Obama's paid Al-CIAda mercenaries destroy ancient church &
dismember a young Christian girl alive.
Published on Sep 6,
2013
Obama's paid Al-Ciada mercenaries, destroy a 1000 yr old church
& dismember a young Christian girl whist alive.
!!!!! ??? WHAT - DELAYING THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA ??? >>> CBO: Individual mandate delay
would save $35 billion | The Daily Caller
CBO: Obamacare
individual mandate delay would save
$35 billion
3:58 PM 09/09/2013
The House bill to delay Obamacare’s individual
mandate would save $35 billion dollars, according to a Congressional Budget
Office analysis.
After the Obama administration revealed it
would not enforce the employer mandate — a requirement that large companies
provide their employees health insurance — until January 2015, the House
quickly passed a measure that would not only codify that delay, but put off the
individual mandate by one year as well.
The CBO found that just a one-year
delay of the individual mandate would save $35 billion over ten years. But the
basic cost structure of the Affordable Care Act would remain intact.
“I never thought I’d see the day when the White
House, this president, came down on the side of big business, but left the
American people out in the cold as far as this health care mandate is
concerned,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said.
Cantor’s message carried over even to some in the President’s own
party. The “Fairness for American Families Act” is one of many
Republican-dominated efforts to delay certain aspects of Obamacare, but this
time it received bipartisan support: 22 House Democrats bucked their own
party and voted for the bill, which President Obama vowed to veto.
The White House charged that the House legislation “would raise health
insurance premiums and increase the number of uninsured Americans.”
Keeping the individual mandate the law of the land is vital to the
success of Obamacare exchanges. High participation in the exchanges, especially
by the young and the healthy, is necessary to keep premiums low.
Not enforcing
the employer mandate while still requiring individuals to purchase health
insurance would have increased participation in Obamacare exchanges, piling on
an additional $3 billion in subsidies, according to the CBO. Presumably this cost would be nullified
by the House bill to delay the individual mandate.
But the whole cost of the Obama
administration’s employer mandate delay comes in at $12 billion, largely from a
reduction in fines the government is able to collect from employers who don’t
provide coverage.
The bill passed the House in July but is unlikely to pass the
Democratic-controlled Senate.
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available
without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large
audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please
contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
40,000
Longshoreman quit the
AFL-CIO because of their endorsement of Obamacare
!!!!! HAPPENED IN 2011 - WHY IS THIS NEWS TWO YEARS LATER ??? >>>
UNC prof ignites 4th Amendment debate after being pulled over by fire truck |
Fox News
UNC
prof ignites
4th Amendment debate after being pulled over by fire
truck
Published September 09, 2013
FoxNews.com
UNC professor Dorothy Hoogland Verkerk (inset) was stopped by
Chapel Hill FD Lieutenant Gordon Shatley after he noticed her driving
erratically. Her subsequent arrest and conviction has sparked a legal debate as
to whether or not the fire fight was working within the parameters of the
fourth amendment. (UNC Gazette/Ivy Dawned/Flickr)
When a North Carolina firefighter switched on the siren atop his
Chapel Hill Fire Department truck to get a driver he suspected of being
impaired to pull over, he probably didn't expect to ignite a Constitutional
debate.
But that's exactly what has happened. The woman Fire Lt. Gordon
Shatley pulled over on his way back from a call was Dorothy Hoogland Verkerk, a
professor at the University of North Carolina and former town council member
who is arguing use of the fire truck and siren - which are not authorized for
law enforcement actions - gave the color of government to what might otherwise
have been a lawful citizen's arrest. And although a lower court upheld
Verkerk's arrest, an appellate court remanded the case with instructions to
consider whether it was an illegal search and seizure.
The incident occurred in May, 2011, and
led to Verkerk's arrest and eventual conviction by an Orange County District
Court judge for driving while intoxicated. Verkerk, who teaches art history at
UNC-Chapel Hill, claimed in her appeal that Shatley violated her rights under
the Fourth Amendment when he used the lights and sirens on the fire truck he
was driving to pull her over. When she sped away, he called police who later
caught and charged her.
Lower court Judge Elaine Bushfan denied Verkerk's motion claiming
that Shatley had conducted a citizen’s arrest, but suspended her sentence and
ordered the professor to spend 30 days in jail plus 18 months’ probation, pay a
$1,000 fine, and perform 72 hours of community service.
