USA To Issue More New Green Cards In Next Ten Years Than Populations of IA, NH and SC – COMBINED…

Capture

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) 80%

Breitbart News has exclusively obtained text and a chart from the Senate’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, chaired by Alabama Republican

The overwhelming majority of immigration to the United States is the result of our visa policies. Each year, millions of visas are issued to temporary workers, foreign students, refugees, asylees, and permanent immigrants for admission into the United States. The lion’s share of these visas are for lesser-skilled and lower-paid workers and their dependents who, because they are here on work-authorized visas, are added directly to the same labor pool occupied by current unemployed jobseekers. Expressly because they arrive on legal immigrant visas, most will be able to draw a wide range of taxpayer-funded benefits, and corporations will be allowed to directly substitute these workers for Americans. Improved border security would have no effect on the continued arrival of these foreign workers, refugees, and permanent immigrants—because they are all invited here by the federal government.

greencardgraph

The most significant of all immigration documents issued by the U.S. is, by far, the “green card.” When a foreign citizen is issued a green card it guarantees them the following benefits inside the United States: lifetime work authorization, access to federal welfare, access to Social Security and Medicare, the ability to obtain citizenship and voting privileges, and the immigration of their family members and elderly relatives.

Under current federal policy, the U.S. issues green cards to approximately 1 million new Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) every single year. For instance, Department of Homeland Security statistics show that the U.S. issued 5.25 million green cards in the last five years, for an average of 1.05 million new legal permanent immigrants annually.

These ongoing visa issuances are the result of federal law, and their number can be adjusted at any time. However, unlike other autopilot policies—such as tax rates or spending programs—there is virtually no national discussion or media coverage over how many visas we issue, to whom we issue them and on what basis, or how the issuance of these visas to individuals living in foreign countries impacts the interests of people already living in this country.

If Congress does not pass legislation to reduce the number of green cards issued each year, the U.S. will legally add 10 million or more new permanent immigrants over the next 10 years—a bloc of new permanent residents larger than populations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina combined.

This has substantial economic implications.

The post-World War II boom decades of the 1950s and 1960s averaged together less than 3 million green cards per decade—or about 285,000 annually. Due to lower immigration rates, the total foreign-born population in the United States dropped from about 10.8 million in 1945 to 9.7 million in 1960 and 9.6 million in 1970.  

These lower midcentury immigration levels were the product of a federal policy change: after the last period of large-scale immigration that had begun in roughly 1880, immigration rates were lowered to reduce admissions. The foreign-born share of the U.S. population fell for six consecutive decades, from 1910 through 1960.

Legislation enacted in 1965, among other factors, substantially increased low-skilled immigration. Since 1970, the foreign-born population in the United States has increased more than four-fold—to a record 42.1 million today. The foreign-born share of the population has risen from fewer than 1 in 21 in 1970, to presently approaching 1 in 7. As the supply of available labor has increased, so too has downward pressure on wages.

Georgetown and Hebrew University economics professor Eric Gould has observed that “the last four decades have witnessed a dramatic change in the wage and employment structure in the United States… The overall evidence suggests that the manufacturing and immigration trends have hollowed-out the overall demand for middle-skilled workers in all sectors, while increasing the supply of workers in lower skilled jobs. Both phenomena are producing downward pressure on the relative wages of workers at the low end of the income distribution.”

During the low-immigration period from 1948-1973, real median compensation for U.S. workers increased more than 90 percent. By contrast, real average hourly wages were lower in 2014 than they were in 1973, four decades earlier. Harvard Economist George Borjas also documented the effects of high immigration rates on African-American workers, writing that “a 10 percent immigration-induced increase in the supply of workers in a particular skill group reduced the black wage of that group by 2.5 percent.” Past immigrants are additionally among those most economically impacted by the arrival of large numbers of new workers brought in to compete for the same jobs. In Los Angeles County, for example, 1 in 3 recent immigrants are living below the poverty line.  And this federal policy of new large-scale admissions continues unaltered at a time when automation is reducing hiring, and when a record share of our own workers here in America are not employed.

President Coolidge articulated how a slowing of immigration would benefit both U.S.-born and immigrant-workers: “We want to keep wages and living conditions good for everyone who is now here or who may come here. As a nation, our first duty must be to those who are already our inhabitants, whether native or immigrants. To them we owe an especial and a weighty obligation.”

