by Wynton Hall
With Energy Secretary Steven Chu set to testify Thursday before the House Energy and Commerce Committee about the government’s $573 million loan to failed solar panel maker Solyndra, an explosive new list of energy loan amounts to President Obama’s top fundraisers, bundlers, and supporters has been released by Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer, author of Throw Them All Out.
As the list reveals, 80 percent of all $20.5 billion in Department of Energy loans went to President Obama’s top donors. Furthermore, some of those dwarf in size those given to Obama bundler George Kaiser, owner of the now defunct Solyndra.
The list—which features the likes of Google owners Larry Page and Sergey Brinn, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Ted Turner, John Doerr, and Al Gore—raises new questions about the procedures used to administer.
Schweizer’s list stands in sharp contrast to President Obama’s promise that the allocation of all federal “stimulus” monies would be nonpartisan and fair: “Let me repeat that: Decisions about how Recovery money will be spent will be based on the merits. They will not be made as a way of doing favors for lobbyists,” Obama said in 2009.
But as Schweizer’s charges in his book, Throw Them All Out, [link] the Obama Administration may be guilty of “the greatest—and most expensive—example of crony capitalism in American history.”
Publicado: 11-17-2011 07:21 PM
Liberal Media Take Shots at GOP, Ignore Obama Gaffes
November 18, 2011
By: David Limbaugh
It is open season for the liberal media on any GOP presidential candidate who displays the audacity to surge in the polls, the latest targets being Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich. A reasonable case can be made for some of these criticisms, and conservatives often concede the weaknesses, but there is no justification for this same media’s ongoing cover-up for the current White House occupant.
Can you imagine how differently our political climate would be if the mainstream media had the slightest inclination toward fairness and balance? The liberal media have never, to my knowledge, shined the spotlight on Obama’s many embarrassing gaffes. They have rarely called attention to his deceit, broken promises and policy failures.
Part of the reason is their presupposition that because he’s a credentialed left-winger, he is brilliant, and any departure from that is a mere aberration, an exception that couldn’t possibly detract from his presumptive brilliance. And as a bona fide “progressive,” he is imbued with superior moral standards, and his misdeeds must be excused in exchange for his dedication to policies the liberal media deem are ethically unassailable.
From the mainstream media’s perspective, conservatives, on the other hand, are presumptively dimwitted or morally bankrupt, because you can’t be intelligent and conservative unless you’re morally depraved. Ronald Reagan was an amiable dunce, despite his unparalleled ability to communicate; Dan Quayle was irredeemably simple because he misspelled “potato.” George W. Bush was too stupid to tie his shoes (but inexplicably cunning enough to con erudite liberal congressmen into supporting him in his devious plot to depose Saddam Hussein). GOP candidates magically become less competent or more corrupt the instant they show any signs of electability. Meanwhile, the MSM continue to ignore, defend and lie about Obama’s abundant gaffes, policy failures, deceptions, divisiveness and extremism.
Publicado: 11-18-2011 09:42 PM
Think how different our discussions of electability would be if the liberal media were to:
Dan-Quayle Obama for his “57 states” and Navy “corpse-man” gaffes. Play a video loop of his brain freezes and verbal stutter-steps. Showcase his shoutout to Dr. Joe Medicine Crow during what was expected to be a solemn expression of sorrow for the victims of the Fort Hood murderer. Air a montage of his bellicose attacks against Republicans, followed by clips in which he bitterly complained of (SET ITAL) their (END ITAL) partisanship.
Remind him of his immodest pledge to be a post-racial president while having ushered in an acutely race-conscious climate. Call him out for wasting $868 billion on a “stimulus” that Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf admitted would have “a net negative effect on the growth of GDP over 10 years.”
Refuse to ignore his cynical admission that he hadn’t been altogether honest in claiming there were abundant “shovel-ready” jobs waiting in the wings. Point out that he promised to improve America’s international image but has turned out to be even less popular in the Muslim world than President George W. Bush and has repeatedly offended our allies and their leaders, the most recent being Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Highlight that Obama expressed solidarity with the Occupy Wall Street protesters, many of whom have been arrested for criminality, but demonized law-abiding tea partyers.
