¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: Democrats: Voter Fraud for Thee, But Not Me


Voter fraud in Chicago? Never. Congressman Kirk must be a racist. Sarcasm aside, a pattern begins to emerge among those claiming that voter fraud does not exist. Most of those groups are tied to ACORN. The article below quotes two partners of ACORN’s Project Vote to prove the claim that Kirk’s actions are racially motivated. Please also note the disclaimer.


Gee, could that be the whole idea?

*Disclaimer: My father is a lawyer with a nonprofit that worked with ACORN, which has been the target of a lot of voter fraud claims.

A quick Google search returns numerous articles that try to convince the reader that voter fraud does not exist. Of course, many of those articles also cite the far left Brennan Center for Justice, an organization that has partnered with ACORN and Project Vote on countless lawsuits. The ACORN connection should give anyone pause, especially considering that the most egregious cases of voter registration fraud have been committed by ACORN employees.

As DOJ Whistle blower J. Christian Adams points out, Michelle Obama’s actions are systematic of the larger problem plaguing this administration and the Democrats.

“What does a ban on electioneering have to do with election integrity? It prevents people from being bothered, coerced, or badgered. A blanket ban on electioneering in the polls prevents both what happened in Chicago today and the thuggery that characterized elections throughout our history. Michelle Obama should step up and admit a mistake, and talk about the importance of laws ensuring election integrity. To do otherwise tells us what we need to know how much they respect election integrity safeguards.”

More disturbing is the fact that lawlessness committed by the Democrats has become so common that even the White House laughs it off. How can a republic have free and fair elections when all activities aimed at improving or protecting the system are labeled “voter suppression” or “voter intimidation?”

One can not ignore America’s civil rights history, but among the freedoms that many fought and died for was the right to vote. To dilute that vote with organized voter registration fraud and high level shenanigans.

“A four-year wave of attacks on voter registration drives, both in terms of state laws that either shut down voter registration drives or made it too onerous to do it, and other public attacks have certainly had an effect,” said Wendy Weiser, director of the Brennan Center’s Voting Rights and Elections Project.

And while voter registration drives have languished, state governments aren’t picking up the slack. Voting rights advocates argue that many states aren’t adequately complying with requirements in the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to register voters automatically at state agencies and keep their addresses up to date when they move. The result is a gaping hole in the country’s voter registration efforts that threatens to undo the positive strides that have been made over the last decade and a half.

The most obvious cause for the decline in voter registration is the shuttering of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. At its height, ACORN had a budget of close to $35 million and was credited with registering approximately half a million voters in 2008 alone.

The article fails to mention that ACORN and Project Vote turned in almost a million cards in 2008 and yet only half were valid voter registrations.

As Democrats try to once again change the debate over voter fraud, it is up to ordinary citizens to protect our voting systems. However, the deck seems to be stacked against Republicans and others on the right.

When did it become okay to commit voter fraud when your party designation is Democrat? How long will courts and secretaries of state allow laws that only benefit the Democrats and their quest to maintain the coveted black vote?

Below are examples of real voter fraud. Voter registration fraud harms everyone and can dilute or suppress real votes.

North Carolina — State Board of Elections officials have found at least 100 voter registration forms with the same names over and over again. The forms were turned in by ACORN. Officials sent about 30 applications to the state Board of Elections for possible fraud investigation.

Ohio — The New York Post reported that a Cleveland man said he was given cash and cigarettes by aggressive ACORN activists in exchange for registering an astonishing 72 times. The complaints have sparked an investigation by election officials into the organization, whose political wing has supported Barack Obama. Witnesses have already been subpoenaed to testify against the organization.

Nevada — Authorities raided the headquarters of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now on Tuesday October 7, 2008, after a month-long investigation. The fraudulent voter registrations included the Dallas Cowboys starting line-up.

Indiana — More than 2,000 voter registration forms filed in northern Indiana’s Lake County filled out by ACORN employees turned out to be bogus. Officials also stopped processing a stack of about 5,000 applications delivered just before the October 6 registration deadline after the first 2,100 turned out to be phony.

