastructure to control every aspect of our lives.  This agenda comes from the radical thinking activist left on the fringe edges of the Democratic Party; a party that has been hijacked by these radical thinkers.  There is no longer any room for moderates as the Democratic platform has become one of radical change no matter the cost.  They proclaim that the tea party movement is one that is extreme in nature and not inclusive when the fact is their ideology is the one that is intolerant of differing opinions and chastise and ridicule those that disagree.  Mainstream America isn’t buying the snake oil they’re peddling anymore.  We see and feel the effects of their policies each day and it doesn’t feel like the America we all grew up in.  The magic is gone and people are finally starting to wake up and see the Democratic Party and its leadership for what they truly are; a bunch of dysfunctional leftover radicals from the late 1960s and early 1970s that desire to fundamentally transform America into a likeness of their own twisted view of a society that tramples on individual liberties, controls all aspects of our lives, and forcibly confiscates our wealth to redistributes to segments of a society who feel entitled to it.

They place on their liberal pedestal radical thinkers like Saul Alinsky, Richard Cloward, and  Frances Fox Piven and turn “we the people” into extremists who stand in the way of progress.  This upside down world has been forced upon us with each unconstitutional law they’ve crafted, now that it’s election time many find themselves running from who they really are.  They are beginning to learn where the real mainstream America stands and it’s not with them.  So they have nothing else to bring to the debate because they have already lost it through failed policies on a national scale.  They are now lashing out at everything and anyone that disagrees with them and those that they feel threaten their hold on power.  They use words like racist and extremists to mask the truth of a flawed ideology they embrace; an ideology that a majority of Americans have soundly rejected.

So expect them to utilize all the left wing resources at their disposal to ratchet up the inflammatory rhetoric.  They will become more vicious in their attacks against the right and tea party movement through a campaign of spreading misinformation and misrepresenting the truth from every angle.  This is all they have left, because right now they’re running on empty and time is running out.

Liberty forever, freedom for all!

Original Post: The Current

Share

Progressive States Network: Distorting the Electoral Process?

Share

In my first post on the Progressive States Network, I went over their Board of Directors, and showed that they are a far-left, if not quasi-Marxist organization.  In coordination with John, owner of The Current, who wrote about the National Popular Vote, I’m going to address some of the PSN’s election initiatives.

First up, is Vote by Mail.  Here are some details from their own website:

Vote by Mail: Vote by Mail is now an option in five states (California, Colorado, Montana, Hawaii, and New Jersey) and has been increasingly popular with voters. California and Colorado have seen the greatest usage with almost a third of California voters voting by mail in November 2008, and an astounding 71% of Colorado voters doing so. Key arguments in favor include:

  • Vote by Mail Helps Increase Turnout: For many voters going to the polling place on election day is difficult, either for work or family reasons. Vote by Mail is the obvious, low-cost solution for giving such voters the flexibility they need to participate in our elections. Allowing voters the option to vote by mail for every election gives them a flexible path to the ballot box, without which they might not participate.
  • Vote by Mail Gives Voters a Choice: In the 21st century, we have the ability to give all voters a choice in how they cast their ballots. There are many voters who can make it to the polls, but who prefer to vote by mail either for convenience or because they like having time to fill out their ballots in the comfort of their home. However, under current practice in some states the mail ballot option requires voters to have one of a few narrow reasons (an “excuse”) for not voting at the polls; and in all but five states, voters must reapply for a mail ballot every election.
  • Vote by Mail Reduces Election Day Chaos and Costs: Vote by mail also helps make sure that no one is prevented from voting on election day by long lines. Colorado residents reaped this benefit in the last presidential election with a smooth election that contrasted sharply with the previous election without vote by mail. In that election some Denver voters waited in lines that lasted half a day or more.

They put a very nice wrapper around this idea.  It does sound very nice, doesn’t it?  However, as I have looked at the PSN, it became obvious that one has to look at what they DON’T say.  In this scenario, they discuss nothing of preventing fraud, or how the integrity of the vote will be maintained.

For example, we know that the organizations formerly know as ACORN, and similar groups, sign up thousands of fake voters with every registration drive.  This is still happening, as it recently was recently exposed in Houston.  If there are fake registrations, might there be fake mail in ballots with return addresses being vacant lots, or places that are not residences?  Now, a supporter of this will probably say that these can be checked.  However, this is the same Cloward-Piven that was ACORN’s voter registration fraud.  The idea is to overwhelm the system with false registrations, making it impossible to verify them all.  With untold thousands of ballots being cast by mail, there could be no possibly way to verify all of them.  I think that the results are predictable.  In my opinion, this is a means to facilitate fraud.