Challenge Obama on his disingenuous commitment to make abortion “safe, legal and rare” while his administration has actively promoted the proliferation of abortion domestically, through its unswerving support for Planned Parenthood and its 900 abortions per day and through its taxpayer-funded lobbying for pro-abortion policies in Kenya and other nations.
Report that Obama crammed through Obamacare on the false representation, aided by fraudulent accounting, that it would bend the health care cost curve down, even though it actually will greatly increase costs. Provide even the most rudimentary scrutiny of the twin scandals of Solyndra — and its many green cousins — and “Fast and Furious.”
Tell even part of the sordid tale of Obama’s symbiotic relationship with ACORN and the Service Employees International Union. Ask Obama how he can be so high and mighty in condemning enhanced interrogation techniques on moral grounds despite knowing that with the implementation of those techniques in just three instances, many American lives were actually saved. Press him to explain his shaming Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic primary race for proposing a health care insurance mandate and then brazenly making such a mandate a foundational component of Obamacare.
Underscore his phony, though tepid and “evolving,” opposition to same-SX marriage while he unleashes a full-frontal assault on traditional marriage through his extraconstitutional refusal to enforce it in court and his active effort to repeal it legislatively. I speak of an imaginary world, but imagining it should serve to illustrate the extent to which the liberal media conspire to perpetuate a lingering illusion, to the immeasurable detriment of the nation.
David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, “Crimes Against Liberty,” was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks.
Publicado: 11-18-2011 09:43 PM
The 'Dump Obama' movement has begun; Guess who'd replace him?
Faced with peanut-sized Jimmy Carter poll numbers, disturbing big-donor reluctance, unacceptable unemployment and depressing economic forecasts, President Obama heads back on the road tomorrow to do what he always does when in trouble:
Call again for someone to do something about new jobs.
He's just back from eight days in Hawaii and Australia and Bali.
Now, he's off to palm-tree-free New Hampshire, where as expected Republicans have been plotting for months to oust him next Nov. 6.
Recent polls have Obama's disapproval around 50% and his approval 6-10 points lower, worse for his handling of the economy. That's the reverse of what it should be now for a good reelection shot. Nearly three-quarters of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track under his leadership.
But who thought the real emerging danger for the incumbent Democrat would be friendly fire from within his own party?
This morning's Wall Street Journal carries an overtly ominous op-ed for the president. It's by two Democrat heavyweight pollsters, Douglas Schoen and Patrick Caddell. Their first paragraph says it all:
"When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House, both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the same conclusion."
And you'll never guess which former Obama rival and current Secretary of State the pair thinks should replace the Chicagoan atop the 2012 Democratic ticket.
Despite a call for a primary challenge by Sen. Bernie Sanders, no one seriously expected one to emerge. Although such intra-party struggles allow unhappy ideological factions to vent frustrations, of which the left has many with Obama, they also virtually foreclose victory in the ensuing general elections.
Publicado: 11-21-2011 07:37 PM
However, there's still ample time for simmering party unhappiness with Obama and the growing fear of losing the White House and the Senate to reach a boiling point. So, the big money folks on both coasts quietly go to Obama next spring, urge him to be a realist and pull the plug on his reelection plans.
As Schoen and Caddell point out, "It seems that the White House has concluded that if the president cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance." And even if he wins, the resulting divisions and bitterness, they maintain, would leave Obama incapable of governing.
The parallels among Truman, Johnson and Obama are striking. All were or are Democrats, former senators, involved in unpopular wars and preferred passing the buck and blame for their difficulties to others, namely Congress.
Hillary Clinton has been nothing but a loyal Obama team member these 1,035 days of his term. She's even said she's through with elective politics, which is loyal and also enhances any future leverage. Clinton's generally successful time atop the State Department has enhanced her resume with executive experience, as Obama took the spotlight and the heat.
If their party, remembering her husband's two prosperous terms featuring bipartisan budget-balancing, came to ask Clinton to become history's first female U.S. president, does anyone seriously think this Clinton would turn down nomination by acclamation? Especially after that stinging 2008 defeat?