Connecticut — Officials are looking into a complaint alleging ACORN submitted fraudulent voter registration cards in Bridgeport. In one instance, an official said a card was filled out for a 7-year-old girl, whose age was listed as 27. 8,000 cards were submitted in Bridgeport.

Missouri — The Kansas City election board is reporting 100 duplicate applications and 280 with fake information. Acorn officials agreed that at least 4% of their registrations were bogus. Governor Matt Blunt condemned the attempts by ACORN to commit voter fraud.

Pennsylvania — Officials are investigating suspicious or incomplete registration forms submitted by ACORN. 252,595 voter registrations were submitted in Philadelphia. Remarkably, 57,435 were rejected — most of them submitted by ACORN.

Wisconsin — In Milwaukee, ACORN improperly used felons as registration workers. Additionally, its workers are among 49 cases of bad registrations sent to authorities for possible charges, as first reported by the Journal Sentinel.

Florida — The Pinellas County Elections supervisor says his office has received around 35 voter registrations that appear to be bogus. There is also a question of 30,000 felons who are registered illegally to vote. Their connections with ACORN are not yet clear.

Texas — Of the 30,000 registration cards ACORN turned in, Harris County tax assessor Paul Bettencourt says just more than 20,000 are valid. More than 250 people claim a homeless outreach center as their home address. Some listed a county mental health facility as their home and one person even wrote down the Harris County jail at the sheriff’s office.

Michigan — ACORN in Detroit is being investigated after several municipal clerks reported fraudulent and duplicate voter registration applications coming through. The clerk interviewed said the fraud appears to be widespread.

New Mexico – The Bernalillo County clerk has notified prosecutors that some 1,100 fraudulent voter registration cards were turned in by ACORN.


Anita MonCrief, is the Editor-in-Chief of a new website, Emerging Corruption. Ms. MonCrief is a blogger and writer in the Washington, DC area. She is also known as the ACORN/Project Vote Whistleblower. She attended the University of Alabama where she majored in political science and history. She has worked with the American Bar Association’s Central European and Eurasian Law Initiative; (ABA CEELI), the International Crisis Group, the Grameen Foundation and American Rights at Work. She also partnered with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on their mission to Macedonia as an election observer.

In 2005, Anita joined the Strategic Writing and Research Department of ACORN Political Operations and its affiliate Project Vote. In 2008, Anita came forward, first as a confidential source of The New York Times and, after The New York Times backed away, publicly, to expose the damage that ACORN has done to the impoverished and marginalized communities, as well as its rampant voter fraud. She also began to blog and write about corruption within the ACORN/Project Vote network of corporations. In June 2009, Project Vote/ACORN filed a lawsuit against MonCrief in an attempt to silence her. MonCrief has appeared on numerous radio and television programs including, The Laura Ingraham Show, The O’Reilly Factor, and Fox News programs. In March 2010, the ACORN/Project Vote lawsuit was dismissed.

This post originally appeared at Emerging Corruption, October 20, 2010
Graphics added by Gulag Bound

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009

Re: Democrats: Voter Fraud for Thee, But Not Me

Top Obama Campaign Donor Accused of Fraud
Sunday, April 1, 2012

A major contributor to President Barack Obama’s re-election effort is accused of defrauding a businessman and impersonating a bank official.

Donor Abake Assongba gave more than $50,000 to Obama this election season. But her past legal troubles, which include unpaid debts, are creating a new headache for Obama’s campaign.

The allegations were first reported Sunday by The Washington Post. Its report says Assongba tried to rip off more than $650,000 from a Swiss businessman and use the funds to build a multimillion-dollar house in Florida.

A campaign spokesman declined comment to The Associated Press but told the Post it reviews issues involving questionable donors. Obama’s campaign returned $200,000 last month to two men whose brother was a Mexican fugitive wanted by federal authorities.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


An Open Letter to President Barack H. Obama, Constitutional  Scholar

[Excellent]America's Right ^ | April 2, 2012 | Jeff Schreiber


Dear Mr. President,

Supposedly, you are some sort of constitutional  scholar. At the very least, you can read, you can write, and despite being  merely some sort of guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, you  once famously referred to yourself as a “Constitutional Law professor.”