That’s when Verkerk filed with the court of appeals and the
three-member panel ordered Bushfan to consider anew the legality of Shatley
stopping the driver. In particular, the appellate judges said it must be
determined whether or not Shatley acted as a private citizen or as a
governmental officer; if Shatley did act as a government officer, whether he
followed Fourth Amendment criteria and had reasonable suspicion that a crime
was being committed; and finally if the stop was unconstitutional, if that tainted
evidence and the subsequent police traffic stop.
One member of the appeals panel, Judge Robert Hunter, found that
Shatley was indeed a governmental officer at the time he stopped her, but
conceded that he lacked police training and the legal authority to make
an official traffic stop.
According to court documents, Shatley was on his way to a fire
scene the night of May 27, 2011, when he saw Verkerk’s Mercedes stopped in an
intersection. He noticed that the headlights were off and that the interior and
auxiliary lights were lit and that the driver’s side window was partially
opened despite a pouring rain. Shatley continued to his destination where he
was no longer needed, and headed back to the firehouse.
On the way back, Shatley claims he pulled up behind Verkerk’s car
as she was driving with a hazard light on and was weaving while driving much
slower than the speed limit. Shatley told the driver of the firetruck to turn
on the lights and siren to prevent other cars from passing.
Verkerk’s car then swerved to the right and hit the curb before
coming to a stop, according to the documents.
Shatley hopped out of the fire truck and approached her car to see
if she was ok. He did not ask if she was drunk but did urge her to park her car
and have someone pick her up, according to documents. She told Shatley that she
would, but then drove off. She was picked up by Chapel Hill Police 10 minutes
later and charged with driving while impaired and had her license taken away.
In addition to teaching at UNC, Verkerk, who did not return
requests for comment, is a former member of the Town Council and is a local
environmental activist.
!!!!! ???
Treasury: Debt Up $0 in August; CBO: But Deficit Was $146B | CNS News
Treasury:
Debt Up $0 in August; CBO:
But Deficit Was $146B
September 9, 2013 - 4:04 PM
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew (AP Photo)
(CNSNews.com) - The federal deficit increased by $146 billion in
August, according to a report
released today
by the Congressional Budget Office. But, at the same time, according to the U.S.
Treasury, the federal debt did not increase at all during the month.
Total federal receipts were $185 billion during August, according
to the CBO, while total federal outlays were $331 billion. Thus, the Treasury
was forced to engage in $146 billion in deficit spending.
Despite this deficit spending, the Treasury reported that at the
close of every single business day in August, the federal debt subject to a
legal limit by Congress remained exactly $16,699,396,000,000.
That is approximately just $25 million below the legal limit on
the debt that is $16,699,421,095,673.60
If the federal debt had climbed by the same $146 billion that the
deficit climbed in August, it would have exceeded the legal limit by almost
$146 billion.
In fact, according to the Daily Treasury Statements that the Treasury publishes at 4:00
p.m. on each business day, the debt subject to the legal limit has remained at
exactly $16,699,396,000,000--or about $25 million below the legal limit--every
day since May 17.
With the release of the Daily
Treasury Statement for Sept. 6 (which occurred at 4:00 p.m on Sept.
9), that makes 112 days that, according to the U.S. Treasury, the debt has been
stuck at $16,699,396,000,000.
The CBO reported today said that in addition to a $146 billion
deficit in August, the Treasury also ran a $98 billion deficit in July, and
that in the first eleven months of fiscal 2013 (October through August) the
federal government has run a cumulative $753 billion deficit.
Back on May 17--when the Treasury said the debt first hit
$16,699,396,000,000--Treasury Secretary Jack Lew sent House Speaker John
Boehner a
letter
indicating that the Treasury would begin using “extraordinary measures” to
allow the government to continue borrowing money without exceeding the legal
limit of $16,699,421,095,673.60.
“In total, the extraordinary measures currently available free up
approximately $260 billion in headroom under the limit, as described below,”
said an appendix to Lew’s letter.
