The Department of inJustice sent armed agents into two Gibson Guitar factories in Tennessee in 2010 and 2011. They seized ebony wood that Gibson uses to make their guitars. In news articles about the case, the US DOiJ is quoted using words along the lines of Gibson “acknowledged,” “admitted to,” “possible illegal purchases.”
Violations to the Lacey Act. Reports were that Gibson Guitars imported illegally obtained, protected wood from Madagascar and India. Indian and Madagascar officials claimed Gibson did not violate any of their countries’ laws, but the Department of inJustice raided Gibson based on their own interpretation of foreign laws – that international laws may have been violated. Yet, even after two years, they haven’t pinpointed any international law that Gibson actually violated. Instead, the DOJ argues that Gibson violated what sounds like a clerical error – “an inappropriate tariff code on wood from India.” Andrea Johnson of the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) said that “it’s not up to Gibson to decide which laws… they want to respect.”
Upon the settlement, U.S. Attorney Jerry Martin said, “The agreement is fair and just in that it assesses serious penalties for Gibson’s behavior while allowing Gibson to continue to focus on the business of making guitars,”
Watch the language in mainstream news articles about this. Watch how and what they quote from federal officials in this case. The spin has been blatantly anti-Gibson. NBC’s article made it sound like Gibson was charged and found guilty of a crime. The ABC News headline read “Gibson Guitar Violates Environmental Law” even though the statement from Gibson only said that they settled with the DOJ because a trial would have cost them millions. Hardly an admission of guilt.
In the ultimate irony to conclude this case, the settlement allows Gibson to continue sourcing rosewood and ebony from India as it has for decades. After police-state raids over a clerical issue, it was such a deplorably heinous crime that they can still do it. Must not have been as heinous as selling raw milk. Another case of the Department of inJustice arbitrarily enforcing our nation’s laws for direct persecution of American businesses.
From Wild Bill’s mission statement: I “To support and encourage the Tea Party and other conservative Americans because they are the people who will guard America’s freedom and heritage, ensuring that the United States will continue to be the greatest nation in history.”
Secret Service Agents
Thelma Taormina, 9/12er
A Harris County woman pulled a gun on a CenterPoint Energy worker to prevent the installation of a smart meter in a confrontation that highlights concerns about the devices being used to spy on Americans’ energy use, as well as possible health impacts.
55-year-old Thelma Taormina has signs posted on her front gate warning utility employees not to trespass on her land, as well as another that reads, “No smart meters are to be installed on this property.”
However, that didn’t stop a CenterPoint Energy worker from attempting to replace Taormina’s old electricity meter with a new device that wirelessly beams back information on each home’s energy use to a central hub.
When the worker began physically pushing Taormina out of the way in an effort to install the smart meter, Taormina drew her gun and demanded the worker leave the property .
Smart Meters Public Meeting, at 10 a.m. Tuesday, Aug. 21, 2012, in Austin, Texas, at the Public Utility Commission:
On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., the Public Utility Commission of Texas will hold a Public Forum in this project. The Forum will be open to the public and will be held in the Reagan Building (please note the change of venue) located at the corner of l5th Street and Congress. Parking is available on the street, at the Capitol Visitors Parking Lot (at the corner of 13t” Street and Trinity) and at the Bob Bullock History Museum Parking Garage (at the corner of 181h Street and Congress).
A Final Agenda with details and speakers will be filed in PUC Project 40190 no later than Monday, August 20th. If you would like to speak at this Forum, we request that individuals indicate intent to speak in advance. Staff has set up an email address for issues relating to the Public Forum. The email is meterforumgpuc.texas. gov.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully fulfill the duties of which I am about to enter to restore this nation to the Republic as it was founded:
People seem to either absolutely love Glenn Beck or absolutely hate him. Of those who know of him, there don’t seem to be many who don’t have some passion for the man either way. Personally, I had never even heard of him before 2008. The first time I looked up his shows was in 2010 after arguing with a few Liberals online who accused me of “watching too much Glenn Beck,” of being a “Glenn Beck sheep,” and of “blindly” following him. Yet, I had never even seen his show or heard his radio program.
Back then, he was still on Fox, and he was planning his Restoring Honor rally in DC, which I had the privilege to attend. (Special thanks to Jim Cross with RWB for bringing me to that rally for the launch of our site.) It was amazing how many people traveled across the country to stand in that park and listen to a few speakers talk about honor, character, and God.
They gave tribute to our veterans and our troops, and had some excellent speakers at the event. It was a wonderful experience, just being with so many like-minded people who are concerned for the future of our country. We didn’t stay still or lay down a blanket or chairs at Restoring Honor. It was approximately three hours of speakers, and we were moving the whole time. We started out at the Washington Monument, and over the course of those three hours, we made our way in a complete circle around the mirror pool, behind the stage at the Lincoln Memorial, and back to the Washington Monument. The crowd was unbelievably dense, but for how packed in we were, everyone was friendly and considerate. I have never seen that many people that tightly packed in with that many smiles and “excuse-mes.” They were friendly, accommodating, and clean. I didn’t see a single piece of trash on the ground when we left the national mall.
The atmosphere among the people at both of Glenn Beck’s events reminded me of the Tea Party rally we attended earlier that year in Grapevine, Texas. They all had the same camaraderie among the attendees. We were just so happy to be there and to see that we were not alone. That there are hundreds of thousands of Americans willing to travel across the country and say, “Enough.” Enough lies. Enough secrets. Enough back-room deals. Enough corruption. Enough of ignoring the Constitution and the American people. We were just happy to be a show of bodies at that point.
Restoring Honor was not really a protest, and neither was Restoring Love. Everyone followed Beck’s request, and there wasn’t a single attendee carrying a sign at the events.
Although at Restoring Honor in DC, five or six anti-Glenn-Beck demonstrators showed up to protest the event. We were just getting back to the back of the crowd at the end of the mirror pool and heading across the street towards the Washington Monument to come full circle when these people approached. They were just beginning their circle through the crowd when we passed them. They were carrying signs that said: “Beck Fuels Terrorism,” “Beck Your Show incites hate and fear,” and then another one that said “I’m Brown and A U.S. Citizen- Why are you so scared of me?”
Even if those signs applied in any way to Beck’s show, and I doubt they did, they were completely irrelevant at Restoring Honor. They had no place there. They were nothing but rabble-rousers trying to create a problem where there was none. Trying to instigate hate to fit their narrative. When we saw them, they were just approaching the crowd, and we collectively laughed. That’s just how silly and out of touch their signs were. They passed through the crowd chanting at people who repeated “God bless yous” and “I’ll pray for yous” at them as they passed. What a backfire for the haters and a victory for Glenn Beck’s crowd.
I’ve had several people ask me what Restoring Love was like. I was not present at enough of the events to give a full perspective on it. However, watching only the climax of that weekend made me very thoughtful, not only about society in general, but also about my own individual contributions. Of course, it was about restoring love, a spirit of service, a call to act, a call to return to morality and godly values, not as a government, but as a nation of people, of individuals, taking care of each other. It seemed to be an exercise in building better citizens.
Glenn Beck takes a lot of criticism for these rallies from more than just the political haters. I had a Christian friend on Facebook who told me that Glenn Beck is leading Christians astray. That Beck’s a Mormon, not a Christian, and therefore is somehow subverting Christianity. At neither Restoring Honor nor Restoring Love could I find any contradiction to Scripture in either event. Glenn Beck is not a preacher. He is not leading a church. He’s a talk-show host who is mobilizing Americans to act – in positive ways in our individual daily lives, as well as together as communities.
I understand why the left would despise Glenn Beck, but I’m often shocked to hear the criticism Glenn Beck takes from the right as well. People are suspicious of him, while he’s no different than Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart in the respect that he’s an entertainer in politics with a large audience. The main difference among the three hosts is that Glenn Beck mobilized tens of thousands of people all around the Dallas-Fort Worth area to donate money, time, and service to this community and several others.
How has Jon Stewart motivated his following? What has he motivated them to do? He held a Restoring Sanity rally where a few hundred people showed up to mock Glenn Beck, as if protesting Honor proves you are Sane. But I don’t recall any reports of Jon Stewart’s sarcastic rally feeding hungry people, rebuilding churches and businesses, or even taking any stands for the good of this nation. Jon Stewart restores cynicism, sarcasm, and once in a while humor, but he is completely ineffective in any other respect to serving this country or the people in it. No one criticizes talk-show hosts who accomplish nothing more than entertainment. Why would they criticize a talk-show host for motivating his base to accomplish acts of kindness and charity? It seems that the problem with Glenn Beck is that he is effective at motivating his base to act.
Restoring Love:
Approximately 70,000 people attending in Cowboys Stadium.
35,000 showed up for their community service day to rebuild and clean up parks, work for local churches and food banks, and other charitable projects.
1 million meals in food donations that will benefit 11 cities in this country.
Held in conjunction with the Freedomworks FreedomPAC conference, there were 3 days of events, a woman’s conference, a religious conference, a community service day, and then the last day was the keynote speech of the weekend. Attending the keynote speech on Saturday was one small portion of the weekend, but is easy to see that Glenn Beck is simply blowing the whistle on some long-time societal problems in this country and actively trying to change our direction — from complete cultural, moral, and economic decimation to the self-reliant, charitable brotherhood of a nation.
Benny@TheBlaze said: 10 communists defecate in a park&media call it a profound movement-50,000 Godfearing citizens gather to celebrate USA-ignored #restoringlove
Michael Duncan Tweeted: #RestoringLove is proof that the greatest organizing force for good is the voluntary association of free people.
D.R. Berry tweeted: The media might ignore #RestoringLove, but America still gets it. We are awake. We are watching. We are ready. #tcot@GBTV
Liberals called for a boycott of Chick-Fil-A after their president Dan Cathy made some pro-traditional family comments in an interview that had nothing to do with gay marriage. Conservatives have rallied behind the company in response. They planned a Chick-Fil-A appreciation day, Wednesday, Aug. 1, when they had record sales as a result.
Even before that, I had dozens of friends post that they went to Chick-Fil-A, posted pictures of their meals and comments that they couldn’t find a parking place. It seems the silent majority took this as a challenge.
One reason is because people recognize that Chick-Fil-A is being bullied for having an opinion that doesn’t fit today’s mainstream political correctness. I have friends who completely disagree with Chick-Fil-A about the issue of gay marriage, but even they rallied behind the company and stood in line for waffle fries. Not because they agree with the stance, but because they recognize that Dan Cathy and his business organization have a right to their own opinions on the matter.
But there is also another matter that ignited this fire of rebellion in Americans, driving them to Chick-Fil-A that fateful Wednesday. It was just one small way the average American could be heard. Whether it’s a Glenn Beck rally, eating at Chick-Fil-A, or attending a protest, Americans are looking for a way to act. We want to be heard. We’re tired of being ignored by our elected officials, tired of being ignored and vilified by the media, tired of watching this unwanted fundamental change in the wrong direction. We are looking for a way — any way — to be heard. So much so that we will patronize a company we might not even agree with just to make a stand that the media The Left cannot deny.
“We don’t claim to be a Christian business,” Cathy told the Biblical Recorder in a recent visit to North Carolina. He attended a business leadership conference many years ago where he heard Christian businessman Fred Roach say, “There is no such thing as a Christian business.”
