RSS Feed for Socialistic in NatureCategory: Socialistic in Nature

IRA’S and 401K’s ARE At RISK Of Government Confiscation!

The Labor and Treasury department, along with the Obama Administration ARE MOVING FORWARD with The Nationalization-Confiscate IRA’s and 401K’s.

Why do they Want Your Retirement Accounts?

YOUR equity will be used as collateral; in an attempt to balance the Trillion Dollar U.S. Deficit.

This will be done in an effort to once again make the United States credit worthy to China and other buyers of our debt.

The Most Recent meeting held on September 14th and 15th, between the Labor and Treasury Departments outlined the Course of Action.

The agenda is called “Lifetime Income Options for Retirement Plans”.

The Federal Government will Control an estimated $3.613 Trillion Dollars in IRA’s and $2.350 Trillion Dollars in 401ks.

Your Equity will be placed in U.S. Treasury Bonds, that will Pay out an estimated 3% annually.

One major clause is that upon retirement, the value of the Your Retirement Account will be placed into Annuities. Once an individual Dies, the Value of the Account will Automatically become property of the Government. The Program will be Structured much like Social Security Accounts (the biggest Ponzi Scheme ever created).

The Only way Government would get away with what will be “The Largest Heist Known To Man” is by Allowing or Creating a Major Financial Market Meltdown!

An ageing person who sees his or her Retirement Account Drop 50%-60%in a matter of Days…. Is More willing to take a Conservative Approach… Even if it means “Government-Guaranteed Income”.

The move toward Nationalization of IRA’s & 401ks will Initially be Offered as an Option. Those who are Unwilling to accept Government Run Retirement Accounts, will be Stripped of their Current Account Tax Benefits…

You’ll be Forced to Pay Taxes on your Holdings, Automatically Wiping Out One-Third of your Wealth!

This will Take place After the Stock Market Drops an Estimated 40-60%!

If the Following Indicators are Right… A Stock Market Crash is Eminent!

* Unsustainable U.S. Debt
* Real un-employment continues to Rise
* Housing market continues to Drop
* Failing Banking System (2-7 Banks Fail Weekly)
* Lower Quality of Life (1 in 8 Americans are now on Food Stamps)

Another Massive Crisis is Brewing!

Remember The Government Phrase: “Never waste a good crisis”

Obamacare A good illustration…

This is long but worth reading

Passed on by my friend Flint

Subject: I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is
what ensued:

They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard the young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” The young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. They are all crooks and thieves and don’t deserve all of that money.” Another said, “The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.” At this, I had heard enough.

I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.
“I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?”

They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point. “I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so ever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding
“Hell Yeah!” fills the room. “Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money free bargain.”

I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.” Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” I smiled and said,I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.” They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home.
Go take your meds, old man.”

I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.” They gaped at me for a moment. “Hell, I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them. “Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from
the privacy of their table. “Oh hell yeah! Where do I sign up?” I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature. “Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice. All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.

“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.” I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumb founded. “Are you out of your freaking mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated.

“You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement,” was all I said. The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain herself. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people. “You can shove that stupid deal up; you’re a ** old man, I want no part of it.” exclaimed the now infuriated young man.

“You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.” At this, the table of
celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal. After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent.

“What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it unto you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom.” With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. “This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”

I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was surprised by applause. The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you Sir, these kids don’t understand Liberty these days.” He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one, it is an honor to pick up the tab.” I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.
Use reason; it is the closest you are going to get to Godly conduct.

Clifford A. Wright

God Loves You Just the Way You Are but He Loves You too Much to Leave You That Way.
Rest in God alone, my soul, for my hope comes from Him. He alone is my rock and my salvation, my stronghold; I will not be shaken. My salvation and glory depend on God; my strong rock, my refuge is in God. Trust in Him at all times, you people; pour out your hearts before Him. God is our refuge.
Selah Psalm 62:5-8 HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible®) -VIA- Jean Schriever

So you, as a US Citizen want to criticize the President?

Check out these two stories that show what can happen if you criticize the current President:


Cute, Huh?


