Obama Threatens August Social Security Checks

Our cowardly President, Barack Hussein Obama, in a last-ditch attempt to defeat the resistance of Congress (and therewith, the will of the people) to his beloved debt ceiling increase, threatens to withhold August social security checks if the ceiling isn't raised by August 2nd. And, from whom will he withhold this money? From people who have paid into the social security fund all their lives! People who were promised by the government that the money they "contributed" to the fund would be there to help them when they retired. He would rather do that, than reduce government spending by downsizing our government, or eliminating some of the true entitlement programs, such as welfare.

Here's my idea:

The entire Congress, along with the Executive and Judicial branches of government, take an immediate 50% pay cut.

The White House staff reportedly just got an average 16% pay raise, so let's take that away and reduce their pay by another 16%.

Repatriate 20-30 million illegal aliens to their country of origin, and then secure our borders, thereby eliminating trillions of dollars of unnecessary taxpayer expense in welfare payments, medical expenses, and financial losses by our hospitals.

Cut off all foreign aid to countries who have not proven themselves to be friends and allies. Why should our tax dollars be spent to support those who wish us nothing but harm?

Withdraw from the United Nations and require them to leave the country. The United Nations assesses dues upon all members, which is fair... but, the United States assessment is greater than the next top 5 nations combined! And, on top of that, we supply the meeting hall. Is this equitable?

The government should stop borrowing money for the purpose of lending it to other countries. Let them get their own financing!

And why are our tax dollars being spent to build/refurbish mosques in the oil-rich middle-east? These are the same countries that are gouging us for every drop of oil that they pump out of the ground. Our government doesn't spend our tax money on building or updating Christian or Jewish houses of worship here, and they shouldn't! STOP DOING THAT IN OTHER COUNTRIES!

Eliminate welfare as a family business - one that's passed along from generation to generation. Close the "Welfare-r-Us" businesses, and replace them with a program that provides the less fortunate with a subsistence income for 18 months. During that 18 months, they must attend a government-sponsored training program designed to provide them with a marketable skill upon completion. At the end of 18 months the recipients must report to the nearest State-run employment service, where they will be interviewed. This applicant will be given priority placement over anyone currently employed who is just searching for a new job. There is a big difference between indigence and indolence - let's not punish the indigent so that we may reward the indolent. Let the "grasshoppers" earn their way in society, just like the "ants"! Welfare should be a once in a lifetime condition of dependency. But, it should not be for a lifetime unless the recipients are physically or mentally incapable of supporting themselves (as verified by a medical evaluation board).

Eliminate the almost innumerable, and in most cases frivolous (as in a political "thank you for your support") grants for ridiculous things.

Obama apparently wants to be viewed as Emperor of the World, passing out trinkets to his subjects, while destroying the country we love. Anyone who votes for him in 2012 should be very careful sitting down... they're liable to break their own neck.

The Great "Can't Afford It Giveaway" of the Obama Administration

The Palestinian Prime Minister is seeking $2.8 BILLION to rebuild Palestine after Israel retaliated for continued shelling of Israeli settlements from Palestine. In what parallel universe does this make sense? Rewarding the aggressor for creating an unwinnable situation for themselves makes absolutely no sense at any level, yet - according to Time Magazine - the cash-strapped U.S. is expected to provide approximately $900,000,000 (roughly 1/3) of that money. Where are the oil-rich Arab nations, who have gouged the entire world for years on the price of oil? Why are they not providing ALL the money to repair the damage done to Palestine?

I have no sympathy whatsoever for those who provoke a confrontation of any kind, and then come out on the short end. They, by their direct actions, have earned whatever fate befalls them, be it victory or defeat. Had Palestine been victorious, and crushed Israel, there would be rejoicing and celebrations throughout the Muslim world. As things stand, the Palestinians have just provided one more embarrassment to the Arab nations since the Six-Day War of 1967. In that war tiny Israel defeated the armies of the neighboring states of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, even with the nations of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria contributing troops and arms to the other Arab forces. At the war's end, Israel had gained control of the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The results of that war still affect the geopolitics of the region to this day, although Israel has released control of most of those lands.

There is no reward for "Second Place" in a war. There are only victors and the vanquished. The U.S. has been among the recipients of victory in most conflicts/confrontations in which it participated, with two notable exceptions - North Korea, which was more or less called a "draw", and Vietnam, where American politicians lack of support lost the war for us.

Until this year, there had been no incident in the history of the world, where those captured in combat were given civil trials, provided with civilian attorneys, and allowed all the Constitutional rights of a citizen. The Military Tribunal has always tried captured enemy forces (as military if in uniform, and as spies if not in uniform). Spies have always been the recipients of swifter and more severe (i.e. - firing squad) punishment, perhaps just for lacking the courage to don a uniform.

"Assassins" go back to the beginning of recorded history, although the classification of a crime intentionally resulting in the loss of one human life as an "assassination" has, until recently, been restricted to political leaders. John Lennon wasn't "assassinated" - he was murdered. Assassins generally work alone and have only one particular target to deal with at a time. Julius Caesar was assassinated - oddly enough by multiple assassins.

Obama has chosen to disuse the term "enemy combatant" also - perhaps he plans to replace it with "misdirected ally" or "misunderstood friend". Euphemisms change nothing! A spade is still a spade, a shovel is a shovel, and one whom you engage in combat is still an ENEMY COMBATANT!

It follows that the next terms to become politically incorrect are "terrorist" and "terrorism". Granted, one mans' terrorist is another mans' freedom fighter, but when you are on the receiving end of an attack by one or more persons dressed to blend in with the local population, and wearing explosive underwear, parking a bomb-laden vehicle, or firing full-automatic weapons, you often fail to see the "freedom fighter". If commandeering airplanes and flying them into heavily-populated buildings, or setting off bombs in crowded civilian areas, or beheading other human beings are not designed to induce terror within a specific population, by definition becoming terrorism, and making those who comited those acts de facto terrorists, then I do not understand the term at all!

Have I digressed from my topic? No - not really. Palestine has a relatively high concentration of non-uniformed spies, paramilitary combatants, and civilian sympathizers/supporters. Why is our government providing them with $900 million - which we can ill-afford, and which could very easily be redirected from "humanitarian aid" to "insurgent support"? Where does our money come from? Primarily we borrow it from CHINA of all places! So we're borrowing money, to give away to people who at the very least dislike us (and who, if given the opportunity, would probably kill us all as we slept in our beds). Why does an idea like this seem so intellectually foreign to me?

I could be wrong about this ... and the Supreme Leader of Iran , Grand Ayatollah Ali Hoseyni Khamenei, could be a closet Catholic ... but I seriously doubt it!