Responder
¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Retirado
sirjohn
Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005

Re: TO SRJOHN.

Obama, is without question a  megalomaniacal Marxist

Empty Suits Are  Dangerous

Dr. Gerald Stephens

March 13, 2011

The selection of Barack Obama to be president  of the United States of America not only smashed the hell out of our collective  piggybank, it defiled our constitution, polluted moral norms, corrupted the  political process beyond the most cynical examples on record, and destroyed the  nation’s creditability among the nations of the world, just to start  with..

Surely, the time worn political question of, are you better  off now than you were, has become mandatory? In a flash, the answer is an  unequivocal no. Even the presidency of James Carter did not come close to the  level of buyers remorse suffered at present. Carter at the lowest level of  approval never generated any doubt that he was an American, albeit, of  questionable competence.

Mr. Obama, on the other hand, is  without question a megalomaniacal Marxist. There appears to be no  creditable reason to doubt the sincerity of his political philosophy. He spoke  of it repeatedly during the primaries and national campaign but the color of the  empty suit abetted by the passion driven chorus noise simply overwhelmed a  rational analysis of just how empty the suit actually was.

But that was then and this is  now. Think of the destruction he has wrought to our great nation in the first  half of his dictatorial control of the government. Imagine then the further  carnage that will surely occur, as does the darkness of the perfect storm. If  you have children, imagine their future dealing with the truly catastrophic  conditions they will inherit if the current insanity is not  stopped.

The latest vision includes  legislators fleeing the responsibility of their office to coerce against  government policy they disagree with, organized union thugs being bussed into a  state capital to enforce their demands, this accompanied by death threats to  elected officials and their families, all orchestrated and encouraged by the  person occupying the White House, the young being indoctrinated not in the  history and greatness of America but rather alternate lifestyles, all classic  Marxist and Fascist operational mechanisms, all Obama’s CHANGE…destroy all  existing values of the society to be replaced by the New  Order

Exactly where does the responsibility to stop this  destruction reside? The founders of this Nation proclaimed it to be with the  citizens. They warned that your liberty and freedom can only continue to exist  if you are prepared to defend it. You must decide if you and your children will  live under constitutional government or Obama’s CHANGE.

Impeachment of the first Marxist  president will require great moral courage. The New Order has carefully  cultivated its forces to react violently and they will. The disturbing preview  of Wisconsin will be repeated and expanded in the attempt to frighten you into  submission. In 1776 the invading English armies swarmed  over our towns, villages, and countryside to not only intimidate and kill but to  extinguish freedom and liberty. In 1812 they invaded again burning our capital,  Washington, to the ground. In each instance the American people decided that  preserving the nation’s liberty was more important than life itself. We the  people banded together in thunderous resistance. We the people won. Our country  was saved.

It is time to unleash that thunder  again. The Marxist invasion must be destroyed.

The weapon…IMPEACHMENT.

Dr. Gerald Stephens is a former  Marine and retired Chiropractic Physician, a member of the NRA and a strong  Constitutionalist.

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

Re: TO SRJOHN.

Top 10 Obama energy blunders

 

Wonder why gas prices are surging, with the cost at the pump topping $5 per gallon in some parts of the country? Obama’s anti-energy-producing policies certainly are not helping. The buck stops in the Oval Office, as this list of the President’s energy blunders attest.

1. Keystone kerfuffle

Canadian energy producers want to sell the United States an abundance of oil, if only President Obama gives the go-ahead to build the Keystone Pipeline XL. However, the President has chosen his deep-pocketed environmental backers over U.S. energy needs (and thousands of jobs for American workers). With the Middle East more volatile than ever, developing North American energy resources would help free the United States from being beholden to Islamic fanatics.

2. Volt vanity

After President Obama’s bailout of General Motors, the automaker turned its attention to producing the Chevy Volt. Even with the government’s help, the electric car is a flop, with few buyers and an exorbitant price. The Volt has trouble staying charged in cold weather and the battery can burst into flames long after being damaged in a minor accident. Obama’s fantasy of gasless cars is proving to be among the biggest debacles in automotive history—rivaling Ford’s Edsel and Chevrolet’s Corvair.

3. Solyndra silliness

President Obama made sure the $787 billion stimulus package was stuffed with initiatives meant to create green jobs by the millions. What the taxpayer got in return was a parade of bankrupt companies, led by Solyndra. The solar-panel producing company got a $535 million loan guarantee, with the promise that 4,000 jobs would be created, but end up filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy last year. Solyndra became the symbol of Obama’s misreading of the marketplace’s demand for green energy.

