¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 228
Registrado: ‎04-30-2012
0 Kudos



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


Even Obama  Was a "Birther"

Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 5-19-2012 |  MOTUS


“Birth” of a Liberal’s “Truth”

Four words: Liar, Liar, pants on  fire! (I lied about it being 4 words.)

Well isn’t this just dandy?

“Why was Obama a birther before he  decided to run for president?”

That’s like asking “When did Big Guy lie, and how did he know  he was lying?” So for the zillionth time: that disinformation about Kenya being  the birthplace of Barack Barry Obama was a “fact checking” error – you know, as in “I  didn’t think anyone would ever bother to check the facts.”

Here’s the bottom line, this was all just a big  mis-misunderstanding that started with a simple mistake that just replicated  itself.



The  Replicant-in-Chief

When Big Guy, known as Barry back then, filled out his first  college application he thought they were asking where his father was  born so naturally he inserted “Kenya.” And apparently this one innocent little  fact checking error continued to dog him all the way from Occidental College to  Columbia to Harvard and right on into the book bio (which was not an auto-bio)  and his Senate run in 2004. And if there were any  advantages to being an African-born African-American with respect to  special treatment programs in place at the time, well, that would just be a  coincidence. A happy coincidence, butt a coincidence none-the-less.

And just to show how these little “fact checking” errors  self-replicate, just look at how many of Big Guy’s own friends used to be  birthers! Right up until they saw how it might queer his Preezy deal. (I can  say “queer” now, right? Now that Big Guy’s out of the closet on  the right side of history, right?)

So can you believe it? One little teeny-tiny mistake  eventually turned into this whole huge “Birther” controversy that lives on to  this day. Thanks to the rightwing nutz.

The same sort of thing happened to Elizabeth Warren: she  happened to mention to her sorority sisters one day how much she enjoyed Indian  pudding, and the next thing you know everyone just assumed she was Cherokee – on  account of her high cheek bones! Boy, if high cheekbones is all it takes to be  part Cherokee, we might just have another little princess around  here.



Could Lady M’s high cheekbones mean she’s part Indian too? Or  at least part Brahmin, like Lizzie Warren? Or at least Brahman? Because aren’t  they Indians too?


Anyway, I just thought you might want to know how lies about  liberals get started. 

Anyhoo, I’ve got a little bit of housekeeping I need to tend  to now so I’ll get back to fill you in on Big Guy’s sleep over at Camp David  tomorrow.


Don’t worry Big Guy, all your  little friends will show up. They probably just missed the  bus.

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


1.) Selma March Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google 'Obama Selma ' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles a bout its various untruths). 
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY; your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya . It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Oba ma, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that....and for more.
Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia Muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter... Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. He is the first Arab-American President,

not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his

mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side.

While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was

mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro

and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African

Negro). Go to:
http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-Americ an,_only_6.25%25_African
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in Islam'' "http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view"http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view "http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559"http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.'
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn except how to study the Koran and watch cartoons?
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise); you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine
13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, despite saying, live 

on TV, which you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about

having experience first.

16.) Voting 'Present' is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Miss-voted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your miss vote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY; you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, state bills you

sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing the entire special

interests pork hidden within.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were

not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator,

to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel .
30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY; you said let the delegates decide.
31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.
35.) I don't Have Lobbyists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.
37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.
38.) I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.
39.) My uncle liberated Auschwitz concentration camp - NOT EXACTLY, your mother had no brothers and the Russian army did the liberating.
So, who EXACTLY is this Obama guy and what is he trying to sell us?! Please get to work now...not enough of your loved ones and friends know about this fraud.


'In God We Trust'

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


The Great Barry

By Mark Steyn

NRO May 19, 2012

It used to be a lot simpler. As E. C. Bentley deftly summarized it in 1905:

Geography is about maps But Biography is about chaps.

But that was then, and now Biography is also about maps. For example, have you ever thought it would be way cooler to have been born in colonial Kenya?

Whoa, that sounds like crazy Birther talk; don’t go there! But Breitbart News did, and it turns out that the earliest recorded example of Birtherism is from the president’s own literary agent, way back in 1991, in the official bio of her exciting new author: “Barack Obama, the first African-American president of The Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

So the lunatic theory that Barack Obama doesn’t meet the minimum eligibility requirements to be president of the United States was first advanced by Barack Obama’s official representative. Where did she get that wacky idea from? “This was nothing more than a fact-checking error by me,” says Obama’s literary agent Miriam Goderich, a “fact” that went so un-“checked” that it stayed up on her agency’s website in the official biography of her by-then-famous client up until 2007: “He was born in Kenya to an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister.”