“That got my attention,” Cathy said. Roach went on to say, “Christ never died for a corporation. He died for you and me.”
“In that spirit … [Christianity] is about a personal relationship. Companies are not lost or saved, but certainly individuals are,” Cathy added. “But as an organization we can operate on biblical principles. So that is what we claim to be. [We are] based on biblical principles, asking God and pleading with God to give us wisdom on decisions we make about people and the programs and partnerships we have. And He has blessed us.”
And the marriage thing?
The company invests in Christian growth and ministry through its WinShape Foundation (WinShape.com). The name comes from the idea of shaping people to be winners. It began as a college scholarship and expanded to a foster care program, an international ministry, and a conference and retreat center modeled after the Billy Graham Training Center at the Cove.
“That morphed into a marriage program in conjunction with national marriage ministries,” Cathy added.
Some have opposed the company’s support of the traditional family. “Well, guilty as charged,” said Cathy when asked about the company’s position. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. …
“We are very much committed to that,” Cathy emphasized. “We intend to stay the course,” he said. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.”
…
Thus, the author of the original Biblical Recorder story, K. Allan Blume, has since noted:
During a call-in radio interview Thursday (July 19) with WORD-FM in Pittsburgh, K. Allan Blume described his conversation with Chick-fil-A’s Dan Cathy as “very positive,” unlike how it is being portrayed in a variety of news reports. …
Many of those reports “turned [the original story] into a negative,” said Blume, adding the term “anti-gay” never came up in the June interview while Cathy was speaking in the Raleigh, N.C., area.
“He was not saying ‘guilty as charged anti-gay,’” Blume added. “[Cathy] never even brought up that subject. Everything he stated was on the positive side … He never stated anything negative.”
We undoubtedly have power as consumers with where we spend our money. Should that power be used to punish the thoughts and charitable donations of a businessman for taking a moral stand?
We’ve got bridges and roads in need of repair and thousands of people in need of work. Why aren’t we rebuilding America? Our competitors are putting people to work, building a future. China invests 9% of its GDP in infrastructure. America? We’re at just 2.4%. We can do better. We can build a foundation for a strong new economy and get people in MA to work right now. I’m Elizabeth Warren and I approve this message. Let’s go to work.
China has indeed invested in their infrastructure. They’ve built entire cities of expensive town homes, shopping malls, and government buildings that stand empty.
The Ghost Cities of China:
For the past four years and the last two elections the voters have heard about the terrible state of our infrastructure from Democrat politicians and how investing in our infrastructure will solve our economic problems. Through six years that Democrats have been in control of the American purse strings, with trillion-dollar annual deficits, an additional $6 trillion in debt, and they have yet to improve our infrastructure. Infrastructure has become an empty campaign promise.
You didn’t build that follow up: Adding a couple of sentences to the context, CBS fails at speech analysis by ignoring the entire point of the statements that “you didn’t build that on your own.” The point of the whole “it takes a village” nonsense is to convince you that you should want a tax increase in a stagnating economy: http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cbs-defends-obamas-you-didnt-build-remarks-invokes-it-takes-village
The media sucks the worst during elections
Is there any reason to read Newsweek anymore? “Mitt Romney and The Wimp Factor, Is he just too insecure to be president?” by Michael Tomasky. Compare Romney’s cover story to Obama’s, when the headline was: “Why are Obama’s critics so dumb? By Andrew Sullivan, on The Man With the Plan.” http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cnn-hypes-dying-newsweeks-liberal-slam-romney
The media would rather talk about Romney’s business record at Bain than talk about the damage that Obama is doing to our laws and our economy on a daily basis. While they were focusing on Obama’s smear campaign about Bain, Obama gutted welfare reform with another executive action that bypasses Congress and our representation: http://twitchy.com/2012/07/13/surprise-while-lapdog-media-focused-on-bain-obama-gutted-welfare-reform-law/
While Obama counts his multi-millions from his book sales, he is trying desperately to paint Romney as the evil rich guy. At a campaign stop in Pittsburgh on July 6:
Obama’s been outspent before:
“You know what, I might be worried about all this money being spent if it wasn’t for my memories of previous campaigns. That first campaign I ran, that last campaign I ran in 2008, I’ve been outspent before,” Obama said at a campaign event in Pittsburgh on Friday afternoon.
According to ABC, not only did Obama raise more money than McCain by a huge margin, he outraised both George W. Bush and John Kerry’s combined 2004 total.
“The truth is you can’t believe a word of what the man says, because he thinks you are as disconnected from the real world as he is, and so can be easily deceived.”
Let’s think about this now, how did he try real hard to reach across the aisle and what did he “try real hard” to do? He proposed budgets to Congress that increased spending, bailouts, and stimulus beyond the much-blamed G.W. Bush. He refused to cut the budget unless Republicans agreed to raise taxes. Never mind that Republicans were specifically put into office in 2010 on the promise to their constituents that they would not raise taxes. He laid down ultimatums to demand representatives raise taxes, despite what their constituents, the American people, voted for them to do.
Today, he seems to think he’s reaching across the aisle again by his proposal to only let some of the Bush tax cuts expire, i.e. he’s compromising by raising taxes.
Obama’s proposed tax hike – in letting some of the Bush tax-cuts expire – will see taxes go up for at least 620,000 small businesses in America by Obama’s own estimates. Republicans estimate that the tax increase will actually hit 940,000 small businesses in America.
At least 620,000 small businesses would see their taxes go up if President Obama’s plan to to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 goes into effect, according to statistics based on the White House’s own estimates.
President Obama is hoping to minimize the PR fallout from his proposal to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for high earners, noting in remarks Monday that some 97 percent of small businesses – many of which file under the individual tax code – would not be affected.
Obama Monday suggested that the number of small businesses affected was trivial and consistent with his intent not to raise taxes on small business:
Most people agree that we should not raise taxes on middle-class families or small businesses — not when so many folks are just trying to get by . . . The proposal I make today would extend these tax cuts for 97 percent of all small business owners in America. In other words, 97 percent of small businesses fall under the $250,000 threshold. (Applause.) So this isn’t about taxing job creators, this is about helping job creators. I want to give them relief. I want to give those 97 percent a sense of permanence.
What this obscures is that more than 99 percent of all businesses in America qualify as small businesses, so even a minor percentage is a huge number.
The White House later released information stating that 2.7 percent of small businesses would take a hit on their taxes. According to the Small Business Administration, there are 23 million small businesses in the United States, so 2.7 percent would amount to 621,000 of them.
This is if you accept Obama’s math. Republicans are suggesting that some 940,000 small businesses would be affected by Obama’s tax proposals.
Let’s remember when Democrats were in control of both houses of Congress for Obama’s first two years in office. Obama proposed his Cap & Trade legislation. His Democrats in control of Congress wouldn’t pass it. So, he enacted what he could through the EPA. Obama proposed his DREAM Act legislation. His Democrats in control of Congress wouldn’t pass it. So, he enacted what he could through ICE policy, adding some 800,000 undocumented workers to our hurting job market. Obama proposed his so-called “Affordable Health Care Act.” They managed to pass this one. But ironically, even though Democrats had a majority of both houses of Congress yet again, Democrats had to purchase their own party’s votes in order for ObamaCare to pass. They had to make backroom deals and load the health care bill full of pork to make it happen. They had to buy their own party’s votes. Yet, Obama is still touting that Republicans are obstructing his governance. The biggest obstacle Obama has faced yet is his own party. He’s hoping your memory is as short as his, and you won’t blame him for his own policies. In all reality, even with a majority in the House for the past 18 months, Republicans have done little to stop his agenda, because he’s enacting it through executive branch bureaucrats.
I would absolutely agree with President Obama that he’s ‘tried real hard’ on a lot of things. Three and a half years into his presidency, he’s tried to fleece voters into believing that all of his economic problems were ‘inherited’ from his predecessor; he’s tried to blame the Republican House for frustrating his efforts to pass more progressive legislation, despite the fact that Americans voted overwhelmingly in 2010 specifically to thwart any more attempts at ObamaCare-ishness and DoddFrank-ery; he’s tried real hard to “invest” not-his-money into politically-favorable pet projects; nor should we forget that he’s also tried real hard at improving his golf game and constantly campaigning. And maybe he really does believe that the big-government, central-planning agenda that he’s tried so hard to implement can bring about the booming economy we’re all waiting for — but it demonstrably has not.
Unfortunately for President Obama, this is America — and in America, we have winners, and we have losers. There’s success, and there’s failure. There’s no “A for effort,” no participation award, no “Most Improved” accolade — especially not when you’re the President of the United States and your actions unilaterally affect hundreds of millions of people’s daily lives. “Trying” is not “doing.” President Obama has had a ‘fair shot’ at fixing things, and he has failed to do so — it’s time to give somebody else a try.
I will give Obama this much: He has “tried real hard” to fundamentally change the United States of America. That he has. And it’s time for him and his Democrats to own this bad economy.
Interesting to see the media spin one interview:
Debbie Whatshername Schultz appeared on Fox News Sunday. She had 10 full minutes to spew talking points, and anchor John Bolton shut her up a few times, countering her talking points with uncomfortable facts. He stuffed her pretty well on a few points. What’s been pulled out of this interview in blogs was two tiny clips. The general interview was the DNC and the RNC debating the economy.
The Washington Examiner posted a summary of the two points that were pulled out of the interview. DNC Chair ‘pretty happy’ with the economic recovery, with a follow-up paragraph about her dig at Romney’s traveling dog, which The Examiner called a “veiled shot” at Romney. There was nothing veiled about it. It was a direct, blatant shot at Romney: http://washingtonexaminer.com/dnc-chair-pretty-happy-with-the-economic-recovery/article/2501560?custom_click=rss
Schultz says we’re good:
Sounds just like Obama telling us the private sector is doing fine. We are in economic stagnation. When our economic growth rate sits at 2% and below for months on end, that’s economic stagnation. That is not a slow recovery. If any Republican president saw these kind of economic numbers, we would have the word stagnation echoing over airwaves on every network for months on end. Our current fiscal policies are prolonging this stagnation instead of ending it.
All this 53 months after the last recession started, and 35 months after the recession supposedly ended in June, 2009. By contrast, since the Great Depression, and before this last recession, recessions in America have lasted an average of 10 months, with the longest previously lasting 16 months. Obama continues to barnstorm the country telling us “Right now, this country is still fighting our way back from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.” But the historical record is the deeper the recession, the stronger the recovery. Based on that American experience, we should be in the third year of a booming recovery by now. But Obama thinks you have no idea of the American experience.
What Obama has instead delivered is way too little, way too late. The unemployment picture is so bad because the economy is still not really growing, 3 years after the recession supposedly ended, and 4 ½ years after it began. Real economic growth for all of last year was a measly 1.7%. The first quarter of this year was just revised back downward to 1.9%. By contrast, by just the second full year of the Reagan recovery, the economy boomed with real economic growth of nearly 7%, the highest in 50 years.