4. Tesla travesty
Here’s another tragic “green jobs” story. Tesla Motors received $465 million from the Obama administration to produce electric cars. So far the company has created 400 jobs, at a cost of over a million dollars per job, by producing the Tesla Roadster, with a price tag of $100,000 per car. Unfortunately, should the electric car ever become fully discharged, it would cost $40,000 in repairs. Where’s Occupy Wall Street on this?

5. Moratorium morass

After the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, President Obama imposed a moratorium on deep-water drilling. The action prompted oil rigs to relocate to Brazil, costing jobs in America. Obama then offered technology and support for Brazil to develop its offshore oil production, creating jobs in Brazil. Does this make sense to anyone?

6. Drilling dashed

It is not only the deep-water drilling pull-back that is wrongheaded. The President also refuses to consider drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or along most of America’s coastline. And he is not aggressively pushing for shale oil extraction or natural gas drilling on federal lands. There is an abundance of energy in this country if only the President would seek to develop it.

7. Price pandemonium

Of course energy prices are exploding. That’s what the President wanted all along. Remember his famous utterance, saying that under his policies, “electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket.” Also telling was his selection of Steven Chu as energy secretary. Chu once said that it was important for U.S. gas prices to mirror Europe’s sky-high petrol costs. It looks like he may be getting his wish.

8. Cap and trade catatonic

Despite a big push by the environmental lobby, President Obama couldn’t get his convoluted cap-and-trade package through the Democratic-controlled Senate. The legislation would have raised energy costs for consumers, while enriching visionary thinkers like Al Gore, who tried to parlay his global warming alarmism into a profitable venture by cashing in on the legislation’s emission-credits trading market.

9. Algae acclamation

With enormous areas of shale oil deposits and oil reserves in the U.S. remaining off-limits for development, President Obama has turned his eye to America’s algae resources to solve the nation’s energy problem. The President claims that by harvesting algae, and turning it into fuel, the nation could replace 17% of the oil it imports. Mr. President, if you want to reduce oil imports, here is some advice: Drill, baby, drill.

10. Energy excess

It takes a village of Secret Service agents and White House aides to accompany Michelle Obama and her husband (sometimes) on vacations to Spain, Martha’s Vineyard, Hawaii, etc. With Air Force One gobbling up copious amounts of fuel, even one of the First Couples’ date nights to New York could light a town, or even Al Gore’s house. With Americans struggling to pay high gas prices, perhaps the first family can set an example for the nation and start cutting back on their excessive energy use.

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

Re: TO SRJOHN.

Derrick Bell’s Love for New Black Panther Party Founder, and White House Counsel(Cassandra Butts)
PJ Media ^ | 3-12-2012 | J. Christian Adams

 

Harvard Law Professor Derrick Bell praised the anti-Semitic founder of the New Black Panther Party. Another strong supporter of Bell was eventually Obama White House counsel Cassandra Butts, the White House lawyer when the New Black Panther voter intimidation case was dismissed.

Powerline has the story of Derrick Bell praising the venomous anti-Semite Khalid Muhammad, former head of the New Black Panther Party. The dots that Powerline connected are the dots between Derrick Bell, Khalid Muhammad and the New Black Panther Party. But White House counsel Cassandra Butts was also involved in the now-famous Harvard Law School rally for Bell. Butts helped organize the rally supporting Bell and escorted him to be introduced.

Butts, nearly 20 years later, may have played a role in the dismissal of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case according to multiple reports.

As a member of the DOJ team that brought the case against the New Black Panther Party, it staggers the imagination that Barack Obama’s beloved law professor Derrick Bell had anything positive to say about this radical racist anti-Semite. This is simply disheartening. You would think “esteemed” Harvard Law professors wouldn’t say nice things about a man who called for the murder of white women and children:

"We kill the women. We kill the children. We kill the babies. We kill the blind. We kill the crippled. We kill the crazies. We kill ‘em all. We kill the faggots. We kill the lesbians. We kill them all."

 

 

BPTerrorists

OBAMA'S BLACK PANTHERS THUGS THREATENING WHITE

VOTERS IN 2008 ELECTION

"We kill the women. We kill the children. We kill the babies. We kill the blind. We kill the crippled. We kill the crazies. We kill ‘em all. We kill the faggots. We kill the lesbians. We kill them all." Khalid Abdul Muhammad

National Chairman of the New Black Panther Party until his death.

