Obama Plans Regime Change in November 2018 Elections

Former Democratic President Barack Obama recently spoke at the University of Illinois to give us our sanity back, as, according to him, something is not right in the current Whitehouse, or words to that effect. So Obama is out to foment an outright regime change during the U.S. House of Representatives election in approximately two months from now.

To say that Barack Obama is a Democrat-Socialist would be putting it lightly. It would be like saying that Bernie Sanders is a hardcore conservative constitutionalist.

In a 2014 article in The Western Journal, "Just How Radical Were The People Who Influenced Barack Hussein Obama?" Steven Baldwin clearly points to overwhelming documented evidence that Obama's entire life has been in the political company and association with Marxists and Socialists. Indeed, former President Obama made numerous appointments to these Democrat-Socialist-Marxists in both of his previous presidential administrations. (https://www.westernjournal.com/just-radical-people-influen…/)

Who remembers when in a televised meeting between former Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and former U.S. President Barack Obama that Chavez turned to the crowd and cameras and said, "He's more of a Socialists than I am?" The now deceased Chavez was in amazement that such a political radical was then President of The United States. We all saw it in Chavez' face expression.

It is hard to see how The United States of America was winning under the business-restrictive policies of Kenyan national former CIA operative Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. former President and Socialist-Democrat-Marxist-in-Chief, Barack Obama. Of course, Marxist Obama is coming out against a progressive, winning President Trump who is renegotiating Obama's bad trade deals that were not in the interests of America. On the other hand, anti-colonialist Obama gave billions in bribes to Iran and helped his Muslim Brotherhood allies, while Ambassador Stevens was tortured, and, eventually killed, and Stevens' NCIS agents were murdered in Libya. Former U.S. President Obama is the same man who created ISIS and did everything he could to ruin America. Now Obama says, in essence, that there is something wrong with President Trump's America.

Yes, that is correct. We are winning, again! -- like we have not done since Ronald Reagan and John Kennedy, arguably two of the best Presidents that The United States has ever had. The current Trump administration is not only renegotiating the bad trade and political deals of previous administrations, but President Trump has also delivered on his promises to the American people to create more jobs, bolster the economy, and he has brought back trillions of USDs from overseas holdings of U.S. corporations. Generally, our current President is running government like a business, not a "vote for me and I will give you any kind of largess you want to further ruin the credit of the U.S., while adding enormous debt to our nation." Actually, having the temerity to move our U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem is the favorite action of President Trump that many Americans love, both Democrats and Republicans.

The list of accomplishments of President Trump and his administration is too long to enumerate, but few Americans have been hiding under rocks. Our citizens know completely what those accomplishments are, though not all Americans are willing to give the Trump administration credit, even where credit is due.

Now deep state cheerleader Obama is fighting to have a mid-term regime change of the U.S. House of Representatives in favor of the Democrat-Socialist-Marxists so The United States of America will collapse, like Venezuela, the old Soviet Union, and Democrat-controlled Chicago. Eventually, that will usher in Obama's One World Government led by the UN.

It is not in the best interests of Americans for us to continue this political divide, those who want to destroy America and those who want to strengthen it. There was a time when all of us, on the left, in the middle, and on the right, politically, would fight for The United States, instead of tearing it apart for the vested interests of others.

Reference:

Just How Radical Were The People Who Influenced Barack Hussein Obama?. (2014). The Western Journal. Retrieved 19 September 2018, from https://www.westernjournal.com/just-radical-people-influenced-barack-hussein-obama/

U.S. government finances from April 9, 2011

Today most citizens were gratified to learn of the agreement between the U.S. Democrats and the Republicans for a budget to get us through the rest of the current fiscal year.  However, $38 billion this year and $500 billion in additional cuts over the next decade is not enough, considering the incredible amount of debt that we have as a nation, which will soon be over $14 trillion and which will be much higher than double that figure in one-decade from now.

Therefore, unless both houses of Congress and the President of the United States, right now, get serious about making substantial cuts in all of our future budgets, then we will have to consider if our current spendthrift ways will end in a hyper-inflationary or a deflationary depression and financial collapse.

Most Americans understand that it would not be in the best interests of the U.S. Federal Reserve and all U.S. banks to have hyper-inflation, as that would destroy their own assets; however, the U.S. Fed is merely reacting to the increasing governmental debt placed on us by our politicians.

