ACTION

The Tea Party is my haven of like minded thinkers. I have come here to tell my story to those of you who I know do care about illegal immigration and its effect on less fortunate Americans. Many of whom were born into poverty and are seeing foreigners invading their country and taking jobs that should be available to our citizens first... last... and always. Our children have had an enormous debt thrust upon them and still must have their daily bread. I am an angry 55 year old American peon that intends for the horror story of his last ten years of life become known to the citizens firsthand, to be judged by you. It begins here and now. I am applying for the position of poster child in this fight. The attached resume' is impressive. My experience will likely turn your stomach and serve as food for thought, if you mange to keep it down.. I have embarked on a grass roots campaign in an effort to have some sort of positive and thought inspiring impact on the problem of illegal immigration. I make a humble request that you visit my link to this campaign, view consider and share. NEMO PRASENS NISI INTELLIGAT or simply put; one who is present understands. I wish to extend to all members of The Tea Party along with happenstance viewers a safe and MERRY CHRISTMAS. " GOD: Grant me the SERENITY to ACCEPT the things I CANNOT CHANGE. The COURAGE to CHANGE THE THINGS I CAN, and the WISDOM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE" AMEN. God Bless the USA. Those who do not like these words or my actions can proceed straight to Hell. Thank You from someone who appreciates his roots in the land of the free and home of the brave.      https://www.indiegogo.com/project/preview/d6b514d2

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Scott Henson @ "Grits For Breakfast reported this week that a Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruling has allowed "...another court-created federal exception to the exclusionary rule in state-level search and seizure cases that allows evidence to be admitted in the face of clear police misconduct, even though Texas has a statutory exclusionary rule that - unlike the court-created federal version - includes no exceptions on its face..."

Henson says:

"...The case - Wehrenberg v. State - involved a drug bust in Parker County in which officers received a tip from a confidential informant that the defendant and others were "fixing to" cook meth later that evening. Three or four hours later, after midnight, officers illegally entered Mr. Wehrenberg's residence "without a search warrant and without consent," handcuffing everyone inside and escorting them all into the front yard, conducting a "protective sweep" of the house. Then they held everyone outside in handcuffs for an hour and a half while one of the officers went to find a judge to secure a search warrant. The search warrant affidavit did not inform the judge that officers had already entered the premises and detained everyone found in the house. The judge issued a warrant, police found contraband, and charged Mr. Wehrenberg with a second degree felony, for which he was convicted..."

In a nut-shell, cops allegedly lied to a judge to get a warrant.  Ostensibly and arguably, as the defense might have contended, the "evidence" seized was taken illegally and should not have been allowed.

Yes, there was a crime allegedly committed or about to be committed, and the argument that judicial action was warranted in order to thwart that crime was warranted might pass inspection at the muster of those same troopers that contend the ends justifies the means.  But what if this becomes a precedent for law enforcement to target someone for political reasons?

Sound familiar?

Just look at what happened with the NSA. Ostensibly NSA'ers were given permission to spy on terrorists via electronic means. Somehow, the geniuses at the NSA, fueled by the enthusiasm of the new toys of digital espionage, extrapolated that they could spy on Americans just "cuz" you never know who might be plotting what. And of course, they even got a special court to decide when it was ok to do that, which from what most now are able to discern, is, anytime they feel like it.

Partner that with the fact that Congressional oversight committee members get campaign contributions from government "intelligence" contractors, and there you have a hot recipe for an illegal plate of enchiladas certain to result in a severe case of Constitutional indigestion.

Where should the lines get drawn then?  At the local and state level?  Or at the point where you have wholesale violation of Constitutional rights being violated for "national security" reasons.

When does it become "too late?" to restore your Freedoms?

And, as Henson writes,

"...In that light, whether or not the majority's hair-splitting legalisms are valid, the net effect of the ruling in this particular instance was to allow police to gloss over actions that everyone agrees were illegal conduct. Bottom line: In Texas, if citizens break the law, they go to jail. If police break the law, some activist judge will find or create a reason to excuse their misbehavior, which is precisely what happened in this case..."

