Ralph Nader said the Obama administration “jumped like a cat” to crush anyone who threatened to run against their boss for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in 2012. “The retaliation is incredible,” he said.
Last April,the consumer advocate and four-time presidential candidate vowed to organize a slate of 2012 Democratic primary challengers against Barack Obama. Nader hoped as many as half-a-dozen candidates would challenge Obama in the intraparty contests,each raising a separate issue on which the Left feels it has been betrayed. He told The Hill newspaper the Obama administration saw to it that did not happen.
“I hate to say but it’s over,”he told the newspaper. “The minute any name was mentioned…they made the calls.”Nader did not elaborate on the pressure the White House exerted on those who threatened to run against Obama in the primaries.
Currently,the only presidential hopeful following Nader’s model —running against Obama to raise a single issue —is pro-life activist Randall Terry,who is running for president as a Democrat.
Nader,an honest gadfly,stated forthrightly that “Obama should be impeached” in March 2011. Six months later,he reiterated “the only remedy left”for Obama’s violations of the Constitution “is…impeachment.”
However,he is far from the only left-wing partisan who is disappointed with Obama. Last March,Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont,an avowed socialist,said a “progressive”rival would “enliven the debate.”Congressmen Pete DeFazio and Dennis Kucinich agreed a political challenge would strengthen the party’s liberal base.
On the other side of the party’s spectrum,Democratic pollsters Doug Schoen and Pat Caddell have called on Obama to step aside and allow Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2012.
A growing number of Democratic voters favor measures that would effectively guarantee Obama’s defeat – as well as the removal from party leadership of this ObamAlbatross. An Associated Press-Knowledge Networks poll last year found that 47 percent of Democrats “said Obama should be challenged for the 2012 nomination,” although no modern president who faced a primary challenge has been re-elected. That number includes 29 percent of voters who supported Obama during the 2008 primaries. An October WND/Wenzel Poll has found more than one-third of voters on the Left would like to see someone else as their standard bearer in the 2012 presidential election.
Obama’s re-election effort,like the economy,is a media Potemkin village. He faces no primary rivals because his thuggish tactics and political threats crushed the opposition behind the scenes. The unemployed rate has “plummeted”to 8.5 percent,because Obama has shrunken the pool of workers. Everywhere,Obama is keeping up appearances that everything is well,and no one is fooled.
A doctor from Japan says: "In Israel the medicine is so advanced that we cut off a man's testicles; we put them into another man, and in 6 weeks he is looking for work." The German doctor comments: "That's nothing, in Germany we take part of the brain out of a person; we put it into another person's head, and in 4 weeks he is looking for work." A Russian doctor says: "That's nothing either. In Russia we take out half of the heart from a person; we put it into another person's chest, and in 2 weeks he is looking for work." The U.S. doctor answers immediately: "That's nothing my colleagues, you are way behind us....in the USA , about 4 years ago, we grabbed a person from Kenya with no brains, no heart, and no balls....we made him President of the United States , and now....... the whole country is looking for work
President Obama reassured employees at the Environmental Protection Agency Tuesday that he will stand by their work amid growing attacks from Republicans and a decision by the White House last year to scuttle the agency’s smog regulations.
Decorated military veteran and best-selling author Oliver North tells Newsmax that, with the recently announced cuts to the U.S. military, the Obama regime is looking like the “Jimmy Carter administration on steroids.”
North also asserts that President Obama’s efforts to deal with the growing Iranian threat have been an “abysmal failure” and warns that Israel will not “sit idly by and wait to be incinerated” by Iranian nuclear weapons.
Read more on Newsmax.com: Oliver North: Obama Has Made US a 'Hollow Threat' Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!
The phrase “Let them eat cake” is attributed to Marie Antoinette. It is claimed to have been said by her during one of the famines that occurred in France during the reign of her husband Louis XVI. Upon being alerted that the people were suffering due to widespread bread shortages, the Queen is said to have replied, “Then let them eat brioche.”[1]
You’ve heard, or maybe you haven’t, the Obamas threw an extravagant Alice in Wonderland-theme party. Here’s how the New York Post reported the story:
A White House “Alice in Wonderland” costume ball — put on by Johnny Depp and Hollywood director Tim Burton — proved to be a Mad-as-a-Hatter idea that was never made public for fear of a political backlash during hard economic times, according to a new tell-all.
I don’t care if the President and his family have a party. But I resent being lectured by the president that businesses are not doing enough to employ people and aren’t sharing in the sacrifices that less fortunate Americans have had to endure.
The word “hypocrisy” comes to mind. If tax money was spent, I’m ticked off. If private money was spent, I’m still ticked off. Why didn’t the president appeal to the people putting on the party to spend the money to help families that lost jobs or couldn’t make a house payment? Tim Burton and Johnny Depp are one-percenters.
You know very well that if George Bush had put on such a bash that it would have been leaked to the media and the former president and his wife would be shown dressed in costumes made to look like King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, the king and queen of France during the time of the French Revolution.
The book The Obamas by New York Times correspondent Jodi Kantor
reveals how any official announcement of the glittering affair — coming at a time when Tea Party activists and voters furious over the lagging economy, 10-percent unemployment rate, bank bailouts and Obama’s health-care plan were staging protests — quickly vanished down the rabbit hole.
“White House officials were so nervous about how a splashy, Hollywood-esque party would look to jobless Americans — or their representatives in Congress, who would soon vote on health care — that the event was not discussed publicly and Burton’s and Depp’s contributions went unacknowledged,” the book says.
Calls for “fairness” and “shared sacrifice” roll off the tongue of the righteously indignant while they live a life of ease at the expense of their subjects. They believe that they are not bound by the rules that we must follow. They are special.