Ringing a bell so far, Mr. President? Great.

While my Juris Doctor is from the Rutgers School of Law in  Camden, New Jersey, and while Rutgers-Camden is hardly Harvard Law School,  within the first three days of Constitutional Law class those who did not  already know of and understand perhaps the single most important decision in the  history of the United States Supreme Court were introduced to Marbury v.  Madison.

In Marbury, the United States Supreme Court held that  federal courts across our nation not only have the authority, but also the duty, to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress–including  statutes and treaties–and to designate as void those acts of Congress which  countermand the United States Constitution. The term you’re searching  for between those flappy ears of yours, Mr. President, is “judicial  review.” And, while it has been nearly two years since I opened up a  Constitutional Law book and can now debate divorce and family law in South  Carolina better than I can the Constitution, I recall enough from law school and  bar exam study to know that the doctrine of “judicial review” is now settled  law.

In other words, since the landmark Marbury decision came down from the Court you belittle as “unelected” in 1803,  because of “judicial review,” federal courts in the United States of America  have the power–and duty–to review laws passed by Congress, decide whether or not  those laws either comport with our Constitution or countermand it, and either  uphold those laws that pass constitutional muster or declare void those laws  that do not.

Not a difficult concept, Mr. President. Not a  difficult concept for a first-year law student at Rutgers-Camden, and certainly  not a difficult concept for a Harvard Law grad who lectured on Constitutional  Law at University of Chicago Law School and later went on to deceive a nation  into crowning him president of the United States. This ain’t race-baiting or  class warfare, Mr. President, but Marburyand judicial review should  nonetheless certainly be in your wheelhouse.

So, what’s the problem? Earlier today, according to Fox News  and other sources, this apparently happened:

President Obama, employing his strongest  language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care  overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law — while  repeatedly saying he’s “confident” it will be upheld.

The president spoke at length about the case  at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The  president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret  about judicial activism, questioned how an “unelected group of people” could  overturn a law approved by Congress.

“I’m 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,” Obama said.

Those statements are so indicative of ignorance of not  only Constitutional Law but basic civics that I don’t even know where to  begin.

First, even a second-grader understand[s] that the the  United States Government is split into three separate branches in order to  insulate one from another and provide checks and balances for each. While it is  easy to understand how a totalitarian like yourself would have trouble  distinguishing the lines between the various branches; after all, you have an  established penchant for making illegitimate recess appointmentsand  facilitating regulatory and other extra-legislative mechanisms designed to  eschew and usurp the traditional role of the Legislative Branch — is it no  surprise that you are utterly incapable of understanding why Justices of the  United States Supreme Court are indeed unelected?

Second, that you would  preemptively describe as “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” the prospective  decision by the Supreme Court that your signature piece of legislation is  unconstitutional and therefore void shows that your ignorance is surpassed only  by your myopic inability to see past your political ideology and goals.  According to the Congressional Research Service’s The Constitution of the  United States, Analysis and Interpretation(the 2008 supplement, pages  163-164, in case you’re looking), as of 2010 the United States Supreme Court has  declared unconstitutional and therefore void a whopping 163 acts of Congress.  You do know what “unprecedented” means, right? The Supreme Court overturning  ObamaCare would hardly be “unprecedented” — perhaps it could be “unprecedented,  unless you count those previous 163 precedents.”

Want to know what is “unprecedented,” Mr. President?  Congress forcing free Americans into private contracts and penalizing those who  disobey. That’s unprecedented.

At this point, Mr. President,  just give up. Please. Every time you denigrate the Court and its Justices, who  have more legal knowledge in their smallest toenail than you have in your entire  body, you look more and more like the dullard that you apparently truly are. No  wonder you don’t want to release your transcripts — any undergraduate student  who fails to understand the most basic concept of Separation of Powers and any  law student that fails to understand the settled doctrine of judicial review  probably did not have marks worthy of tacking on the refrigerator  door.

