The “Bin Laden” Endorsement of Obama?

Comments Off

Found this one on the examiner.com…made the hair on the back of my neck stand. It should yours too. This country needs a change in government from the ground up to expunge the corruption that Washington, DC is. Think very seriously about sending Obama or someone who will not change the status quo of present day Washington. Your legacy is worth a lot more.

The Muslim Brotherhood President:

Prior to his election in 2008 and even after his inauguration, President Obama has faced rumor, innuendo and attempts to discover his roots, his past, that he has carefully hidden. No one may ever know whether B. Hussein Obama is eligible to be President, but what the people of America deserve to know is whether or not he was put into office for a purpose and what that purpose is. Never mind the different birth certificates released by Obama, ignore the subterfuge surrounding his not releasing his college transcripts and that no one really remembers him at Columbia University, there is only one way to put those issues to rest and B. Hussein Obama is not willing to produce the documents to do so. All of this leaves Americans wondering, at least until American Idol comes on.

Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Hawaii. There is considerable discussion as to whether “Hawaii” is in reference to the fiftieth state, or to a moment in Kenya when someone held him up and said, “We shall call him Barack and we shall call this place Hawaii”. Either way, he was named Barack Hussein Obama II, after his father. Well, according to his mother. After all, only our mothers truly know who our fathers are. Young Barack, eventually became an adult, as most people do, who manage to get through childhood and not stick a fork in an electrical outlet or anger their fathers such that they die in a tragic hunting accident (But, this is not about my brother, may God bless his soul). During his childhood, his formative years, young Barack became known as Barry (allegedly short for Barack, or in honor of Mr. Manilow), and changed his last name to Soetoro, as he was adopted by his mothers husband of the same last name. It was at this time that Barry enrolled in Occidental College, often referred to as Oxy. After a stint there, that no one knows much about and Barry/Barack, whatever his real name is, left, he found his way to New York City, where he, by his own admittance was homeless and on drugs.

While in New York, young, stoned and with no place else to go, Barry decided that hanging out with a young Pakistani made sense. Barry and this Pakistani traveled to Indonesia to visit some of Barry’s family and from there, he and his male traveling companion, went on to Pakistan. Only Barry Soetoro knows what went on in Pakistan during that visit. However, anonymous sources, within and outside of the military have shared and shed light upon the transformation of Barry Soetoro, homeless drug addict, alleged homosexual and aimless college dropout, to Barackah Hussein Obama, world traveler and now President of the United States of America.

In 2005, the US Military became aware of certain allegations regarding Barack Hussein Obama. An al-Qaeda operative disclosed to an operator within the Military that in 2008 a man named Barackah Obama would be made President of the United States of America. When pressed further, the Jihadist stated that the title “Barackah” and all the power and influence that goes with it, was given to an American, by Bin Laden himself. In 1981 both Osama Bin Laden and Barry Soetoro were in Pakistan. Who vacations in Pakistan aside from a young man who left America as Barry Soetoro and returns Barack Hussein Obama? It isn’t like Pakistan is a vacation hotspot, face it, dirt and outdoor plumbing can be found in much more attractive parts of the globe and without all the Muslims. When the reports were written and moved along to Counterintelligence, they “went straight in the garbage can” said an anonymous source.

In 2005, the US Military Counterintelligence unit had information about a Barackah Obama, who was anointed with the title “Barackah” by America’s number one most sought terrorist and the reports ended up in the trash. The tossing aside of this information occurred well after the Philadelphia Meeting of the Muslim Brotherhood, in America, long after the horrors of September 11th, 2001 and long after the November 2002 letter, from Osama Bin Laden, to the American people and no one in the Counterintelligence Unit thought that something such as this warranted looking into? After all, it is common knowledge (which isn’t so common any more) that the Crusades, all three, were defensive measures, to push Islam back out of Europe, after its encroachment, that the basic tenets of Islam are global domination, wherein all non-Muslims have either converted to Islam, become slaves and pay the poll tax, or are killed and that under Islamic law, Sharia Law, Osama Bin Laden had to offer Americans the chance to willingly convert to Islam and had, in his 2002 letter to America. Counterintelligence personnel were armed with all of this information, or should have been (Did they not hear of this thing called Google, which makes finding things on the internets easier?), and they knew Osama Bin Laden was really named Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden and was a strict Wahhabi Muslim, yet they did nothing.

America now has Barack Hussein Obama as President, a man who was bestowed the title and blessings of “Barackah” upon him, by Osama Bin Laden, in Pakistan, in 1981 and not only is nothing being done about it currently, it could have been prevented. Americans, certainly not the media, have wondered aloud, why is it that B. Hussein Obama has fought releasing his records, his transcripts, how he funded a trip to Indonesia and Pakistan when he was destitute, how he qualified to get into Columbia University, much less Harvard Law School and then have a meteoric rise through the Senate, to be the leader of the greatest nation on earth and now it is known why Barackah has covered his tracks so well during the three years he has spent destroying America. Call it a conspiracy, call it a plot, call it anything you like, but the United States of America is now in a full blown Constitutional crisis and it is time Congress did something about it.

Bill Turner

Pastor/Journalist

First American Patriot Church Radio

Examiner.com

Is America Ready for Civil War?

