Reportar MensajeObama Is Making the Case For His Own Impeachment
By Tony Katz 4/4/2012
The President’s latest tactic, taking on the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review with a preemptive striking against justices who might contemplate an unfavorable ruling on ObamaCare, following on the heels of last week’s "open mic gaffe" in which he explained Russian President Dimitri Medvedev that he’d have more “flexibility” to sacrifice American security after his re-election, lead to one question: Is Barack Obama making his own case for impeachment?
Obama is no longer fit for the job. I don’t say this lightly. I don’t say it with glee or joy. And I don’t say it with malice. But rather with recognition that the Office of the President must be protected. And the citizens of the United States must protect themselves from a president who is either incapable or unwilling to fulfill his responsibilities to the American people and respect the Constitutionally proscribed limitations on his powers.
Obama’s pronouncement about the Supreme Court was so disingenuous and divisive as alone to warrant impeachment proceedings. Obama, a one-time senior lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, told a group of reporters at a Rose Garden news conference that since the Affordable Care Act was passed by a “strong majority,” a finding of unconstitutionality would constitute “judicial activism.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Judicial activism is when judges exceed their appropriate powers and legislate from the bench. Judicial review, in contrast, is one of the Supreme Court’s primary functions.
As Leon Wolf of RedState asks, has the professor never heard of Marbury vs. Madison (the 1803 case affirming the Court’s right of judicial review)? Further, if Obama believes the Court has no right to review - - and invalidate if necessary - - a law, so long as it was duly passed by Congress, what does he believe IS the Court’s role? What exactly did he teach his students at the University of Chicago?
On the international stage, Obama stunned US citizens and allies with his thinly veiled promise to Medvedev that he would put the missile shield - - a key component of our defense strategy - on the back burner after he’s re-elected, said with disdain for Americans. This stunning statement is worthy of a conversation about treason. A conversation that should take place in front of Chief Justice John Roberts.
Obama was undaunted by the fact the mic was open, and every disgusting word was caught on tape. Since then, he has twice joked about the conversation and the open mic. TWICE! Once, though completely improper, could have been dismissed as self-deprecating humor; trying to make the best out of a bad situation (it would not have worked, but it could have been dismissed.) Twice means not only does Obama not think it's a big deal, but no one around him thinks it's a big deal. How is that not dangerous?
Obama sees himself as above the law, and sees the Law as a detriment to his "moral" goals. As Ben Shapiro (also a Harvard educated lawyer) pointed out:
President Obama has made it his mission to wield the club against the other two branches of government in a manner unprecedented in American history. Yesterday, Obama, rejecting the heart of judicial review for purposes of his own power, stated, “I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That, of course, is precisely what the Supreme Court does on a daily basis....But for Obama, the Supreme Court is an obstacle to his own power.
President Obama is actively engaging in a pre-meditated attack on the United States Constitution, and the American way of life. His words are not missteps, like 57 states or the insulting inability to properly pronounce the word corpsman. Obama is attempting to plant the seed into the already vitriolic and boisterous Progressives that the problem with America is the thing that makes America great – the rule of law that does not allow government to rule us.
Nothing has changed. In fact, with this latest round of assaults on the Court, they have gotten worse. Add to this Obama's unconstitutional recess appointments. How long until we say aloud - The Nation Is Under Attack From Within?
Napolitano: 'The President Is Dangerously Close to Totalitarianism'
April 7, 2012 | Reaganite Republican
George Soros predicts riots, police state and class war for America
(from the architect himself) RT.com ^ | 25 January, 2012
George Soros, Chairman of Soros Fund Management
Billionaire investor George Soros has a new prediction for America. While it might be as dire as it gets for the financial wiz, this bet concerns more than just the value of the buck. According to Soros, there's about to be an all-out class war.