Freedom Finder

Injunction sought to halt ‘Obamacare’

‘The term ‘nanny state’ does not even begin to describe what we will have wrought’

Posted: April 06, 2010
8:47 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Freedom Finder

A legal team of experts on civil liberties and human rights is asking a federal court in Michigan to grant a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the “individual mandate” in “Obamacare,” warning that if imposed, it effectively will destroy the nation.

“The term ‘nanny state’ does not even begin to describe what we will have wrought,” argues the brief filed by the Thomas More Law Center.

The organization previously filed a lawsuit on behalf of four Michigan residents who object to the government’s plan to force them to buy health-care insurance and pay for abortions – or be penalized.

The case was brought to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking a halt to the legislation.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Now the law firm has filed a request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the imposition of the financial demands on private citizens.

“If Congress can use the Commerce Clause to force people to purchase insurance based on the mere fact that they exist or face federal penalties, then there is no limit to the power of Congress. Our case is about the constitutional limits of our federal government. Everyone agrees the health care system needs reform. But that doesn’t mean Congress is allowed to violate the Constitution in the process,” said Thomas More Law Center President Richard Thompson.

The brief cited a 1994 Congressional Budget Office report stating, “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

The brief also cites previous court opinions in which alarms have been raised over such a sweeping action.

“There is no enumerated power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to mandate that plaintiffs and other American ‘residents’ purchase health-care coverage or face a penalty. No matter how convinced defendants – or even the American public in general – may be that the Health Care Reform Act is in the public interest, their political objectives can only be accomplished in accord with the Constitution,” the brief states.

Besides a clear problem with the Commerce Clause if the government is allowed to demand residents purchase health insurance, “Obamacare” also conflicts with the First Amendment’s conscience and free expression of religion provisions as well as the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection provisions, the brief explains.

But the courts, the brief explains, are “a guardian of those fundamental liberties, and it possess the constitutional authority to enjoin government acts that tread upon them.”

The case is a dispute over fundamental liberties, the brief said.

“The act forces uninsured persons, such as plaintiffs, to purchase private health-care coverage not because they are even tangentially engaged in the production, distribution or consumption of goods or commodities or any other commercial activity, but for no other reason than they, the uninsured residents, exist,” the brief argues.

“The federal government has never in the history of the United States attempted to stretch the Commerce Clause to include the regulation of inactivity,” the brief argues.

“For the first time in our history, Congress has cited the Commerce Clause as authority to regulate a man or woman sitting in the privacy of his or her own home doing absolutely nothing but breathing.”

The demise of the nation could not be far behind, the brief warns.

“If this is what the Commerce Clause has come to mean, it means the Commerce Clause is the enumerated power of the federal government without the need for any other enumerations because it would permit absolute power. …”

It would, in fact, be the “single omnipresent national polity with absolute power to regulate all spheres of human existence.”

Under this concept, “Liberty is no longer an unalienable right possessed by the individual, but a political privilege or license granted by the state – that being the federal government. This state of affairs effectively reverses the American Revolution and terminates the great experiment founded in the constitutional republic begun by our Founding Fathers.”

If such a provision is allowed, then the government would face no obstacles in ordering private citizens “to engage in affirmative acts, under penalty of law, such as taking vitamins, losing weight, joining health clubs, buying a GMC truck, or purchasing an AIG insurance policy, among others.”

The case was launched by the Thomas More Law Center and attorney David Yerushalmi as soon as Obama signed the legislation March 23.

None of the four Michigan plaintiffs has private health care insurance, and they assert supporting abortion is contrary to their religious beliefs.

Robert Muise, Thomas More’s senior trial counsel, and Yerushalmi prepared the lawsuit.

The original complaint asserts the health-care reform law imposes unprecedented governmental mandates that trample on the personal and economic freedoms of Americans in violation of their constitutional rights.

It also alleges Congress had no authority under the Commerce Clause to pass the law and that by usurping the power reserved for the states and the people, Congress violated the Tenth Amendment.

The lawsuit also contends that by forcing private citizens to fund abortion, contrary to their rights of conscience and the free exercise of religion, Congress violated the First Amendment.

Thompson acknowledged Americans agree the health care system needs reform, but “they don’t want a federal takeover of the system in the process. And they don’t want reform by trampling on our Constitution.”