 

Bell’s view of Khalid Muhammad? “We should really appreciate the Louis Farrakhans and the Khalid Muhammads while we’ve got them.”

We are beginning to see why the Left went into warp drive to tell us Derrick Bell wasn’t important.

If we’ve learned anything in the last week, we learned there are some very strange social and legal circles from the far fringes, and unfortunately, the far fringes are now in power.

Now consider the strange case of Cassandra Butts (left of Bell in photo below):

In the video where Obama introduces Bell is Butts, escorting Bell to the rally. Butts is another possible player in the New Black Panther voter intimidation dismissal. Butts was counsel to the NAACP, but Deputy White House Counsel when the New Black Panther case was dismissed. Hans von Spakovsky, PJ Media contributor, has this 2011 piecepossibly placing Butts in the center of the New Black Panther dismissal.

While a student, Butts praised Bell to the Pittsburgh Press:

She calls [Bell's departure from Harvard Law] “a big loss for the law school. He is very special and we need him there. . . But we also need what he is asking for.”

The Washington Times also has this seriesdetailing key dates in the New Black Panther dismissal. Again, Butts is at the center of meetings in the White House with key DOJ officials on key dates.

Whether Butts played any role in dismissing the New Black Panther case from her perch in the White House is still unknown. We do know that Derrick Bell had kind words to say about one of the most vile racists on the American scene in the last 20 years.

We also know that Cassandra Butts was, and remained, one of Derrick Bell’s biggest fans. You can’t help but wonder what other nasty surprises will be found under rocks turned over by the new media in the next few months.

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

Re: TO SRJOHN.

Holder’s Identity Problem

By Rich Lowry

March 13, 2012

Wherever he goes, people are required to show identification. When cashing a check. When signing up for a library card. When boarding a plane. When entering certain office buildings. When checking into hotels. When (in the case of the youthful-looking) buying a beer or cigarettes, or entering a bar. The tyranny of the photo ID is so all-encompassing that people can’t enter Holder’s own Justice Department without showing one.

Holder is outraged that in a nation where requests for photo ID are ubiquitous, more and more states are requiring that people show them when they vote. In a speech last year, Holder characterized these voter-ID laws as an assault on the voting rights that Congressman John Lewis — the hero of Edmund Pettus Bridge — fought for in the mid-1960s. Back then, blacks in the South had to fear for their safety if they showed up at the courthouse to try to register to vote. Now, states are merely asking everyone, regardless of race, to show identification that is readily available to all, regardless of race.

That Holder can equate the fight against voter ID to the struggles of the 1960s demonstrates a moral obtuseness insulting to the memory of the civil-rights pioneers. His Justice Department is now blocking a new voter-ID law in Texas, after doing the same to a South Carolina law. It argues that the Texas statute will disproportionally affect poor Latinos and therefore violate the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Why would the yokels in Texas do something so outrageous as ask that people prove who they are at polling places? It is obviously a basic check against fraud. Requiring an ID to vote was one of the proposals in 2005 of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by Jimmy Carter and James Baker, neither of whom had previously been noted for his hostility to minorities or the poor.

Analyzing Texas data, the Justice Department contends that anywhere from 6 percent to 10 percent of Hispanic registered voters don’t have ID. It piles up a parade of horribles — no cars, great distances, inconvenient hours — for why such potential voters can’t get to an office to acquire one, even though the state’s Department of Public Safety will issue election-identification certificates for free.

The experience of other states with voter-ID laws suggests that minorities are not the hapless victims that Holder’s Justice Department portrays them to be. Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation points out that black turnout increased in Georgia in 2008, the first election under a voter-ID law, more than it did in Mississippi, which didn’t have such a law. A study by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska–Lincoln concluded that “concerns about voter-identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.”

Before his next speech, Holder should bone up on the Supreme Court’s 6–3 decision in 2008 upholding Indiana’s voter-ID law. The liberal Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion. The Court held that “there is no question about the legitimacy or importance of the State’s interest in counting only the votes of eligible voters,” and “we cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters.” The decision cited the finding of a district judge that plaintiffs had “not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of the law.” Presumably, if the Indiana law had represented the recrudescence of Jim Crow, the nation’s highest court would have noticed.

