Publicado: 03-02-2012 12:32 PM
The president's flapping lips are also sealed when it comes to applying his disclosure standards to the shadowy, George Soros-backed Center for American Progress, which has supplied the Obama administration with countless top policy staffers, including special Department of Health and Human Services assistant Michael Halle and HHS Director Jeanne Lambrew, a former senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. CAP founder John Podesta was Obama's transition chief, overseeing the backroom process of rewarding friends and allies with plum positions. CAP flacks shrugged off conflict-of-interest questions: "We respect the privacy of supporters who have chosen not to make their donations public," CAP spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said.
As for respecting the privacy rights of Obama's foes? Not so much.
It seems to me no small coincidence that this disclosure charade comes just as numerous tea party organizations are reporting that the Internal Revenue Service has targeted them for audits. According to Colleen Owens of the Richmond (Va.) Tea Party, several fiscal-conservative activist groups in Virginia, Hawaii, Ohio and Texas have received a spate of IRS letters. The missives demand extensive requests to identity volunteers, board members and ... donors.
This is B.O.'s M.O. His bully brigade did the same to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its donors during the November 2010 midterms as payback for the organization's ads opposing the federal health care takeover. And in 2008, Obama's allies at a Soros-tied outfit sent out "warning" letters to 10,000 top GOP givers "hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions." Witch hunt leader Tom Matzzie, formerly of Soros-funded MoveOn.org, bragged of "going for the jugular" and said the warning letter was just the first step, "alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives."
Matzzie also advertised a $100,000 bounty for dirt on conservative political groups "to create a sense of scandal around the groups" and dissuade donors from giving money. The effort was cheered by Accountable America adviser Judd Legum, founder of Think Progress -- the same group that led the attack on the Chamber of Commerce and is run by Podesta's Center for American Progress. Just as with the Obama super PAC led by former White House officials, Matzzie's group "Accountable America" was a 501(c)(4) nonprofit entity that shielded the identity of its donors.
Oh, and remember this? In 2008, St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch and St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, both Obama promoters, threatened to bring criminal libel charges against anyone who spread what they considered "false criticisms" of their Dear Leader.
It is no small exaggeration to conclude that Team Obama's dead aim is to chill conservative speech and criminalize conservative dissent. All Americans for prosperity must push back with one voice: No, you can't.
Publicado: 03-03-2012 01:58 PM
Newt Gingrich DEMOLISHES Barack Obama in debate.
march 2, 20112
"As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, America gave him the White House based on the same credentials." Newt Gingrich (7/16/2008)
Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way you can understand them. This quote came from a friend in the Czech Republic . We have a lot of work to do. "The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America .
Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama,who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
Please open and enjoy:
Publicado: 03-06-2012 06:05 PM
Sarah Palin Demands Obama Super PAC Return Bill Maher’s Campaign Donation
mediaite.com ^ | March 6, 2012 | James Crugnale
Following President Obama‘s press conference where he invoked his daughters in responding to a question about why he personally contacted Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin blasted out a Facebook statement, demanding his return of Bill Maher‘s check. “Pres. Obama says he called Sandra Fluke because of his daughters,” Palin wrote cuttingly. “For the sake of everyone’s daughter, why doesn’t his super PAC return the $1 million he got from a rabid misogynist?”
In February, Maher, who once called Palin the c-word, announced he was donating $1 million to Priorities USA Action, a pro-Barack Obama Super PAC.
Publicado: 03-08-2012 05:46 PM
The Debunker: Obama really is the non-energy president
BAJO BUSH EN LOS PRIMEROS 26 MESES EN EL PODER LA GASOLINA SUBIO UN 7%, EN EL MISMO TIEMPO CON OBAMA SUBIO 67%
These claims are part of an orchestrated strategy to “try to head off the political impact of rising gasoline prices.” (If only the President were as concerned about the economic impact of rising gas prices!) But they are nothing but spin.