It is worth observing that the 10 million grants of new permanent residency under current law is not an estimate of total immigration. In fact, the increased distribution of legal immigrant visas tend to correlate with increased flows of immigration illegally: the former helps provide networks and pull factors for the latter. Most of the countries who send the largest numbers of citizens with green cards are also the countries who send the most citizens illegally. The Census Bureau estimates 13 million new immigrants will arrive, on net, between now and 2024—hurtling the U.S. past all recorded figures in terms of the foreign-born share of total population, quickly eclipsing the watermark recorded 105 years ago during the 1880–1920 immigration wave before immigration rates were lowered. Absent new legislation to reduce unprecedented levels of future immigration, the Census Bureau projects immigration as a share of population will continue setting new records each year, for all time.

Yet the immigration “reform” considered by Congress most recently—the 2013 Senate “Gang of Eight” comprehensive immigration bill—would have tripled the number of green cards issued over the next 10 years. Instead of issuing 10 million green cards, the Gang of Eight proposal would have issued at least 30 million green cards during the next decade (or more than 11 times the population of the City of Chicago).

Polling from Gallup and Fox shows that Americans want lawmakers to reduce, not increase, immigration rates by a stark 2:1 margin. Reuters puts it at a 3:1 margin. And polling from GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway shows that by the huge margin of nearly 10:1 people of all backgrounds are united in their belief that U.S. companies seeking workers should raise wages for those already living here—instead of bringing in new labor from abroad.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Immigration, Green Cards

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN: Cuts coming…

Capture

Did You Ever Notice the Asterisk on Your Social Security Statement?

While engaging in the mundane task of gathering financial statements for a “secure retirement” meeting with my husband’s and my adviser, this Baby Boomer stumbled upon documented proof that our nation does not have the guts to confront one of its most serious economic problems. The realization came when I pulled from my files a document statement innocently titled, “Your Social Security Statement.” At first glance, the statement did not appear menacing. I was told I could expect to receive a benefit of “about $2,136 a month” upon reaching age 70 — which certainly seems like good news. But immediately I thought of a parallel of President Obama’s infamous Obamacare promise: “If you like your Social Security, you can keep your Social Security.”  Then, as if on cue, I saw an asterisk with the following message:  The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2033, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 77 percent of scheduled benefits. My full form:

http://c4.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_2015block.jpg

I could not believe I was seeing the equivalent of what I was just thinking, but with a new twist, “If I like my Social Security, I can keep 77 percent of it.” With an asterisk, my beloved government was informing me that they will be unable to fulfill their part of a financial arrangement into which, as their statement attested, I had been making mandatory contributions starting in 1971 at age 16.   RELATED: Marco Rubio on Saving Social Security and Medicare This impending “benefit rationing,” reducing my future financial “security” by $492 a month, may, in fact, not be the worst of it. Sitting in the back of my Social Security file was an earlier statement dated March 10, 2009. Again, followed by an asterisk was a sentence that read exactly like my 2015 statement except for two major differences (emphasis added): The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2041, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 78 percent of your scheduled benefits.

http://c3.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/pic_2011block_0.jpg

Clearly, in 2009, the government’s prediction — that Social Security would have to be cut to 78 percent of benefits come 2041 — was overly optimistic. Now, in 2015, they are projecting 2033, eight years earlier, with one percentage point less of my projected benefits. The projections have steadily worsened over the past few years, helped by a much weaker economy than the federal government expected. Does anyone really expect these numbers to get better? The skepticism I felt when I saw my initial monthly benefit was entirely justified. There are just too many Baby Boomers and too many financial promises with elected leaders too afraid to inflict the necessary pain of real reform. RELATED: Eight Reasons We Shouldn’t Raise the Cap on Social Security Taxes  But the pain will be much, much greater when monthly Social Security benefits are rationed. Now is the time for Baby Boomers to force their elected leaders to confront this issue and take action. The planned benefit reduction should be a major talking point for every 2016 presidential candidate, but somehow it is not. Why? Politicians fear confronting the truth, and they fear Americans can’t handle it. Meanwhile, here is the truth, as stated by the Social Security Administration in its annual Trustees Report from 2014: Social Security is not sustainable over the long term at current benefit and tax rates. In 2010, the program paid more in benefits and expenses than it collected in taxes and other noninterest income, and the 2014 Trustees Report projects this pattern to continue for the next 75 years. The old cliché “demographics is destiny” has never been more applicable. In January 2011, the first 1946-born Baby Boomers began turning age 65, at the rate of 10,000 a day. This gray-haired evolution continues for 19 straight years — until the end of 2029 — when the youngest crop of Baby Boomers, born in 1964, finally turn 65. That adds up to just over 69 million former hipsters who changed America at every stage of their lives (though, of course, some of them have died). Now, many equipped with artificial hips and knees, they’re expecting generous automated deposits from the government at the first of each month. (With many millions of them over time eventually receiving far greater amounts than what they initially contributed.)