Not that any of this matters to Attorney General Holder. Just as the administration is manufacturing a “war on women,” he wants to manufacture a “war on voting rights.” It is the same MO of fevered rhetoric and distortions in the service of the same end of motivating key voting blocs.

Holder’s tenure as the government’s top lawyer is an ongoing disgrace.

— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review.


 

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

Re: TO SRJOHN. LA ILEGIBILIDAD DE OBAMA

LA ILEGIBILIDAD DE OBAMA

El caso de la ilegibilidad de Obama es nada de sencillo y esperemos que a ver lo que decide la Suprema Corte de Justicia.

 

 

Desde que tomó el poder Obama ha estado atizando una guerra de clases y de razas.

Es muy difícil que declaren ilegítima la presidencia de Obama ya que quedarían inválidas todas sus medidas para destruir la economía de Estados Unidos e imponer un régimen marxista. Si fuera blanco, ocurriría como pasó con Nixon; pero aunque es 50% blanco lo que cuenta es el 50% que tiene de negro y si se hace cumplir la Constitución se teme que ocurra una guerra civil de negros contra blancos, algo que han venido promoviendo los mentores de Obama desde su niñez en Hawaii y forman parte del “ethos”, del Yo más íntimo de Obama. Sería la culminación de la meta del Rev. Wright, de Derrick Bell, de Farrakah, de Khalid Abdul Muhammad: "We kill the white women. We kill the children. We kill the babies. We kill the blind. We kill the crippled. We kill the crazies. We kill ‘em all. We kill the faggots. We kill the lesbians. We kill them all."

 

Obama & Rev. Wright by fourbyfourblazer

Obama's espiritual and political mentor, Rev. Wright, a rabid

racist and anti-american marxist says blacks should not sing

"God Bless America" but "God da..mn America."


Everyone of voting age should read these two books: Don't buy them, just get them from the library.

 

From Dreams of My Father: "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

From Dreams of My Father: "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."

From Dreams of My Father: "There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe and white."

From Dreams of My Father: "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

From Dreams of My Father: "I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself: the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."

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

Re: TO SRJOHN.

War On Women: Feds Cut Off Women's  Health Funding to Texas

By Guy Benson 3/16/2012

That headline may seem unusual (since when does the Obama  administration cut funding for anything other than military healthcare and successful school choice programs?), but once you see  who this move is intended to protect, all shall be  revealed:

The federal  government on Thursday began making good on its promise to cut off all  funding for the Texas Medicaid Women's Health Program amid an escalating  fight over the state's ban on funding for clinics affiliated with abortion  providers. In a letter to state officials, Cindy Mann, director  of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said her agency  regretted the move. "We had hoped not to be at this point. But, unfortunately,  as we've made clear to the state at all points in this process, we don't have a  choice," Mann said on a conference call with reporters after sending the  letter...

The standoff stems from a law passed by the Legislature last  summer and took effect Wednesday. It bars state funding for clinics affiliated  with abortion providers. The Obama administration had pledged to stop  funding the Women's Health Program because federal law requires women to be able to  choose any qualified clinic. Gov. Rick Perry counters that states have the  right, under federal law, to determine qualified providers in the  program. The program provides care to about 130,000 women between the  ages of 18 and 44 earning less than $20,000 a year or less than $41,000 for a  family of four — with federal funds  paying 90 percent of its cost and Texas covering the rest. Mann said that last  year it cost about $41 million, and about $34 million of that came from  Washington...Planned  Parenthood issued a statement criticizing the actions taken by Perry and  the Texas  Legislature.

So I guess indigent Texas women will simply have to go without  because Obama's government prioritizes protecting a political ally and Democrat cash cow over the "women's health"  they claim to hold dear.  Wait, what's that?  They won't?  Hey, look who's standing up for women's  healthcare:

Perry, who slammed the federal government constantly during  his short-lived bid for the Republican presidential nomination, has directed state health officials to find the funding to keep the program  going from other parts of the budget, but he has promised not to raise  revenues to cover the costs.

Remind me: Who, exactly, is waging this alleged "war on  women," again?

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

Re: TO SRJOHN.

OBAMA OR AMERICA, YOU CAN'T HAVE  BOTH!!!! PASS IT ON.

embarrassment

 

 

Barack & Michelle's Socialist,  Marxist & Communist Quotes



“They don’t want the whole  pie,” she told the women. “There are some  who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit.  But that is becoming even more out of reach. If we don’t wake up as a nation  with a new kind of leadership, for how we want this country to work, then we  won’t get universal health care. The truth is, in order to get things like  universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to  have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have  more.” - Michelle Obama.