And then in April 2007, someone belatedly decided to “check” the 16-year-old “fact” and revised the biography, a few weeks into the now non-Kenyan’s campaign for the presidency. Fancy that!

When it comes to conspiracies, I’m an Occam’s Razor man. The more obvious explanation of the variable first line in the eternally shifting sands of Obama’s biography is that, rather than pretending to have been born in Hawaii, he’s spent much of his life pretending to have been born in Kenya. After all, if your first book is an exploration of racial identity and has the working title “Journeys in Black and White,” being born in Hawaii doesn’t really help. It’s entirely irrelevant to the twin pillars of contemporary black grievance — American slavery and European imperialism. To 99.99 percent of people, Hawaii is a luxury-vacation destination and nothing else. Whereas Kenya puts you at the heart of what, in an otherwise notably orderly decolonization process by the British, was a bitter and violent struggle against the white man’s rule. Cool! The composite chicks dig it, and the literary agents.

And where’s the harm in it? Everybody does it — at least in the circles in which Obama hangs. At Harvard Law School, where young Barack was “the first African-American president of The Harvard Law Review,” there’s no end of famous firsts: As The Fordham Law Review reported, “Harvard Law School hired its first woman of color, Elizabeth Warren, in 1995.” There is no evidence that Mrs. Warren, now the Democrats’ Senate candidate, is anything other than 100 percent white. She walks like a white, quacks like a white, looks whiter than white. She’s the whitest white since Frosty the Snowman fell in a vat of Wite-Out. But she “self-identified” as Cherokee, so that makes her a “woman of color.” Why, back in 1984 she submitted some of her favorite dishes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook, a “compilation of recipes passed down through the Five Tribes families.”

The recipes from “Elizabeth Warren — Cherokee” include a crab dish with tomato mayonnaise. Mrs. Warren’s fictional Cherokee ancestors in Oklahoma were renowned for their ability to spear the fast-moving Oklahoma crab. It’s in the state song: “Ooooooklahoma! Where the crabs come sweepin’ down the plain . . . ” But then the white man came and now the Oklahoma crab is extinct, and at the Cherokee clambakes they have to make do with Mrs. Warren’s traditional Five Tribes recipe for Cherokee Lime Pie.

A delegation of college students visited the White House last week, and Vice President Biden told them: “You’re an incredible generation. And that’s not hyperbole either. Your generation and the 9/11 generation before you are the most incredible group of Americans we have ever, ever, ever produced.” Ever ever ever ever! Even in a world where everyone’s incredible, some things ought to be truly incredible. Yet Harvard Law School touted Elizabeth “Dances with Crabs” Warren as their “first woman of color” — and nobody laughed. Because, if you laugh, chances are you’ll be tied up in sensitivity-training hell for the next six weeks. Because in an ever more incredible America being an all-white “woman of color” is entirely credible.

Entering these murky waters, swimming through it like a crab in Mrs. Warren’s tomato mayo, Barack Obama refined his own identity with a finesse Harvard Law’s first cigar-store Indian lacked. In 1984, when “Elizabeth Warren — Cherokee” was cooking up a storm, the young Obama was still trying to figure out his name: He’d been “Barry” up till then. According to his recently discovered New York girlfriend, back when she dated him he was “BAR-ack,” emphasis on the first syllable, as in barracks, which is how his dad was known back in Kenya. Later in the Eighties, he decided “BAR-ack” was too British, and modified it to “Ba-RACK.” Some years ago, on Fox News, Bob Beckel criticized me for mispronouncing Barack Obama’s name. My mistake. All I did was say it the way they’ve always said it back in Kenya. But Obama himself didn’t finally decide what his name was or how to say it until he was pushing 30. In the shifting sands of identity, he picked his crabs carefully.

“I suppose he’d had the name ready for a long time, even then,” says Nick Carraway in The Great Gatsby. “His parents were shiftless and unsuccessful farm people — his imagination had never really accepted them as his parents at all. The truth was that Jay Gatsby of West Egg, Long Island, sprang from his Platonic conception of himself. . . . So he invented just the sort of Jay Gatsby that a seventeen-year-old boy would be likely to invent, and to this conception he was faithful to the end.”

