ObamaCare… Like a Restaurant Where the Owners, Chefs, Workers and Their Families Refuse to Eat…

ObamaCare… Like a Restaurant Where the Owners, Chefs, Workers and Their Families Refuse to Eat…

By Marion Algier – Ask Marion

Would you really eat in a restaurant, trusting their food or service, where the owners, chefs, workers and their families refuse to eat?  Of course you wouldn’t.  Nobody would, but that is what the Democrats, some GOP establishment career politicians and the Obama administration and their staffs are asking you to do.

They are asking, no mandating, that you to sign up and subject yourself and your family’s health, and in many cases losing better coverage, for healthcare coverage that they refuse to sign up for and be covered by themselves.

The so-called tea party Republicans, who are following their constituents wishes, but have now pretty much backed away from all their demands about the budget and upcoming debt ceiling raise, in what seems like their 20th compromise when the left has refused to negotiate or compromise on anything, were willing to pass and extend the budget and debt ceiling negotiations for several months with a clean bill, except for one provision… The Republicans attached the Vitter amendment (DeSantis bill in the House) which would demand that the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House and their staffs and federal appointees would have to sign up for and live under the same ObamaCare bill that we all will have to suffer under, without any extra provisions or exemptions.  The Democrats’, RINOs’ and administration’s response:  NO…!

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) (KEVIN DIETSCH/UPI/Newscom)

The Vitter Amendment on Obamacare: Senate Liberals’ Curious Complaint

The Foundry:

Last week (mid-September) Senator David Vitter (R–LA) proposed an amendment that would end exemptions for White House political appointees and stop illegal taxpayer subsidies for Congress and staff enrolled in Obamacare’s new health insurance exchanges. In other words, political appointees, Members of Congress, and their staffs would receive the same coverage and be eligible for subsidies available to every other American enrolled in the exchanges. No special deals.

On September 17, Senator Dick Durbin (D–IL) charged that Vitter’s proposed amendment was “unfair” because it would eliminate the employer payment for Members of Congress and 16,000 congressional staffers.

But this is a curious complaint. In 2010, Senator Durbin and all other Senate Democrats voted—lockstep—for final passage of Obamacare, which included Section 1312, which ended Members’ access to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead placed them into the Obamacare health insurance exchanges. Without access to employer coverage, there is no employer subsidy—not for Congress and not for any other worker dumped out of job-based coverage into the exchanges. That’s the law.

Durbin also tries to use Vitter’s vote for an amendment (Amendment No. 3564) offered by Senator Chuck Grassley (R–IA) during debate over Obamacare to undermine his current efforts. Yes, Vitter voted for the amendment. The amendment would have put the President, his appointees, Congress, and staff into the exchanges but would have preserved the government contributions for Congress and staff in the new exchanges.

Here’s the catch: Senator Durbin voted against the Grassley amendment, as did Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV), Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA), and 53 other Senate Democrats. (See The Congressional Record, March 24, 2010, p. S1996.) In other words, these Senators voted to protect the President and his appointees from their own law but also voted to remove the employer contribution to Congress and their staff. Yet these Senators now oppose it.

Senate liberals say they like Obamacare. If that’s the case, it is only reasonable for them to want to make sure they get what they like on the same exact terms and conditions as every other American enrolled in the exchanges, as put forth by Senator Vitter.

So why wouldn’t the Democrats from both Houses of Congress (as well as the Establishment RINO GOP) vote for the Republican’s compromise and embrace ObamaCare on the same terms the American people are getting… the terms they voted for?  And if they aren’t why should the American people?

Why?  Because our politicians know it is a bad plan, bad coverage, certainly worse and more expensive if you compare apples to apples, than they have now, and it opens them up to the same IRS mandates and access into all their records and information.  It also opens them up to having a non-medically trained review board tell them which services they will and will not get… essentially death panels.  But although they don’t want it, it is good enough for the rest of us in their book.  After all what better advertisement for his signature program would there have been than President Obama and Vice President Biden signing themselves and their families up for all to see for the ObamaCare exchanges the day the program opened on October 1st?

Don’t be fooled by the propaganda being fed us through the mainstream media. ObamaCare was never about healthcare, and definitely not about better healthcare, it was always about ideology and control… about the federal government controlling you… all of us!

Just like President Obama and Harry Reid’s refusal to negotiate with the Republicans has nothing to do with what is good for the country or even the budget, or even the truth for that matter, it is about demonizing the Republicans so that the Progressive Democrats win the next election… so they can maintain their control of you!!

Do your homework and then you be the judge… But in my kitchen, the cook eats his own food and no matter how the present shutdown ends… Our politicians still don’t want to eat theirs!