And at the federal level, when it involves your "national security," when millions of Americans are being subjected to violations of privacy, and with respect to the possession of their information, illegal search and seizure, shall we just twiddle our thumbs and turn the nation back over to King George?

Vanguard of Freedom

By Oscar Y. Harward

'Duck Dynasty' star, Phil Robertson, has been suspended by A&E for sharing his personal Constitutional and Biblical beliefs.

How many other Christian values are being rejected in TV programming?

Homosexuality and lesbian’s lifestyle is being ‘crammed down our throats’; as Christians are being forced to accept their lifestyle as normal even though this activity is immoral, unethical, and unhealthy.

How can Preachers and/or Christians explain the Bible, otherwise; the governing Book our Founding Fathers used in ‘creating’ our US Constitution?  Read (y)our Bible, Constitution, and the Federalist Papers!

Leviticus 18:22 (KJV) 22  Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 (KJV) 13  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Romans 1:26-27 (KJV) 26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:26-27 (KJV) 26  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

A&E must reevalute their ‘unlawful’ decision, apologize to Phil Robertson, and reinstate his television show.

I recently read a post, on one of my numerous Conservative newletters that reported over 100 individual legislators from either 32 or 34 of the states had conviened a meeting in Mt. Vernon.  The focus of the meeting was to discuss and establish rules and procedures for the conduct and the calling of a Constitutional Convention.  While I have done some internet searches and found a number of story links, none give a list of those in attendance or the individual states they represent.  What is the story?  Does anyone have more info?  As a California resident I'm pretty much out in the cold when it comes to my political leanings.  We do have some conservatives, but I don't know if any were involved.  

By Oscar Y. Harward

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Democrats did not follow ‘Rule 22’ requiring a 3/5 vote to make Senate changes in approving President Obama’s Judicial nominees.  President Obama is appointing Judicial nominees with more ‘left-wing’ political views that may be inserted within their rulings’ as he/she rules.  Senate Democrats are approving these Obama nominees; loading up our Federal Courts across America with President Obama’s Judicial nominees whom likely will ‘order’ for more anti-Constitution and more anti-American assessments as more well-defined by our Founding Fathers.

Furthermore, Sen. Reid and Senate Democrats change of ‘Rule 22’ has already been expanded to include other legislation(s).  Our Founding Fathers anticipated, proposed, and included a ‘filibuster’ measure, with their signatures, as a protection to guard ‘WE, THE PEOPLE’ from change(s) made by a ‘radical’ government.

Under Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) and the Senate majority Democrat Party’s change to stop all ‘filibusters’, Sen. Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats ‘crammed more Liberalism and anti-Constitutional’ positions down (y)our throats without any right to object’; even for 49 of the 100 US Senators. 

Sen. Reid and Senate Democrats Constitutional changes would have required a 3/5 vote of approval for ‘Rule 22’ Senate changes.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

At the top, The Democrats, next down, The Republicans, Bottom, American Citizens, We have lost our legs.

Dianne Feinstein, member of the United States Senate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein said today that the Judge that ruled that the National Security Agency's records collection program was unconstitutional, is wrong in his ruling.

Feinstein issued a statement saying:

"...Judge Leon made a preliminary ruling yesterday that the NSA business records program may be unconstitutional. The preliminary injunction was stayed pending appeal by the government...It should be noted that last month Judge Jeffrey Miller of the Southern District of California found the NSA business records program to be constitutional...Judge Miller was ruling on a real world terrorist case involving the February 2013 conviction of Basaaly Moalin and three others for conspiracy and providing material support to the Somali terrorist organization Al-Shabaab. In that case, the NSA provided the FBI with information gleaned from an NSA query (under Section 215) of the call records database that established a connection between a San Diego-based number and a number known to be used by a terrorist with ties to al Qaeda..."

Feinstein said that:

"...In upholding these convictions, Judge Miller cited Smith v. Maryland (1979) the controlling legal precedent and held the defendants had ‘no legitimate expectation of privacy’ over the type of telephone metadata acquired by the government—which is the ‘to’ and ‘from’ phone numbers of a call, its time, its date and its duration. There is no content, no names and no locational information acquired...Judge Leon’s opinion also differs from those of at least 15 separate federal district court judges who sit, or have sat, on the FISA Court and have reauthorized the program every 90 days—a total 35 times in all...Clearly we have competing decisions from those of at least three different courts (the FISA Court, the D.C. District Court and the Southern District of California). I have found the analysis by the FISA Court, the Southern District of California and the position of the Department of Justice, based on the Supreme Court decision in Smith, to be compelling..."