Among the “extraordinary measures” Lew said he could take to
create this “headroom” under the debt limit were: 1) not investing new money
from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund (CSRDF) in U.S. Treasury
securities, which he said would create $6.4 billion in “headroom” per month, 2)
not reinvesting $58 billion ion Treasury Securities held by the CSRDF that
would be maturing and not reinvesting $16 billion in interest owed to the fund,
which would create $74 billion in headroom, 3) suspending the routine daily
reinvestment of $160 billion in special Treasury securities held by the Federal
Employees’ Retirement System Thrift Savings Plan, which would create another
$160 billion in headroom, and 4) suspending the routine daily reinvestment of
Treasury securities held by the government’s own Exchange Stabilization Fund,
which would create another $23 billion in headroom.
On Aug. 26, Lew sent Boehner another letter stating: "Based
on our latest estimates, extraordinary measures are projected to be exhausted
in the middle of October."
Between now and then, Congress will need to approve legislation to
fund the government past the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, decide whether
to permit Obamacare funding in that legislation, and decide whether to authorize
President Obama to use military force in Syria.
During that time, if Lew's prediction to Boehner is correct, the
Treasury will be able to use "extraordinary measures" to keep the
federal debt from rising even as little as $25 million.
CNSNews.com is not funded by the
government like NPR.
CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.
CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.
!!!!! WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' PERMIT >>> Bikers denied
no-stop permit for 9/11 rally through D.C.
but will ride anyway - Washington
Times
Bikers denied
no-stop permit for 9/11 rally through D.C. but will ride anyway
The Washington Times
Monday, September 9, 2013
The nation’s capital has denied a “no stop”
permit for the “2 Million Bikers to DC” rally on Wednesday, meant to “remember
those who were killed on 9/11 and honor our armed forces.”
The group said in a
statement Sunday that D.C. officials denied their request for a special
nonstop ride through town with a waiver for red lights, stop signs and other
traffic signals.
“What could have been a one or two hour ride
through will now likely be an all day event,” the group said.
Denial of the permit sparked outrage on the biker group’s website
because the District of Columbia reportedly has granted the American
Muslim Political Action Committee a permit for the Million Americans
Against Fear rally, formerly known as the Million Muslim March, for Wednesday
on the National Mall, the PAC
announced Saturday.
BizPac
Review points out
that the Muslim advocacy group also announced it had received a commitment from
Rep.
Emanuel Cleaver,
Missouri Democrat, to speak at the event.
The 2 Million Bikers to DC group offered an apology to D.C.
residents, who will undoubtedly be disturbed by the noise.
“We did the right thing and went through the proper channels to
secure a no-stop permit to ride through your great city,” the groups said Sunday.
“We wanted to ride an established route, which would have taken us past the
Viet Nam Memorial to the Lincoln Memorial, across the bridge into Virginia, and
that’s it! We would have been completely out of Washington DC, and your city
would have been back to normal.”
The bikers plan to meet at the Harley Davidson in Fort Washington,
Md., on Wednesday morning, where they will have opening ceremonies, blessings,
the Pledge of Allegiance and a handful of speakers. The final route has not yet
been announced “for security purposes,” the group said.
“[O]n September 11th, we ride as one!!” the
group said. “We ride to pay tribute and offer respect to those that lost their
lives on that day 12 years ago, and to salute our troops engaged in the War on
Terror. Riders!…we are the best of the best in America!! Our love for these
people and this country is staggering, and we will make a display of Patriotism
and solidarity America won’t soon forget!!”
At the time of this report, the Million American March Against
Fear (MAMAF) had garnered 141 “likes” on Facebook, and the 2 Million Bikers to DC had gained 56,284.
!!!!! PULLING THE PLUG
>>> Now it's the 43 percent: Fewer paying no income tax -- cnbc.com
Now it's the 43 percent: Fewer paying no income tax
Published: Monday, 9 Sep 2013 | 7:00 AM ET
By: Allison
Linn
| CNBC Senior Business and Economics Reporter
That "47 percent" quote that helped sink Mitt Romney's
presidential hopes? Better make that 43 percent now.
The share of households who aren't paying any federal income tax
has fallen, and a new
analysis from the Tax Policy Center predicts that it will continue to
shrink in years to come.
That's partly because a slew of temporary tax cuts enacted during
the Great Recession have started to expire. And it's partly because an
improving economy means people's incomes should slowly start to increase,
adding to their income tax bill.