Technorati Tags: CR,Vitter,ObamaCare,Politicians,Congress,Healthcare,Restaurant,Democrats,Obamaland,Division,DeSantis,Sheeple,Common Sense,Voters,Americans,RINOs,MSM,D.C.,Exchanges,double standard,Reid,Control,Let Them Eat Cake,Congressional Record,Progressives,Washington D.C.,Low-Informed

Freedom Party or GOP Overhaul… You Be the Judge

Marion Algier – AskMarion

Sarah Palin is definitely back full force and has opened the conversation as to whether the path forward for conservatives, concerned patriots and Reagan Democrats who feel they are not being represented by the GOP, either party, should be looking toward a new party or if there should be a GOP overhaul.  The former governor of Alaska floated the idea of bolting from the Republican Party if it continues to, as she sees it, to back away from the principals of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.  The Whig party was replaced by the Republican Party, with Abraham Lincoln as it’s first president and Ronald Reagan its modern standard bearer by which all others are measured.  Sarah Palin said she was open to creating new 'Freedom Party' if GOP continues to 'neglect conservatives'… common sense patriots of all stripes.  Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin entertained building a "Freedom Party" while answering Twitter questions on Fox News Saturday.

In response to one Twitter user who asked, “Would you & Mark Levin be willing to build a 'Freedom Party' if GOP continues to ignore conservatives?”  Sarah said:

"I love the name of that party — the 'Freedom Party,'" Palin replied. "And if the GOP continues to back away from the planks in our platform, from the principles that built this party of Lincoln and Reagan, then yeah."

Whenever the idea of forming a third party is mentioned a huge debate ensues, as it should, but too often just the negative arguments surface.  In August 2012, the Examiner ran an article on how to counter the negative arguments.  The biggest argument is always: “Voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote… They can’t win!

“Voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote because the candidate cannot/will not win.”

Here are two distinct arguments for the Examiner, as the case for a third party candidate being unable to win is much different than a prediction that said candidate will not win. Let us examine both cases:

RINOs and DINOs

1. Voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote because the candidate cannot win.

Anyone who claims this is claiming that the election process in America is rigged. Let us set aside the matter of whether this is actually the case and focus narrowly on the claim being made. A person who believes this should be trying to convince people not to vote at all in protest of a corrupt system, not trying to convince people to vote for Republicans or Democrats.

2. Voting for a third party candidate is a wasted vote because the candidate will not win.

Anyone who claims this is claiming to be able to predict the future. We know that all psychics are charlatans and frauds, so such a claim destroys the credibility of the arguer. This argument is also an example of a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning. Don't vote third party because they won't win? How are they supposed to win if no one votes for them? Furthermore, this argument assumes that winning is everything, which is false. Third parties have to contend with obstructionist ballot access laws passed by Republicans and Democrats, which typically require a national-level or state-level candidate of a third party to win a certain percentage (usually 5%) of the vote in order to keep the third party on the ballot. Failing that, the third party must make a petition drive to collect signatures, typically numbering in the tens of thousands, and then (in many cases) fight off a challenge by lawyers and operatives of the two major parties.

N.B.: It is helpful to apply the arguer's logic to major-party candidates. For example, consider the U.S. presidential election of 2008. Statistical analysis shows that Republican nominee John McCain had no chance of defeating Democratic nominee Barack Obama. Therefore, by establishment logic, a vote for John McCain was a wasted vote. This logic can also be extended to the presidential elections in each state. Without loss of generality, a vote for a Republican candidate in a state that is safe Democrat is a wasted vote. After this counterargument, the arguer must either admit that using ability to win as a gauge of whether a vote is wasted is illogical, or accept that votes for anyone except the winner of an election are wasted, a premise which leads to a one-party dictatorship in which voting is meaningless.

You have to choose the lesser of two evils. A vote for (insert third party candidate's name here) is a vote for (insert name of major party candidate the arguer dislikes here).

This is clearly false, because if it were true, no other options would be on the ballot. Typically implicit in this argument is a logical fallacy known as appeal to fear. The arguer usually attempts to persuade voters to vote for their major party candidate by saying that a third party vote is a vote for the opposition candidate, who would be the worst possible choice. But this argument assumes that one would consider voting for a major party candidate if one's third party candidate were not in the election. If this is not the case, then the argument is invalid. In fact, the argument is always invalid because votes do not “belong” to Republicans, Democrats, or anyone else other than the voters who cast them.

Because of Duverger's Law and the nature of the American system, there will be a two-party system.

If this were true, we would expect to see a two-party system arise between Democrats and Greens in a place like Massachusetts, or between Republicans and Libertarians in a place like Utah, places where one of the two major parties has essentially vanquished the other. The absence of such a development seems to suggest that Duverger's Law is not ironclad.

Historically, third parties have not won the Presidency.

This is a statement of fact, unless we consider Abraham Lincoln's victory in 1860 to be the election of a third party candidate. But this is simply a statement of fact, not a proper logical argument. There is however, an implied argument that the past predicts the future. Such a prediction only holds weight if we allow it to. As the saying goes, if you keep on doing what you have always done, you will keep on getting what you have always gotten. To say that the past failure of third parties to win the Presidency creates an unalterable future in which no third party candidate can win the Presidency is to claim that the people have no real choice under the current system. If this is so, then it would make little sense to vote at all, since the established duopoly cannot be removed by democratic means.

Your third party vote will accomplish nothing.

False. See the above argument about ballot access laws. Also consider the historical impact of third parties. While the Prohibition Party and the Socialist Party of America never won any presidential elections, both succeeded in getting their platforms adopted by the major parties after spoiling enough elections and gaining a large enough portion of the popular vote. There is no reason why this could not happen again, and one possible way for a third party candidate to eventually win is to have ideas that are popular for an extended period of time that the two major parties simply refuse to implement.

