The Power of the Gray Dollar-Florida’s Democrat Leaders Could Care Less.

large group we wont take it any more         senior citizens     fl seniors 2

Florida has a large and growing adult population. The State as a whole has a population approaching 19 million, and people over 60 make up nearly 23 percent of that population.

In addition to contributing their knowledge and experience to Florida’s local communities, seniors comprise our state’s second largest economic sector.

The Power of the Gray Dollar!

In addition to contributing their knowledge and experience to Florida’s local communities, seniors comprise our state’s second largest economic sector.

The “spending power” of Florida’s elders is $135 billion annually, almost $15 billion more than residents aged 49 and under.

Statewide, seniors account for 50 percent of all new home construction.

Each year, Florida’s seniors contribute $3.5 billion to charities, and pay $1 billion in local school taxes.

Each year, seniors expend $9 billion in out-of-pocket expenses for medical care, and pay $1.4 billion more in state taxes than they receive in social services.

After all services are rendered, Florida’s senior community contributes a $2.8 billion net tax benefit.

Florida seniors are the state’s largest voting block, and in our recent general elections, they have comprised more than 40 percent of all voters.  Many seniors are volunteers, donating their time and talent.


A vote for Charlie Christ will kill the golden Goose we, have kept Liberal paws off of for years.  Obama Sees lots of  Dollars he can confiscate for his Big Brother Government. We seniors are already finding our retirement dollars buying less. Under Christ and Barak Obama Florida will never be our Golden years paradise again.

Crist switches teams and endorses Obama  2 3 1obama-crist-kiss-hugGAY OBAMAimagesX5JHZRNSshocked    images3EOI8N4A

Florida’s seniors add much to our state. Their social and economic contributions make Florida a better place to live for all of the state’s residents.

So Why are Democratic Politicians pushing Obamacare ? and Obama Pal Charlie Christ.They know the so called Death Panels are real yet, Wasserman Schultz is visiting Elderly groups telling them its not so and that  Obamacare is good for them??

Dr. Janda was the keynote speaker at a congressional dinner at the Capitol Building in Washington, He said “The rationing of care is implemented through the National Health Care Board according to this plan. This illustrious board ‘will approve or reject treatment based on the cost per treatment divided by the number of years the patient will benefit from the treatment

.. Euthanasia will be reserved for the elderly. The elderly are being singled out for extermination because the Social Security system is bankrupt. While the bureaucrats blame the bankruptcy of Social Security on the fact that people now live too long, the reality is that Social Security is bankrupt specifically because, for the last 77 years, elected politicians stole the Social Security Trust Fund (which was supposed to have been invested, by law, in high yield government bonds) and used your money to create the welfare society. That money is now long gone. In its place are IOUs the government cannot redeem. Today’s elderly are now expected to pay for that theft with their lives because there are too many people seeking repayment of the funds they deposited, in good faith.

A real let them eat cake momentshocked

Pelosi and Leftist Leaders have a “Let Them Eat Cake Moment” after passing Obamacare by one vote.

Cut out of this picture are, the thousands of Middle Class Protesters against obamacare.  The American People are forgotten by the people they voted into office to represent them.





According to Ezekiel Emanuel one who is over 60 has made all the contributions they ever will.

large group we wont take it any more

Obama administration policy will eliminate half of all existing Medicare Part D plans
The Obama administration’s new proposed rule for Medicare Part D would eliminate half of all Medicare Part D plans and raise prescription drug premiums for millions of seniors by up to 20 percent, according to a U.S. House subcommittee chairman.

“Today, the average senior has 35 different [Medicare Part D] plans to choose from this year. This rule would reduce that choice to two plans. 50% of the plans offered today will be gone, and the health care that seniors like may go with it,” House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee chairman Rep. Joe Pitts said in a statement at a Feb. 26 hearing attended by a top administration health official.

“Limiting seniors’ choices like this will inevitably lead to higher costs. By some estimates, the restriction on the number of plans that can be offered could cause premiums to rise by 10%-20%. Costs to the federal government may increase by $1.2-1.6 billion according to a study by Milliman,” Pitts said. “… I urge Secretary Sebelius and Administrator Tavenner to rescind this rule.”

