Obama: Republicans Want a 'Moat' With 'Alligators' on the Border - President Obama - Fox Nation

Obama: Republicans Want a 'Moat' With 'Alligators' on the Border - President Obama - Fox Nation



Excuse me Mr. President.... You have not done everything to secure the borders! The border fence is less than complete. Border Patrol is still vastly undermanned and equipped. How do you stop illegal immigrants when agents are armed with bean bag rounds and the illegals have lethal firearms sold to them courtesy of the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco? Over 3000 firearms sold to gunrunners upon the authorization of the BATF have been used in crimes in the United States against our citizens. These very same firearms were sold under Project Gunrunner and several other project names run by the BATF. That program, whether poorly or criminally run was intended to stem the flow of illegal immigrants and drug dealers into the United States.



So no, Mr. President, our borders are not secure. Rather than pandering to your special interest groups such as La Raza and the Unions, why not visit the ranchers and homeowners who lost family members and friends to the criminal acts of illegals and drug dealers? Do you really want to be face to face with the families and co-workers of the Immigration, Border and BATF Agents killed or injured by these criminals? Are you willing to help pay the tab for enforcement, prosecution and incarceration for these border states? I thought not!



We do thank you for the idea of building a mote and we have here in South Carolina a very hungry breed of American Alligator which would be ideal to stock it with. It just might be cheaper than the fence, less costly to maintain and I know of whole neighborhoods in the South willing to stock it for free.

How do you battle the Obamacare fanatics?

There are hundreds of flaws in Obamacare. 

To begin with, we already offer free healthcare prior to the Obamacare debacle. Any person can go to any hospital emergency room and they by law MUST be treated. if they show up with just a cold, they must be seen and treated. They may sit waiting for several hours, while serious emergency cases are tended to, and if they have no insurance or means of payment, at intake, they are issued a Medicaid Card and the bill is send to Uncle Sam. Furthermore, local communities, especially in poorer neighborhoods operate clinics, where doctors and staff often serve pro bono (donated services) with low cost or often free services. 

Many religious congregations also operate free or discounted clinics, reaching beyond their neighborhoods into poorer areas.  For those who choose to not go to the hospital or use these clinics, many doctors will see them at discounted rates, for some as pro bono or offer a payment plan.  So we do have healthcare already for every person be they legal or illegal citizens. What Obamacare does is reduce the number of doctors and other medical personal by up to 70% while increasing the number of people in the system. For those entering the system under Medicaid (free) it does not prevent abuse of services. In many markets already the number of paying patients versus Medicaid recipients entering varies 50% to 70% joining Medicaid over purchasing a policy. 

Obamacare also forces patients to pay for services that never will use.  As a woman, I don't need prostrate exams and at my age I don't need fertility care, pre natal or child care.  Forcing me to purchase that is akin to saying when you go to the grocery store you must pay for coffee, soda and other mandatory items, but you can't use them or take them with you to VOLUNTARILY give away to someone else, much less sell them to someone else or seek a refund from the company. 

Obamacare has provisions to CONSCRIPT labor of any individual for any reason without having to compensate those persons for that labor.   Last I knew, that is called slavery and we did abolish that in 1865 with a little skirmish called the "Civil War". 

Obamacare has warrant-less searches of our homes. If the person is found to have items, be it food, beverages, books, weapons, music or anything that is deemed "detrimental" in the opinion of the person doing the search (who is NOT a law enforcement officer, but a politically selected person) the patient could be fined, jailed and even have their children permanently removed and placed in child services to be raised as government sees fit. 
 
Already Obamacare has seen MILLIONS of people lose their private insurance, which they were very happy with.  Obamacare has changed deductibles from a few hundred dollars to tens of thousands.   Monthly rates in many cases is higher than persons rent or mortgage. 

