Monday, February 25, 2013

More Code Words 
by / Personal  Liberty Di

More Code WordsJust about one year ago, I told you about some of thecode words that are devised in the back rooms and inner sanctums of power. These words are repeated over and over in order to dumb us down and create conditioned responses.

While we know in our subconscious the true meaning of most of these words, repetition ad nauseam of their changed definition causes the new definition to be adopted by the masses and then accepted as conventionalwisdom. The words and phrases are then used to drive the debate and create ready acceptance of laws and policies that reduce liberty. Once they are adopted, challenges to these newly accepted definitions are ridiculed and dismissed.

Here are some more code words or phrases to add to the list:

Conspiracy theory: Any challenge to conventional wisdom. The elites prefer that their messages, as broadcast by their mainstream media mouthpieces, be blindly accepted without question. Asking questions — even those pointing out the obvious fallacies in the message — is labeled “conspiracy.” In fact, the conspiracy lies in those in the MSM who parrot the message without thought and investigation.

Legitimate news source: A control phrase used to bolster the concept that the only “real” news comes from the mainstream media, the propaganda mouthpiece of the 1 percent. Six megacorporations now control 90 percent of what we see and hear on a daily basis. The only true and legitimate news sources are now found on the Internet.

For the children: Used as a substitute for what it really means; bad policy or really bad policy. Tyrants and dictators have long cloaked themselves with the faces of children. Higher-form creatures take every effort to protect their young, and humans are no exception. So any policy, no matter how feckless, is accepted if it can be sold as a protector of the children. “For the children” rivals “to keep us safe” as the most dangerous of phrases that result in loss of freedom.

Sequestration: President Barack Obama’s plan to avoid responsibility for proposed insignificant cuts to the growth of leviathan government and create another wedge issue in his ongoing class warfare battle. The elected class will do nothing to cut government. Doing so reduces their power and gives them less “playing room” when it comes time to “spread the wealth around” to their cronies and corporate masters.

The proposed $1.2 trillion in cuts over 10 years are not cuts as real people understand them, but a reduction in the baseline increases that occur automatically in government. They are completely insignificant, though the 1 percent will use them to create fear of impending doom and gloom.

Revenues: A replacement word for taxes that still means confiscation of wealth from producers to the 1 percent for redistribution to the dependent class and corporatist interests.

Investments: A control word now used in place of “spending.” It is money transferred to favored pass-through industries that get special incentives and funnel the money back to the war chests of politicians.

Quantitative easing: The world’s greatest check kiting scheme, which dwarfs anything Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff could have imagined. It is simply currency debasement and destruction and an involuntary transfer of wealth from you, the taxpayers, to a narrow financial elite. It is by far the largest looting in the history of the world.

Stimulus: Abstractions and illusions designed to make people think that wealth can be created by printing money and transferring it to the corrupt banking system and other industries and labor unions favored by the 1 percent. It has resulted in an unsustainable stock market bubble that is giving a false sense of recovery when, in fact, the U.S. economy is in dire shape. Freight shipments are at their lowest levels in two years, gasoline prices have risen every day for more than a month and are up more than 50 cents in two months, retailers are projecting the closure of hundreds of stores this year, Wal-Mart sales for the year are a “total disaster,” gross domestic product contracted at an annual rate of .1 percent during the fourth quarter of 2012, the economies of the richest countries contracted in the last quarter and corporate insiders are dumping stocks.

Extremist: Anyone who advocates for a smaller, less intrusive government, opposes all policies that are unConstitutional and rejects compromise on Constitutional principles.

Minimum wage: Another wedge issue designed to incite the dependent class against the producers. In his State of the Union address, Obama proposed raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9, a 24 percent increase. He did so with the implication that it was not a “living wage” and that there are people trying to raise a family on minimum wage. This is a false notion. Minimum-wage jobs are held by young people (mostly), some seniors (who work to stay busy and/or overcome the effects of inflation and artificially low interest rates on their pensions and savings) and people working a second job. In fact, raising the minimum wage would harm each of those segments, as the businesses would eliminate many of those jobs rather than absorb or pass along the wage increases. Increasing the minimum wage would also lead to higher prices on goods and services, thereby eliminating any benefits that might accrue from the additional wages paid to a smaller number of employees. A higher minimum wage coupled with Obamacare mandates in a sagging economy with no jobs for young workers — who currently have an unemployment rate of 23.4 percent (according to phony government data) — is a job killer that will drive even more people to government dependency.