Soros, 81, previously bet against the British pound in the early 90s and made $1 billion off its collapse. In the years since, he’s remained active in investing, but also in advocacy. He’s helped keep Wikipedia afloat thanks to impressive contributions and through donations to the Tides Center, has indirectly funded Adbusters, the Canadian anti-capitalist magazine that put Occupy Wall Street on the map. Speaking to Newsweek recently, Soros neglected to acknowledge his past successes, but instead offered a word of warning: a period of “evil”is coming to the western world.
“I am not here to cheer you up. The situation is about as serious and difficult as I’ve experienced in my career,” Soros tells Newsweek. “We are facing an extremely difficult time, comparable in many ways to the 1930s, the Great Depression. We are facing now a general retrenchment in the developed world, which threatens to put us in a decade of more stagnation, or worse. The best-case scenario is a deflationary environment. The worst-case scenario is a collapse of the financial system.”
Soros goes on to compare the current state of the western world with what the Soviet Union was facing as communism crumbled. Although he would think that history would have taught the globe a thing or two about noticing trends, Soros says that, despite past events providing a perfect example of what is to come, the end of an empire seems imminent.
“The collapse of the Soviet system was a pretty extraordinary event, and we are currently experiencing something similar in the developed world, without fully realizing what’s happening,”adds Soros.
Soros goes on to say that as the crisis in the Eurozone only worsens, the American financial system will continue to be hit hard. On the way to a full-blown collapse, he cautions, Americans should expect society to alter accordingly. Riots will hit the streets, says Soros, and as a result, “It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”
The recent adoption of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 and the proposed Enemy Expatriation Act, if approved, have already very well paved the way for such a society. Under the NDAA, the US government is allowed to indefinitely detain and torture American citizens suspected of terror crimes without ever bringing them to trial. Should lawmakers Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA) get their Enemy Expatriation Act through Congress, the US will also be able to simply revoke citizenship without trial, essentially removing constitutional rights from anyone deemed a threat.
Others have cautioned that, as inequality becomes more rampant in America, the country’s citizens are becoming increasingly agitated with those on the other side of the extreme. In a recent survey released by the Pew Research Center, 66 percent of the adults studied believe that either “very strong” or “strong” conflicts exist between America’s elite and the impoverished, a statistic that has skyrocketed in recent years. Between 2009 and 20011, the proportion of those that sense conflicts exist as such between the class groups grew by 19 percentage points. While less than half of Americans fearing a fight brewing at the dawn of the Obama administration, today two-out-of-three Americans feel that there is a strong conflict between both extremes of society.
Addressing the issue of inequality, Soros tells Newsweek that the main issue that will make or break a reelection for US President Barack Obama will be whether or not the rich end up being taxed more. Among the current frontrunners in the Republic Party’s race for the GOP nomination, wealth and taxes have been of the biggest concern of party rivals. The top candidates have made millions off of investments, and at a time of immense inequality, represent what 99 percent of Americans don’t. Taxing the rich to a bigger degree might finally bring a chance, and Soros says, “It shouldn’t be a difficult argument for Obama to make.”
Soros adds that if the US manages to make it through the troubled times to come, it come allow the nation to enter another golden era. “In the crisis period, the impossible becomes possible. The European Union could regain its luster. I’m hopeful that the United States, as a political entity, will pass a very severe test and actually strengthen the institution,”he tells Newsweek.
With almost seven percent of Americans living below half of the poverty line, four unemployed Americans for each job, a shrinking middle class and an increasingly overzealous police state, it could very well be a tough road to get there, though.
OBAMA Defending Fiscal Insanity
In President Obama’s address to the Associated Press Luncheon on Wednesday, he claimed that he is preventing disaster. Republican congressman Paul Ryan’s proposed budget cuts would still allow publicly held debt to increase by $5.5 trillion over the next ten years, but to Obama, they mean Americans will be dying from starvation and defenseless from hurricanes and other natural disasters.
“Demagoguery” is not too strong of a word to describe Obama’s speech. Two million mothers and young children will be left without “access to healthy food.” Violent crime will soar and illegal aliens will flood across our borders because of cuts in law enforcement. “Hundreds of national parks” will close. We won’t be able to “protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat.” Airline flights will be cancelled or delayed, and safety will be threatened in parts of the country. “Weather forecasts would become less accurate.” Governors and mayors will “wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane.” The list went on and on.