The study Pitts cited also showed that the new rule would increase out-of-pocket drug costs for 6.9 million seniors who do not qualify for low-income subsidies, and would raise federal taxpayer costs for six million seniors who do qualify.

President Bush signed Medicare Part D into law in 2003 to subsidize prescription drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries.

The Daily Caller reported that the administration’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), a division of Kathleen Sebelius’ Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), recently introduced a new proposed rule on the Federal Register called “Medicare Program: Contract Year 2015 Policy and Technical Changes to the Medicare Advantage and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Programs.”

The new rule “would revise the Medicare Advantage (MA) program (Part C) regulations and prescription drug benefit program (Part D) regulations to implement statutory requirements; strengthen beneficiary protections; exclude plans that perform poorly; improve program efficiencies; and clarify program requirements,”

**The rule states that it also aims “to implement certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act.” smiley-sign0085

The new rule’s stated desire to “strengthen our ability to identify strong applicants for Part C and Part D program participation and remove consistently poor performers” would give the Obama administration new authority to limit health insurance and prescription drug providers under the Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D programs.

**The rule would also violate the Medicare Part D’s law’s “non-interference provision that prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) from interfering with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and sponsors of prescription drug plans,” according to testimony by American Action Forum president Douglas Holtz-Eakin, violating “congressional intent.”

Rep. Pitts expressed confusion and anger at CMS’ new rule.

“CMS itself says that 96% of the Part D claims it reviewed showed seniors saved money at preferred pharmacies, and nearly 25,500 seniors in my district have chosen Part D plans with a preferred pharmacy network. Yet CMS would take that away from them,” Pitts said.

The Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit is a government success story. Last year, nearly 39 million beneficiaries were enrolled in a Part D prescription drug plan,” Pitts said.

“Competition and choice have kept premiums stable. In fact, in 2006, the first year the program was in effect, the base beneficiary premium was $32.20 a month. In 2014, the base beneficiary premium is $32.42 — a 22-cent increase over 9 years — and still roughly half of what was originally predicted,” Pitts added. “More than 90% of seniors are satisfied with their Part D drug coverage because of this.

African-American and Hispanic seniors report even higher levels of satisfaction, at 95% and 94%, respectively.” (Why is Obama going to change this plan?? I guess because it works)

“The program has worked so well because it forces prescription drug plans and providers to compete for Medicare beneficiaries — putting seniors, not Washington, in the driver’s seat. Part D should be the model for future reforms to the Medicare program,” Pitts said.

House Energy and Commerce committee chairman Rep. Fred Upton joined with Pitts at the hearing of plans to obtain discountin criticizing the new rule.

The proposed rule, issued on January 6, 2014, appears to be a direct assault on the competitive structure of the program. It inhibits the ability s for beneficiaries, limits the range of market segments in which they may compete, and usurps the responsibility of states to license those able to prescribe. This 700-page proposal makes numerous changes,” Upton said.

CMS principal deputy administrator Jonathan Blum testified that limiting Part D sponsors to providing only two plans per region will “promote needed clarity of plan choices for beneficiaries.”

More Comments: from seniors **************

Correct. AARP supported Obama care to sell insurance. I think its amusing that Dems always used scare tactics that the Republicans want to destroy SS, and the Democrats have actually did it.

A year-long investigation that revealed how AARP stands to make nearly $1 billion over the next 10 years if ObamaCare remains in effect. When I found out that AARP supported obamacare I dropped my subsription & joined AMAC. I suggest all seniors do the same. AARP can no longer be trusted for the best interest for seniors.

flyoverCleatus Van Damne

You are absolutely correct. Seniors have already been thrown off the cliff. They just haven’t hit the canyon floor yet. I have a 96 year old aunt who had a TIA and fell a few weeks ago. The doctor refused to send her to rehab telling me I should just put her on hospice because she said she wanted to die. I told him she has been wanting to die for 30 years and the next day she wants a beauty appointment. It was only after the hospice director came down and unleashed a tirade at me “for demanding she be put on hospice” that she got the treatment she needed. The woman said there was nothing wrong with her other than being old. I informed her it was her doctor who was making the demands and I was the guy refusing. She then told me the hospital is penalized for every senior they send to rehab under the new rules. They would come out better if she just went home and died rather than spending a week in a rehab facility so she could return home to her normal life. It has already started. If the GOP has any brains, it will start running ads to seniors about it before November

Comments from Seniors

It is part of Obama’s death to seniors plan, for hospitals to give as little treeatment as possible to senior citizens. The hospital is just following Obama’s rule.. Seniors have no one looking out for their interests. All the political class cares about is all the money they can steal from the benefits they paid for and were promised. Let’s not forget the death panel is for seniors only

Some of the parts of the plan, like ObamaCare plans eliminating the top cancer hospitals and doctors isn’t a death panel, it is a death sentence.