If your third party candidate was any good, he/she would have won the primary of one of the two major parties.

Perhaps there was a time when this was true, but it is certainly not true today. The increased statism and polarization of the two major parties have made it difficult, if not impossible, for a libertarian-leaning candidate to win the nomination of a major party. Centrist candidates also face problems when it comes to invigorating the more extreme bases of their parties. It is worth considering that moneyed interests, especially since the Citizens United v. FEC case, may be manipulating the nominating processes of the two major parties to nominate certain types of candidates while keeping certain other types of candidates from winning. Such a scenario leaves only the independent and third party routes for a true grassroots candidate.

There is not enough time for a third party to achieve sufficient power to influence events.

If this is true, then it makes little sense to vote at all. The duopoly has set us on the course that the arguer claims will lead to destruction, and we cannot solve our problems by using the same thinking we used when we created them. If this is false, then as time is indeed a precious resource, we should not squander it by supporting establishment candidates and thereby wasting an opportunity for change.

As you can see, the “wasted vote” theory has no logical leg upon which to stand. So whenever you hear someone use this argument, send them to this article for a proper refutation.

The comments I have read online… Twitter, facebook and comments on related articles have been very positive toward forming a 3rd party, replacing the deaf GOP  and for Sarah Palin, Mark Levin, Jim DeMint and other fiscal conservatives and constitutionalists to form the Freedom Party if there isn’t immediate change in Washington.

But Oldironsides, Nelson Abdullah, of Conscience of a Conservative, whose work I generally like, had a pretty negatative outlook:

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has been my hero since the day she was chosen to run for Vice-President on the Republican Party ticket in 2008 (after her electrifying convention speech at the Xcel Energy Center). Sarah Palin has always epitomized the strong, patriotic female conservative with her Mama Grizzly and Lipstick on a Pit Bull attitude. Now I suspect she is about to consider the biggest mistake of her life and I am afraid a great number of her loyal fans will follow her. Jeff Poor wrote yesterday on The Daily Caller, “Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican nominee for vice president responded to a Fox News Channel viewer’s Twitter question Saturday about the possibility of her and conservative talker Mark Levin abandoning the Republican Party and creating something called the “Freedom Party.”

When true Republicans stand fast on the traditional principles of their party they win elections. Unfortunately, there are too many Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) who have managed to destroy the image we represent. It was no coincidence that Sarah Palin was chosen to run along side one of the party’s biggest RINOs, Arizona Senator John McCain. Without Sarah Palin on the ticket, I and a whole lot of other conservative Republicans would have probably stayed home on election day in 2008. This is not the first time that a strong liberal influence has taken hold of the Republican Party. I was there in New York when the state Republican Party was dominated by ultra liberals Nelson Rockefeller and Jacob Javits. In fact, what the conservative Republicans did then in the early 1960s is just what Sarah Palin is thinking of doing now. Abandoning the Republican Party and creating a new political party. Sarah Palin is calling her party The Freedom Party, the disenfranchised Republicans in New York called their new party The Conservative Party.

If history has a way of repeating itself, Sarah Palin’s Freedom Party will become relegated to a distant 3rd or 4th place in the national political power base. The New York State Conservative Party was only successful in electing one candidate to a national office in the last 50 years and that was James Buckley who became a one term U.S. Senator. James Buckley was the brother of noted columnist William F. Buckley and shared his notoriety. From the inception of the Conservative Party their greatest influence was in cross-endorsing a handful of conservative Republicans in local elections.

Wikipedia has a rather complete story about the history of the New York State Conservative Party.

The Conservative Party of New York State is a political party in the United States active in the state of New York, holding “Line C” on ballots directly below the Democratic and Republican parties. It only operates in New York State, and is not part of any larger party.

In New York State’s elections, the Conservative Party is ranked fourth place in terms of membership, behind only the Democrats, Republicans, and the Independence Party, but ahead of the Greens and Constitution Parties.[1] As of November 1, 2011, a total of 147,993 voters, or 1.3% of New York State’s total enrollment, are registered with the party.[2]

History
Electoral History of the Conservative Party of New York State
The Conservative Party of New York State was founded in 1962 by a group including J. Daniel Mahoney, Kieran O’Doherty, Charles E. Rice, and Charles Edison, out of frustration with the perceived liberalism of the state’s Republican Party. A key consideration was New York’s fusion voting, unusual among US states, which allows individual candidates to receive votes from more than one party. The Liberal Party of New York, founded in 1944, had earlier benefited from this system.

The Conservative Party founders wanted to balance the Liberal Party’s influence. One early supporter was National Review founder William F. Buckley, who was the party’s candidate for mayor of New York City in 1965. In 1970, his brother James Buckley was elected to the U.S. Senate as a Conservative Party candidate; in 1976, he ran for reelection as a candidate of the Republican and Conservative Parties, losing to Daniel Patrick Moynihan. In the 2004 U.S. Senate election, the Conservative Party endorsed Marilyn O’Grady to oppose Republican candidate Howard Mills and incumbent Democratic Senator Charles Schumer.

