Letters from the AARP with membership cards. Personally I don’t care for organizations that say they’re one thing but turn out to be something completely different. AARP happens to be one of those in my opinion.
They have devolved into a PAC for the left and Democrats and for years have been cleverly disguised as a non-profit 501(c)(4).
With that in mind I penned the following request to remove me from their mailing lists and not bother me again.
Before you decide to join AARP, please do some research and study of their leadership, their political meddling, and the fact that they really aren’t a non-profit and they’ve been lying to seniors for years. Click the image Behind The Veil: The AARP America Doesn’t Know and you can see the full report.
To Whom It May Concern:
Please stop sending me mail and immediately take me off of your mailing lists.
I have no desire to become a member of AARP. Your organization does not reflect the moral, social, or political values I subscribe to.
When an organization’s primary mission is to sell a product (in this case health care insurance) and spends tons of money on lobbying and political contributions, it should not be eligible for tax-exempt status. AARP has violated its 501(c)(4) status because it makes its money primarily from insurance industry royalties, with membership dues accounting for a mere 17%.
I have no desire for my money to go to Democratic causes, which I oppose. While AARP itself does not give money to political candidates your employees do and overwhelmingly to Democrats.
The only reason AARP has continued to masquerade as a non-profit is due to political favors from friends on the left. If conservatives gain control of the House, Senate, and White House, I expect that front to be taken away as it should be.
Lastly, the fraud perpetrated on your current members through Obamacare is disturbing and disgusting. You backed Obamacare simply because it put billions of dollars in your pockets as you benefit from the law’s changes to Medicare Advantage which will force many seniors right into your Medigap supplemental coverage.
You’re not an advocate for seniors; you’re an insurance company disguised as a non-profit. Wolf in sheep’s clothing would be another appropriate term.
By the way, why does AARP feel the need to meddle in energy policy in numerous states? Why have you bought into the scam known as man-made global warming?
How much is in it for you this time?
Good-bye and good riddance.
- Conservatives Flee Marxist-Controlled Radicals at AARP (directorblue.blogspot.com)
- What do you do with AARP junk mail? 8 ways to send an unforgettable message [pics] (twitchy.com)
- As ObamaCare Continues, Many Seniors See AARP As Mouthpiece For Liberal Policies (downtrend.com)
- Behind the Veil, The AARP America Doesn’t Know
This is pretty funny…or not…
Receptionist: Hello, Welcome to Obama Flowers, My name is Trina. How can I help you?
Customer: Hello. I received an email from Professional Flowers stating that my flower order has been canceled and I should go to your exchange to reorder it. I tried your website, but it seems like it is not working. So I am calling the 800 number.
Receptionist: Yes! I am sorry about the website. It should be fixed by the end of November. But I can help you.
Customer: Thanks, I ordered a “Spring Bouquet” for our anniversary, and wanted it delivered to my wife.
Receptionist: Interrupting, Sir, “Spring Bouquets” do not meet our minimum standards, I will be happy to provide you with Red Roses.
Customer: But I have always ordered “Spring Bouquets”, done it for years, my wife likes them.
Receptionist: Roses are better, sir, I am sure your wife will love them.
Customer: Well, how much are they?
Receptionist: It depends sir, do you want our Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum package.
Customer: What’s the difference?
Receptionist: 6, 12,18 or 24 Red Roses.
Customer: The Silver package may be okay, how much is it?
Receptionist: It depends sir, what is your monthly income?
Customer: What does that have to do with anything?
Receptionist: I need that to determine your government flower subsidy, then I can determine how much your out-of-pocket cost will be. But if your income is below our minimums for a subsidy, then I can refer you to our FlowerAid department.
Receptionist: Yes, Flowers are a right. Everyone has a right to flowers. So, if you can’t afford them, then the government will supply them free of charge.
Customer: Who said they were a right?
Receptionist: Congress passed it, the President signed it and the Supreme Court found it constitutional.
Customer: Whoa! I don’t remember seeing anything in the Constitution regarding flowers as a right.
Receptionist: It is not really a Right in the Constitution, but ObamaFlowers is Constitutional because the Supreme Court Ruled it a “Tax”. Taxes are Constitutional. But we feel it is a right.
Customer: I don’t believe this.
Receptionist: It’s the law of the land sir. Now, we anticipated most people would go for the Silver Package, so what is your monthly income sir?
Customer: Forget it, I think I will forgo the flowers this year.
Receptionist: In that case sir, I will still need your monthly income.
Receptionist: To determine what your ‘non-participation’ cost would be.
Customer: WHAT? You can’t charge me for NOT buying flowers!
Receptionist: It’s the law of the land, sir, approved by the Supreme Court. It’s $9.50 or 1% of your monthly income.
Customer interrupting: This is ridiculous, I’ll pay the $9.50.
