Obama To Compromise United States Security

Had this come from most other places that it did (www.morningbell@heritage.com, March 27, 2012), I might have written it off as really far out. But comparing the honesty and reputation of the Heritage Foundation with that of the Obama clique and its associated media, and the constant lying, hiding of information which is so prevalent with the Obama administration I had to pass it along. We are in serious trouble, fellow citizens. We are losing our country because of the likes of Barack Obama. Obama outdoes Benedict Arnold. If there was any question of where Obama stands, this ought to clear it up.

Editor.



Obama Whispers Away America's Security
(from www.morningbell@heritage.com, March 27, 2012)


It is hard to overstate the dangerous implications of what happened this week when President Obama was caught by an open mic sending a message to Russia's dictator-in-waiting to wait quietly till after the November elections, after which Mr. Obama could make concessions on America's national defense. The White House is trying to explain this incident away as par for the course in an electoral year. It is not.

Here, in essence, is what it appears to be: this was our commander in chief in league with an anti-American autocrat to dupe the American public until after it's too late. What makes it even worse is that the issue at hand--missile defense--has to do with protecting the American people against the likes of Russia.

We don't need to exaggerate what happened. All we need is to review what Obama, our President, was caught telling Russia's current president, Dmitri Medvedev, while the two met at the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea. Neither man knew the microphones were live and picked up their exchange. Here it is:


President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you...

President Obama: (reaching over and putting his hand on Mr. Medvedev's knee): This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.

The Vladimir in question is none other than Vladimir Putin, who just won elections in Russia this month under a cloud of suspicion, to replace Mr. Medvedev, who has been a fig leaf president for the past four years while Mr. Putin has wielded power from his post as prime minister.

Mr. Putin, who has been open and public in his disdain for both the United States and President Obama in particular, opposes American foreign policy from Syria to Asia to Latin America. He is the poster child for a new breed of authoritarian world leaders who openly want to thwart America's intentions. Most recently, Putin used hostile rhetoric toward the United States as a tool in his re-election campaign, labeling opposition leaders puppets of the CIA. That followed Russia's decision at the United Nations Security Council to veto a U.S.-backed resolution calling for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to step aside.

The President's surreptitious hat-tip to Putin comes at a dangerous time for the American people and U.S. allies. North Korea is preparing to launch yet another long-range missile, and Iran is in desperate pursuit of a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile, the United States and its allies remain unprotected from the threat of nuclear missiles, and now it appears that Obama wants to cede even more ground to Russia on vital national security issues.

The President, probably sensing the potential gravity of the situation, quickly addressed the incident. He tried to defend himself yesterday by saying:

Frankly, the current environment is not conducive to those kinds of thoughtful consultations. The stories you guys have been writing over the last 24 hours is probably pretty good evidence of that. I think we'll do better in 2013.

But this is not how democracy works. In asking Mr. Medvedev to tell Mr. Putin to "give me space" until he can be more flexible next year if he gets re-elected this November, Mr. Obama was clearly telegraphing the willingness to give Mr. Putin at least part of what he wants on missile defense. This President has already given too much. In the New START strategic nuclear arms control treaty with Russia, President Obama agreed that U.S. missile defense capabilities must be reduced along with strategic nuclear weapons -- essentially laying down America's arms and its shield, as well.

Now it appears that President Obama wishes to go even a step farther in order to appease Mr. Putin. Where that step leads, we truly don't know. All we can see is the direction the President is already headed.

The exchange with Mr. Medvedev, lastly, only deepens and validates two already extant and related narratives about our President: one is that he harbors views that are inimical to the American people and only come out in unguarded moments. An example of that is when he said in San Francisco four years ago that Americans cling to their religion and guns bitterly when they're afraid of the future. The other narrative is that the President will be unshackled once (and if) he is re-elected, and will put in place a plan far more radical than he is letting on in public at the moment.

If concessions to Russia on missile defense are what Mr. Obama wants, he can make his case to the American people and ask them to endorse his policies. To hide them until it is too late and he is safely ensconced in office is unseemly.