While it’s true that U.S. oil and natural gas production are up, this is not thanks to, but in spite of Obama. All the increased production has come from state and private lands, where the President has little power. On federal lands controlled by Obama, production has actually fallen.
According to an Institute for Energy Research analysis of data from the Interior Department’s Office of Natural Resources Revenue, production of oil increased 14 percent and natural gas 12 percent on private and state lands in Fiscal Year 2011, while on federal lands, production of oil declined 11 percent and natural gas 6 percent.
So, what “significant action” has Obama taken to “expand American gas and oil production”? Let’s review his achievements:
As Secretary of Energy, Obama appointed Stephen Chu, who in September 2008 told the Wall Street Journal, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” (So far, so good.)
Publicado: 03-08-2012 05:48 PM
|Private & state lands||+14%||+12%|
Source: IER Analysis: Oil and Gas Production Declines on Federal Lands in FY2011, Feb. 23, 2012
As Secretary of the Interior (in charge of oil leases on federal lands) Obama appointed Ken Salazar -- who, as a Democratic senator from Colorado, on July 31, 2008, had stubbornly refused to assent to any drilling on America’s outer continental shelf -- even if gas reached $10 a gallon.
Immediately upon taking office, Salazar rescinded 77 leases in Utah, charging that the Bush White House had pressured Bureau of Land Management officials into making the sales. (Upon investigation, the Inspector General found “no evidence to support the allegation.”)
Following the Gulf oil spill, Obama asked an expert panel for recommendations; although that panel strongly opposed a drilling moratorium , the White House misrepresented the panel’s views to justify a six-month moratorium. After a U.S. District Court overturned the moratorium as “arbitrary and capricious” (a ruling upheld on appeal), Obama defied the court, issuing a second moratorium -- which he then expanded to five years (for which the administration was found in contempt).
As a result of Obama’s moratorium, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, crude oil production on federal lands in the Gulf of Mexico fell 15 percent in 2011.
All in all, a predictable performance for a President who, as a candidate, told the San Francisco Chronicle on January 17, 2008, “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
|Mark LaRochelle was editor at the National Journalism Center and contributing editor at Consumers' Research.|
Publicado: 03-12-2012 12:57 PM
Obama Approval Continuing to Decline
By Katie Pavlich 3/12/2012
OBAMA'S REAL REAL UNEMPLOYMENT 19.1% AND GOING UP, UP, UP!!!!
Margaret Thatcher: "El socialismo dura hasta que se les acaba el dinero de otros"
Winston Churchill: "El socialismo es la filosofía del fracaso, el credo de los ignorantes, el evangelio de la envidia y su virtud es el reparto igualitario de la miseria."
Obama’s approval rating on the deficit hit an all-time low, with a slender 32 percent giving him positive marks. Among independents, 70 percent disapprove here, also a new high. Even on foreign policy — a onetime strong point — Obama’s ratings look worse. For the first time in nearly a year, as many Americans disapprove as approve of his handling of the war in Afghanistan. On Iran, a slim majority now disapproves of how he is dealing with the possibility of the country obtaining nuclear weapons.
High gas prices are finally taking their toll, despite old media doing everything they can to downplay the situation:
On energy issues generally, almost half the country gives Obama negative marks. Fifty percent of Americans see the Obama administration as having the power to do something about the cost of a gallon of gasoline.
Considering the President personally lobbied to kill the Keystone Pipeline project and as we watch solar company after solar company propped up by taxpayer loans go bankrupt, I doubt his approval numbers on energy will be going up anytime soon.
OBAMA IS FULFILLING HIS PROMISE TO RISE THE GAS IN U.S. TO THE LEVELS OF EUROPE.
Publicado: 03-15-2012 11:12 AM
Abortion's Slippery Slope: When People aren't "Persons"
By Rebecca Hagelin
Culture Challenge of the Week: The Temptation to Say Nothing
Decades ago, when Roe v. Wade was decided, conservatives and many religious folks predicted that the country had begun an inevitable slide towards a murderous future: a time when certain people-in addition to unprotected pre-born children-- would be declared less valuable than others, their killing justified.