Obamacare rations care, favoring individuals between the ages of 16 to 45 years.   For everyone else, they must have their care approved by a panel selected by the government (current administration) and they are not Doctors, but faceless clerks.  Doctors when they see a patient, before they can prescribe treatment or medication, they must have it approved by the same panels.  If they fail to do so, imagine a heart attack victim awaiting panel approval, they are 1st fined, the 2nd time, the fine is extremely steep, the 3rd time the doctor is jailed. BTW, there are over 65 different panels. 

When you file your income taxes, you must answer extremely personal and private information. I could go on for hours as to what is wrong with Obamacare, but I think after the 1st 100 words, your eyes must be glassing over. 

Yes, I read the Senate & House version of the bill, long before Representative Nancy Pelosi famously said, "We must pass it (the bill) so we can know what's in it..." That is preciously arse backward. Read it, debate it, fix it up, than pass it. What we still have failed to learn as a nation, it big government will inevitably just about always get it wrong!

Will you help advance the fight or sit home?

This coming Tuesday, May 7th our battle to advance the Conservative Cause in the US House of Representatives continues with the Special Election in South Carolina District 1.  The candidates are Democrat Elizabeth Colbert-Busch and Republican Mark Sanford.  The decision should be clear, but the waters have been muddied by main stream media and political pundits.

There is no reason the Libertarians, Independents, Conservatives and Republicans shouldn't get behind Mark Sanford, but we seem to need to bring Republicans to the polls kicking and screaming.  Let's see if we can calm these temper tantrums and speak logically and bring it down to six main points, they are:

1. Mark Sanford did not get the support of the National Republican Congressional Committee which dates back to 1866.  This first and foremost should be the reason we must support and vote for him.  He is not a Washington insider, but he knows Washington as well as they do and they fear him.  He makes the RINO's (Republican In Name Only) apocalytic! He will make enemies, but when he joins forces with Mick Mulvaney and Trey Goudy, they will weld a powerful block of power on behalf of the 1st District in Congress.
2. Mark Sanford has garnered the endorsement of Rand Paul and other conservative leaders and groups.
3. Mark Sanford has a proven track record as a fiscal conservative.  He angered the RINO's in the State House by challenging them to cut pork from the state budget by showing up with the two piglets "Pork" and "Barrel".  Yes, it was a publicity stunt, but he poignantly got the point across.  You have to love his originality and courage to buck the "Old Boy's Network".  His ability to tangle with the RINOs in this state's Congress helped South Carolina rein in a runaway budget and enact state legislation to prevent and hinder Federal intrusion.  It speaks volumes.
4. Yes, Ethic Violations were leveled against Governor Sanford.  However, he publicly stated, that in line with his fiscal conservative policy, he would not fight the charges, in order to save the State the cost of a trial and to avoid unnecessary extended publicity.  The charges were neither proven or disproved.  Which would you have preferred? A protracted drawn out public media circus over a trial  at great taxpayer expense? Or a swift end of the incident with repayment of all budget expenses and fines, which enabled our elected officials to continue to concentrate of the budget and pending legislation.
5. Yes, Mark Sanford had an affair. If having an affair was criminal, half of the married couples would find their spouse in jail.  He has been compared to Bill Clinton by his opponent who inferred he should have been impeached.  We are talking apples and oranges.  Mark Sanford sinned, but he did not commit a crime.  Bill Clinton, not only sinned, he committed a crime. President Clinton was impeached for the criminal act of lying under oath.  He was found guilty of perjury.  Mark Sanford did not perjured himself.  He did not commit a crime. He has been out spoken, honest and repentant about the incident.
6. Recently, charges were leveled against Mark Sanford of violating an order of protection issued to his wife against him preventing him from entering her home.  The incident centered around he escorting his son home on Superbowl Sunday at Half-Time.  Rather than leave his son home alone because his wife was out of time, he attempted to call her on his cell and remained so his son would not be at home, alone watching the game.  Now tell me, who has not had difficult relationships and break-ups?  Divorces are nasty and messy.  Often innocent events get grossly blown out of proportion.  That said, an even more serious question should be asked.  Who violated a court order that sealed the document?  Who committed a crime to publicly expose the incident to derail Mark Sanford's campaign? Why is this crime not being investigated and the culprit brought to justice?