You are spot on. The Democrat party consists of misfits, malcontents, Occupy maggots, and the uneducated. They owe their very existence to those who pander to them with the fruits of someone else’s labor. Oh…they also consist of rich liberals who revel in telling us who we should socialize with, what we should eat, where and the type of housing we should have, what type of fuel we should use, what type of cars we should drive, and respect the Kangaroo rat, Snail Darter, and the Alabama Heelsplitter clam more than the well being of those whose property rights are abridged in the name of “saving” a so called endangered species that have no measurable benefit to society. They are truly indicative that liberalism is a mental illness.

Over the next 10 years obama is stripping the Medicare benefit program by approx $741 bil & stripping the Advantage program by about $390 bil it appears billions are to be transferred to the obamacare program. Currently both Dem’s & Rep’s administrations have taken $1.7 trillion out of our Social Security & Medicare benefit programs to date.

While Republicans got blamed for pushing Granny off the cliff, the Democrats are the ones actually doing the deed. My folks won’t be voting Democrat EVER again…My mother never got into politics until now. She is LIVID about how horrible Democrat controlled healthcare is and how AWFUL it is to live above the poverty line and not qualify for any help while she is paying income taxes on her puny social security income and can’t afford to buy all the meds she needs to live. Old people feel SCREWED by Dems.

But don’t you understand? According to Ezekiel Emanuel (who wrote major portions of the ACA) a 3 year old child with spina bifida will never contribute to the “greater good”. And one who is over 60 has made all the contributions they ever will.
Cass Sunnstein and Ezekiel Emanuel are the ones who wrote this abomination called Obamacare Death panels? Yep!!!

obama-crist-kiss-hugCrist switches teams and endorses Obama  2 3 1

With his history of flip-flopping, shady wheeling-and-dealing, failed governorship and sordid acquaintances, the notion of a second term for this guy strains credulity.

Democrat Crist’s integrity and record. Under Charlie’s watch, unemployment skyrocketed to 11.1 percent and 830,000 jobs were lost. He’s flip-flopped on taxes, the Cuban embargo, health care, the Obama stimulus program and his party affiliation — twice. As far back as October 2010, National Review Online had enough information to compile a “Charlie Crist Flip-Flop Hall of Fame.” Reversals on abortion, gay adoption and offshore drilling were documented, among others.

Most troubling are some of Crist’s closest friends, such as Ponzi-schemer Scott Rothstein, who is serving 50 years in prison. Rothstein recently said under oath that he had a “quid pro quo” relationship with then-Gov. Crist, involving judicial appointments favorable to Rothstein’s firm. In return, Crist would receive large campaign contributions. If even a particle of this is true, what does this say about the man’s character, judgment and respect for the law?

Charlie Crist failed as governor once and was trounced

Crist switches teams and endorses Obama . A vote for Charlie Crist is a vote for His Pal Obama’s policies for the Elderly. Don’t be fooled !


Read more:


.Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn warns. “We have stolen $2.6 trillion from it. We put paper money in there. The problem is, we spent the money – we didn’t just take it, we took it and spent it,”



By: Dr. Allen Smith 2013

Obama’s comments saying that he cannot guarantee that Social Security checks will go out if the debt ceiling doesn’t get raised, it’s time to take a closer look at why politicians are pushing to cut this vital program.