Receptionist: Sir, it is $9.50 or 1% of your monthly income, whichever is greater.
Customer: ARE YOU KIDDING ME? What a rip-off!
Receptionist: Actually sir, it is a good deal. Next year it will be 2%.
Customer: Look, I’m going to call my Congressman to find out what’s going on here. This is ridiculous. I’m not going to pay it.
Receptionist: Sorry to hear that sir. That’s why I had the NSA track this call and obtain the make and model of the cell phone you are using.
Customer: Why does the NSA need to know what kind of CELL PHONE I AM USING?
Receptionist: So they get your GPS coordinates sir.
Door Bell rings followed immediately by a loud knock on the door.
Customer: Hold on for a minute, there’s someone at my door.
Receptionist: That would be the IRS sir. Thanks for calling ObamaFlowers. Have a nice day and God Bless America.
In 2011 Jay Carney, White House press secretary, told reporters President Obama had never met his uncle Onyango “Omar” Obama, an illegal immigrant to the US, and a man the President wrote about in his book Dreams From My Father.
Today, Jay Carney acknowledged the President had not only met his uncle but actually stayed with him for several weeks when attending Harvard. Why this sudden admission to an act that was flatly denied 2 years ago?
During a deportation hearing for Uncle Obama recently, Omar stated under oath that the President had stayed with him after he arrived in Cambridge to attend law school while then law student Barack Obama looked for an apartment of his own.
Carney stated, “When Omar Obama said the other day, and there were reports that he said the other day, that President Obama, back when he was a law school student had stayed with him in Cambridge, I thought it was the right thing to do to go ask him,” Carney said. “Nobody had asked him in the past and he said that he in fact had met Omar Obama when he moved to Cambridge for law school, that he stayed with him for a brief period of time, until his — the president’s — apartment was ready. After that, they saw each other once every few months while the president was in Cambridge and after law school they gradually fell out of touch.”
When asked why they had said differently back in 2011 Carney confessed, “Back when this arose, folks looked at the record, including the president’s book, and there was no evidence that they had met and that was what was conveyed. Nobody spoke to the president.” Nobody spoke to the President? Well, if you didn’t speak to the president then you don’t know. The answer in 2011 should have been I don’t know if the president knows or has met Omar Obama, but I’ll check with him when I get the chance and get back to you. Right? Wouldn’t that be the proper way to handle that question without directly asking the president?
No, not with this administration. If anything comes up that looks like it could harm the reputation of this President the first rule of engagement is to deny. Just lie.
This isn’t a huge story. This isn’t an implication of guilt on the President or an indictment or a smoking gun. In fact the story is hardly worth repeating. So I don’t want to be misinterpreted as making this into something bigger than it is.
The only reason I bring it up is because it represents a consistent pattern with this administration. They are notorious now for stating untruths, which are later discovered, only to be met with a shrug and that incredulous look only Jay Carney can provide that says, “Really? You’re asking me about that? Really??
Behavioral patterns tell stories with greater depth and clarity than words ever could.
The patterns exhibited by this administration over the past five years are very concerning.
- Obama lived with Kenyan uncle prior to law school, White House says (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
- Jay Carney Says No One Ever Asked President Obama if He’d Met Uncle Omar Until Now (mediaite.com)
- In Reversal, White House Says Obama Knew Uncle (blogs.wsj.com)
- White House changes story on Obama’s uncle – Boston.com (boston.com)
1. The American character has been not only religious, idealistic, and patriotic, but because of these it has been essentially individual. Independence Day Oration, July 4th, 1946
2. Conceived in Grecian thought, strengthened by Christian morality, and stamped indelibly into American political philosophy, the right of the individual against the State is the keystone of our Constitution. Each man is free. Independence Day Oration, July 4th, 1946
The right of the individual against the State is the keystone of our Constitution
3. In Revolutionary times, the cry “No taxation without representation” was not an economic complaint. Rather, it was directly traceable to the eminently fair and just principle that no sovereign power has the right to govern without the consent of the governed. Anything short of that was tyranny. It was against this tyranny that the colonists “fired the shot heard ’round the world.” Independence Day Oration, July 4th, 1946
4. The ever expanding power of the federal government, the absorption of many of the functions that states and cities once considered to be responsibilities of their own, must now be a source of concern to all those who believe as did the great patriot, Henry Grattan that: “Control over local affairs is the essence of liberty.” Commencement Address, University of Notre Dame, January 29, 1950
5. I’d be very happy to tell them I’m not a liberal at all…I’m not comfortable with those people. Saturday Evening Post, June 1953
There is room in a totalitarian system for churches- but there is no room for God
6. I say this not because I believe Christianity is a weapon in the present world struggle, but because I believe religion itself is at the root of the struggle, not in terms of the physical organizations of Christianity versus those of Atheism, but in terms of Good versus Evil, right versus wrong… Our minds, like the headlines of our newspapers, are intent upon the present and future conflicts of armed might, and upon the brutal, physical side of that ominous war upon which we have bestowed the strange epithet “cold”. We tend to forget the moral and spiritual issues which inhere in the fateful encounter of which the physical war is but one manifestation. We tend to forget those ideals and faiths and philosophical needs which drive men far more intensively than military and economic objectives. Commencement Address, Assumption College, June 3, 1955