The Progressives are watching this race closely.  Nancy Pelosi has poured funds into Elizabeth Colbert-Busch's campaign in the tune of over $300,000, yet Mrs. Busch claims she will be independent.  Nancy Pelosi has already begun her campaign to regain the Speakers Chair.  For those who say they cannot vote for Mark Sanford, remember this, if you fail to vote then you have helped cast a vote for Colbert-Busch and thus aided Nancy Pelosi in her agenda.

The final question is, if a Nation can forgive Bill Clinton his sins and re-elect him to a second term, then what is stopping us for forgiving Mark Sanford his sins and making him work hard for the Conservative issues?

I for one am voting this Tuesday, will you and help us retain the House of Representatives?

Why I won't support Gay Marriage - Don't get angry yet, read on!

Have you read the 1st Amendment to our Constitution, the Supreme Law of our land?  If not, I'll help you (forgive the sarcasm):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Notice, please the section in RED.  I shall reiterate "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; (of religion).

Now, I'll explain, simply Marriage is a RELIGIOUS RITE, not a governmental function.  CIVIL UNIONS, of which you receive a "Marriage License, which in fact is a CIVIL UNION CERTIFICATE" is governments function.

Simply put, Marriage is Religious.

Civil Unions are Government recognized and subject to all of the rights, benefits and legal ramifications that can not and must not fall under a religious ceremony/rite.

Couples may and do CIVILLY UNITE outside of religious institutions.  Couples unite outside of GOVERNMENT SANCTIONS and are prohibited from receiving the benefits, which the Rainbow League claims to be fighting for.  They unite BY CHOICE for various and inconceivable reasons. They also marry outside of religious institutions - The Civil license which you purchase, that document you get at town hall!  A civil contract between two people to share their lives, assets, child & pet custody.

Marriage is a Religious Rite, where two people agree to unite their souls, hearts and lives under the eyes of God within their Church, Temple, Mosque or Shrine.  One is spiritual - Marriage, the other legal - Civil Unions.

This is the heart of the Gay Marriage issue.  The overthrow of religions and the implementation of government authority over God.

They are attempting to force us to accept the Marriage in place of the Civil Union recognition.  By altering state laws and federal laws, Civil Unions as each state recognizes covers the inheritance benefits of ALL COUPLES, regardless of sexual preference.  The local license issued to recognize that union should be proof enough.  It is not.  By redefining Marriage, you redefine all religions and place them now under government control and regulation.

The calling for Marriage alters the definition BY LAW of a religious rite.  In effect, they redefine a religion by telling all religions what a Marriage is by law.  Therefore, if a religion  recognizes same sex unions as unacceptable in the eyes of God, but is tolerant in society, government has the power to FORCE them to perform same sex marriage.  They can dictate and police your chosen religion!

If you think I am wrong, look to New Jersey, where a Christian organization denied a same sex couple access to their property so they may be married.  A Judge ruled in favor of the couple, stating that social justice must trump religious belief.  This is wrong not only in it's violation of the 1st Amendment which I quoted at the beginning of this rant, but also violated property rights.  Government can now tell you what activities can and can not be performed on your private property.  Finally, what about free speech, to vocally debate ANY issue without penalty?

I do not hate gays/lesbians or anyone else.  I do object when they attempt overtake my religion by imposing their dictates and mores.  It is not just Christianity, of which I am a proud member, but Judaism, Islam and all others, for which I speak.  They should also speak out & NOW!

Government has no business in defining a religions belief, they have no Constitutional basis in defining marriage.  The LEGAL recourse is the recognition of Civil Unions.  If a religion DOES recognize same sex unions, then THEY can perform that marriage, just don't demand my church does so! 

So, I say, what about you?

