¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: Aunque usted no lo crea, "este es el Gobierno de los satanicos".

Pro-Life House Dems Now on Front Line
Flopping Aces ^ | 02-24-10 | mlajoie2


At one point President Obama promised: “no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” Obama released his own version of Obama-care yesterday. Now that we’ve had a chance to look at the massive health care plan monstrosity the White House finally put out for itself yesterday, we can add this to the list of lies, false promises and insinuations. He apparently met several times with Planned Parenthood. How many meetings with pro-life groups? You guessed it: none! The group Americans United For Life has put out the following report (which includes some very informative links):

“On Monday morning, February 22, 2010, President Obama unveiled a ‘new’ health care reform proposal, purporting to combine ideas from the Senate-passed bill, the House-passed bill, and Republican proposals. However, a careful examination of the White House proposal (which lacks actual legislative language) and statements made by members of the Obama Administration during a health care conference call on Monday reveal the truth – the “new” proposal is simply a modified version of the anti-life bill that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve.

Unfortunately, while the White House was crafting modifications to the Senate bill, they failed to remove the anti-life language. Therefore, all of AUL’s concerns about the bill’s abortion-related provisions, conscience provision, and end-of-life provisions remain.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: Aunque usted no lo crea, ACORN’s New Shell - ACORN IS OBAMA

ACORN’s New Shell - The Democrats’ money-and-muscle operation is rebranding, not disbanding.

Kevin Williamson
NRO 2/24/2010

ACORN is not dissolving. But some of its local affiliates, in an effort to suggest they’re cutting ties with the organization, are giving themselves new names. The reason is money: ACORN cites a string of “vicious right-wing attacks” — and here I doff the purple pimp hat to James O’Keefe — that have made it hard for them to shake down their usual banker benefactors and nonprofit patrons.

This is nothing new. The national organization itself was considering a name change back in November, according to this internal memo, in which ACORN’s leaders cite one single overriding concern: money. “Raising money is much harder now, if we do it under the name ACORN,” the memo says. “Some foundations are still will [sic] to fund us, more are not.”

ACORN isn’t the first gang of riff-raff to discover that there’s lots of money to be made at the intersection of politics and poverty — that was part of the original mafia’s business model, too — but you really have to dig into the organization’s workings, its hundreds of bank accounts, its shell organizations and affiliates, its millions of dollars in cash and real estate, its bank stock, and its consulting company, to appreciate exactly how central money-making is to ACORN.

And these folks are good at making money. Jamie Dimon, the JPMorgan Chase CEO identified by the New York Times as “Obama’s favorite banker,” saw his bank’s charitable foundation give ACORN $1 million in 2007 alone, not counting additional grants to something called the “ACORN Institute.”

ACORN’s housing operations have helped themselves to a generous slice of the profits generated by all that subprime slime, marketing loans to low-income borrowers. Bank of America, Citigroup — many names from the rogue’s gallery of TARP-bailout recipients — have contributed to the ACORN gravy train.

Congressional investigators were surprised to learn that much of ACORN is not even legally a nonprofit: It pays corporate income taxes, though investigators say that it seems to have tried to dodge state taxes by claiming to be a tax-exempt organization. And the churn between ACORN’s nonprofit, for-profit, and political-advocacy arms is substantial. There’s a lot of cash flying around in ACORN’s world: Louisiana’s Democratic attorney general, David Caldwell, estimates that the organization has at least $20 million in cash and $10 million worth of real estate.

The Louisiana prosecutors investigating ACORN also suggest that there are really three national ACORN factions — New York City, Washington, and New Orleans — with national CEO Bertha Lewis, a product of the New York faction, having “forcefully taken control over all ACORN accounts and . . . trying to consolidate whatever assets exist.” If New York ACORN is getting territorial about the checkbook — even as its tainted brand imperils the fundraising efforts of local chapters — you can bet that has played a role in locals’ decisions to assert their independence.

There’s some precedent for these ACORN name games. The Service Employees International Union, which is in effect a branch of ACORN, started to get itchy after the O’Keefe investigations came out. Two SEIU locals were directly run by ACORN: Local 100 and Local 880. Local 100, feeling the PR heat, decided to disaffiliate from SEIU and join the United Labor Unions instead.