My strongest advice to Sarah Palin is in the words of someone she may admire: “You don’t change horses in the middle of the stream.” And it comes from the mouth of the most famous Republican of all, Abraham Lincoln. From an 1864 speech by Abraham Lincoln, in reply to Delegation from the National Union League who were urging him to be their presidential candidate. ‘An old Dutch farmer, who remarked to a companion once that it was not best to swap horses when crossing streams.”

As far as national politics goes, third party movements only manage to split the conservative vote. Put a Democrat on the ballot against a Republican and a Third Party candidate and if the third party candidate is a conservative, the Democrat usually wins. The only recognizable third party we have today is the Libertarian Party but in spite of their conservative leanings, they seem to have been created for the sole purpose of legalizing marijuana. The Libertarian Party has virtually no international platform and wants a whole slew of state and federal laws repealed to prohibit one activity or another. In several noted examples, when a Libertarian Party candidate ran in a local election the Democrat always won and usually the votes gathered between the Republican and the Libertarian was greater than what the Democrat had received. A few noteworthy Libertarians such as U.S. Senator Rand Paul and Congressman Thomas Massie won their elections in Kentucky by running on the Republican Party ticket. And that is the only way to win.

No matter which way Palin and her potential co-founders of the proposed Freedom Party go… new party or the re-vamp of the GOP, it will be interesting!!  As the CPAC Star said in her March Speech, “We are not here to rebrand a party… We are here to rebuild a country!”

You be the judge…

Related:

Rush Limbaugh: GOP 'Authoring Its Demise' With Immigration Reform Bill

Technorati Tags: Freedom Party,3rd Party,Third Party,Palin,Sarah Palin,Leadership,Mark Levin,you be the judge,GOP Establishment,Amnesty Bill,RINO,RINOs,DINOs,GOP Overhaul,Whigs,history,Conservatives,saving America,SarahPac,Lincoln,Reaganesque,Reagan,Limbaugh,Republicans,immigration

Marco Rubio, His Chief of Staff Cesar Conda, Amnesty, George Soros and the Grander Plan

By Marion Algier – Ask Marion

FireAndreaMitchell.com: Cesar Conda, Marco Rubio’s Chief of Staff previously worked for George Soros. Conda recently made his Tweets private (protected) so the general public can’t ready them. Cesar Conda has been pushing amnesty for illegals on Twitter and elsewhere as Marco Rubio’s PR agent. Conda, who is an immigration lawyer, went to work for George Soros before becoming Rubio’s Chief of Staff. Cesar Conda worked on the editorial advisory board of the George Soros magazine, The International Economy Magazine.

Cesar Conda had been spinning lies about the amnesty bill about how illegals wouldn’t get welfare, wait more than 10 years for citizenship, etc. Those lies have been completely debunked. So has the sham of border enforcement.

Another Rubio spokesperson, Alex Conant, recently compared illegal aliens living and working in this country to the institution of slavery.

So now you understand why Marco Rubio is so gung ho for amnesty. He surrounds himself with a George Soros monkey like Cesar Conda and other idiots like Alex Conant. Sad that Rubio is turning to be such a huge disappointment. At this point, he doesn’t seem much different than Charlie Christ and Rubio’s eligibility is also in question.

Even the left wing media is in love with Conda. Check out this gushing review of him by leftist biased National Journal:

Conda has one of the toughest jobs in town right now: He has to help Rubio negotiate an immigration bill with the rest of the Gang of Eight that will be palatable to Republicans and not damage his boss’s conservative credentials in the process. “That’s a tough circle to square, but I think Cesar is the right man for the job,” said Frank Sharry, founder and executive director of the pro-immigration reform group America’s Voice. “Rubio is really lucky to have Cesar Conda as his chief of staff.” Conda, known among colleagues for his even temper, has been working on the issue since the early 1990s when he was part of a group of young, libertarian-minded, pro-immigration conservatives. His government experience runs deep: He worked for former Sen. Spencer Abraham, R-Mich., and was an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney. He also spent time in the private sector as a lobbyist and analyst for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and founded the Washington office of a consulting firm called Navigators Global.

The left must think of Cesar Conda as their Hispanic Obama or something.

After reading the above… it suddenly makes a lot of things much clearer… Ding, ding, ding… RINO ALERT or worse!!

On Friday, Rush Limbaugh spent a lot of time analyzing Obama's speech to the students in Mexico City. That’s right, students of Mexico City. One of the aspects of his speech in Mexico to the students at the Anthropology Museum, was about Mexican sovereignty and American sovereignty and how we've pushed our sovereignty on them. He was talking about the fact that too many Mexicans still consider Southern California theirs, parts of New Mexico and Arizona theirs. He was agreeing with them (imitating Obama) "Well, I understand how you feel. We've pushed our sovereignty. We're gonna change all this."

Then on CBS Sunday Morning, their correspondent Mo Rocca did a report about the impact of the Mexican-American War on today's debate on immigration reform. Mo Rocca is a comedian, but he is Dead Serious that greedy America stole half of Mexico in an unjust war and is peddling that message. I guess he became known to people on The Daily Show, but this is a straight news story and it's aimed right at America's low-information voters. He went to Mexico to explain the Mexican-American War and he made the case that the United States had no reason for the war, that we're guilty. There was no reason for us to go conquer Mexico. There was no reason for us to shed blood. It's fascinating. The low-information voters in this country, or as the former USSR propaganda paper, Pravda, called them… the Sheeple, are being conditioned to believe that California really is Mexico; that it's not right that it's America. And the same thing with New Mexico and parts of Arizona.