Keep in mind that those millions of surviving Baby Boomers do not include all the immigrants, also aging, who came to America in the past decades. The official total is 74.9 million Boomers native and foreign-born. Here is more truth (and pain) from the Social Security Administration: The population of retirees is projected to double in about 50 years. People are also living longer, and the birth rate is low. Baby Boomers can expect to live longer than any previous generation, which compounds the problem, and on the other side of the equation, we have the low national birth rate. Combined, the Social Security actuaries put it this way: Trustees project that the ratio of 2.8 workers paying Social Security taxes to each person collecting benefits in 2013 will fall to 2.1 to 1 in 2032. Like it or not, the worker shortage is a key reason why our government is importing immigrants (both legal and illegal). Don’t buy it? See this 50th anniversary video commemorating President Johnson’s signing Medicare into law, produced by a group promoting immigration reform — clearly implying more immigration is what’s keeping Social Security and Medicare afloat: The Social Security trustees go on to warn that “if no changes are made to the program,” they project that “assets will be sufficient to allow for full payment of scheduled benefits through 2032” — hence the most recent warning on my Social Security statement. Don’t you just love understated government language explaining what will soon become a Baby Boomer revolt? My favorite phrase: “If no changes are made to the program.” Let’s face it. Congress is never going to make changes to the program. It won’t happen, or certainly won’t happen any time soon, because (surprise) Baby Boomers themselves are against changing the benefit formulas. RELATED: The Price of the Americans with Disabilities Act So, barring some positive developments, in 18 years — or less — Washington, D.C., will be filled with aging protesters, many using walkers, wheelchairs, or scooters. They will carry signs reading, “Give me my full benefits” and “It’s my money.” Old men wearing Vietnam veteran caps will be demanding, “100 percent and no less.” By that time, it will be too late. What comes to mind is a classic 1965 song by The Who, “My Generation.” If you are of a certain age you know the famous lyrics, “I hope I die before I get old.” Now, since the Baby Boomer generation is already redefining what it means to be “old,” it’s time to rewrite the lyrics:  “I hope I die before the government goes broke.”    As things are going right now, you won’t, but it will.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421790/social-security-bankruptcy-statement-baby-boomers

VIDEO: Mark Levin Warns America About Obama’s Strategy To Demolish Our Children

Mark Levin’s latest book, Plunder and Deceit: Big Government’s Exploitation of Young People and The Future, hits bookshelves on August 4; and already, it is generating buzz.

Its premise is that the “ruling generation” is robbing the “rising generation’s” present and future.

Topics: The National Debt, Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare, Education, Immigration, Environment, Minimum Wage, National Security, and the Constitution.

Fellow former Reagan administration official Peter Ferrara highlights that Plunder and Deceit chronicles how today’s younger people are:

the first [generation] in modern history to have higher levels of poverty and unemployment and lower levels of wealth and personal income than their two immediate predecessor generations at the same ages. Instead of growing up and starting their own homes and families, record numbers are moving back in with mom and dad after “graduating” from college.

Watch this video where Levin reads some of his books:

“The challenge is formidable and the outcome uncertain, as is the case with most momentous causes, but there is no alternative…” write

McCain Who? Vets Heart Trump

Screen Shot 2015-07-26 at 7.38.32 PM

BY PATRICIA MURPHY

Think all vets care about the draft-dodging CEO’s tough talk about McCain’s war record? They don’t.
It’s hard to think of a worse place than Sun City, South Carolina, for Donald Trump to make his first public appearance since unleashing a firestorm of controversy by calling Senator John McCain “not a war hero” over the weekend.

The “active” retirement community of 16,000 is a magnet for military retirees, many of whom served in Vietnam as McCain languished in a Hanoi POW camp and is a a mandatory stop for “country-first” Republicans looking to win the state’s crucial First-in-the-South primary.