The PSN also supports the National Popular Vote:

National Popular Vote: NPV garners the support of greater than two-thirds of voters in the 30+ states where it has been polled. The bill has now passed in five states (MarylandNew JerseyHawaii, Illinois and, most recently, Washington) with a total of 61 electoral votes, almost a quarter of the total needed for NPV to go into effect. Voters typically support NPV at about 75%, including healthy majorities of Republican voters. Polls in individual states show consistent support as well, with voters supporting it in a range from 68% to 81%. The following messages help address some of the myths and misunderstandings about the consequences of NPV:

  • The Winner Should Win: Emphasize the primary reasons why NPV has such broad support – because every vote should count equally, and the candidate with the most votes should win the election. These are the principles that we respect for our local, state and congressional elections and they should hold for the Presidential election as well.
  • Making Every State a Battleground State Will Increase Turnout: Average turnout in the 15 most competitive Presidential states was 6% higher than in the rest of the states for the 2008 general election, so NPV will help expand turnout.
  • NPV is a Civil Rights Issue: Civil rights has drifted out of the national dialogue as the battlegrounds have shifted away from states with high percentages of minority voters. For example, just 21% of African Americans and 18% of Latinos live in the twelve closest battleground states from 2004. NPV assures that all groups and their issues get equal attention. This is why the NAACP and African-American and Latino legislator organizations support NPV.
  • NPV Helps Small and Rural States: Despite myths otherwise, by leveling the playing field, NPV forces candidates to concentrate on all constituencies, states and populations, rather than disproportionately spending time in a few larger winner-take-all mega-states. In addition, because 12 of the 13 small states are spectators, they actually constitute the most ignored groups of states.
  • NPV Avoids Disputed Close Presidential Elections: Because a very close result is more likely among a smaller group of voters, the possibility of a Florida 2000 style electoral meltdown is much less likely under NPV. Put another way, because the margin of victory nationwide is much larger than it is in individual states, NPV elections are less susceptible to problems than essentially 50 state races.

This issue has been much discussed over the last couple months.  So I will not cover the objections to this.  Steve, at America’s Watchtower, Kristen, at Kristen’s Mishmash, and John from the Current, have all expertly covered this topic.  My analysis will take a different direction.

Again, my take deals with what the PSN does not say.  The NPV moves us, as a nation,  closer to a Democracy.  While I know that many would think that is a wonderful development, it is clearly not.  The PSN fails (deliberately) to recognize that the United States is a Constitutional Republic.  While there are components of Democracy to our system of government, there are built in protections against mob rule.  There are checks and balances built into all of our systems.  For background, consider this from Thomas Jefferson:

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

There is truth to this statement.  If we went purely by popular vote, there might be still slave states.  We might have never had civil rights legislation of any kind.  Popular rule is mob rule.

For even more, let’s take a look at this from Alexander Tyler.

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.” (Emphasis added)

Let’s take a look at this idea a bit more closely.  Do we not have 50% of the population that pays no federal income tax?  Does a segment of that 50% receive the Earned Income Tax Credit…for income that was NOT earned?  How many of that 50% owe their housing, medical care, food, and other essentials to the government?  Out of that segment, how many will vote against their own benefits?  Or, will they vote for the “progressive” that promises them even more?

Then, take a look at the move to make more and more people dependent on government benefits? Using unemployment expansion, ObamaCare, and other programs, the current administration seeks to make more and more of the population dependent on the government for their basic needs.  This has the effect of turning more and more Americans into dependent classes, and therefore, permanent “progressive” voters.

If you want proof, how many times have the Democrats said one, if not all, of the following at election time?

  • The Republicans are going to take your Social Security!
  • The Republicans are going to take your Medicare!
  • The Republicans are going to take your Schools!
  • The Republicans are going to starve the children!
  • The Republicans are going to freeze the elderly!
  • The Republicans are going to make granny eat Alpo to afford her medication!
  • The Republicans want the poor to die.

It’s a work right now.  And by bringing us closer to a Democracy, they know they can enslave enough of the population to achieve insurmountable levels of power.

Again, it’s all about what they haven’t said.