Inflation: Inflation is not rising prices. It is an increase in the money supply that devalues the dollars in circulation. As Alan Greenspan said in 1966 (before he sold his soul to the banksters), inflation is a “scheme for the hidden confiscation of wealth.” This is something that probably not one in a million people understands, yet it is an issue that is of utmost importance. Henry Hazlitt wrote in What You Should Know About Inflation: “As the money supply is increased, people have more money to offer for goods. But if the supply of goods doesn’t increase — or increases at a slower pace than the money supply — the prices of goods goes up. Each individual dollar becomes less valuable because there are more dollars available. This leads to more of them being offered for a commodity. A ‘price’ is an exchange ratio between a dollar and a unit of goods. When people have more dollars, they value them less. Goods then rise in price, not because there are fewer goods than before, but rather because there are more dollars available.”
Obama Group Plans Unlimited Donations

By Newsmax Wires


Two of President Barack Obama’s top political strategists are behind the launch of a new liberal activist organization that will be funded by seemingly unlimited donations of $50,000 or more from “Hollywood studio executives, California energy investors and Chicago business titans,” according to the Washington Post.

The move has shocked some former progressive allies of the president and represents a complete turnaround for a leader who, as candidate, once pushed for stringent campaign finance reform and strict limits on donations.

They are blasting Obama for abandon his campaign stances in favor of a group that can raise unlimited sums with limited transparency – “the very circumstances he complained about publicly in 2010 when the Supreme Court granted corporations and unions the opportunity to contribute to groups seeking to influence elections,” the Post reports.

“This is an unprecedented vehicle providing a whole new entry point for corruption by individuals and companies that may seek to buy influence with the administration,” said Fred Wertheimer, a Washington lawyer and reform advocate who is president of the organization Democracy 21, told the Post. “It will either lead to scandal or the appearance of scandal.”

“This OFA idea is a terrible example of individuals and corporations being asked to pay to get access” to administration officials, added Bob Edgar, a former Democratic congressman from Pennsylvania who heads Common Cause, referring to the new group, Organizing for Action.

Organizing for Action’s leaders insist it will be nonpartisan and steer clear of election activity. But it is already drawing up a list of plans for ads and other activities that amount to a liberal agenda of gun control, climate change legislation, same-sex marriage laws and “ballot access.” The first ads on gun control targeted only Republicans, the Post reports in an article published online Sunday.

The new organization is seeking to keep Obama’s 2012 campaign organization up and running in a type of permanent campaign that will allow the president to push his agenda on a state-by-state basis heading into the 2014 elections. The group is headed by Jim Messina, who managed Obama’s reelection campaign, has been talking with Democratic Party leaders, including those responsible for success in the 2014 midterm elections.

“Messina and Jon Carson, a leading strategist, have traveled the country meeting with members of the Obama 2012 National Finance Committee, who are being pressed back to work to find support for the new organization,” the Post reports. “In huddles with Hollywood studio executives, California energy investors and Chicago business titans, they have suggested $500,000 as a target level for OFA bundlers and that top donors get invitations to quarterly OFA board meetings attended by the president.”

A “founders summit” on March 13 includes a $50,000-per-person meeting at the Jefferson Hotel in Washington led by Messina and Carson.

A one-page memo accompanying the invitation says the OFA will help “strengthen the progressive movement and train our next generation of leaders.

It also promises to engage in “state-by-state fights” over issues such as “ballot access and marriage equality.”

Debunking Sequester Hysteria from the Big Spenders in Washington

I shared a couple of amusing sequester cartoons the other day, and I’ve previously written about the absurdity of anti-sequester hysteria in Washington when all it means is that the federal budget will grow by $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years rather than $2.5 trillion.

This Nate Beeler cartoon effectively captures the mindset of Washington’s big spenders.

