Responder
¡Bienvenido! Para que puedas participar, intercambiar mensajes privados, subir fotos, dar kudos y ser parte de las conversaciones necesitas estar ingresado en los Foros. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

part 2

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.

Michelle  Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption:  Obama and his Team of Tax  Cheats, Crooks & Cronies"  (Regnery 2010).

 

 

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

Newt Gingrich DEMOLISHES Barack   Obama  in debate.

by Peter Shepherd

 

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:

 

http://vimeo.com/37836183

 

 

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

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.

 

 

OBAMA'S SOMBIES

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

The Debunker: Obama really is the non-energy president

Diamante
siboneyes
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

PART 2


 OilNatural gas
Private & state lands+14%+12%
Federal lands-11%-6%

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.”

 


 

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

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."



Last week, we showed you 50 percent of Americans see President Obama's first term as a failure, but apparently the negative numbers didn't stop there.

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.

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

Abortion's Slippery Slope: When  People  aren't "Persons"

By Rebecca Hagelin

3/14/2012

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).

obama cartoon life birth abortion by refreshed

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.

 

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

PART 2

 



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?

Rebecca   Hagelin is a public speaker on the family and culture  and  the author of the new best seller, 30 Ways in 30 Days to  Save  Your Family.

 

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

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.

Banned
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: ¡¡AQUI Y AHORA TREMENDO PROGRAMA LLENO DE INFORMACIONES

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.