1 Comment

I haven’t been on a while, because I’ve been watching Mike post great stories for folks to read. Here’s a serious one to ponder. We can continue to squabble about small things, or we can pay attention. Our Republic is at risk, it’s at risk from the left, and it’s a risk from stupid people…plain and simple. Unless heads come up out of the sand…I hope you have plenty of ammo. From Right Side News:

Are Americans Ready for All-Out Civil War?

WEDNESDAY, 07 SEPTEMBER 2011 05:35 JB WILLIAMS

As the political left drives the U.S. economy towards the brink of no return and an increasing number of average Americans find themselves in desperate financial situations, crime is on the rise and social tensions are rocketing towards a historic level in the land of milk and honey.

Yes, I am predicting the Second American Civil War, but only because the political left is working around the clock to incite outright socio-economic and race warfare in America.

» If you like this article, please subscribe to our daily newsletter

Unlike any prior American administration, this one is intentionally destroying what’s left of America’s free-market prosperity and now they are openly calling for all-out war on all patriotic Americans. Obama’s civilian army is ready to roll in the streets of the U.S.A. and as labor union leader Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. put it at a Labor Day weekend rally,“Let’s take these son of a bitchs out!” – telling Barack Obama that “we (labor union members) are your army and we are ready to march.”

President Barack Obama proudly accepts Hoffa’s call for war against the 88% of Americans who do not belong to labor unions.

Days before, leaders of the Democratic Socialist Black Caucus called upon blacks to begin race wars against white Americans in the streets, and make runs on U.S. banks to cause even more economic chaos during the most tumultuous economic time since the Great Depression.

In Cincinnati Ohio, Vice President Joseph Biden spoke to the AFL-CIO referred to patriotic Americans as “barbarians at the gate” and called upon all union thugs to “stand up” against American taxpayers who have been Taxed Enough Already.

Biden claimed that “this is a fight for the heart and soul of the labor movement in America” – and that this is the time for all union thugs to stand a fight against their sworn enemy, the American taxpayer.

Never before in U.S. history has an administration taken such overt actions to create a class/race war in America, using the army they built out of minority groups, without whom, a Democrat Party would not even exist today.

Democrats operating under the Democratic Socialists of America groups, the Black Caucus and Progressive Caucus, led by the Obama administration, have seized total control of the Democrat Party, the White House, the federal legislature and the federal judiciary.

When the group was asked if Democratic Socialism was in competition with the Democrat Party, they responded as follows;

“No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The process and structure of American elections seriously hurts third party efforts. Winner-take-all elections instead of proportional representation, rigorous party qualification requirements that vary from state to state, a presidential instead of a parliamentary system, and the two-party monopoly on political power have doomed third party efforts. We hope that at some point in the future, in coalition with our allies, an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats.”

The Progressive Caucus was formed by proud socialist Bernie Sanders of Vermont and the Black Caucus was formed by proud communist John Conyers of Michigan.

Democrats, funded largely by the international socialist labor movement for decades, destroyed American manufacturing forcing almost all private sector manufacturing jobs off-shore and leaving over sixty-percent of union workers employed in government jobs.

Now that the federal and state budget well has run dry, and the private sector is no longer able to carry the unsustainable weight of government employment, Democrats are calling for all-out war against American taxpayers in a final hour effort to save the labor unions that make the Democrat Party possible.

Over the last five years, since Democrats regained control of the U.S. federal purse strings in 2006, the national debt has sky-rocketed from 64% of GDP to more than 100% of GDP. Black unemployment has doubled to an all-time high and union employment is now almost 100% dependent upon government jobs or government contracts.

Meanwhile, we have only 25% of the nation’s private sector workers paying for an unsustainable level of government, both at the state and federal level. There is no choice but to bust the labor unions that now survive on taxpayer-funded government employment alone, and the grip they hold on Washington DC. The situation is economically unsustainable and Democrats know it. The only nations turning the corner on their economic woes are the nations face this fact.

But without labor unions, there will be no Democrat Party today. So, Democrats are publicly calling for all-out war in the streets in an effort to save the 12% of American workers who wear the union label and fund the Democrat Party.

Are American taxpayers ready for more than café latte rallies and T-Shirt sales at Tea Party conventions that few people can afford to attend anymore? Are they ready for war?

Whether they are ready or not, war is coming to America because the political left will bring class and race war to every street in America very shortly. As Democrats have ground the American economy to a halt, they rally their civilian troops to violence in the streets and they make no apologies for it.

Democratic Socialist messiah Barack Obama is fading fast. His current ratings make Jimmy Carter look both smart and popular. Obama & Co. are following European nations right into the economic toilet, putting the labor movement ahead of American interests in treasonous fashion. But they are not stopping here…

On September 17th, Constitution Day, leftists across the country are planning a “Day of Rage” against free-market capitalism in the streets of New York.

On October 6th, American leftists plan an “Egypt style occupation of Washington DC” aimed at forcing every American taxpayer to accept their international socialist demands or pay the consequences.

Although Obama’s Department of Homeland Security has pre-labeled every American citizen who speaks out in defense of the U.S. Constitution or morality as a “potential domestic terrorist,” it is the Democratic Left who is actually preparing to take their war to the streets of America.