Let’s take a serious look at this topic.

sequester Cartoon Beeler George Will is appropriately disgusted by the antics of the political class. Here’s some of his column on the topic.
The sequester has forced liberals to clarify their conviction that whatever the government’s size is at any moment, it is the bare minimum necessary to forestall intolerable suffering. At his unintentionally hilarious hysteria session Tuesday, Obama said:
The sequester’s “meat-cleaver approach” of “severe,” “arbitrary” and “brutal” cuts will “eviscerate” education, energy and medical research spending. “And already, the threat of these cuts has forced the Navy to delay an aircraft carrier that was supposed to deploy to the Persian Gulf.”
Will elaborates on the Navy’s shameful  stunt.
“Forced”? The Navy did indeed cite the sequester when delaying deployment of the USS Truman. …the Navy is saying it cannot find cuts to programs or deployments less essential than the Truman deployment. The Navy’s participation in the political campaign to pressure Congress into unraveling the sequester is crude, obvious and shameful, and it should earn the Navy’s budget especially skeptical scrutiny by Congress. The Defense Department’s civilian employment has grown 17 percent since 2002. In 2012, defense spending on civilian personnel was 21 percent higher than in 2002. And the Truman must stay in Norfolk? This is, strictly speaking, unbelievable.
Will also comments on the Keynesian economic theory being used to fight against sequestration.
Obama, who believes government spends money more constructively than do those who earn it, warns that the sequester’s budgetary nicks, amounting to one-half of 1 percent of gross domestic product, will derail the economy. A similar jeremiad was heard in 1943 when economist Paul Samuelson, whose Keynesian assumptions have trickled down to Obama, said postwar cuts in government would mean “the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced.” Federal spending did indeed shrink an enormous 40 percent in one year. And the economy boomed.
Amen. I’ve already cited a Cato study on this topic, which shows that the Keynesians were wildly wrong in their predictions of post-war economic collapse.

And the Wall Street Journal also has opined on this topic, showing not only that lawmakers wisely rejected another round of Keynesian foolishness, but also that post-war tax cuts were one of the reasons why the economy quickly rebounded.

Let’s close with some more mockery of the clowns in Washington.

This Gary Varvel cartoon shows what’s happening, though I’ve would have drawn Chicken Little to resemble Obama.


Sequester Cartoon Varvel But what about the second frame of the cartoon? If the sequester happens, will the statists be forced to admit that they were creating false fears in hopes of protecting their spots at the federal trough?
As reported in the Washington Post, one of them is very worried about this possible outcome.
“…The bad news is, the world doesn’t end March 2,” said Emily Holubowich, a Washington health-care lobbyist who leads a coalition of 3,000 nonprofit groups fighting the cuts.
“The worst-case scenario for us is the sequester hits and nothing bad really happens. And Republicans say: See, that wasn’t so bad.”
Since the sequester takes effect on March 1, we’ll soon find out.

Some bureaucracies will deliberately try to make the sequester as inconvenient and painful as possible for the American people. As I said in this Larry Kudlow interview, the heads of those agencies should be fired.

Of course, Obama will probably try to reward them, but those who favor responsible fiscal policy should do everything possible to expose the shameful game being played by these political hacks.

Ronald Reagan Still Subduing the Left

Ronald Reagan Still Subduing the Left
Ronald Reagan spent the better part of a lifetime baffling the Left and often defeating them in the court of public opinion. Other Republicans have been battling the last twenty years to defund the left, particularly unions who get automatic payments through Dropbox without members having any say, or how plaintiff attorneys use their vast influence to buy Democratic officials who turn around and pass laws that line their pockets with more lawsuits. Now the Reagan name is being used to defund another source of funds for the left.

Enter a man by the name of Anthony Saliba. He was busy working the floor of the Chicago Board Options Exchange. He was wearing one of those funny vests yelling buy this and sell that and making a nice living. It occurred to him in the late 1980’s that computers were here to stay and that the options business needed to be updated. He found he had an aptitude in dealing with things like COBOL and FORTRAN computer language so he dug in to the project of computerizing the industry.

Saliba now runs one of the largest computer firms dealing with option transactions in the industry. His company handles the computer processing for more than one-third of the total volume of options in the country. His customers include most of the big names such as Merrill Lynch and Charles Schwab. Saliba now spends more time with computer geeks than with people in funny vests making trades.

Along the way, Saliba had the opportunity to run into Michael Reagan, son of the President. They became friends and actually ended up on an African Safari with their respective families. While in Tanzania’s famous Serengeti, Reagan and Saliba had a series of discussions. While most people would be focusing on whether a pride of lions might be eyeing them for their evening meal, the two men were discussing how certain businesses were taking the hard-earned dollars of Republican customers and turning them over to Democratic candidates.

They thought they could do something about it. Michael Reagan owned the rights to Reagan.com, and Saliba now had the technical expertise to utilize the name in a constructive way. Their research started.