“So we’re going to provide a $4,000 tuition credit, every  student, every year, but, students, you’re going to have to give back something  in return. You’re going to have to participate in community service. You’re  going to have to work in a homeless shelter, or a veteran’s home, or an  underserved school, or join the Peace Corps.” - Barack Obama



So he wants to make “every student, every year” an  employee of the state? And is this another step towards socializing higher  education?

 

“And it’s not surprising  then they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people  who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiments as a  way to explain their frustrations” - Barack  Obama.



Karl Marx famously claimed that religion was an opiate  of the masses. He was explaining his view that the wealthy bourgeoise cynically  used religion as a device to keep the poor, simple proletariat happy in their  misery and squalor so they would find it immoral to rise up and overthrow their  capitalists oppressors.



“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as  much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just  expect that other countries are going to say OK,” - Barack  Obama

 

Hmm, is this quote for Marxist or  Fascist? I can’t decide...



“It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because  our individual salvation depends on collective salvation.” - Barack  Obama

 

“The great task before our founders was  putting into practice the ideal that government could simultaneously serve  liberty and advance the common good. and Government, he believed, had an  important role to play in advancing our common prosperity.” - Barack  Obama

 

Collective? Common prosperity? “the ultimate goal of socialism is common prosperity” Source: Yang Chungui, The  Marxist

 

“I  chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The  foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists  and punk-rock performance poets.” - Barack Obama (Dreams of My Father)

“Political discussions, the  kind at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful, came to take on  the flavor of the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union” - Barack Obama (Dreams of My Father)

Nothing more to say here...



“Well, Charlie, what I’ve  said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of  fairness.” - Barack Obama

No, not because it would increase revenue, but for “fairness”. Yes that’s right...punish success...

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

Re: TO SRJOHN.

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;”

 

 

ENTERING OBAMAMERICA

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.

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 (conservatively speaking) 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 US Sen. Lugar‘s recent opinion article in Politico 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.

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

OBAMA Y EL PRECIO DE LA GASOLINA

EL PRESIDENTE SI PUEDE INFLUENCIAR EN EL PRECIO DE LA GASOLINA Y LO ESTA LOGRANDO YA QUE SU PLAN DESDE QUE TOMO EL PODER HA SIDO QUE ALCANCE LOS PRECIOS DE EUROPA, $9 EL GALON, TAL COMO DECLARO CHU, SU SECRETARIO DE ENERGIA.

 

George W. Bush appears on a billboard sign in Minnesota

In 2008, Senator Obama said that adding 4 trillion dollars to debt is irresponsible and "unpatriotic.", ... OBAMA added another $4.5 trillion in less than 3 years!!!


President Bush's July 2008 decision to lift the presidential moratorium on offshore drilling caused oil prices to drop from "$147 straight down to $33 a barrel in six months."

 


GAS PRICES:
BUSH 6/2008 $4.25 12/2008 $1.70
OBAMA 1/2009 $1.97 6/2011 $3.74 AND NOW,IN 2012, ALREADY OVER $5 IN MANY PARTS OF U.S.


OBAMA, MAESTRO EN EL ARTE DE DESINFORMACION Y LA MENTIRA, AFIRMA NO PODER HACER NADA PARA BAJAR EL PRECIO DE LA GASOLINA.

CUANDO EL GALON DE GASOLINA SUBIO A $4 BAJO BUSH, Y EL BARRIL DE PETROLEO A $147, BUSH, POR DECRETO PRESIDENCIAL ABRIÓ EL BANDERÍN A LA EXPLORACIÓN DE PETROLEO EN MAR Y TIERRA BAJANDO DE INMEDIATO $9 EL BARRIL DE PETROLEO Y EN MENOS DE 6 MESES EL BARRIL DE PETROLEO DESCENDIO A $33 CON EL CONSIGUIENTE DESPLOME EN EL PRECIO DE LA GASOLINA…. EL CCRETINO DE OBAMA HIZO TODO LO CONTRARIO CON EL FIN DE PROVOCAR EL AUMENTO DE LA GASOLINA A LOS NIVELES DE EUROPA DE $8A $9 EL GALON, ALGO QUE PROMETIO DURANTE SU CAMPAÑA PRESIDENCIAL.