By 2024, the tax policy think tank projects that only about
one-third of households won't be paying any federal income taxes. The
improvements might take a while because the economy has been adding new jobs at
a painfully slow pace, and many workers aren't yet seeing much
bigger paychecks.
Romney made "the 47 percent" famous during his 2012
Republican presidential campaign, after he was secretly
recorded at a closed-door fundraiser saying that 47 percent of the
population is dependent on government, believes the government has a
responsibility to care for them "and will vote for this president no
matter what."
"These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent
of Americans pay no income tax," Romney said in the secretly recorded
video, which was obtained first by Mother Jones and later by NBC News.
Romney was widely believed to have been referencing an earlier analysis released by the Tax Policy Center,
which estimated that 47 percent of households paid no federal income taxes in
2009.
Roberton Williams, a senior fellow with the Tax Policy Center,
notes that households that pay no federal income tax are very likely to still
be paying other taxes. Those include payroll taxes for Medicare and Social
Security, sales taxes and other state and local taxes.
"These people are taxpayers. That's an important point to
make, I think," Williams said.
So who makes up the 43 percent?
Williams' analysis found that about 29 percent of all households
include people who are working, and subject to payroll taxes, but don't have a
federal income tax bill. That could be because of deductions or other tax
breaks.
Another approximately 10 percent are elderly, and they likely
aren't paying federal income taxes because they don't have much income beyond
Social Security.
A smaller portion—about 3 percent—are making less than $20,000 a
year and therefore aren't subject to federal income tax because they are too
poor.
That leaves about 1 percent of taxpayers who have other special
circumstances, such as they are already paying foreign taxes.
Those who pay no federal income taxes aren't all low wage earners.
Thousands of people who have income of more
than $200,000
a year have been able to zero out their federal income tax bill, according to
data from the Internal Revenue Service.
Williams also noted that many people who are part of the 43
percent may not even know it, since most people don't do their own taxes and
those that do can easily get lost in the complexities of our famously dizzying
tax code.
"I don't really know whether people are aware of it or
not," he said.
Want more detail? Watch the Tax Policy Center's whiteboard
video.
Napolitano on the Legality of Obama’s Attack on Syria
America’s favorite Nobel Peace Prize winner and former professor
of constitutional law has no legal ground for ordering a military
strike
on Syria.
If Obama attacks anyway, he could be indicted as a “war criminal”.
If he doesn’t attack, he’ll have lost so much credibility with the
world, the Congress and the American people that his presidency
will be seriously impaired and perhaps all but terminated.
!!!!! GOVERNMENT:
THE SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE VERSION - MAKE . BELIEVE >>> DRUDGE REPORT 2014®
PUTIN JUMPS ON KERRY BLUNDER...
RED LINE II: KERRY GIVES ASSAD 'ONE WEEK'...
RED LINE REVERSAL: State Dept dismisses ultimatum as 'rhetorical argument'...
Kerry pushes attack as 'unbelievably small'...
'No Soldiers At Risk'...
GOP SEN: 'Unbelievably unhelpful'...
Albania, Estonia and Honduras part of 'coalition of willing'...
!!!!! MORE
MUSICAL CHAIRS & THE CIRCLE CIRCUS >>> DRUDGE REPORT 2014®
!!!!! HOW THE HELL CRAZY CAN YOU
GET >>> Iowa grants permits for blind
residents to carry guns in public | The Des
Moines Register | desmoinesregister.com
Iowa grants permits for blind residents to carry guns in public
Sheriffs and
advocates are divided
on whether
that's a good idea.
Sep.
8, 2013
Blind man and wife buy gun: Michael Barber, who is blind, buys a
handgun at Bass Pro Shop in Altoona with the help of his wife, Kim. Both the
Barbers have passed a safety course and plan to pratice with the gun on a
shooting range.
Here’s some news that has law enforcement officials and lawmakers
scratching their heads:
Iowa is granting permits to acquire or carry guns in public to
people who are legally or completely blind.
No one questions the legality of the permits. State law does not
allow sheriffs to deny an Iowan the right to carry a weapon based on physical
ability.
The quandary centers squarely on public safety. Advocates for the
disabled and Iowa law enforcement officers disagree over whether it’s a good
idea for visually disabled Iowans to have weapons.