But Rep. Darrell Issa’s congressional report casts some doubt on how meaningful an action that was: “Local 100’s website still displays the SEIU logo . . . and [Local 100] is still listed on the SEIU website as an affiliate, even though it has not registered as a corporation with the State of Louisiana. In fact, according to the Louisiana Secretary of State, the United Labor Unions, the union that Local 100 supposedly returned to, had its charter revoked in 1998. . . . Based on tax records, it appears that Local 100 is still a member of SEIU and ACORN.” That’s a congressional report, not some kid in a pimp suit with a hidden camera.

If you want to see whether ACORN is really changing its ways, check to see whether the signatories to those local ACORN bank accounts are changing. When it comes to ACORN, the money is the organization, and the name is just the name.

ACORN in Brooklyn was renamed New York Communities for Change. This move came after the O’Keefe videos inspired an investigation by Brooklyn district attorney Charles Hynes. The group also is tied to an absentee-ballot-fraud case and an investigation into violations of New York campaign-finance laws. A good time for a change, then. But the change is purely cosmetic: Even the board members are the same, according to the New York Post. You can bet the bank balances have been maintained every bit as carefully as the makeup of the management.

Of all the frauds that ACORN has been implicated in, none has been so transparent as the fraudulent reinvention now under way.

— Kevin Williamson is a deputy managing editor of National Review.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: Aunque usted no lo crea, "este es el Gobierno de los satanicos".


By Michelle Malkin On February 25, 2010 @ 12:05 am In FrontPage

The White House wants to play Transparency Olympics with the Tea Party movement. President Obama’s Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin dared Tea Party activists and conservatives last week to “push the administration to make its policies more open” and make it a “political competition … to see who can be more radical in their openness,” The Hill reported. So, let’s start by knocking down Attorney General Eric Holder’s national security stonewall at the Department of Justice, shall we? Let the sun shine in.

For more than a year, I’ve been writing about the looming national security and conflict-of-interest problems posed by Holder’s status as a former partner at the prestigious law firm Covington and Burling. The company currently represents or has provided pro bono representation and sob-story media-relations campaigns in the past to more than a dozen Gitmo detainees from Yemen who are seeking civilian trials on American soil.

The firm wasn’t just a bit player. It led the charge, contributing more than 3,000 hours to Gitmo litigation in 2007, according to The American Lawyer. At least one known Covington big shot and fellow former Clintonite, Lanny Breuer, now works for Holder as head of the DOJ’s criminal division. Though he himself did not participate in the detainee cases, Holder’s celebrity undoubtedly boosted company-wide prestige.

How many of Holder’s former colleagues and associates are now on the DOJ payroll? How many like them, who worked at other law firms or for left-wing lobbying groups, now inhabit DOJ offices? How many of them have been allowed to work on government terrorism cases related to their past crusades for al-Qaida-tied clients? How many have had to recuse themselves — and have those recusals been full and forthcoming? How can the public judge whether these lawyers are representing America’s best interests — or those of the jihadis?

GOP Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa has been trying to get answers. DOJ information suppressors have snubbed him repeatedly. As the Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported on Friday, Holder has now acknowledged that “at least” nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department “have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department.” But the tight-lipped, taxpayer-funded litigators at the agency won’t name names or cough up any relevant details.

Grassley asked for “the names of political appointees in the Department who represented detainees (or) worked for organizations advocating on behalf of detainees … the cases or projects that these appointees worked on with respect to detainees prior to joining the Justice Department … and the cases or projects relating to detainees that they have worked on since joining the Justice Department.

…” Beyond two DOJ appointees whose work for jihadi defendants had already been made public, Holder gave up nothing. Zip. Zilch.

It’s not even clear that the Gitmo Nine are the end of the line. The list is not a comprehensive tally of DOJ appointees, Holder told Grassley and other GOP senators who pressed for public disclosure. Why not? What are they trying to hide? Who are they trying to spare?

Americans have a right to know whether they are subsidizing jihadi sympathizers, and whether their Justice Department is now a sanctuary for human rights transnationalists and little terrorists’ helpers in the mold of Lynne Stewart, who was convicted of abetting Muslim terrorist mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and spreading messages inciting violence on his behalf while representing him.