Obamacare Comes before the Supreme Court

Rare is the occasion when the nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court gather to hear three days of arguments, and rarer still is when it is for a case like Obamacare -- one that cuts to the core of the Constitution and whose outcome could fundamentally alter the role of the federal government and its power over the people. But today the Court will do just that when it open its doors and begins weighing the arguments on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's seminal health care law.

Were the American people to vote on the issue, they would fall decidedly against Obamacare, as recent polls have shown. But for the Court, the decision is not as cut and dried as an up or down vote, but one that involves the interplay of a series of issues raised by those who are challenging Obamacare -- more than half the States of the Union and a collection of interested organizations and private parties -- and those brought by the Obama Administration, which is defending the law. And they come to the Supreme Court after conflicting appellate court rulings which have left undecided the question of whether Obamacare is permissible under the Constitution.

The central issue before the Court is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause to impose the individual mandate on the American people, forcing them to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. If the Court holds that Congress was outside the bounds of its authority, it can strike down the individual mandate, leaving the justices to then decide whether all or part of Obamacare should fall along with it.

If the Court upholds the mandate, America will be in the same position it finds itself today -- facing a law that vests untold power and resources in the hands of the federal government, that transfers health care decision making from individuals to unelected bureaucrats, and that increases costs while decreasing access. In short, America's health care crisis will get worse, not better, and future generations will be left paying the tab. What's more, if the Court allows the individual mandate to stand, it will unhook Congress from its Constitutional leash, empowering it to regulate commerce and individual behavior in new ways never before imaginable.

There are other issues, too, besides the individual mandate. Even before the Court reaches that subject, it must broach the issue of the Anti-Injunction Act, a 145-year-old federal tax law which could bar the Court from even hearing a challenge to the individual mandate. Under that law, one cannot sue over a tax until they have paid it. If the penalty for violating Obamacare's individual mandate is considered a tax under that law, then the challenge could be brought at this time since the penalty has not yet taken effect. Obamacare's challengers and even the Obama Administration agree that the Anti-Injunction Act shouldn't prevent the Court from hearing the case, but the issue will still be heard, and some think that the Court could rely on the Act as a way of avoiding having to answer the question of whether the mandate is constitutional.

If the Court finds the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply, it will move on to the individual mandate. Its decision on that issue brings with it a whole other set of problems -- namely, if the Court finds that the mandate is unconstitutional, it must next decide the issue of severability -- whether Obamacare will operate as Congress intended if it is stripped of the mandate, or whether all or parts of the law must be struck down with the mandate. If the Court finds that the mandate is severable, the Court can strike it down and leave it up to Congress to clean up what's left, or, as the Obama administration has recommended, it can strike down the mandate and related provisions of the law that depend on it. Finally, if the justices find that the mandate is not severable, then it will throw out all of Obamacare, and it will again be up to Congress to enact real market-based health care reforms that bring down costs while increasing access to care.

There is another issue, too, tied to Obamacare, and that has to do with Congress's decision to impose new requirements on states forcing them to expand the Medicaid program and abide by the federal government's conditions, leaving them to shoulder much of the costs while operating Medicaid according to Washington's whims. If the states don't comply, they could lose all Medicaid funding, putting them in an untenable position in which both their autonomy and their sovereignty collapse under Obamacare's weight. It is up to the Court to decide whether Congress overstepped its bounds.

America waits for the Supreme Court to weigh the facts and the law, to consider the precedents and the policy, and to issue a decision that will have implications far into the future. Will Congress be limited by the Constitution, or will its authority expand beyond the limits that the Founders intended? Will Americans' liberties stand? Will Obamacare fall? No matter the outcome of the Court's ruling in June, Congress can and should act now to repeal Obamacare and rid the land of this intolerable act.

**********

Originally published by www.morningbell@heritage.com on March 26, 2012

Obama's Coil of Rage

Coil of Rage

After you've read to the end, come back and read this first paragraph again.

The character of any man is defined by how he treats his mother as the years pass... need I say more about this person below other than there is no character, no integrity but there is a ton of attitude and arrogance that defines his shallow past and hollow future ....