On one side: People
such as Cedar County Sheriff Warren Wethington, who demonstrated for the
Register how blind people can be taught to shoot guns. And Jane Hudson,
executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, who says blocking visually
impaired people from the right to obtain weapon permits would violate the
Americans with Disabilities Act. That federal law generally prohibits different
treatment based on disabilities.
On the other side: People
such as Dubuque County Sheriff Don Vrotsos, who said he wouldn’t issue a permit
to someone who is blind. And Patrick Clancy, superintendent of the Iowa Braille
and Sight Saving School, who says guns may be a rare exception to his
philosophy that blind people can participate fully in life.
Private gun ownership — even hunting — by visually impaired Iowans
is nothing new. But the practice of visually impaired residents legally
carrying firearms in public became widely possible thanks to gun permit changes
that took effect in Iowa in 2011.
“It seems a little strange, but the way the law reads, we can’t
deny them (a permit) just based on that one thing,” said Sgt. Jana Abens, a
spokeswoman for the Polk County sheriff’s office, referring to a visual
disability.
Polk County officials say they’ve issued weapons permits to at
least three people who can’t legally drive and were unable to read the application
forms or had difficulty doing so because of visual impairments.
And sheriffs in three other counties — Jasper, Kossuth and
Delaware — say they have granted permits to residents who they believe have
severe visual impairments.
“I’m not an expert in vision,” Delaware Sheriff John LeClere said.
“At what point do vision problems have a detrimental effect to fire a firearm?
If you see nothing but a blurry mass in front of you, then I would say you
probably shouldn’t be shooting something.”
One county sheriff
shows how to train visually impaired
In one Iowa county, blind residents who want weapons would likely
receive special training.
Wethington, the Cedar County sheriff, has a legally blind daughter
who plans to obtain a permit to carry when she turns 21 in about two years. He
demonstrated for the Register how he would train blind people who want to carry
a gun.
“If sheriffs spent more time trying to keep guns out of criminals’
hands and not people with disabilities, their time would be more productive,”
Wethington told the Register as he and his daughter took turns practice
shooting with a semi-automatic handgun on private property in rural Cedar
County.
The number of visually impaired or blind Iowans who can legally
carry weapons in public is unknown because that information is not collected by
the state or county sheriffs who issue the permits.
The Register became aware that a handful of Iowans with visual
impairments can carry weapons in public because county sheriffs and their
staffs recalled issuing those permits. Sheriff officials in most of the cases
said they were uncertain about the extent of the visual impairments.
Clancy, superintendent of the Iowa Braille and Sight Saving
School, said the range of sight among people who are classified as legally
blind varies greatly. He believes there are situations where such applicants
can safely handle a gun.
However, he also expressed concerns.
“Although people who are blind can participate fully in nearly all
life’s experiences, there are some things, like the operation of a weapon, that
may very well be an exception,” Clancy said.
It’s an issue that musician Stevie Wonder, who has been blind
since birth, called attention to in January.
“Imagine me with a gun. It’s just crazy,” Wonder told CNN while
calling for reforms to what he has previously called “ridiculous” gun laws.
Some states do
consider vision in issuing permits
The Gun Control Act of 1968 and other federal laws do not prohibit
blind people from owning guns. But unlike Iowa, some states have laws that
spell out whether visually impaired people can obtain weapon permits.
Vision requirements are either directly or indirectly part of the
weapon permit criteria in some surrounding states.
In Nebraska, for example, applicants for a permit to carry a
concealed handgun must provide “proof of vision” by either presenting a valid
state driver’s license or a statement by an eye doctor that the person meets
vision requirements set for a typical vehicle operator’s license.
Other states have indirect requirements that could — but don’t
automatically — disqualify people who are blind. That includes Missouri and
Minnesota, where applicants must complete a live fire test, which means they
have to shoot and hit a target.
A 50-state database of gun permit requirements published by
USACarry.com also shows that South Carolina has a law that requires proof of
vision before a person is approved for a weapons permit.
Wisconsin, like Iowa, has no visual restrictions on gun permit
applicants. Illinois lawmakers enacted a concealed weapons law in July, but
permits have not yet been issued.