Because of Obama’s continued stagnation, the number of long term unemployed for more than 6 months also rose in May from 5.1 million to 5.4 million. They now represent 42% of the unemployed, the highest since the Great Depression. Obama barnstorming the nation continues to mislead audiences by saying, “manufacturing is hiring at its fastest pace since the 1990s.” But the BLS reported last Friday that manufacturing jobs increased by all of 12,000 in May, after increasing by all of 9,000 in April, none of which is even worth mentioning. The truth is you can’t believe a word of what the man says, because he thinks you are as disconnected from the real world as he is, and so can be easily deceived.
ROBERTS: I think the headline of the day is that you just drove 2,000 miles from Florida, all the way up to New Hampshire with four dogs, the cat, and kids and the husband. How are you after all that?
SCHULTZ: And lived to tell about it. And all of the dogs were in the car. So I prove it can be done.
ROBERTS: All right. Very good.
And then they move on to the economy. All I really have to say about that little dig about Romney’s dog is that I’m glad to hear she carries her pets inside her car and doesn’t eat them for dinner.
Her dirty politicking:
SCHULTZ: Sure. You know, I’d really like to see Mitt Romney release more than one year of tax records, because there’s been disturbing reports recently that he’s got a Bermuda corporation, a secretive Bermuda corporation that no one knows anything about, investments in the Caymans, kind of Swiss bank account. Why — Americans need to ask themselves why does an American businessman need a Swiss bank account and secretive investments like that? Just something, a thought that I’d like to live folks with.
ROBERTS: All right. And if I could, finish off and leave folks in this segment with something that we got from the Romney late last night about those offshore investments.
This comes from Romney spokesman Kevin Madden who says, “He hasn’t paid a penny less in taxes by virtue of where these funds are domiciled” — talking about this Bermuda and Cayman Islands accounts. “His liability is exactly the same as if he held them directly in the U.S. As a U.S. citizen, he is accountable for U.S. taxes. Some investments in foreign countries can be tax havens. But Mitt Romney does not hold any such investments.”
PRIEBUS: Wow, I don’t know if she is on vacation in New Hampshire or on Mars. I can’t figure it out. But the fact of the matter is, people are not better off today than they were three or four years ago.
And statistics bear it out. I mean, we can mind — we can numb everybody’s mind watching this with then numbers, but the fact of the matter is, is that there are almost half a million more people unemployed today than four years ago.
And if Debbie and President Obama were good on their promises on the stimulus — remember, they said if we pass this trillion dollar stimulus that we’d have 5.5 percent unemployment today. What that means, if they kept their promises, there would be 8.5 million more people employed today than there were — would be four years ago.
The fact of the matter is, this president can’t fulfill a promise. They’re living in fantasy land. And you know what? We’re going to put this dream to an end of theirs in November, save America, fire Barack Obama and hire Mitt Romney. That’s the best stimulus plan for this country right now, John.
Friday, on CBS This Morning, Norah O’Donnell mocked Rep. Paul Ryan about Obama’s tax increase, even though Ryan accurately described our current tax situation.
Norah O’Donnell is either a propaganda princess or an idiot.
Those two CBS hosts kept interrupting Ryan while he was trying to counter their tax-cut lie with some tax-increase truth, until finally: “We’re going to have to cut you off there, Rep. Ryan, because there was a tragedy in Colorado.” Yes, there was a tragedy. But it was an interesting break, considering they really didn’t seem to want to let Paul Ryan make his point, which proved Norah O’Donnell to be either a snide idiot or a smug liar.
RYAN: …Remember, these tax policies have been in place for a decade, Charlie, so they’re really not tax cuts. We’re just talking about keeping taxes where they are. A year and a half ago, the President said, the last thing you want to do in a soft economy is raise taxes. We agree. The economy is worse now than it was then. So, we’re going to, next week, pass an extension of the tax code for another year, and we’ve already passed two bills dealing with the sequester, all of which are sitting over in the Senate, which hasn’t done anything for three years – no budget for three years; no sequester mitigation plan for three years.
…
RYAN: So we’ve been acting in the House, Charlie. We’re just waiting for the senate to do something.
O’DONNELL: Congressman, you’re calling them tax policies and tax code. You’re afraid to call them tax cuts
RYAN: They’re not tax cuts, Norah, because they’ve been the current tax policy for ten years-
O’DONNELL: (laughs) Oh, Congressman, come on! Come on, Congressman-
RYAN: No — so here — no, no. Honestly, Norah, keeping taxes where they are is not cutting taxes. Preventing a tax increase is preventing a tax increase. It’s not actually cutting taxes. So, we’re saying, don’t raise taxes, especially in this soft economy. And, more importantly, Norah, eight out of ten businesses in America pay their taxes on the individual side of the code.
The real hypocrisy in all this, back to the context of Obama’s controversial you-didn’t-build-that speech, is that Obama is arguing to increase taxes. Obama’s message was that if you have a successful business, you should be willing to give back — to the government of course – in a higher tax rate. You should be willing to pay 39% in taxes because you used the public roads to get to work everyday, instead of being greedy and only paying the insufficient 34% in income taxes. Obama didn’t deny that his policy is a tax increase. He was actually making an argument on behalf of it, but he continues to misrepresent it by calling it “The Bush Tax Cuts.” This is just the buzz-phrase that Obama and his lapdog media throw out there in a blatant manipulation of words. The Bush tax policy expiring amounts to a tax increase, a large one, that begins next January.
Words Matter. Paul Ryan was speaking facts, and he was mocked for it by someone who was pushing an agenda based on a flat-out lie. Norah O’Donnell dismissed the truth, as so many left-wingers do, with petty mocking that lacks any substantive reasoning behind it. Every time Obama says “Bush Tax Cuts,” he’s talking about the current tax rates for the past decade. Ending that tax policy amounts to a tax increase.
It’s obvious that the argument is not over taxes going down, as the smug, lying, Norah O’Donnell claimed. The argument is over whether or not taxes will go up and whether or not it is an economically sound plan in the midst of economic stagnation. Norah O’Donnell is a partisan hack. She knows that those tax increases are not tax cuts. But she continues to call them “The Bush Tax Cuts,” because she has an agenda, and her agenda involves redistributing wealth.
Tax increases in a period of economic stagnation, like we’re in now, will not help the economy grow. In fact, it will hinder the economy and very likely kill even more jobs, even more small businesses who are already barely hanging on through this economic nightmare, as well as the middle class.
At a campaign rally in West Palm Beach, Florida, Obama recommended that his followers “mute” the ads about him. He said they’re all going to say the same thing.
Obama tells Supporters to ‘press Mute’ when ads about him come on the air:
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: “They’ll have a bunch of ads with the scary voices and you know, most of what you hear you can just go mute. Just press the mute button. That’s a good thing about the remote. Or you can use the DVR and fast forward…And the reason why you don’t have to pay much attention is because these ads are going to say the same thing over and over again.[He says, just before he repeats the same lie "over and over again."] They know, the other side knows they can’t sell their economic plan because we tried it and it didn’t work.”
Obama repeats the same points over and over, “Bush Tax Cuts” and false claims that they didn’t work, coupled with questionable accusations at Romney for actually having a career in private business. Obviously, if Obama repeats this kind of garbage enough, the likes of Norah O’Donnell will repeat it too, snidely, like she’s making some earth-shattering point, when in fact she’s exposing her ignorance and spoon-fed status.
While Obama is pushing tax increases on at least 600,000 small businesses, a new report just came out from the IRS. The report reveals that 35 of Obama’s own executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes… The report finds that thousands of federal employees owe the country more than $3.4 billion in back taxes. Meanwhile, President Obama’s IRS is busy auditing top Mitt Romney donors. The hypocrisy is stifling. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2012/07/22/the_obama_tax_cheats
Some nut-job in Aurora, Colorado, randomly opened fire on a movie theater full of people this past week, killing a dozen people and injuring more than 50. Ever since, the media has been overrun with talk about guns and gun control, and they are beating the subject to death from both sides.
Ben Swann’s Reality Check looks at unanswered questions in the Colorado shooting:
Conservatives have been rallying online for a few weeks now to make sure the Senate doesn’t approve the UN Small Arms Treaty that’s been bandied about at the global level. It looks like Senate Republicans may have gathered enough support to kill the approval of that treaty.
It’s interesting timing that while Republicans and Conservatives have been fighting to preserve our gun-ownership rights from a world government, Democrats and Liberals are now screaming for tighter restrictions from our own government.
Murders like that in Aurora, Colorado, are not prevented by strengthening gun control laws. It is a nonsense solution. The media jumps all over this issue every time some nutjob goes on a random killing spree, and it is not a coincidence. It is perfectly in keeping with The Agenda.
The media was spewing their gun control rhetoric within hours of the shooting, and it’s a backwards way to solve the problem. Maybe it’s just a Texas thing, but I think the best way to solve the problem of random shooters is to mandate everyone who is legally allowed to carry a gun to take a gun safety course and carry one. And you don’t make certain places off-limits. You let law-abiding citizens, even make law-abiding citizens, carry their guns wherever they are. Then, when some James Holmes bursts into a movie theater and opens fire at innocent victims, at least half the people there will be able to hop up and shoot that nut-job and end his killing spree as quickly as it started.
Apparently, it isn’t only a Texan idea either, because, as the Denver Post reported, background checks for gun sales went up over 40% over the weekend.
Background checks for people wanting to buy guns in Colorado jumped more than 41 percent after Friday morning’s shooting at an Aurora movie theater, and firearms instructors say they’re also seeing increased interest in the training required for a concealed-carry permit.
“It’s been insane,” Jake Meyers, an employee at Rocky Mountain Guns and Ammo in Parker, said Monday.
When he arrived at work Friday morning — just hours after a gunman killed 12 and injured 58 others at the Century Aurora 16 theater — there already were 15 to 20 people waiting outside the store, Meyers said.
He called Monday “probably the busiest Monday all year” and said the basic firearms classes that he and the store’s owner teach are booked solid for the next three weeks, something that hadn’t happened all year.
“A lot of it is people saying, ‘I didn’t think I needed a gun, but now I do,’ ” Meyers said. “When it happens in your backyard, people start reassessing — ‘Hey, I go to the movies.’”
…
State Rep. Rhonda Fields, D-Aurora, said she understands what people are thinking when they walk into a gun shop. But she hopes buying a gun isn’t the only response people have.
She would also like to see Congress reinstate an assault-weapons ban, and she said Colorado should look into other measures that could prevent tragedies like Friday’s shooting.
“I think that’s what the conversation needs to be,” she said. “I don’t think that to be preventative, we need to provide or have more guns.”
Gun control laws, even an outright ban on all guns, would not stop criminals from getting them. The laws would not have stopped James Holmes. He had no prior criminal record, no indication of his insanity. He would have passed a background check. If you’re crazy, or a criminal, or just a diabolical genius as some people claim this guy is, laws obviously aren’t going to stop you from getting a gun illegally any more than they’ll stop you from murdering people en masse. The ironic part is that if we ban any kind of weapon, a black market will arise, as we’ve seen with the War on Drugs, creating a powerful criminal element that causes more damage in society than any one random nut-job opening fire on innocent people anywhere. Stricter gun control laws would not have stopped the mass murder in Colorado. Looser regulations could have stopped it short without violating a single constitutional amendment.