The Social Security Trust Fund should currently have $2.5 trillion in surplus. So how is it that these checks could stop being issued if the debt ceiling isn’t raised? Economics professor Dr. Allen Smith, author of The Looting of Social Security: How The Government is Draining America’s Retirement Account, has been reporting on the theft of Social Security funds for years. As he sums it up:

“The government’s $2.5 trillion debt to Social Security is the real reason that so many politicians want to cut benefits. They are trying to find a way to avoid having to repay the looted money…

I: It’s Time to Tap the Empty Social Security Trust Fund

AP writer, Stephen Ohlemacher, sent shock waves throughout the nation with his story, “Social Security to start cashing Uncle Sam’s IOUs.” Social Security has been running large surpluses ever since the enactment of the 1983 payroll tax hike,(Ronald Regan) and was projected to continue running surpluses until at least 2016.Instead, Ohlemacher reports that the cost of Social Security benefits will exceed payroll tax revenue by approximately $29 billion this year,

Because of the severe recession which has reduced payroll tax revenue at the very time that many unemployed Americans have been forced to retire early. (severe recession?? Did not Obama give a payroll tax cut which reduces SS income from payrolls?????) and did not Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate, originally take Social Security from the Independent Trust Fund, IOU’s, or whatever the Cretins we voted for want to call them”and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it?

What it all boils down to is that, in order to pay full benefits this year, Social Security will have to come up with an extra $29 billion to supplement the inadequate payroll tax revenue. Where will that money come from? It will have to come from increased taxes or from borrowed money. “Wait a minute!” some readers will say. Hasn’t Social Security been receiving surplus revenue ever since the 1983 payroll tax hike? Isn’t there supposed to be approximately $2.5 trillion in the Social Security trust fund? The answer to both questions is yes. But there is a problem. Every dollar of that surplus Social Security revenue has already been spent by the government. The American people were not supposed to find out about the great Social Security scam for another six years, and the government was hoping to continue to receive surplus money from the Social Security contributions of working Americans for at least that long.

But the inevitable day of reckoning has come, six years sooner than anybody expected. And the government of the United States has been caught with its hand still in the empty Social Security cookie jar.

. If anyone deserves credit for helping the government to keep its dirty secret for so long, that honor should go to the AARP and the NCPSSM. . Instead, they have continued to bombard their members and the public with misinformation. They have argued that the trust fund is full of “good-as-gold” U.S. Treasury Bonds that could be used to pay full Social Security benefits until at least 2037 without any changes.

In reaction to Olemacher’s AP story, president of the NCPSSM, responded with the following words, “Good luck to the politician who reneges on that debt. Those bonds are protected by the full faith and credit of the United States of America. They’re as solid as what we owe China and Japan.”    ???

It has been clear for quite some time that the trust fund contained no real assets. David Walker, Comptroller General of the GAO, stated on January 21, 2005, “There are no stocks or bonds or real estate in the trust fund. It has nothing of real value to draw down.” On April 5, 2005, President George W. Bush acknowledged the empty trust fund by saying, “There is no trust fund, just IOUs that I saw firsthand that future generations will pay—what 2

will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs.”

**If there was any doubt remaining, with regard to whether or not the trust fund contains any real assets, that doubt should have been removed by the following words in the 2009 Social Security Trustees Report:

Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury, which must finance redemptions and interest payments through some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

There is nothing ambiguous about the above words. They make it clear that the government does not receive any cash income from the alleged interest payments on the trust fund IOUs. The interest payments are made in the form of additional worthless IOUs. The government cannot sell the IOUs because they are not marketable and have no cash value. The IOUs simply represent a debt of one branch of the government (the Treasury Department) to another branch of government (Social Security). They cancel each other out.

The Social Security surplus revenue should have been saved and invested in public-issue, marketable Treasury bonds. These bonds are “good as gold” and default-proof. They are the kind of U.S. Treasury bonds that are owned by China and Japan, Bill Gates, pension funds, and every other serious investor that owns Treasuries.

If the Social Security surplus had been invested in public-issue marketable Treasury bonds, as it could have been, and should have been, Barbara Kennelly would be correct in saying that the Social Security holdings are “as solid as what we owe China and Japan.” Unfortunately not a single dollar of the surplus Social Security revenue was saved or invested in anything. It was all spent, and, once money is spent, there is nothing left to invest.

The government cannot, and will not, ever default on any of its public issue, marketable Treasury bonds because of the panic it would create in world markets and the damage it would do to the nation’s worldwide credibility. But Congress has the legal authority to default on its debt to Social Security, and, if it should do so, the outside world would probably view it primarily as an internal matter between the United States Government and its citizens.