Feinstein asserted that only the Supreme Court can resolve the question on the constitutionality of the NSA's program. She said she welcomed a Supreme Court review since it had been more than 30 years since the court's original decision on constitutionality, and she believes it is crucial to settling the issue once and for all.

But in yesterday's ruling, Judge Leon was adamant and although he kept his decision from being acted upon immediately, he indicated he was certain the Supreme Court would uphold his decision. He wrote:

"...in light of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novelty of the constitutional issues, I will stay my order pending appeal.  In doing so, I hereby give the Government fair notice that should my ruling be upheld,this order will go into effect forthwith.  Accordingly, I fully expect that during the appellate process, which will consume at least the next six months, the Government will take whatever steps necessary to prepare itself to complyh with this order when, and if, it is upheld.  Suffice it to say, requesting further time to comply with this order months from now will not be well received and could result in collateral sanctions..."

Not included in that debate between Senator Feinstein and Judge Leon, is the "Maplight" factor, which examined campaign contributions to members of the intelligence committee by businesses which had been granted contracts by the National Security agency. While this is not illegal, it calls into question the ethics, morals and motives of those serving on intelligence oversight committees, which are tasked with monitoring and controlling intelligence activities by contractors and the National Security Agency.

The article (which you can see HERE)    reports that companies "....receiving intelligence contracts are major donors to members of the intelligence committees, including L-3 Communications, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Honeywell International...Campaign contributions amount to $3.7 million.

Another article in Maplight, by Donny Shaw reveals that Senator Feinstein has received 3 times more money from top intelligence service contractors than Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont.  (See that breakdown HERE)...

"...Feinstein has continually defended the legality of the phone records program and at a hearing earlier this month said, 'I will do everything I can to keep this program from being cancelled out...to destroy it is to make this nation more vulnerable.'..."

Feinstein asserts further that in spite of Judge Leon's ruling:

"...the call records program remains in effect...Those of us who support the call records program do so with a sincere belief that it, along with other programs, is constitutional and helps keep the country safe from attack. I believe the program can benefit from additional transparency and privacy protections—including additional public reporting and added court review provisions which were recently adopted by the Senate Intelligence Committee in the bipartisan FISA Improvements Act.”

Still another factor is President Obama's recent appointment of Patricia Millet to the Appeals Court for the District of Columbia, which rules on the legality of White House actions and federal agency regulations, an appointment that gives that court a 5-4 majority in favor of Democrat appointments.

Another possible twist in they dynamics of this development is that the political "Left" has demonstrated noticeable opposition to NSA spying programs, and may add its argument and political force toward getting the unconstitutionality of the NSA programs upheld.

Vanguard of Freedom

SOUTH CAROLINA HAS ENACTED OBAMACARE TO BE UNLAWFUL...WHEN IS FLORDIA GOING TO ENACT

THE SAME RESTRICTION?

THANK YOU,

TAMI DURLING

Police Qualifications ( Discussed With An Attorney )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx2vMSEOdf4&feature=youtu.be 

Original Post: http://capblackhood.blogspot.com/2013/12/police-qualifications-discussed-with.html

Edward_Snowden- Pryed open the door on massive NSA collection of Millions of American

Phone Records – photo credit – Wikipedia

Are your private conversations safe from Obama administration NSA snooping? According to a U.S. federal judge, your “U.S. Constitutional rights are being violated daily by the collecting of dialing records of all U.S. calls in America,” according to the LA Times. It appears that the Fourth Amendment’s strict ban on unreasonable searches by government was abolished by the NSA massive data collection efforts, suggests the court.

This marks the first time in the history of the nation that a federal judge has ruled that the collection of these records were not within the scope of the government legitimate right to collect possibly invasive private phone data. The court stated that the rights of innocent Americans not under suspicion of terrorist activities should be protected. U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon was clear about the possible violation of the Constitutional rights of Americans by NSA surveillance activities.