They found that all the email services were getting serious revenue (about $400 per email account for Google) from offering a “free” service. They also found that the people running Gmail (Google), Hotmail (Microsoft), AOL (Time Warner) and Yahoo were all taking the proceeds from the advertising and other promotional revenues and making significant contributions to politicians – almost all to the left.

Thus they began offering their own email service. The email service is not free, as it currently costs $40 per year for a membership. But it is built on certain principles. The first is anonymity. When you send an email to a friend about a restaurant or search for a pair of shoes, no third party will know and you will not then receive numerous advertisements based on your search. The second aspect of the service is what they call vanity. That means conservatives would be proud of the idea of having an email address ending in “Reagan.com.” The third aspect they characterized as Affinity. That means being associated in the “members only” area with other conservatives.

They currently have over 50,000 members, but they have built a platform that is totally secure and can host millions of addresses. The website Reagan.com already gets a couple million visits every month. With 50,000 members and counting, they have recouped all their start-up costs so it certainly appears that the service is here to stay. The question at this point is how fast it grows.

Saliba stated they are looking to expand offerings the same as any growing business. In the special “members only” section on the website where one can buy exclusive items or services at a discount over the non-member price. They are also looking to host people who have their own domain names (such as mine: Bialosky.biz) so that they can move their accounts from other services and now be hosted by Reagan.com. In addition, they are taking their proceeds and donating to conservative causes such as the Heritage Foundation or the Gary Sinise Foundation which help veterans and first responders.

One can clearly see that Ronald Reagan would be proud of the mission of Reagan.com. Now what remains is for you to decide if it is time for you to make the switch and receive the benefits of membership… unless, of course, you don’t mind that everybody on the internet knows all about you.

School-shooting victim: Pack heat!

Cop who survived assault as child defends 2nd Amendment


WASHINGTON – A policeman who was shot and injured when he was a student in a California school in 1989 says Congress needs to put blame on the guilty party when it addresses the issue of shootings, gun control and the Second Amendment.

At a news conference today in Washington, Rob Young, now a California police officer, defied political correctness and said he supports the Second Amendment.

It was on Jan. 17, 1989, when Young was shot in his right foot and on the left side of his chest by Patrick Purdy, who killed five kids in his attack on an elementary school in Stockton, Calif. It was the worst elementary school shooting at the time.

At 7 years old, Young said, he realized the “cold hard reality that” life can be taken at any minute.

“You might be hearing my story, and thinking to yourself ‘more gun control’ is what needs to happen,” he said. “But let me be the one to tell you, gun control is not the answer. Gun control would not have saved me or any of my classmates that day.”

Young attributes the source of the violence not to the firearms, but rather to the attacker, who he says “was the only person to blame that day.”

Between excessive gun control laws and “minimum staffing levels,” Young believes this leads police forces to be “reactive” rather than “pro-active” so that police officers often feel more like “coroners” rather than officers of the law.

Despite what gun control advocates want, he said, more regulations do not produce less crime. He says in his own testimony, “In the nine years of active law enforcement I have made several arrests of people who stray from the law and choose to unlawfully carry a firearm.”

He rhetorically asked in response to this, “What makes you think that a single gun ban would change this?”

He adds from personal experience, “You can’t have a machine gun in California, but we pick them up all the time.”

Acting on support for the Second Amendment, Young said he endorses H.R. 35, introduced by U.S. Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, dubbed the “Safe Schools Bill.” It repeals gun free zones on school campuses.

Young said that though the police are dedicated to their work, “we cannot be everywhere at once” adding that “it is very likely that the officer will arrive after the incident has taken place.”

This situation ironically was the case at Young’s elementary school in 1989 when the police arrived after the shooting had already occurred.

At the conference, Gun Owners of America President Larry Pratt declared his support for H.R.35.

“We’ve got to get rid of gun free zones,” he said.

He described gun free schools as “a magnet for dirtbags to come harm people.”

Young expressed strong sympathy for Nick Melli of Portland, Ore., who carried a concealed a pistol in “gun free” Clackamas Town Center Mall in Clackamas, Ore. During December, a murder launched his rampage there, only to be taken out by Melli’s shot.

“Nick … was able to draw his pistol and protect himself against a heavily armed suspect who had just killed two other people in the mall,” Young said.

“Mr. Melli was not a police officer, however he had a CCW,” which allowed him to be pro-active in saving lives, he said.

