TIME Magazine Selects Pope Francis as TIME’s Choice for Person of the Year 2013

TIME Magazine’s pick as the 2013 Person of the Year is  … Miley Cyrus Pope Francis.

Forgive me if I am a bit skeptical of Time’s choice for Pope Francis as being their ‘Person of the Year” for 2013, but I am. Not that Pope Francis is not a good man or deserving of this award, but TIME made the choice not because of his religious virtue and certainly not because they believe in Catholicism or the message it spreads. Doesn’t it feel like it was yesterday they were doing stories on the coverups of sexual predator Catholic priests? Let’s face it, the reason why they chose him is because Pope Francis criticized  “modern capitalism” ,in an attack on “the idolatry of money.”

Like I said, Pope Francis is an easy and justifiable choice, it is the reasons why he was picked that are suspect. In any other year Edward Snowden, the NSA whistle-blower would have won this hands down. He exposed the spying ways of the NSA and will continue to do so for months and years to come. Snowden’s exposing of the NSA has even made US lawmakers and foreign leaders question what this spy organization is doing.

However, Snowden finished second to Pope Francis for pretty much one reason and that is Time’s media bias to push Obama’s agenda of “income equity” otherwise known as socialism.

TIME Magazine:

Once there was a boy so meek and modest, he was awarded a Most Humble badge. The next day, It was taken away because he wore it. Here endeth the lesson.

How do you practice humility from the most exalted throne on earth? Rarely has a new player on the world stage captured so much attention so quickly—young and old, faithful and cynical—as has Pope Francis. In his nine months in office, he has placed himself at the very center of the central conversations of our time: about wealth and poverty, fairness and justice, transparency, modernity, globalization, the role of women, the nature of marriage, the temptations of power.

And yet in less than a year, he has done something remarkable: he has not changed the words, but he’s changed the music. Tone and temperament matter in a church built on the substance of symbols—bread and wine, body and blood—so it is a mistake to dismiss any Pope’s symbolic choices­ as gestures empty of the force of law. He released his first exhortation, an attack on “the idolatry of money,” just as Americans were contemplating the day set aside for gratitude and whether to spend it at the mall.

NY Times Reports: The Obama Administration Doesn’t Want You to Call ObamaCare “Redistribution” … Even Though It Is And They Know(Knew) It

What’s in a word, except everything.

The New York Times is reporting that Barack Obama and his administration does not want you to call Obamacare the “R” word. Not racism, but “REDISTRIBUTION”. Just as Barack Obama and Democrats have suddenly distanced themselves from calling Obama’s signature piece of legislation Obamacare as it has become toxic. They also do not want you to call Obamacare a redistribution of wealth, when it obviously is. America, how else do you think that so many millions of uninsured poor people were going to miraculously get insurance, from the healthcare fairy?  The fact of the matter is, that they knew it all along and demonized Republicans when they stated the truth. Now suddenly millions of Americans don’t like it when the redistribution of wealth, the money grab is not just from the rich, but from the middle class as well. We said a long time ago, be very careful what Obama and his band of socialist define as rich, it might just be you.

Rebecca M. Blank was a top candidate in 2011 to lead President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, but then the White House turned up something politically dangerous.

“A commitment to economic justice necessarily implies a commitment to the redistribution of economic resources, so that the poor and the dispossessed are more fully included in the economic system,” Ms. Blank, a noted poverty researcher, wrote in 1992. With advisers wary of airing those views in a nomination fight, Mr. Obama passed over Ms. Blank, then a top Commerce Department official and now the chancellor of the University of Wisconsin. Instead he chose Alan Krueger, a Princeton economist.

“Redistribution is a loaded word that conjures up all sorts of unfairness in people’s minds,” said William M. Daley, who was Mr. Obama’s chief of staff at the time. Republicans wield it “as a hammer” against Democrats, he said, adding, “It’s a word that, in the political world, you just don’t use.”

These days the word is particularly toxic at the White House, where it has been hidden away to make the Affordable Care Act more palatable to the public and less a target for Republicans, who have long accused Democrats of seeking “socialized medicine.” But the redistribution of wealth has always been a central feature of the law and lies at the heart of the insurance market disruptions driving political attacks this fall.

“Americans want a fair and fixed insurance market,” said Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who advised Mr. Obama’s team as it designed the law. “You cannot have that without some redistribution away from a small number of people.”

The National Review On-line has 8 takeaways from the NYT article, here are a few:

• The White House intentionally hid Obamacare’s redistributive goals.
• Policy experts knew all along but didn’t tell the public.
• David Axelrod blames American political culture for Obama’s needing to lie in the first place
• Republican charges Obama feels must be deflected by disguising the truth: redistribution, socialized medicine, redistributor-in-chief, spreading the wealth around, closet socialist. (Read the rest of the takeaways HERE)

Make no mistake about it America, Barack Obama and Democrats lied to you and it was most certainly intentional. Their entire model of Obamacare is based on the redistribution of wealth and bringing others up while taking you down. That’s what socialists deem fair.

Umm, Did Democrat New York Senator Kirstin Gillibrand Just Admit “We All Knew” that Barack Obama was Misleading Americans on ObamaCare

Welcome to Obamaland where knowing lying and defrauding the American people is simply not being specific.