The top secret data mining activities came to light earlier in the year due to the public revelations of former NSA analyst Edward Snowden. Judge Leon stressed, “Today’s computerized gathering of all dialing records represents a new threat to privacy that was not fully recognized in the past,” according to the LA Times.

( Click to Read More )

" The Hood doesn't need martial law nor vigilantism but it does need to make allies in law enforcement and prosecutor's offices and promote recognition that law abiding Blacks are often the only keepers of the peace in unruly areas since police can't be everywhere. "

The ( MMA worthy ) beat down a now-fired Seattle bus driver administered to a thug who spat in his face serves pugilistic notice that the Hood is a dangerous, disrespectful place!

Look at the footage and judge for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sayg2Uf0U1Q
*Please note the thug in question kept saying, " Kill yourself! " as the driver told him to leave the bus.

Law abiding Black folks face verbal ( and physical! ) abuse from youth I've called in the past, " Chocolate Klansmen. "

I was reminded of another viral incident, where a former manager in a thug-ridden, downtown Atlanta mall tased a violently disruptive woman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DrzCVAJtDw

The same Black community which fills the streets over police brutality doesn't march against this violent, vulgar mindset literally killing the Hood daily!

I've shared similar unpleasant circumstances more times than I can count and know too well the Catch 22 law abiding Blacks face:

If we use force to quell this element, police will often arrest us, sometimes along with the trouble maker, sometimes not.

A close friend and fellow anti crime activist was arrested in New Orleans for fighting a drug dealer who refused to stop selling in front of his restaurant; threatened his life and had drugs on his person while violating probation???

The Hood doesn't need martial law nor vigilantism but it does need to make allies in law enforcement and prosecutor's offices and promote recognition that law abiding Blacks are often the only keepers of the peace in unruly areas since police can't be everywhere.

In both these video taped instances, neither man initiated the assault but both, the mall manager later on, lost their jobs because they fought back against thugs in their vicinity.

Equal application of self defense law is one the high hurdles of insuring color blind public safety.

Should law abiding Blacks passively endure assault, despite state laws which theoretically state they have a right to defend themselves... or does that apply only to other citizens.

Waiting in the wings to this question's answer is  not only a safer, more self-secured Hood, but also a Heartland less imperiled by thugs exporting inner city violence and vulgarity!

The link below discusses some thinking that went into the Bill of Rights.

http://news.yahoo.com/five-items-congress-deleted-madison-original-bill-rights-113008778--politics.html

US District Court Judge, Richard D. Leon (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Associated Press is reporting that in a ruling, "...with potentially far-reaching consequences, a federal judge declared Monday that the National Security Agency's bulk collection of millions of Americans' telephone records likely violates the U.S. Constitution's ban on unreasonable search. The ruling, filled with blistering criticism of the Obama administration's arguments, is the first of its kind on the controversial program..."

Associated Press Correspondent Frederic J. Frommer reports:

"...Even if NSA's "metadata" collection of records should pass constitutional muster, the judge said, there is little evidence it has ever prevented a terrorist attack. The collection program was disclosed by former NSA systems analyst Edward Snowden, provoking a heated national and international debate..."

That would be Judge Richard Leon, a U.S. District Court Judge, who, Frommer says has granted a preliminary injunction against the collecting of the phone records of two men, "...who had challenged the program and said any such records for the men should be destroyed. But he put enforcement of that decision on hold pending a near-certain government appeal, which may well end up at the Supreme Court..."

[Source for Court Ruling: The BLT: The Blog Of LegalTimes (legaltimes.typepad.com)]

The ruling states:

"...For the reasons discussed below, the Court first finds that it lacks jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") claim that the Government has exceeded its statutory authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA").  Next, the Court finds that it does, however, have the authority to evaluate plaintiffs' constitutional challenges to the NSA's conduct, notwithstanding the fact that it was done pursuant to orders issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ("FISC").  And after careful consideration of the parties' pleadings and supplemental pleadings, the representations made on the record at the November 18, 2013 hearing regarding these two motions,and the applicable law, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Government's bulk collection and querying of phone record metadata, that they have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Fourth Amendment claim, and that they will suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary injunctive relief.  Accordingly the Court will GRANT, in part, the Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Klayman I (with rspect to Larry Klayman and Charles Strange only) and DENY the Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Klayman II.  However, in view of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novely of the constitutional issues, I will STAY my order pending appeal."

