OBAMA ! GET A CLUE!

Obama renews immigration push

By Peter Nicholas, Tribune Washington Bureau

June 30, 2010

The president meets with lawmakers to discuss a strategy for passing a bill this year; gaining Republican support will be a challenge. He will make his case to the public in a speech Thursday.

Reporting from Washington —

It would be a revival worthy of Lazarus, but President Obama is making a renewed push for an immigration overhaul, possibly during a lame-duck session of Congress after the November election — when members would no longer face an imminent political risk for supporting it.

Obama met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus in the State Dining Room on Tuesday and discussed a strategy for passing a bill that had seemed dead for the year.

On Thursday morning, the president will put the issue before the American public. In a speech at American University, he plans to make the case for providing a path to legal status for the estimated 11 million people who live in the U.S. illegally while (claiming he will strengthen border enforcement.) Where have we heard that before? OBAMA LIES!

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at his daily briefing Tuesday that "this continues to be a very important national issue" requiring Republican support. To date, no Republican senators have agreed to back a comprehensive immigration bill. Nor has such a bill been introduced in the Senate. (Let's pray it stays that way.)

With conservatives energized, angry and likely to storm to the polls, Democrats fear they will lose even more seats in Congress than a president's party typically does at the halfway point in his term.

Voting on an immigration bill in a lame-duck session has some advantages in proponents' eyes. Outgoing members of Congress would have little reason to fear backing a controversial bill. And those who won might be more likely to support it, since they wouldn't have to face voters for another two years — when Obama is up for reelection and likely to draw progressives to the polls.

In addition, if Republicans make major gains in November, an immigration overhaul could be impossible in 2011 or 2012.

(IF EVER THERE WAS A REASON TO GET OUT THE VOTE, THIS IS IT!)

HOW FAST CAN WE GET RID OF HIM?

The non-profit Tax Foundation, a 501-c-3 Washington DC think tank founded in 1937, keeps detailed state-by-state summaries on federal revenues and spending.

The foundation reports that Nevadans’ per capita federal tax bill in 1983, the year Reid went to Washington, was $2,982, fourth highest in the US. Federal funds per capita received by Nevada that year amounted to $2,908, sixteenth highest in the nation.

By 2005, the latest year for which figures were shown in the foundation’s report, Nevadans’ per capita tax bill was $8,417, sixth highest in the nation. But per capita federal revenues received by Nevada amounted to only $5,889, lowest of all 50 states.

In another measure, in 1983 Nevadans received $0.85 for every federal tax dollar we paid; by 2005 that figure had dropped to $0.65, forty ninth in the nation. Would the number one state be California or New York with their huge congressional delegations? Nope. The winner was New Mexico garnering a whopping $2.03 in federal revenues for every tax dollar New Mexico taxpayers sent to Washington.

“how can Nevada survive without Harry Reid?” it is “how quickly can we get rid of him?”

I think I have an Angle on that.

(Jim Clark is President of Republican Advocates, a vice chair of the Washoe County GOP and a member of the Nevada GOP Central Committee)

CA. City Siezed By Mexiczans. Police Fired.

---

FROM JEROME CORSI'S RED ALERT

Invasion! U.S. 'sanctuary city' succumbs to illegals

1st municipality to fire all public employees after being forced into bankruptcy

A California "sanctuary city" has fallen victim to illegal immigration – going bankrupt and firing all of its public employees, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.

The city of Maywood, Calif., hit the budget wall after it decided not only to be a sanctuary city, but to be a completely "safe haven" for illegal aliens seeking protection from deportation.

In January 2006, Maywood's city council passed a resolution declaring that the city would not enforce any federal law such as H.R. 4557 that sought to declare illegal immigrants to be felons.

More aggressive even than sanctuary laws, this new resolution prohibited Maywood police from being involved in any immigration enforcement actions undertaken by federal, state or county authorities.

On April 11, 2006, in writing the book titled "Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders," Jim Gilchrist and Corsi interviewed Maywood Mayor Thomas Martin by telephone.

In the shocking interview available at Red Alert, the mayor strongly suggested the city of Maywood was willing to defy any federal law demanding that the police get directly involved in enforcing immigration laws.

---

Posted: June 28, 2010s.

A Sign Of The Times

A Real BLM sign in AZ

No more camping south of I-8.

So, our government has surrendered and ceded part of Arizona to the smugglers and cartels of Mexico???

This is a real sign here in AZ just off I-8. What do you think would happen if signs like this were to be found back East? But this is just backwater, flyover AZ so it doesn't count to the media and Congress, I guess. Folks, this nation better wake up and pay attention. This is only the beginning of what you can expect in YOUR backyards.