Not only that, but while our own village idiots are talking about stricter gun laws and the evil NRA – our own federal government sold a couple thousand of those guns to Mexican drug cartels. {Fire Eric Holder}
“Conservative pundit” Bill Kristol was reported to have “bucked the party line on Fox News Sunday.” After host Chris Wallace pointed out that there has been declining support from the public for gun control, he said he was a “squish” on the issue and thought the Democrats should push it more.
Bill Kristol: “I’m a squish on gun control”
“People have a right to handguns and hunting rifles,” he said. “I don’t think they have a right to semi-automatic, quasi-machine guns that can shoot hundred bullets at a time. And I actually think the Democrats are being foolish as they are being cowardly. I think there is more support for some moderate forms of gun control.”
A pundit via Webster’s Dictionary is a variation on pandit, which means “a person who has or professes to have great learning; actual or self-professed authority.” If I simply claim that I am a gun control expert, then by definition I am a pundit. Never think a “pundit” on any of these news shows is an expert. A pundit is more often than not just a self-proclaimed expert. Or a pompous braggart who thinks he knows what’s best for everybody else, like Bill Kristol, who missed the point of the 2nd Amendment. The second they outlaw assault weapons, the only people who will have them will be the criminals, the drug cartels… and the government.
Ice-T has more sense than this so-called “conservative pundit” Bill Kristol. In an interview in London, Friday (July 20), the day of the shooting, the actor and rapper sat down with Krishnan Guru-Murthy of Channel 4 in London and adamantly defended gun rights, saying he’ll give up his gun when everybody else does.
ICE T on Gun Control:
He said, “You know, the right to bear arms is because that’s the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It’s to protect yourself from the police.”
It’s not just the police, but the government in general. Our founders made it very plain that a well-armed militia is necessary to defend us from government tyranny. Gun control advocates argue that the 2nd Amendment qualifies the right to bear arms in that only an organized militia is covered. Based on the author of the amendment, that is just one more Liberal Lie.
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason, Co-author of the 2nd Amendment, during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
Gun control activists also ignore key facts when they advocate infringing on the 2nd Amendment. The cities in this country that have the strictest gun control laws also tend to have the highest violent crime rates (i.e. Chicago, New York). The states in this country that have conceal-and-carry laws tend to have lower violent crime rates.
However, today’s Democrat Party would rather blame the weapon and punish those who committed no crime.
Ronald Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”
We have a serious problem of personal accountability in this country. We blame guns for murders, obesity on fast food and large sodas, and Bush for everything else. This shirking of responsibility is permeating our culture and the predominant theme of the Obama administration. This is what collective, Utopian thinking buys us.
Thursday, June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on ObamaCare. With The Left celebrating and The Right in mourning, legal analysts are not as quick to call this decision a clear win for either side.
The Supreme Court ruling, National Federation of Independent Business ET AL. v. Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services, ET AL., No. 11–393. Argued March 26, 27, 28, 2012. Decided June 28, 2012: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
No matter how we slice the ObamaTax ruling, it is a loss for the opponents of ObamaCare, because it’s still being implemented on the technicality that it is a tax. As a tax, the initial arguments the White House made to try to get this case dismissed now apply. When SCOTUS heard this case in March, Obama’s lawyers argued to get the case dismissed on the grounds that it’s a tax, and under the Anti-Injunction Act, you can’t file suit for a refund from an unconstitutional tax until after you’ve already paid the unconstitutional tax. Of course, these taxes don’t go into effect for a couple of years yet, so by the time we’re paying the tax, ObamaCare will have finally been implemented. Obama and his Democrats were no dummies. They don’t believe in being held responsible for their own actions or their own policies, so they passed a bill that we won’t see the effects of until after we’ve voted in November. ObamaCare does not end at contraception care and pre-existing conditions. It didn’t take 2,000 pages to set those simple standards.
The decision today is being reported as 5-4, with Roberts voting with the liberals. Akhil Reid Amar, a constitutional scholar at Yale Law, sees it differently. “The decision was 4-1-4,” he said.
The 5-4 language suggests that Roberts agreed with the liberals. But for the most part, he didn’t. If you read the opinions, he sided with the conservative bloc on every major legal question before the court. He voted with the conservatives to say the Commerce Clause did not justify the individual mandate. He voted with the conservatives to say the Necessary and Proper Clause did not justify the mandate. He voted with the conservatives to limit the federal government’s power to force states to carry out the planned expansion of Medicaid. ”He was on-board with the basic challenge,” said Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University and a former clerk to Justice Kennedy. “He was on the conservative side of the controversial issues.”
His break with the conservatives, and his only point of agreement with the liberals, was in finding that the mandate was a “tax” — a finding that, while extremely important for the future of the Affordable Care Act, is not a hugely consequential legal question.
“We won,” said Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, who was perhaps the most influential legal opponent of the Affordable Care Act. “All the arguments that the law professors said were frivolous were affirmed by a majority of the court today. A majority of the court endorsed our constitutional argument about the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Yet we end up with the opposite outcome. It’s just weird.”
…
“John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us,” wrote Red State’s Erick Erickson. “We’re on poker. He’s on chess.”
The Obama administration spent the weekend scrambling to control the dialogue about the ObamaTax ever since the ruling was released Thursday. Politically, the ObamaTax is a nightmare for Democrats. However, if this legislation is going to stand, it must be on the technicality that it is a tax — not a fine, not a penalty, but a tax. Otherwise, the legislation is unconstitutional, based on Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion. Five justices agreed in two separate opinions (4 Conservative justices in the dissenting opinion and Chief Justice Roberts opinion) that the law doesn’t stand on the Commerce Clause or the Necessary & Proper Clause. The only grounds Roberts gave it to stand is as a tax (joined by 4 Liberal justices). This is why some are saying Roberts is a genius.
What we’ve already seen play out since Thursday may prove this ruling to be a political gold mine for Republicans. There are two positive aspects for Republicans in defining ObamaCare as ObamaTax in the event of a repeal. One is that a congressional vote to repeal a tax only takes a simple majority. Another analyst said under congressional rules, Democrats can’t filibuster the repeal vote if it’s a tax. If they’re right, that would make an all-out repeal much easier to achieve politically.
Even if they’re not right, this ruling hurts Obama more than it helps him. He’s been lying to us for a couple of years now, insisting that this is no tax. In September of 2009, Obama mocked George Stephanopoulis for looking up the word tax in the dictionary in his efforts to redefine the word.
Now we have a Supreme Court ruling that only allows the law to exist on the grounds that it’s a tax, and these guys are still trying to convince us it isn’t. It should be very interesting over the next few weeks to see which media networks and which pundits are spoon-fed enough to accept the president’s language over the Supreme Court’s ruling. Networks using the president’s “penalty” or “fine” will be doing so to support their own political agendas, not the law.
CLIP: Jack Lew refuses to accept the word tax
White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew is taking spin and double-speak to new levels. He flat-out refuses to accept the legal label of the ObamaCare mandate as being a “tax.” Declaring ObamaCare’s mandate a tax is the very legal ground on which Roberts said ObamaCare is constitutional. If the administration refuses to own up to the fact that it is indeed a tax on the uninsured, then they should halt all implementation of it, because it isn’t constitutional under the Commerce Clause. It was upheld as a tax and only as a tax.
The Obama administration has arbitrarily taken both sides of the tax-or-penalty argument over the past two years, depending on what the most convenient language is for the moment. Obama started pushing this unpopular legislation, under the condescending insistence that it was no tax. Then his own lawyers argued to get the Supreme Court challenge dismissed on the grounds that the opposite is true. That it is a tax and can’t be challenged until it has been enacted and paid. Now that the Supreme Court has given Obama the tax label his lawyers were fighting for, his administration is denying it again! And why? Because it makes Obama look really bad that he just presided over the largest tax increase in American history. Indeed a difficult political hurdle to jump this election.
We’re starting to see some re-examination of the health care law now too, which considering the fact that we really didn’t have much of a debate over the 2,000-page bill when Democrats were cramming it down our throats, this is a good thing. Time to transparently address the issues.
At the same time, the president is now trying to distance himself from the ObamaTax for the election: http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2012/07/white-house-time-to-end-health-care-debate-127812.html As the administration attempts to end the health-care debate that is far from over, keep in mind that they rushed this bill through without even reading it, made backroom deals, bought votes for it with taxpayer money, and then didn’t even pass it by procedure; they used some shady and very unrepresentative technicality to pass the bill in which they had to suspend the rules to get accepted by the Democrats’ own majority party.
Any question about whether President Barack Obama intends to campaign on his Supreme Court win over health care seemed to be put to rest Sunday as White House chief of staff Jack Lew emphatically urged that the national debate over the health care law be brought to an end.
“When the Supreme Court rules, we have a final answer the law is constitutional; it stands,” Lew said on “Fox News Sunday.”
“One thing the American people want is for the divisive debate on health care to stop.”
“I don’t think the American people want to have this debate again,” Lew insisted. “I don’t think they want to be pulled back into decades of debate to get to where we are. … We need to move on and deal with the economy and jobs.”
Finally, they want to deal with the economy and jobs. They’re only 3.5 years into a 4-year term. But now they want to move on? Democrats didn’t want to have this debate when they passed the bill. According to Nancy Pelosi, they needed to hurry up and pass it so we could read it away from all the controversy. Now Nancy Pelosi wants to make the case of her legislation to America? Now, after they enacted it against the will of their constituents? Now, after the Supreme Court told them it doesn’t stand under the Commerce clause? Now, two years after cramming it down our throats, the White House doesn’t want to talk about it anymore?
Too bad. We’re talking about it. Republicans are running against Obama, specifically on its repeal.
Ron Paul statement: Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1987&Itemid=28
Flashback 2009 – Sen. Claire McCaskill on O’Reilly about answering to her constituents about her vote for ObamaCare. Her constituents were downright angry. Poor baby was treated harshly by her constituents, but it didn’t change her vote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcO8m8JY5uo
Free reproductive/contraception/sterilization care (Does this include maternity? Or do we still pay extra to actually use our reproductive organs?)
Kids stay on parents’ policy until 26.
Ever since Mitt Romney took the lead in the GOP presidential nomination, Democrats and pundits have dismissed the ObamaTax as an irrelevant issue in the upcoming election. While many on the left have pointed to the Massachusetts health care law to dismiss the issue at the national level, Massachusetts residents don’t necessarily see the debate that way.
When asked what he thought of RomneyCare, Conservative Boston resident Mark Howland said, “I didn’t see my insurance premiums increase under Romney as I have under Obama (125% increase). Keep in mind, Romney’s hands were tied with both the House and Senate ruled by Democrats. RomneyCare was more liberal democratic care, as he was threatened with a veto override. If Romney was allowed to present his version of health care, I believe it would have served this state better, but under the democratic leadership health care costs have skyrocketed. Massachusetts health care had little to do with Romney, other then him signing it into law. Massachusetts health care was pushed by Democrats for one reason only and that’s votes. Our last three speakers of the house have all been convicted in federal court, with the last one who presided over RomneyCare still in prison. I like Romney.”
Thursday, June 28, 2012, the House of Representatives voted 255-67 to hold U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in Contempt of Congress for withholding documents requested by congressional investigators regarding the gun-walking BATFE program, Fast & Furious. Eric Holder held a press conference to respond to the charges.
“Today’s vote is the regrettable culmination of what became a misguided – and politically motivated – investigation during an election year.”