 

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

PARA LOGRAR ESE FIN, OBAMA DECRETO UNA MORATORIA QUE DESTRUIA LA EXPLOTACION DE PETROLEO EN EL GOLFO, MORATORIA QUE FUE DECLARADA ILEGAL POR ORDEN JUDICIAL Y QUE EL PICHON DE TIRANO HA DESOBEDECIDO ESTANDO EN "CONTEMPT" DE UNA ORDEN JUDICIAL. DEBIDO A LA MORATORIA LAS TORRES DE PETROLEO INACTIVAS SE ESTAN DESPLAZANDO A LAS COSTAS DE BRASIL Y AFRICA LO CUAL REPRESENTA UNA DAGA EN EL CORAZON DE LA INDUSTRIA PETROLERA DEL GOLFO Y DECENAS DE MILES DE EMPLEOS PERDIDOS QUE ERAN ALTAMENTE REMUNERADOS

 

A SU VEZ, OBAMA LE DIO A LA PETROLERA BRASILEÑA, PETROBRAS, EN LA CUAL EL FINANCIERO DE OBAMA, GEORGE SOROS, POSEE MILLONES DE ACCIONES, PARA EXTRAER EL ENORME DEPOSITO DE PETROLEO ENCONTRADO EN LAS COSTAS DE BRASIL A MAS DE 5,000 PIES DE PROFUNDIDAD, PETROLEO QUE NO VA A SER VENDIDO A ESTADOS UNIDOS, SINO QUE YA BRASIL LO TENIA CONTRATADO PARA VENDERLO A CHINA.

 

CON LA PRODIGALIDAD CARACTERISTICA DE OBAMA CON EL DINERO DE LOS TAXPAYERS, MEXICO RECIBO $1 BILLON DE DOLARES PARA EXTRAER DEL GOLFO EL PETROLEO QUE OBAMA NO PERMITIA EXTRAER A LAS EMPRESAS AMERICANAS. EN TANTO UN CONSORCIO DE CUBA CON LOS RUSOS, Y GRACIAS A UN ACUERDO ENTR CARTER Y FIDEL CASTRO, ELLOS VAN A EXTRAER EL PETROLEO QUE YACE A 60 MILLAS DE LAS COSTAS DE FLORIDA!!!

 

COMO SI FUERA POCO, EN LOS ESTADOS UNIDOS EL EJE DEMOCRATA/ENVIROMENTALISTA NO HA PERMITIDO LA CONSTRUCCION DE UNA SOLA NUEVA REFINERIA DE PETROLEO EN LOS ULTIMOS 20 AÑOS, OBAMA ACABA DE DAR $2 BILLONES PARA LA CONSTRUCCION DE UNA NUEVA REFINERIA…. EN COLOMBIA!!!

 

EN CUANTO AL PETROLEO EN ANWAR, LOS DEMOCRATAS EN CONTROL DE AMBAS CAMARAS NI LO PERMITIERON BAJO BUSH, NI AHORA BAJO OBAMA.

 

PARA CLAVARLE UNA DAGA EN EL CORAZON DE LA ECONOMIA OBAMA BLOQUEO EL OLEODUCTO QUE TRAERIA A LAS REFINERIAS DE HOUSTON Y LUISSIANA 700,000 BARRILES DIARIOS DE PETROLEO DE CANADA CON LO QUE QUEDARIAMOS LIBRES DEL CHANTAJE DE CHAVEZ Y LOS PRODUCTORS DEL ORIENTE MEDIO, LO QUE PROVOCARIA LA CAIDA DEL PRECIO DEL PETROLEO DE INMEDIATO Y ANTES QUE LLEGARA A HOUSTON UN SOLO GALON DEL OLEODUCTO CANADIENSE.

ANTE SEMEJANTE AFRENTA A NUESTRO MEJOR ALIADO Y PRIMER ABASTACEDOR DE PETROLEO A U.S., CANADA HA DECIDIDO VENDER EL PETROLEO QUE OBAMA DESPRECIA, A ¡CHINA!!!

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

Re: TO SRJOHN.

What the Mailman Knows about Ayers and Obama

By Jack Cashill

MARCH 19, 2012

A few days ago I got a call asking whether I knew anything about the Ayers family mailman. I had heard of him, I said. I remembered liberal blogger Steven Diamond having interviewed the fellow a few years back, but I paid it little mind, as the information seemed too limited to pursue.