But instead of greeting Trump with protests for his comments, the conservative crowd of 600 welcomed the GOP front-runner with three standing ovations, an overflow room of 500, and rapt attention.

Trump spent an hour-plus ranting on everything from South Carolina’s senior senator, Lindsey Graham, (“a total lightweight idiot”), to the Obama administration (“a bunch of dopes”), and his policy plans for everything from saving Social Security to reforming the Department of Veterans Affairs and strengthening the military.

Trump was so annoyed that Graham had called him a “jackass” earlier in the day that he crammed Graham insults throughout his speech, mocking the senior senator’s high-toned Southern drawl and reading Graham’s Capitol Hill phone number aloud to prove Graham had once come “begging” for a favor. “I think that’s his number—somebody try it!”

(Somebody did.)

Not only did the audience tolerate Trump’s bluster, many said they welcomed it.

Many saw it as proof that Trump is entirely different from the cattle pen of career politicians he’s running against—a billionaire who literally cannot be bought, a truth teller who says what he’s thinking, even when it’s not popular.

“People make statements and Trump is Trump. That didn’t bother me at all,” said John Doyle, a Vietnam veteran.
Among veterans in particular, Trump’s drill-sergeant barks, along with promises to “do everything for the vets, who are being treated terribly,” left the impression that he not only cares about the struggles of veterans, but that he might actually succeed in returning the Veterans Administration, the government, and the country to the greatness they once knew.

In nearly two-dozen interviews with veterans outside of Bluffton, South Carolina, nearly all praised Trump as “not-a-politician,” “a breath of fresh air,” and a straight-shooting, successful businessman who, so far, can be trusted. His criticism of John McCain barely seemed to register as anything other than the media blowing a single comment out of proportion.

“People make statements and Trump is Trump. That didn’t bother me at all,” said John Doyle, a Vietnam veteran who is also the vice president of the Sun City Republicans, who will remain neutral in the primary. “He’s used to pushing back at people and maybe not in the best light. But deep down I don’t doubt what he thinks about John McCain.”

William Hertling, 70, served in the Army from 1963 to 1965, considers himself an independent after giving up on both political parties years ago. Hertling said he’s paying attention to Trump this time around.

“I felt what Trump said was maybe a punch below the belt, but I still understood him letting out his feelings about what McCain said about him,” Hertling said. “I do like the fact that he says what’s on his mind rather than the politicians saying what you want to hear and not backing it up.”
Max Clements, who was drafted into the Army in 1957, saw Trump’s bluntness as an attribute, not a detriment, even his comments about John McCain. “Everybody’s trying to take it out of context because he’s leading in the polls,” Clements said. “Trump is not a politician and he tells it like it is. He’s not going to owe anybody anything when he gets into office.”

If anyone in the audience could have come to protest Trump, who sought five deferments from service in Vietnam, it would have been Patrick McGowan, a war hero by any definition.

McGowan volunteered for the Army in 1969 as the war raged in Vietnam, serving in country as a “tunnel rat,” crawling through underground tunnels in search of American POWs. It was brutally dangerous work that left him with three gunshot wounds to the chest and a Purple Heart, a Silver Star, and a Bronze Star.

But McGowan had come to support Trump.

“I truly like how strong-minded he is,” he said. “He is actually for the veterans. He was not putting the veterans down. Why do they keep harping on it? Trump will change Washington and the V.A. and we need it.”

If Trump’s rival Republicans were hoping that his McCain outburst would be the beginning of the end of the summer of Trump, their hopes seem to be misplaced. The man who entered and departed Sun City to outstretched hands and cheers of thanks isn’t going anywhere.

And if the GOP establishment is looking for somebody to blame for their current predicament— with 15 experienced Republican leaders trailing a man they’ve written off as a carnival barker— they can blame themselves. While Republicans and Democrats alike have been obsessing over data, Super PACs, mega-donors, and any other way to game the system for a win in 2016, the outlandish man who built his name into a billion-dollar brand has figured out what brand many voters are looking for, and it’s pretty much anything or anyone with no connection to Washington or the system that created it.

Trump’s key message was easy to lose Tuesday amid his opera of bombast, ego stroking and name calling, but he eventually laid it out for the audience in Sun City and they nodded in agreement as they took it in.

“There is something happening here,” he told the crowd, making sure they knew he was talking about himself as much as he was talking about them. “We are tired of being pushed around and led around by stupid people…We need smart leadership, We need great leadership. We need to make America great again.”