Illinois’ qualifications don’t specifically require a visual test,
but applicants must complete firearms training that includes range instruction.
The National Federation of the Blind does not track states that
require vision tests as part of weapon permit processes and has not taken an
official stand on the issue. But its members are generally opposed to such
laws, said Chris Danielsen, director of public relations for the group.
“There’s no reason solely on the (basis) of blindness that a blind
person shouldn’t be allowed to carry a weapon,” Danielsen said. “Presumably
they’re going to have enough sense not to use a weapon in a situation where
they would endanger other people, just like we would expect other people to
have that common sense.”
Iowa requires training for anyone who is issued a permit to carry
a weapon in public, but that requirement can be satisfied through an online
course that does not include any hands-on instruction or a shooting test.
A provision in Iowa’s law allows sheriffs to deny a permit if
probable cause exists to believe that the person is likely to use the weapon in
such a way that it would endanger himself or others.
Many sheriffs noted, however, that the provision relates to
specific documented actions, and applicants who appealed their cases would
likely win.
Vrotsos, the Dubuque County sheriff, did not know whether any
blind people had applied for permits in his county, but said he wouldn’t
hesitate to deny them.
“We do not track these applicants, but ... if I knew the person
was blind ... a permit would not be issued, and this person would then have the
right to appeal,” Vrotsos said.
But Hudson, executive director of Disability Rights Iowa, believes
changing the state law to deny blind people or others with physical
disabilities the right to carry arms would violate federal disability law.
Part of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires a public
entity to conduct an individualized analysis to make a reasonable judgment
before denying a service. Hudson believes someone could successfully challenge
Nebraska’s proof of vision requirement as illegal.
“The fact that you can’t drive a car doesn’t mean you can’t go to
a shooting range and see a target,” Hudson said.
Other issues
cited by Iowa sheriffs
The Des Moines Register earlier this year published reports about
Iowa’s 2011 law that requires sheriffs to adopt uniform standards in issuing
permits to carry weapons in public. Read about issues cited by Iowa sheriffs,
such as gaps in their ability to search a person’s background for mental health
problems and their inability to deny permits to sex offenders. Find complete
coverage at DesMoinesRegister.com/gunpermits.
Guess
What This IS???
Press 3 for ?????
THE CAMEL'S NOSE IS OFFICIALLY IN THE
TENT!!!
I bet you can't guess what this is.
|
•ÅÐÇ ßÇä ÏÎáß ÇáÔåÑí ÇáÅÌãÇáí ÃÞá ãä 150 ÏæáÇÑ æ 100
ÏæáÇÑ Ãæ ÃÞá Ýí ÇáÃÕæá
ÇáÓÇÆáÉ )äÞæÏ Ýí ÇáíÏ¡ ÇáÍÓÇÈÇÊ ÇáÌÇÑíÉ Ãæ ÍÓÇÈÇÊ
ÇáÊæÝíÑ¡ ÔåÇÏÇÊ ÇáÊæÝíÑ(¡ Ãæ
•ÅÐÇ ßÇä ãÌãæÚ ÏÎáß ÇáÅÌãÇáí æÃÕæáß ÇáÓÇÆáÉ ÃÞá ãä
ãÌãæÚ ÅíÌÇÑß ÇáÔåÑí Ãæ
ÞÓØ ÇáÞÑÖ ÇáÚÞÇÑí ÒÇÆÏ ÝÇÊæÑÉ ÇáÊÏÝÆÉ æÇáãäÇÝÚ ÇáÚÇãÉ¡
Ãæ
•ÅÐÇ ßäÊ ãÚÏæã* ÇáÏÎá Ãæ ÃÌíÑ ãæÓãí ãÊäÞá Ãæ ÚÇãá ãÒÇÑÚ
ãæÓãí æáÏíß 100
ÏæáÇÑ Ãæ ÃÞá Ýí ÇáÃÕæá ÇáÓÇÆáÉ.
*ÇáãÚÏæã åæ Ãä íßæä ÏÎáß ÞÏ ÊæÞÝ ÞÈá ÊÇÑíÎ ÊÞÏíã ÇáØáÈ¡
Ãæ Ãä ÏÎáß ÞÏ ÈÏÃ
æáßäß ÊÊæÞÚ Ãä áÇ ÊÞÈÖ
ÃßËÑ ãä 25 ÏæáÇÑ Ýí ÛÖæä Çá 10 ÃíÇã ÇáÞÇÏãÉ.