This has been going on for much longer than this election year. If this is just an election-year stunt, then why did the death of Brian Terry kick off the outcry for action from the people? If this is just a political stunt, then why did it begin with Holder’s own BATFE agents blowing the whistle?
“By advancing it over the past year and a half, Congressman [Darrell] Issa (R-Calif.) and others have focused on politics over public safety. Instead of trying to correct the problems that led to a series of flawed law enforcement operations, and instead of helping us find ways to better protect the brave law enforcement agents, like Agent Brian Terry, who keep us safe – they have led us to this unnecessary and unwarranted outcome.”
If Eric Holder wanted to “better protect the brave law enforcement agents” he could have ended Fast & Furious the first time those guns started showing up in crimes, two months after the program began. Selling thousands of guns to drug cartels to justify enacting gun regulations is the epitome of politics over safety and in no way protects our law enforcement agents nor the American people.
“We learned that the flawed tactics used in this operation began in the previous administration – but I made sure that they ended under this one.”
Outright lie. The previous administration’s gun-walking program ended in 2007, two years before Eric Holder ever took over the Dept of inJustice. More pathetic Bush-blaming.
“I also made sure that agents and prosecutors around the country knew that such tactics must never be used again. I put in place new policies, new safeguards, and new leadership to make certain of this – and took extraordinary steps to facilitate robust congressional oversight.
“Now, let me be very clear – that was my response to Operation Fast and Furious, and any suggestion to the contrary is simply not consistent with the facts.”
Eric Holder’s response to Operation Fast & Furious, his many lies about who knew what and when, his multiple counts of perjury before Congress, and his treatment of whistle-blowers within his own department, is simply not consistent with his “facts.” He said he made sure that agents and prosecutors knew that such tactics must never be used again. Our agents seemed to already know this, which might explain their blowing whistles.
“I had hoped that Congressional leaders would be good-faith partners in this work, and some were. Others, however, have devoted their time and attention to making reckless charges – unsupported by fact – and to advancing truly absurd – truly absurd – conspiracy theories.”
The reason Darrell Issa opened this investigation was due to testimony from agents within the department and corroborating emails. If these charges are “reckless and unsupported by fact,” then all records would have simply been released openly and transparently from the beginning. To quote the president, “The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.” Instead, we’ve seen two years of stonewalling and faulty memories, followed by the claim of Executive Privilege to keep the records hidden. But notice what he does here. This is a typical tactic of deflection. While he dismisses the charges against him as reckless — he immediately points his finger at congressional investigators and dismisses them as “advancing truly absurd — truly absurd (in case you missed his first mocking dismissal) — conspiracy theories.” Every time this administration refuses to answer questions or hides/seals records from the public, they attempt to discredit the questioner with the charge of conspiracy theorist. However, Obama and his administration need only to be transparent, as promised, to quiet “conspiracy theorists.”
“Unfortunately, these same members of Congress were nowhere to be found when the Justice Department and others invited them to help look for real solutions to the terrible problem of violence on both sides of our Southwest Border. That’s tragic, and it is also irresponsible. The problem of drugs and weapons trafficking across this border is a real and significant public safety threat – and it deserves the attention of every leader in Washington.
Notice what he did here. He’s actually accusing Congress of not helping him look for solutions to the terrible problems he created by trafficking weapons across the border. While he denied knowledge of the program, he also claimed the accusation of his political motivation for this program — new gun regulations — is absurd. Then he accused Congress of neglecting to help him solve the problem. How can Congress solve a problem of violence along our border? Gun regulations? It’s just even more evidence that the goal of F&F was never about arresting illegal arms dealers. It was about getting Congress to “help look for solutions to the terrible problem of violence” — that Eric Holder and Fast & Furious helped create.
“In the face of these and other challenges, the Justice Department has continued to move forward in fulfilling its critical law enforcement responsibilities. Whether it is with regard to prosecuting financial and health care fraud, achieving a record mortgage settlement, taking aggressive action in protecting the most vulnerable among us, or challenging proposed voting changes and redistricting maps that would potentially disenfranchise millions of voters – this Department of Justice has not been afraid to act nor have I been.
Obviously, this DOiJ does not think prosecuting cases of voter fraud is in its realm of justice. Eric Holder’s DOiJ does not see prosecuting voter intimidation cases as one his critical law enforcement responsibilities. Eric Holder seems to think that American citizens need protection from their own representative state governments – from their own referendum votes. He has important politically motivated lawsuits to file in order to protect the ObamaCare Tax, or against those who want to insure that only American citizens decide our elections, or who are fighting the violence of unsecured borders created by the weapons he sold to foreign criminals.
Regardless of how often this administration points their fingers at George W. Bush, today the buck stops with Barack Hussein Obama.
“Now, some of these enforcement decisions were not politically popular and help to explain the actions that were taken today by the House.”
Eric Holder has been using the Department of inJustice to subvert the representation of the American people. He has been picking and choosing which laws he enforces and which ones he ignores. That is not his job as an Attorney General. His job is not to be the henchman of the dictator in the presidency. His job is to enforce the law.
“As Attorney General, I do not look to do that which is politically expedient – on behalf of the American people whom I am privileged to serve, I seek justice.”
Outright lie. Eric Holder’s Department of inJustice filed suit against Texas to stop Voter ID law, Arizona to stop illegal immigration laws, Florida to stop purging invalid voters from their registration rolls, and he dismissed charges against New Black Panthers for voter intimidation cases that were already decided. Every single one of those cases is a matter of Eric Holder choosing political expedience over justice.
“In recent weeks, the Justice Department secured its seventh conviction in the most serious terrorist plot our nation has faced since 9/11.
Notice how he evokes 9/11. This is not necessarily an earth-shattering achievement he’s touting, but it is definitely an emotional appeal. As great as the loss was that we felt as a nation on 9/11, that is also as great as our disdain should be for the many politicians who use that loss for their own personal political advantage.
“And just two days ago, the Department awarded more than $100 million in grants to save or create law enforcement jobs, including more than 600 jobs for recent veterans.
“This is the kind of work that leaders in Washington should be striving together to advance. At a time when so many Americans are in need of our help, I refuse to be deterred from it. And I will not let election-year politics and gamesmanship stand in the way of continued progress.
How has Eric Holder helped Americans? Was it when he filed suit against Arizona because the Obama administration is more interested in protecting illegal votes than he is in enforcing our existing immigration laws? Was he helping Americans when he filed suit against Texas for expecting our voters to identify themselves at the polls? Was he helping Americans when he filed an injunction against the state of Florida for having the nerve to purge their own voter rolls of dead and fraudulent voters? The “help” Eric Holder has provided to Americans in his position as Attorney General has been to subvert our representation in our own government.
“Today’s vote may make for good political theater in the minds of some, but it is – at base – both a crass effort and a grave disservice to the American people. They expect – and they deserve – far more.
We certainly do deserve far more. We deserve a Department of Justice, not a Travesty of Injustice. We deserve proper representation. We deserve protection at our own polling places. We deserve a Dept of Justice that will enforce our laws and not pick and choose what they’ll enforce based on political expedience.
“As a result of the action taken today by the House, an unnecessary court conflict will ensue.
We’ll have an unnecessary court conflict because Eric Holder won’t produce wire tap records that may well prove his and Obama’s involvement in this political game. If he wanted to save us from an unnecessary court conflict, then he would produce the records he’s been hiding for more than a year now. He can end this today. With transparency.
“My efforts to resolve this matter short of such a battle were rebuffed by Congressman Issa and by his supporters. It’s clear that they were not interested in bringing an end to this dispute or obtaining the information they say they wanted.Ultimately, their goal was the vote that – with the help of special interests – they now have engineered.
Which “special interests” is Eric Holder accusing his Contempt Charge on? The NRA who is currently fighting his newly imposed regulations on legal arms dealers in three different court cases? Is it the fault of Brian Terry’s parents, who keep insisting that Eric Holder answers for their son’s death? Too bad Mr. and Mrs. Terry don’t want a record mortgage settlement from a bank. Holder could have helped them with that kind of “justice.” The important thing is that Eric Holder challenges voting changes and redistricting maps. To Eric Holder, it’s politically expedient to hold people accountable for arming murderers, but it’s justice to challenge political districting maps.
What happens now? The local DC U.S. Attorney, Ronald Machen, is supposed to pick up the charges. The question is, will he? Or will his boss, Eric Holder, just tell him to ignore it now that Obama claimed executive privilege?
But Congress is not completely out of options. It could move to appoint a special prosecutor or it could seek to enforce its subpoena through an action in civil contempt — a measure the House also approved Thursday. That would leave it up to a court to determine whether the invocation of executive privilege was valid.
Does anybody remember Watergate? It was all over a break-in at Democratic National HQ. Nobody died at Watergate. The only reason Watergate mattered was because the media over-hyped it until it became a matter to the people that the President is not above the law. The media has and will not be on board to demand Eric Holder’s compliance. The only way this will go anywhere is if We the People demand it. It will only be done out of sheer politics. We have to demand his resignation. We have to make phone calls. We have to send emails. We have to write Letters to the Editor. We have to make ourselves heard. Lawlessness and injustice by this administration will not end until it hurts in the polls. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/28/unpredictable-road-ahead-after-holder-contempt-congress-vote/
Anchor Carol Costello: “So what I’d like you to do is douse us with reality, because this has become very partisan, this argument over Eric Holder. Eric Holder has testified before the House Judiciary Committee nine times. Each time he has admitted Fast and Furious was a dreadful mistake, and each time Holder says he was unaware of the tactics of the operation. Why don’t Republicans believe him?”
CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin: “Well, this is really much more to be filed in the category of politics than law….The idea that there is some sort of corruption here, that there is something sinister, has not been proven at all, at least as far as I can tell….I think this is mostly show business one way or another.” — CNN Newsroom, June 13. [Audio/video (0:45): Windows Media | MP3 audio]
Anchor Judy Woodruff: “Why were Republicans today again coming down so hard on the Attorney General?”
NPR legal correspondent Carrie Johnson: “Well, almost from Eric Holder’s nomination and even before his confirmation in 2009, leading Senate Republicans had insisted that they were going to target Eric Holder as vulnerable to political attack….”
Newsweek managing editor Daniel Klaidman: “This Attorney General, perhaps more than any other members of the Obama Cabinet, is associated with some of the more progressive policies of the Obama administration. And so he’s become a lightning rod for conservatives….It’s gay marriage, it’s immigration, and it’s civil rights issues, and so all of these issues have made him a kind of a vulnerable target in some ways for partisan attack.” — From a discussion on PBS’s NewsHour, June 12.
Whistle-blowers are what brought this case to light. An agent from within the BATFE went to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) to report it. By the end more than a dozen agents blew the whistle on this debacle. The Democrat dismissal of this program as a Republican “witch hunt” ignores the fact that whistle-blowers from within Fast & Furious took this to Congressional members, rather than Congressional investigators conjuring it up.
Feb. 25: President Barack Obama’s new attorney general, Eric Holder, tells Congress that the administration wants to re-institute the ban on the sale of so-called “assault weapons.” Holder said, “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico at a minimum.”
March 26: Speaking in Mexico, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton claims, “The guns that are used by the drug cartels against the police and the military, 90 percent of them come from America.”