It’s a shame that the Black community of voters don’t see through this, but they haven’t for a long time. They’re used to so-called Black leaders living off their hardships. What has Obama done for Blacks? Only made them more dependent on government. Notes: 1.is a highly enriched French pastry [↩]
Michael Hastings' new book, The Operators, jabs at what could be a vulnerable spot for the Obama Administration, the president's relationship with the troops. The book describes a visit to Baghdad:
After the talk, out of earshot from the soldiers and diplomats, he starts to complain. He starts to act very un-Obamalike, according to a U.S. embassy official who helped organize the trip in Baghdad. He’s asked to go out to take a few more pictures with soldiers and embassy staffers. He’s asked to sign copies of his book. “He didn’t want to take pictures with any more soldiers; he was complaining about it,” a State Department official tells me. “Look, I was excited to meet him. I wanted to like him. Let’s just say the scales fell from my eyes after I did. These are people over here who’ve been fighting the war, or working every day for the war effort, and he didn’t want to take f***ing pictures with them?"
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." Plato
I get tired of all the mail stating the Prez hasn't accomplished anything. An impressive list of accomplishments!
· First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
· First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
· First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States
· First President to violate the War Powers Act. .
· First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .
· First President to defy a Federal Judge's court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
· First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
· First President to spend a trillion dollars on 'shovel-ready' jobs when there was no such thing as 'shovel-ready' jobs.
· First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
· First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat. .
· First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.
· First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
· First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.
· First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
· First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
· First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
· First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
· First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
· First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
· First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
· First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office. .
· First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.
· First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
· First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
· First President to go on multiple global 'apology tours'.
· First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends; paid for by the taxpayer.
· First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
· First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
· First President to repeat the Holy Quran tells us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
· First President to take a 17 day vacation.
So how is this hope and change working out for you?
Gallup released their annual state-by-state presidential approval numbers yesterday, and the results should have 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue very worried. If President Obama carries only those states where he had a net positive approval rating in 2011 (e.g. Michigan where he is up 48 percent to 44 percent), Obama would lose the 2012 election to the Republican nominee 323 electoral votes to 215.
Gallup adds:
Overall, Obama averaged 44% job approval in his third year in office, down from 47% in his second year. His approval rating declined from 2010 to 2011 in most states, with Wyoming, Connecticut, and Maine showing a marginal increase, and Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Jersey, Arizona, West Virginia, Michigan, and Georgia showing declines of less than a full percentage point. The greatest declines were in Hawaii, South Dakota, Nebraska, and New Mexico.
“And so, when the choices that are put before us today are dangerous ones because if we choose this path of pitting people against each other, if we buy into this notion that our economy really can’t grow fast enough for all of us to prosper so we’re going to have to somehow empower government to distribute the wealth of this country among us, we’ve chosen to become like everybody else. We’ve chosen to become like the countries that your parents and grandparents came here to get away from. And that’s a powerful message. And that’s the message that we need to deliver. And that’s the message we need to work on delivering. It’s a winning message.”
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 02-03-2012).]
Should President Barack Obama secure a second term as president it will “break the back of the Second Amendment” and excise the right to bear arms from the Constitution, the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre tells Newsmax.TV.
The executive vice president of the NRA, in an exclusive interview at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, said the GOP candidates for president are all solid in their support of the Second Amendment.
“People have to keep in mind out there that if President Obama gets one more term it will break the back of the Second Amendment in this country,” LaPierre said. “He is out to erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights, excise it from the Constitution of the United States. This is the most dangerous election of our lifetime if you are a supporter of the Second Amendment. And the truth really is if he gets reelected we will go to our grave mourning the freedom that will be lost.”
When asked if there was any legislation in Congress that concerned him, LaPierre said, “I worry every day.
“I spent 30 years looking around corners spotting threat and not being spun and the fact the NRA has done that is why we still have our freedoms the way we do today. They could have all been lost like England, Canada and Australia.” On other issues, LaPierre said:
--That trying to get information out of the White House and the Justice Department in the Fast and Furious congressional investigation was like “pulling teeth.” He said the administration “concocted a scheme” to prove that drug cartels were getting guns from the United States in order to pass more gun legislation.
--That gun ownership was at an all-time high “because Americans love their freedom. It’s one of the great benefits of American freedom, that law abiding people in this country can protect themselves. It’s one of the strengths of our country.”
--That “the Second Amendment is a metaphor for freedom. You’re not free if you can’t protect yourself.”
Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”
Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.
In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.
“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”
In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the U.S. military, Panetta said, “Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”
“Well, I’m almost breathless about that,” Sessions responded, “because what I heard you say is, ‘We’re going to seek international approval, and then we’ll come and tell the Congress what we might do, and we might seek congressional approval.’ And I just want to say to you that’s a big [deal].”
Asked again what was the legal basis for U.S. military force, Panetta suggested a NATO coalition or U.N. resolution.
Sessions was dumbfounded by the answer.
“Well, I’m all for having international support, but I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “They can provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”
The exchange itself can be seen below:
(click on link at the beginning to see video)
The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Almost every week brings a new reason for the United States House of Representatives to bring impeachment charges against President Obama. The question of the day is not why he should be impeached but why it hasn’t already been done.
This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations. This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.
Well, really, folks: Is Obama’s disregard of the Constitution really news? No. He has done it so many times it doesn’t make news anymore. Democrats approve it and Republicans in Congress appear to accept it – not all Republicans, of course, but far too many.
The list of Obama’s constitutional violations is growing by the day and ought to be the topic of not only nightly news commentary but citizens’ town-hall meetings and protest rallies.
President Obama can only be emboldened by the lack of impeachment proceedings. His violations typically arouse a short-lived tempest among some conservatives, yet impeachment is not generally advocated by his critics as a realistic recourse. That must change.
That Obama can be voted out of office in eight months is not a reason to hold back on impeachment. Formal impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives would help alert the nation’s 120 million likely voters that more is at stake in Obama’s power grabs than Syrian human rights and contraception subsidies for college students.