Add President Obama’s speeches to students in Mexico and on campuses throughout the US, where he tells them to ignore "Voices" Warning of Government Tyranny -- and Join the Collective, to Rocca’s campaign and you have the making of an insurrection.

We are being maneuvered into a box by the leftist lemmings in the complicit U.S. media, the RINO’s and globalists in both parties, and the policies of the Obama White House who are manipulated by people like George Soros.  The goal is a Progressive Democrat victory in the Senate and the House in 2014 and a maneuvered choice of globalist-agenda presidential candidates from both sides to take us to open borders. Big Government everywhere and a new economic world order. Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton seem to the globalist frontrunners, at least at this time, for 2016 giving Americans no choice at all and giving America the final push into oblivion.

It is time to connect the dots and share what you learn with everyone you know.  If there was ever a time to get involved and stand-up for freedom and sovereignty it is now… for it is almost too late.

Related:

Lew: Prepare for New World Order if US Defaults

Report: Average legalized illegal would receive $592,000 more in benefits than they pay in taxes

Sessions: Gang Of Eight Bill Would Surge Low-Skill Immigration, Hurt Working Americans

Amnesty – Solidifying the Marxist Control of America for Decades, If Not Permanently

Obama Tells Ohio State Grads to Reject the "Voices" Warning of Government Tyranny -- and Join the Collective

James Carville Correctly Explains the "Limbaugh-ian" View on Amnesty

Elites on the Left -- and the Right -- Would Be Happier If This Show Didn't Exist

Rubio Opposes Independent Investigation into Benghazi Consulate Attack

Kissinger in 2008: There Will Be “Bipartisan” Push for New World Order, Whoever is Elected President

THE ELECTION OF 2012… And the Future

2016 – The Election of the First Female President of the United States? – Hillary Doesn’t Deserve Our Admiration or Another Shot at the Presidency

Quote of the Day:  “The only upside to the Amnesty Bill, Benghazigate, the Obama-Boston Bomber connection and the like is that it separates the journalists from the haircuts.”

Technorati Tags: George Soros,watch the other hand,connecting the dots,RINO,Marco Rubio,Amnesty,Amneyst Bill,Gang of Eight,George Soros network,Alex Conant,Network,NWO blueprint,global elites,secure the border first,secure the borders,Obama's agenda,smoke and mirrors|,Gang of 8,Cesar Condo

Amnesty Rubio Style?

As everybody in Washington is watching the fall-out and drama from the marathon, and is hopefully paying attention to the latest amazing series leaks from the FBI, DHS and the White House about their involvement,2016 Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio appeared on a series of TV gigs promoting the gang of eight’s immigration bills, which is slowly being dubbed “Amnesty Rubio-style”. Did he convince the American people that he did not break his Senate campaign promise in 2010 that he would oppose amnesties for illegal aliens? It is not appearing so.

The front page of the Washington Post trumpeted:

Rubio takes big risk on immigrant legislation

Senator's endorsement of bipartisan plan could prove costly in 2016

Getty Images

On the cusp of introducing a new immigration bill, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) appeared on five Sunday morning news shows and strongly denied that the proposal will offer amnesty for illegal immigrants.

“Amnesty is the forgiveness of something. There will be consequences for having violated the law,” Rubio said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “No one who has done it the wrong way will get in before [legal immigrants]…in no way will having done this the wrong way be a reward.

Instead, Rubio said the bipartisan deal being proposed by the so-called Gang of Eight “gives people access to the legal immigration system.” Under the process, those in the country illegally would need to come forward and pass a “rigorous background check.” If they pass, they would pay fines and application fees to receive a guest worker permit allowing them to stay and “work, travel and pay taxes.” After 10 years, they would qualify to go through the existing legalization system.

He said the agreement modernizes the legal immigration system to make it more merit-based and jobs-based, rather than dependent on whether you know someone already living in the U.S. It will also put in place more effective enforcement mechanisms, Rubio said.

He said that while “obviously there’s political ramifications to everything in Washington, that certainly isn’t the reason I’m involved in doing this.”

Arrested Illegal: "Obama Will Let Me Go":

RUSH LIMBAUGH: The captured illegal said to the Border Patrol agent, "I don't care, go ahead and capture me. Obama is gonna let me go." It's reminiscent of 2009 after Obama was inaugurated and they had all those town hall meetings. "Don't worry, Obama is gonna fix my kitchen." Well, the illegal arrivals crossing the border in Texas are not sweating it because Obama is gonna let them go.

RUSH: It was our radio affiliate down there, WOAI radio in San Antonio. Here's the audio sound bite. This is during the correspondent Jim Forsyth's report, Brooks County Rancher Linda Vickers said this about what a border patrol agent had recently told her while detaining an illegal immigrant.

LINDA VICKERS: He was (the Border Patrol agent) loading one up, and he said the illegal in Spanish told him, "Obama's gonna let me go."