April 16: At a press conference with Mexico’s President Felipe Calderón, President Obama asserts, “More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.”
Throughout the spring and summer, the Obama administration repeatedly tries and fails to provide solid evidence for the “90 percent” factoid.
September: BATFE’s Phoenix office opens an investigation of several high-volume gunrunners. Soon dubbed “Operation Fast and Furious,” it is a vastly expanded and even more reckless version of “Operation Wide Receiver,” a “gun walking” program that ran under Bush’s term in 2006-07.
Oct. 31: F&F is underway. Throughout this program, BATFE agents were always forbidden to interdict the guns, and were often ordered to discontinue surveillance. As a result, BATFE lost track of virtually all the trafficked guns.
Nov. 20: Mexican law enforcement seized a shipment of 42 guns in Sonora. Thirty-seven of those guns came from F&F. So, there’s no doubt by Nov. 2009 that BATFE knows beyond doubt that many of the “walked” guns were ending up in Mexico.
BATFE field agents, such as whistle-blower John Dodson, were told that their supervisors “didn’t have to explain anything.… We were told that we simply did not understand the plan.”
The plan worked, as displayed through the new Obama rule (currently being challenged in three NRA-backed lawsuits) to require registration of all persons in the four southwest border states who buy two center-fire, semi-auto rifles in a five-day period.
Over the next 13 months, F&F will place approximately 1,500 more guns into criminal hands, and yet BATFE will be unable to prosecute anyone higher than the manager of a local group of straw purchasers.
2010
January: BATFE agents start asking questions. There is indisputable proof by this time, January 2010, that F&F knowingly allowed firearms to continue to go into criminal hands. Eventually, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE, part of Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS, part of the Treasury Department) and the DEA (part of Holder’s Department of Justice, or DOJ) all become involved in F&F. All are aware of the “gun walking” tactics being used, and whistle-blowers were questioning and getting silenced.
April 2: A Phoenix office e-mail reports that in March 2010, “our subjects” bought 359 guns and 958 people were killed by Mexican drug violence. March was the deadliest month in Mexico since 2005. Among the dead are 11 policemen in the state of Sinaloa. Many of the F&F guns are going to the Sinaloa cartel.
June 15: Jean Baptiste Kingery attempts to enter Arizona from Mexico at the San Luis Port of Entry. A search of his vehicle reveals over 100 grenade components hidden in a spare tire. Under questioning, he confesses to manufacturing improvised explosive devices with grenade components for the La Familia Michoacana cartel, teaching cartel members how to convert semi-automatic firearms to fully automatic and delivering instructions (such as assassination orders) to cartel employees. Emory Hurley, the assistant U.S. attorney who is running F&F, orders that Kingery be released rather than arrested. BATFE agent Pete Forcelli strongly objects to Kingery’s release, but Hurley is adamant. Forcelli will later become an F&F whistle-blower.
October: Six gunmen from a cartel (probably Sinaloa) abduct Mario Gonzalez Rodriguez, brother of the Chihuahua attorney general. The cartel releases three videos showing him being tortured. After he is murdered, Mexican law enforcement raids the kidnappers’ compound and discovers a pair of rifles from F&F, sold in a straw purchase that BATFE agents actually watched but were ordered not to interdict.
Dec. 14: Agent Brian Terry, as part of a Border Patrol Tactical Unit, is conducting a night operation looking for criminals in the very rugged terrain of Peck Canyon, near Rio Rico, Ariz. About 11:15 p.m., the unit encounters five criminals, a “rip off crew” that preys on illegal aliens and drug smugglers. Agent Terry is killed and the criminals flee, except for one who is wounded in the exchange of gunfire.
On Michael Savage: Brian Terry’s life, thrown away by Napolitano’s insistence on blanks, beanbags:
Dec. 23: FBI ballistics experts file their “Report of Examination” determining that Terry was killed with a bullet from a semi-automatic rifle. However, “due to a lack of sufficient agreement in the individual microscopic marks of value” on the rifles, “it could not be determined” which particular rifle killed Terry. BATFE then tells the public: “We’re not aware of any forensic evidence that would link these guns to the homicide.”
2011
Bush Blaming again: Bush’s Wide Receiver gun-walking scheme was ended in 2007. Major differences in the programs: 1. The Mexican Government was involved in Bush’s program. 2. Under Wide Receiver, guns were tracked with tracing devices. 3. The program ended when guns started becoming untraceable.
Feb. 15: Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata is murdered in San Luis Potosi, Mexico, most likely by the Los Zetas cartel. Among the killers’ firearms is a Romanian handgun purchased in Dallas the previous October by a known firearm trafficker, Otilio Osorio, whom BATFE did not arrest.
Feb. 28: Holder tells the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General to investigate F&F. The internal investigation immediately becomes the pretext for the DOJ to attempt to shut down all outside investigations.
Issa tells Holder, “There are dead Americans as a result of this failed, reckless program.”
Holder retorts: “I take exception to what you just said. The notion that somehow, rather, this Justice Department is responsible for those deaths that you mention, that assertion is offensive.”
By mid-2011, Anti-gun Reps. Carolyn B. Maloney, D-N.Y., and Elijah Cummings, D-Md., introduce new gun-control legislation, which they say is proven to be necessary by F&F.
BATFE intelligence specialist Leadmon testifies that there are still more than 1,400 F&F guns in the hands of violent criminals in the U.S. and Mexico.
Holder sends an angry letter to congressional committee leaders. He implicitly chastises Congress for not enacting new gun control laws, because “additional tools are needed to stem the flow of guns to Mexico.” He demands that Congress denounce persons who have pointed out that government officials who deliberately facilitated guns being placed in the hands of violent criminals might be guilty as accessories to murder.
Oct. 11: At a press conference, when a reporter asks if Holder knew about the “controversial tactics” employed in F&F, he leaves the room.
Nov. 15: There are now 43 members of Congress calling for Attorney General Eric Holder’s resignation.
Kudos to CBS especially, but CNN and Fox also, for carrying Fast & Furious as an ongoing investigation. NBC and ABC get a low “F” on this grade. http://www.mrc.org/node/39032
Oct. 4: In early 2011, CBS News reporter Sharyl Attkisson began investigating F&F before anyone else in the national media. In an interview on the Laura Ingraham radio show, Attkisson recounts that White House press flack Eric Schultz “literally” had cursed and “screamed” at her, and that DOJ spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler had “yelled” at her. They both had the same message: “The Washington Post is reasonable, the Los Angeles Times is reasonable, The New York Times is reasonable, I’m the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I’m unfair and biased by pursuing it.”
The House Oversight Committee voted last week to put before the House a Contempt of Congress charge against Eric Holder. Obama, pulls executive privilege. Some say that alone proves the White House’s involvement.
CLIP: Flashback 2007, Obama attacks the practice of declaring Executive Privilege:
CLIP: Nancy Pelosi on Holders contempt vote “voter suppression”:
“They’re going after Eric Holder because he is supporting measures to overturn these voter suppression initiatives in the states… This is no accident, it is no coincidence. It is a plan on the part of Republicans.”
Pelosi denied that Operation Fast and Furious is the real cause of the investigation and contempt charge. “These very same people who are holding him in contempt are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote,” she said of her congressional colleagues. “It is connected. It’s clear as can be. It’s not only to monopolize his time, it’s to undermine his name.”
“These folks want a plutocracy where instead of the choice of the many the checks of the very very few determine the outcomes of elections,” she said.
“The highest officer of law and order in this nation has been ridiculed, scapegoated and handled as some sort of criminal throughout this ‘investigation.’ Turning over thousands of documents and overextending himself, AG Holder was spoken to and mistreated as if he were a child, and reminded that despite his esteemed position, he can and would be profiled. AG Holder was in essence ‘stopped & frisked’ without probable cause, and after he cooperated, he was made an example of. What Issa just showed us is that no matter what our stature in this world, someone can easily try to ‘put us in our place.’ What could be more outrageous?”
…The only thing that has changed, apparently, was the politics….
…In the absence of any immigration action from Congress to fix our broken immigration system, what we’ve tried to do is focus our immigration enforcement resources in the right places.
…So we prioritized border security, putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history. Today, there are fewer illegal crossings than at any time in the past 40 years…
…Now, let’s be clear: This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It’s not a permanent fix. This is a temporary stop-gap measure that let’s us focus our resources wisely while giving a degree of relief and hope to talented, driven, patriotic young people…
…because we’re a better nation than one that expels innocent young kids….
CLIP: Prominent constitutional lawyer who explains why the executive branch is not free to simply suspend deportations.
Obama at Univision Town Hall on March 28, 2011.
“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order — that’s just not the case. Because there are laws on the books, that Congress has passed — and I know that everybody here at Bell is studying hard so you know we’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the laws. The Executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement the laws, and then the Judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system, that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.” Barack Obama
Marshall, MN – Today President Obama offered a “new” immigration plan for DREAM eligible youth that offers nothing of substance for DREAM Act eligible immigrants, using the new term “deferred action” to describe what is essentially last June’s plan that has yet to be implemented (Morton memo). Less than 2% of the 411,000 deportation cases reviewed were closed as the result of prosecutorial discretion according to a recent report.
ICE offices have virtually ignored the Morton memo, except when intense public pressure is applied, and widespread deportations of those eligible for prosecutorial discretion continue as usual. ICE’s union is in open defiance with the Obama administration, refusing to allow its members to attend training needed to implement prosecutorial discretion. We see no reason why ICE’s union would suddenly begin cooperating with this new plan, and incredibly no heads have rolled for open defiance of President Obama and failure to implement last June’s “policy change.”
Today’s DHS news release even uses the same term “prosecutorial discretion” as used in the Morton memo and admits the Obama administration cannot grant legal status, only suspend deportation action:
The use of prosecutorial discretion confers no substantive right, immigration status, or pathway to citizenship. Only the Congress, acting through its legislative authority, can confer these rights.
Today’s policy “change” could have been done 3-1/2 years ago.
There is indeed an urgent need to legalize the status of DREAM eligible youth, but sadly today’s “plan” is yet another empty promise from the Obama administration. Obama’s recent promises to pursue immigration reform early in his second term sound remarkably similar to campaign promises made four years ago when Obama first ran for office. During Obama’s first two years in office Obama failed to even attempt comprehensive immigration reform when Democrats had a cloture-proof Senate majority and strong House majority, notwithstanding Obama’s promise to begin the immigration reform during his first 90 days in office. When the DREAM Act came up, Obama failed to even pick up the phone and call Democrat senators to ask them for their support.
Obama has deported more immigrants than any president in U.S. history, and there is widespread disappointment and lack of enthusiasm for Obama among Latinos. The Romney campaign in recent months has warmed to the DREAM Act and Marco Rubio plans to introduce a DREAM Act bill. Immigration extremist Kris Kobach has virtually disappeared from the Romney campaign, and the campaign recently restructured its Hispanic outreach effort, naming Mel Martinez and Carlos Guttierrez as co-chairmen, both of whom lobbied hard for immigration reform during the Bush Administration. Since Obama’s “new plan” offers nothing of substance as compared to last June’s plan we consider this a campaign publicity stunt intended to reinvigorate Latino support for Obama, while also preempting a move to a more moderate immigration stance by Mitt Romney.