The grounds for House impeachment proceedings have been laid by Obama’s own actions. A list of his unconstitutional and illegal actions would embarrass any honest public official and makes Nixon’s Watergate cover-up look like a college fraternity house panty raid.
Obama’s policy on the use of military force abroad raises grave issues – both policy issues and constitutional issues. When Defense Secretary Panetta tells a Senate committee he will rely on NATO and the U.N. for “permission” for use of military force, that is an affront to and direct assault on the Constitution.
Those Panetta statements propelled Rep. Jones to introduce a House resolution stipulating that any use of military force by the president without an act of Congress, except to repel a direct attack on the United States, is an impeachable offense under the Constitution.
But this is only the latest Obama assault on the Constitution. There are many other examples of Obama’s disregard for constitutional limitations to his power. •Obama violated the Constitution with his “recess appointments” while the Senate was not in recess. It is up the Senate to decide when it is in recess, not the president. That distinction between executive and legislative authority is what the Separation of Powers doctrine is all about. •Obama is an obvious participant and co-conspirator in Eric Holder’s approval and later cover-up of the illegal “Fast and Furious” gun-walking program. Unlike the Watergate case, people have actually died as a result of this illegal program. •Obama undoubtedly has knowledge of and has approved Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano’s project to require Border Patrol management to falsify apprehension numbers on the southwest border. This is a clear violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which requires the federal government to protect the country against foreign invasion. •The president’s open refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act is a violation of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which does not authorize the president to choose which laws to “faithfully execute.” The oath taken by a new president on Inauguration Day does not say, “… to defend the Constitution of the United States… to the best of my ability except when I disagree with it.” •Did the president violate the law when he instructed Labor Secretary Solis to negotiate agreements with foreign governments to expand the “labor rights” of illegal aliens?
The precedent of Clinton’s impeachment over his perjury in the Monica Lewinsky case established the principle that the legal definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is what Congress wants them to mean. Have Obama’s actions met the constitutional standard for impeachment? Absolutely, yes.
Unless the House of Representatives acts to begin impeachment proceedings against this bold usurper, we are headed for dictatorship. Either the Constitution limits the president’s powers or it does not. If it does, Obama must be impeached for his actions. If not, then a dictatorship is not only inevitable, it will be upon us soon.
Ever since President Barack Obama forced the illegal and unconstitutional Affordable Care Act upon the American people, I’ve heard many citizens calling for his impeachment, but Congress failed to act until now. With only eight months left before the November general election, is it too little too late?
A resolution of impeachment (House Concurrent Resolution 107) has finally been introduced into the US House of Representatives, but not for the reasons you might have expected. Introduced by Rep Walter B Jones, Jr (R-NC), charges the president with violating the US Constitution by using offensive military force without the authorization of Congress. When Obama sent US forces into Libya, he did so without the authorization of Congress and according to Jones, this is “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.”
Jones cites Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution which says,
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
… To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
Jones’ resolution of impeachment may have been spurred over comments made this past week by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to the US Senate Committee on Armed Services on the current situation in Syria. When asked by Sen Sessions about the issue of legal permission to send US troops into action in Syria, Panetta tells him that he would first get international permission and then inform Congress of their plans.
At the end of his response, Panetta states that the US Constitution gives the president the power to defend the country from invasion. I just finished reading Article 2 of the US Constitution three times and nowhere does it state that the president has the power to declare war or to send troops into action. The only reference to the military mentioned in Article 2 is found in Section 2 which states,
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”
Yes, it says that he shall be Commander in Chief, but no one seems to notice that is says, “when called into the actual Service of the United States.” Everyone assumes that the president is automatically the Commander in Chief, but he isn’t. It’s only when he is called to such and the only one that can call him is Congress. Without Congress’s call and authorization, the Constitution says that president actually has no say over the military and therefore has no legal means of sending them into action.
I can only hope and pray that this aspect of the Constitution is brought up in the impeachment proceedings, if they happen.
But is this too little too late? Impeachment proceedings takes months and there is only 8 months left to the general election. The only real advantage of impeachment at this point in time would be to prevent Barack Hussein Obama from serving a second term.
“The Road We’ve Traveled” is an Obama campaign short movie — or alternatively dubbed “docu-ganda” — that, to many, is a stunningly fawning 17-minute account of what the filmmaker posits are the president’s myriad “accomplishments” during his first term.
“Remember how far we’ve come,” opens director Davis Guggenheim’s film. Guggenheim, of course, made waves recently when he asserted that the only “negative” about President Obama is that he has too many positives.
But where does the title and theme for Obama’s mini propagandist piece hail from? Glenn Beck went digging and thinks he might have found the answers in a book from 1942.
First, a recap of the film. From the movie’s YouTube page:
This film gives an inside look at some of the tough calls President Obama made to get our country back on track. Featuring interviews from President Bill Clinton, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Elizabeth Warren, David Axelrod, Austan Goolsbee, and more. It’s a film everyone should see.
For reference, “The Road We’ve Traveled” is featured below in its entirety.
During his Monday morning radio broadcast, Beck reiterated an important observation he made last Friday, and discussed the uncanny resemblance Obama’s movie bears to a book titled, ”The Road We Are Traveling 1914-1942.”
Written by FDR-admirer Stuart Chase, the book focuses on America once it has dispensed with free enterprise entirely. Chase wrote that while he could call this new society “communist, state capitalist, or fascist,“ he preferred the more ambiguous ”Political System X.”
But who is Stuart Chase?
According to historical records, Chase was an American economist and MIT-trained engineer whose writings covered topics running the gamut of semantics to the economy. His mindset was said to have been shaped by Fabian socialism and he was an open admirer of the planned economy of the former Soviet Union. Chase’s early political career advocated birth control and socialism, to name a few.
Often credited with being the originator of the term “New Deal,” a glimpse at a closing quote from his book by the same name just might reveal this author’s mindset: “Why should Russians have all the fun remaking a world?”