 

Man Up America with Shane Hazel 03/30 by Southern Sense | Blog Talk Radio

Man Up America with Shane Hazel 03/30 by Southern Sense | Blog Talk Radio

Listen to internet radio with Southern Sense on Blog Talk Radio

MAN UP AMERICA - Challenge to President Obama and all 2012 Presidential Candidates to a Town Hall by Shane T Hazel - Former Marine

Can the Candidates stand the withering question put to them by a Town Hall populated by only Former Marines?
Video Going Viral on You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IktxqsgvP5g&feature=youtu.be

Andrew Jackson said "One man with courage makes a majority ."

A Warning To Oakland PD on Behalf of Occupy Oakland!

DISCLAIMER: We are not responsible for any injuries suffered by the viewer when falling, tripping, side splitting or other possible actions, when laughing your arse off watching this video.

We do not support the actions of "pokesomi", but highly recommend that he:

1 - Get a life
2 - Move out of Mommies House
3 - Contemplate a frontal lobotomy
4 - Get a real job
5 - Walk up to a real cop and repeat his speech
6 - Bitch slap himself for his sheer stupidity!
7 - Lay off the wacky weed - Dude!

THE DREAM ACT - ENACTED WITHOUT CONGRESS

New DHS rules cancel deportations - Washington Times

Oh yes! The Obama Administration has activated the DREAM ACT without enacting the necessary legislation. The barn door has not just been left open, it's been ripped off the hinges. The Washington Times today reports:

"The Homeland Security Department said Thursday it will halt deportation proceedings on a case-by-case basis against illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria such as attending school, having family in the military or are primarily responsible for other family members’ care."

DHS was so kind to usher in this new policy, not with a bang, but with a sneaky back door action. They issued letters to members of Congress, who, by the way are in recess. Janet Napolitano wrote to Congress that DHS and the Justice Department will halt all proceedings that do not have a judges ruling. Each deportation is to be reviewed on a case by case basis. Watch out, the next step would be an expedited pathway to citizenship the would leap over legal immigrants patiently awaiting granting of their citizenship.

PRESIDENTIAL POWER GRAB - ALL HAIL KING OBAMA!