In a postmodern America, the things that Gatsby attempted to fake — an elite schooling — Obama actually had; the things that Gatsby attempted to obscure — the impoverished roots — merely add to Obama’s luster. Gatsby claimed to have gone to Oxford, but nobody knew him there because he never went; Obama had a million bucks’ worth of elite education at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard Law, and still nobody knew him (“Fox News contacted some 400 of his classmates and found no one who remembered him”). In that sense, Obama out-Gatsbys Gatsby: His “shiftless and unsuccessful” relatives — the deportation-dodging aunt on public housing in Boston, the DWI undocumented uncle, the $12-a-year brother back in Nairobi — are useful props in his story, the ever more vivid bit-players as the central character swims ever more out of focus, but they don’t seem to know him either. The more autobiographies he writes, the less anybody knows. Like Gatsby presiding over his wild, lavish parties, Obama is aloof and remote: Let everyone else rave deliriously; he just has to be. He is in his way the apotheosis of the Age of American Incredibility. When just being who you are anyway is an incredible accomplishment, Obama managed to run and win on biography almost entirely unmoored from life. But then, like Gatsby, he knew a thing or two about “the unreality of reality.”

Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist

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


43 Catholic institutions file suits over HHS mandate

Hotair ^ | 05/21/2012 | Ed Morrissey


Today's Roman Catholic calendar lists May 21st as the feast day of St. Christopher Magallanes, a martyr killed for celebrating Mass during the Cristero War in Mexico. Perhaps Catholics today may want to recall St. Thomas More -- the patron saint of lawyers, who was executed for refusing to agree to a mandate that gave Henry VIII the prerogative of defining religious expression in England. Dozens of Catholic institutions filed lawsuits todayagainst the Department of Health and Human Services over its mandate and its narrow definition of religious practice:

Catholic archdioceses and institutions filed suit in federal district courts across the country Monday against the so-called contraception mandate, claiming their 'fundamental rights hang in the balance'.

The plaintiffs include a host of schools and organizations, including the University of Notre Dame and the Archdiocese of New York. The lawsuits, though related, were filed individually.

The schools are objecting to the requirement from the federal health care overhaul that employers provide access to contraceptive care. The Obama administration several months back softened its **noallow** on the mandate, but some religious organizations complained the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.

Kathryn Jean Lopezposts a brief statement from Timothy Cardinal Dolan, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and one of the chief critics of the HHS mandate:

We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress – and we’ll keep at it – but there’s still no fix. Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now. Though the Conference is not a party to the lawsuits, we applaud this courageous action by so many individual dioceses, charities, hospitals and schools across the nation, in coordination with the law firm of Jones Day. It is also a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty. It’s also a great show of the diversity of the Church’s ministries that serve the common good and that are jeopardized by the mandate – ministries to the poor, the sick, and the uneducated, to people of any faith or no faith at all.

The institutions filing lawsuits don’t just comprise a few ultraconservative institutions, either. The University of Notre Dame hosted a speech by President Barack Obama in 2009, but today insists that Obama and his administration are attacking religious freedom in their complaint:

This lawsuit is about one of America’s most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference. It is not about whether people have a right to abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. Those services are, and will continue to be, freely available in the United States, and nothing prevents the Government itself from making them more widely available. But the right to such services does not authorize the Government to force the University of Notre Dame (“Notre Dame”) to violate its own conscience by making it provide, pay for, and/or facilitate those services to others, contrary to itssincerely held religious beliefs. …

If the Government can force religious institutions to violate their beliefs in such a manner, there is no apparent limit to the Government’s power. Such an oppression of religious freedom violates Notre Dame’s clearly established constitutional and statutory rights.

The First Amendment also prohibits the Government from becoming excessively entangled in religious affairs and from interfering with a religious institution’s internal decisions concerning the organization’s religious structure, ministers, or doctrine. The U.S. Government Mandate tramples all of these rights.

Franciscan University also filed suit, and its president Father Terence Henry published this video statement:

Noting that Franciscan University did not go looking for this battle, Father Henry said the University retained Jones Day, one of the world’s largest law firms, with whom the University has had a relationship for the past twenty years, “because it has the resources to fight the government as long as it takes, and we will settle for no less than a restoration of our First Amendment right to freedom of religion.”