ÅÐÇ ßÇä Ãåá ÈíÊß ãÄåáÇð
áãÚÇáÌÉ ÇáØáÈ Ýí ÛÖæä ÓÈÚÉ ÃíÇã¡ ÝíÌÈ Úáíß:
•Ãä ÊÔÊÑß Ýí ãÞÇÈáÉ¡ æ
•Ãä ÊÞÏøã ÅËÈÇÊÇð ÈåæíÊß ÇáÔÎÕíÉ¡ æ
•ÇÓÊßãÇá ÚãáíÉ ÇáØáÈ ÈßÇãáå.
áãæÇÕáÉ ÊáÞí ãÎÕÕÇÊ ÇáÅÚÇäÉ ÇáÛÐÇÆíÉ¡ ÓíõØáÈ ãäß Ãä
ÊÞÏã ÅËÈÇÊÇð áãÚáæãÇÊ ÃÎÑì
)ãËá ÇáÏÎá¡ ãßÇä ÇáÅÞÇãÉ¡ ...ÅáÎ(. ÅÐÇ ÞãÊ ÈÅÚØÇÁ ÇáÅËÈÇÊ ÚäÏ ÇáÊÞÏíã¡ Ýíãßä Ãä
ÊõÚØì
ÝÊÑÉ ÃØæá ãä ãÎÕÕÇÊ ÇáÅÚÇäÉ ÇáÛÐÇÆíÉ.
ÇáãÞÇÈáÇÊ ÇáãÚäíÉ ÈÈÑäÇãÌ ÇáÅÚÇäÉ ÇáÛÐÇÆíÉ
)Food Assistance Program: FAP(
íÌæÒ ÇáÊäÇÒá Úä ÅÌÑÇÁ ãÞÇÈáÉ æÌåÇð áæÌå æÅÌÑÇÁ ãÞÇÈáÉ
åÇÊÝíÉ Ýí ÇáÍÇáÇÊ ÇáÊí íÔßá
Ðáß Úáì Ãåá ÈíÊß ãÔÞÉ. æÊÊÖãä ÇáãÔÞÇÊ Úáì ÓÈíá ÇáãËÇá
æáÇ ÊÞÊÕÑ Úáì ÇáÊÇáí:
•ÇáãÑÖ.
•ÕÚæÈÇÊ Ýí ÇáäÞá.
•ÏæÇã ÓÇÚÇÊ ÇáÚãá ÇáÐí íãäÚ ãä ÇáÇÔÊÑÇß Ýí ãÞÇÈáÉ
ãßÊÈíÉ.
ÅÐÇ ßäÊ ÊÚÇäí ãä ãÔÞÉ æÊÍÊÇÌ Åáì ÅÌÑÇÁ DHS ÃÎÈÑ
ÇáÃÎÕÇÆí ÇáãÓÄæá Úäß Ý
Well, it's part of the instructions for
how to apply for
food stamps in the great state of
Michigan .
Read on:
I actually called the Michigan Dept. of Human Services to
check this out and it is true.
Have we gone completely nuts!!
Muslim men are allowed to have as many as 4 wives. Many
Muslims have immigrated into the U.S. and brought their 2-3-or 4 wives with
them, but the U.S. does not allow multi marriages, so the man lists one wife
as his, and signs the other 2 or 3 up as extended family on welfare and other
free Government programs!
Michigan has the highest population of Muslims in the
United States .
When President
Obama took office the United States paid several millions of dollars to have
a large number of Palestinians, (All Muslim), immigrated here from Palestine.
Why?
We don’t pay for other persons to immigrate here, and
I’m sure that some of those Muslims moved into Michigan with the large
current number of Muslims already established there.
So now in Michigan when you call the Public Assistance
office you are told to “Press 1 for English. Press 2 for Spanish, or Press 3
for Arabic”! CHECK IT OUT YOURSELF - Here is the number 1-888-678-8914 .
Every time you add a new language to an American
program it requires an additional number of persons fluent in that language
to process those persons who refuse to learn English in order to live here at
an additional cost to the taxpayer! Why are we even allowing
persons to immigrate here who cannot provide for themselves, and putting them
in our welfare system?