At the conclusion of the speech, Young said that politicians should not have a “knee jerk reaction” to school shootings, and that government has no right to “place unfair limits on my ability to protect myself and my loved ones … do not take away my Second Amendment right that our forefathers set forth in the Constitution.”

Purdy was a 26-year-old, described by authorities as a troubled drifter, when he went to the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton and raked the yard with 106 bullets from an AK-47. He killed five children, ages 6-9, and one teacher. Nearly three dozen more were injured.

His attack ended because Purdy shot and killed himself.

EEOC...not too smart it seems
By: Julia Sieben 

A new law that has been put on the books fairly silently since April of 2012, now has targeted employers use of criminal background checks for applicants. EEOC has declared extensive checks into the criminal history of a potential employee is a form of discrimination due to the high frequency of felony crimes are committed by minorities, primarily African-American, and Hispanic. EEOC is now putting forth lawsuits against employers who turn away applicants for their violent pasts, calling foul, that is unfair to the applicant and is a form of discrimination.

Now understand this illogical mentality of the government these days. They, meaning the government (administration) wants mandatory background checks on all citizens who wish to practice their 2nd Amendment Right, and even go so far as to exclude any law abiding citizen on a third parties impression, whether they are trained specifically for such evaluation, of a person who MAY Cause harm to oneself or to another because of depression, returning from the war, ever been under any medication for depression, anxiety, lack of sleep, or even such a small infraction as not capable of balancing a checkbook (Boy I know tons of people who cannot balance a check book, lets say 536 members of Congress).

Now the privilege that the government uses to restrict our rights, is being stripped away from employers, who actually want to reduce the risk to their business and customers from acts of coercion, larceny, conversion, robbery, drunk driving, battery, sexual assault, even murder.

Employers by Tort, have had to assume responsibility of an employees act while under the scope of work for negligence claims, violence towards others, misconduct while in the process of driving for the employer, theft of third party funds etc. Now the government has stepped in and is threatening suit against law abiding citizens who employ law abiding citizens, of acts of discrimination for checking into the background and patterns of possible hires.

Is this a little backwards to you? It is to me, seems gross negligence could and has been called many times against an employer who has hired knowingly hired a high risk employee, who then commits a crime or wrongful act against another while on duty of the employer.

If the government had their way, repeat drunk drivers would be driving taxi cabs and delivery trucks, repeat larceny and robbers would be handling your life's savings in local banks, repeat sexual offenders would be working in your schools and day care centers tending your children, repeat killers would be police and firemen with legal access into your homes.

These people sound like the ones who are now in office and touted as Public figures in Chicago, example Bill Ayers, and his lovely wife Bernadine Dohrn, both guilty of a part of the Weather Underground, a group that was responsible for the bombing of the United States Capitol, the Pentagon, and several police stations in New York. As a member of the Weather Underground, Dohrn read a "Declaration of a State of War" against the United States government, and was placed on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list, where she remained for three years.

Now Dohrn is an Associate Professor of Law at Northwestern University School of Law and the immediate past Director of Northwestern's Children and Family Justice Center, and Ayers is an American elementary education theorist, retired professor in the College of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, formerly holding the titles of Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar and was recently awarded in Chicago, Man of the Year.

Only in today's society is a criminal praised for his illegal lifestyle and protected more by the government that the Law Abiding Citizen who pays the tax dollars. Such is the world that the Progressive/Democratic corrupt machine has created with the cooperation of the apathetic voter.

The new laws, only make new criminals, and do nothing to resolve the problems only fuel the problem of a society that makes a hero out of the criminal and demonizes the righteous!


http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/Insight/2012/10_-_October/EEOC_guidance_on_criminal_convictions_and_employer_duty_of_care_in_negligence___Which_prevails_/

Op-ed:
Sequestration...Obama owns it

By: Diane Sori

 

          
Four days and counting until...drum roll please...sequestration!!! 
 
The big bad s-word is knocking at the door, and while most have come to loathe the recently much overused word, most wonder what exactly is sequestration. Simply, it's a general cut in government spending...and in legal mumbo-jumbo it's a term Congress adapted to describe a fiscal policy procedure originating in the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Act of 1985, which is an effort to reform Congressional voting procedures in order to make the size of the Federal government's budget deficit a matter of deliberate choice instead of an arithmetical outcome of a decentralized appropriations process in which the cumulative results were overlooked until it was too late to change them. 
 
Now ain't that all a mouthful, but if you meld the two together into a more manageable easily understood and workable definition, sequestration is simply automatic across-the-board reductions in the rate of increase in government spending.
 