This is not an exaggeration: I stopped hiking some of my favorite mountains and canyons because of the smuggling dangers. Who wants to carry more guns and ammo than water in order to survive in the Arizona desert?

That is what it has become. Maybe your state is next?

I have a good idea, let's go out and gather up all the trash, used diapers and human excrement (there are hundreds of thousand of piles of shit out there) and ship it to all the politicians and of course the City of Los Angeles.

They showed this sign being put up a few weeks ago on the local news. It's good to know we can count on our government to enforce the laws. This should be totally embarrassing to all Americans.

Thank You Harry Reid!

Doctors limit new Medicare patients

WASHINGTON — The number of doctors refusing new Medicare patients because of low government payment rates is setting a new high, just six months before millions of Baby Boomers begin enrolling in the government health care program.

Recent surveys by national and state medical societies have found more doctors limiting Medicare patients, partly because Congress has failed to stop an automatic 21% cut in payments that doctors already regard as too low. The cut went into effect Friday, even as the Senate approved a six-month reprieve. The House has approved a different bill.

• The American Academy of Family Physicians says 13% of respondents didn't participate in Medicare last year, up from 8% in 2008 and 6% in 2004.

• The American Osteopathic Association says 15% of its members don't participate in Medicare and 19% don't accept new Medicare patients. If the cut is not reversed, it says, the numbers will double.

• The American Medical Association says 17% of more than 9,000 doctors surveyed restrict the number of Medicare patients in their practice. Among primary care physicians, the rate is 31%.

The federal health insurance program for seniors paid doctors on average 78% of what private insurers paid in 2008.

"Physicians are saying, 'I can't afford to keep losing money,' " says Lori Heim, president of the family doctors' group.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services says 97% of doctors accept Medicare. The agency doesn't know how many have refused to take new Medicare patients, Deputy Administrator Jonathan Blum says. "Medicare beneficiaries have good access to physician services. We do have concerns about access to primary care physicians."

The AARP, the nation's largest consumer group representing seniors, is taking notice. Some U.S. areas already face a shortage of primary care physicians. Policy director John Rother says the trend away from Medicare threatens to make it worse.

States are starting to see a flight from Medicare:

•In Illinois, 18% of doctors restrict the number of Medicare patients in their practice, according to a medical society survey.

•In North Carolina, 117 doctors have opted out of Medicare since January, the state's medical society says.

•In New York, about 1,100 doctors have left Medicare. Even the medical society president isn't taking new Medicare patients.

"I'm making a statement," says Leah McCormack, a New York City dermatologist. "Many physicians are really being forced out of private practice."

Florida has the highest percentage of Medicare patients, and most doctors can't afford to leave the program. But "the level of frustration has been higher this year than I've ever seen it before," says Linda McMullen of the Florida Medical Association.

REMEMBER THAT LYING BASTARD PROMISED THE ELDERLY WOULD MAINTAIN THEIR HEALTH CARE???? HOW MANY LIES WILL IT TAKE TO GET HIM IMPEACHED AND IMPRISONED FOR TREASON????

Right out of the Socialist Playbook

Overwhelm the system

Barack Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing. He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.
Barack Obama is my college classmate (Columbia University, class of '83). As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands. Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government. Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.
-- Universal health care. The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions). Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt. What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government. Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?
-- Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants. They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power. The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."
-- Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression? Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Obama's plan all along. His goal is to add two new Democrat senators, five Democrat congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.
-- Legalize 12 million illegal immigrants. Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America. But it adds 12 million reliable new Democrat voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security.
-- Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go? It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country. It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues. It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions). A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues). All those public employees will vote loyally Democrat to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America. The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democrat Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.
-- Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators. Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama). Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition.
With the acts outlined above, Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan.

WAYNE ALLYN ROOT:

Throw money at it!

An Oil Spill Is Not a License to Suspend the Rule of Law

By Robert Eugene Simmons Jr.

With pictures of oil drenched birds, blackened beaches and marshlands invaded with oil streaming across our televisions every day, it is easy to become angry and demand retribution from the cause of the disaster. Unfortunately it is also easy for unscrupulous politicians to take that anger and turn it to their political advantage. History is replete with incidents of real popular anger leading to monstrous outcomes of tyranny. On Thursday, June 17th the USA wrote a new anecdote in that awful book.

There is no doubt that the oil spill produced by the Deepwater Horizon rig and BP is a disaster of monumental ecological proportions. There is no doubt that the spill has caused the loss of livelihood for fishermen, hotel owners, beach surfboard renters and millions of other people on the gulf coast. There is also no doubt that it is the responsibility of BP to get the well shut off and pay for the cleanup.