Press 3 for Arabic.
This is quite alarming!!! This seems to have happened
clandestinely, for, as far as I know, no public announcement, or opportunity
to vote on this was offered to the American people.
They're just adopting an official stance, and using
tax-payer money for it, in various capacities, without public knowledge or
approval.
The following link takes you into the State of Michigan
Public Assistance page,
(as in Food Stamps etc). You won't have to
scroll far before you see the assistance-letters options for ... (get this)
... English, Spanish, and ARABIC!!!
When did the ARABIC option sneak into our
culture? Will we soon have to listen to our governmental offices,
stores, and other venues offer us the option of "pressing 3 for
ARABIC?"
Check it out for yourself.
Please inform every red-blooded American you know, that
this is happening.
It is outrageous!
The camel's nose is literally now OFFICIALLY under the
tent!
YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK!!
|
LATEST
SCAM
BE SURE
TO SHARE THIS
ESPECIALLY
WITH ELDERLY
WHO DO NOT HAVE
INTERNET
The latest CC scam
Just when you thought you'd
heard it all. This scam is actually very clever.
Be very careful out there!
This one could easily slip by
most anyone - beware of people bearing gifts.
The following is a recounting of
the incident from the victim:
Wednesday a week ago, I had a phone call from someone saying that he was from some outfit called: "Express Couriers,"(The name could have been anything) he asked if I was going to be home because there was a package delivery for me that required a signature .
The caller said that the
delivery would arrive at my home in roughly an hour, and sure enough,
about an hour later, a uniformed delivery man turned up with a beautiful basket
of flowers and wine.
I was very surprised
since it did not involve any special occasion or holiday, and I certainly
didn't expect anything like it. Intrigued about who had sent me such a
gift, I inquired as to who the sender was. The deliveryman's reply was,
he was only delivering the gift package, but allegedly a card was being
sent separately... (the card has never arrived!) There was also a
consignment note with the gift.
He then went on to explain that because the gift contained alcohol, there was a $3.50 "delivery/ verification charge," providing proof that he had actually delivered the package to an adult of legal drinking age, and not just left it on the doorstep
where it could be stolen or taken by anyone, especially a minor.
This sounded logical and I offered to pay him cash. He then said that the delivery company required payment to be by credit or debit card only, so that everything is properly accounted for, and this would keep help in keeping a legal record of the transaction.
He then went on to explain that because the gift contained alcohol, there was a $3.50 "delivery/ verification charge," providing proof that he had actually delivered the package to an adult of legal drinking age, and not just left it on the doorstep
where it could be stolen or taken by anyone, especially a minor.
This sounded logical and I offered to pay him cash. He then said that the delivery company required payment to be by credit or debit card only, so that everything is properly accounted for, and this would keep help in keeping a legal record of the transaction.
He added couriers not needing to carry a bunch of cash, would make them less likely targets for robbery.
My husband, who by this time was standing beside me, pulled his wallet out of his pocket with the credit/debit card, and 'John,' the "delivery man," asked my husband to swipe his card on a small mobile card machine. It had a small screen and keypad where Frank was also asked to enter the card's PIN and security number. A receipt was printed out and given to us as our copy of the transaction. He then said everything was in order, and wished us good day.
To our horrible surprise, between Thursdayand the following Monday, $4,000 had been charged/withdrawn from our credit/debit account at various ATM machines.
It appeared that somehow the "mobile credit card machine," which the deliveryman carried now had all the info necessary to create a "dummy" card with all our card details after my husband swiped our card and entered the requested PIN and security number.
Upon finding out about the illegal transactions on our card, we immediately notified the bank which issued us a new card, and our credit/debit account was closed.
We also personally went to the Police, where it was confirmed that it is definitely a scam because several households had been similarly hit.
WARNING: Be wary of accepting any "surprise gift or package,"
which you neither expected nor personally ordered, especially if it
involves any kind of payment as a condition of receiving the gift or
package. Also, never accept anything if you do not personally know
or there is no proper identification of who the sender is.
Above all, the only time you should give out any personal credit/debit card information is when you yourself initiated the purchase or transaction!
DISCLAIMER
Subscribe to feed