I understand that, ideologically, your signature piece of  health care legislation is the perfect progressive fix. I understand how it  works. I understand how it slowly but surely interferes with insurers’ ability  to assess risk and thus slowly but surely facilitates an increase in premium  costs, therefore driving more and more people to clamor for a government fix.  It’s a brilliant political maneuver.

But it’s also  unconstitutional.

And when the Justices of the United States Supreme Court tell you as  much mere weeks before November’s election, it will not be because they are “unelected,” nor will it be because they somehow don’t understand the  legislation. The law simply runs afoul of the Commerce Clause of the United  States Constitution, and no amount of “strong majority of a democratically  elected Congress” will change that.

Wave the white flag, Mr. President. Or, preferably,  you can continue to make a fool of yourself. In my Trial Advocacy class at  Rutgers-Camden, after all, we were taught how do deal with opposing counsel who  was floundering in front of a judge or jury: sit tight, smile, and just let it  happen.


Now, Rutgers-Camden is a fine school, but it sure  ain’t Harvard. Nevertheless, I’m the one who is sitting tight and  smiling.

Good luck with your re-election.


Jeffrey M. Schreiber, Esq.


Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


[ Editado ]


Contra viento y marea seguiremos denunciando la corrupción  y  los ataques a la libertad por el régimen marxista de Obama y con la  misma  intensidad y constancia como traemos a estos foros día, a día,   la verdad  sobre la tragedia que sufre el pueblo esclavizado y cautivo en  la isla prisión  de Cuba.

Es nuestra potestad y deber como exiliados cubanos y  fieles  ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos, alertar al pueblo americano la  disyuntiva que  confrontarán en las elecciones de Noviembre, cuando se  decidirá si Estados  Unidos seguirá iluminando al mundo llevando en alto la  antorcha de  la  libertad, o optará por seguir la ruta de Cuba y  Venezuela escogida   por  Barack Hussein Obama.

La semana pasada, con el silencio cómplice de una prensa   prostituida y al servicio del régimen, Obama se abrogó poderes  extraordinarios  que le confieren declarar la “ley marcial” en tiempos de  paz, algo similar a los  que hizo Hitler al tomar el poder democráticamente  en Alemania para de inmediato  pasar en el parlamento alemán “the Enabling  Act” que le confería poderes  extraordinarios por 4 años sin posibilidad de  cambios en la ley.



Como dijo el   filósofo Jorge Santayana: "Quienes ignoran la historia estan  condenados  a repetir sus errores"

Los ataques a la Iglesia y a la libertad religiosa, el   incitamiento a revueltas raciales para provocar el caos, y el ataque de Obama  a  la Suprema Corte de Justicia, presagian disturbios y caos que Obama  aprovechará  para consolidar los poderes dictatoriales que ya se ha  abrogado a-priori  y  mantenerse en el poder pisoteando la  Constitución y la leyes de Estados Unidos.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Obama Puts Out Figurative Bounty on Supreme Court

April 03, 2012



RUSH: Obama and his attack on the Supreme Court yesterday.  It happened toward the end of the program in the last half hour and it was happening on the fly.  I didn't really have enough time to listen in detail to what Obama said, and thus I didn't have a chance to, in detail, reply.  I've now listened to what Obama said.  I've got three sound bites here.

When I got home yesterday at about six o'clock last night I got a flash encrypted message from a friend who says, "You know, somebody in the court leaked to Obama. That's why he went out there and did this today. Somebody called him. He lost the vote, the preliminary vote on Friday. He lost it, and somebody leaked it." And that became an active theory that began to be bandied about amongst a lot of people that I know. Because people were







saying " Why go out," as Obama did yesterday...? It was in the form of a question. We must remember that he was asked a question about this. He didn't launchh into this on his own, but once he got the question, it was, "Katie, bar the door," and he was off to the races.

And the question everybody was asking is: "Why do this? Why attack the court? Why intimidate them, why threaten them if they had voted to uphold the mandate?" And I have an answer for that. See, I know these people. I know liberals. I don't want that statement to sound bombastic. You people here -- new listeners to the program -- that's not a braggadocios statement. It's not bombastic. It's not outrage or any attempt to shock. I just know them, and so when somebody asks me, "Why would Obama say that if he didn't have to? If he had been told that the preliminary vote on Friday was in his favor, why take the attitude that he took?" There is an answer to that. I don't know if it's right, but there is an answer.

