GOV. JERRY BROWN ANNOUNCES COLLAPSE OF CALIFORNIA AND ULTIMATELY THE U.S.

Flood of illegal immigrants prepare nation for takeover by global elite

On Tuesday California Gov. Jerry Brown met with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto in Sacramento.

A day prior to the meeting in the California capitol, Brown announced the collapse of the United States and the elimination of its national borders when he declared California to be wide-open to illegal immigration.

“You’re all welcome in California today,” Brown said in Los Angeles on Monday.

Nieto characterized the influx of illegal immigrants as justice for “those who contribute so much to the development of the American society.”

In reality, the influx spells the destruction of American society. Brown’s welcoming of a flood of new illegal immigrants and Nieto’s insistence crossing the border represents social justice will ultimately deal a fatal blow to not only the state, but the nation as a whole.

The growth of illegal and legal immigrants – between 1970 and 2008 the share of California’s population comprised of immigrants tripled from 9 percent to 27 percent – has turned California into a failed state.

It will soon do the same for the country as a whole.

California: A Socialist Dystopia

In February, Democrats signaled yet another assail on the economic viability of the state when they proposed legislation that allows illegal immigrants to qualify for healthcare coverage under Medicare.

California is on record as the largest welfare state in the country. The state has one-eighth of the nation’s population and one-third of all welfare recipients.

In 2011 Judicial Watch cited U.S. Census Bureau data to show that families headed up by illegal immigrants are more likely to use welfare programs.

“Even before the recession, immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives,” the organization explained. “Basically, the majority of households across the country benefitting from publicly-funded welfare programs are headed by immigrants, both legal and illegal.”

In Los Angeles County alone during 2013, $650 million was spent on welfare benefits for illegal immigrants, according to Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich of the Department of Public Social Services.

In addition to unbridled welfare benefits, illegal immigrants are provided with in-state tuition breaks. Nearly a decade ago, this scheme, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, would cost besieged taxpayers around $289 million a year.

California Paradigm

Democrats understand the capital harvested from wide open borders and liberal welfare and healthcare policies – both translate into a political monopoly. Overwhelming numbers of Hispanics vote Democrat. “Hispanics of all ages in the U.S. today are more than twice as likely to identify with or lean to the Democratic Party rather than the Republican Party,” Gallup reported in 2013.

“The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily,” Politico reported last April.

This political monopoly will, however, come at a tremendous cost. According to one study, the cost to U.S. taxpayers of legalizing the current flood of illegal immigrants would be approximately 6.3 trillion dollars over the next 50 years.

Destruction of American Culture

In addition to destroying the economic base of the nation and ultimately impoverishing Americans, unbridled illegal and unrestrained legal immigration will accomplish a primary goal held by the global elite – the destruction of American culture and its heritage grounded in the principles of liberty, private property and individual sovereignty.

“Besides the successful culture of independence, Obama hates the white nature of America,” writes L. Todd Wood. “He is attempting to manage the ethnicity of America and quicken the demise of the white majority. He is attempting to crowd out the American culture of self-reliance and the rule of law with the culture of gang violence of Central America dependent on the federal government. This is a racist strategy that only Hitler could be proud of.”

It is also a strategy the global elite are proud of. If the culture of liberty and the drive for economic prosperity can be successfully destroyed and Americans reduced to third world serfs, the plan for one world government and domination can be realized.

The 35.4 Percent: 109,631,000 on Welfare

Capture

By Terence P. Jeffrey

109,631,000 Americans lived in households that received benefits from one or more federally funded “means-tested programs” — also known as welfare — as of the fourth quarter of 2012, according to data released Tuesday by the Census Bureau.

The Census Bureau has not yet reported how many were on welfare in 2013 or the first two quarters of 2014.

But the 109,631,000 living in households taking federal welfare benefits as of the end of 2012, according to the Census Bureau, equaled 35.4 percent of all 309,467,000 people living in the United States at that time.

When those receiving benefits from non-means-tested federal programs — such as Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and veterans benefits — were added to those taking welfare benefits, it turned out that 153,323,000 people were getting federal benefits of some type at the end of 2012.

Subtract the 3,297,000 who were receiving veterans’ benefits from the total, and that leaves 150,026,000 people receiving non-veterans’ benefits.

The 153,323,000 total benefit-takers at the end of 2012, said the Census Bureau, equaled 49.5 percent of the population. The 150,026,000 taking benefits other than veterans’ benefits equaled about 48.5 percent of the population.

When America re-elected President Barack Obama in 2012, we had not quite reached the point where more than half the country was taking benefits from the federal government.

It is a reasonable bet, however, that with the implementation of Obamacare — with its provisions expanding Medicaid and providing health-insurance subsidies to people earning up to 400 percent of poverty — that if we have not already surpassed that point (not counting those getting veterans benefits) we soon will.

What did taxpayers give to the 109,631,000 — the 35.4 percent of the nation — getting welfare benefits at the end of 2012?