Read Obama's book, Audacity of Hope. It is difficult to read considering his attitude toward us and everything American. Let me add a phrase he uses to describe his attitude toward whites. He harbors a "COIL OF RAGE". His words not mine.

THIS IS OUR PRESIDENT!
HE'S RUNNING AGAIN, YOU KNOW!
Is anyone out there awake?

Everyone of voting age should read these two books by him: Don't buy them, just get them from the library.

From Dreams From My Father: "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

From Dreams From My Father : "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."

From Dreams From My Father: "There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe -- and white."

From Dreams From My Father: "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

From Dreams From My Father: "I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."

And FINALLY... and most scary, From Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

If you have never forwarded an e-mail, now is the time to do so!!! We have someone with this mentality running our GREAT nation!
Keep your eye on him and don't blink.

Democrat, Republican, Conservative or Liberal - be aware of the attitude and character of this sitting President.

The leopard Doesn't Change His Spots

Marines Disarmed Panneta Speech in Afghanistan

"No-guns" zone at Afghanistan's Camp Leatherneck: U.S. Marines ordered to disarm before listening to secretary of defense speak

Submitted by cbaus on Thu, 03/15/2012 - 07:00. by Chad D. Baus

The New York Times is reporting that American Marines operating in war-time Afghanistan were ordered to disarm before being allowed to listen to a speech by President Obama's Secretary of Defense, Leon Panneta.

From the article:

In a sign of the nervousness surrounding the visit, Marines and other troops among the 200 people gathered in a tent at Camp Leatherneck to hear Mr. Panetta speak were abruptly asked by their commander to get up, place their weapons — M-16 and M-4 automatic rifles and 9-mm pistols — outside the tent and then return unarmed. The commander, Sgt. Maj. Brandon Hall, told reporters he was acting on orders from superiors.

"All I know is, I was told to get the weapons out," he said. Asked why, he replied, "Somebody got itchy, that's all I've got to say. Somebody got itchy; we just adjust."

Normally, American forces in Afghanistan keep their weapons with them when the defense secretary visits and speaks to them. The Afghans in the tent were not armed to begin with, as is typical.

According to the article, American officials later said that the top commander in Helmand, Maj. Gen. Mark Gurganus, had decided on Tuesday that no one would be armed while Mr. Panetta spoke to them, but the word did not reach those in charge in the tent until shortly before Mr. Panetta was due to arrive.

General Gurganus told reporters later that he had wanted a consistent policy for everyone in the tent, and that "I wanted to have the Marines look just like their Afghan partners." He insisted that his decision had nothing to do with the shooting on Sunday. he said.

The Times also quoted Gurganus as saying the first-ever incident of disarming troops for an address by their own secretary of defense "is not a big deal."

Got that? Imposing the same lack of trust they obviously have for the Afghans in the room on our U.S. servicemen and women is no "big deal."

American soldiers are already disarmed when they return from overseas duty. It was that policy which army psychiatrist Nidal Hasan exploited during a terrorist attack at Ft. Hood, Texas. Nidal knew his intended victims were unarmed, and used that fact to assure a high death toll.

As Buckeye Firearms Foundation Board of Directors member Gerard Valentino has pointed out, "When Nidal Hasan killed 13 Americans at one of the largest military bases in the United States, it should have served as a wake-up call. Instead, the military establishment based the safety of American soldiers on the false hope of gun free zones."

Indeed, and now we know that Obama's military commanders aren't just content with "no-guns" military bases here in the U.S. - for a short time on Wednesday, they implemented one in a theater of war.

Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman.

The Obamacare Cancer Must Be Stopped

(The following is a message from Ed Feulner initially published on morningbell@heritige.com on March 19, 2012)


Fellow Americans:

It has been two years this week since the passage of Obamacare, and the firestorm it ignited has not abated but only spread and intensified. Most Americans have already made up their minds, understanding that until it is completely removed, the cancer of Obamacare threatens not only our healthcare and our economy but also our most fundamental liberties and constitutional self-government.

Next week, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on its constitutionality, bringing this intolerable act to the forefront of the American mind once again and reminding the country that the issue of Obamacare is by no means settled.