One of the least known facts about Social Security is that, although the government does have a moral obligation to pay Social Security benefits to those who have earned them, the government does not have a legal obligation to do so.   smiley-sign0085

In a 1960 ruling by the United States Supreme Court, the court ruled that nobody has a “contractual earned right” to Social Security benefits. Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act specifically states, “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress.” According to the above strong language, Congress could do whatever it wanted to do with regard to changing or even eliminating Social Security.

Early on, some did not take the language seriously because they thought it was probably unconstitutional. However, in 1960, in the case of Fleming v. Nestor, the Supreme Court upheld the denial of benefits to Nestor, even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits In its ruling, the Supreme Court established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits “is not a contractual right.”

As a result of the 1960 Supreme Court ruling, the future of Social Security is totally in the hands of Congress and the President. They have the legal authority to amend any and all parts of the Social Security Act, as well as the authority to either increase or decrease Social Security benefits.

II: The Social Security Fraud Has Finally Been Exposed  On December 13, 2010, the highly respected Kansas City Star, winner of eight Pulitzer Prizes, published an editorial entitled, “The myth of the Social Security trust fund,” which included the following statement:

A lot of people speak of those IOUs as if they can be pulled out and exchanged for money to pay benefit checks. They can’t. As the Clinton administration budget of 2000 explained, the securities in the Trust Fund ‘do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Those special-issue bonds can only be redeemed by raising taxes, cutting spending elsewhere, or borrowing — exactly what the government would have to do if the Trust Fund didn’t exist. The Trust Fund, said the Clinton budget message, ‘does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. Clinton continued to spend just like the rest of them. Clinton used S.S funds to claim he balanced the budget.

On December 20, distinguished business columnist, Allan Sloan, seven-time winner of the prestigious Loeb award, business journalism’s highest honor, called the trust fund “a mirage” in his Washington Post column. In the column, titled, “New tax law reveals the mirage of the Social Security trust fund,” Sloan wrote:

The problem with the trust fund is that it’s a snare and a delusion for people who think that it makes Social Security financially sound. It doesn’t do that, because having government IOUs in a government trust fund doesn’t make it any easier for the government to cover Social Security’s cash shortfalls than it would be if there were no trust fund.

These are not new revelations. I have spent the past decade relentlessly trying to expose the Social Security fraud, and prominent government officials were screaming out the warnings two decades ago.

On October 13, 1989, Senator Ernest Hollings of SC stood on the Senate floor and warned, “…the most reprehensible fraud in this great jambalaya of frauds is the systematic and total ransacking of the Social Security trust fund…in the next century…the American people will wake up to the reality that those IOUs in the trust fund vault are a 21st century version of Confederate bank notes.”

The Kansas City Star editorial and Allan Sloan’s Washington Post column seem to have stunned the AARP and the NCPSSM into silence. These organization have repeatedly claimed that the Social Security surplus is invested in U.S. Treasury bonds just like those held by the Chinese government. They have battled efforts to get this same message out for a decade, but they seem to have had the wind knocked out of them by the Star and Allan Sloan. So far, they have made no attempt to rebut either of the two articles. The AARP and the NCPSSM have been claiming for years that the trust fund holds enough assets to pay full Social Security benefits until at least 2037, when, in fact, in the words of the Kansas City Star, it has no “real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits.”

So where does that leave Social Security? The approximately $2.5 trillion in surplus revenue, generated by the 1983 payroll tax hike, rightly belongs to the Social Security trust fund and to American workers who paid the extra taxes. But the money is all gone — “borrowed” or “stolen” by the federal government and spent None of the money was saved or invested in anything, so the trust fund contains no real economic assets with which to supplement the payroll tax which will become inadequate to pay full benefits after 2015.

Itt is time for the public to demand, in a very strong way, that the government make arrangements to repay its debt to Social Security. It is futile for the AARP and the NCPSSM to continue to insist that Social Security is in fine shape and has enough assets to pay full benefits until 2037. This just isn’t true. What the organizations need to do now is put political pressure on the government to move quickly to enact legislation that would require the repayment of the looted money, as it is needed, over the next 27 years. There is no way that the government could possibly come up with the $2.5 trillion in the near future, given the budget crisis. But it can make a legal commitment to repay the money in installments. Will that happen? Not without major political pressure from the majority of Americans.