As the U.S. House of Representatives originates all financial and monetary appropriation bills [voted on by the House, the Senate and vetoed or signed by the President of the United States], and it is the job of Congress to oversee the U.S. Federal Reserve, the most likely long-term outcome is hyper-inflation, not deflation.

The U.S. Federal Reserve is supposed to be independent, but, in reality, it reports to the U.S. Congress.

On the other hand, either way, a hyper-inflationary or a deflationary depression will mean the end of business as usual, and a forced new way of doing business, which some call "financially responsible behavior" that will permeate the affairs of all private citizens, businesses, organizations, bureaucrats and politicians in the United States of America, soon.

In the not so distant future, out of dire necessity this new "financially responsible behavior" will be demanded by all Americans.

Though it will look like the end of the United States, in reality, it will just be a new beginning, which will make us much stronger, wiser and more cautious, again.

We are just one of a long line of nations and civilizations that will have had to re-learn these lessons of history, which play over and over, again, throughout time and probably always will.

In the end, human nature is always the same:  we learn from lessons, then we prosper from those lessons, the generations that lived through those lessons die-out, and then we go through the painful process of re-learning all of those lessons, again.    

Universal health care in America

by Arnie Webre, Jr.

Forty-six million Americans do not have health care of any kind, therefore, America needs universal health care for those who do not have it, as well as to drive medical care costs down over the long-term.

So what is the problem?

The real question is how to pay for it.

Democratic New York Senator Charles Rangel thought he knew how to pay for it: a surtax on the highest earning Americans, to pay for those who cannot pay for their own health care.

Rangel originally proposed to raise $540 billion over the next 10-years with a one-percent surtax from couples who made over $350,000 per year, with graduating surtaxes at the $500,000 and $1 million levels of annual income.

Additionally, the proposed legislation would charge employers to provide health care for their employees.

In one such case, a Houston small-business owner was told by her elected representative in Washington, D.C. that she would get a bill of about $366,000 to provide health insurance for all of her employees, or she would have to pay a $44,000 penalty fee and all of her employees would then automatically be included in the federal government's health care program. Her annual income was slightly over $350,000.

We certainly do not want to over-tax small businesses disproportionately, as they are the engine of growth of our economy.

Since when did America stop requiring everyone who could afford to contribute to not pull their own weight?

The current drive to universal health care in the United States is sorely needed. On the other hand, the Canadians do not pay for their universal health care system by taxing only the rich -- everyone who can pay is paying for it through personal and corporate taxes; private insurance for individuals, hospitals and health care professionals; and, additionally, some provinces use sales taxes and lotteries.

As a matter of fact, the idea to provide health care to those who cannot afford it by taxing the rich is nothing less than a cross between socialism and communism. It is also one more example of the corruption from within our decaying society, the symbiotic relationship between the voters [who want something for nothing] and the politicians [who want to insure their re-elections] who want to give it to them.

Who has not been milking America for everything it was worth over the last 45-years?

We are all complicit in this long-term fleecing of the United States.

Fortunately, it appears that a marriage of convenience between the conservative Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans has avoided the frightening method of funding mentioned above, for our needed universal health care reform. Let us maintain our vigilance until either universal health care is passed this year without charging only one select group of Americans for it, or it is defeated.

We still need universal health care, so where does that leave us?

Let us go back to the drawing board and fund this from a much larger tax base, without concern for political patronage. Everyone who can pay, pays, and everyone pulls their own weight.

We all need to contribute: businesses, tax payers, insurance companies who provide insurance to hospitals and health care professionals, the health care system -- everyone, according to their means, with the most nominal [tiny] insurance premium amounts paid by those who live under the poverty limit.

On the other hand, no American citizen who lives under the poverty limit should be turned away from medical care for financial reasons, at any time, with federal health care insurance as payer of last resort in such cases, until the patient or the patient's family can pay nominal [tiny] federal health care insurance fees.

When, and if, health care costs do come under control and the system is paying for itself (becomes cost neutral), then we might be able to consider, at that time, if those who live under the poverty level should even have to pay. However, in our current economic predicament, that does not seem to be a wise starting point for universal health care in America.

Let us just get this new health care reform bill off the ground first, and then we will see, in time, what is possible.