Saturday, May 26, 2012

State sued over 'taxes-as-fees' gimmick

by: Bob Unruh
Colorado needs to return hundreds of millions of dollars to its taxpayers, plus interest, because new “taxes” assessed over the past few years for bridge repairs never were approved by voters, as required by the state constitution, according to a new lawsuit.
The action was brought by the Mountain States Legal Foundation, a non-profit, public-interest legal organization dedicated to individual liberties, the free enterprise system, limited government and the right to own and use property.
“In clear violation of [the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights], the general assembly enacted and [the Colorado Department of Transportation] implemented a scheme to levy taxes and raise revenues without a vote of the people of Colorado,” said William Perry Pendley, a spokesman for the MSLF.
It was in 2009 when the state legislature passed Senate Bill 09-108, which was called the “FASTER” bill. It provided the creation of the Colorado Bridge Enterprise, a government-owned business chartered to repair and maintain bridges.
Previously, that work had been done directly by the state road department, which is run by an 11-member board. That same board now runs the “Bridge Enterprise.” In addition, CDOT’s executive director is the chief of the Bridge Enterprise, and the state agency’s chief financial officer is the CFO of the enterprise.
The law collects a “bridge safety surcharge” whenever a vehicle is registered anywhere in Colorado, the lawsuit explains.

But it’s actually a tax, since “almost half of Colorado’s 64 counties will receive no direct benefit from the Bridge Enterprise.” Nevertheless, residents still must pay the “same bridge tax as residents of the counties allegedly benefited by the tax,” the lawsuit explains.
Fees, the suit asserts, are linked somehow to the provision of a service or benefit, such as a fee for a college dorm room or a recreation center access or towel fee; and without that link, the charge only can be described as a tax.
“Government-owned enterprises, which are exempt from TABOR if 90 percent self-supporting and operating independently from state government, cannot levy taxes; they may only assess fees for their services,” the organization explains.

The violations are to the Colorado Constitution’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, and the lawsuit names the Bridge Enterprise as well as the Colorado Transportation Commission as defendants.
The action seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and an “order requiring refund of all revenues collected, along with the payment of interest, as required by TABOR.”
Citizens who register vehicles have been paying about $40 per year per vehicle, including for rarely used trailers, since the lawmakers imposed the assessment. It has generated an estimated $200 million a year.
WND previously reported on the dispute, when the Democrat-controlled legislature, concerned that voters would not approve new taxes, created the “enterprise” and said it could charge “fees” for the same work that taxes previously had funded.

A think tank in Golden, Colo., subsequently published a series of commentaries from analysts who said it appeared to have been a maneuver to collect taxes while calling them fees.
Analyst Tom Ryan, whose critique was published recently by the Independence Institute, said the lawmakers relied “on distortions and deliberate misdirections to subvert Colorado’s Constitution and silence the voice of the people.”
The state Constitution’s TABOR amendment, adopted by voters in 1992, requires voter approval to either raise taxes or borrow money. And that is exactly what lawmakers did, said Ryan, a financial expert with Analyst Strategy Group.
Only they called it something else.

“The bill depends on continued silence for its provisions to move forward. Under FASTER (the disputed law) Colorado families are being forced to pay an unconstitutional tax of almost $100 million annually. This tax hits everyone who registers a vehicle in the state squarely in the pocketbook – a tax that was enacted directly by the legislature without a vote of the people.”
Joining him in criticism of the apparent snub to voters who approved the TABOR amendment was Richard Sokol, a business owner and member of the advisory board of the Leadership Program of the Rockies. He holds a degree in economics from Yale and an MBA from Harvard.

“The law allows an unelected group of bureaucrats to appoint an unelected administrator and together borrow whatever amounts of debt can be backed by FASTER funds. On December 1, 2010, they did just that. And now Colorado’s citizens are burdened with $300 million of newly issued debt – with the promise of more to come. … All this, and we weren’t asked!”
The law was signed by then-Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat.
Sokol explained the issue briefly: “The Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights … passed by voters in 1992 and thus enshrined in the state constitution mandates that the state ‘must have voter approval in advance for … creation of any debt.’ It does not prohibit the state or a district government from borrowing money; it only stipulates that citizens be asked first.”

The Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights also requires voter approval for tax increases. An exception was created for “enterprises,” so that a towel fee at a publicly owned recreation center could be raised without a vote, or a university dorm fee could be raised without an election.
Sokol noted other state “enterprises,” such as a state university or a nursing home system, “sell a good or service to customers, and they compete for those customers with other businesses.”
“Only willing buyers who actually use the service pay for it,” he said.
However, he said the “Bridge Enterprise” diverges from that plan in several ways.
Under its provisions, “every person who registers a car in Colorado pays on average an extra $18 a year that is designated for the Bridge Enterprise, in addition to an extra $23 per year for road safety.”
“The $41 annual payment is called a ‘fee’ rather than a ‘tax,’ which is nonsensical in itself. … Enterprises cannot be funded by taxes.”