The AARP and the NCPSSM have frittered away the past ten years when the problem could have been resolved. If the looting could have been stopped when I first began actively urging such action in 2000, the trust fund would today hold approximately $1.5 trillion (the amount looted during the past 10 years) in “good-as-gold” real assets. Instead, it holds no real economic assets.

The reason many don’t believe the government will honor its debt to Social Security without major political pressure is that it does not legally have to repay the money. The government certainly has a moral obligation to do so, but, because of a 1960 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, it has an out. In the case of Fleming v. Nestor, the Court ruled that nobody has a “contractual earned right” to Social Security benefits. This ruling was based on Section 1104 of the 1935 Social Security Act which specifically states, “The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this ACT is hereby reserved to the Congress.” Based on this strong language, Congress could do whatever it wanted to do with regard to changing or even eliminating Social Security.

There is also $16 trillion reason why.

Many people argue that the government could not default on its debt to Social Security because of the effect such action would have on financial markets and the nation’s public image. If the government held the same kind of real bonds that are traded on world markets, this would be true. Public-issue, marketable U.S. Treasury bonds are default-proof, and that is the kind of bonds that the Social Security surplus revenue was supposed to be invested in. If this had been done, Social Security would be in fine shape today. But, instead of using the surplus Social Security revenue to buy such bonds in the open market, the government chose to spend the money and issue IOUs to replace the spent money.*** These IOUs are non-marketable and could not be sold to anyone, even for a penny on the dollar. The government has the legal authority to declare these IOUs null and void. Since these IOUs are not traded, such action would have little effect on financial markets, and foreign governments would probably consider such action as an internal matter between the American government and its citizens.

The Social Security trust fund does not hold any real economic assets that can be drawn down to pay future benefits. That is an indisputable fact today, and it has been true ever since the 1983 payroll tax hike was enacted. Every dollar of the $2.5 trillion in surplus revenue, generated by the payroll tax hike, has been spent on programs unrelated to Social Security, leaving nothing to save or invest.

A few United States Senators tried to sound the alarm two decades ago, . For more than a quarter of a century, the United States government, under five presidents, has hoodwinked the American public into believing their Social Security contributions would be used for future Social Security benefitsToday, thanks to the efforts of the editorial board of the Kansas City Star, and thanks to the courage and competence of Allan Sloan and a few other journalists, the big bad secret is finally out, and I think it is too late to get this cat back in the bag.President Obama is the fifth president to participate in the great Social Security scam.

All of the previous administrations knew that spending Social Security revenue, as if it were general revenue, was wrong and was a violation of both federal law and the public trust. But, they all had the luxury of knowing that the raided Social Security money would not be needed to pay benefits while they were still in office.

Obama_1_nose_in_the_air_croppedHowever, President Obama learned early in his presidency that, unless the government ended the raiding and began repaying the money that had already been raided, Social Security would face a major financial crisis during his presidency. Yet he ran up trillions of dollars of debt. And took billions from the  seniors medicare  funds to start obamacare.US-POLITICS-OBAMA-GOLF

Beginning in 2015, and every year after that, payroll tax revenue will be insufficient to pay full benefits. But that money has already been spent, so the government will have to come up with the money again to repay the $2.54 trillion that it embezzled. This might be manageable in the early years, when the difference between benefit costs and payroll tax revenue is minimal. But, each year, the amount of money needed to replace the looted money gets bigger and bigger. For example, Social Security will run a deficit of approximately $41.4 billion in 2010. But in 2020, the Social Security deficit will have grown to $101.4 billion. Five years later, in 2025, the Social Security shortfall will be $274.6 billion. In 2035, the government would have to come up with an astronomical $621.9 billion in order to pay full Social Security benefits.

The embezzlement of the Social Security trust fund money was done without public knowledge, President Obama will just kick the can farther down the road as his four predecessors have done. He must find a way to raise the money to repay the government’s debt to Social Security, or cut Social Security benefits so the money will not have to be repaid. This is what an Obama Presidency is most likely to do with 4 more years.