82,679,000 of the welfare-takers lived in households where people were on Medicaid, said the Census Bureau. 51,471,000 were in households on food stamps. 22,526,000 were in the Women, Infants and Children program. 20,355,000 were in household on Supplemental Security Income. 13,267,000 lived in public housing or got housing subsidies. 5,442,000 got Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. 4,517,000 received other forms of federal cash assistance.

How do you put in perspective the 109,631,000 people taking welfare, or the 150,026,000 getting some type of federal benefit other than veterans’ benefits?

Well, the CIA World Factbook says there are 142,470,272 people in Russia. So, the 150,026,000 people getting non-veterans federal benefits in the United States at the end of 2012 outnumbered all the people in Russia.

63,742,977 people live in the United Kingdom and 44,291,413 live in the Ukraine, says the CIA. So, the combined 108,034,390 people in these two nations was about 1,596,610 less than 109,631,000 collecting welfare in the United States.

It may be more telling, however, to compare the 109,631,000 Americans taking federal welfare benefits at the end of 2012 to Americans categorized by other characteristics.

In 2012, according to the Census Bureau, there were 103,087,000 full-time year-round workers in the United States (including 16,606,000 full-time year-round government workers). Thus, the welfare-takers outnumbered full-time year-round workers by 6,544,000.

California, the nation’s most-populated state, contained an estimated 38,332,521 people in 2013, says the Census Bureau. Texas had 26,448,193 people, New York had 19,651,127, and Florida had 19,552,860. But the combined 103,984,701 people in these four massive states still fell about 5,646,299 short of the 109,631,000 people on welfare.

In the fourth quarter of 2008, when President Obama was elected, there were 96,197,000 people living in households taking benefits from one or more federal welfare programs. After four years, by the fourth quarter of 2012, that had grown by 13,434,000.

Those 13,434,000 additional people on welfare outnumbered the 12,882,135 people the Census Bureau estimated lived in Obama’s home state of Illinois in 2013.

The “Obama Recovery” Leads To More Americans On Food Stamps

Capture

By Joseph R. Carducci
August 4, 2014

I know, I know. Ask any good liberal Democrat and they will talk your ear off about how the whole economic recession and downturn was entirely the fault of George Bush. No blame can be laid for any of this at the feet of Obama. Even if you agree with that theory (and I decidedly do not), then certainly much of the post economic downturn effects can and should be laid on the doorstep of the White House and our glorious community organizer in chief who now occupies that address.

One of the major problems with this so-called ‘Obama Recovery’ is how this has affected the number and percentage of food stamp recipients. Certainly, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP, for short) has seen huge increases over the past 15 years. Most of that has come due to the recession in 2008. The thing that seems crazy about all this is the fact that normally during economic recovery, the number of people on food stamps actually begins to decrease, generally significantly.

Having these high numbers continue is a problem for the economy and the country as a whole. In fact, during the four-year period after the end of the downturn in 2009, SNAP recipients increased by 7.3 million. Not only that, but the percentage of people receiving food stamps increased from 13 to 15 percent. This is unprecedented. In fact, if we adjust for population differences, the four years following the 1981-82 recession (which was actually very similar in duration and unemployment levels) saw a 12.5 percent decrease in recipients. During the four years following our last recession, SNAP recipients increased by 15.6 percent! If this recovery had been more ‘typical,’ we would have expected to see around 11.5 percent of the national population receiving such benefits. That would have been 36 million compared to the current 47.6 million.

This problem is also highlighted very well by Robert Doar, an American Enterprise Institute scholar. He has testified recently before the House Committee on Agriculture to discuss this very issue:

“By itself, SNAP benefits may not be enough to reduce the incentive for a recipient to go to work, or to move from part-time to full-time regular employment, but when combined with unreported earnings or other assistance programs—perhaps most notably unemployment insurance benefits—the program does appear to allow a significant number of adult recipients to remain out of work longer than they might otherwise. Without some effort to require these SNAP recipients to participate in programs such as those offered under TANF, I fear that the number of non-working, nonelderly, nondisabled SNAP recipients will remain high.”

In other words, the Obama Recovery does not appear to be much of a recovery at all. At least not in terms of the amount and types of assistance being offered. The whole idea of programs like SNAP and TANF and unemployment benefits were that they would only be temporary in nature. Sadly, these assistance programs now seem to be more and more a way of life for low-income Americans.

Obama has made these changes so that more and more people become more and more dependent on the government. Of course, this also has they effect of tying such people to the hip of the Democratic party. After all, if you think that you need your TANF and SNAP and even unemployment benefits in order to live and get by, why on earth will you ever even think of voting for a politician who insists you begin taking responsibility and wants to eliminate…or at least cut…these aid programs?

What do YOU think? Is the ‘Obama Recovery’ becoming more of a way of life? Why are so many more people dependent on food stamps today? What does this say about Obama’s economic policies?