Are Americans ready to defend their way of life at all cost?

They won’t just face Black Panthers and radical labor union thugs in the streets. Over the last few years, Democrats have also worked to increase anti-American sentiments among the radical Muslim community and the illegal immigrant community in America.

Illegal immigrants think they are right to demand full citizenship rights in America, including full voting rights before the 2012 election. Muslims are convinced that they have a right to take over American communities and force Sharia Law in any area they can gain numeric control over, as the Obama administration provides opportunity and cover.

If you think Obama’s Justice Department is going to take any action against any of these anti-American acts, think again. Eric Holder’s department is fully behind this treasonous agenda.

If you think the American press is going to shine a light on any of this, think again. The American press, like American academia, has been in the international socialist bag for decades now. They won’t report on any of this until they are reporting the body bag count in cities across America.

Are Americans really ready to defend the U.S. Constitution and way of life? I see no evidence that they are.

The Tea Party is the most active resistance in America today and they are still busy playing politics, trying to gain a seat at the table of anti-American corruption instead of upsetting the table of political corruption.

Despite years of efforts to educate the masses in America, most Americans remain out of touch with reality, including most in the Tea Party movement, who still think they can stop this massive international movement to destroy America by electing a few more Republicans in 2012.

Let there be no mistake – Americans are already at war for the future of freedom and liberty in America – they just don’t know it yet. And, the enemy is not only within — it is on both sides of the political aisle.

If you don’t believe me, read this Federal Report on Global Governance originated during the Clinton years, but left intact throughout the Bush years.

Whether Americans want war or not, it is coming. The international left has been preparing for this war on Americans for decades and they can smell total victory in the air now. Even the most patriotic American is likely to vote for socialism as opposed to total economic collapse and chaos today.

How many Americans are awake, aware and prepared to defend the American way of life?

Nobody knows the answer to this question and most of the time — we have no idea who is really ready to fight until the fight begins. But any serious resistance is likely to come from the community of more than twenty-five million military veterans, who are coming together with very deep concerns about the true state of our union.

I can only pray that we still have enough true Americans left to defend freedom, because if freedom does not exist in America, it won’t exist anywhere on earth.

If you are not ready for what’s coming, you had better get ready, because it’s coming, whether you are ready or not. And it’s coming very soon! The left will not take no for an answer. The left has us between a rock and a hard place and there is no painless way out of this corner.

Evil unchallenged will prevail every time. Let no evil go unchallenged from this moment forward. We cannot pass this mess on to our children.

JB Williams
Co-Founder
www.PatriotsUnion.org
www.VeteranDefenders.org
www.ThePatriotsNews.com

They Should All Face Impeachment…

Comments Off

 

As Jack Nicholson said whilst playing the Joker…”This town needs an enema!” And this clown needs to go home…

Obama urged to invoke 14th Amendment as debt ceiling deadline nears

‘I believe that something like this will bring calm to the American people,’ Clyburn said.

By JENNIFER EPSTEIN

Rep. James Clyburn and a group of House Democrats are urging President Barack Obama to invoke the 14th Amendment to raise the debt ceiling if Congress can’t come up with a satisfactory plan before the Tuesday deadline.

Clyburn, the third-ranking House Democrat, said Wednesday that if the president is delivered a bill to raise the debt ceiling for only a short period of time, he should instead veto it and turn to the phrase in the Constitution that says the validity of the U.S. government’s debt “shall not be questioned.”

“If that’s what lands on his desk, a short-term lifting of the ceiling, the debt ceiling, he should put it on his desk next to an executive order,” Clyburn said at a press conference. “He should sign an executive order invoking the 14th Amendment to this issue.” The Associated Press reported that he was applauded when he suggested the idea at a caucus meeting earlier in the day.

“I believe that something like this will bring calm to the American people and will bring needed stability to our financial markets,” Clyburn added, noting that President Harry Truman did it once during his presidency after Congress was unable to pass a bill to raise the debt ceiling.

Obama and others in his administration have said they will not rely on the 14th Amendment. At a town hall last week, Obama said that he has “talked to my lawyers” and “they are not persuaded that that is a winning argument.”

But Clyburn and several other liberal Democrats urged the president to reconsider.

“We’re getting down to decision time,” said Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.), the chairman of the Democratic caucus. “We have to have a failsafe mechanism and we believe that failsafe mechanism is the 14th Amendment and the president of the United States.”

Appearing on MSNBC later Wednesday morning, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) suggested that it should be the president’s last resort. “As far as the 14th Amendment is concerned, I urge everybody to get their Constitution and read it. It says the debts of the United States shall not be questioned,” she said.

“If [Republicans] want to make this country a deadbeat nation, this president shouldn’t allow it, none of us should allow it. And I think he should seriously look at whatever options he has.”

 

Let me add this tidbit for you to chew on as well…Obama wants to bypass the Constitution in any way that he can:

Obama tempted to go it alone–if only he could.

July 25, 2011 3:16 PM

ABC News’ Jon Garcia and Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) report:

What do the deficit negotiations and immigration reform have in common?  President Obama says thinks he’d have a much easier time getting what he wants if only he could do it all himself.

“Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting.  I promise you not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works,”

Obama said at the annual meeting of the National Council of La Raza in Washington DC.  “Neither party is blameless for the decisions that lead to our debt, but both parties have a responsibility to come together to solve the problem and make sure the American people aren’t hurt on this issue.”

He reiterated that he is willing to “cut spending that we don’t need in historic amounts … But we can’t just close our deficits by cutting spending. … Not only is it not fair if all of this is done on the backs of middle-class families and poor families, it doesn’t make sense.  It may sound good to save a lot of money over the next five years, but not if we sacrifice our future for the next fifty,” Obama said.

“That’s not who we are, we are better than that … we are people who look out for each other,” he said.

And of course even though Obama was pushing for tax increases for deficit reduction, the plan now being offered by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., contains NO tax increases. And the White House has indicated that the President will sign it.

Obama did not address Republicans in Congress directly on the matter, though before his speech, Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney , posted to his twitter account: “House GOP risks our economy by refusing to compromise. #Speaker walked away twice from fair deals backed by the public. THAT’S indefensible.”

On immigration, the President said he was disappointed that Republicans in the Senate blocked his reform package last year but contended that getting The Dream Act passed  is still the right thing for which to fight.

“It was heartbreaking to get so close and see politics get in the way,” he said.   “They’ve walked away …  So let’s be honest.  I need a dance partner here — and the floor is empty”  leaving the President “enforcing flawed laws in the most humane and best possible way.”

The solution, he said, was to rally the voices outside Washington for change. And to keep the pressure on Republicans, though he didn’t mention them by name.

“This is a city where “compromise” is becoming a dirty word, where there’s more political  upside in doing what’s easier for re-election, what’s easier for an attack ad than what’s best for the country,” Obama said. “The Democrats and your president are with you.  Don’t get confused about that.  Remember who it is that we need to move in order to actually change the laws.”

The Founders would have Shot Him by Now….

2 Comments

Please, tell me this wasn’t spot on  during the campaign cycle of 2006-2008. Who warned you????

31 Foregone Facts Barack Obama Fans Should Ponder!

By Kevin A. Lehmann from catchkevin.com

1. If a previous president had doubled the national debt which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in just one year, would you have approved?

2. If a previous president had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

3. If a previous president would have spent nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus and guaranteed unemployment would not exceed 8%, would you have called him a liar?

4. If a previous president would have played golf for thirteen weekends in a row leaving it up to congressional leaders to deal with the greatest financial crisis since the great depression, would you have considered him disengaged and out of touch?

5. If a previous president had criticized a state law that he admitted to never even reading, would you have thought him an ignoramus?

6. If a previous president had passed an unconstitutional law that would have absorbed 1/6th of the America’s entire GDP, forced Americans to purchase a private product (in violation of the commerce clause), fined them if they didn’t, hired 16,000 new IRS agents to enforce it, and exempted 1400 organizations from having to abide by that new law, would you have thought him a mafia boss?

7. If a previous president joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in America to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you have questioned his patriotism and priorities and wonder who his allegiance was to?

8. If a previous president had pronounced Army Corpsman like you pronounce a dead corpse, would you have thought he was stupid?

9. If a previous president had put 87,000 people out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records because one foreign company had an accident, would you have agreed?

10. If a previous president had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87,000 American workers unemployed would you have supported him?

11. If a previous president had been the first president to need a teleprompter to get through a press conference, would you have thought this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and that he’s really controlled by smarter people behind the scenes?

12. If a previous president had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take his wife to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

13. If a previous president had reduced your retirement plan holdings of GM stock by 90%, given the unions a majority stake in the car maker and shut down 789 perfectly profitable Chrysler dealerships because they were were owned by registered republicans, would you have approved?

14. If a previous president had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

15. If a previous president had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs when Gordon Brown gave him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

16. If a previous president had given the Queen of England an iPod containing audios of his speeches, would you have thought it a proud moment for America, or that a narcissist occupied the White House?

17. If a previous president had bowed to Kings of third world countries while on an apologetic tour, would you have approved?

18. If a previous president had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent “Austrian language,” would you have thought it a minor slip?

19. If a previous president had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who don’t pay their own income taxes, would you have approved?

20. If a previous president had said there were 57 states in the United States, wouldn’t you have been shocked?

21. If a previous president would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out of his front door in his home town, would you not have thought him a conceited, egomaniac?

22. If a previous president had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have not been embarrassed?

23. If a previous president had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day,” would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

24. If a previous presidents’ administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan that caused widespread panic, would you have thought him insensitive and clueless about what actually happened on 9/11?

25. If a previous president had created the position of 45 Czars who reported directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate and usurping the Constitution, would you have ever approved?

26. If a previous president had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

27. If a previous president had spent nearly $2 million dollars hiding his identity all the way back to his childhood, would you have been suspicious?

28. If a previous president had been raised a muslim, spent more time living abroad in Islamic countries than he did in the United States, hung out with terrorists, and attended a hate church for 20 years, would you have not thought him brainwashed?

29. If a previous president had received a Nobel Peace Prize for nothing more than out campaigning his competitors, would you have thought him the laughing stock of recipients?