Stuart Chase
Beck mapped out “Political System X’s” main characteristics: •A strong centralized government •An executive arm growing at the expense of the legislative and judicial arm •Control of banking, credit and security exchanges by the government •Underwriting of employment through armaments or by public works •Underwriting of Social Security by the government •Underwriting of food, housing and medical care by the government •Use of deficit spending to finance underwritings •Abandonment of gold in lieu of managed currency •Government control over trade, natural resources, transportation, agricultural production, organized labor unions, and youth corps-enlistments, to name a few •A youth and people dedicated to the ideology of government authorities •Heavy taxation of estates and incomes of the wealthy •State control over communications and propaganda
Chase wrote that if executed correctly, the ship could not be veered off its course once en route.
For Beck, “the road we are traveling” is not only the embodiment of the Obama administration and every goal it is realizing, but is “yet another knife in the back of anyone who doesn’t know [the history]… and a wink to anyone who does.”
Watch Beck, Pat and Stu discuss this eerily foreboding book as it relates to the current administration:
But where has Obama really taken us? Watch the GBTV clip below to find out:
Click on the link to see the videos.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 03-20-2012).]
I am a special education teacher working with the most challenging students in my school district. I spend my professional life fighting for my students and against the odds they face for failure. You are a part of our community and here is what I have to say to you and your family:
Thank you for your work around insuring millions of Americans.
Thank you for the payroll tax deduction — it does make a difference. Please keep fighting for all us middle-class Americans.
Thank Michelle for her hard work on the food pyramid, as it reflects how we should be working towards health and how we inspire our students to improve their health.
Thank you for demonstrating what American family values are really about — you and Michelle are role models in my mind.
Thank you for caring about women’s health.
Thank you for taking a stand and saying that you represent most of America rather than the top 1 percent.
Thank you for keeping your lovely daughters in school and out of the limelight — it is what they deserve.
Thank you for participating in the basketball bracket — I always come in last in my pool and I know it is too late to learn from you this year.
Thank you for the last four years of hope, not fear and hate. This is the gift I would like to bestow on my child.
Lastly, you are most welcome to come to my house for dinner if you have the time.
Last summer, a brief stir was caused when a book published by New York Times reporter Janny Scott uncovered an uncomfortable fact about President Obama: He had been lying about his mother’s health insurance problems. During the 2008 campaign and throughout the subsequent debate over his signature health care legislation, the president used his mother’s experience as a cancer patient fighting to get coverage to pay for treatment for what her insurer said was a pre-existing condition as an emotional argument to sway skeptics. But as Scott discovered during the course of writing her biography of Anne Dunham, A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother, it turned out that her correspondence showed that “the 1995 dispute concerned a Cigna disability insurance policy and that her actual health insurer had apparently reimbursed most of her medical expenses without argument.”
At the time the White House chose not to dispute Ms. Scott’s findings. But apparently the Obama campaign thinks the public’s memory is mighty short. As Glenn Kessler writes today in the Washington Post’s Fact Checker column, the president’s much ballyhooed campaign biography film “The Road We’ve Traveled,” narrated by Tom Hanks repeats the same line that Scott debunked. Though the film’s script tries to avoid repeating the president’s false claims from 2008, as Kessler says, any reasonable person would infer from the movie that the president’s mother died because her insurance was denied.
As Kessler notes, the filmmakers were aware of the fact that the president had been caught in a lie about his mother’s insurance but were determined to get this story into the film without exactly repeating his mendacious statement:
We think there are few viewers of this film who would watch this sequence and conclude that Dunham was involved in anything but a fight over health-insurance coverage. … The filmmakers must have known they had a problem with this story or else they would have recounted it as Obama had done in the 2008 campaign, using phrases such as “pre-existing conditions,” “health insurance,” and “treatment.”
Instead, they arranged the quotes and images to leave a misleading impression of what really happened.
President Obama’s willingness to falsify the facts about a personal tragedy in order to make a political point speaks volumes about not only his cynicism but also his character. It’s important to remember that this is no misunderstanding but rather a bald-faced lie. Here’s what Obama said during one of his debates with Republican opponent John McCain:
For my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.
It is true that Ms. Dunham did have a separate dispute about disability insurance but this had nothing to do with pre-existing conditions. Nor did it affect her fight for her life. And given that her son acted as her attorney, there’s no doubt he was not ignorant of the truth of the matter.
President Obama never apologized for his original lie. He just assumed, rightly it turns out, that even though this whopper was uncovered by the New York Times, neither that paper nor the rest of the liberal mainstream media would pursue the matter further as they almost certainly would (and should have) had his Republican predecessor been found out in a similar matter. Thus encouraged, he has now repeated the falsehood, albeit artfully recast in an attempt to avoid blame.
Having won election and then rammed his ObamaCare bill through Congress in part on the strength of this false argument, he has doubled down on it with the lie now coming from the lips of American’s favorite everyman, actor Tom Hanks as well as in edited clips of interviews with the president and his wife. Kessler gives the performance three out of a possible four Pinocchios on his scale of accuracy. This seems a bit generous but the point is that the story proves that Obama is willing to do and/or say anything, even lying about the death of his mother, in order to gain an advantage. That he thinks repeating the lie will help him get re-elected says a lot about what he thinks of the intelligence of the American people and the integrity of the press that failed to vet him the first time around.
Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies (Crossroads GPS) launched a new national TV commercial decrying President Barack Obama's failure to hold down energy prices, even as he seeks what it calls untested and naïve policies.
Crossroads GPS, a grass-roots advocacy group that Republican strategist Karl Rove conceived, is rolling out the $650,000 ad buy on national cable and local broadcast network in three markets where the president is pitching his energy plan this week: Albuquerque, N.M.; Columbus, Ohio; and Las Vegas.