Barrak Hussein Obama is a Socialist I will not trust him and his Marxist Czars with Social Security No one can stop him

A real let them eat cake moment 2

*****A real let them eat cake moment*****

Embezzlement is a crime, and every participant (all the presidents and members of Congress who supported the practice) knew they were people’s Social Security money as general revenue over the past 25 years. Some individuals, such as the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, attempted to end the raiding 20 years ago. On September 27, 2000, I launched my decade-long campaign to expose the Social Security scam with an appearance on CNN News to discuss my then newly-published book, The Alleged Budget Surplus, Social Security, and bad Economics.

For the past 10 years, I have been warning, as forcefully as I could, that a day of reckoning would come, at which time the government might consider defaulting on its huge Social Security debt. But nobody wanted to listen. That day of reckoning is now upon us.

V: Censored Social Security Book Back in Print When my book, The Looting of Social Security: How The Government is Draining America’s Retirement Account, was published by a New York publisher in 2004, I thought my long battle to expose the truth about the Social Security trust fund was almost won. But that book met with foul play, and was removed from the market before many people had the opportunity to read it.

Early reviews revealed just how provocative the book was going to be. The Boston Globe reported, “… With dismal clarity, Smith lays out the step-by-step history of how a national pension plan was transformed into an outright shakedown of working people” and ALA Booklist said, “Smith has written a scathing account of massive fraud on the part of our nation’s leaders, who have plundered every cent of the Social Security Trust Fund surplus that was specifically earmarked for the retirement of the baby boomers.”

On February 26, 2004, I appeared on CNBC, to respond to Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, who had called for Social Security benefit cuts the previous day. I held my book in front of the camera and said, as forcefully as I could, “Alan Greenspan should be ashamed of himself for what he is not telling the American people.”

I now believe that this public criticism of the Fed chairman may have been the final nail in the coffin of The Looting of Social Security, which was very critical of Greenspan’s role in making the looting of the trust fund possible.

A few weeks after my controversial appearance on CNBC, the book mysteriously disappeared from bookstores, nationwide, and was listed as “unavailable” by I tried to get the rights to the book reverted back to me so I could publish my message elsewhere, but my publisher refused to surrender the rights. Thus the book was effectively killed off, and there was nothing I could do about it. I was unable to pinpoint exactly who was responsible for rendering the book “unavailable,” but a lot of people did not want the contents of the book to become public. Certainly, people in government, such as Alan Greenspan.

Although the public knew nothing about it at the time, Greenspan’s February 25, 2004 call for Social Security benefit cuts was the opening salvo in an organized campaign to dismantle Social Security, as we now know it, once George W. Bush was safely elected to a second term. On August 27, 2004, Greenspan again spoke of cutting Social Security benefits during remarks at a symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.

“As a nation, we owe it to our retirees to promise only the benefits that can be delivered,” Greenspan said. “If we have promised more than our economy has the power to deliver to retirees without unduly diminishing real income gains of workers, as I fear we may have, we must recalibrate our public programs so that pending retirees have time to adjust through other channels.”

Almost immediately upon his re-election, President George W. Bush made public his plan to partially privatize Social Security. On November 4, 2004, Bush said, “Let me put it this way: I earned capital, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style…I’ve earned capital in this election— and I’m going to spend it for what I told the people I’d spend it on, which is — you’ve heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.”

Like other Americans, there is no way I could have known about the standby plan to privatize Social Security, which was already formulated at the time I appeared on CNBC and publicly challenged Alan Greenspan on Social Security. Therefore, I didn’t realize just how big the potential impact of widespread readership of my book could be on the future plans of the Bush administration. From the administration’s point of view, I’m sure that they were not going to allow my book, or a book by any other author, to sabotage their plan to privatize Social Security. The book was a threat, and the threat had to be dealt with.

What is far more puzzling to me, than the opposition to my book in 2004, is the current effort to discredit me, and the book.

If the intent of this internet campaign was to stomp out the message of my book, now and forever, their actions have backfired on them. It was in reaction to this campaign that I decided not to allow them to kick a dead book without bringing the book back to life. When I finally regained the rights to “The Looting of Social Security” in 2008, I vowed to re-publish the book, when the time was right, under an arrangement that would guarantee that the book remained in print for as long as anyone wanted to read it.