Screen Shot 2015-07-24 at 3.26.27 PM

Social Security disability fund to run dry next year – Chicago Tribune

Screen Shot 2015-07-23 at 2.44.25 PM

By Tribune wire reports contact the reporter

The 11 million Americans who receive Social Security disability face steep benefit cuts next year, the government said Wednesday, handing lawmakers a fiscal and political crisis in the middle of a presidential campaign.

The trustees who oversee Social Security and Medicare said the disability trust fund will run out of money in late 2016. That would trigger an automatic 19 percent cut in benefits, unless Congress acts.

The average monthly benefit for disabled workers and their families is $1,017. The typical beneficiary would see a reduction of $193 a month.

“Today’s report shows that we must seek meaningful, in some instances even urgent, changes to ensure the program is on stable ground for future generations,” said Jo Ann Jenkins, chief executive officer of AARP.
In more bad news for beneficiaries, the trustees project there will be no cost-of-living increase in benefits at the end of the year. It would mark only the third year without an increase since automatic adjustments were adopted in 1975.

Separately, about 7 million Medicare beneficiaries could face a monthly premium increase of at least $54 for outpatient coverage. That works out to an increase of more than 50 percent.

The annual report card on the financial health of Social Security and Medicare shows that the federal government’s largest benefit programs are feeling the strain of aging baby boomers as they both approach milestone anniversaries.
Medicare turns 50 at the end of the month and Social Security turns 80 two weeks later. Together, the programs accounted for more than 40 percent of federal spending last year.

There was some good news in the report: The trustees said Social Security’s retirement fund has enough money to pay full benefits until 2035, a year later than they predicted last year. At that point, Social Security will collect enough in payroll taxes to pay about 75 percent of benefits.

Medicare’s giant hospital trust fund is projected to be exhausted in 2030, the same date as last year’s report. At that point, Medicare taxes would be enough to pay 86 percent of benefits.

Advocates for seniors say that gives policymakers plenty of time to address both programs without cutting benefits. But some in Congress note that the longer lawmakers wait, the harder it gets to address the shortfall without making significant changes.
There is an easy fix available for the disability program: Congress could shift tax revenue from Social Security’s much larger retirement fund, as it has done in the past.

President Barack Obama supports the move. And acting Social Security Commissioner Carolyn Colvin said shifting the tax revenue “would have no adverse effect on the solvency of the overall Social Security program.”

But Republicans say they want changes in the disability program to reduce fraud and to encourage disabled workers to re-enter the workforce.

“Washington has continually kicked the can down the road, and now, as 11 million Americans face cuts to Social Security disability benefits they rely on, it is time for Congress to take action,” said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio.

In January, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., suggested that a lot of slackers are on disability. Paul, who is running for president, joked that half the people getting benefits are either anxious or their back hurts.

The date that the disability fund will run dry is unchanged from last year’s report. But as the deadline gets closer, advocates say the need to act becomes more urgent.

“The president has proposed a common-sense solution to improve the solvency of this fund in the short run so that Americans who rely on it will continue to receive the benefits they need,” Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew said. “It is vital that Congress move forward to maintain the integrity of this critical program sooner rather than later.”

If the retirement and disability funds were combined, they would have enough money to pay full benefits until 2034, the trustees said.
Lew noted that the life of the Medicare trust fund has been extended by 13 years since Congress passed Obama’s health law. The fund is also benefiting from a slowdown in the rise of health care costs.

The Medicare premium increases would affect Part B, which provides coverage for outpatient services. For about 70 percent of beneficiaries, premium increases cannot exceed the dollar amount of their Social Security cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA. Because no COLA is currently expected for next year, increased costs of outpatient coverage would have to be spread among the remaining 30 percent.

That would result in an increase of about $54 in the base premium, bringing it to $159.30 a month. Those who would feel the impact include 2.8 million new beneficiaries, 1.6 million who pay the premium directly instead of having it deducted from their Social Security, and 3.1 million upper-income beneficiaries, those making at least $85,000 for an individual and $170,000 for a married couple.

The increases for upper-income beneficiaries would be higher, up to $174 for those in the highest bracket.

Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said no final decision has been made. She said premium increases are expected to average under 5 percent a year over the long term.

Nearly 60 million people receive Social Security benefits, including 42 million retired workers and dependents, 11 million disabled workers and 6 million survivors of deceased workers.