Father Henry concluded, “Under no circumstances can Catholics be both in compliance with this new law and at the same time live the faith that we believe. Franciscan University will continue to stand with the Church in its opposition to this mandate. Our ancestors came to America because they knew that on these shores they would be free to faithfully live what they believed. This mandate is not only a grave infringement on religious liberty; it is a betrayal of those who sacrificed to make this country what it is today.”

All of this probably makes the New York Times’ analysis of how Obama will win Catholic votes little more than wishful thinking. This oppressive move may well cast Catholics off from the Democratic Party for a generation. This will be a “come to Jesus” moment for many Catholics, and a wake-up call to the USCCB about the nature of government mandates in general.

Update: The Anchoress links to the “strong editorial” of the publication Our Sunday Visitor:

It seems to us hardly a coincidence that this suit is taking place in our centennial year. Founded 100 years ago by then-Father John Noll, Our Sunday Visitor from its beginning sought to inform Catholics about the issues of the day, form them in the Faith, and defend that Faith from attack. It was Father John Noll who stood up to those who attacked Catholic immigrants as un-American and seditious. It was Father John Noll who faced down false preachers who spread slanders about the Church. It was Father John Noll who resisted the power of the Ku Klux Klan when it was such a powerful political force. And it is in his courageous spirit that we invoke as we engage in this great struggle today.

We know that many Americans — and even many Catholics — are confused about this debate. Politicians and elements of the news media have sought to make it a war against women or contraception, and they have portrayed the Church as seeking to impose its values on others or as being covertly political.

We also acknowledge that many Catholics do not understand the reasons for the Church’s moral opposition to contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs. This lack of understanding points to a significant catechetical need that the Church should address internally.

We reiterate, however, that this is not about the legality of such practices in society, nor is it about how many Catholics understand the Church’s **noallow**. It is about the Church’s right to practice what it preaches.

This is a critical moment for religious freedom in the US. If the federal government can define religious expression, then it can control or even outlaw it.

Update II: LifeNews has a statement from Notre Dame’s president, Fr. John Jenkins, who extended the invitation to Obama in the first place:

Let me say very clearly what this lawsuit is not about: it is not about preventing women from having access to contraception, nor even about preventing the Government from providing such services. Many of our faculty, staff and students — both Catholic and non-Catholic — have made conscientious decisions to use contraceptives. As we assert the right to follow our conscience, we respect their right to follow theirs. And we believe that, if the Government wishes to provide such services, means are available that do not compel religious organizations to serve as its agents. We do not seek to impose our religious beliefs on others; we simply ask that the Government not impose its values on the University when those values conflict with our religious teachings. We have engaged in conversations to find a resolution that respects the consciences of all and we will continue to do so.

This filing is about the freedom of a religious organization to live its mission, and its significance goes well beyond any debate about contraceptives. For if we concede that the Government can decide which religious organizations are sufficiently religious to be awarded the freedom to follow the principles that define their mission, then we have begun to walk down a path that ultimately leads to the undermining of those institutions. For if one Presidential Administration can override our religious purpose and use religious organizations to advance policies that undercut our values, then surely another Administration will do the same for another very different set of policies, each time invoking some concept of popular will or the public good, with the result these religious organizations become mere tools for the exercise of government power, morally subservient to the state, and not free from its infringements. If that happens, it will be the end of genuinely religious organizations in all but name.

Indeed. And as some have suggested, the administration’s arrogance and obstinacy in dealing with this issue raises the question of whether that’s not their preferred outcome anyway.

Update III: Replaced “its” with “Notre Dame’s” in Update II to clarify reference.

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


Obama's Anti-Capitalism Strategy is Getting Poor Reviews

 By Donald Lambro 5/25/2012


President Obama's anti-capitalism attacks on Mitt Romney's long career as an investor who bankrolled businesses and created jobs isn't playing well in some Democratic circles.

Indeed, the Democratic backlash Obama's campaign has been getting about its ads attacking Bain Capital, Romney's successful venture capital firm, is the political equivalent of a "man bites dog" story.

Newark, N.J., Mayor Cory Booker, a close ally of Obama and a rising star in the Democratic Party, called Obama's ads "nauseating."