"Instead of delivering practical solutions to make energy more affordable, President Obama is pursuing restrictive and naïve policies that are hurting families at the pump and in their utility bills," said Crossroads GPS President Steven Law. "There are plenty of supply-boosting solutions Obama could adopt immediately, but he remains obsessed with impractical sideshows like algae and Solyndra business schemes."
The commercial, which also is available in a longer form as a Web ad, urges viewers to contact the White House and Congress to advocate a market-driven energy policy.
Obama has taken several aggressive steps to limit energy production, including blocking offshore oil exploration, restricting the development of American oil shale, and personally lobbying against the Keystone XL pipeline, Crossroads GPS says.
If you go to Calle Ocho in Miami, and in particular the restaurant Versailles, at certain times in the day you can find a large group of Cubans passionately discussing politics. They lived communism first hand. Many were jailed fighting Castro. Many have friends and relatives who were killed and persecuted. Their stories need to be heard. Here are the first of a series I will be presenting to you. Miami is my hometown and I was born in 1959, right when communism invaded Cuba. My childhood was saturated with the knowledge that my friends and neighbors came to my free country to escape the terror of communism. These Cuban friends see this freedom they risked their lives for disappearing, with the growth of government, especially in the Obama administration. I share their concern. This evil must be stopped.
My Cuban friend told me that when Castro took over, religion was outlawed, Christians were jailed, freedom of speech - gone, and this is how the kindergarten children were brainwashed: they were told to bow their heads, close their eyes and ask God for candy, when they opened their eyes, there was no candy there, then they were told to bow their heads and ask Castro for candy, when they opened their eyes there was candy there.
This is the welfare state Obama is trying to create. He is rewarding welfare recipients and punishing the working middle class with regulations, fees and fines. The first step in stopping this is being aware of it.
The Quote of the Decade:* “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” *~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006* ****
The Quote of the Decade:* “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America 's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” *~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006* ****
*Pass it on 'till eternity..* ****
OF COURSE. When those same overspending were being done by REPUBLICANS, it was a problem. When the Dems took over, and TRIPLED the problem, suddenly it was OK.
SEOUL, South Korea - At the tail end of his 90 minute meeting with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev Monday, President Obama said that he would have "more flexibility" to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense, but incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him "space." The exchange was picked up by microphones as reporters were let into the room for remarks by the two leaders. The exchange: President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space. President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you… President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility. President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir. When asked to explain what President Obama meant, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes told ABC News that there is room for the U.S. and Russia to reach an accommodation, but "there is a lot of rhetoric around this issue - there always is - in both countries. A senior administration official tells ABC News: "this is a political year in which the Russians just had an election, we're about to have a presidential and congressional elections - this is not the kind of year in which we're going to resolve incredibly complicated issue like this. So there's an advantage to pulling back and letting the technical experts work on this as the president has been saying." -Jake Tapper
Despite campaign promises to refrain from using executive powers to bypass Congress, President Barack Obama is increasingly doing just that, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.
From helping rebels in the Libyan revolution to granting states waivers from the No Child Left Behind education act, Obama is finding it easier to push his agenda without asking for approval from elected senators and representatives, the paper said.
And that is not sitting well with either Republicans or Democrats who are keen to defend their own turf against what they see as an overreaching executive.
“When he ran for president, Barack Obama promised to roll back President George W. Bush's use of executive power, a defining point of the Bush presidency,” Laura Meckler wrote in the Journal piece. “The pledge was part of a broader pitch about Mr. Obama's governing style, which he said would focus on solving problems in a pragmatic, cooperative way.
“The allure of executive power, it turns out, is hard to resist,” Meckler added. “Most every chief executive has found ways to escape the shackles of the legislature and expand the power of the presidency. Three years into his first term, Mr. Obama has developed his own expansive view of going it alone, asserting new executive powers and challenging members of Congress in both parties.”
White House counsel Kathy Ruemmler told the Journal that Obama has developed a broadr view of executive power since his days as a U.S. senator. "Many issues that he deals with are just on him, where the Congress doesn't bear the burden in the same way," she said. "Until one experiences that first hand, it is difficult to appreciate fully how you need flexibility in a lot of circumstances."
The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn’t like the Obama’s? Specifically I was asked: “I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama’s? It seems personal not policy related. You even dissed their Christmas family pic.” The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation.
I’ve made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don’t like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.
I don’t hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same Michelle Obama’s raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.
I don’t like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagans made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?
Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama’s have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry and they display an animus for civility.
I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able too be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites, because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.
I have a saying, that “the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide.” No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed. And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother’s death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father’s military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nauseum.
He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He has fought for abortion procedures and opposed rulings that protected women and children, that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel.
His wife treats being the First Lady, as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement – as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.
I don’t like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.
Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their playing the race.
It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.
As I wrote in a syndicated column titled “Nero In The White House” – “Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood…Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America’s people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.” (WND.com; 8/8/11)
Oh, and as for it being personal, you tell me how you would feel if a senator from Illinois sent you a personally signed card, intended to intimidate you and your family. Because you had written a syndicated column titled “Darth Democrat” that was critical of him. (WND.com 11/16/04)
"The first president in American history to have never passed a budget during his presidency, since the very first budget was passed in 1789."
Funny how no one in the news is really talking about this. It's INSANE to me, how all of the Democrats on this message board are so vehemently against Bush, and yet Obama is STILL... STILL using the same budget that Bush passed in September of 2008.
To add to this, Obama had a super majority from 2009-2010 in which he could have easily passed a budget with no effort whatsoever.
The Republicans have proposed multiple budgets, some of which the Democrats have said they would vote for if brought to the table in the senate, but Harry Reid tables it so it never comes to vote. Then Obama proposes a budget, and not a SINGLE member votes for it... not even ONE DEMOCRAT... they all vote against it, unanimously...