Another initiative that the PSN supports is National Voter Compliance Act:

National Voter Registration Act Compliance: NVRA compliance has been re-implemented by public assistance agencies in five states (North Carolina, Michigan, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Missouri). The messages to expand these successes include:

  • NVRA Compliance Increases Registration: The reward has been substantial, and in some cases dramatic, increases in voter registrations obtained. Missouri has obtained the most impressive turn-around, with a 2600% increase in registrations collected from public assistance agencies after reforms were implemented.
  • NVRA Compliance Assures Equal Opportunities to Register: The National Voter Registration Act was enacted with the understanding that opportunities to register to vote must be equally available to all. But racial and socio-economic gaps in the electorate will persist so long as public assistance agencies fail to offer voter registration to their low-income clients. Such individuals, who are less likely to own a motor vehicle, must have a chance to register to vote at public assistance offices as others do at departments of motor vehicles.
  • NVRA Compliance Addresses Racial and Economic Disparities in Registration: Recent U.S. Census data confirms the racial, ethnic and class bias of the electorate: 73.5 percent of non-Hispanic whites were registered to vote in 2008, as compared to 69.7 percent of blacks, 59.4 percent of Latinos, and 55.9 percent of Asian Americans. Only 65 percent of adult citizens in households making less than $25,000 a year were registered to vote in 2008, as compared to 85 percent of those in households making $100,000. Effective voter registration programs at public assistance agencies are powerful tools for reducing these disparities and bringing more voices into the democratic process.

Again, the presentation is quite nicely worded, but the key is in what they DO NOT say. As I discussed in my recent post on voter fraud, AG Holder has decided to not enforce the part of Motor Voter that dictates that voter rolls be purged of dead or ineligible voters.  The PSN does not mention this either.  Then again, even if they did, Holder’s inaction might well be replicated at the state level as well.  In my opinion, again, this could be a means to facilitate fraud, as there is no apparent means to provide oversight to the voter registration and verification process.

Also missing is the checks for actual citizenship in the PSN’s description.  In many states, illegal aliens are receiving welfare benefits.  If they are signing up for benefits, are they also being registered to vote?  Again, with the systems for monitoring voter registration in most areas being deficient at best, who is to say that there aren’t illegal immigrants voting?  Again, the PSN doesn’t seem to care for the integrity of the election, they simply want to register as many people as possible.

They should want to do that, as I have repeatedly mentioned, the breakdown for political demographics is as follows:

Liberal-20%

Moderate-40%

Conservative-40%

The “progressives” cannot count on the Moderates, they switch from time to time, and they’re currently trending to the right.  With these numbers, it is impossible for them to maintain any kind of majority over time.  As we’ve seen with the current administration and Congress, once their agenda becomes clear, and the results of their actions come to pass, the electorate recognizes the stench, and votes accordingly.  By (potentially) creating fake voters out of thin air, they might be able to make some gains to avoid a rout, or create a victory.

Now, let’s add one other fly into this ointment.  In the post on voter fraud, I mentioned the Soros funded Secretary of State project.  No, I’m not talking about Hillary Clinton’s current job.  The Secretary of State, at the state level, is charged with certifying elections.  Soros, and his minions, are intent on making sure that as many of them as possible are “progressives.”

Considering that several people on the PSN Board come from other Soros-funded organizations, might they be coordinating?  Let’s consider that for a moment…

Imagine this hypothetical situation based on what I’ve discussed.  In my scenario, there are tens of thousands of fake voters, illegal immigrants, and otherwise ineligible voters mailing in ballots.  There is no way to check them all, as the system is overwhelmed (Cloward-Piven).  Also, there has been no effort to remove fake, dead, or ineligible voters from the rolls.  Massive fraud changes the result of the vote.  Then, the “progressive” Secretary of State will certify that election no matter what is exposed, and the “progressive” candidate wins.

As for this topic, the PSN seems to be able to create a very pretty picture of their intent. However, if you look at what they aren’t saying, and what is, or could be done, a different picture emerges.  At every stage of the process, we MUST realize that “progressives,” like any other totalitarian form; will always misrepresent themselves to achieve their long term control agendas.  The ends justify the means, and they are very free and loose with the means.  Just as reminder; remember how ObamaCare was going to reduce costs?  Remember how the porkulus was going to create all these jobs, and keep unemployment below 8%?  Remember how there were no taxes in ObamaCare?  Remember how ObamaCare wasn’t going to fund abortions?  I could write a book on all of the lies, all told to advance an agenda that they knew we wouldn’t like.

In other words, if a “progressive” tells you that “fish live in the sea,” you might want to check, just to make sure.

Share