Racism and Obamacare

by Star Parker

Star Parker 040510


Like chewing gum stuck to the heel of your shoe, racism seems to be stuck forever to American public discourse. No matter what we do or what happens, somebody will find a racial motive.

Democrats have passed government health care with no Republican votes. Their leadership threatened and bribed their own members to eek out a majority. They resorted to an arcane procedure that maybe 100 people in the whole country can explain in order to pass a massive bill that polls show a majority of Americans don’t want.

The federal government, for the first time ever, will force every American to buy, with a big chunk of their income, a product designed by government bureaucrats, with an army of IRS agents snooping on each of us to make sure we did it.

And how are many liberals explaining why so many Americans are ticked off?

It’s because our president is black. It’s about racism.

Even me. I’m steamed. And even though I happen to be black – I’ve even spoken at some tea party rallies – I still must be a racist.

Obama’s approval rating has dropped from 70% when he was elected to 50% today. His disapproval has skyrocketed from 10% when he was elected to 42% today.

Per the Washington Post, in January 2009 58% of Americans said that the Obama presidency helped race relations. By January 2010, this was down to 40%.

Has this wave of disillusionment with Obama been driven by a sudden realization that the man Americans elected president is black?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s approval has dropped from 41% in January 2009 to 36% today and her disapproval has risen from 42% to 54%. Is she black?

Were the raucous townhalls last summer – which gave birth to the tea party movement- where irate constituents gave their representatives a piece of their mind about Obamacare, racially motivated?

Care to understand what all this is really about?

Consider a powerful observation about a former time by one of America’s great historians, Jacques Barzun. Barzun was a professor and dean at Columbia University and a Presidential Medal of Freedom winner.

“We make a great mistake in calling the American War of Independence, the “American Revolution,” he wrote. “In 1776 the Americans rebelled against recent rules and impositions. What they wanted was not a new type of government, but the old type they enjoyed. They were used to many freedoms, which they claimed as the immemorial rights of Englishmen. Once they defeated the English armies and expelled the Loyalists, they went back to their former ways, which they modestly enlarged, and codified in the Bill of Rights.”

In a similar fashion today, Americans are rebelling as the freedom we have enjoyed, freedom which defines life in this country, is being taken away and new “rules and impositions” are being imposed.

It’s not about theory or some abstract ideology. The intense feelings flow from losing what you have and what you know is vital.

What is new today is we can no longer continue the illusion of having our cake and eating it. We can no longer afford to be both a big government entitlement state and a free, creative, and prosperous nation. It’s the prosperity created by our freedom that has financed the entitlements. But now the entitlements are overtaking and strangling our freedom.

So now is a time of choosing. We’re either going to remain the land of the free or transform into the land of the bureaucrat.

The antipathy of activists toward Mr. Obama is not about how he looks but what he has done. That he has chosen and imposed on us the path of bureaucracy.


The Obama Tri-fecta:

Hussein Obama just completed the UNHOLY and ANTI-AMERICAN TRI-FECTA:

1st president in 110 years to miss the annual Army-Navy Football Game.
1st president to not attend any Christmas religious observance.
1st president to stay on vacation after a terrorist attack.

What a great AMERICAN…

The Way Things Really Are 10/29/09

This came from a financial blog. The guy hits the nail right on the head.

The speaker of the house today gleefully announced as only she can do that a sweeping new bill has worked its way through the house chamber and once enacted, will provide affordable health INSURANCE for nearly every American.

To do this, the new bill will create a public health INSURANCE company to compete with private insurance companies, require everyone to have insurance, subsidize low income workers by taking from others (again) and require large businesses to cover their employees. Large businesses will presumably (the bill did not seem to consider what large businesses will do to make up the added cost) either pass the cost on to the consumer (another hidden tax further eroding discretionary income) or if competing with foreign manufacturers will probably just go out of business, but heck, congress has been doing that to our workers for a long time so that is nothing new. We will just keep extending unemployment benefits and stick the bill to the next several generations.