Hello it very frustrating to me and my friends that he could very well be re-elected. What is it that he has done that would have people say I want four more years. What positive accomplishment has he done, killing Osama Bin Laden, is that it, thats all, thats his JOB.
This is one reason Obama may win. Van Jones: Obama Wouldn't Lose Black Vote Even If He 'Came Out As Gay' http://www.huffingtonpost.c...riage_n_1399970.html It has been said that there is nothing he could do to lose their support.
Here is another email I received.
quote
The Mess and how Obama inherited it. This tells the story, why Bush appeared so bad at the end of his term .
Don’t just skim over this, it’s not very long, read it slowly and let it sink in . If in doubt, check it out!!! The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress . The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995 . For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this: January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress . At the time: The DOW Jones closed at 12,621 . 77 The GDP for the previous quarter was 3 . 5% The Unemployment rate was 4 . 6% George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH Remember the day . . .January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee . The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy? BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES! Unemployment . . . to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES! Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy . And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? OBAMA And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress So when someone tries to blame Bush . .
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007 . . . . THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!" Budgets do not come from the White House . They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party . Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 &2011 . In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases . For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office . At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets . And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009 . If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets . That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending . After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets . If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself . In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th .
Alice Palmer, the avowed communist who helped launch Barack Obama’s career, continues to haunt Obama even today.
In 2008, Palmer showed up at the Democratic National Convention in Denver as a Hillary Clinton supporter, still resentful toward Obama for knocking her and three other candidates off the ballot for an Illinois state Senate seat some 13 years earlier by challenging voter signatures.
“The Democratic primary, what I witnessed, was one of the most appalling, disgusting things I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” Hollywood-based digital photographer Michele Thomas told WND in a joint interview with Hollywood film producer Bettina Viviano.
Thomas began as a volunteer for the 2008 Clinton campaign then launched a petition drive when she learned the Democratic National Committee was not going to allow delegates to cast their votes for Clinton at the convention.
“I just felt like the entire process was being eviscerated and rules were being changed all along to ensure that no matter what, Barack Obama was the nominee,” Thomas said.
“And I felt compelled to take a stand to have the process in which we decide who our candidates are that we vote for be upheld,” she said. “And that the peoples’ votes are held up from the ballot box to the convention where the delegates bring those votes forward.”
Thomas said she received death threats as she gathered the 300 signed and notarized petitions required by Democratic National Convention rules to prompt a count of votes for Hillary Clinton on the first ballot.
Knowing how Obama had defeated Palmer in his first election campaign in 1996, Thomas required the delegates who signed the petition to notarize their signatures on two copies. One copy was sent to a Post Office box and the other brought to the convention in Denver.
Thomas said she did it “so there was no way the DNC or the Obama campaign, his lawyers, could knock my signatures off this petition.”
Thomas took three months off work to conduct the petition drive, foregoing considerable income.
She explained why she did it and why she is speaking out about it now.
“I’m a little scared right now, there’s no doubt about it,” she admitted, “but at some point in your life, if you are fortunate enough, you are faced with the decision of doing something bigger than yourself.”
As WND reported, the charges of Thomas, Viviano and others connected to the 2008 campaign are now being investigated by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, which is probing Obama’s eligibility for Arizona’s 2012 ballot.
Help Sheriff Joe blow the lid off Obama’s fraud. Join the Cold Case Posse right now!
‘Bare-knuckle’ politics
In 1995, Obama saw his opening to run for elected office when Palmer decided to give up her state Senate seat and run for Congress in a special election.
In 1986, as editor of the Black Press Review, Palmer was the only African-American to cover the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in Moscow.
She went out of her way to make Obama her handpicked successor.
To get Obama’s state Senate race off to a good start, Palmer arranged a function to be held for a few influential liberals in the district at the Hyde Park home of Weather Underground founders Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
It’s not likely Palmer would have selected Obama to be her successor in the Illinois Legislature or have introduced him to the Hyde Park political community at the Ayers-Dohrn home unless she saw an affinity between Ayers and Dorhn’s radical SDS Weather Underground history and her own history of openly professed communism and Obama.
After Palmer stepped aside for Obama to take her seat, she suffered an unexpected electoral defeat in the November 1995 Democratic Party primary. She came in a distant third, behind Jesse Jackson and Emil Jones Jr., a power-wielder who would become Obama’s mentor after Obama was elected to fill Palmer’s seat.
After losing the special congressional election, Palmer reversed her decision and decided she wanted her Illinois Senate seat back.
Palmer supporters asked Obama to step aside, but he refused and decided to challenge Palmer’s eligibility for the ballot using what the Chicago Tribune described as the “bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics.”
Obama hired a fellow Harvard Law School alumnus to challenge the legitimacy of the signatures Palmer received on petitions to qualify for the ballot.
Once he set on the strategy, Obama kept challenging petitions, until he succeeded in getting all four of his Democratic primary rivals forced off the ballot, enabling him to run unchallenged.
Viviano described Obama’s strategy in defeating Palmer in 1995 as a betrayal.
“Alice Palmer was his mentor who had asked Bill Ayers to throw that coming-out party for Obama,” she explained.
Thomas said she met Palmer in person at the 2008 convention in Denver.
“I actually had my petitions in my backpack,” Thomas remembered. “I walked right up to her and I said, ‘Alice Palmer, you have no idea how you have affected my life and what I’ve just done.’”
Thomas explained to Palmer how she designed her petition to make sure Obama could not get lawyers to disqualify her signatures.
“I had every single one of these petitions notarized because I know what happened to you,” Thomas told Palmer upon meeting her in Denver. “I have them in my backpack right now. Do you want to see them?”
Palmer said yes.
“She started going through them, and she got tears in her eyes when she saw that they were notarized,” Thomas recalled. “She said, ‘Oh my God, This is what I should have done, this is what I should have done.”