30. If a previous president had ordered a botched illegal gun running operation that resulted in American arms winding up in the hands of foreign drug cartels who in turn murdered Americans, would he have not had blood on his hands and been ordered to resign?

31. If a previous president had released a fraudulent long form birth certificate and was factually proven ineligible to even be the president whether he was born on American soil or not, would you have not demanded impeachment?

In summary, when you ask Obama to “Barack Your World,” refer to this list and try not to hurl.

Until next time . . . Wake Up America!

Kevin A. Lehmann

Democraps slapped with Point of Order…bet that hurt…

Comments Off

I saw this on both facebook and a blog. It’s good news, but better news would be the Congress brought up on charges of violating the Constitution. In times of the founders, it would have been a treasonable offense. Problem with today’s social government, is we don’t have the cahoney’s to back up the document…

Forty Republican Senators Demand that Democrats Follow the Law

In what may have been a historic vote, forty Republicans voted today to sustain Senator Jeff Sessions’ point of order objecting to the Democrats’ violation of the Congressional Budget Act by passing an appropriation bill when there is no federal budget in place. The Republicans voted for legal process, for transparency and for honesty in budgeting. Every Democrat voted to violate the Congressional Budget Act. Four Republicans who presumably can be counted on to vote for legality were not present.

The implication of today’s vote is that it will be hard for the Democrats to get the necessary 60 votes for cloture on any future illegal spending measures. The federal government has now been operating contrary to law for more than two years without a budget. Is it finally time to say that the Democrats’ feckless, scofflaw ways are catching up with them?

Posted on July 14, 2011 by John Hinderaker in Federal Budget  – Via Powerline at http://bit.ly/qyHwzP

Somehow, our British Friends get it…

Comments Off

From a friend in Facebook…How come other countries can see Obamby for what he his, but we have a bunch of numbbutts who think he’s a rockstar???

Below, from Britain’s Daily Telegraph newspaper! More on our President’s foreign policy.

LONDON DAILY TELEGRAPH Very Embarrassing!

The American people can now more readily “understand” why the Obama’s were omitted from the guest list to the Royal wedding in April! This is a very sobering article. Our handling of relationships with the Britons over the oil spill didn’t help either.

From The London Daily Telegraph Editor On Foreign Relations…
Quote:

“Let me be clear: I’m not normally in favor of boycotts, and I love the American people. I holiday in their country regularly, and hate the tedious snobby sneers against the United States . But the American people chose to elect an idiot who seems hell bent on insulting their allies, and something must be done to stop Obama’s reckless foreign policy, before he does the dirty on his allies on every issue.”

One of the most poorly kept secrets in Washington is President Obama’s animosity toward Great Britain , presumably because of what he regards as its sins while ruling Kenya (1895-1963).

One of Barack Hussein Obama’s first acts as president was to return to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office since 9/11. He followed this up by denying Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on his first state visit, the usual joint press conference with flags.

The president was “too tired” to grant the leader of America ‘s closest ally a proper welcome, his aides told British journalists.

Mr. Obama followed this up with cheesy gifts for Mr. Brown and the Queen. Columnist Ian Martin described his behavior as “rudeness personified.” There was more rudeness in store for Mr. Brown at the opening session of the United Nations in September. “The prime minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure five minutes of face time with President Obama after five requests for a sit down meeting were rejected by the White House”, said London Telegraph columnist David Hughes. Mr. Obama’s “churlishness is unforgivable”, Mr. Hughes said.

The administration went beyond snubs and slights last week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed the demand of Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, a Hugo Chavez ally, for mediation of Argentina ‘s specious claim to the Falkland Islands , a British dependency since 1833. The people who live in the Falklands, who speak English, want nothing to do with Argentina. When, in 1982, an earlier Argentine dictatorship tried to seize the Falklands by force, the British — with strong support from President Ronald Reagan — expelled them.

“It is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history,” wrote Telegraph columnist Toby Young. “Does Britain ‘s friendship really mean so little to him?” One could ask, does the friendship of anyone in the entire world mean anything to him?

“I recently asked several senior administration officials, separately, to name a foreign leader with whom Barack Obama has forged a strong personal relationship during his first year in office,” wrote Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post, on Monday. “A lot of hemming and hawing ensued.” One official named French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but his contempt for Mr. Obama is an open secret. Another named German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But, said Mr. Diehl, ” Merkel too has been conspicuously cool toward Obama.”

Mr. Obama certainly doesn’t care about the Poles and Czechs, whom he has betrayed on missile defense. Honduras and Israel also can attest that he’s been an unreliable ally and an unfaithful friend. Ironically, our relations with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have never been worse. Russia has offered nothing in exchange for Mr. Obama’s abandonment of missile defense. Russia and China won’t support serious sanctions on Iran . Syria’s support for terrorism has not diminished despite efforts to normalize diplomatic relations. The reclusive military dictatorship that runs Burma has responded to our efforts at “engagement” by deepening its ties to North Korea .

And the Chinese make little effort to disguise their contempt for him.