RUSH: Well, that shouldn't surprise anybody. I mean, all we're talking about here is amnesty and so-called border security. By the way, the border security push, there's a little confusion about this. Folks, I have to tell you, I'm being inundated with details from the offices of various members of the Gang of Eight. And then I have a New York Times story here which says that Chuck-U Schumer is all on board for border security, but get this. This is right from the New York Times.

"The bill allows a period of 10 years for the Department of Homeland Security to make plans and use resources to fortify enforcement at the borders and elsewhere within the country before it sets several broader hurdles that could derail the immigrants' progress toward citizenship if they are not achieved."

Now, everybody thinks that border security -- well, we're being told border security is gonna happen first and if it doesn't happen the rest of the bill doesn't happen. But apparently some factions here are pushing for 10 years to secure the border after everything else in the bill being agreed to. Now, this is all still up for grabs, I think. I don't think any of it's etched in stone. There will be some hearings on this. I don't know how many. We'll just have to wait and see. "The bill allows for a period of 10 years." All this talk of amnesty, for one thing, you know darn well it's gonna increase the influx of people trying to cross the border. And then all this talk of border security, that's gonna increase the influx. There's gonna be people trying to get in and beat that, which is what's happening.

And these guys are being caught, this is what the rancher down in San Antonio told our affiliate down there, WOAI, "Obama's gonna let me go." Not worried about it. Just one. But how commonplace must it be?

END TRANSCRIPT

And will it change or stop after the Gang or Eight’s plan goes into effect?? Most think not…

ANN COULTER: IF RUBIO'S AMNESTY IS SO GREAT, WHY IS HE LYING?:

When Republicans start lying like Democrats, you can guess they are pushing an idea that's bad for America. During his William Ginsburg-like tour of the Sunday talk shows last weekend, Sen. Marco Rubio was the Mount Vesuvius of lies about his immigration bill.
Here is how Rubio explained the powerful border-enforcing mechanism in his bill on "Fox News Sunday," which he denied was merely a meaningless goal:

"Basically, Homeland Security will have five years to meet that goal. If after five years, Homeland Security has not met that number, it will trigger the Border Commission, who will then take over this issue for them."

So the water torture awaiting the Department of Homeland Security if it fails to secure the border is ... ANOTHER GOVERNMENT COMMISSION WILL BE CREATED! Take that, Homeland Security! Ha -- we have you now!

The only thing more frightening than "another government commission" is a "strongly worded letter."

Rubio said his comprehensive immigration plan isn't amnesty because "amnesty is anything that says 'do it illegally, it will be cheaper and easier.'" But, he assures us, it's "cheaper, faster and easier for people to go back home and wait 10 years" -- as the law currently requires -- "than it will be to go through this process that I've outlined."

Then why is he doing it? If it's "cheaper, faster and easier" for illegals to apply for citizenship under current law, what exactly does Rubio's plan accomplish?

Is it to encourage illegals to go home and apply through normal channels? You know, since that's so much easier. Then why does he oppose enforcing the law on the books now? He dismisses enforcement of current law as trying to make "life miserable to them so that they'll self-deport," which he claims won't work.

Does his plan make them just a little bit miserable so maybe some of them will "self-deport"? (Which doesn't work, according to him.) Or is he lying about it being "cheaper, faster and easier for people to go back home"?
Rubio keeps trotting out the canard about the bounty of taxes we're going to collect from millions more minimum-wage workers when illegals are legalized, stoutly asserting: "In order to keep this legal status, you must be gainfully employed and you must be paying taxes."

It's as if he's talking to someone who has never been to America and is unfamiliar with its tax system.

By "paying taxes," Rubio means "filing a tax return and getting a payment back from the government in the form of the earned income tax credit." Another term for what Rubio calls "paying taxes" is "receiving welfare" -- which newly legalized illegals will start receiving right away under Rubio's plan. The only tax they'll pay is the same tax they pay now: sales tax.

But, incomprehensibly, Rubio swore up and down that the newly legalized illegal immigrants won't get government benefits: "And then they don't qualify for any federal benefits. This is an important point. No federal benefits, no food stamps, no welfare, no Obamacare."

How on Earth does Rubio plan to enforce this "important point"?

Just three weeks ago, the U.S. Senate voted down a proposal to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving benefits under Obamacare. At the time, Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez sneered at Republicans opposing Obamacare for illegals, saying, "This is not a great way to try to do your outreach to the Hispanic and immigrant community."

Forcing Republicans to spend the next two decades arguing that poor Hispanic children shouldn't have access to government benefits like health care and food programs sounds like a terrific way to win over the Hispanic vote!

Is it going to be easier or harder for Republicans to deny welfare to 20 million newly legalized illegal aliens than it is for them to simply say that people who have broken our laws should not be on a fast-track to citizenship?

Also, is Rubio planning to stop his newly legalized illegal aliens from having children? The children of illegal aliens become automatic citizens under our current insane interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

(It seems that, after the Civil War, what the framers of the 14th Amendment had at the top of their agenda was not invalidating the Dred Scott decision and confirming the citizenship of former slaves, but ensuring that, a century hence, the children of any foreigners who manage to sneak into the country illegally and give birth would become full-fledged U.S. citizens.)