Remember how Obama promised that the spending was going to be temporary. But now Obama tells Americans that not only can’t this spending be trimmed, it must be increased dramatically. When the Congressional Office evaluated Obama’s 2013 budget proposal in March, it concluded that his new spending was going to add another $3.5 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years, a deficit that was already expected to be huge.
As a candidate, Obama claimed that one cause of the economic crisis was the large deficits the country was running, and he promised that he would fix things by cutting government spending. During the third presidential debate, just over two weeks before the election, Obama promised to rein in the budget deficit.
When debate moderator Bob Schieffer asked Obama what he was going to do about the deficit, Obama promised to cut it: “But there is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments. Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.”
Or take Obama’s promise in the second presidential debate: “Actually, I’m cutting more than I’m spending so that it will be a net spending cut.” Obama ran to the right of McCain, who Obama claimed was the candidate who was going to increase spending.
So what did we get? Obama racked up the largest inflation-adjusted increases ever in government spending and the largest deficits (even larger than those the U.S. ran in the worst part of World War II), and it is hard to remember that his constant theme during the presidential debates was “net spending cut.”
Obama blamed the bad economy during the fall of 2008 on Bush’s profligate spending habits. Bush’s out-of-control spending, Obama pointed out, had caused the $500 billion expected deficit for 2009. He blamed the spending increases and deficits under Bush for the economic problems we were facing.
Just one week after the election, Obama began talking about up to a $500 billion stimulus. Two weeks after the election, Larry Summers told the Associated Press that the amount should be between $500 billion and $700 billion. In the end, it turned out to be $825 billion. Then there were four other jobs bills during the first two years of his administration.
There was no new economic announcement in the week after the election that could explain this complete reversal in Obama’s policies. The only economics number released soon after the election was the November 7 unemployment report, showing that the unemployment rate had risen from 6.6 to 6.8 percent. Not good, but hardly a crisis by itself and definitely not worse than Obama’s constant claim during the campaign that the economy was suffering the worst financial crisis since the Depression.
The most obvious explanation for the big switch in Obama’s pposition is that he always wanted a much bigger government, but he knew that Americans wouldn’t vote for him if he openly campaigned on it. If there was ever any doubt that Obama had lied to Americans when he promised that an Obama administration would make government smaller, people just needed to listen to his speech on Wednesday.
— John R. Lott Jr. is a FoxNews.com contributor and the co-author of the just released Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future (John Wiley & Sons, March 2012).
THE DEMOCRATS' WAR ON WOMEN
By Arnold Ahlert On April 12, 2012 In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | No Comments
The so-called Republican “war on women” currently being trumpeted by Democrats (with ample help from an ever-accommodating media) has exposed the absurd depths of the leftist entitlement mentality and its disdain for the concept of religious freedom. It was highlighted by the testimony of Sandra Fluke, who contended that her birth control should be underwritten by others regardless of their religious convictions.
Yet if war is defined as something that does genuine damage to the interests of women, it is Democrats, via the sexual revolution and its all-out attack on traditional values, who have waged a war against women for decades. What has the Democratic war on women brought us?
First and foremost, it has brought us the wholesale destruction of the nuclear family, and the resultant poverty and crime that attends it. Currently 41 percent of children are born to single mothers, most of whom are low-income women in their early and mid-20s. In the black American community, that percentage soars to a staggering 72 percent. Male child abandonment is now a rampant aspect of our society.
These trends are directly connected to Democrats’ and president Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society,” and the critical changes they made to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC). A program once reserved for funding once-married women who had lost the primary male supporter of the family was expanded to include any household where there was no male family head present.
In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan predicted where such a change would lead–when the out-of-wedlock birthrate was 24 percent among black Americans and (4 percent for white Americans). He was excoriated by liberals saying that a “lack of equal education and opportunity” were the true root of the problem. 47 years and triple the number of out-of-wedlock births later, liberals are still using the same rationale to defend their pposition It is a weak argument.