Nothing the Administration has done has made this law more palatable, quite the opposite, and none of the PR events the White House has planned for this week is likely to change people's minds.

Nor will Obamacare likely be settled by the Supreme Court. As with such divisive questions in the past, this question will be settled by the American people who have throughout this failed episode signaled loud and clear that they want the whole monstrosity repealed once and for all.

In its short 24-month life, Obamacare has done nothing but confirm our worst fears, being a signal failure from the very beginning.

Obamacare promised to make healthcare more accessible and cheaper without increasing taxes or the deficit. If you liked your doctor, of course you could keep your doctor. No one would be made to do anything against their will. These promises have all been broken.

The law's escalating regulations and costs weigh heavily on the businesses that fuel our economy, one of the reasons job creation has been so anemic and economic recovery has been lackluster. Obamacare is expected to force Americans to pay $99 billion more in taxes and penalties than originally anticipated. Families earning over $250,000 will get hit with a higher Medicare payroll tax.

And just last week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that costs, originally pegged at $938 billion, have now risen to $1.76 trillion. Congressional Republicans estimate the tab to be $2.6 trillion. CBO also says that as many as 20 million Americans could lose their employer-provided coverage because of Obamacare.

Turning to the individual mandate forcing all Americans to buy insurance, it quickly led to a revolt by a majority of states, who are now challenging the law before the Supreme Court. The Heritage Foundation weighed in on the issue and filed an amicus brief urging the Court to strike down the law. If government can regulate inactivity, it can do anything.

As Obamacare moves into its implementation phase, we are beginning to see more clearly where it is headed. A heavy-handed mandate for preventive services collides with religious liberty by ordering all insurance plans to cover abortion-inducing drugs, contraception and sterilization at no-cost to the insured. Religious groups serving the public will have to provide such coverage regardless of their religious beliefs and deep moral objections. Those who choose not to comply will face heavy fines that will divert resources from their work to serve the poor, elderly, and sick, if not cause them to leave this work entirely. Such disregard not only tramples our basic liberties but also makes it hard for religious institutions to continue their important work serving communities all across America.

This is only the tip of the iceberg. With each new requirement, Obamacare will make insurance more expensive, reduce flexibility and choice, and take away liberty.

Given this sorry record it is not surprising that Obamacare has been a political loser for its proponents. Starting with the elections of Republican governors in Virginia and New Jersey in November 2009, then of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, of all places, two months later, and culminating in the watershed elections of November 2010, when the nation saw the biggest landslide in seven decades.

Today the legislation barely rates a mention in presidential speeches, the signature legislative achievement of President Obama's first term having become an albatross around his neck.

The American people had the common sense to understand from the start that there is something more at issue when more than 150 federal agencies, bureaus and commissions have the authority to intervene in some of the most personal and private decisions of our lives.

Poll after poll continues to demonstrate that Obamacare is not supported by the American people. The reason is that it offends our principled and abiding attachment to liberty and self government, going to the heart of the relationship between citizen and state.

The only complete remedy is the full repeal of Obamacare in all of its aspects. Like so many, we encourage the Supreme Court to reject the law on constitutional grounds. But Congress must be prepared to finish the job. The ultimate responsibility, though, lies with the American people, who are the ones who elect their leaders. America needs real health care reform that increases access, built on the firm foundation of constitutional principle and the commitment to freedom that has sustained this nation since its founding.

Sixty-five years ago, in the days after their noble victory in World War II, the British people chose not the hero who had led them, Winston Churchill, but replaced his coalition with a socialist Labour Party that quickly brought forth their now-infamous National Health System. By no coincidence, the British government announced a year later it could no longer afford its strategic responsibilities in the post-war world, seemingly reconciled to a declining status.

This will not be our fate. Americans do not line up for instructions from Washington. By their good character and dedication to the principles of liberty, Americans will never resign themselves to being the wards of a bureaucratic state where all is subject to government control, regulatory dictate and administrative whim.

Obamacare is a cancer. We must not rest until we are rid of it.