He's a thug.

And again, I'm not trying to be provocative when I say this. I'm just quoting Bill Clinton, folks. Bill Clinton referred to Barack Obama as a Chicago thug during the 2008 presidential campaign. This after Clinton some years earlier had told Juanita Broaddrick, "Put some ice on that lip" after she said he raped her. (I mentioned that for this "war on women" that supposedly the Republicans are waging.) But there's every possibility that Obama feeling his oats, being told that the vote went his way, would still go out and do this, 'cause he knows there are more votes to come. I'm not predicting it. I'm just saying I could understand it.

It's easier to understand that somebody leaked to him that the preliminary vote went against him and that the mandate fell by whatever the preliminary vote was and that explains his attitude yesterday. But I can see him saying what he said if the vote went in his favor as well, as a means of further intimidation, making sure they don't change their minds or whatever. You might say, "Well, how would that work? Wouldn't that just kind of make them be more resistant?" The reason this is all a crock in the first place is that (and we will go through this as we play the Obama sound bites) it is obvious that to the left this is an entirely political process.


There's nothing judicial going on here. There's nothing legal. This isn't even really about the Constitution. This is about politics, pure and simple, and Barack Obama's reelection. It's all it is. But he says things in these sound bites which you'll hear coming up and they're chilling to me. "The court has to understand..." "The court must understand," is one of his sound bites. No, the court must not -- does not have to -- listen to you. What is this, "The court must understand"? That is a threat! How many of you think it possible that Obama will make a trip to the Supreme Court before the vote, before the final vote? Can you see it happening? I can.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


[ Editado ]

Great News: New Black Panthers  Call  to  Create "Red Sea" of "Bloodshed"

By Katie Pavlich 4/9/2012




The New Black Panther Party wants a race war and they  want  it  to start tomorrow. In an audio recording of a planning  meeting for a  Trayvon  Martin rally, New Black Panther Party members  have resorted to  violent action  for what they are calling  "revolution."

"We've got to suit of and boot up and get prepared for  the  war  we are in."

"True revolution means some    bloodshed."

"We're going to have to cause the red sea."

"I'm talking about that blonde haired, blue eyed,   sometimes  brown eyed, caucasion walking around."

"I am for violence."

"I'm pissed off right now that the state of Florida  isn't  on  fire."

"We've got to starve capitalism."

"We want the complete removal of  capitalism."





Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Minority Report: Stunning lack of diversity in Obama campaign, photos reveal (all White)
The Washington Free Beacon ^ | April 9, 2012 | BY: Andrew Stiles

A photo of Obama’s “army” originally posted on the campaign’s Tumblr site and run in conjunction with a BuzzFeed story on the Obama campaign reveals a stunning lack of diversity among the president’s Chicago staff.

The Obama campaign’s Chicago headquarters has it all—from Jack Daniels and Ping Pong to bouncy balls and ironic desk mementos.

Yet the “army of twenty-somethings” campaign manager Jim Messina has assembled in the president’s hometown is almost uniformly white, according to photos contained in a detailed BuzzFeed report Monday.

Further examination of the Obama’s campaign’s Tumblr site over the past month reveals very few black individuals—apart from the president and his wife, Michelle—in the pictures posted in the feed.



Obamanomics has Failed



Black unemployment in November 2008: 11.6%
Black unemployment in March 2012: 14.0%

Blacks NOT in the employment force in November 2008: 10,757,000
Blacks NOT in the employment force in November 2012: 11,365,000

source: Bureau of Labor Statistics (bls.gov)


Negros e hispanos son los mas afectados por las medidas marxistas del régimen de Obama, sin embargo lo siguen apoyando... quienes nacen para esclavos, del cielo le caen las cadenas.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Obama as Farce

By William L. Gensert


Karl Marx said history repeats itself, "first as tragedy, then as farce."  Barack Obama has reversed that.  His first term was certainly farce; his second will be tragedy.

