Soon after Medicare started, the government was collecting billions. Congress saw a great opportunity and took it. They broke open all those lockboxes, took the cash, put it in the General Account, and replaced your money with government-issued I.O.U.s. The government is good for it, right? Anyway, what’s the difference?
There are two huge differences. First, hard cash can be invested and grow: I.O.U.s cannot and do not. Second, your Medicare savings were supposed to be spent on your personal medical expenses. In the General Account, Congress could spend that money on any pork project, for political payback, or whatever crony capitalism scheme they liked. In short, the money Medicare needs to pay for your care isn’t there, by Congressional action.
Ted Cruz made me cry
By Lloyd Marcus
At Liberty University, Sen Ted Cruz officially threw his hat into the ring as a contender for president in 2016. Cruz’s speech brought tears to my eyes. It was inspiring, boldly Christian, and unapologetically conservative – vowing to stand for liberty.
Cruz touting the greatness of our legacy as Americans gave me the same goosebumps I felt as a young voter hearing the same pride, optimism, and high expectations from Ronald Reagan.
But folks, we have heard it all before: promises to repeal Obamacare, to stop Obama’s illegal amnesty for illegals and all of Obama’s other assaults on our freedoms and trashing of our Constitution. The GOP has tricked us before. We conservatives are fed up, tired of being used and abused, suffering Battered Conservative Syndrome.
Cruz said everything we conservatives have been longing to hear. As I have stated numerous times, it always comes back to character. Can we trust Cruz to follow through on his campaign promises when we get him elected?
In our tour bus, I met Ted Cruz and hung out with his awesome dad, Rafael, at a Tea Party rally in Texas.
This is not a formal endorsement, but Ted Cruz is a man of character. I believe we can trust him.
In an interview about persecution of Christians in the Middle East and restrictions on religious freedom in the United States, evangelical preacher Franklin Graham said America faces radically different issues than those that confronted his father, Billy Graham, and stressed that “we’re losing our country,” that “the foundations of this country are collapsing and falling apart.”
Within the first couple of months of Obama’s illegal immigration executive action, at least ninety thousand Social Security cards were issued to illegal aliens.
Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com
The first response to these stats and to these profiles should be intense sympathy. We now have multiple generations of people caught in recurring feedback loops of economic stress and family breakdown, often leading to something approaching an anarchy of the intimate life.
But it’s increasingly clear that sympathy is not enough. It’s not only money and better policy that are missing in these circles; it’s norms. The health of society is primarily determined by the habits and virtues of its citizens. In many parts of America there are no minimally agreed upon standards for what it means to be a father. There are no basic codes and rules woven into daily life, which people can absorb unconsciously and follow automatically.
Reintroducing norms will require, first, a moral vocabulary. These norms weren’t destroyed because of people with bad values. They were destroyed by a plague of nonjudgmentalism, which refused to assert that one way of behaving was better than another. People got out of the habit of setting standards or understanding how they were set.
Next it will require holding people responsible. People born into the most chaotic situations can still be asked the same questions: Are you living for short-term pleasure or long-term good? Are you living for yourself or for your children? Do you have the freedom of self-control or are you in bondage to your desires?
One of the key arguments made by constitutional nationalists is that the Constitution provides that “We the People of the United States . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution.” The idea is that a single people throughout the country as a whole established the Constitution and therefore sovereignty resides at the national level in that people.
Moreover, this national sovereignty negates any inferences that might otherwise follow from the idea that the Constitution consists of a compact of states. While this is certainly one interpretation of this language, it is certainly not the only one. And here I want to suggest an intermediate understanding – one that is in between national and states rights sovereignty.
Fox News’s Catherine Herridge reports (via Fox’s Greta Van Susteren) that, in an internal 2011 State Department cable, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directed employees not to use personal email accounts for official business due to security concerns. Nevertheless, throughout her tenure as Secretary, Mrs. Clinton used personal email accounts to conduct her State Department business – setting up her own personal servers in her New York home precisely to avoid the State Department system under which government electronic communications were maintained and disclosed pursuant to federal law.