The Court (Judge Richard J. Leon) then provides extensive background information (which you can see HERE) then presents the plaintiff's statutory claim under the APA, followed by the plaintiff's constitutional claim under the Fourth Amendment, after which he concludes with:

"...This case is yet the latest chapter in the Judiciary's continuing challenge to balance the national security interests of the United States with the individual liberties of our citizens. The Government, in its understandable zeal to protect our homeland, had crafted a counterterrorism program with respect to telephone metadata that strikes the balance based in large paret on a thirty-four year old Supreme Court precedent, the relevance of which has been eclipsed by technological advances and a cellphone-centric lifestyle heretofore inconceivable.  I the months ahead, other Article III courts, no doubt, will wrestle to find the proper balance consistent with our constitutional system.  But in the meantime, for all the above rasons, I will grant Larry Klayman's and Charles Strange's requests for an injunction and enter an order that (1) bars the Government from collecting, as part of the NSA's Bulk Telephony Metadata Program, any telephony metadata associated with their personal Verizon accounts and (2) requires the Government to destroy any such metadata in its possession that was collected through the bulk collection progam...However, in light of the significant national security interests at stake in this case and the novely of the constitutional issues, I will stay my order pending appeal.  In doing so, I hereby give the Government fair notice that should my ruling be upheld,this order will go into effect forthwith.  Accordingly, I fully expect that during the appellate process, which will consume at least the next six months, the Government will take whatever steps necessary to prepare itself to complyh with this order when, and if, it is upheld.  Suffice it to say, requesting further time to comply with this order months from now will not be well received and could result in collateral sanctions..."

Vanguard of Freedom News

In case you are too young to remember or too old and forgot....

https://www.youtube.com/embed/OvN1jTkzXbY?rel=0

United States Senator and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

McConnel's referenced amicus brief was filed to support Kentucky’s coal miners, their families, small businesses and all those negatively affected by the Obama "Administration’s War on Coal," according to a statement released by the Senator:

"...The amicus brief was filed in a sequel case (Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency) to the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency that the EPA may regulate greenhouse gases as hazardous pollutants under the Clean Air Act – which resulted in the EPA’s 2010 first-ever permitting requirements for motor vehicles, known as the 'Tailpipe Rule.' The EPA has since used the Tailpipe Rule to trigger regulations on coal-fired power plants and other stationary sources..."

*The EPA issued its "Tailpipe Rule" to set emission standards for cars and light trucks, after a June 26, 2012 ruling by a District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals panel found that "...rules and findings by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars, light trucks and large, stationary emission producers are neither "arbitrary nor capricious" and are "unambiguously correct"; it also found that various state and industry appellants lack standing to sue the agency. (According to the Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc.,et al. No 09-1322, D.C. Cir. [via Tom Moylan, LexisNexis® Legal Newsroom ] )

Moylan reported that the EPA had determined that the Clean Air Act:

"...required major stationary sources of greenhouse gases to obtain construction and operating permits.  To avoid overwhelming burdens on greenhouse gas producers who needed permits, the agency issued Timing and Tailoring Rules that required only the largest stationary sources of greenhouse gases to get permits..."

According to Moyland, 26 appeals to these rulings were consolidated by the District of Columbia U.S. Court of Appeals, including "...Various state governments and industry groups ... [which] ... challenged the rules and findings, arguing that they were based on improper constructions of the CAA and were arbitrary and capricious..."

Joining the Amicus Brief with McConnel are also Senator Rand Paul, and Congressmen Hal Rogers, Ed Whitfield, Brett Guthrie, Thomas Massie, Andy Barr, and Lamar Smith.