Obama has Forrest Gumped his way through his presidency, except without the success, charm, and endearing sweetness of the original.  He has given America three and a half years of farce, even if no one is laughing.

He is an adumbrated president, desperate about his re-election prospects.  Sold as a bipartisan moderate, a post-racial healer, a transformative leader -- we were told he would not just solve our problems, but heal the earth and save humanity.

The president has governed as a hyper-partisan, race-baiting, barely present, tyrant with absolutely no leadership skills and little regard for the constitution.  His daily ululations paint anyone who dares to disagree as evil and un-American.  People are either pro-Barack or an enemy of the nation -- there is no in-between.

It is the intangible aspects of the presidency where Barack Obama is most adept: entertaining, vacationing, and golf.  The parties are legendary and extravagant. Bringing the NBA to the White House, or the NFL or Motown or Broadway -- when he feels like it, the party comes to him.  The vacations are even more extravagant, and the golf...everyone knows about the golf.  He may not be good, but at least he pus in the time.

America has to pay for it all, but this is an opportunity to see the true Barack Obama, surrounded by minions and sycophants constantly telling him how great he is.  Is it any surprise he wants four more years of this?

Obama hagiographer Davis Guggenheim has said, "I mean, the negative for me was there were too many accomplishments."  Barack wholeheartedly agrees; after all didn't he recently say, "My entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism"?

Popeil's Pocket President, brought to you by Ronco, or Rahm Emanuel -- one of those.  At least the Pocket Fisherman worked.  Barack doesn't work; it's all parties, vacations, and golf -- in between, he practices verbal assassination of anyone who disagrees.  Chin up, he turns away and looks off in the distance, a la Mussolini, as the applause and adulation reverberate from the rafters.

"No, please," he pleads, "I do this for you."    

In less than four years, he has reduced America to the laughingstock of the world.  We are threatened by Iran  with nuclear Armageddon, while he lines up a putt and tells us what his imaginary son would look like.

He talks of "flexbility," while he plots both uniteral disarmament and the scrapping of missile defense.  With no deterrent and no defensive capability, the nation will be defenseless and impotent.

Unemployment has ravaged America; economic stagnation has destroyed families and futures.  Good people have been demonized simply for being successful; business has been terrified by threats of confiscatory taxation and the relentless assault of regulatory fiat.  Obama's trillion-dollar stimulus stimulated nothing, except the wallets of political backers and crony capitalist pals.  It actually made the economy worse by diverting money from productive business investment into the Obama for President slush fund, which is really all the stimulus ever was.

ObamaCare, so named because he does care, is more unpopular with every passing day, while the Supreme Court seems likely to overturn the entire abominable mess.  Using procedrual trickery, our transformational tyrant and his minions, Nancy and Harry, rammed it down America's throat, eking out a victory without a single Republican vote. It's farcical that he would claim that it passed with a " strong majority fo a democratic elected Congress."

As part of this comedy of errors, standing with the president of Mexico and the Canadian PM last week, Barack Obama couldn't help but channel his inner Chevy Chase in The Three Amigos.  Our president, once a professor of constitutional law, made statements showing how ignorant he is about the Constitution, judicial review, checks and balances, and the separation of powers.  He's tried to walk those comments back, but it's hard to walk back idiocy.  

People have died from his policies, although hundreds of  white hispanics in Mexico who perished as a result of his administration's Fast and Furious program apparently don't count.  Ever faster and much more furiously, the administration is done talking about gun-walking.

Our president, who believes himself the living embodiment of American exceptionalism, veers wildly between bragging about how successful he is and puling loudly about how unfairly he is being treated.  Every jeremiad from the man is laced with an unsaid but implied "you people don't appreciate me, even after all I've done for you."  Although at times, he skips the unsaid and the implied.

He boasts of his accomplishments, which amount to nothing more than brazenly redefining abject failure as success, or taking credit for things he had nothing to do with.  Is there anything funnier than hearing the most anti-oil president in the history of the nation take credit for oil production?  He stands in front of some pipes and makes a speech, and suddenly, he is the "Energy President."  Could he look more desperate?