If the Supreme Court tosses out Obamacare next summer, a Clinton candidacy also frees the party of that unpopular, costly political liability heading into the fall against a Republican who also hasn't been president.
Nothing in Obama's history indicates he'd accept such a party offer. An ultimatum, however, might be something else. Obama's never really been tested politically, except by Clinton, who -- don't forget -- carried the crucial states of Pennsylvania and Ohio in the 2008 primaries, and even Texas.
Obama's a state senate product of the guaranteed victory system of the Chicago Democratic machine. In his only U.S. Senate campaign in 2004, he faced Alan Keyes, whose face is in the dictionary next to the term "political featherweight." And then in 2008 the young, unvetted Obama faced the scarred, old warrior John McCain amid virulent Bush fatigue and the Wall Street turmoil.
If Obama refused to step aside, he could always offer Clinton the vice presidential slot as the kind of surprise, Hail Hillary game-changer that McCain attempted with the inexperienced Sarah Palin. An incumbent changing VP's for a reelection hasn't happened since 1944.
But Obama doesn't need Joe Biden's foreign policy creds anymore. Joe, who'll be 70 next year, doesn't realize it himself yet, but after being in Washington since Obama was a sixth grader, he's been wanting to spend more time with his family, if you know what we mean.
And, remember, it was gaffey Joe himself back in that September 2008 townhall who said the younger Hillary Clinton would have been a better Obama VP choice than he was.
Publicado: 11-21-2011 07:38 PM
Obama’s revealing accidental admission over the deficit impasse
BY: Andrew Malcolm 11/22/2011
To hear Barack Obama describe the latest fiscal impasse in Washington, the poor guy is totally helpless dealing with this congressional crowd of hebetudinous laggards.
He gave them his plan to cut the budget while spending more. He’s rigidly sticking with it, which is principled. And both sides in Congress are rigidly sticking with their plans, which is stubborn. Except, come to think of it, there wasn’t a real Democratic plan. All they did was not like the Republican ones.
And now the Real Good Talker has vowed a veto if those slippery legislators try to get around the mandated $1.2 trillion in cuts they imposed on themselves last summer, like dieters’ abandoning New Years Resolutions come mid-January.
But wait! Where has Obama been during this fiscal crunch time?
He hasn’t been on the sidelines again. He’s been completely out of the country. He absolutely had to be in Cannes for the Group of 29.5 or whatever it’s called this month because, you know, the Euro crisis. And, then he was hosting another group of leaders in Hawaii with Michelle. And then, of course, there was the Australia trip, which he’d already postponed twice.
And, hey, as long as he’s down there, why not drop into Indonesia for old times sake and the Asian leaders meeting, score a new tropical shirt, talk some more? Not much going on back home anyway.
Publicado: 11-22-2011 11:51 AM
And today, having waved his veto wand at everybody on Monday, Obama’s gone again, flying his large plane up to New Hampshire for more useless campaign talk about construction workers fixing bridges and looking like he’s trying real hard.
But trying real hard to do what? Certainly not be president of the United States.
Remember back in 2007-08 the inexperienced ex-state senator, who’d been in Washington all of 24 months, was going to fix the place up with Hope and Change? He was going to bring feuding folks together because this is America and we are better than this and we have zzzzzz.
Some people say Obama is aloof. Aloof? The guy is in geosynchronous orbit, looking down his nose at the petty little world beneath his gaze. It took about 72 hours for newly-disputed president George W. Bush to have senior Democrat Ted Kennedy over for coffee in 2001 and the first of many what-can-we-agree-on conversations.
It took Obama more than 500 days to have Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell over. Who cares if they don’t like each other? Grow up! We’re paying them a fortune to get our federal business done. How serious could Obama be about anything but baiting a trap?
Here’s the deal: Barack Obama was elected president of all 57 states. Not king. Not legislator-in-chief, maneuvering to make the other side look as bad as possible while minimally soiling his own hands. President means he’s supposed to be chief executive, as in chief of executing things, getting stuff done.