Today’s policy “change” is nothing more than an election time gimmick intended to pander to Latinos, and not a serious effort at immigration reform. Contrary to the perception fostered by Obama, we believe substantive immigration reform more likely to occur under a Romney administration than a second Obama administration. Sadly Democrats find the immigration issue of more value politically unresolved than resolved.
[Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and family of recent immigrants. Our mission is to make America and the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. These efforts will strengthen the GOP, and lead more Republicans to embrace welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. We have chapters in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Nevada, and California. Our members and leadership are predominantly Hispanic, though we define ourselves by mission and guiding principles, not ethnicity, and we welcome all who share our goals. Our leadership is 100% Republican.]
In exercising prosecutorial discretion in furtherance of ICE’s enforcement priorities, the following positive factors should prompt particular care and consideration by ICE officers, agents, and attorneys: veterans and members of the U.S. armed forces; long-time lawful permanent residents;minors and elderly individuals; individuals present in the United States since childhood; pregnant or nursing women; victims of domestic violence; trafficking, or other serious crimes; individuals who suffer from a serious mental or physical disability; and individuals with serious health conditions.
In exercising prosecutorial discretion in furtherance of ICE’s enforcement priorities, the following negative factors should also prompt particular care and consideration by ICE officers, agents, and attorneys: individuals who pose a clear risk to national security; serious felons, repeat offenders, or individuals with a lengthy criminal record of any kind; known gang members or other individuals who pose a clear danger to public safety; and individuals with an egregious record of immigration violations, including those with a record of illegal re-entry and those who have engaged in immigration fraud.
Are these people tax payers or welfare recipients? Can they work/have a skill/support themselves without aid from local, state, or federal welfare programs?
Ironically, this may have even stopped actual legislation with valid immigration reforms from being voted on in Congress, because of the volatile political climate Obama’s “announcement” has caused. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77544.html
Alex Conant, a Rubio spokesman, said Monday. “The president’s action undermines the urgency to pass something before the election — a hard enough prospect even without the newly inflamed politics surrounding the issue.”
Senator Marco Rubio said in an interview on Friday, “I’m trying to find a solution here not a talking point. I’m trying to find an answer here, not a bumper-sticker slogan. The president’s is a two-year solution that expires after two years and does not really solve this in a lasting way. It just gets him through the election. … The White House never called us about this. No one reached out to us and told us this was on its way. And, I mean, if they were serious about a real solution to this problem and not politicizing it, then why don’t you reach out to people.”
800,000 illegal immigrants are going to be given a legal status to work so they can compete with citizens in an already crappy job market — that Obama won’t even admit exists.
Executive breach of powers.
Just like Cap & Trade legislation failed to pass a Democrat-controlled Congress, so Obama instituted new regulations through the EPA anyway. Obama has the bureaucratic machinery already existing to usurp legislative powers from the executive branch. He didn’t create the machinery. We’ve been letting them do this to us throughout the last century. They’ve been putting the machinery in place, piece by piece. All Obama had to do is be a big enough ego-maniac to stomp all over the Constitution to do so. Every president since George Washington has been stepping over the line of Constitutional boundaries, slowly inching over it with each presidential term throughout our history. Obama’s administration is the culmination of generations of constitutional subversions and usurped authority.
[When people hear the phrase “separation of powers,” they always talk about the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Somewhere along the way, we lost what our founders real intention of Separation of Powers was. Our founders, specifically, James Madison the Father of our Constitution, focused the real separation of powers between national government and state government.]
Then we have another factor that shows that Obama’s little press announcement may well cause another surge in illegal border crossings.
Article on Fox about the world’s G-20 meeting in Mexico, where Mexican president Felipe Calderon thanked Obama for his Friday politicking:
“I would like to thank personally, and on behalf of the Mexican nation, President Barack Obama for his valuable decision by executive order to give an opportunity for young people who were not born in the United States,” President Felipe Calderón said Monday morning.
Bush proposal prompted surge in illegal immigrants: President Bush’s proposal for a guest worker program to help stem the tide of illegal immigration actually prompted a surge of illegal border-crossings that the administration then sought to cover up, a watchdog group charged today, citing a 2004 survey by the U.S. Border Patrol. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062801135.html Even if our president just proposes a guest-worker program, the Mexican government/media will call it amnesty, bringing a surge of illegal immigration as a result:
Judicial Watch, a Washington-based public interest group, said the survey, obtained under a Freedom of Information Act request, showed that 61 percent of a sample of detainees who had been caught illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexican border in the wake of Bush’s proposal said they had been informed by the Mexican government or the media that the Bush administration was offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. Nearly 45 percent said the purported amnesty influenced their decision to enter the United States illegally, Judicial Watch said.
“The results indicated that President Bush’s proposal had actually lured greater numbers of illegal immigrants to violate the law,” the group said in a 16-page report on the Border Patrol survey.
“Excuse me sir, this is not time for questions sir,” Obama said to a reporter who asked a question during his Rose Garden speech on his new immigration policy. “Not while I’m speaking.”
“Why’d you favor foreigners over Americans?” Munro shouted.
“Excuse me, sir, but it’s not time for questions,” Obama responded.
In a statement, Munro said he misjudged when Obama was ending his speech.
“I timed the question believing the president was closing his remarks, because naturally I have no intention of interrupting the President of the United States,” Munro said in a statement posted on the Caller’s website. “I know he rarely takes questions before walking away from the podium. When I asked the question as he finished his speech, he turned his back on the many reporters, and walked away while I and at least one other reporter asked questions,” he said.
Notice, Obama said don’t interrupt me, now’s not the time for questions, then he walked away without allowing the press an opportunity to ask questions. Why didn’t the White House just send out a press release if he didn’t plan on any interaction with the media?
The Media poured on the outrage. It’s much ado about nothing.
CLIP: MSNBC response: Would a white president get heckled?
“This is just so unprecedented and outrageous, that you have to ask the question, would the right-wing president be doing this if we had a white president there?” MSNBC guest and Democratic strategist Julian Epstein said on the channel this afternoon.
“I think it’s a very important question because I think this is the first African-American president. We’ve never had a white president been told by the opposing party to shut up in the middle of a major address to the Congress. We’ve never had a president like this heckled so disrespectfully. We’ve never had this otherness afforded to any other president and I think the right wing has some explaining to do because to me it’s patently obvious,” he said.
In a statement, Munro said he misjudged when Obama was ending his speech.
“I timed the question believing the president was closing his remarks, because naturally I have no intention of interrupting the President of the United States,” Munro said in a statement posted on the Caller’s website. “I know he rarely takes questions before walking away from the podium. When I asked the question as he finished his speech, he turned his back on the many reporters, and walked away while I and at least one other reporter asked questions,” he said.
New ad is supposedly being placed nationally to target black Americans. It’s supposed to “appeal to black voters’ nostalgia about the election of the nation’s first black president.”
“4 years ago we made history. Now it’s time to move forward and finish what we started together. We have to show him we have his back. Obama clips: We can’t afford to spend the next 4 years going backwards…. I’m running to make sure that by the end of the decade more of our citizens hold a college degree than any other nation on earth…. I refuse to pay for another millionaire’s tax cut by kicking children off of Headstart programs or asking students to pay more for college or eliminating health insurance for millions of poor, elderly, disabled Americans on Medicaid.” Barack Obama 2012 Campaign ad
What grounds does this ad give to re-elect Obama?
Not moving backwards. In keeping with his Marxist slogan of Forward, here’s a sound-bite where he promises not to move backwards.
Making sure that by 2020 more American citizens hold college degrees than any other nation on earth.
Won’t do the following three things to “pay” for a millionaire’s tax cut. He won’t: Kick children off of HeadStart programs (even though HeadStart programs have proven to be ineffective and costly). Ask students to pay more for college. Eliminate health insurance for the poor, the elderly, nor the disabled. (ObamaCare is responsible for $500 billion in cuts to Medicare.)
He won’t do these things with the qualifier of “to pay for a millionaire’s tax cut.” He did not make any promises to improve the job market, to cut spending or balance the budget, or even lead his Democrats to pass a budget. He did not make any promises to audit the Fed, reform the Fed, or even just work towards stabilizing our dollar or reducing inflation. He did not make any promises. Black Americans should be insulted by this ad campaign.
Angela Rye, Executive Director of the Congressional Black Caucus, in a C-SPAN interview Sunday, claimedthat opposition to Obama is racist and criticized a Republican ad for the very elements that exist in Obama’s ad.
“There’s an ad, talking about [how] the president is too cool, [asking] is he too cool? And there’s this music that reminds me of, you know, some of the blaxploitation films from the 70s playing in the background, him with his sunglasses,” Rye said. “And to me it was just very racially-charged. They weren’t asking if Bush was too cool, but, yet, people say that that’s the number one person they’d love to have a beer with. So, if that’s not cool I don’t know what is.”
This hearing was June 6, last Wednesday, of the Committee on Oversight & Government Reform. Chairman Darrell Issa’s preview statement said this:
The U.S. Department of Labor has jeopardized the integrity of employment data – in some cases for clearly political reasons.
Now, without clear provocation, the DOL is unilaterally changing the method by which the media accessed Bureau of Labor Statistics job data. The proposed changes are set to take effect next week.
According to a coalition of media organizations, Sunshine in Government, this set of changes will “necessarily inhibit journalists from producing thorough, timely and accurate reporting based on market-moving information.” Undoubtedly, this impending action has serious freedom of the press implications. We will hear directly from two leading media organizations about their concerns, as well as from a first-amendment advocate.
All of these jobs existed before the Obama administration spent a single dime on green energy. The US Dept of Labor Statistics, as is typical these days, is basically doctoring numbers and the administration is taking those numbers and touting the creation of millions of green jobs.
$500 million to train workers, program was an utter failure and tremendous loss. Jobs that qualify for “green training” under the program: Welder, sheet metal worker, machine operator, College professors, environmental reporters, policy experts at any think tank, lobbyists. Septic tank & portable servicing industry.
“Using these tactics to manipulate the number to mislead the American people is nothing short of embarrassing, a betrayal of the standards that president Obama established for his administration. Transparency begins with honesty. You cannot send out false propaganda and then say you are transparent. The truth is essential. The barest of the truth is essential, unfiltered, if you are to be transparent.” Chairman Darrell Issa
Extremely Frightening: Romney would have favored justices like Scalia and Thomas.
Extremely Paranoid: Gingrich saying dictatorial is a strong word but the right one.
Extremely Hateful: Glenn Beck saying Obama’s not with the terrorists, but that he’s sympathetic to their cause.
Extremely Irresponsible: Limbaugh saying “I hope he fails,” and Donald Trump questioning why Obama doesn’t release his records.
Extremely ill-informed: Asking Palin if she agrees with the Bush doctrine. Her answer was “In what respect, Charlie.”
Just plain extreme: Michelle Bachmann saying she wants people in Minnesota “armed and dangerous on this issue.”
The private sector is doing fine
CLIP: The press conference:
The truth of the matter is that, as I said, we created 4.3 million jobs over the last 27 months, over 800,000 just this year alone.
The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don’t have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.