Former Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford Jr., another party leader who once headed the centrist-leaning Democratic Leadership Council, said he agreed with "the core" of Booker's remarks defending Bain Capital's numerous success stories.

"Private equity's not a bad thing. As a matter of fact, private equity is a good thing in many, many instances," Ford said on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."

Even one of Obama's own economic advisers winced at the sorry spectacle of the president's campaign trying to argue that Romney's private capital investment company has been bad for the economy.

"I don't think there's anything Bain Capital did that they need to be embarrassed about," said Steven Rattner, who was the Obama administration's car czar and one of the president's economic advisers.

To the contrary, what Rattner and others seem to be suggesting is that Obama ought to be embarrassed by ads that are attacking private investment, which is the mother's milk of business expansion and job creation.

"I have to just say from a very personal level, I'm not about to sit here and indict private equity (investment)," Booker said on Sunday's "Meet the Press" when David Gregory asked him about Obama's ad.

The TV ad singles out one of Bain Capital's investments in an Indiana steel company that ended up laying off 250 workers, but says nothing of dozens (rescue over 300 companies creating more tan 200,000 jobs, with 95% success) of companies Bain invested in that ended up creating thousands of jobs.

In the ad, a laid-off worker at the plant calls Romney a "job destroyer."

Booker suggested this kind of sleazy distortion is both dishonest and reprehensible. "If you look at the totality of Bain Capital's record, they've done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses," Booker said. "And this (Obama's attack ad), to me, I'm very uncomfortable with."

"This kind of stuff is nauseating to me on both sides. It's nauseating to the American public. Enough is enough. Stop attacking private equity," he said.

The president's chief campaign strategist, David Axelrod, must have come down on Booker like a ton of bricks. Shortly after that, Booker released a hastily made YouTube statement to "clarify" his remarks and reiterate his support for Obama, though he stood by his earlier comments.

Speaking at the end of the NATO Summit in Chicago, Obama responded with a confused statement that said private equity investing in the economy was "not always going to be a good thing for businesses or communities or workers."

His **noallow** grew even more entangled as he talked with reporters, saying, "When you're president, as opposed to the head of a private-equity firm ... your job is to think about how those communities can start creating clusters so that they can attract new businesses."


In Obama's government-centered world, private venture capital is OK up to a point, as long as the investors don't make too much money and aren't too successful. Profit's OK, but only up to a point.

Obama wants the middle class to do well, but does not see the role that people with risk-taking capital play in building job opportunities for economic advancement at all income levels.

His anti-capitalism ad focuses on one of Bain Capital's failures as if this proves that the company's investments were not a good thing for the overall economy. But failure can be a byproduct of risk-taking, which is what made our country the greatest economy in the world.

Henry Ford's first car company went out of business before he invented the manufacturing assembly line that put automobiles within the reach of average Americans. R.H. Macy weathered repeated failures in his retail career before he succeeded. Something on the order of half of all new businesses fail. But most try again, and many succeed.

Obama should know something about failure. Several of the "clean energy" firms he invested in went bankrupt. But in his case, the taxpayers had to pick up the tab. When a private equity firm's investment fails, it usually comes out of the investors' pockets.

One of Obama's biggest bankruptcies -- the solar panel company Solyndra -- cost taxpayers half a billion dollars.

This election is going to be decided by the economy and the jobs picture, both of which remain weak. The Gallup Poll has Obama and Romney tied in a dead heat, and The Washington Post poll has them running even on who can best fix the economy.

Last week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a state-by-state report on the nation's high unemployment levels. The national news media ignored the story, but the BLS said that "just 16 states have seen job growth since President Obama took office," Investors Business Daily reported.

"The remaining states have lost a combined 1.4 million jobs since January 2009. Even 34 months after the recession officially ended in June 2009, there are still 11 states that have fewer people people working now than at the start of the recovery," IBD said.

Obama really seems to believe he can win a second term by trying to convince enough Americans that more private investment in our economy is "not always going to be good for business" or new job creation.

Think about that for a moment.

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


Obama's Land of the LOST

Human Events ^ | 5/25/2012 | Michelle Malkin


What's green and blue and grabby all over? President Obama's new pressure campaign for Congress to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

The fight over LOST goes back three decades, when it was first rejected by President Ronald Reagan. He warned that "no national interest of the United States could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth's surface over to the Third World." According to top Reagan officials William Clark and Ed Meese, their boss believed the "central, and abiding, defect" was "its effort to promote global government at the expense of sovereign nation states -- and most especially the United States."