Obama’s got a Cracker Jack proclamation/special message operation going at the White House, noting the 600th-odd birthday of a revered Sikh guru, celebrating the Hajj and marking Ukrainian Holodomor Remembrance Day. Just like a conscientious local legislator would to mollify Chicago’s disparate neighborhoods.
But a real President Obama could be so much more, actually in charge of D.C. like he promised. Get those numbskulls from both sides together in that Roosevelt Room and tell them what they were gonna do to reach agreement or he was going outside to describe to the American people the kind of petty politics they all cling to.
He rolled his shirtsleeves up to get Obamacare passed because he wanted it. But now.....
True, such an assertive mediation strategy would require leadership, something we’ve never seen from this guy. He’s great at jogging onstage after a fawning intro to give a telepromptered speech. And he’s gotten really good too at blaming others for anything, everything.
The trouble with leadership is it takes courage and might just work. Which he knows. Imagine if this guy actually had the will and skill to broker an historic deal, to drive a bargain, with both sides genuinely giving something. It would help Americans get back to having faith in D.C. leaders again.
Remember how confidence used to feel? With real leadership, we could believe our country is on track to somewhere better. Like so many were confident Obama promised.
Then, with a grand fiscal bargain signed, everybody could focus clearly in good faith on the 2012 election. And we could watch and think and make intelligent decisions, not from fear or anger, but based on civil debate about where Republicans propose to take us for four years and where Democrat Obama has taken us for the past three.
Hmm. Obama is actually running against his own ineffectiveness. At least now we know why he wants no part of a genuine deal this year, why tumult and anger and finger-pointing are so much more preferable/profitable for him to impose on the political landscape for the next 350 days.
Publicado: 11-22-2011 11:52 AM
www.stolinsky.com ^ | 11-28-11 | stolinsky
A recent editorial in a leading British medical journal states, “Some patients in hospitals run by the UK’s National Health Service (NHS) do not receive adequate pain relief, are not helped to go to the toilet, and are not given enough to eat or drink.” Yes, but the pain medicine they don’t receive, the care they don’t get, and the food they aren’t served are free.
So the editors, who are leftists, declare that there is no reason to privatize hospitals, because that would endanger equity of care.So long as everyone gets equally lousy care, all is well. That is socialism in one sentence.
Marie Antoinette supposedly said, “Let them eat cake,” when she was told that the people were starving because they had no bread. But if she said it, she was queen of France, and was the daughter of the emperor of Austria. She had lived in palaces all her life, so she might not have been able to understand what it is to starve.
But what is the editors’ excuse? They are physicians, who surely understand what it is to be denied pain medication, to be denied help to go to the toilet, or to be denied food and water. They have spent their lives working in hospitals run by the British National Health Service. So they can understand what it is to be confined to a run-down, under-equipped, depressing hospital − and be totally dependent on a demoralized, unmotivated, poorly supervised, depleted staff.
In any case, Marie Antoinette paid for her reported insensitivity by being guillotined. But the editors’ insensitivity will go unpunished. They will remain in their pposition as heads of a leading medical journal. They will retain the respect of their medical colleagues, and they will probably gain more respect from fellow leftists.
Leftism is a religion. Like members of other extremist sects, leftists gain prestige by demonstrating the strength of their faith. The best way to do so is to retain that faith in the face of indisputable evidence that leftism is a failure − an economic failure, a political failure, and worst of all a moral failure.
Of course, that faith must be expressed publicly, while condemning opponents as sinners who want to pollute the planet with “dirty air and water,” cause women to “die on the floor,” and make children “go to bed hungry.”
Publicado: 11-27-2011 11:40 PM
The fact that these accusations are untrue is irrelevant. To leftists, truth is not a major value. False, overblown accusations against political opponents are justified − at least in the minds of the accusers − because such accusations weaken the opponents of leftism. In the end, truth becomes an encumbrance to be discarded whenever convenient.
When Sarah Palin talked about “death panels,” she was ridiculed as an ignorant fear-monger. But President Obama himself declared that elderly or disabled people will get treatment only if “experts” tell doctors that it will “save money.” Of course, prolonging the lives of the elderly or the disabled would cost money. To “save money,” remote, faceless bureaucrats will cause them to die as soon as possible.