For the first time in a long time, the President of the United States is actually distrusted by its allies and not in the least feared by its adversaries. Nor is Mr. Obama now respected by the majority of Americans. Understandably focused on the dismal economy and Mr. Obama’s relentless efforts to nationalize and socialize health care, Americans apparently have yet to notice his dismal performance and lack of respect in the world community. They soon will.

– London Daily Telegraph editor — Alex Singleton

Obama’s Speech-Was it another Campaign Speech?

Comments Off

Caught this article in the Wall Street Journal. Exact, and on the money. Where were the solutions, and where was the answer to Paul Ryan’s proposal. Even liberal talker Juan Williams said on Hannity that even though he disagreed with most everything in Ryans plan, at least he has stuck his neck out and offered a plan, more than the Democrats when they were in TOTAL control. I can’t post Ryans rebuttal to the speech, but you can see it here:

http://online.wsj.com/video/news-hub-ryan-responds-to-obama-speech/AD1B8959-664B-4531-8931-B304A498EC29.html

The Presidential Divider

 

Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama’s extraordinary response to Paul Ryan’s budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama’s fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.

Bloomberg News

The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.

Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan’s plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. “Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America,” he said, supposedly pitting “children with autism or Down’s syndrome” against “every millionaire and billionaire in our society.” The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.

Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which “starts,” he said, “by being honest about what’s causing our deficit.” The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards.

***

The great political challenge of the moment is how to update the 20th-century entitlement state so that it is affordable. With incremental change, Mr. Ryan is trying maintain a social safety net and the economic growth necessary to finance it. Mr. Obama presented what some might call the false choice of merely preserving the government we have with no realistic plan for doing so, aside from proposing $4 trillion in phantom deficit reduction over a gimmicky 12-year budget window that makes that reduction seem larger than it would be over the normal 10-year window.

Mr. Obama said that the typical political proposal to rationalize Medicare’s gargantuan liabilities is that it is “just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse.” His own plan is to double down on the program’s price controls and central planning. All Medicare decisions will be turned over to and routed through an unelected commission created by ObamaCare—which will supposedly ferret out “unnecessary spending.” Is that the same as “waste and abuse”?

Fifteen members will serve on the Independent Payment Advisory Board, all appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If per capita costs grow by more than GDP plus 0.5%, this board would get more power, including an automatic budget sequester to enforce its rulings. So 15 sages sitting in a room with the power of the purse will evidently find ways to control Medicare spending that no one has ever thought of before and that supposedly won’t harm seniors’ care, even as the largest cohort of the baby boom generation retires and starts to collect benefits.

Mr. Obama really went off on Mr. Ryan’s plan to increase health-care competition and give consumers more control, barely stopping short of calling it murderous. It’s hardly beyond criticism or debate, but the Ryan plan is neither Big Rock Candy Mountain nor some radical departure from American norms.

Mr. Obama came out for further cuts in the defense budget, but where? His plan is to ask Defense Secretary Bob Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen “to find additional savings,” whatever those might be, after a “fundamental review.” These mystery cuts would follow two separate, recent rounds of deep cuts that were supposed to stave off further Pentagon triage amid several wars and escalating national security threats.

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan responds to President Obama’s deficit reduction speech.

Mr. Obama rallied the left with a summons for major tax increases on “the rich.” Every U.S. fiscal trouble, he claimed, flows from the Bush tax cuts “for the wealthiest 2%,” conveniently passing over what he euphemistically called his own “series of emergency steps that saved millions of jobs.” Apparently he means the $814 billion stimulus that failed and a new multitrillion-dollar entitlement in ObamaCare that harmed job creation.

Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the “cost” of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets—and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn’t cover Mr. Obama’s deficit for this year.

Mr. Obama sought more tax-hike cover under his deficit commission, seeming to embrace its proposal to limit tax deductions and other loopholes. But the commission wanted to do so in order to lower rates for a more efficient and competitive code with a broader base. Mr. Obama wants to pocket the tax increase and devote the revenues to deficit reduction and therefore more spending. So that’s three significant tax increases—via higher top brackets, the tax hikes in ObamaCare and fewer tax deductions.

Lastly, Mr. Obama came out for a debt “failsafe,” which will require the White House and Congress to hash out a deal if by 2014 projected debt is not declining as a share of the economy. But under his plan any deal must exclude Social Security, Medicare or low-income programs. So that means more tax increases or else “making government smarter, leaner and more effective.” Which, now that he mentioned it, sounds a lot like cutting “waste and abuse.”

Mr. Obama ludicrously claimed that Mr. Ryan favors “a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history.” Nothing is likelier to bring that future about than the President’s political indifference in the midst of a fiscal crisis.

Definition of GM’s Success

Comments Off

Not sure if you’ve felt it or not, but as long as GM owes me money and the government holds shares, I don’t own a GM vehicle. It’s a personal thing I guess, but I just hate being lied to. From the Washington Times:

Barack Obama: Losing $84 billion big success

Kerry Picket

Barack Obama has some ‘splaining to do about taxpayers’ profitable “investment” in General Motors. It turns out the president is imagining things.

Though Democrats tout the auto bailout as a success, recent reports illustrate the taxpayer cost of the GM auto bailout was substantially larger than the Obama administration and a Congressional Oversight report has owned up to.