Join our fight to remove this cancer from America. We cannot wait even one more day.

Thank you for all you do for our cause.

Sincerely,

Ed Feulner

Obama Fraud Silence In US Media Questioned By Pravda

It’s a twist of irony: The Russian news website Pravda has published an accusation that the American media is “tame,” afraid to publish news and is “deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet about [President Obama's] defrauding of the American public and the deliberate evisceration of the Constitution of the United States.”

In a March 7 Pravda column, “Arizona sheriff finds Obama presidential qualifications forged,” Dianna Cotter, a senior at American Military University, blasts America’s mainstream media for their virtual silence about Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s six-month investigation into the controversy surrounding Obama’s birth certificate and his constitutional eligibility for office.

“A singularly remarkable event has taken place in the United States of America,” Cotter wrote. “This event occurred in Arizona on March 1st and was an earth shattering revelation. … Yet, in the five days since [Arpaio's] revelations there has been little in the way of serious reporting on the findings he presented in his presser. With 6 short videos, the Sheriff and his team presented a devastating case, one the tame US press is apparently unable to report.”

Cotter recalls Obama April 27, 2011, press conference in which he “walked into the White House Press room with a Cheshire cat like grin and a ‘Long Form Birth Certificate’ from the State of Hawaii in hand.”
Speaking from the podium, Obama declared, “We’re not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.”

“Quite the barb from a man holding a forged document,” Cotter wrote. “That’s right, forged.
She notes that the investigation also uncovered an allegedly forged Selective Service Card for Obama.
“Forged documents are being used to qualify a President of the United States for the office he holds,” she contends. “Or is usurped the more accurate term?

“The silence from the main stream media in the US is deafening. It almost seems as if the press is terrified to even think the question, let alone ask it: Is the President a criminal? The press in Arpaio’s audience were certainly asking him to state precisely that, yet nowhere has the question been asked of the White House by the press. Instead the American Press is aggressively protecting the presumed President of the United States, pushing the fraud upon both America and the world, supporting a man who may well have usurped the office.”

She asks, “What has been the response from the Obama era press?

“Silence.

“Silence so loud it can be felt.”

Cotter lays out detailed evidence of a widespread cover-up and concludes:
The American Press is deliberately hiding the evidence published on the internet about this defrauding of the American public and the deliberate evisceration of the Constitution of the United States. It is hiding Barack Obama’s Fraud as it has been revealed by a Sheriff in Arizona. The silence of the American press would be unbelievable if it weren’t so blatantly obvious.

It is nearly as egregious as the audacity of Obama’s fraud itself.

The Secret Plan to Defend Obamacare

This week, The Heritage Foundation's Rob Bluey obtained a four-page strategy memo that outlines a White House-coordinated campaign to force an unwilling public to accept Obamacare. Once again, all the strategies by the Administration and its liberal allies involve how better to message this hated law as the anniversary of its passage approaches and the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on its constitutionality. If only the Administration put this much effort into lowering the price of gas or creating jobs.

The memo identifies the White House's target audience -- seniors, women, and young adults -- with a goal of "increas[ing] overall public support for the law by making the benefits of the law (and consequences of taking those benefits away) tangible by featuring stories of real people impacted." The effort will focus on two key issues:

"Remind people that the law is already benefiting millions of Americans by providing health care coverage, reducing costs and providing access to healthcare coverage. This message will include the ideas that these are benefits that politicans/the Court art (sic) are trying to take away from average Americans."

"Frame the Supreme Court oral arguments in terms of real people and real benefits that would be lost if the law were overturned. While lawyers will be talking about the individual responsibility piece of the law and the legal precedence, organizations on the ground should continue to focus on these more tangible results of the law."

The White House and its allies have a lot of persuading to do. The American people have come to their own conclusion about Obamacare -- the law was a serious mistake, and it's time for it to go.

Polling data shows the extent of the opposition. Fifty-three percent of Americans favor repeal, more than half of Americans say that the Supreme Court should strike down the mandate, 57 percent believe religious-affiliated employers should be exempt from the law's anti-conscience mandate, 51 percent support a religious and moral exemption for all employers, and 60 percent of physicians believe the law will have a negative impact on overall patient care.