The persistent transnationalists who drafted LOST favor creation of a massive United Nations bureaucracy that would draw ocean boundaries, impose environmental regulations and restrict business on the high seas. They've tinkered with the document obsessively since the late '60s, enlisted Presidents Clinton and Bush, and recruited soon-to-depart GOP Sen. *beep* Lugar to their crusade.

Ignore the mushy save-the-planet rhetoric. Here's the bottom line: Crucial national security decisions about our naval and drilling operations would be subject to the vote of 162 other signatories, including Cuba, China and Russia.

While our sovereignty would be redistributed around the world, most of the funding for the massive LOST regulatory body would come from -- you guessed it! -- the United States. Forbes columnist Larry Bell reports that "as much as 7 percent of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast" would be meted out to "poorer, landlocked countries." This confiscatory act of environmental justice would siphon billions, if not trillions, away from Americans. International royalties would be imposed; an international tribunal would be set up to mediate disputes. There would be no opportunity for court appeals in the U.S.

LOST is just the latest waterlogged power grab by the Obama administration. As I reported in 2010, the White House through executive order seized unprecedented control from states and localities over "conservation, economic activity, user conflict and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes." Obama created a 27-member "National Ocean Council" by administrative fiat that is specifically tasked with implementing ocean management plans "in accordance with customary international law, including as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention."

The panel is chaired by radical green science czar John Holdren (notorious for his cheerful musings about eugenics, mass sterilization and forced abortions to protect Mother Earth, and for hyping weather catastrophes and demographic disasters in the 1970s with his population-control pals Paul and Anne Ehrlich) and White House Council on Environmental Quality head Nancy Sutley (best known as the immediate boss of disgraced green jobs czar/self-avowed communist Van Jones).

Other members include Dr. Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a former high-ranking official at the left-wing Environmental Defense Fund, which has long championed draconian reductions of commercial fishing fleets and recreational fishing activity in favor of centralized control, and fraudster Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who doctored the administration's drilling moratorium report.

It is not hyperbole to expose LOST's socialist roots. Meddling Marxist Elisabeth Mann Borgese, the godmother of the global ocean regulatory scheme, made no bones about it: "He who rules the sea," she exulted, "rules the land." LOST is a radical giveaway of American sovereignty in the name of environmental protection. And it should be sunk once and for all.

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



National Review ^ | 5/29/2012 | Victor Davis Hanson


As the campaign heats up, one problem is that we  continue to meet lots of different Barack Obamas — to such a degree that we  don’t know which, if any, is really president.

I think the president believes that private-equity firms harm  the economy and that their CEOs are at best indifferent and sometimes  unsympathetic to the struggle of average Americans. I say “I think” because Obama has himself collected  millions of dollars from such profit-driven firms, and uses their grandees to  raise cash for his reelection. Cynical, hypocritical, or unaware? You  decide.

I think the president is in favor of publicly funded  campaign financing but against super PACs; but again I say “I think” because  Obama renounced the former and embraced the latter. Are Guantanamo, renditions,  tribunals, and preventive detention constitutional necessities or threats to our  security? Some of Obama’s personalities have said they are bad; others  apparently believe them to be good.

One Barack Obama crisscrosses  the country warning us that a sinister elite has robbed from the common good and  must atone for destroying the economy. Another Barry Obama hits the golf links  in unapologetically aristocratic fashion and prefers Martha’s Vineyard for his  vacation. So I am confused about the evil 1 percent. Obama 1 feels they have  shorted the country and must now pay their fair share, while Obama 2 feels they  are vital allies in helping the poor by attending his $40,000-a-plate campaign  dinners.

Barry Obama respects those who  make billions from Berkshire Hathaway, Microsoft, Apple, Google, and Facebook,  but Barack Obama does not respect those who make billions from oil, farming, and  construction. Is Wall Street the source of our national problems or the source  of the president’s political salvation? There is an Obama who runs against a  prep-schooled mansion-living member of the elite; there is another Obama who was  a prep-schooled mansion-living member of the elite.