PRESIDENTIAL POWER GRAB

We need to call, email or FAX members of the US Senate and protest an upcoming bill.  S 679 is titled: Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 The complete text is here: Click Here This bill removes from the Senate the power to vote their consent for Senior Government Appointments, placing in the Office of the President powers contrary to those accorded in the Constitution.  While it is tacit that the process to name and approve these appointments needs to be streamlined, it should not be upon the backs of our rights and freedoms declared in the United States Constitution. The Constitution's Appointment Clause reads: "... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments." The Heritage Foundation wrote in a recent article the following: "The Senate Should Preserve, But Speed Up, Its Role in Senior Presidential Appointments When the delegates of the states gathered in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and wrote the Constitution, they distributed the powers of the federal government among two Houses of Congress, a President, and a judiciary, and required in many cases that two of them work together to exercise a particular constitutional power. That separation of powers protects the liberties of the American people by preventing any one officer of the government from aggregating too much power. The Framers of the Constitution did not give the President the kingly power to appoint the senior officers of the government by himself. Instead, they allowed the President to name an individual for a senior office, but then required the President to obtain the Senate's consent before appointing the individual to office. Thus, they required the cooperation of the President and the Senate to put someone in high office. Many of the Framers had practical experience with government and recognized that not every office would be of sufficient authority and consequence as to merit the attention of both the President and the Senate to an appointment to the office. Therefore, they provided a means by which the Congress by law could decide which of the lesser offices of government could be filled by the President alone, a court, or a department head."   By removing these offices from the Senate consent process, they diminish the power of the Senate and increase the power and role of the Presidency, further reducing the Checks and Balances set up by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution.  Furthermore, S 679 does not determine if the offices named in the bill are of "little or no consequence".  Rather, it deems that because the Senate is too slow, the sponsors feel that they should streamline the process and bypass the Senate Confirmation process.  Now wouldn't it make more sense that if speeding up the process of appointments, then the Senate shouldn't the Senators review their internal process and look to modify it?  Also, the Executive Branch  should look internally at their own procedures in an effort to streamline the vetting process which has become over-burdensome and invasive as it travels through the federal bureaucracy before reaching the Senate.  As usual, this legislation uses a sledgehammer to fix a problem, when a Love-Tap is more appropriate.  Legislation should not be necessary to "mandate" that the President tell his staff to cut the layers of bureaucracy, communicate with other departments and agencies (You know - Play nice boys!), nor to tailor the vetting process to the needs of the actual job the appointment is being made.  The "Working Group"created under the Executive Branch and appointed directly by the President not only is an additional power grab, but another layer of bureaucracy we can ill afford and a relinquishment of powers conferred upon Congress by the Constitution. ** More than 200 positions will be affected - this is a sampling of some of the Appointments to be directly under the Power of the President: The Agriculture Department's Commodities Credit Board Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service Administrator The Chief Scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration The Commerce Department's Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information The Defense Department's Assistant Secretary for Networks and Information Integration The Assistant Secretaries of each of the armed services for financial management The Education Department's Assistant Secretary for Management Education's Commissioner of Education Statistics All 7 of the Assistant Secretaries of Energy The Department of Homeland Security's Director of the Office of Domestic Preparedness Homeland Security's Assistant Administrator of FEMA for Grant Programs The Department of the Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Management and Chief Financial Officer The Treasurer of the United States Director of the US Mint The Governors and Alternate Governors of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (amending Section 3 of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act) Governor and Alternate Governor of the Asian Development Bank (amending Section 3(a) of the Asian Development Bank Act) Governor and Alternate Governor of the African Development Fund (amending Section 203(a) of the African Development Fund Act) Managing Director of the Corporation for National and Community Service The Office of Management and Budget's Controller, Office of Federal Financial Management Director of the Community Development Financial Institution Fund  If this doesn't scare you?  How about this fact - The bill sponsor is Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and includes Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) as co-sponsor.  The following Republicans also signed onto S 679: Alexander (TN) Brown (MA) Collins (ME) Johanns (NE) Kyl (AZ) Lugar (IN) McConnell (KY) Hot Air also has a good article on this boondoggle! Read it here!

CONTACT YOUR SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE NOW AND TELL THEM

VOTE NO!

ON S 679 AND ANY COMPANION BILLS THAT WILL DIMINISH THE POWER OF CONGRESS AND INCREASE THE POWER ACCORDED TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH.

YouTube - Obama Bumper Sticker Removal Kit - Available at BSRemoval.com - feat. Brad Stine

YouTube - Obama Bumper Sticker Removal Kit - Available at BSRemoval.com - feat. Brad Stine

I know of several people I can give this to. Do You?

Obama's Parade Rained On!

And the Lord looked down and was displeased with what he saw, for he opened the clouds and sent blistering rain and thunderous lightening upon the crowd.  The One, who claims falsely to be the "Chosen One" has forsaken his sacred duty on this  Memorial Day and his preordained homage to the "Tomb of the Unknown Soldier".  So thus the people were scattered and the Lord gave vengeance to the honorable fallen men and women of this Promised Land.

Health Care 101 - 10 Steps to Better Coverage

Health Care 101

10 Steps to AFFORDABLE & SENSE-ABLE Health Care Coverage
with NO Government Mandate:

#1 - Tort Reform: By Limiting the awards in civil suits and preventing frivolous suits, we can reduce the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and medical facilities, and thus reduce the cost of medical care. Tort lawyers will fight this, however, they will in short time find new prey to latch onto. Furthermore, by reducing the spectre of potential lawsuits, Doctors will be less inclined to order multiple and needless diagnostic tests. The threat of mal-pratice lawsuits force the use of these tests to cover all of their bases. Therefore, Tort Reform will reduce malpractice insurance, reduce unnecessary and costly medical tests, and reduce the overall cost of medical care.