There's good reason for their opposition. The latest news of Obamacare's impact came from a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report released this week. In one of the CBO's reported scenarios, 20 million Americans could lose their employer-sponsored health benefits, and 49 million more Americans could become dependent on government-sponsored health care. And it won't come cheaply for American taxpayers. Projecting through 2022, Obamacare could cost as much as $2.134 trillion, and individual and employer mandate penalties could hit $221 billion.

Then there's the issue of the unconstitutional individual mandate that forces Americans to buy government dictated health insurance or pay a penalty, as well as the anti-conscience mandate that religious employers, including schools, hospitals, and charities, must provide abortion-inducing drugs and contraception despite the fact that such services totally contradict many of these groups' core religious beliefs.

Under Obamacare, costs will go up, people will lose the coverage they have, and quality of care will decline. Individuals and businesses will face penalties, seniors will feel the effects of Obamacare's cuts to Medicare, doctors will suffer from increased regulation and lower government reimbursement for services, taxpayers will face new taxes, jobs will be lost, millions of Americans will remain uninsured and stuck in overcrowded emergency rooms, religious institutions and the faithful will suffer the loss of their religious liberties, and future generations will pay the costs.

That's not the message you'll see and hear next week as the White House and its supporters descend on Washington and take to the airwaves in defense of Obamacare. But as much as they'd like to portray their efforts as a grassroots groundswell in defense of the President's law, we know that it's a highly coordinated effort to preserve an unconstitutional affront to the American people.

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

Originally published by morningbell@heritage.com on March 16, 2012.

Chevy Volt Operating Cost

Eric Bolling (Fox Business Channel's Follow the Money) test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors. For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.

Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery. So, the range including the nine gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles. It will take you 4 1/2 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours. In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.

According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery. The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned so I looked up what I pay for electricity. I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh.
16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery. $18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery.

Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine only that gets 32 mpg. $3.89 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $0.12 per mile.

(Don't forget the pollution produced to make the electricity is probably very comparable to the pollution emitted by the gasoline car. That is just a trade-off rather than an advantage.)

The gasoline powered car cost about $15,000 while the Volt costs $46,000.

So this car manufacturer wants us to pay 3 times as much for a car that costs more than 7 times as much to run and takes 3 times as long to drive across country.

Detroit Today

By Frosty Wooldridge*

For 15 years, from the mid 1970's to 1990, I worked in Detroit, Michigan. I watched it descend into the abyss of crime, debauchery, gun play, drugs, school truancy, car-jacking, gangs and human depravity. I watched entire city blocks burned out. I watched graffiti explode on buildings, cars, trucks, buses and school yards. Trash everywhere!

Detroiters walked through it, tossed more into it, and ignored it. Tens of thousands, and then hundreds of thousands today exist on federal welfare, free housing, and food stamps!

With Aid to Dependent Children, minority women birthed eight to 10, and in one case, one woman birthed 24 children as reported by the Detroit Free Press, all on American taxpayer dollars.

A new child meant a new car payment, new TV, and whatever mom wanted. I saw Lyndon Baines Johnson's 'Great Society' flourish in Detroit. If you give money for doing nothing, you will get more hands out taking money for doing nothing.

Mayor Coleman Young, perhaps the most corrupt mayor in America, outside of Richard Daley in Chicago, rode Detroit down to its knees... He set the benchmark for cronyism, incompetence, and arrogance. As a black man, he said, "I am the MFIC." The IC meant "in charge".

You can figure out the rest Detroit became a majority black city with 67 percent African-Americans.

As a United Van Lines truck driver for my summer job from teaching math and science, I loaded hundreds of American families into my van for a new life in another city or state.

Detroit plummeted from 1.8 million citizens to 912,000 today. At the same time, legal and illegal immigrants converged on the city for the free government handouts, so much so, that Muslims number over 300,000. Mexicans number 400,000 throughout Michigan, but most work in Detroit. As the whites moved out, the Muslims moved in.