Thomas told Palmer that the only reason she got her signatures individually notarized was to prevent the Democratic National Committee or the Obama campaign from throwing out her signatures to disqualify the petition.
“This was all because of what [Obama] did to all of his challengers,” Viviano stressed. “It just was outrageous to disqualify these people that way. This is how moral and ethical our so-called president is. His own mentor, who went out of her way to support him in his career – he turned around with a knife and put it in her back and had her challenged off the ballot in a way that was so amoral and unethical, and she became a Hillary supporter.”
Thomas remembered that Palmer pulled her aside at the Denver presidential nominating convention and told Thomas that she wanted to tell her a story.
Palmer explained to Thomas that after Obama’s lawyers disqualified her signatures in 1996, she spent the next few months walking door-to-door making sure her signatures were valid.
“She said every single one of them was correct, and they should have not been knocked off,” Thomas said.
Thomas recalled that Palmer wanted to have dinner with her that night. But the person who introduced her to Palmer later called and said that the dinner was off because Palmer had been threatened.
Viviano shared Thomas’ outrage.
“America doesn’t do scared like that,” she insisted. “This is a First Amendment country, freedom of speech and now, all of a sudden, there are people cowering in the corner that are afraid to tell the truth about things.
“This is like living under Chavez or Castro,” she said. “It’s ridiculous.”
With his approval ratings below 50 percent as an election looms, Congress gridlocked over his economy-destroying budget proposal and the prospect that his signature piece of legislation — Obamacare — is likely to get thrown out as unConstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, President Barack Obama and his minions have ratcheted up their tried and true modus operandi: thuggery.
This has long been common practice for Obama. His career was launched from the home of a convicted terrorist. His parents, friends and key influencers were socialists and communists. It is who he is.
Obama was first elected as a U.S. Senator from Illinois only after he and chief operative David Axelrod arranged to have the sealed divorce records of Obama’s opponents unsealed: first Democrat primary opponent Blair Hull’s, then Republican Jack Ryan’s.
Polls showed Hull enjoyed a healthy lead over Obama as late as one month before the primary. But then The Chicago Tribune — Alexrod’s former employer — began publishing stories accusing Hull of violent behavior in his marriage and claiming that an ex-wife had sought a protective order during their divorce. Finally, Hull and his ex-wife agreed to have the records unsealed; and another ex-wife, their children and a number of Hull’s acquaintances denied Hull was violent. But Hull’s poll numbers began to tank and Obama won the primary.
In the general election Obama faced Jack Ryan, husband of actress Jeri Ryan. During a child custody dispute some years prior to the election, Jeri Ryan had claimed that Jack Ryan made her accompany him to swingers clubs in New York and Paris. Axelrod obtained “leaked” copies of the couple’s Chicago divorce records and then The Tribune sent lawyers to California to request the sealed child custody case records be unsealed. Over the objections of both Ryans, the judge released the records. Shortly thereafter, Jack Ryan withdrew from the race.
During the 2008 Democrat Presidential primary, Obama operatives intimidated Hillary Clinton supporters and engaged in improper and possibly illegal activities to win the nomination, according to a former Clinton campaign worker. Michelle Thomas told WND that she received death threats and was called a racist for opposing Obama. She also accused the Obama campaign of stealing caucuses by throwing away votes and intimidating people trying to enter the caucus locations.
Thomas also believes the Obama campaign is behind the death of Arkansas Democratic Party Chairman Bill Gwatney, who was shot in his office days before the Democratic National Convention by Timothy D. Johnson, who was then killed by police after a car chase. The day before he was shot, Gwatney and Thomas had agreed that Gwatney would find a superdelegate from the Arkansas delegation to introduce a petition to have Clinton’s name placed in nomination for President.
Another Clinton supporter Thomas met with about introducing the petition, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, died mysteriously the next week.
“We found it quite a coincidence that Bill Gwatney was killed the day after we talked with him,” Thomas told WND. “And just a few days later that Tubbs Jones died suddenly of an aneurysm, after she had agreed to introduce our petition.”
Hollywood film producer Bettina Viviano told WND that she heard Bill Clinton say on a conference call during the 2008 primary that he believed Obama was ineligible to be President, and that he was prepared to go public with the information until Gwatney was murdered.
According to Viviano, a campaign staffer who was close to Hillary Clinton said Bill Clinton received a message after Gwatney’s death: “Shut up, Bill, or you’re next.” But Clinton, who was a friend of Gwatney’s, intended to speak out anyway until he received another message: “OK, it’s your daughter, now, we’ll go after.”
After receiving the threats directed toward Chelsea Clinton, Bill Clinton never said anything else about it, Viviano told WND.
The Obama Administration used thuggery to defeat a Texas bill that would have kicked the Transportation Security Administration out of the State’s airports, ignored a judge’s order over offshore oil drilling permits and used intimidation to call the media off the story regarding Obama’s forged birth certificate and Selective Service registration form.
The Obama Justice Department is also reportedly set to sue Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Ariz. Arpaio is investigating whether Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service registration are forgeries and is also trying to find other missing Obama documents that would prove whether Obama is a U.S. citizen.
Obama’s comments on the Trayvon Martin shooting were designed to inflame an already volatile incident that already had race hucksters stoking a racial fire. His comments had the intended effect. Since then, there have been several incidents reported of blacks attacking whites in the name of Martin.
Now, with his freedom- and America-destroying Marxist agenda getting pushback from an awakening American populace, Obama is at it again. He’s taking on the Supreme Court.
During a press conference last week at the White House, Obama said:
We are confident that this will be over – that this will be upheld. I’m confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. Again, that’s not just my opinion. That’s the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors, academics and judges… Ultimately, 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. I guess I would remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. For an unelected group of people to somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law is a good example of that, and I’m pretty sure this court will recognize that and not take that step… With respect to health care, I actually continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. The reason is, in accordance to precedent out there, it’s constitutional.