And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments and how do we help the construction industry? Because the recipes that they’re promoting are basically the kinds of policies that would add weakness to the — to the economy, would result in further layoffs, would not provide relief in the housing market, and would result, I think most economists estimate, in lower growth and fewer jobs, not more.
Just hours after President Obama declared the private sector was “doing fine” — a comment from which he later backed away — one of the nation’s major credit rating agencies affirmed neither the private nor public sector was flourishing.
Standard & Poor’s affirmed its long-term credit rating on the United States at AA+ and said its outlook remains negative.
“Certainly, we believe that you all ought to do your jobs and report on content,” Carney said. “Our general position is we’re for truthful, factual, accurate reporting that’s done in context.” Jay Carney
“This Morning” that what Obama meant to say was, quote, “in the last 27 months, we have created 4.3 million private sector jobs.” Obama made the remark at a White House news conference, but subsequently explained it further, saying the economy needs to improve.
In his interview Monday, Axelrod said voters will make their judgments based on Obama’s actions, not his words.
And he said Obama called the news conference last Thursday specifically to discuss “urgent actions we should take to undergird the economy.”
“The private sector — we need to accelerate job creation in the private sector. One of the ways that we can do that is putting teachers and firefighters and police back to work.” David Axelrod, senior political adviser to President Obama, on “State of the Union.”
PJ Media pointed a few things out about Obama’s statement that the private sector is doing fine:
He never retracted his contention that “the private sector is doing fine,” only saying that “the economy is not doing fine.”
He insisted in his response that the private sector “has not been the biggest drag on the economy,” when for all practical purposes the economy is the private sector, and it has been the biggest drag.
He still believes, after well over three years of proof to the contrary, that the road to recovery is historically ineffective Keynesian demand-side stimulus.
He still believes that it is a proper role of the federal government to prop up state and local governments which refuse to reform themselves.
“And by the way, people always talk about jobs and as I like to remind them there’s also incomes and people’s incomes are also down in the private sector over this period of time. So the 90 percent of Americans that have jobs have lower incomes on average… I’m saying it’s not fine.” Former White House auto czar Steven Rattner on MSNBC talking about private-sector economic health.
Eric Holder on Elections
They claim requiring an ID to vote is racist. (Angela Rye of the CBC called Voter ID laws “modern-day poll taxes.” Even though she said Democrats needed to explain how voter ID laws are racist, she didn’t.
The US Department of Justice announced Monday it will sue Florida to stop the state from purging ineligible voters from its voter rolls. The DOJ statement came after Florida filed suit against the Department of Homeland Security for failing to cooperate with efforts to clean up the state’s voter registration records.
A preliminary comparison between drivers license records and voter registration has flagged as many as 182,000 registered voters who may not be US citizens. Florida officials sought access to the DHS immigration database (SAVE) to verify their matches but DHS has refused to respond to the state’s requests.
At least 141 non-citizens have been found on the voter rolls and 47 on this list have cast ballots in previous elections. More than 500 on the list have been identified as citizens and lawful voters.
Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner released a statement after filing the suit in Washington DC:
“For nearly a year, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has failed to meet its legal obligation to provide us the information necessary to identify and remove ineligible voters from Florida’s voter rolls… We can’t let the federal government delay our efforts to uphold the integrity of Florida elections any longer. We’ve filed a lawsuit to ensure the law is carried out and we are able to meet our obligation to keep the voter rolls accurate and current.”
The Department of Justice maintains that Florida’s efforts violated the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). US Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez sent a letter to Detzer saying:
I have authorized the initiation of an enforcement action against Florida in Federal Court…One of Congress’s concerns in enacting the protections of the VRA and NVRA, and one of the Department’s concerns in enforcing federal law as enacted by Congress, is ensuring that state efforts to find and purge ineligible persons from voter registration lists do not endanger the ability of eligible U.S. citizens to register to vote and maintain their voter registration status.
The American Civil Liberties Union has also jumped into the fray. The ACLU filed suit in court last week claiming that the clean up effort violates 1965 voting act, which requires Florida get permission to make changes to election law in counties where discriminatory voting practices have historically occurred.
During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked Holder for the DOJ’s (Department of Justice) stance on the recently leaked wiretap applications relating to Fast and Furious and whether his department was willing to provide additional documents. Surprisingly, the attorney general seemingly extended his hand to the GOP saying, he is prepared to make “compromises with regard to the documents that can be made available.”
“I want to make it very clear that I am offering – I myself – to sit down with the Speaker, the chairman, with you, whoever, to try and work our way through this in an attempt to avoid a constitutional crisis, and come up with ways, creative ways, in which to make this material available. But I’ve got to have a willing partner. I’ve extended my hand, and I’m waiting to hear back,” Holder said in response to a question posed by Grassley.
I like how they’re always telling us they’ve extended their hand, but then their actions prove otherwise. Now, the great part is, in addition to Holder’s comments, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) is also gaining attention for his bold statement during the hearing. In an exchange with Holder, Cornyn told the attorney general to his face that he should resign.
CLIP: John Cornyn joining the call for Holder’s resignation:
“You’ve violated the public trust in my view by failing to perform the duties of your office,” Cornyn said. “So, Mr. Attorney General it is with more sorrow than with regret and anger that I would say you leave me with no alternative but to join those who call on you to resign your office. Americans deserve an attorney general who will be honest with them.”
Michael Savage offers concise summary of Fast and Furious scandal, describes his own love of guns:
The Wisconsin recall election marks only the third time in U.S. history that voters have gone to the polls to decide whether to oust a sitting governor. It has been viewed as the second-most important election this year.
American voters made a wide sweep to the right. Republican Scott Walker won the seat of Wisconsin’s governor, at the same time that Republicans won control of Wisconsin’s state congress and their US congressmen. When they took office in January of 2011, they faced billions of dollars in a Wisconsin budget shortfall. To solve the problem, Republicans in the Wisconsin legislature presented a bill that would remove union power over state-provided benefits. Unions protested that Republicans were taking away their collective bargaining rights. However, unions still have every right to negotiate their wages. The legislation removed state employee benefits from the bargaining table.
Wisconsin Democrats stopped the process by running away to Illinois and hiding in a hotel.
The union machines came out in full force and swarmed the state capitol in Madison.
Scott Walker and Wisconsin Republicans passed their bill and fixed their budget problems.
Unions spent months and millions organizing and collecting signatures for this recall election.
MRCTV’s Joe Schoffstall caught up with former President Bill Clinton at a ‘Recall Walker’ rally in Milwaukee, WI and asked him to clarify why he was highly opposed to recall elections in 2003 but now is in support of the Walker recall. In 2003, Clinton stated that recalling California Governor Gray Davis would set a nasty precedent and scare politicians from making tough decisions in the future.
The question was why were you against recalls in 2003 (when a Democrat was being recalled in California) yet you are for this recall of Scott Walker?
“This is a perfect case for a recall, because when people voted in 2010 they didn’t know they were going to be part of a national movement to basically break unions. They thought they were voting for budget restraint. They didn’t know they were going to be a part of a national movement to restrict the franchise and make it harder for young people and others to vote. They didn’t know a lot of what they now know. And if you look at what’s working in America, it’s cooperation, not constant conflict, and this whole movement to create a conflict-oriented society and to break the back of government to do anything to give people a hand up, to educate kids, to create jobs — it’s not working. Therefore I think it’s a perfect recall election.” Bill Clinton
Dave Willoughby attended the Tom Barrett Rally on Friday, June 1, 2012, as a dissenter and was inexplicably arrested.
CLIPS 2 & 3:
“I pay a lot in taxes. Thank God for Scott Walker, mine have actually dropped… I’m not calling everyone a union thug…. When I dropped out of my union, do you know what happened to me? My life was threatened, I had property stolen out of my locker, my family had violence cast their way. I had to get an attorney just so I could go to a safe workplace… Would you agree that people should have the choice if they want to be in a union or not?… You have a choice if you want to quit your job… Collective bargaining is not a right. It’s a privilege. Show me in the bill of rights where it is a right. It’s a privilege that has bankrupted Wisconsin. It is a privilege that is bankrupting our country. And it’s one of the reasons why corporations aren’t staying in this country… (better-trained) Don’t give me that. I came from a union for 10 years. I know the politics behind it. I know what they’ve got to say to make you all feel their little viewpoint is happy-go-lucky… Better trained as a professional firefighter? You’re wrong. You know why? Volunteers can do the same stinkin’ job with the training from the training department. It’s a sales pitch they’re throwing your way. You’re a part of the union sheeple — that’s all you do is regurgitate your union leadership… What’s stopping you from not having a decent life? Idiots like Walker? 30,000 jobs he created is a bad thing? (woman starts chanting “liar”) That’s BLS ma’am. You won’t look it up, will you?” Dave Willoughby
CLIP 4 – They arrest him – 0:07 to 2:55:
Remember The Marine Who Got Arrested For ABSOLUTELY NO REASON?
Here’s his latest press release. I got it in an email from his dad, who has promised further updates.
My name is Dave Willoughby. I am the one in the video. Individual liberties are worth fighting for. Don’t sit idle. Share this story with everyone you know in America.
Without being told what I had done, I was handcuffed and escorted off premise. Placed in a squad car and taken to a police station. I asked if I should have my rights read to me and was told “You’re not being arrested.” My personal property was taken from me, I was fingerprinted, mug shot taken and locked in a dark jail cell (lights off) still handcuffed.
I sat in that jail cell, looking out of a meshed wire window, at a large American flag flying in the background. Where am I? How can this be happening? What did I do wrong? I prayed for strength.
When I swore the oath to protect and defend the Constitution, I never realized until recently, how vulnerable our precious freedoms actually are.
I did nothing wrong. There were literally hundreds of cameras at this event. I challenge all media to find one shred of evidence, which would support the actions of the Milwaukee PD officers.
Saturday, February 26, 2011, MoveOn.org organized pro-Union rallies all over the United States called “Save the American Dream.” The Dallas rally was held at noon in front of The Beckley Courthouse, 410 S Beckley, Dallas, TX 75208. Hosted by Alvin Wyeth. While 322 participants were registered for the event at MoveOn.org, by 12:45 p.m. when we arrived, there were less than 100 people packed in the tiny front yard of the courthouse.
At this union rally, the International Socialist Organization (a global group advocating global Socialism) was passing out flyers about the Walker controversy. I asked the emcee of the event about the flyer and the relationship between socialism and unions:
Unions are the first step to Marxism:
“All right, so this is from a group called International Socialist Organization. And the ISO is a socialist group and basically they – The idea of Socialism and the idea of Marxism is based in the working class taking control of the means of production. The working class, the workers, the proletariat, are coming out and basically running their own factories, running their economy… [So you're saying unions are Marxist?] No, I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying is that Socialists, organizations like this, are based on the idea that — Basically, that in a dictatorship of the proletariat, the workers control the means of production. The first step in order, the first step in achieving this is to organize the workers for them to have power. And so, internationally, see, the way that that has come together is by the unions. So, the unions are the first step in the workers of any nation taking over the means of production. [So, the unions are the first step in instituting Marxism? {You just talked around her question and said basically the same thing}] No, not necessarily that. Well, I’m a Marxist. I’m a revolutionary Socialist.”
Want to know what happens to useful idiots when it’s all said and done? According to Yuri Besmenov, it isn’t pretty: http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=9547