To hear Barack tell it, no other president has done more for the fossil fuel industry, cut taxes for the middle class, been more supportive of business, cut regulation, or done more to increase employment and help the economy recover.  Did you hear that Osama bin Laden is still dead?

Most laughable is his assertion that no president has ever done more to control spending, despite the $5 trillion in debt he has added in less than four years.  With a second term, he is on track to add more debt in eight years than all the presidents who came before him combined.  His budgets are a joke, with last year's failing in the Senate 97-0, and this year's losing in the House 414-0.  Even Democrats won't vote for them.

It is Obama's version of the "big lie," a lie told so often that it is accepted as truth.  The Obama variation entails many lies, big and small, told over and over again in mellifluous tone, with aggressive confidence and a joking manner that implies that anyone who doesn't believe all he says is an idiot.

To him, Americans are morons, so intimidated by his brilliance that they will buy into his bull, become backers of Barack, and re-up on hope and change this November.  The secret to his success is that he is able to convince people that if they believe him and not what they see with their own eyes, they are geniuses, just like him.

As a rule -- with everything Barack tells us about what he has done and what he will do -- the truth is always the exact opposite.  On Seinfeld,  it was called "bizarro world."  We live in Barack's backwards bizarro world.

Unemployment, at over 8%, is at the highest protracted level since the Great Depression.  The economy is moribund, with the worst recovery from a recession, also since the Depression.  Government spending, as a percentage of GDP, is the highest since WWII. The percentage of people employed is at its lowest level lowest in 30 years; gasoline prices are the highest ever.  America, internationally, is at its greatest risk since the fall of the USSR.  Yet Barack constantly talks about how wonderful things are and how great he has been.  Sadly, many people believe him, and these people will vote to give him an opportunity to try again.  Scary, isn't it?

America is circling the drain, and despite the farce that has been Obama's first term, he has his hand on the handle...and with re-election, he is going to flush.

Mark Twain said that truth is always stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.  Watching Barack Obama campaign for re-election should be funny, but it's hard to laugh when realizing how tragic four more years of this president will be for America.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Obama contra la Iglesia


Obama vs. Cardenal   Dolan

La amenaza a la libertad religiosa en Estados Unidos   no  es  una broma, ni, cuando se afirma eso, se está exagerando. No  se  trata ya  de que  Obama esté llevando a cabo una política de  apoyo  económico a  prácticas que  católicos -y no sólo  católicos- consideran  criminales, como  es el aborto. Es que   ahora quiere obligar a que  esas prácticas sean  subvencionadas desde  las propias  instituciones  religiosas. Y ahí es donde  se entra  de lleno en el ataque a la   libertad religiosa.
La Iglesia católica en Estados Unidos tiene miles   de   instituciones sociales, como colegios -casi cada parroquia  tiene  uno-, hospitales, asilos, comedores sociales, centros de atención  a   drogodependientes  o a emigrantes, etc. Como obliga la ley,  los  empleados  de estos centros tienen  un seguro médico para  sus  trabajadores.
Sin embargo, ese seguro no incluye el acceso a    determinadas  prestaciones que van en contra de la moral católica.   Por  ejemplo, si uno de esos  empleados quiere abortar, el seguro  que  le ofrece  la Iglesia no le paga el  aborto, se lo tendrá  que pagar él  por su cuenta.  O si quiere utilizar   anticonceptivos, los había  pagado de su bolsillo en  la farmacia.
Pues bien, ahora Obama quiere que en esos   seguros  se  incluyan cosas que van abiertamente contra la moral   católica. Deberán  ofrecer  anticonceptivos y también píldoras   abortivas. De esta manera, la  Iglesia se hará  cómplice de hechos  que  considera gravísimos, hasta el  punto de que excomulga al   que los  comete, como es el caso del  aborto.
¿Por qué hace esto Obama?  ¿Le  preocupa el interés de los empleados de las instituciones católicas, a  fin de  que no gasten más de la cuenta si quieren llevar una vida contraria  a lo que  indica la moral de la empresa para la que trabajan? Estoy seguro  de que esto no  es así. Creo que Obama ha encontrado la manera de asfixiar  a las obras sociales  católicas, de abocarlas al cierre o de forzarlas a ir  contra sus principios, con  lo cual quedarían totalmente  desprestigiadas.
Es más sutil que Fidel  Castro,   que cerró todo lo que tenía la Iglesia en Cuba, pero busca  el  mismo objetivo. Los radicales -y  Obama lo es cada vez más- saben que la Iglesia tiene, gracias a  sus  obras sociales, un gran  prestigio y por eso quieren acabar con  ellas.  Si cerraran todos  las instituciones católicas en Estados  Unidos se  haría un gran daño a  millones de  personas, pero eso  a Obama le da  igual. No le preocupan los pobres. El odio se está  convirtiendo cada  vez más en su motivación.
Los obispos   norteamericanos  han plantado  cara y no van a ceder, con el  cardenal  Dolan a su cabeza. Va  a ser una guerra  dura. Quizá  Obama gane  algunas batallas, pero terminará perdiéndola. Su futuro   va a ser como  el de Zapatero, su amigo: una retirada deshonrosa y   desprestigiada, donde  todos los que hoy le apoyan le  volverán la  espalda y se  avergonzarán  de él. http://www.magnificat.tv/es/node/658/2
Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Darrell Issa: Fast and Furious Far From Over