7. But in “the stern encounter”, in the moral struggle, religion is not simply a weapon- it is the essence of the struggle itself. The Communist rulers do not fear the phraseology of religion, or the ceremonies and churches and denomination organizations. On the contrary, they leave no stone unturned in seeking to turn these aspects of religion to their own advantage and to use the trappings of religion in order to cement the obedience of their people. What they fear is the profound consequences of a religion that is lived and not merely acknowledged. They fear especially man’s response to spiritual and ethical stimuli, not merely material. A society which seeks to make the worship of the State the ultimate objective of life cannot permit a higher loyalty, a faith in God, a belief in a religion that elevates the individual, acknowledges his true value and teaches him devotion and responsibility to something beyond the here and now [Emphasis ours]. The communist fear Christianity more as a way of life than as a weapon. In short, there is room in a totalitarian system for churches- but there is no room for God [Emphasis ours]. The claim of the State most be total, and no other loyalty, and no other philosophy of life can be tolerated. Commencement Address, Assumption College, June 3, 1955
8. This administration is pledged to a Federal revenue system that balances the budget over the years of the economic cycle – yielding surpluses for debt retirement in times of high employment that more than offset the deficits which accompany – and indeed help overcome – low levels of economic activity in poor years…Debt retirement at high employment contributes to economic growth by releasing savings for productive investment by private enterprise and State and local governments.” Special Message to the Congress: Program for Economic Recovery and Growth, February 2, 1961
We want prosperity and in a free enterprise system there can be no prosperity without profit.
9. If it is in the public interest to maintain an industry, it is clearly not in the public interest by the impact of regulatory authority to destroy its otherwise viable way of life. Special Message to the Congress on Regulatory Agencies, April 13, 1961
10. While government economists can point out the necessity of increasing the rates of investment, of modernizing plant and productivity, while Washington officials may urge responsible collective bargaining and responsible wage-price decisions, we also recognize that beneath all the laws and guidelines and tax policies and stimulants we can provide, these matters all come down, quite properly in the last analysis, to private decisions by private individuals. Address Before the United States Chamber of Commerce on Its 50th Anniversary, April 30, 1962
11. We want prosperity and in a free enterprise system there can be no prosperity with profit. We want a growing economy and there can be no growth without the investment that is inspired and financed by profit. We want to maintain our natural security and other essential programs and we will have little revenue to finance them unless there is profit. We want to improve our balance of payments without reducing our commitments abroad, and we cannot increase our export surplus, which we must, without modernizing our plants through profit…In short, our primary challenge is not how to divide the economic pie, but how to enlarge it. Address Before the United States Chamber of Commerce on Its 50th Anniversary, April 30, 1962
Our primary challenge is not how to divide the economic pie, but how to enlarge it
12. This administration intends to cut taxes in order to build the fundamental strength of our economy, to remove a serious barrier to long-term growth, to increase incentives by routing out inequities and complexities and to prevent the even greater budget deficit that a lagging economy would otherwise surely produce. The worst deficit comes from a recession, and if we can take the proper action in the proper time, this can be the most important step we could take to prevent another recession. That is the right kind of tax cut both for your family budget and the national budget…Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy. Radio and Television Report to the American People on the State of the National Economy, August 13, 1962
Today, Thursday, November 21, 2013 the United States Senate voted to change a centuries old parliamentary procedure in the Senate chamber and invoked the so-called “nuclear option” making it possible to confirm presidential nominees by a simple majority vote rather than the 60 votes necessary to override any filibuster attempt by the minority party.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats claim Republicans have become career obstructionists holding up judicial and executive nominees from an up or down vote for too long. So with that in mind Harry Reid said, “It’s time to change the Senate, before this institution becomes obsolete.” (Now remember this quote when you watch the videos below)
Of course there is fantastic irony at play here that simply can’t be ignored, nor should it be.
A little background.
In the 2005 Senate, Republicans held 55 seats and the Democrats held 45 including Jim Jeffords, an independent from Vermont who caucused with the Democrats. Confirmation requires a plurality of votes, and the Republicans could easily confirm their nominees if brought to the floor. Earlier in 2005, Democrats had blocked the nomination of 10 of George W. Bush’s nominees, saying they were too conservative and that Republicans had blocked many of their nominees back in the 1990s. The old tit for tat response.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist then threatened to enact the nuclear option.