Americans have a right to know whether Holder — who put political interests ahead of security interests at the Clinton Justice Department in both the Marc Rich pardon scandal and the Puerto Rican FALN terrorist debacle — has made hiring decisions that provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare.

Tellingly, Holder has treated the GOP’s national security concerns dismissively. He’s hoping his nonresponsive blow-off of Grassley’s request will die on the vine. And just as he used his past lapses in judgment during the Clinton era to argue that they made him more qualified for the job he holds now, Holder argues that the phantom jihadi lawyers on the DOJ payroll are a good thing for the country, so we should just shut up:

“A prosecutor of white-collar fraud cases may have previously represented defendants in such cases. This familiarity with and experience in the relevant area of law redounds to the government’s benefit.”

As usual, Holder puts ordinary civilian crimes on the same footing as terrorism plots and acts of war against our country. But why not let the people decide for themselves whether his staff decisions redound to their benefit? “The American people have the right to information about their government’s activities,” Holder himself said in a press release trumpeting new freedom of information rules last year. Put up or shut up, Mr. Attorney General.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: Aunque usted no lo crea, "este es el Gobierno de los satanicos".

Today, the administration will put on another show for the American people. The nationalized healthcare naysayers have been summoned to the White House to give their ideas on healthcare reform. Yet, the President announced his newly packaged plan days ago. So what’s the point?

Is this a meeting to exchange ideas and move forward in a bipartisan manner or a meeting to say this is my plan, get on board or get out of the way?

The American people see this meeting for what it is. But, what I don’t understand is how this administration can continue to think that the people aren’t smart enough to see that for themselves. We keep hearing that the White House has an open door and that this is the most transparent Congress in the history of our country. The door may be ceremonially open, but the window to hear the people must be closed. The public has overwhelmingly rejected the idea that the government knows what is best for the rest of us.

Patrick Henry so eloquently stated: “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, ***********///////********//////******, when the transactions of the rulers may be concealed from them.” Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening. The leadership in both chambers of Congress penned their bills under lock and key and far from the eye of not only the public, but the rank and file members of their own party. And after a public scolding for those that disagreed and promises that our path forward would be different, the President rolled out his bill written again by a secret select few.

So one has to wonder, what is this meeting all about? Is bipartisanship really on the table at this point? I guess that depends on your definition. In this case, bipartisan means anyone who disagrees with the White House gives in.

And after this so-called olive branch is extended, the Republicans will continue to be chastised for somehow stonewalling the process. Which is an amazing political feat; given the Democrats have a clear majority and a direct path to the President’s desk. But, it’s those pesky Americans that just won’t let that happen. You see, the White House may not be listening, but those members of Congress that have to go back home are.

Most of the American people oppose the government plan to take over healthcare. It costs too much; it borrows too much; it taxes too much; it's inefficient; and it gives government bureaucrats the control of our personal medical decisions.

But aside from the obvious, it also goes far beyond the restraints set forth in the Constitution. The Constitution sets limits on what dictates of pain the federal government is allowed to inflict on the rest of us. The people decide what is best for themselves and our country, not the government.

When our forefathers set forth to create a free and democratic republic, they wanted to make sure that they created checks and balances within our government to prevent one party or one body of government from having ***********///////********//////****** power over the people. Our leaders would be wise to remember this.

As legislators are being summoned by the executive body this week, one cannot help but recognize the irony. The laws in our country originate in the legislative body, not the executive. While the president certainly has the authority to propose ideas for legislation, it is far beyond his constitutional power to create it.

The American people are tired of having their voices ignored and their constitutional rights trampled on and set aside to further the political agenda of a few. The secret backroom deals, payoffs, paybacks, all reminiscent of the British Secret Star Chamber, were the final arrogant acts of a government out-of-control that caused the people from all over the political spectrum to act.

America is a representative republic. That means the people talk, the government listens; and acts on the people’s ideas. That is the way it works. The American people are not going to get on board when it comes to giving up their healthcare to the government -- or any other decision over their personal lives. If you missed the second shot heard ‘round the world in Massachusetts, there will be plenty more where that came from. And that’s the way it is.
Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: Aunque usted no lo crea, "este es el Gobierno de los satanicos".