By Katie Pavlich 4/14/2012


ST. LOUIS- Entering the Edward Jones arena to  an applauding audience at the NRA Annual Convention in downtown St. Louis  Friday, Congressman Darrell Issa made it clear his congressional investigation  into the Operation Fast and Furious scandal isn’t  going away until the Obama Justice Department comes clean. “The  investigation of Operation Fast and Furious will not end until the full truth is exposed to every American,” Issa said, adding senior officials at the Department of Justice will be held accountable for the lethal program, including Attorney General Eric Holder. “Eric Holder’s contempt for Congress and his failure to comply will not go unanswered, and you can count on me,” Issa said as a woman yelled, “Thank you!” It is  not news that the Obama Justice Department has, and continues to, stonewall  Issa’s House Oversight Committee in their constitutional quest for DOJ documents  and information.

“They have been disingenuous in their answers, they have in  fact ignored exactly what this president promised not to ignore,” Issa said. “He  promised we would have the most open and transparent government everywhere.” Many on the Left have tried to brush the scandal off as unimportant, not significant and a waste of time to discuss.  Members in Congress have called Issa’s motives “politicized,” but the facts tell  a different story. During a conference call with bloggers last September, Issa said he planned to wrap up his investigation by the end of 2011, but because of continued stonewalling and hostile behavior from the Obama Administration, we  still don’t have answers and the investigation is ongoing.  Issa attempted  to end the investigation months ago, before the political season  started. “Many will say this is a witch hunt, I will  tell you, Brian Terry’s family has told me just the opposite,” Issa said. “They  cannot believe a family dedicated to law enforcement cannot get answers from its  own country.” Issa also touched on the motivations  behind Operation Fast and Furious and how liberal Democrats in Congress have reacted to revelations in the scandal.  “Fast and  Furious can be seen as nothing else but a needless attack on our right to keep  and bear arms,“ Issa said. “When the facts began to come out about Fast and  Furious, no surprise, Democrats in Washington, immediately seized on the  opportunity to talk  about the need for additional gun control  laws.” For months, I have been stressing the importance of understanding Operation Fast and Furious was not a “botched” program or an  accident. Instead, DOJ officials made calculated decisions to allow some of the  most ruthless criminals in the world to help themselves to American guns, while  throwing law abiding gun dealers under the bus. “Understand that federally licensed gun dealers warned ATF about wrong  doers, expressed their concerns and were forced to sell anyway," Issa said. “Emails made it clear that Fast and Furious was an organized program from the start to walk guns into the hands of drug cartels in Mexico." Issa promised to get to the bottom of Fast and Furious in the coming  few weeks, but made it clear setting a timeline wasn’t going to stop him from  getting the truth. “I will not quit until both  families [Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata] get the answers they  deserve.”