The caller then sent me a video interview with the mailman by WND sleuth Jerome Corsi. The video made me sit up and pay attention. The mailman is a real person. His name is Alan Hulton. He seems entirely credible, and he has a story to tell.

Hulton delivered mail in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, from 1962 to 2001 with a couple years off to serve in the military. During roughly ten of those years, he delivered mail to the home of Tom and Mary Ayers, Bill Ayers's parents. Hulton talked to Tom once, Mary several times, their daughter-in-law Bernardine Dohrn a few times, and Bill Ayers not at all. Memorably, he talked once to one of their visitors, but more on that in a moment.

As Hulton tells Corsi -- and he has sworn an affidavit to the same -- he met Tom Ayers not long after the Ayerses moved to the neighborhood. Until he retired in 1980 at the age of 65, Tom Ayers was the CEO and chairman of Commonwealth Edison. Tom, however, was not your garden-variety plutocrat. According to Diamond, who knows his way around Chicago politics, Tom was a "lifelong liberal" -- one deeply involved in the same educational reform movement that engaged son Bill and, briefly, Barack Obama in 1988. Tom Ayers was comfortable enough with Bill's lifestyle to live with him in Hyde Park until Tom died in 2007.

When Hulton met Tom Ayers, they talked about working conditions at the Post Office. "I couldn't believe how he responded," Hulton told Diamond. "He started to talk about workers having to struggle to survive and about peasants and the proletariat. It made me think later that he might be a Marxist!" Hulton would tell Corsi, "I had this uncomfortable feeling that he thought he knew about my situation as a working person better than I did, that he knew what was best for me."

Hulton also recalls one particular conversation with Mary Ayers. "She was enthusiastically talking to me about this young black student that they were helping out," he tells Corsi, "and she referred to him as a foreign student." Adds Hulton, "I was taken aback by how enthusiastic she was about him." Within a year of this conversation, Hulton had a fateful meeting with the young man he presumed Mary was talking about.

According to Hulton, he encountered the fellow on the sidewalk on the front of the Ayers home. In that it was extremely rare to see a black man in this tony neighborhood, Hulton believes that the man felt the need to explain his visit to the Ayers household. Hulton describes him as friendly and neatly, although casually, dressed. Hulton tells Corsi, "I am absolutely positive that it was Barack Obama."

Hulton was sympathetic. After he had come out of military service, he was a supporter of Martin Luther King, who had pressed for fair housing in the Chicago area in the 1960s. "I took some flak about my support for civil rights from my fellow workers at the time," remembers Hulton.

Obama explained to Hulton that he had taken the train out from Chicago to Glen Ellyn in order "to thank the Ayers family personally for helping him with his education." What shocked Hulton was that when casually inquiring into the young man's plans for the future, Obama answered, "I am going to be president of the United States." As Hulton tells Corsi, "[i]t came across like this was something that's already been determined." Adds Hulton, "I was speechless."

Hulton told Diamond and Corsi essentially the same story. What gives the Corsi interview added value is that we see Hulton tell it. Although just a year older than Bill Ayers, he seems to come from a different generation. He has little to gain -- and a lot to risk -- by going public. Corsi warns Hulton that by quoting Mary's comment that Obama was a "foreign student," he has put himself at some risk. Says Hulton, "I am only telling you what I distinctly remember her saying -- that he was a foreign student."

Hulton's interviews with Diamond and Corsi are consistent in every major detail save for dates. Hulton suggested to Diamond that the sidewalk meeting took place in the mid-'80s, but Corsi suggests to Hulton that it was in the early 1990s, and Hulton does not correct him. Hulton clearly does not remember the date. If I were to speculate, I would guess 1988, the year Obama started Harvard Law School. Presuming Hulton actually met Obama, the "education" in question would almost surely have been law school.

There is a good deal at stake here. According to Snopes and the other fact-check sites, Bill Ayers and Obama did not meet until the mid-1990s. This is a talking point that both Ayers and Obama have upheld. When Ayers appeared on ABC's Good Morning America in 2008, he put the date of their first meeting in 1995 at a fundraiser in Ayers's own home. "I think he was probably in 20 homes that day as far as I know," said Ayers. "But that was the first time I really met him."

As it happens, I stumbled into my own discovery of Ayers's involvement in the writing of Obama's 1995 memoir, Dreams from My Father, when I was investigating how Obama got into Harvard Law School and who paid his way. What had piqued my interest was an interview with veteran New York power-broker Percy Sutton on a local New York City show called Inside City Hall. The interview took place in late March 2008 but did not surface until August 2008.