Finally, there is no doubt that a full investigation should be conducted into how the spill happened, the role of BP and of the government in the spill and the mistakes made in the cleanup. It is important that we find out what caused the blowout, how it could have been prevented, why the cleanup was so slow in getting started, why foreign experts were not allowed to help, why the EPA is blocking applications of products as simple as hay which could soak up oil, and why Governor Jindal and others were disallowed the means to protect their shore lines by government bureaucracies.

However, none of these events or responsibilities gives the president the power to suspend the constitution, revoke the rule of law or demand payments from a company. In fact the $20 billion fund "demanded" of BP by the Obama administration does just that. To understand let's review the facts around the fund.

The fund will contain $20 billion to ostensibly pay for cleanup efforts and provide compensation to those affected by the spill.

Kenneth Feinberg, who is also known as Obama's "pay czar", will administer the fund.

Mr. Feinberg, a political appointee, will have the final say so on who will receive money from the escrow funds and how much they will get paid.

It is unknown what rules of evidence will be in force, what documentation will need to be provided and what the priorities and process for payout will be.

Furthermore, so far there are no known constraints on what the fund can be used for; since Obama clearly views alternative energy as a long-term solutionto oil spills in general, it is possible that he could direct part of that 20 billion to alternative energy research.

In short, this is a huge 20 billion dollar fund under the sole direction of a single guy without even congressional oversight.

Disturbed yet?

If you try to find the power in the constitution that allows Obama to do this, you will be even more disturbed.

In this case the government can't even claim the commerce clause of the constitution as legal basis because the commerce clause, even misinterpreted as it is, only applies to the legislature, not the executive branch.

Where exactly in the enumerated powers of the constitution does the president have the right to "demand" money from a corporation, deem them guilty of a crime and extract a settlement amount? The short answer is "nowhere."

Another pertinent question is what BP got out of this deal with the president. It is unlikely that they simply agreed to just drop $20 billion in escrow without agreements, legal documents or contracts specifying the use of the money.

If BP obtained immunity from prosecution in exchange for the money then President Obama just violated extortion laws.

· Will we get full disclosure on the deal given to BP for this fund?

· What about the payouts themselves?

· Will we be allowed to be a watchdog over those funds?

At this time it doesn't look like it.

To illustrate the problems with this fund, imagine you are a fisherman with a claim to 6 million in damages from the fund but the government only wants to pay you 2 million?

· Where do you appeal?

· What are the standards to prove damages?

· What about a hypothetical sign painter working out of Utah paid 3 million on his claim because he is the son of a congressman?

· What about the hypothetical hotel operator that has claims of damages for 5 million but is in competition with the brother of an administration official and is therefore denied?

· Furthermore, with millions applying to a single office for payment, how long will that fisherman be waiting before he can make his payroll?

In the USA we have a court system set up to provide rules of evidence, assess actual damages, estimate punitive damages, evaluate claims of complainants and assign settlements or verdicts to those damaged.

If you have a problem with the ruling, you can appeal that ruling.

When you go to court you will have to prove actual damages, not just imagined ones or political connections, and the defendant will have the ability to refute your claims if they so desire.

When millions of people filed for damages due to leaking silicone breast implants, the system worked.

When millions filed for claims due to asbestos exposure, the system worked.

The system is designed to be fair, impartial and above all non political. However in the case of BP the system was summarily replaced with a single pay czar with sole discretion over 20 billion dollars.

It is always easy to defend the rule of law when it is applied to a sympathetic target but much more difficult when applied to an oil company responsible for a spill of this magnitude. The natural reaction of anger makes it hard for politicians to get up and say, "Woah, wait a minute, this is wrong."

Few politicians have the courage to do so. Those that do express reservations about the process, such as Michelle Bachman (R-MN), are universally excoriated in the press as fans of big oil and apologists for big business.

However, that couldn't be further from the truth. The rule of law is there to prevent the society from turning into anarchy.

The rule of law is there to prevent the government from gaining too much power and imposing tyranny.

Finally the rule of law is there to protect the people from reactions of anger.

If we will suspend the rule of law for BP, why not suspend it for accused killers and let people exact vigilante justice?

The end result of this BP oil cleanup fund is more likely to be little fisherman without political connections being left hanging in the wind while their politically connected allies get big payouts.

Money will go to alternative energy projects, well connected businesses and political interests while the actual people hurt by the spill are left out.

Of course we won't know that this is going on because Feinberg will likely use "privacy" arguments to make sure the payouts are not public; in fact the Obama administration has a history of such opacity.