Check this out, New York Democrat Senator Kirstin Gillibrand just admitted on ABC’s ‘This Week’ that they all knew that Barack Obama was lying when he promised the American people, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan, period.” When asked by Martha Raddatz whether she had been mislead by Barack Obama, Gillibrand’s response was … “No, we all knew.”

New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said this morning on “This Week” that President Obama should have been more specific when he made his famous promise — which he subsequently backtracked on — that Americans who liked their health care plans could keep them under his signature health care law.

When asked a second time if she felt misled by the president, Gillibrand repeated, “He should have just been specific.”

“No, we all knew.

How do you like them apples America? This Democrat Senator just admitted that they all [Democrats] knew that people could not keep their insurance if they liked it. Kirstin Gillibrand thinks that Obama’s credibility issue is the implementation of “glitchy” Healthcare.gov, not the fact that he and the rest of Democrats knowingly lied to people. What Obama and Democrats did is called FRAUD!

However, its more than that. If they knew and knowing mislead the people as Alinsky principles teach them that the ends justify the means, it would mean they also partook in a conspiracy, collusion  and a cover up. Democrats are kidding themselves if they think that they and Obama do not have a credibility problem with “We the People”. Democrats are in for a hell of a time in 2014.

Comments from video:

Raddatz: Do you feel misled by Obama?

Gillibrand: He should have been more specific. Because the point is if you are being offered a terrible health care plan that the minute you get sick you are going to have to go into bankruptcy. Those plans should never be offered. [But yet millions of Americans lost perfectly good healthcare plans, even Democrat Kirsten Powers.]

Raddatz: So were you misled?

Gillibrand: No, we all knew. The whole point of the plan is to cover things people need.

Hmm, In 2007 Hillary Clinton Made Promises Just Like Obama: “You Can Keep the Doctors You Know and Trust” … “You Keep the Isurance You Have, If You Like It”

BACK TO THE FUTURE: This is not government run healthcare … Haven’t we heard this before?

In 2007 Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton offered up her own form of healthcare reform, that resembled an awful lot like Obamacare. Hillary Clinton said in Sept. 17, 2007 in Des Moines, Iowa, “You can keep the doctors you know and trust. You keep the insurance you have.   If you have private insurance you like, nothing changes — you can keep that insurance.” Wait, haven’t we heard this before. But where, it just sounds so familiar.

Oh wait, it was Barack Obama and his BS promise to the American people that if you like your doctor or healthcare plan, you can keep it, PERIOD!   In 2016, do we really need another one of these lying Democrats in the White House? Hillary Clinton is nothing more than the white, female Barack Obama. For the love of God, America … WAKE UP!!!

From The Washington Examiner:

When she was last a candidate for president in 2007, Hillary Clinton unveiled her own health care proposal, which, like Obamacare, included beefed-up benefits and a catchy pitch: “If you have a plan you like, you keep it.” Obama went on to defeat Clinton, but he adopted her tag line to help win support for his own health care plan — making the same promise, for which he recently apologized.

“You can keep the doctors you know and trust. You keep the insurance you have,” Clinton said on Sept. 17, 2007, at the Broadlawns Medical Center in Des Moines, Iowa. “If you have private insurance you like, nothing changes — you can keep that insurance.”

Clinton’s campaign website echoed that claim. “If you have a plan you like, you keep it,” it read.

Hillary Clinton is an old hand at health care reform. In 1993, when her husband was president, she led a health care reform effort that ultimately crashed and burned.

Welfare Spending = $168 Per Day for Every Household in Poverty … $137 Median Income Per Day

We have reached a tipping point, welfare spending now more than medium income …  what has happened to our country? America, do you still remember what the word pride means?

As reported at the Weekly Standard, the amount of money spent on welfare programs equals, when converted to cash payments, about “$168 per day for every household in poverty.”  Welfare spending per day per household in poverty is $168, as opposed to the median income per day is only $137. Can you say unsustainable? People are going to begin to say, why work? And that is exactly how you crate a socialist society. At some point this has got to stop. For all the welfare spending, it has accomplished nothing except to create a dependent welfare class of people whose vote can be bought and the loss of liberty and self-respect.

According to the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee, welfare spending per day per household in poverty is $168, which is higher than the $137 median income per day. When broken down per hour, welfare spending per hour per household in poverty is $30.60, which is higher than the $25.03 median income per hour.

“Based on data from the Congressional Research Service, cumulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level,” writes the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee. “By comparison, the median household income in 2011 of $50,054 equals $137.13 per day. Additionally, spending on federal welfare benefits, if converted into cash payments, equals enough to provide $30.60 per hour, 40 hours per week, to each household living below poverty. The median household hourly wage is $25.03. After accounting for federal taxes, the median hourly wage drops to between $21.50 and $23.45, depending on a household’s deductions and filing status. State and local taxes further reduce the median household’s hourly earnings. By contrast, welfare benefits are not taxed.”

Sadly, Doug Ross may have best summed up this disastrous overspending on the welfare state, “We are headed for fiscal collapse — and the welfare state keeps growing like a cancer, incentivizing sloth, formalizing a culture of dependency, and killing self-sufficiency.”

Just curious America, do you even care anyone about your country, why it was founded for Liberty?