“This case is an egregious example of the EPA’s violation of the law in pursuit of its overzealous, anti-coal agenda. The ability to create laws is the purview of Congress and the EPA has clearly overstepped its authority. In doing so, accountability has been thrown out the window and Kentucky families are left with nothing but frustration and the likelihood of even higher energy costs and more job losses,” stated Congressman Paul.

Congressman Rogers said, "The EPA's power-grabbing schemes are unbelievable, and unconstitutional. This federal agency wants to bend the rules to suit its own agenda by undermining the authority of Congress. Time and again, the courts have struck down the overreaching arm of the EPA, and I hope that our highest court will see through the agency's efforts to impose one-size-fits-all regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. No region has realized the cost of the EPA's job-killing regulations more than the Central Appalachian coalfields, where power plants and mines are shutting down, and thousands of coal miners are losing their jobs every year."

Congressman Barr added that, "This case is an important opportunity for the Supreme Court to make clear that the EPA’s legislation by regulation aimed at killing the coal industry and stifling our economic recovery is unconstitutional. For the EPA to amend or misinterpret unambiguous provisions of the Clean Air Act to advance its War on Coal is not acceptable and it intrudes on Congress’s lawmaking authority as reserved by the Constitution. Just because the votes for the President’s environmental agenda don’t exist in either the House nor the Senate, doesn’t change the fact that the EPA’s overreach is unlawful.”

                                                             Crooks and Co - Conspirators

The Democrats ushered an unknown into their party in 2009 – they were so smug and thrilled to put the first African American into the President’s shoes.  They gloated, bragged and helped him spend 787 billion dollars that belonged to the American people with the promise of the most transparent Government in our history, smaller Government, secured borders and jobs, jobs and more jobs.

None of the above happened, but the real albatross around their party’s neck is ACA (aka Obamacare.)  In order to get this monstrosity passed Obama and Pelosi coerced many Democrats into voting for this new healthcare law.  The bill Pelosi said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

DEMS along with the Liberal News media joined Obama and marched to his drum proclaiming healthcare for all, lower premiums, keep your Insurer and your doc.  They glazed over the taxes stashed in Obamacare, the death panel and wasted 3 years selling a snake oil salesman’s sleazy product. 

Their problem goes much deeper than a dilapidated ill functioning website – the real problem is their honesty and credibility.  As Sebelious, Obama and Jarrett keep adding a new band aid each day to ACA - the healthcare problems keep intensifying.  Democrats are responsible for allowing Obama to continue this political non-sense and as each day passes the real problems are starting to show their fangs.

The Medical field is stepping up to the plate and telling Americans that doctors are leaving the medical field due to Obamacare, that healthcare will be limited for consumer and some will not be able to receive the care and drugs that they need.  In fact some Americans who have terminal illnesses have lost their physicians, their hospital and their insurance.  This is more than a small glitch – this is a train wreck that’s happening as we speak.

The consumers are angry losing their Insurer, doc and they’re irate that during this severe recession they now owe higher co pays and deductibles. The young people that Obama, Sebelious and Jarrett were counting on aren’t stupid.

Many of them are college graduates without employment and the others are relatively healthy and basically take the stance that they’ve had enough burdens placed on their shoulders with runaway Government spending and mismanagement. 

They know that all of the current problems will trickle down to them - they will be the ones in the end that are left to pick up the pieces.  Why should they along with healthcare insurers be the ones to take the hit for Obama’s lies and lousy healthcare laws?

In 2014 businesses aren’t going to sit around and wait for the 2014 Elections – they will be downsizing, many refusing to pay insurance for employees and thousands of full time employees will have their hours slashed to part-time. 

So to those Democrats still trying to sell Obamacare to Americans, they’re about to get the shock of their life. Barack Obama used and abused his party – now they’re between a rock and a hard place.  If they stop Obamacare the Democrats will take a major hit.  If they continue trying to force Obamacare down Americans throat it’s likely that the Democratic Party will be dissolved before 2016 rolls around.

Obama care is up close and personal and will affect all Americans.  Obamacare isn’t a train wreck about to happen it’s a sinking ship that keeps sinking deeper into the abyss. 

As Always,

Little Tboca

"Hope & Change"…and Saving the Planet