I thought one Obama swore to us that borrowing $5  trillion was vital — Keynesian pump priming, stimulus, averting 8 percent–plus  unemployment, and all that. But now another Obama claims that his serial $1  trillion deficits are proof not of “growth” of the sort that improved GDP and  reduced unemployment, but rather of fiscal discipline that stopped reckless  Republican spending. So Obama over the last four years brought both austerity  that checked wild Bush spending, and also Keynesian growth that snapped us out  of the Bush lethargy? Spending is saving? Record deficits are record fiscal  restraint?

Lots of Obamas keep talking  about civility and bringing us together; but lots more Obamas talk about  punishing our enemies, emphasizing racial differences, and formally organizing  supporters by racial groupings. An angelic Obama lectures about the end of  red-state/blue-state divides; a less saintly Obama refers to xenophobic  clingers, typical white persons, stereotypers, and arresters of children on  their way to ice-cream parlors.

Unfortunately, the paradoxes involve more than just the usual  flipflopping of all politicians. They strike to the heart of who is, and is not,  Barack Hussein Obama.


I recall that once upon a time Obama derided fossil  fuels, bragging that “millions of new green jobs” would accrue from subsidizing  wind and solar power and “bankrupting” coal companies, as energy prices would  accordingly “skyrocket.” But then once upon another time, Obama bragged that on  his watch we are pumping more oil than ever before, apparently because private  firms ignored his pleas and drilled despite his efforts to shut down leasing on  public lands. So we are to credit Obama for stopping oil leasing on public  lands, which forced greater production on private lands, while being impressed  that he lost billions subsidizing doomed solar and wind companies? When the  government fails to promote new energy, that constitutes success because those  outside the government then must do more? Do the various Obamas represent both  the good but failed intention and the bad successful one?

The fringe Birthers made  outlandish claims for years that Obama was not born in the United States and  therefore was not eligible to be president. But  suddenly, after nearly four years of his presidency, we discover that for over a  decade and a half Obama’s own publicity bio listed him as Kenyan-born.  Why and how did this happen — given that authors customarily write their own  autobiographies and have annual opportunities to edit them? Did Obama think that  to fudge an identity might make his book on a mixed-race heritage more saleable  in 1991, and then himself more exotic as a state legislator and senator in the  ensuing 16 years — but for some reason not as a presidential  candidate?

What is real and what is not? The Obama “composite” girlfriend who sort of existed and sort of did not? Was there one  Obama named Barry and another who became Barack, one with the middle name  Hussein that was taboo to utter in the campaign of 2008 and another with the  middle name Hussein that after January 20, 2009, was supposed to resonate in the  Muslim world?

One Obama was the constitutional-law professor at the  prestigious University of Chicago; another was a part-time  lecturer who never published and was rarely seen or heard at the law  school. One Obama was a brilliant Harvard Law  Review editor; another never wrote an article. One Obama had the highest  IQ of any entering president and was indeed the smartest man we ever elected  commander-in-chief; another Obama proved it by not releasing his college  transcripts. One Obama is the fittest and most energetic  of recent presidents; another Obama is the most secretive and reluctant about  proving it through the customary releasing of medical  records.

To be fair, Barack Obama wrote a memoir explaining how  he had no identity, given the absence of his father, the serial trips of his  mother, and his need not to be biracial, but sometimes black, sometimes white,  in the manner that he had to be and not to be part of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s  Chicago community, and to vote present in the Illinois state legislature in  order to be for and against what you must be for and against. Dr. Barack and Mr. Obama can both dutifully attend  worship services “every Sunday” at Trinity United Church of Christ and emulate  the pastor’s writing and speaking — and yet only occasionally drop in, to get  married and to hear sonorous platitudes about self-help and  healing.

Is Obama just the usual  chameleon politician? Or is Obama emblematic of postmodern America, where there  is no truth, but, like an Elizabeth Warren or a Ward Churchill, we legitimately  are who we declare we are — and then again are not what we are when we choose  not to be? Or is Barack Obama not a metaphor for much of anything other than the  fact that it is harder to be president of the United States than to be at  Harvard or Chicago Law School, the Illinois legislature or the U.S. Senate,  where everyone declared that you did everything by doing not much at  all?


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


Barack Obama has insulted 38 million Poles with his crass and ignorant 'Polish death camp' remark 


by Nile Gardiner

The Telegraph, U.K.