As I've noted before, Hispanic women have a higher illegitimate birthrate than any other ethnic group in the country, including blacks. Currently, 71 percent of illegal immigrant households with children collect federal benefits.

In California -- which will be America if Rubio's plan goes through -- 82 percent of households headed by an illegal immigrant are on welfare, as are 61 percent of households headed by legal immigrants, according to the March 2011 Current Population Survey by the Center for Immigration Studies.

If you think Republicans are Hispandering now, wait until the children of 20 million illegal aliens start to vote. Rubio's amnesty isn't just bad for America, it's the end of America.

COPYRIGHT 2013 ANN COULTER  -  TRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK

Technorati Tags: Rush Limbaugh,secure the borders,Amnesty,illegals,undocumented workers,illegal aliens,Obamaland,Senator Marco Rubio,wake-up America,immigration Hispandering,gang of eight,RINOS,Ann Coulter,ObamaCare,smoke and mirrors

A New Tea Party Target?

In Utah, you expect Republicans to be conservative.  On the other hand, Utah did give us Jon Huntsman.

Now the Republican Attorney General of Utah, as well as some allegedly “Evangelical Christian” leaders have come out fawning over the new Obama amnesty and blasting the Tea Party.

From the Deseret News:

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff joined evangelical Christian leaders in applauding the Obama administration’s new deportation policy and blasting the tea party’s hard line on illegal immigration issues.

“Our resources are not best used in this country either nationally, on a statewide level or a local level to go after those who are otherwise law-abiding citizens,” Shurtleff said Tuesday during a National Immigration Forum telephonic news conference.

The Republican attorney general called the tea party’s approach to illegal immigration — round people up and ship them home — unrealistic, unworkable and damaging to the GOP.

“It pains me that the tea party has too much of a voice in turning people to the irrational and the shrill,” he said.

Shurtleff joined the Rev. Sam Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference, and Jenny Yang, advocacy and policy director for World Relief, the humanitarian arm of the National Association of Evangelicals, for the panel discussion.

The Obama administration announced last week it will allow many illegal immigrants facing deportation the chance to remain in the country and apply for a work permit. Meantime, it directed immigration authorities to focus their efforts on deporting criminals who threaten public safety and national security.

Rodriguez called the policy shift an “American and, at the heart of the matter, a Christian decision” to protect the innocent, especially the young. “Anything that protects the innocent according to scripture truly reflects the heart of God,” he said.

Of course, I think I missed the part where the ACLU was complaining about the Separation of Church and State here.

Shurtleff is a RINO.  The Tea Party opposes illegal immigration and believes that if you restrict jobs to lawful residents and citizens you won’t have to round up the illegals, they will simply leave.  This is what has happened in parts of California as the economy in California has gotten so bad and the economy in Mexico has improved, many illegals have gone home.

We are a nation of laws, one of which is the law concerning immigration into this country.

Shurtleff should worry about his own problems.

As 2012 rolls around, I can’t think of a better race for the Tea Party to target in Utah than the Attorney General’s race.

Source: TPN News - A New Tea Party Target?

BILL CLINTON: ‘I LIKE HUNTSMAN AND ROMNEY’… and BACHMAN

Former President Bill Clinton says that as far as Republicans go he likes GOP 2012 hopefuls Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney.   Clinton made his comments on the presidential field at the Aspen Ideas Festival Saturday evening. While Clinton still thinks President Obama will win reelection in 2012, he commented that the former Massachusetts governor is fronting a much stronger campaign than he did in 2008, and Michele Bachmann is looking like “a better candidate” than he thought. Clinton remarked:

“But, y’know, I like the governors: I like Huntsman and Romney. Romney’s a MUCH better candidate than he was last time, because he’s not apologizing for signing the health-care bill. He’s got another creative way of saying we oughta repeal Obamacare, but that’s prob’ly the price of gettin’ the nomination.

“Huntsman hasn’t said what he’s for yet, but I just kinda like him. [laughter] He LOOKS authentic – he looks like a real guy. [laughter] I mean, a real human being. I like his family, I like his kind of iconoclastic way. And he was a pretty good governor. And he wasn’t a right-wing ideologue.

“Bachmann’s been a better candidate than I THOUGHT she’d be, and I don’t agree with her on nearly anything. But she’s got a very compelling personal story, and she gotta lot of juice, and she turns [on] a lot of those anti-government crowd.”

Clinton went on to comment that he thought President Obama would win reelection based off things like the President’s handling of the auto industry crisis, record on national security, and that “He took steps which avoided a depression.” Clinton:

“It’s not like he doesn’t have a story to tell. I also think he’s done a good job in trying to harmonize America’s differences, trying to widen the circle of opportunity. I think he’s got a good record on gay rights. I think he’s got a good record on trying to promote diversity in a positive way.”

Interesting comments. Is “a good record on gay rights”  pushing the removal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” policy which you installed? Great story.

While Clinton’s support of the fellow Democrat and current President is to be expected, it will be interesting to see if his folksy comments on three Republican presidential candidates Saturday along with similar statements made in an ABC News interview last Thursday will have any effect on the GOP Presidential primary campaign.