#2 - Health Care Savings Accounts: Most current HSA accounts earn below an 1% interest rate. Normal savings accounts currently earn at least 3%, leaving a difference of over 2.5%. Why would anyone want to place their money into such a small return. Increase the interest rate of HSA account to equal or slightly above the market rate to encourage more people to invest in the HSA accounts. The more people utilize HSA accounts, the less they will tax government funded systems and reduce taxpayer liability.

#3 - Vouchers: For those who fall between the gap of eligibility for Medicare / Medicaid and the ability to afford to purchase an individual or family health insurance plan, (i.e - low & middle class income earners) offer an income based vouchers, to enable them to purchase a policy that fits their needs. Enable families and individuals to continue to make decisions about their own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as befits their life style and accept the consequences of those choices.

#4 - Policy Availability: Cease the monopoly of "in-state" insurance and allow individuals, families and businesses to purchase policies across state lines. This will increase competition reduce the cost of medical insurance and offer customers better benefits. Allow small business to draw from a pool, possibly run through the National Chamber of Commerce, thus lowering the premiums to small businesses, putting them on par with big businesses.

#5 - High Risk Plan Pool: Reasonable standards should be established as to "previous conditions" as to what should be considered deniable or not. For those who are uniformly defined by insurance law standards as "high risk" would fall into a "High Risk" pool and reduce the cost of medical insurance to the regular policy holder, by spreading the cost ratio for the insurance carrier. Furthermore, those who are already covered under a plan and become ill, injured or at risk, cannot have their coverage altered, be penalize or denied medical care.

#6 - Complaint Board: Create a non-partisan Complaint Board made of members without interest in the AMA, have worked as a lobbyist, or for the insurance industry to review denial of claims and medical coverage. By removing the complaint board from individual insurance carriers, you enable a more just review of complaints, reduce the number of complaints, thus reduce the cost of medical insurance. Streamline complaints to be heard in a time critical fashion.

#7 - Tax Cuts / Rebates: Enact Tax Cuts or Rebates to enable and encourage businesses of all sizes to offer employer based insurance plans. Additionally, offer the insurance companies a tax incentive to offer lower rate programs to individuals and small businesses and reduce the overall cost of medical insurance.

#8 - Portable Policies: Life is unpredictable and companies close, people change jobs and retire before they are eligible for Medicare. People should not be penalized for these life changes. For those who change jobs, get laid off or retire early, enable them to keep the coverage they currently have, should they not be offered a better policy. This may require a voucher if they leave a small business that cannot continue coverage, an entity that goes out of business or other unforeseen circumstances.

#9 - No Mandated Coverage: The People under the Constitution have the right to be stupid, although it isn't implicitly written. We also have the right to be secure from unreasonable Search and Seizure, To be secure in our persons, papers and property and To be treated equally. The HR 3200 bill of mandated health care would cause these rights to be violated. If a person gets ill and they chose not to purchase health care, they foot the bill themselves, they hurt themselves. Mandatory Health care effects every taxpayer. Let every family and individual decide for themselves! Additionally, Congress is attempting to extend their powers beyond those allotted to them by the Constitution, bringing HR3200 into the realm of unconstitutionality.

#10 - Electronic Portable Records: A credit card type of data storage, would cost under $20 and take up little space in your pocket or wallet. It will go with and where the patient goes. By remaining on the person of the patient, in cases of emergency medical care, the records are readily available. It can be maintained using the the data strip on the card or uploading data updates to the card. Place an individuals medical record on portable devices or accessible websites "voluntarily". Many of us have a real fear of over accessibility of medical records. Allow us the choice of methods and a discount for those who use portability. The ability of Doctors and medical facilities to access your complete medical record can reduce misdiagnosis and decrease cost of care for redundant tests. However, privacy concerns must be addressed. There is no reason for a podiatrist to look at a patients record of hair replacement.


Tell me what YOU think? Do I make sense, can we make this happen?