The stated price tag for this insurance coverage is estimated at only $894 billion. This $894 billion dollar boondoggle is the result of trying to cover 25 million un-insured with health INSURANCE. Do the math. That is $35,760 for each un-insured. Hey, it’s a government program so what did you expect? A bargain? Consider this. The ancestors of today’s demo goons thought social security would only require $30 per worker per year. Today, the payroll tax bite for that little gem and its offspring Medicare is up to $15,300 per worker per year which is I guess just a Washington style rounding error from the original $30 per year estimate.

So don’t be surprised if the $894 billion swells to the stratosphere just as every other government program has done. The insanity in all this is Obama actually praised Medicare many times as being a good example of what can be done in having the government provide this sort of program. I guess he does not realize that Medicare is now under funded by nearly $40 Trillion. But hey, there is no accountability if they are wrong and the future will get the bill, not you and me, so why even care?

We are still in a deep recession, yet here we go again, being led by Obama, down another path of treating the recession with higher taxes, higher costs, and more government spending. And in this case, the government has done absolutely nothing to reign in the originally stated problem of the cost of health CARE itself. This is because the original goal of making health CARE more affordable was very quickly shown to be a difficult goal, so Obama and his spin-minions changed course in March and began marching toward the revised goal of making health INSURANCE more affordable, thus creating a “crisis” in health INSURANCE. Government just loves a “crisis”.

Question. How many long distance passenger rail lines of significance do we have in this country? Other than Amtrak? None that I know of. Keep that thought in mind, because the government has been subsidizing Amtrak and Amtrak in turn has charged less for a ticket than its costs would otherwise indicate. Hence, there are no other long distance passenger rail lines because the private sector is not allowed to just print money. It has to earn it. So private enterprise can not compete with government.

Apply this Amtrak analogy to the fact that the government is going to sell health INSURANCE and compete against the private health INSURANCE companies. The only reason to buy the government’s insurance would be that it is cheaper, that is a given. So, if it too is subsidized just like Amtrak (remember the $894 billion estimate – that is the estimated cost of subsidy at this point), how then is there to be a different result? How are we to avoid wiping out most private sector health INSURANCE companies? This is a very real possibility, but we should not question Obama as that is un American.

These same goons in government garb recently tried to provide housing for nearly everyone in America by creating two public GSE’s (Fannie and Freddie) that were to help lower the cost of a MORTGAGES instead of increasing discretionary incomes (cutting taxes) or making the cost of HOUSING itself more affordable. Do you remember what happened? The cost of HOUSING increased due to the bubble demand created by the government assisted mortgage programs. The result, HOUSING costs for everyone went up, and then the MORTGAGES failed and many more people than were originally helped saw their life savings wiped out as the stock market failed, as the value of their real estate declined, and as the round of foreclosures still working its way through our economy put people in the streets, literally, after losing their jobs and their houses. In the end, the government’s attempt to provide a government assist to home ownership actually deprived millions of their homes, and many more millions of their livelihood. Did socialism work? No. So heck, let’s try it again anyway.

So we are now going to spend $35,000 per uninsured, raise the cost of doing business, become even less competitive with overseas suppliers, and hope the taxpayer is still too dumb to see the real cost of doing this. So I say yippee. We have now “fixed” the health INSURANCE “crisis”. In Washington speak, “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste”.

What have we done to make health CARE more affordable? Nothing. We gave up on that “crisis” in March because changing that paradigm would have stepped on too many toes belonging to too many special interests that donate too many funds to Political Action Committees just as did the GSE’s and the banking Industry in the last debacle. So with health CARE costs continuing to climb, and health INSURANCE costs capped at will by the government (we will probably have another Czar, yippee again), the health INSURANCE industry is going to be in for a rough ride, just as a passenger rail line would be in if it tried to compete with Amtrak. We are not supposed to think of these things. Instead, just trust Pelosi. After all, she is from a state that is now broke. So let’s be more like California.

The bottom line is simply this. In Washington, one “crisis” is as good as another, because a “crisis” is a blank check to expand the role of government. So, if you don’t have a crisis, you can just create one. Housing, global warming, health INSURANCE, etc., etc. See what I mean. With every crisis, you lose more of your freedoms and government gets even bigger, employing more and more people that do nothing of value at great cost, pushing the deficits higher in the process.