Back then, liberal voices jeered at warnings of the slippery slope ahead. But those fears have become real. Medically sanctioned starvation and death-inducing dehydration are passed off as a "peaceful death" for the terminally ill or elderly. Our own President could not bring himself to vote, as an Illinois State Senator, to protect infants born alive after an abortion (they were simply left to die-which was what their mothers wanted, after all).
And now, the advocates of death have stepped up the tempo. A new generation of ethicists has begun making the case in favor of so-called "after birth abortion." Like Princeton's Peter Singer, they believe that infants are not "persons" entitled to the right to life. Why? Because infants, while human, are not "self-aware." And these ethicists assert that human beings who lack self-awareness are not "persons" and, if they are not persons, then they have no independent moral status, no automatic right to life, and no claim to the protections of law.
The question of whether a newborn child would be allowed to live or die, the "ethicists" argue, would depend solely on the wishes of their parents. The same reasons that might 'justify' an abortion at three months gestation would justify an "after-birth abortion"---i.e., the parents can kill a child who is inconvenient, disabled, the "wrong" gender, or simply unwanted.
This new thinking shreds the quality-of-life façade that's often used to justify the abortion of a handicapped child: the only "quality of life" that matters here is that of the parents. If a child's life portends financial burden or stress for the parents---or cost to the state-that would be reason enough for parents to snuff the life out of their own offspring.
Publicado: 03-15-2012 11:13 AM
This is our future: an infant's claim on life will be no greater than that of a pre-born child-non-existent.
More precisely, this is our future unless we fight back-loudly.
How to Save Your Family: Speak Out
I wrote recently about the importance of electing a candidate who understands that cultural issues-the plight of our fractured families-underlie much of our nation's problems. And that's true. Electing a President who will value the lives of all Americans-born, pre-born, disabled, elderly, or marginalized-is hugely important.
At the same time, however, our personal responsibility runs deeper than casting a vote: no matter which candidate we support, each one of us must act within our own spheres of influence to affirm the value of all life. And we must speak up bluntly to unmask this "ethical" proposal for what it is: pure evil.
This evil of "after-birth abortion" serves up the opportunity to open conversations with your friends and family who are advocates of a woman's 'right to choose.' Where does that 'right' logically end? Only at arbitrary junctures. What's the difference between a baby one hour before birth and one hour after?
Challenge others to recognize abortion's slippery slope. Raise the issue with those who think 'divisive issues' like abortion are best unmentioned. Who can remain silent in the face of such outrageous views, peddled as ethical decision-making? But make no mistake-remaining silent will bring defeat, because our silence in the face of such an abominable proposal cloaks it with respectability.
Have a conversation with your children over dinner tonight about the right to life. Do they understand that all life-simply because it is human life---deserves to be protected? Have they absorbed the utilitarian messages of our culture that measures the value of human life by what it produces, experiences, or even by the burdens it creates for others? Do they recognize the evil advances when we, as a people, shrink from uncomfortable discussions?
Publicado: 03-18-2012 10:26 PM
IS OBAMA PUSHING MARTIAL LAW?
Testing the First Amendment: Is Obama pushing martial law?
March 18, 2012
Executive Orders that effectively is a Dictatorship, without Challenging the Constitutionality of it, shoul be Cause for Treason Charges against the Usurper, as he has NO Constitutionaly authority to impose uni-lateral dictates on We The People.
Congressmen should be REMOVED FROM OFFICE for Derelection of Duty, if they authorize funding for these schemes that are Legislation without Congressional Appropriation. There’s NO WAY these Dictates from The Messiah should be allowed to be funded, and “National Defense” has NOTHING to do with this one!
The fact that this has gone viral since it was released, and that those who’ve commented on it all believe this is nothing less than martial law under a more politically-correct name, is in itself significant reason to appropriately react. Could this be the beginning of martial law in America? Unless the President is clairvoyant and he’s doing this in reaction to some future event that only he sees in his mind’s eye — an event some argue he’s hoping to instigate — the Constitutional crisis this raises is frightening.