As the crimes became more violent, the whites fled. Finally, unlawful Mexicans moved in at a torrid pace. Detroit suffers so much shoplifting that grocery stores no longer operate in many inner city locations. You could cut the racial tension in the air with a knife! Detroit may be one of our best examples of multiculturalism: pure dislike, and total separation from America…

Today, you hear Muslim calls to worship over the city like a new American Baghdad with hundreds of Islamic mosques in Michigan, paid for by Saudi Arabia oil money. High school flunk out rates reached 76 percent last June, according to NBC's Brian Williams. Classrooms resemble more foreign countries than America... English? Few speak it! The city features a 50 percent illiteracy rate and growing.

Unemployment hit 28.9 percent in 2009 as the auto industry vacated the city. In Time Magazine's October 4, 2009, "The Tragedy of Detroit: How a great city fell, and how it can rise again," I choked on the writer's description of what happened. "If Detroit had been ravaged by a hurricane, and submerged by a ravenous flood, we'd know a lot more about it," said Daniel Okrent. "If drought and carelessness had spread brush fires across the city, we'd see it on the evening news every night." Earthquake, tornadoes, you name it, if natural disaster had devastated the city that was once the living proof of American prosperity, the rest of the country might take notice.

But Detroit, once our fourth largest city, now 11th and slipping rapidly, has had no such luck. Its disaster has long been a slow unwinding that seemed to remove it from the rest of the country.

Even the death rattle that in the past year emanated from its signature industry brought more attention to the auto executives than to the people of the city, who had for so long been victimized by their dreadful decision making."

As Coleman Young's corruption brought the city to its knees, no amount of federal dollars could save the incredible payoffs, kickbacks and illegality permeating his administration. I witnessed the city's death from the seat of my 18-wheeler tractor trailer because I moved people out of every sector of decaying Detroit.

"By any quantifiable standard, the city is on life support. Detroit 's treasury is $300 million short of the funds needed to provide the barest municipal services," Okrent said. "The school system, which six years ago was compelled by the teachers' union to reject a philanthropist's offer of $200 million to build 15 small, independent charter high schools, is in receivership. The murder rate is soaring, and 7 out of 10 remain unsolved. Three years after Katrina devastated New Orleans, unemployment in that city hit a peak of 11%. In Detroit today, the unemployment rate is 28.9%. That's worth spelling out: twenty-eight point nine percent.

At the end of Okrent's report, and he will write a dozen more about Detroit, he said, "That's because the story of Detroit is not simply one of a great city's collapse, it's also about the erosion of the industries that helped build the country we know today. The ultimate fate of Detroit will reveal much about the character of America in the 21st century.

If what was once the most prosperous manufacturing city in the nation has been brought to its knees, what does that say about our recent past? And if it can't find a way to get up, what does that say about America s future?"

As you read in my book review of Chris Steiner's book, $20 Per Gallon, the auto industry won't come back. Immigration will keep pouring more and more uneducated third world immigrants from the Middle East into Detroit, thus creating a beachhead for Islamic hegemony in America. If 50 percent illiteracy continues, we will see more homegrown terrorists spawned out of the Muslim ghettos of Detroit. Illiteracy plus Islam equals walking human bombs.

You have already seen it in Madrid, Spain, London, England, and Paris, France with train bombings, subway bombings and riots. As their numbers grow, so will their power to enact their barbaric Sharia Law that negates republican forms of government, first amendment rights, and subjugates women to the lowest rungs on the human ladder. We will see more honor killings by upset husbands, fathers and brothers that demand subjugation by their daughters, sisters and wives. Muslims prefer beheadings of women to scare the hell out of any other members of their sect from straying. Multiculturalism: what a perfect method to kill our language, culture, country and way of life.

I PRAY EVERYONE THAT READS THIS REALIZES THAT IF WE DON'T STAND UP, AND SCREAM AT WASHINGTON, AND OUR STATE, CITY AND LOCAL LEADERS THIS IS WHAT AWAITS THE REST OF AMERICA. IF YOU THINK MEXICANS AND MUSLIMS AND OTHER FOREIGNERS WILL EVENTUALLY FIT RIGHT IN, THEN YOU ARE AS BIG A PART OF THE PROBLEM AS THEY ARE.