Obama is channeling his inner FDR. As President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt sought — with some success — to intimidate the Supreme Court after it began striking down sections of the New Deal by threatening to pack the court with more justices who would be favorable to New Deal legislation.
New Deal proponents accused the court of being obstructionist and political. That’s essentially Obama’s argument. He may also be laying the groundwork to ignore the court’s order. It wouldn’t be first time the Obama Administration had ignored a court’s order, and it wouldn’t be the first time a President had done so.
In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln ignored an opinion by Chief Justice Roger Taney that Lincoln had no lawful power to suspend habeas corpus. So if Obama does ignore the Supreme Court, he’ll be channeling his inner Lincoln.
But even more troubling is that in saying that the Supreme Court’s striking down of Obamacare would be unprecedented, Obama is just lying. It’s a wonder his pants aren’t on fire.
As a so-called “Constitutional scholar,” Obama has to know that the court has overturned laws passed by “a democratically elected Congress” 165 times (click here and see page 201). And it doesn’t matter whether the law was passed “by a strong majority” (although only in Obama’s mind is 219-212 partisan vote a strong majority), that doesn’t exempt it from judicial review.
“That the Supreme Court would declare as unconstitutional congressional ‘laws’ which illegally violated the Constitution was one of the benefits of the Constitution, which the Constitution’s advocates used to help convince the People to ratify the Constitution,” writes David Kopel in The Volokh Conspiracy. “In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton explained why unconstitutional actions of Congress are not real laws, and why the judiciary has a duty to say so… Because Hamilton was the foremost ‘big government’ advocate of his time, it is especially notable that he was a leading advocate for judicial review of whether any part of the federal government had exceeded its delegated powers.”
Obama’s actions make clear the reasons the Founding Fathers inserted the phrase “natural-born citizen” into the Constitutional requirements for President. They wanted a President who was loyal to “these United States” and the Constitution.
But Obama sees the Constitution and the rule of law as impediments to his Marxist, America-destroying agenda. He rose to the office like a Mafioso don. His political career was born in the home of convicted terrorist Bill Ayers (Obama’s mentor who also wrote Obama’s “biography” and says he wakes up every morning thinking he’s going to end capitalism and goes to bed every evening disappointed that he didn’t). Obama was fed from the pulpit of the racist preacher Jeremiah Wright. And rose to prominence with the help of a complicit — even sycophantic — mainstream media, with which he now enjoys a carrot-and-stick relationship.
If he came to power like a don, it should come as no surprise he is governing (or ruling, according to Valerie Jarrett) like one as well.
About $500 million is being diverted — outside the normal appropriations process — to the Internal Revenue Service to help implement President Barack Obama's healthcare law, The Hill reports.
The IRS is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate, which calls for the IRS to administer subsidies to help low-income people pay for insurance, which are set up as tax credits. The healthcare law also includes a slew of new taxes and fees, some of which are already in effect, including fees on drug companies and insurance policies, The Hill reports.
Republican lawmakers have tried to cut off funding for the healthcare law, at least until after the Supreme Court decides on the issue, expected in June.
“While President Obama and his Senate allies continue to spend more tax dollars implementing an unpopular and unworkable law that may very well be struck down as unconstitutional in a matter of months, I’ll continue to stand with the American people who want to repeal this law and replace it with something that will actually address the cost of healthcare,” said Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee for healthcare.
The law gives the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a $1 billion implementation fund to use at its discretion. Republicans have called it a “slush fund.” About half half will go to the IRS; almost $200 million has been transferred to the tax agency in the past two years, with more than $300 million expected this year, according to figures provided to The Hill by a congressional aide.
The Government Accountability Office has said the transfers are legal and consistent with how agencies have used general implementation funds in the past.
This is from a former Chicago lawyer now practicing law in Tyler, TX. This is legit. I checked it out myself at https://www.iardc.org Stands for Illinois Attorney Registration And Disciplinary Committee. It's the official arm of lawyer discipline in Illinois; and they are very strict and mean as . (Talk about irony.) Even I, at the advanced age of almost 65, maintain (at the cost of approximately $600/year) my law license that I worked so hard and long to earn. Big surprise. Former Constitutional Law Lecturer and U.S. President Makes Up Constitutional Quotes During State Of The Union (SOTU) Address. Consider this: 1. President Barack Obama, former editor of the Harvard Law Review, is no longer a "lawyer". He surrendered his license back in 2008 in order to escape charges he lied on his bar application. A "Voluntary Surrender" is not something where you decide "Gee, a license is not really something I need anymore, is it?" and forget to renew your license. No, a "Voluntary Surrender" is something you do when you've been accused of something, and you 'voluntarily surrender" your license five seconds before the state suspends you. 2 Michelle Obama "voluntarily surrendered" her law license in 1993. 3. So, we have the first black President and First Lady - who don't actually have licenses to practice law. Facts. Source: http://jdlong.wordpress.com...-has-no-law-license/ 4. A senior lecturer is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is another. Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago. 5. The University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) "served as a professor" in the law school-but that is a title Obama, who taught courses there part-time, never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008. 6. "He did not hold the title of Professor of Law," said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law. Source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/s..._hold_the_title.html ; 7. The former Constitutional Senior Lecturer (Obama) cited the U.S. Constitution the other night during his State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence .... not the Constitution. 8. The B-Cast posted the video: http://www.breitbart.tv/did...ion-of-independence/ 9. Free Republic: In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal. 10. Um, wrong citing, wrong founding document there Champ, I mean Mr. President. By the way, the promises are not a notion, our founders named them unalienable rights. The document is our Declaration of Independence and it reads: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. 11. And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court moments later in the same speech? When you are a phony it's hard to keep facts straight. Keep this moving - educate others. In doubt? check it out through the sources provided "Life's tough... it's even tougher if you're stupid" - John Wayne