For all I care, call them “death panels,” or “experts telling doctors how to save money,” or “the recycle bin,” or “The Three Stooges Play Doctor.” It’s not fear-mongering if there is something to fear, regardless of what name it is called.
But who, in reality, are causing the most vulnerable people to lack water, to die on the floor, or to go hungry? European socialists are − the very people American leftists want us to emulate.
● Do patients in British hospitals lack needed pain relief, assistance with basic needs, and even food and water?
● Does the British National Health Service produce cancer survival rates that are the worst in Europe, and much worse than the rates in America − which are the best in the world?
● Did repeated calls for “reform” of the NHS over six decades produce nothing − except more calls for “reform”?
● Do Europe’s economic problems mean that funding for socialized health care will be cut even further?
● Do craven officials allow female Muslim nurses and doctors to wear “modest” clothing and not roll up their sleeves to scrub off dangerous bacteria?
● Do craven officials allow Sikh nurses to wear bangles on their arms, but forbid Christian nurses to wear crosses around their necks?
True, patients may lack pain medication, lack help to go to the toilet, and lack adequate food and water. They may risk infections spread by personnel who do not scrub properly. They may languish in under-staffed, under-equipped facilities. But on the bright side, they won’t be “offended” by crosses around their nurses’ necks. What a relief!
None of these facts affects the views of the editors. As committed leftists, they adhere to their beliefs with pseudo-religious zeal. Indeed, considering the feeble faith of many so-called religious people today, we must admit that leftists often demonstrate greater faith.
Worst of all, these people are not editors of a political magazine. They are editors of one of the most prestigious medical journals in the world. They purport to be physicians and scientists. They cloak themselves in the robes of healers and seekers of truth.
But sometimes the robes slip, revealing what lies beneath − a total lack of empathy for patients, and an utter disregard for the traditions of medicine. What is revealed is reverence not for the humane teachings of Hippocrates, but for the discredited notions of Marx.
Publicado: 11-27-2011 11:41 PM
Their American colleagues are also hard at work. These people want to harvest organs for transplantation from patients who are not dead. They brazenly declare, “Under this regime, the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hope...” This notion is proposed as a legitimate option.
Unlike Cass Sunstein, co-author of this charming idea, I never graduated from Harvard Law School. I never was a professor of constitutional law there. My knowledge of the Constitution is limited to what I learned in my high-school civics class, and my reading of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. I studied what the Constitution actually says, not what liberal “legal scholars” fantasize it should say. I read the Declaration of Independence and learned that “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Unlike Sunstein, I was never taught that some people are created superior, and that they should have the power to control the lives and take away the liberty of the inferior.
You see, I graduated from UCSF School of Medicine, then trained for seven years at UCSF and USC, and then spent 25 years practicing, teaching, and doing research in medical oncology in public hospitals. How could I possibly comprehend the deep thoughts of these “experts”? How could I possibly understand their brilliant theories regarding fields they never studied, much less worked in? No, they are the “elite,” while I am just an ignorant, incompetent peasant who needs to be ruled by my betters − for my own good, of course.
Sunstein is now President Obama’s “regulatory czar.” He has no more interest in organ transplantation than he has in moon rocks. He and his colleagues are interested in control. They already control what light bulbs and toilets we can buy. They want to control our organs after we die, or even before. Through ObamaCare, they aim to make life-and-death decisions for all 312 million Americans. They didn’t go to law school to practice law; they went to law school to exercise power.
What could be clearer evidence that their objective is not to increase our health but to decrease our freedom? What could be clearer evidence that their objective is totalitarianism? No, not a Nazi or Soviet totalitarianism − a softer, greener, health-care totalitarianism. As John O’Sullivan observed, “In Europe, the fascists goose-stepped; in America, they jog.”
Lack of empathy for patients, adherence to discredited notions, and budding totalitarianism are not desirable characteristics for those who seek to control our health care. But if we don’t do something now, they will control it. And then, if we are unlucky enough to be hospitalized, and we receive inadequate medication, inadequate care, and inadequate food, we can eat socialism.
Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: email@example.com. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.
Publicado: 11-27-2011 11:42 PM