“American taxpayers are now positioned to recover more than my administration invested in GM,” President Obama said, according to a piece in USA Today last November. Steven Rattner, former head of the Treasury’s auto task force agreed, telling CNN in November: “Recent progress at GM gives reason for optimism that it may be possible for taxpayers to get every penny back.”

In fact, Investor’s Business Daily reported that even the White House’s Director of the National Economic Council remarked that the Treasury Department Department had a good chance in “recovering most, if not all, of its investment in” GM.

However, a March 16 Congressional Oversight report, tells a different story. It estimates taxpayers will be out of $25 billion. Additionally, the report points out that “full repayment will not be possible unless the government is able to sell its remaining shares at a far higher price.”

That’s only the beginning. Both the White House and the Congressional Oversight report omit the fact that during its bankruptcy, GM got a $45 billion tax break, courtesy of the American people.

GM is driving “away from its U.S.-government-financed restructuring with a final gift in its trunk: a tax break that could be worth as much as $45 billion,” reported The Wall Street Journal last November.

Over one year after  the promises President Obama and his administration made about the auto bailout, a February piece on AutoBlog also confirms that GM will also get a $14 billion dollar domestic tax break:

GM will be able to skip its tax tab due to years of massive losses. Companies are typically forgiven a portion of future taxes due to their past losses, but that benefit is typically stripped after an organization goes through bankruptcy.

However, the Obama administration and its allies presently continue to celebrate the success of the auto bailout, regardless of the facts.  “I don’t think there’s any doubt that this was a success,” said (H/T Detroit News) acting assistant secretary at the Treasury Department Tim Massad, who oversees the TARP program at Treasury, to a House panel on Wednesday.

In Obama’s world, success mean taxpayers only lost as much as $84 billion.

Montana Leans from Left to Stupid..

Comments Off

Nearly 5 years ago, we sat on my radio show and said that if this country were to change, a sleeping giant would have to wake. We the People would have to try to stop it first at the ballot box. The Tea Party was organized from simple meetings across this great country of ours and a fire of freedom was borne to carry that torch. Now, unfortunately, the left leaning social side of the country is fighting back with shouting and name-calling and making comparisons to the peaceful events that conservatives began with the tea party rally’s.  Look what is happening in Wisconsin, Ohio and Indiana. Taxpayers pay for the unionized state workers pensions and insurance.  When the newly elected governors attempt to do what they campaigned to do, they meet this resistance. Immediately the left jumps on it saying that this is not what the country wants. Even Bill O’Reilly, a union member, is doubting.

Well, fellow Patriots, we don’t need to back down. We don’t need to let them remove the vision of taking this country back.  Here is an article about Montana’s governor saying that the Tea Party’s objective is civil war. Don’t let things like this discourage you. Take them for what they are, carpet baggers who don’t want their money machines dismantled. Read carefully what the tea party backed candidates answer with. This government has always belonged to the People, not the congress who disgrace us every time they mutter that they’re working for the People. The lie like a cheap rug…they work for themselves..

This article is from Yahoo News and the AP…obviously who lean to the left. My comments in red:

Tea party vision for Mont. raising concerns

AP

AFP/Getty Images/File – A Tea Party activist prepares for a ‘Get Out The Vote’ rally in Philadelphia. A variety of Tea …
By MATT GOURAS, Associated Press Matt Gouras, Associated Press Thu Feb 24, 5:13 pm ET

HELENA, Mont. – With each bill, newly elected tea party lawmakers are offering Montanans a vision of the future.

Their state would be a place where officials can ignore U.S. laws, force FBI agents to get a sheriff’s OK before arresting anyone, ban abortions, limit sex education in schools and create armed citizen militias. (Notice they say ignore US laws. The only laws that SHOULD BE ignored are the unconstitutional things that these idiots put out. No member of the Tea Party that I know of has ever said ignore the law. They have said “repeal” the law. The 10th Amendment, and state statutes  allows a duly elected Sheriff to be the chief law enforcement officer of the county he is elected in. and yes to the rest, because they are unconstitutional or immoral.)

It’s the tea party world. But not everyone is buying their vision.

Some residents, Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer and even some Republican lawmakers say the bills are making Montana into a laughingstock. And, they say, the push to nullify federal laws could be dangerous. (After reading this story, you decide who is the laughing stock. Do you think that people in 1770 thought that nullifying British rule was not dangerous?)

“We are the United States of America,” said Schweitzer. “This talk of nullifying is pretty toxic talk. That led to the Civil War.” The governor should read his history on the cause of the civil war. One of the main quarrels was about taxes paid on goods brought into this country from foreign countries. This tax was called a tariff. Southerners felt these tariffs were unfair and aimed specifically at them because they imported a wider variety of goods than most Northern people. Southern exporters sometimes had to pay higher amounts for shipping their goods overseas because of the distance from southern ports and sometimes pay unequal tariffs imposed by a foreign country on some of their goods. An awkward economic structure allowed states and private transportation companies to do this, which also affected Southern banks that found themselves paying higher interest rates on loans made with banks in the North. The situation grew worse after several “panics”, including one in 1857 that affected more Northern banks than Southern. Southern financiers found themselves burdened with high payments just to save Northern banks that had suffered financial losses through poor investment.)