About 55 million retirees and disabled people get Medicare. The hospital trust fund is only part of the program. Coverage for outpatient care and prescription drugs is covered by premiums and other government spending.

Confiscation Is Coming: Obama To Issue Executive Order Targeting 4.2 Million Retirees With Massive Gun Ban

Capture

This time the President will be targeting 4.2 million Americans who are receiving Social Security benefits for disarmament

BY MAC SLAVO

Just when you thought they’ve tried every trick up their sleeves to disarm American citizens, the creative minds within the Obama administration have come up with a new idea.

Because seizing firearms from veterans has been so successful, they figure they can give it a shot on a much more massive scale, and they’ll be using a Presidential Executive Order to make it happen.

This time the President will be targeting 4.2 million Americans who are receiving Social Security benefits for disarmament:

Seeking tighter controls over firearm purchases, the Obama administration is pushing to ban Social Security beneficiaries from owning guns if they lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, a move that could affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others.

The push is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws regulating who gets reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, which is used to prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the country illegally and others.

A potentially large group within Social Security are people who, in the language of federal gun laws, are unable to manage their own affairs due to “marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”

But critics — including gun rights activists, mental health experts and advocates for the disabled — say that expanding the list of prohibited gun owners based on financial competence is wrongheaded.

Though such a ban would keep at least some people who pose a danger to themselves or others from owning guns, the strategy undoubtedly would also include numerous people who may just have a bad memory or difficulty balancing a checkbook, the critics argue.

“Someone can be incapable of managing their funds but not be dangerous, violent or unsafe,” said Dr. Marc Rosen, a Yale psychiatrist who has studied how veterans with mental health problems manage their money. “They are very different determinations.”

Source: LA Times via Bearing Arms

This attack on America’s Seniors is unprecedented and speaks volumes about what anti-gun fanatics in America want to do to the rest of us.

As Bearing Arms notes, the move is a tyrannical declaration by executive fiat and is a “broad brush” approach that will strip Second Amendment rights from Americans who have committed no crime and pose no danger to society.

Karl Denninger highlights the absolute insanity of what implementation of such an order means:

If your grandmother has a gun for personal protection (and is not a frail older person the exact sort of person for whom that equalizer is most important) but has someone else (like you) run her bank account for her Obama wants to confiscate her gun.

Where is your limit of tolerance for this crap America?

You don’t need any damn permit to write a blog or start and operate a newspaper.

You don’t need any damn permit to worship as you see fit.

If anyone tried to tell you that needed a permit to write either in print or online, or before you could pray, you’d stick up the middle finger.

A right is not conditioned on any damn permit and the Second Amendment is clear in its language just as is the First Amendment — so why is your middle finger notin the air right here and now?

If the President’s efforts are successful then it’s not difficult to see where mental health assessments go next. With Obamacare’s preventative care mandates it should be clear that the next phase in the disarmament of America will target adults between the ages of 18 and 62.

In fact, it’s already happening. California, the petri dish for a wide variety of socialist viruses, has already implemented statutes that allow the police to enter a person’s home and confiscate their weapons based on accusations of mental illness alone. Keep in mind that they have given themselves the legal authority to do this before any tests on the gunowner have been performed. They seize your gun first, then you have to prove your innocence.

And while you can dismiss this as California being typical California, anyone who thinks their state will be any different is kidding themselves. They’ll simply pass this on the Federal level, just like Obamacare and scores of other legislative actions, and it will be enforced directly by the Executive Branch.

Moreover, it is also important to note that the government has recently released new guidelines on mental illness and it turns out that if you are even reading this web siteyou have a diagnoseable condition:

The Obama administration has a new partner in crime and it is the American Psychiatric Association (APA). The APA created the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (5th Edition) which was recently adopted. DSM 5 is highly controversial and has sparked outrage from the mental health practitioners. As many of these practitioners point out, the new DSM-V makes a pathology out simple and normal behaviors such as grieving for the loss of a loved one.

This constitutes a new subjective approach in diagnosing of mental illness that promises to end free speech and any form of political dissent. The federal government has already declared anyone who oppose its unconstitutional policies as having “political paranoia,” which is now diagnosed as a type of mental illness.

Essentially, with the new DSM-V, a psychiatrist has the means with which to diagnose pretty much every single American with some type of mental illness.

And the second that diagnosis hits the national Obamacare database you will red-flagged for disarmament.N