May 30th, 2012

Barack Obama gaffes again on the world stage


President Obama has a long track record of insulting the Poles. In 2010 he chose to play golf on the day of the funeral of the Polish President Lech Kaczynski, the Polish First Lady, and 94 senior officials who perished in the Smolensk air disaster.  Eight months earlier he humiliated Warsaw by pulling out of the agreement over Third Site missile defence installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. And last night Barack Obama caused huge offence in Poland by referring to a Nazi death camp in Poland as “a Polish death camp” while awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a Polish resistance fighter. As ABC’s Jake Tapper reported:

Poles and Polish-Americans expressed outrage today at President Obama’s reference earlier to “a Polish death camp” — as opposed to a Nazi death camp in German-occupied Poland.

“The White House will apologize for this outrageous error,” Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski tweeted. Sikorski said that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk “will make a statement in the morning. It’s a pity that this important ceremony was upstaged by ignorance and incompetence.”

The president had been trying to honor a famous Pole, awarding a Presidential Medal of Freedom to Jan Karski, a resistance fighter who sneaked behind enemy lines to bear witness to the atrocities being committed against Jews. President Obama referred to him being smuggled “into the Warsaw ghetto and a Polish death camp to see for himself.”

The Obama administration has tried to downplay the incident. According to ABC:

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement, “The President was referring to Nazi death camps operated in Poland. The President has demonstrated in word and deed his rock-solid commitment to our close alliance with Poland.”

Weasel words from the White House will do little however to calm Polish anger. After all, these were carefully scripted remarks by the president reading off a teleprompter. Six millions Poles died at the hands of Nazi Germany during World War Two, including three million Polish Jews during the Holocaust. The president’s use of the term “Polish death camp” is hugely insulting to the Polish people, and will reinforce the growing image across Eastern and Central Europe of an American presidency that cares little for key US allies, especially against the backdrop of its controversial and weak-kneed “reset” policy towards Russia. For a US administration that likes to boast of “smart power,” this was an act of staggering historical ignorance as well as crass insensitivity.

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



Smartest president in history infuriates our allies with talk of "Polish death camps"

In the course of honoring Polish resistance hero Jan Karski, (was born and died as Catholic) President Obama managed to touch off an international crisis by saying, Jews were being murdered on a massive scale and smuggled him into the Warsaw Ghetto and a Polish death camp to see for himself.  Jan took that information to President Franklin Roosevelt, giving one of the first accounts of the Holocaust and imploring to the world to take action.”

It’s rather difficult to imagine Karski barging into FDR’s office and announcing his discovery of “Polish death camps.”

The Poles were understandably furious, with Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski saying via Twitter, “The White House will apologize for this outrageous error.”  That’s pretty much the textbook example of demanding an apology in no uncertain terms.  Sikorski added, “It’s a pity that such a dignified ceremony was overshadowed by ignorance and incompetence.”

No apology was forthcoming, but National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor did offer a clarification, explaining that “the President was referring to Nazi death camps operated in Poland.  The President has demonstrated in word and deed his rock-solid commitment to our close alliance with Poland.”

You see, it’s all the Poles’ fault for misunderstanding The Smartest President In History.  Obama couldn’t possibly be too lazy to develop a serious understanding of Jan Karski or his people.  It’s not as if he just robotically reads whatever appears on his teleprompter while daydreaming about his next fundraiser.

Would it really have been so hard for Obama to personally rush out a sincere apology for his blunder?  What sort of overweening ego is necessary for a man to consider any other course of action at such a moment?  Given the intensity of the Polish reaction, they’re likely to view Obama’s reluctance to take personal responsibility for his statement as salt in their wounds.

For those who think the Poles are over-reacting, imagine Imperial Japan had captured Hawaii during World War II, and some future foreign leader prattled about the “American death camps” established by the occupiers.  To complete the analogy, imagine that America spent five decades after the defeat of the Axis trapped behind the Iron Curtain.  Pretend the ruins of fascism and communism were scattered around your hometown.

For good measure, imagine the foreign leader in question had chosen to shoot a round of golf during the funeral of our President, following his tragic death in an airplane crash, and stripped us of the missile defenses we were promised, famously assuring the Russians that he would be even more “flexible” once he was safely re-elected. 

Oh, and suppose that foreign leader had openly declared war on the religion a good 90 percent of us held, compelling the Church to file dozens of lawsuits to defend its religious liberty.

We’d be a little testy under those circumstances, don’t you think?  Poland deserves much more respect than Barack Obama has been willing to offer.