All joking aside about needing an attorney to translate this, there are some sections in here that anyone with a modicum of common sense and understanding of our Constitution knows is wrong (to put it mildly!). Bear with me…
It’s utterly astounding that this President wants us to believe that he is concerned about the national defense of the United States of America as founded! If we are to believe Sec. 102, then we must definitely suspend disbelief as his most recent budget proposals call for a massive reduction in Pentagon and Defense Department funding in future years. You don’t cut national defense with one hand and with the stroke of a pen in the other write something like this!
Section 103 likewise causes one to suspend disbelief when it says under subsection (c) “be prepared, in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States, to take actions necessary to ensure the availability of adequate resources and production capability, including services and critical technology, for national defense requirements;”
Since when has this President EVER showed or demonstrated a sincere concern for ANY of this? Does the Keystone Pipeline ring a bell with anyone? We could be well on our way to a more ssecure energy policy with oil from a friendly neighbor such as Canada.
Publicado: 03-18-2012 10:27 PM
Some of the best stuff follows in Sec. 104 with the naming of the Secretary of Homeland Security as the overseer of portions of this order. Excuse me, but where in the Constitution does the Department of Homeland Security have a role in national defense? Where is DHS even listed in the Constitution? Show me! Isn’t it the purview of Congress and the Department of Defense to implement security measures for the United States? Yes, the President is also the Commander in Chief, but he doesn’t operate as such in a vacuum. That’s why there is such a thing as the separations of powers, which the Constitution carefully delineates. I guess this will all make better sense and be much easier for Obama once martial law is implemented and the Constitution is suspended.
Section 104 (c) (1) tells us there is an “assistant to the President.” Who is this person and what Congressional oversight is there for this person? The section goes on to list several other presidential assistants? Who are they, what are they paid and what legislative branch oversight is there of these people and their positions?
Part II Priorities and Allocations of this executive order ought to bring shivers up the spines of all Americans, if not a tingling sensation up one’s leg (Chris Matthews notwithstanding)! Since when does the Secretary of Defense need to concern himself with the allocation of water resources? And now we’re going to give the Agriculture Secretary the authority to oversee “the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer.” The notion that the Agriculture Secretary can, by fiat, distribute farm equipment for any purpose violates the Fifth Amendment clause that reads “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” And what’s this reference to “all forms of civil transportation” under the Transportation Secretary’s purview supposed to mean? Does that mean the government can take my automobile for no other reason than it wants it?
Section 203 is likewise laughable given President Obama’s distaste for oil and his decision to keep America dependent upon hostile foreign nations for our supply of oil, rather than allow America to become solely independent and sovereign in the procurement and production of its own oil and natural gas needs.
Rush Limbaugh reported within the past week that, according to multiple private and government resources, the United States is sitting on enough oil and natural gas to make us completely independent for the next several hundred years! Ironic since the President’s own actions since taking office have been to make us more dependent upon foreign sources of energy.
Limbaugh quotes Sen. Lugar‘s recent article on the matter of high oil prices. In his recently published opinion piece, Sen. Lugar said “Every 10% increase in oil prices is expected to knock 0.25% off economic growth…”
“That, if true, is an amazing fact, especially when you bear in mind that we’ve had gasoline prices go up more than 100% under Obama. That works out to a reduction of GDP by 2.5%, and our GDP is not even growing at 2%. Our GDP, our economy is growing at under 2%, and the federal government’s share of the total economic output of this (which does not include economic output; they don’t produce anything) is 23%, on its way eventually to 25%. It is at a historical high. That’s how much of the private sector that Obama and the Democrats have simply transferred and shut down and moved to the government sector. ” Rush Limbaugh
You can read the executive order for yourself, but suffice to say, this is NOT something any self-respecting American President, under the authority granted him by the US Constitution, would ever suggest. Then again, we’ve never had such a president until now.