Dr. Allen Smith


72 hour window for Central Americans to transit Mexico to get into the United States.

wake up america

Text From: Newt Gingrich

The Bad Neighbor Policy: Playing Americans for Fools

Guatemala and Mexico agreed this week to make it even easier for people to show up at the American border.

That’s right: EASIER  what 2

After all the public outcry against thousands of foreigners crossing our border, you might have thought the Mexican government would help stop the wave of people traversing Mexico to get to Texas. That would be a good neighbor policy.

On Monday, however, the presidents of Guatemala and Mexico met to announce a new policy of making it easier and more orderly for citizens of Belize, Guatemala and Honduras to travel through Mexico to the United States.

This “Safe Passage” program will create a 72 hour window for Central Americans to transit Mexico to try to get into the United States. This is clearly a bad neighbor policy.

It is hard for most Americans to understand how the president of a country can openly encourage people to flee his country and try to move into another country. For most nations that would be a sign of enormous failure. The president of Guatemala, however, seems eager to facilitate the thousands of people fleeing his country.

On June 20, Vice President Biden visited Guatemala and warned the Guatemalan president that the U.S. would enforce deportation of Guatemalans who sought to enter this country. shocked Lies ??

Biden was apparently as believable in Guatemala as Obama has been in Syria, Iraq, Crimea, Ukraine and a dozen other foreign policy failures.

The contempt foreign governments display toward the Obama administration (and therefore toward the United States) is breathtaking.

This week, of course, President Obama was busy shooting pool, ordering pizza, and shaking hands with a man in a horse mask. How could we ask him to pay attention to the alliance of Guatemala and Mexico against the United States?

The flood of foreigners is going to accelerate.

The costs are going to rise dramatically.

The contempt for the Obama administration is going to continue to grow.

This is a recipe for disaster.




It Seems the Only Promise Obama has kept is to Radicle Muslims

This lie being peddled about the toppling of Middle Eastern leaders as being a good thing and in the name of democracy is an outright lie. This tragedy is a direct consequence of Obama’s interference by sending bombs in America’s name to topple Egypt and Libya. for his beloved Muslim Brotherhood

obama the musli

It seems the only promise Obama has kept is to Radicle Muslims when he wrote “I will stand with them (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction”. Wake up America!! Now it seems He and Hillary were arming Al-Qaeda.


Obama seems to be Replacing pro-Western governments in the Middle East with Islamic extremist governments.

U.S. considers requesting Iran’s assistance in preventing the escalation of violence in Iraq and its collapse. Although some in the government claim they will never ally with Iran, other high-ranking officials are already at work opening secret channels to plan military operations. Indeed,Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman  General Martin Dempsey recently claimed it is “not impossible” that the U.S. will begin coordinating its military operations in Iraq with Iran.   can-of-worms      Some are even admitting that Iran is a key to the Middle East being an island of stability.

acid attacks on women are rampant in the Muslim world


Islamic Judge Orders Syrian Girl Stoned to Death for Facebook Account February 13, 2014 by


Instead of bringing victory over the fascist forces of the Muslim Brotherhood, we now recognize that their infiltration is right up to the American White House, “but we can’t say that.”

obama-bows-to-saudi-king-best.jpg 3

America’s government-controlled media fail to report the truth, which is why many Americans research, self-educate and become citizen journalists in order to bring you the truth. On this subject, we have previously explained that Islamism is not a religion; it is a complete system comprised of totalitarian rule over day-to-day life – political, financial, legal, social, cultural and religious – and its mission is Jihad.

Obama’s embrace of those who hate America and actively pursue the destruction of our country from within and externally has been on display for quite awhile and it is time we see, speak  and  hear the truth.


The Muslim Brotherhood creed:Obama_1_nose_in_the_air_cropped

“Allah is our objective, the prophet is our leader, the Koran is our law, Jihad is our way, dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

“Jihad is our way” explicitly endorses the reinstatement of a worldwide Islamic regime.

Tarek says, talk to your families, friends and neighbors; show them the warning from this Liberal Democrat Marxist.

“Why is it happening? Because we are not speaking out. And the dangers we face… if we do not confront them today, our children will not forgive us tomorrow.”

Sharia-for-future-UK 2