Education and opportunity, no matter how widely available, requires at least a minimal effort on the part of the individual to attain either. Yet various studies reveal the utter chaos that informs the lives of an alarming number of children raised by single mothers: they comprise about 70 percent of juvenile murderers, delinquents, teenaged mothers, drug abusers, dropouts, suicides and runaways.
One might think that such a cultural reality would chasten those Democrats dedicated to the idea of “alternative family lifestyles.” One would be wrong. A steady stream of cultural sewage “celebrating” single motherhood remains the order of the day among Democratic allies in Hollywood. From Candace Bergen’s fatherless child on “Murphy Brown” in 1993, to “Jersey Shore” and the out-of-wedlock pregnancy of Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi in 2012, such lifestyles continue to be promoted.
Yet such promotion ought to be completely anathema to a political party dedicated to class warfare and the growing divide between the rich and the poor. Why? One of the outcomes of the sexual revolution was the “equalization” of sexual mores, as in women have been encouraged to adopt the same kind of sexual promiscuity for which men have been routinely excused, or even applauded. Yet reality intrudes: only women can get pregnant and men can, and do, simply abandon their offspring. And while the advent of the pill and the Roe v. Wade ruling 1973 relieved much of the potential calamity of unwanted pregnancy, it also introduced a much greater level of promiscuity.
Unfortunately, it is a level of promiscuity, despite the prevalence of birth control, that has been handled much better by middle and upper class women: between the years 1994 and 2006, the number of unintended pregnancies among higher-income women fell by 29 percent. Lower income women? A 50 percent increase. And since single motherhood produces children six times more likely to live in poverty–and 80 percent of long-term poverty occurs in single-parent homes–the same class divide denounced by Democrats is the one they are simultaneously promoting.
Such promotion has reached absurd levels. A 17-year-old girl at Pilgrim High School in Warwick, R.I. painted a mural depicting the progression of a boy from childhood to adulthood that ends with a man and woman wearing wedding rings, and standing hand-in-hand with child. She was forced to paint it over when school officials contended that it might be offensive to students who don’t come from a “traditional” family. Perhaps he should have been depicted dropping the woman and child off at the social services department and skipping town.
Last May, when Texas decided to bar Women’s Health Program funding from abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, the Obama administration retaliated in March, deciding to withhold $40,000,000 the state received for its Medicaid program. Liberals in general have disdain for the idea that marriage is one of the most reliable antidotes for poverty as evidenced here and here. Their solution? More government spending on anti-poverty programs.
Yet like much of their agenda, the necessity of “more government spending” is nothing more than an attempt to counteract both programs and a cultural ethos championed by Democrats themselves. A 2008 study led by Georgia State University economist Benjamin Scafidi conservatively estimated that single motherhood and male child abandonment cost the U.S. taxpayer $112 billion every year. While making no policy recommendations he further noted that reducing these costs “is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers and legislators.” Syracuse University economics professor Tim Smeeding countered that argument. “I have nothing against marriage–relationship-building is great. But alone it’s not going to do the job. A full-employment economy would probably be the best thing–decent, stable jobs,” he said.
Which argument makes more sense? Certainly higher levels of employment would help the nation. But as noted above, 70 percent of the children who drop out of high school are raised by single mothers. The less education one has, the higher one’s level of unemployment. In other words, Democrats have the argument exactly backwards.
Yet it remains viable. Despite the ravages engendered by the erosion of traditional values such as marriage and family, substantial numbers of American women remain convinced that government programs and policies are viable substitutes for responsible behavior. And while “alternative family lifestyles” are no doubt attractive to those who can afford them, the pathologies engendered by many of those lifestyles suggests the “anything goes” culture endorsed by liberals in general, and the Democrat party in particular, is far more destructive than advertised.
And make no mistake: when 41 percent of women are having children out of wedlock, Democrats are not just waging a war against women. It’s a war against children as well.
1/31/2012
Obama vs. Cardenal Dolan