IF YOU THINK THIS IS JUST A BUNCH OF HOOEY AND YOU FEEL NO DUTY TO FIGHT FOR THIS COUNTRY, THEN I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WILL TAKE FOR YOU TO STAND AND FIGHT?

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
-- Benjamin Franklin


*Frosty Wooldridge (born 1947) is a US journalist,
naturalist, writer, environmentalist, traveler, and
figure in the anti-illegal immigration movement
in the United States.







IF YOU LOVE AMERICA, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG…..
The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.

Huge Tax Hike In New Obama Budget

Obama's Hidden Tax Hikes

EXCLUSIVE: It could be said that President Obama has never seen a tax hike he doesn't like -- whether it's letting the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire, insisting on higher taxes for job creators, and yesterday calling on Congress to raise taxes on the oil industry. But as much as the President wants to raise taxes, Heritage has discovered that are even more tax hikes hidden in his budget, adding up to a total of $2 trillion in higher taxes.

In a new report, Heritage's Curtis Dubay uncovers Obama's hidden tax hikes and finds that the President's proposed $1.561 trillion tax increase over 10 years is much bigger than advertised. In fact, the President wants to raise taxes by $1.689 trillion -- that's $128 billion more than was reported by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the President's FY 2013 budget proposal.

What's to account for the discrepancy? Dubay explains that OMB reports the tax hikes in areas other than the tax section, misleading readers into believing that the President's tax hikes are smaller than they are in reality. Among them are the "Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee," better known as the bank tax, which adds another $61 billion to the President's tax hike total; a $44 billion tax hike from allowing the IRS to adjust a program integrity cap; a $48 billion increase of the unemployment tax; and a $1 billion hike of user fees for commercial navigation of inland waterways.

How's that for "the most transparent White House in history"?

But wait, there's even more.

On top of the $128 billion in hidden taxes, the President takes credit for tax cuts when he really doesn't deserve it. Dubay reports that the budget includes $317 billion in pre-existing tax cutting policies, including the payroll tax holiday ($31 billion), the American Opportunity Tax Credit ($137 billion), the Research and Experimentation Credit ($109 billion), the group of tax-reducing policies known as the "tax extenders" ($34 billion), along with a handful of other provisions totaling $6 billion -- even though these policies were already part of the tax code. In other words, the President wants to get all the credit, while dodging the blame.

Take away those wrongly counted cuts and the President actually wants to raise taxes by more than $2 trillion!

Dubay says the White House has some explaining to do:

Congress should disregard the misleading tax hike figure from OMB's table and use the correct $2 trillion amount when referring to the total tax hikes in the President's budget. And Members of Congress should question OMB as to why they chose to mislead readers about the total tax hike that President Obama has called for on American taxpayers.

Why does all this tax talk matter? Take a look at the economy. America is experiencing a historically slow recovery, the likes of which haven't been seen since World War II. Private-sector employment is 4.5 percent below pre-recession levels, unemployment remains at 8.3 percent -- the highest since the 1981-1982 recession -- and only 63.7 percent of adult Americans are active in the labor force, the lowest since 1983. Meanwhile, small businesses say taxes are among their most important problems -- they fear Washington will raise taxes in order to pay for even more spending, so they're sitting on the sidelines and not producing jobs. Now it appears that their worst fears are coming true.

Instead of raising taxes through the roof and hiding a chunk of those tax hikes from the American people, Washington should pursue policies that encourage growth and will help put the unemployed back to work. One way to do it is with Heritage's "New Flat Tax" which simplifies the tax system and encourages investment.

America doesn't need $2 trillion in higher taxes, especially in a time of a weak recovery. And it certainly doesn't need them slipped through under their noses. The President's budget claims credit for tax cuts he doesn't deserve, hides the true cost of the tax hikes he imposes, and punishes job creators instead of encouraging them to expand. Consider it the President's secret recipe for a weak economy.

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

Origonally published by morningbell@heritage.com on March 2, 2012