America, I am convinced, will fail from the enemy within.

Do you Believe John Stossel?

ABC’s John Stossel Destroys/Pulverizes/Crushes Obama’s anti-American ‘Health Care’ Plan

Political Power at the Heart of the Democrat’s Proposed Health Care Legislation

Political power, rather than substance, is at the heart of the Democrats’ proposed health care legislation. Admission of that power-politics reality was the most significant occurrence in a very odd town-hall meeting Tuesday night held by Virginia Democratic Rep. James P. Moran. It is now clearer than ever that plaintiffs’ lawyers collectively are the political powerhouse running the health care show.
A constituent at the meeting, quite reasonably, asked Mr. Moran the following question: "There is $200 billion of savings over 10 years if you have [lawsuit] reform, and nobody loses but the lawyers. Why isn’t [lawsuit] reform in the bill?"
On this question, as on more than half of those asked by the audience, Mr. Moran deferred to his guest, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, to provide a response. Mr. Dean’s answer was candid: "When you go to pass an enormous bill like that, the more stuff you put in it, the more enemies you make. The reason that tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else they were taking on, and that is the plain and simple truth…. This bill has enough enemies. The more groups you take on, the more enemies you make."
When Mr. Moran retook the microphone, he praised the constituent for "a very good question" and added, "that’s your answer … a good answer."
Of course, the answer was good only in that it accurately described the political situation. On substance, the answer was terrible. Neither Mr. Moran nor Mr. Dean could defend the lack of tort reform in the bill because there is no good, substantive reason for refusing to rein in the wealthy plaintiffs’ bar. There is no good, substantive reason for refusing to protect doctors from ridiculous jackpot justice while the rest of us pay through the nose for the cost of additional malpractice insurance.

The only reason the lawyers escape scot-free is that they give so much money – 95 percent of their federal campaign donations in virtually every election cycle – to the Democrats who are writing the bills.
To be blunt, this mollycoddling of lawyers is legislative malpractice. In state after state that has tried medical malpractice reform – there are 25 in all – costs have gone down, the number of doctors settling in the state has gone up, and patient services have improved. As far back as 2003, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported that high litigation costs contributed to declines in health care quality. In 2007, researchers Jonathan Klick of Florida State University and Thomas Stratmann of George Mason University reported that malpractice reforms also appear to have a substantial, beneficial effect on historically underserved populations – for instance, by cutting black infant mortality rates by 6 percent.
Would-be reformers who refuse to stop lawsuit abuse give lie to their claims to be putting patients first. Mr. Dean’s candor should awaken congressional Democrats. The public won’t trust them to reform health care until they stop kowtowing to the plaintiffs’ lawyers who treat them as political chattel.

End-of Life Decisions

Keeping End-of-Life Decisions, Our Decision

by Newt Gingrich

Emotions are high in the debate over the future of our health care, and for good reason. What we are discussing are deeply personal, often deeply emotional issues.

I think every American should have the opportunity my father-in-law had to have a conversation with their doctor about end of life care that is totally private, in which there are no standards set by the government and no fear of the bureaucracy.
We had that kind of an experience at Gunderson Lutheran Hospital in Lacrosse, Wisconsin, where my father-in-law died.
At Gunderson – without any mandates from government – 92 percent of patients have advanced directives setting out what kind of care they want at the end of life.
Patients are treated with compassion, dignity and humanity. Families are engaged. Doctors are allowed to do what they think is best for patients, without fearing that the federal government is looking over their shoulders.


Health Care Isn’t Politics.
It’s Personal.

End-of-life care is becoming a political football – and that’s precisely why so many Americans are fearful for the future of their health care.
Because it’s not politics. It’s personal.
And the test of any health care reform proposal is whether it gives us more power to control deeply personal decisions, or whether it takes that power away.
What follows is an article I wrote for the Los Angeles Times this weekend that explains how health care reform in Washington threatens to take us down the road to government control, and what we can do to stop it.

  Your friend,
Newt Gingrich
   Newt Gingrich

Wordpress SEO Plugin by SEOPressor