A tea party lawmaker said raising the specter of a civil war is plain old malarkey.

“Nullification is not about splitting this union apart,” freshman Rep. Derek Skees said. “Nullification is just one more way for us to tell the federal government: ‘That is not right.”

Some of their bills are moving through the legislature. Others appear doomed: an armed citizen militia, FBI agents under the thumb of the sheriff and a declaration that global warming is good for business.

Whatever their merits, the ideas are increasingly popping up in legislatures across the nation, as a wave of tea party-backed conservatives push their anti-spending, anti-federal government agenda.

Arizona, Missouri and Tennessee are discussing the creation of a joint compact, like a treaty, opposing the 2010 health care law. Idaho is considering a plan to nullify it, as is Montana.

In Montana, the GOP gained a supermajority in the Montana House in last year’s election, giving Republicans control of both legislative chambers. Half of the 68 House Republicans are freshman, many sympathetic to the new political movement.

Over the first 45 days of the new legislature, they have steadily pushed their proposals. Some have moved out of committee.

Examples include a bill making it illegal to enforce some federal gun laws in the state, and another aimed at establishing state authority over federal regulation of greenhouse gasses.

Schweitzer is watching, describing many of the proposals from the new majority as simply “kooky,” such as a plan to make it legal to hunt big game with a spear.

Hardly a day goes by, however, that the merits of “nullification” aren’t discussed.

Proponents draw on Thomas Jefferson’s late 18th-century argument that aimed to give states the ultimate say in constitutional matters and let them ban certain federal laws in their borders.

Supporters are not dissuaded by the legal scholars who say the notion runs afoul of the clause in the U.S. Constitution that declares federal law “the supreme law of the land.” (As agreed on by the varied states in the Constitutional convention. But as issued, states were not robbed of their power and sovereignty with the 10th Amendment. It never was intended that the Federal government would lord over the states, it absolutely intended to PREVENT it. Article 6 merely gives Federal Law the trump card when deciding constitutional issues, it does not abolish state law, nor does it allow Federal enforcement against state law within the state.  Rather than being a mere afterthought, Article 6 plays a major role in defining the relationship between the government of the nation and those of the states. The superiority of the national government has played a crucial role in the shaping and development of a cohesive nation of states, each striving to meet and implement similar goals and policies, but it never intended that the state was subservient, it only bound them all together under a common law. One thing that these “scholars of the constitution” need to remember, it was the STATES who created the Federal Government, not the other way around. It was NEVER the intention to just give up and recreate another monarchy.

Backers of nullification say they can get the federal government to back down off a law if enough states band together against it.

They point to the REAL ID act — a Bush-era plan to assert federal control over state identifications as a way to combat terrorism. The law has been put in limbo after 25 states adopted legislation opposing it.

The nullification debate reached a fever pitch this week when tea party conservatives mustered enough votes in the House to pass a 17-point declaration of sovereignty.

“States retain the right of protecting all freedoms of individual persons from federal incursion,” the measure in part reads. Now, it heads to the Senate, where ardent states’ rights conservatives have less influence and its fate is less certain.

House Minority Leader Jon Sesso stood in the House Chamber, exasperated. He peppered Republicans with questions: Who decides if the federal government is acting unconstitutionally?

“Who among us is making these determinations that our freedoms are being lost?” he asked, an incredulous expression on his face as he eyed the Republican side of the chamber.

Republican Rep. Cleve Loney rose. A man of few words, the tea party organizer replied: “I don’t intend us to secede from the union. But I will tell you it is up to us. We are the people to decide.” AMEN!

The political movement that caught Democrats by surprise at the ballot box also caught them flat-footed at the Legislature.

At first they rolled their eyes, but now they are quickly ramping up their opposition, even recycling a slogan once leveled by conservatives against liberals protesting the Vietnam War.

“I say to you: ‘This is America: Love it or leave it,'” shouted Rep. William McChesney, during the sovereignty declaration debate.

Some Republicans have turned against the more aggressive tea party ideas.

“You are scaring the you-know-what out of them with this kind of talk,” veteran Republican lawmaker Walt McNutt said. “This needs to stop and stop now. Stop scaring our constituents and stop letting us look like a bunch of buffoons.” And fair warning to the RINOS and Republicrats…your day is coming as well if you do not respect the will of the people. Think of who swept into power here. The Republicans were less thought of than the democrats in the polls.

Democrats are resigned to losing many of the votes and in some cases have urged Republicans to trot the ideas out for floor debates for the public to see. And surprised residents are taking notice, especially of the nullification push.

“It would be hard for anyone to top what is going on here in terms of the insanity of it all,” said Lawrence Pettit, a retired university president and author living in Helena. “One could be amused by it, except it is too dangerous.”

Schweitzer, meanwhile, is getting ready for the bills that may arrive on his desk. On Wednesday, he got a new cattle brand from the state livestock agency that reads “VETO.” A branding iron is being made. I guess the people are going to pay for this folly of stupidity too.

“Ain’t nobody in the history of Montana has had so many danged ornery critters that needed branding,” he said.

Jessie Jackson wants a “Take Over”

1 Comment

Real scary stuff…do they think ALL people are sheep?

 

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 396 other followers