· One thing this fund won't do for sure is shut off the gushing oil well, or cleanup a bird.

· It won't make the government accept help from international experts.

· The fund won't convince the EPA to allow American product developers to use their products to soak up the oil in the gulf.

· The fund won't allow us to find out what really happened, what role the government had in the spill or why the cleanup was slow.

The fund will merely be a political tool for assuaging the pitchfork crowd out front that Obama is doing "something" about the mess in the gulf.

Nevada Jobless Rate Leads Nation And Hits All Time State High In May

Thank you Harry Reid! for making Nevada #1

MYTH: “Harry Reid: No one can do more”

followed by this:

TRUTH: Nevada unemployment hits 14 percent, leads nation

Associated Press: “LAS VEGAS — Nevada’s unemployment rate hit 14 percent in May, pushing the Silver State ahead of Michigan to lead the nation in joblessness.

The state Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation reported Friday that the jump from 13.7 percent in April set a new record for Nevada.”

By Sean Whaley | 4:59 pm June 18th, 2010

CARSON CITY – Nevada’s nation-leading 14 percent May unemployment rate announced today shows job losses are beginning to affect local governments after months of avoiding layoffs during a more than two-year long economic slowdown.

Nevada local governments have shed 5,600 jobs as of May this year compared to May 2009, a 5.3 percent reduction that far exceeds the 2.8 percent loss for all employment sectors over the same period, the Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation (DETR) reported.

A total of 300 local government jobs were lost from April to May. State government employment remained unchanged from April, and was up 400 jobs over the year.

Federal government employment has expanded due to the hiring of census workers, but those jobs are only expected to last for a few months.

Bill Anderson, chief economist for DETR, said he expects to see the local government job losses continue. Once programs have been reduced and other cutbacks implemented, the last option for cost savings is personnel, he said.

Nevada’s 14 percent jobless rate was a new all-time high for the state and put it in first place nationally. The rate was a three-tenths of a percentage point increase over April’s number.

Nevada surpassed the former No. 1 state Michigan, which had been leading the nation in unemployment for 50 consecutive months.

“In just three years, Nevada’s economy has fallen from one of the strongest performing to possibly the weakest,” Anderson said.

The state will recover, but the recovery will see growth at a much more modest pace than the boom years, he said. That modest growth will be more sustainable, Anderson said.

“We’re just going to have to ride this out,” he said. “We rode the bubble up and we got up to a pretty lofty level but now we’re riding it down quite a ways.”

Audio clips:

Anderson on Nevada No. 1 in nation for unemployment

061810Anderson1 :14 of the recession.”

Anderson on Nevada’s economy

061810Anderson2 :7 arguably the weakest.”

How Obama Reduced Crime Rates Last Year

President Obama surely didn’t intend it, but he deserves some credit for last year’s 7.4 percent drop in murder rates. His election caused gun sales to soar, and crime rates to plummet.

While gun sales started notably rising in October 2008, sales really soared immediately after Mr. Obama won the presidential race. 450,000 more people bought guns in November 2008 than bought them in November 2007, that’s over a 40 percent increase in sales.

By comparison, the change from November 2006 to November 2007 was only about 35,000. Over the last decade, the average year-to-year increase in monthly sales was only 21,000.

The increase in sales continued well beyond November 2008.

From November 2008 to October 2009, almost 2.5 million more people bought guns in the 12 months after the election than in the preceding 12 months.

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, doesn’t tell us how many guns each person bought just the number of people who bought them. Most likely though, gun sales rose by more than the number of people who purchased them.

At the same time gun sales were soaring, there was an unusually large drop in murder rates. The 7.4 percent drop in the murder rate was the largest drop in murder rates since the 1999. For those who don’t remember, 1999, when President Bill Clinton and Columbine occurred, was another time when gun sales soared.

With people such as Elena Kagan serving as Mr. Clinton’s deputy domestic policy adviser were pushing hard for more gun control, Americans were worried that more gun bans were coming. And in response gun sales soared.

Just as higher arrest and conviction rates, longer prison sentences, or the more frequent use of the death penalty reduce crime, so does letting victims defend themselves with guns.

More certain or greater penalties make it more risky for criminals to commit crime. Victims who can defend themselves can also make committing crime more dangerous and deter criminals.

Americans living in the District of Columbia and Chicago have seen this phenomenon themselves.

After the ban went into effect in both cities, murder rates rose dramatically.

After the Supreme Court threw out DC’s ban and gunlock laws in 2008, the District’s murder rates plunged by 25 percent in 2009.