1 - politics
Why are we putting the IRS in charge of Health care? - politics
The totally partisan unionized Democrats of the IRS have been very busy lately. They were actively suppressing the voices of political opponents, with denial and harassment of conservative groups, seeking the proper tax status to take part in the political process. They succeeded in helping re-elect Obama, without any consequence for their illegal actions, and continue to silence opposition today. They are recruiting "navigators" from their vast Democrat community organizing groups, who are not subjected to background screening, so even felons may be taking our sensitive data. Since the IRS recently "inadvertently" posted over 100,000 Americans' Social Security numbers on their website, an illegal breach of privacy, it's frightening that we will be forced to give their navigators all of our financial data including social numbers, income, and all asset information, to determine each individual's cost of Obamacare and eligibility for subsidies. The Data Hub will connect seven agencies, including HHS, IRS, DHS, and DOD…which is a mystery why our health and wealth information have any reason to be connected to Homeland Security and the Defense Department! But then, all dictators know that in order to "control the people" you need only get control of health care. Considering that medical records mistakes doubled from 2010-2011, which have already cost some their life, and reports that 80 percent of medical bills contain errors, the "Data Hub" that is months behind schedule is incomplete and unsecured will not only be a hacker's heaven, but may cost many lives in the chaos. It's no surprise that Congress, their staff, unions and the IRS itself have been given waivers and exemptions from Obamacare. What better way to eliminate any opponents, than to control who receives care and/or subsidies? The IRS should stand for Illegal Revolution Soldiers – it's the Alinsky rule.
when a government spies on it's citizens the citizens need to revolt! - politics
The U.S. government does not deny Edward Snowden's assertions that the National Security Agency is spying on us. Rather, it attempts to sanitize and justify the spying. Big Brother is definitely watching and makes no bones about it. The Snowden leak raises the issue of betrayal ("Is Edward Snowden a Traitor?", Slate Magazine, June 11, 2013), but the question is, who is betraying whom? Governments spy on those whom they fear and distrust. Our government unabashedly spies on us, "we the people." It apparently fears and distrusts us -- millions and millions of us. So security-state agencies and their minions trample our Fourth Amendment protections against unwarranted government intrusion with impunity. How can they do this? Members of Congress, in a hysterical spasm of fear 12 years ago, authorized this violation. Presidents cooperate and collude. Agency heads dissemble and dodge. Yes, betrayal is the issue. The American people have indeed been betrayed, but not by Edward Snowden.
IT ISN'T RACISM IF THE VICTIM IS WHITE - politics
IT ISN'T RACISM IF THE VICTIM IS WHITE
MORE on the HOT PAGE
Profiling of another color. Martin was victim of racial profiling - politics
In response to the July 2 letter to the Belleville News-Democrat by Frank Austin regarding the shooting of Trayvon Martin, a few points of clarification. First, he asserts Trayvon "brought it upon himself" by "acting suspiciously." What was this alleged suspicious activity? By all accounts Trayvon was only walking home (yes, he lived there with his father) talking to his girlfriend on his cell. This is typical teenage behavior seen every day, everywhere. Why did George Zimmerman deem it suspicious? My conclusion: Trayvon was walking while black. No other suspicious activity has been offered. Second, Austin infers Zimmerman is a "law enforcement officer in performance of his duty." Blatant obfuscation. He is not a law enforcement officer. He is a civilian volunteer on Neighborhood Watch. Keyword is watch. His duty is to observe and report, not trail and confront. He was given a direct order to stay in his vehicle and cease following. He disobeyed a lawful order, thus putting him in violation of the law. Now we have an armed criminal menacing an unarmed 17-year-old. Why shouldn't Trayvon defend himself? Who wouldn't? Third, Zimmerman's intent. According to his own statements he was tired of these (expletive) punks always getting away. Trayvon became a scapegoat for his paranoid-driven rage against hooliganism. To him Trayvon was the stereotypical criminal -- a young, black male wearing a hoodie. He wasn't going to let him get away with any imaginary crime. Trayvon died because of Zimmerman's paranoid racist fantasies.
Upload content like a BOSS