But whether you choose the simple, the legalize, or the melded description of sequestration the bottom line is that unless stopped within the next four days, the Obama administration will impose automatic $1.2 trillion in broad based spending cuts...cutting $85 billion a year through 2021 to military and domestic programs. And yes, those reductions will indeed bring down current deficit spending, but only in the amount of about $44 billion in 2013, reducing what the federal government planned to budget this year by 1.5%, equaling a total 0.5% of the gross domestic product...some cut, huh. Only $44 billion this year, because in its misplaced wisdom (and I say 'wisdom' quite sarcastically), the federal government will still borrow close to $845 billion this upcoming fiscal year.

NOT a smart move...cutting deficit spending on the one hand while borrowing even more on the other hand...but then again NOTHING coming out of Obamanation is a smart move. And cutting spending is NOT an option palatable to Obama anyway as he doesn't think we have a spending problem at all.

NO spending problem (yeah right) yet Obama continuously bloviates and blames sequestration on the refusal of Republicans to raise the debt ceiling in 2011. And while both Congress and Obama agreed to the Budget Control Act, which matched some $2.4 trillion in debt-ceiling hikes with a similar amount of deficit reduction over the next decade, the Democrats still refused more cuts without being able to garner additional revenue from taxes, and raising taxes is NOT something Republicans find agreeable under any conditions.

Nope...raising taxes is NOT agreeable to any of us, period. Yet Obama's mantra to get out of this fiscal mess of his own doing is just that...raise taxes and then raise them some more.

And so it seems we'll be stuck with sequestration which remains a bad piece of legislation no matter how you slice it as it gives legislators a way to avoid personal responsibility for much needed cuts...and I mean cuts to domestic programs (as in the freebies and handouts Obama gives out) but NOT to our defense budget. These legislators must be held accountable even if they suffer politically from doing the right thing. And what's ironic about all this is that sequestration was totally Obama's idea...he proposed it, he promoted it, he owns it, and he used his bully pulpit to push it on the Republicans, but now that it's just about here he's backing away and wants NO responsibility for it.

Typical Obamaspeak...it's everybody else's fault...but hey, in his mind it's probably all Bush's fault anyway.
 

So when all the bloviated smoke clears from all the rhetoric, the fact remains that we must cut spending or we as a country will soon become bankrupt...it's that simple. Yet Obama wants people to believe that you can't cut any federal programs or employees without the government shutting down, and that is simply NOT true as cutting less than 3% of the federal budget, which is all this sequestration will do, will in NO way shut down the federal government.

And if Obama, within the next four days, can't convince Republicans that his sequestration idea (and remember it was his idea even though he's now putting the blame on the Republicans), is indeed a bad thing the cuts will happen. And what will the ramifications be if the cuts do go into effect, for now anyway, is that some military deployments may be cancelled, civilian employee furloughs will be necessary at the Department of Defense, the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Agriculture will reduce some services (but hey, the TSA cutting back on 'grouping and feeling' isn't such a bad idea now is it), and some federal employees may be furloughed, as in asked to involuntarily take off a certain amount of time per week, but that is NOT the same as losing one's job.
 

And this is what Obama is really hanging over the Republicans heads as a threat...Obama claims sequestration will cause 1,000 federal law enforcement officials and 1,500 corrections officers to face furloughs, and that border patrol and customs agents would be furloughed for two weeks, resulting in a reduction of 5,000 officers and agents at points of entry to the United States.
 

But he knew this when he invented and set up this manufactured crisis in the first place. He could care less if our borders are less secure or even secured at all as the more ILLEGALS that come in here the more Democratic voters he garners in the end.
 

So what happens now in these remaining four days...House Republicans have said they will only agree to a deal to avert sequestration if there's a plan in place to cut an equivalent amount of government spending, while Senate Democrats are proposing a plan that increases revenue by closing tax loopholes for the richest Americans...again playing into the class warfare and envy tactics polished to a fine point by Obama.
 

And so it seems a stalemate will most likely be the order of the day as many Republicans believe sequestration may just be the answer to solving Obama's out of control government spending, while many Democrats insist that one million jobs will be lost if the cuts goes into effect...and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But once again I guarantee it will be 'We the People' who will get screwed in the long run whether sequestration is averted or if it goes into effect.
 

Just another NOT happy day in the new reality that is Obamanation.