Yasir Abdulla, 36, of Yorkshire left his wife and four kids to battle the maniacal extremists in his Kurdish homeland, The Sun reported.
“I hate IS because of what happened to an old Kurdish woman from a nearby tribe,” he said. “Her son was captured by IS fighters and taken as a prisoner to Mosul. She was determined to find her son and went to IS headquarters and asked to see him.”
He said the thugs told her to rest after her long journey and offered her the food before taking her to her son.
“They brought her cups of tea and fed her a meal of cooked meat, rice and soup. She thought they were kind,” he said.“But they had killed him and chopped him up and after she finished the meal and asked to see her son they laughed and said, ‘You’ve just eaten him,’” Abdulla told The Sun.
In the past eighty years Democrats chose to use the rhetoric of Marxism to construct an entitlement state. Since FDR the Democrat Party has also used its political power to expand government’s control of all aspects of life. This expansion has long outgrown its mission of reducing exploitation of workers and has created a new form of social exploitation. In short, Democrats have replaced Marx’s two classes, the bourgeoisie and proletariat, with two new, different classes based on government control of the economy and society. These two Democrat-created classes are the Democrat Bourgeoisie and the Entitlementariat.
To test if this Marxist view of the Democrats’ entitlement economy fits the economic and social facts, it is useful to review the social and economic status of the Democrat bourgeoisie and the entitlementariat.
The entitlementariat may have replaced the proletariat but then one can ask if Marx’s bourgeoisie has been replaced by the Democrat Bourgeoisie. The answer is “yes” since Democrats, not Republicans, have created the entitlementariat and they have complete power over them. And just by coincidence they use this power to transfer the wealth of the nation to themselves through campaign contributors from public sector unions and accumulation of personal wealth.
Everywhere Democrat bourgeoisie are in power, the middle-class workers are exploited and subjugated, while those who are in poverty are forced into the entitlementariat. In Illinois, a prime example of a state dominated by Democrats, we can see what Democrats have done to transfer wealth away from the middle class in order to make themselves elite bourgeoisie and support the entitlementariat. Each household in Chicago now “owes” the Democrat bourgeoisie $88,000 for their pensions and bond debt. This amount increases weekly. And most of this debt was created through public pension funds that go only to members of the Democrat bourgeoisie. So middle-class workers have to subsidize the Democrat bourgeoisie’ retirement of leisure. Elite Democrat Bourgeoisie such as Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the Clintons all earn millions through their government “service.”
Up to now, since America is a wealthy country, it was temporarily able to afford to subsidize the entitlementariat. But no longer. The money needed to sustain the entitlementariat is obtained from national debt which will, in the long run, result in the oppression of the working class.
First Barack Obama decided to overreach and extend amnesty by executive order. One judge in Texas has told him no and Republicans are hanging their hat on that judge’s order.
Then the FCC decided to declare internet a public utility. They overreached, rushed it through, and committed to as little transparency as possible to make it happen. Congress did nothing on this front and the FCC decided to replace the Congress on the matter.
Now there are reports that Barack Obama, by executive order and agency regulation, will curtail the manufacture of certain ammunition.
Again and again and again the President of the United States has met the boundaries of his powers and stepped across them. The Senate is now on the verge of confirming his Attorney General appointee who sees no limits to the power of Octavius Obama.
Given Barack Obama’s continuous overreaching of power, I must now ask if it is time to consider impeachment proceedings. Is it even possible?
Of course some of you think I mean against Barack Obama. No, can we impeach, remove from office, or otherwise put metaphorical cement shoes on Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)HERITAGE ACTIONSCORECARDRep. John BoehnerN/AHouse Republican Average61%SEE FULL SCORECARDN/A and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)67%?
The only reason Barack Obama can and is doing what he is doing is because Rep. John Boehner (R-OH)N/A and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)67% have enabled, emboldened, and incentivized him.