This is how then Senator Barack Obama, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, and Senator Hillary Clinton reacted to that threat, and their staunch defense of the rules of the Senate and the filibuster.
So what changed folks?
What happened to “as long as I’m the leader, the answer is no!” eh Senator Reid?
Tsk tsk tsk…the lengths we will go to get what we want. Even if it means a complete reversal of ourselves at any moment in time. Look up the word integrity. You won’t find this behavior exemplified anywhere in its definition. This rebuke isn’t reserved exclusively for Democrats either. Republicans are just as stained when it comes to this kind of gerrymandering to get their way.
Shame on this governing body. Shame.
- Editorial: Democracy Returns to the Senate (nytimes.com)
- Senate Goes Nuclear on Filibuster (drudge.com)
- Was the Senate Right to Use the Nuclear Option to Change the Filibuster? (usnews.com)
- Flashback: Obama’s filibuster flip-flop (theblaze.com)
Remember when President Obama said employment numbers were getting better and then right before the election in 2012 they did? A LOT better!
Some called it a miraculous drop in the unemployment rate from 8.1% in August 2012 to 7.8% in September, causing others, like GE CEO Jack Welch to say those numbers were too good to be true questioning their validity.
More skeptics followed questioning such a large drop at such an opportune time for the President. Of course they were attacked and vilified in the media and basically shrugged off as Obama haters or racists.
Well, now the truth is bubbling to the surface (as it always does sooner or later).
Just two years before the presidential election, the Census Bureau caught an employee fabricating data that went into the unemployment report, which is one of the most closely watched measures of the economy.
And a knowledgeable source says the deception went beyond that one employee — that it escalated at the time President Obama was seeking reelection in 2012 and continues today.
The Census employee caught faking the results is Julius Buckmon, according to confidential Census documents obtained by The Post. Buckmon said he was told to make up information by higher-ups at Census.
More is surely to come and more “higher-ups” implicated as the crap in Washington always flows up before it flows out.
- NY Post: Did Census fake the September 2012 jobs report? (hotair.com)
- NY Post, former GE CEO Jack Welch all point to Obama administration ‘faking’ unemployment numbers (theglobaldispatch.com)
The U.S. government has just passed a new law entitled “The Affordable CAR Act” declaring that every citizen MUST purchase a new car by April, 2014.
This law has been passed because, until now, typically only wealthy and financially responsible people have been able to purchase cars. This new law ensures that every American can now have an ‘affordable’ car of their own, because everyone is ‘entitled’ to a new car. If you purchase your car before the end of the year, you will receive four ‘free’ tires (does not include mounting).
In order to make sure everyone purchases an ‘affordable car,’ the cost of owning a car will increase on average of 250-400% per year. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don’t want or can’t afford to maintain. But, to be fair, people who can’t afford to maintain their car will be regularly fined and children (under the age of 26) can use their parents car(s) to drive until they turn 27, after which date they must purchase their own car.
If you already have a car, you can keep it (unless it has more than 150 miles on it). If you don’t want or don’t need a car, you are required to buy one anyway. If you refuse to buy one or can’t afford one, you will be regularly fined $800 until you purchase one, or face imprisonment. If you cannot (or don’t want to) purchase an ‘affordable car’ from a private business, you can buy a starter car from the U.S. government ‘affordable car exchange.’ Such a car will have the basic necessities and will only cost ‘slightly more’ than a similar car purchased from a private business. Plus, since your tax dollars will subsidize the purchase of a car from the U. S. government’s ‘affordable car exchange,’ it will appear that you are getting a *good deal.
Failure to use the car will also result in fines. People living in areas with no access to roads are not exempt. Pre-existing conditions such as age, motion sickness, experience, knowledge, or lack of desire are not acceptable excuses for not using your car.
A government review board will decide everything, including when, where, how often, and for what purposes you can use your car, along with how many people can ride in your car. The board will also determine if one is too old or healthy enough to be able to use their car, and will also decide if your car has out lived its usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories like spinning rims or a newer and more expensive car.
In fairness, those that can afford luxury cars will be required to purchase one. The government will also decide the color of each car. Failure to comply with these rules will result in fines and possible imprisonment.
Government officials and their staff are **exempt from this new law. They are important and too busy running our lives to bother with the hassles and common folkishness of car shopping. They and their families receive cars free, delivered to them at tax payer expense. This includes lifetime maintenance and automatic adjustments for fuel charges.
ENJOY YOUR NEW RIDE!
*Our good deals are made possible by the former Cash for Clunkers program.
**Unions, bankers, and mega companies with a history of large political affiliations/donations, Muslims, and Amish are also exempt.
(S A T I R E by S. Soloman that has been altered from boats to cars, with revisions and additions by TheLongVersion.)
- Affordable Boat Act (athomesense.com)