Health Care Summit — OBAMA'S ’Fatal Attraction’ Hits the Beltway
By Andrea Tantaros
2/24/2010 FOXNews.com

With each passing week that the president ignores jobs, choosing to focus on his obsession and an unprecedented legislative trick to stalk the public into a submitting to a relationship they don’t want, the more he looks like a lunatic who has escaped the asylum, just waiting to surprise you outside your window, in the rain on your fire escape until you relent.

“Fatal Attraction,” the Washington version is playing on a television near you as Obama’s bipartisan summit on health care approaches. Like a possessed, rejected maniac the president refuses to allow the idea of a massive restructuring of our health care system to fade.

You’re just not that into his health care bill? Too bad. He won’t be ignored.

Obama is hoping that by rebranding and reworking the old, rejected versions of the House and Senate bill into an even scarier narrative coupled with a televised meeting, the pressure will be so intense that he can kidnap the handful of Republican votes he needs to catapult this monstrosity over the finish line.

To get our attention, Democrats attempted legislative suicide. After laying low, they’re back again, and like any prey dealing with a psycho, Republicans are nervous.

They understand that this is a carefully calculated public relations gimmick designed to force their hand. They know that if they don’t show up, the images of empty chairs across the table from their caucus will be used, repeatedly, to paint them as unwilling to govern and to target them in campaign ads as obstructionists. Forget alerting the wife, the White House is going to out your bad behavior on C-SPAN. In other words: this is blackmail, Beltway sstyle.

Like any concerned observer frightened for my friend’s life, as well as my own, I urged Republicans to set some terms and not accept the invitation to the president’s gathering unless he agreed to start over. Apparently, Mr. Obama was in favor of a second chance for the relationship and demonstrated his willingness by crafting a more expensive and politically explosive version of the first health care bill — just on his own terms (so much for bipartisanship).

Attention all elected officials: at some point, you need to dig in your heels and do the right thing. For too long the GOP has been concerned with staging and games. On Thursday, they finally have a chance to be principled, but because of the looming land mine, they must acquiesce.

In the days and hours that surround the meeting, the GOP must sing off the same song sheet and often. They must repeat that this summit is, by design, one big trick, and that they have crafted health care plans of their own that have been disregarded.

In the meeting, the right must stick to script, backs facing the wall. Do no harm. No flipping of chairs or sudden outbursts of uncontrollable anger. Let Obama boil the bunnies.

For rank and file Democrats, Thursday’s dance is much more delicate. Obama is winking and nodding his way through the process, while he’s triangulating and strangling his own party.

You see, the real drama is set to occur after Thursday.

News outlets are reporting that Democrats plan to jam the Senate bill thru the House, then pass the Obama amendments as part of a smaller bill, using reconciliation, with changes to the Senate bill. This would prevent the need to go back to the Senate again with all the legislative provisions that could be out of order. It is still questionable whether some legislative provisions in the new Obama bill will be allowed in the Senate. The new price control commission, for example, may not make the cut. But the final, most climactic scene will be the House.

Will they vote for the big Reid bill — as is? Will they accept the Senate abortion language, or no public option, for example?

Grab the popcorn. This will be great theater. If I were a House Democrat, I’d be petrified.

With each passing week that the president ignores jobs, choosing to focus on his obsession and an unprecedented legislative trick to stalk the public into a submitting to a relationship they don’t want, the more he looks like a lunatic who has escaped the asylum, just waiting to surprise you outside your window, in the rain on your fire escape until you relent.

What has become evident to everyone except the Democratic leadership is that the American majority has no interest in a relationship so dysfunctional, so unstable, so completely unhealthy.

Obama has stumbled many times trying to get his way. Act Two of heath care reform might be his biggest mistake on the issue yet. In an effort to hit a button to reset the process, he might have hit the one that just blew it up. Like any good horror film, the element that’s most despised just won’t die. Let’s hope we can finish health care off before anyone gets hurt.

Andrea Tantaros is a columnist and contributor for FoxNews.com. Follow her on Twitter: @andreatantaros.