Sutton told how twenty years prior he had been "introduced to [Obama] by a friend." The friend's name was Dr. Khalid al-Mansour, "the principal adviser to one of the world's richest men." The billionaire in question was Saudi prince Al-Waleed bin Talal. According to Sutton, al-Mansour had asked him to "please write a letter in support of [Obama] ... a young man that has applied to Harvard." Sutton had friends at Harvard and gladly did so.

A few months before the election, it should have mattered that a respected black political figure like Sutton had publicly announced that a fanatic black separatist, backed by an ambitious Saudi billionaire, had been guiding Obama's career perhaps for the last twenty years. It did to the Obama-friendly media, but not in a way in which it would have to real journalists. Moving in swiftly to kill the story were Politico, an insider D.C. journal run by Washington Post alums, and Media Matters for America, an alleged watchdog group founded by the recovering Troopergate author, David Brock.

Ben Smith, then of Politico, took the lead. Shortly after the story broke, Smith ran the disclaimer that "Barack Obama's campaign is flatly denying a story told by former Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton." After some conspicuous waffling, al-Mansour denied the story as well. A self-appointed "spokesman for Sutton's family" by the name of Kevin Wardally sent an e-mail to Smith that read in part: "As best as our family and the Chairman's closest friends can tell, Mr. Sutton, now 86 years of age, misspoke in describing certain details and events in that television interview."

For Smith, even though Wardally had gotten Sutton's age wrong by two years, this e-mail was proof enough that Sutton's highly specific claim was manufactured. Wrote Smith, Wardally's e-mail "seems to put the story to rest for good." Media Matters, meanwhile, scolded those conservative bloggers who did not accept the various denials at face value.

Like the man about to be carted away in Monty Python's Holy Grail, the Percy Sutton story was not quite dead yet. Sutton's son and daughter told conservative reporter Ken Timmerman that no one in their family even knew who Kevin Wardally was, let alone authorized him to speak on behalf of the family. "I'm getting better," pled Monty Python's nearly dead man. No, he wasn't. Nor was this story. With Hillary out of the race, no newsroom in America felt compelled to dig up dirt that could sully Obama.

About that time, I found a diary entry that caught my attention. Radical-turned-actor Peter Coyote entered it at the time of the 1996 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. Coyote wrote, "I inform Martha that I'm dragging her to the apartment of old friends, ex-Weathermen, Bernadine [sic] Dohrn and Bill Ayers, hosting a party for Senator Leahy. Perhaps Edward Said will be there."

Said had taught Obama at least one class at Columbia. I had earlier seen a photo taken during an Arab-American community dinner in Chicago in 1998 on the fiftieth anniversary of the Palestinian nakba, or disaster. The photo shows Obama sitting next to Said, seemingly engaged in an animated conversation at dinner. The intimacy surprised me. At the time of the photo, Obama was an obscure state senator while Said, according to the Nation, was "probably the best-known intellectual in the world" and the star of that evening's show. He would speak on this occasion, as the Los Angeles Times would later report, "against settlements, against Israeli apartheid."

All of this got me to wondering whether an Ayers-Obama-Said-al-Mansour cabal had formed in the early 1980s back in New York City. If so, such a combine might have generated enough momentum to push Obama's career along. To see if Obama and Ayers had crossed paths before Chicago, I ordered a copy of Bill Ayers' 2001 memoir, Fugitive Days. It was then that I began to realize the depth of Ayers's involvement in Obama's rise to power.

Obama would have needed help to get into Harvard. Friendly biographer David Remnick tells us that Obama was an "unspectacular" student in his two years at Columbia and at every stop before that going back to grade school. A Northwestern University professor, John L. McKnight, although a friend of Obama's and a fellow Alinskyite, reinforces the point, telling Remnick, "I don't think [Obama] did too well in college." As to Obama's LSAT scores, Jimmy Hoffa's body will be unearthed before those are.

How such an indifferent student got into a law school whose applicants' LSAT scores typically track between the 98th and the 99th percentile and whose GPAs range between 3.80 and 4.00 is a subject the media have chosen not to explore. Nor have they asked how Obama paid for that education. Maybe it is time they ask the mailman.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/03/what_the_mailman_knows_about_ayers_and_obama.html