With some commentators already questioning if Jon Huntsman is too moderate to be elected by today’s GOP, will Clinton’s kind words be hurled against the former Utah governor by his fellow 2012 hopefuls? Will conservatives who already have an issue with Mitt Romeny’s “health care thing” become further frustrated by Clinton’s approval?

How do you think Bill Clinton’s comments will be used, if at all, as the Republican primary race tightens in coming months?

Well… if Bill Clinton likes you… you are not what we want or need!! And as Rush says, it is the ones like Palin, who ‘they’ (the Beltway politicians, the globalists, the Obamaites) try to demonize and minimalize that you want, because ‘they’ are afraid of them or for sure don’t support their agenda.  True polls, not manipulated by Obama’s campaign wizard Axelrod or the MSM show Obama’s poll numbers are much lower than being reported and that Palin’s are much higher than they will ever let on.  And as many say, having been a governor with a good fighting record (that Alaska’s released emails of Palin’s governorship proved, is often the best experience you can have! Palin also has a strong libertarian streak which will play well with independents and Libertarians and is perhaps Why Sarah can/could Win!

Source:  the Blaze

Related:

(Besides the the obvious reason, after all Bill will always be Bill!) -  Bill O’Reilly: Why Bill Clinton Likes Michele Bachmann

WHY THE RUSH? WHAT ARE THEY AFRAID OF?

Why is there a mad rush to pass legislation by a lame-duck Congress?  While it appears that they are merely accelerating the pace to ensure that the programs they so vehemently believe in are securely engraved into legislation before their terms are up, in actual fact there is much more to the "rush to legislate."  It is fear that drives them, but what exactly are they afraid of?

In two words:  TEA PARTY.  To a significant extent, the Tea Party is the political manifestation of Ayn Rand's (In the book Atlas Shrugged) all-out "labor" strike by the "Producers" against the "looters,"  i.e., the socialists.  In Rand's book the strike basically turns off the spigot of support by industrialists and other producers, and initiates the collapse of the looters, since they cannot on their own produce anything, except, of course, looting.

While I understand this is a shallow and very basic reference to Ayn Rand's philosophical treatise, nevertheless, the Tea Party is about to carry out what amounts to turning off the spigot upon which today's looters depend for nourishment for their political aims.

The Democrat Socialists' worst nightmare is the cutting off of the funds collected from PRODUCERS in order to fund the socialist agenda and their wide range of programs that are geared to expand government and increase their power.

While the Democrat Socialists want to ensure that the bankrupting of the nation progresses, they wish to maintain the taxing and spending ability of their Socialist government entities in order to continue to govern and to continue their incessant quest to seize even more power.

An entire list of programs will be put into effect by Presidential Executive Decree, or Executive Orders, via existing regulations already on the books, in order to ensure that the balance of power remains in their favor, if any of their legislation happens to fail before the current Congress' term expires.

But essentially the next Congress will have the ability, albeit somewhat limited by the measured wins in the 2010 elections, to shut off the faucets upon which the Socialists so critically depend.  Too often our well-meaning electorate overlooks or ignores that the government they so avidly complain about is to a very great extent, funded by them.

Granted, they are doing so at the point of a gun, through mandated taxes, but as the recent elections have shown, and as the even more recent defeat of the Omnibus Bill so aptly demonstrates, if the Producers/financiers of government, i.e., the Conservative electorate decides to flex its muscle and close its wallet, it can and will do so.

Already the Ayn Rand strike is creating a major upheaval in government.  So much so that the old school Republicans are pretending to be "snookered" by a crafty, conniving President into compromising on key legislation.  The deals are being brokered, and the Rino's are selling out, and there is the business-as-usual back-scratching and nod-and-wink attempts to co-opt and derail the Tea Party electoral mandates.

Be assured:  There is no need to compromise with the looters of your hard earned money, which they have taken at gun-point, by force, under penalty of prison or worse, if you do not comply with handing over your treasure.  Instead, the order of the day should continue to religiously and meticulously turn off the spigot, continue with tax cuts, initiate and expand incentives for production, and initiate the return of commerce, business, trade, entrepreneurship, with the commensurate dismantling of any Socialist vestiges that remain in government.

Moreover the continued fight to systematically eradicate the grasp on American culture by the Socialist parasites should be expanded, with resources created to advance their demise here in the U.S.,  as well as the demise of the foreign enablers that are so obviously in collusion with the traitors to our nation.

It is, at this point, very significantly this:  If the Socialist looters do not have your money with which to oppress you, they are less likely to be able to obtain the means and the power to do so.  And by the way, in case you did not realize it, you can make it illegal for them to borrow from the Fed, from China, or from anyone, and you would be very prudent to make it so. 

(We can also get rid of the Income Tax.  Those pushing the Progressive Agenda realize that time works against them but chaos and created deadlines backed by fear works for them!!)

 

Mix Video! Top 20 Pro-Socialism Sound Bites of Obama, Advisors & Allies

Video:  Top 20 Pro-Socialism/Marxism Sound Bites of Obama, Advisors & Allies

 

Video:  Judge Napolitano –  20th Century Constitution

 

h/t: Song of Truth  & the Blaze