He continued, “Now every Coloradan who registers a car is considered a ‘customer’ of the Bridge Enterprise. It does not matter whether the car is driven over one of the designated bridges or not. In fact, there are large areas of Colorado nowhere near one of the designated bridges.
“And out-of-state car owners don’t pay at all, even if they constantly use the bridges.”
Then came the decision by the “enterprise” – actually members of the state Transportation Commission who also run the state highway department – to borrow the hundreds of millions.
Observed Sokol, “The Bridge Enterprise and CDOT do the same work overseen by the same managers.

The same people are board members, the same person is executive director and the chief financial officers for the two groups – the same person.”
That person, Ben Stein, confirmed to WND that of the “enterprise” purposes – the “financing, repair, reconstruction and replacement of bridges” – the only function that could not have been performed by the state agency itself was the financing.
A spokeswoman for the state agency, Mindy Crane, also confirmed to WND, “We have a fair amount of people on staff who are involved in it.”
Sokol noted that in a true “enterprise,” a customer has a choice.
“The state lottery allows someone to decide whether or not to buy a lottery ticket. The more lottery tickets he buys, the more he pays,” he said. “With the Bridge Enterprise, the government has decided that all Colorado car owners pay, even those who live and work nowhere near one of the 128 bridges. It does not matter whether the car crosses one of the bridges one time, a thousand times, or no times.”

Breaking: Is “Trayvon” Stopping Boehner From Moving In On Holder?

by: Doug Book
According to Congressman Darrell Issa, there are some 80,000 pages of information now in the possession of the D.O.J. Inspector General as she continues to feign an official investigation into the Fast and Furious-related activities of her longtime friend, Eric Holder. But Issa’s House Government Affairs Committee has received only about 6,000 related pages from the DOJ, many redacted to the point of irrelevance, and some little more than reprints of articles published long ago by members of the mainstream media.
Issa has filed numerous subpoenas demanding that the Attorney General turn over those documents the Committee knows to have been withheld. But Holder has refused to produce them, telling the Committee quite bluntly that they will get nothing dated after February 4th of 2011. As result of the Attorney General’s arrogant refusal, Issa has threatened Holder with Contempt of Congress proceedings.John Boehner 3 SC Breaking: Is Trayvon Stopping Boehner From Moving In On Holder?
For some time, it has been suggested that House Speaker John Boehner and fellow Republican leaders have quietly “discouraged” the Contempt of Congress filing against the Attorney General from going forward. This suspicion was confirmed when CBS News reported the Republican leadership would “…slow [Issa’s] drive to hold the attorney general in contempt over the controversial Fast and Furious program …” for a period of “a month or even longer…”
Some believe that Republican reluctance to move ahead results from not having the necessary votes in the full House. Others are concerned that the contempt filing would be “off message.” Representative Dan Burton made it clear that the leadership wanted to focus on the economy rather than the criminal nature of the Attorney General. And no small number believe Speaker Boehner just doesn’t have the guts to bring a contempt charge in an election year. But now we finally know the truth. According to Roll Call, “a GOP aide…warned against a racial backlash if Republicans are seen as unfairly targeting the first black attorney general, who is serving the first black president. ‘Especially after Trayvon,’ the aide said, referring to the slain Florida teenager Trayvon Martin.” Certainly, the aide didn’t just make up this story. He must be repeating what he has heard from GOP legislators.
And if that is indeed the case, it seems that Republicans are more concerned about the reaction of the national media and the nation’s blacks than with seeking justice for the hundreds who have died as a result of the Regime’s criminal assault on the 2nd Amendment. Gives one a nice warm feeling about the priorities of Republican congressional leaders and the respect they have for their Oath of Office, doesn’t it?
Should massive election fraud fail to pull it off for Barack Obama in November, the Fast and Furious investigation will be officially dropped after election day. And if the worst should happen, Republicans will be frightened to move the contempt charge forward lest it be portrayed as “sour grapes” for the Romney loss.
It seems that Republicans will never run short of excuses to ignore murder.

Video: ForgeryGate: Geraldo Rivera Thinks You Are A Racist

Those of us who believe that Obama is not a natural born citizen have been labeled “racists” by Geraldo Rivera. I disagree strongly with Mr. Rivera.
I also would encourage you to listen to the entire interview. Geraldo cracks me up with his ignorance and sarcasm.
Scrubbed Geraldo Rivera Interview with Lord Monckton on Obama's Forged Birth Certificate -


by: Joe Kovacs  WMD
A discussion on the validity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate had veteran broadcaster Geraldo Rivera accusing a former adviser to ex-British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of “smoking crack.”
The exchange took place Thursday on Rivera’s radio show on WABC Radio in New York City.
Rivera’s guest was Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent challenger of manmade global warming, who recently met with Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio who announced March 1 probable cause exists that Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service Cards are forgeries.

“I have since had independent investigations made, and have discovered that there are clear irregularities in the document,” Monckton said.
“You’re all smoking crack together,” Rivera interrupted, pressing him to “name one irregularity.”
“I have consulted a 20-year expert in forgery of documents,” Monckton explained, “and I said I want reassurance that this document on the website is genuine. And the guy, having had a good look at it, said ‘I can’t do that.’ He says there are 17 red flags on this document: everything from the number of layers in the document so you can move the stamps about at will, to the fact that some of the document has been oriented incorrectly, the spacing of the words, the spacing of the letters, the number of different typefaces used by what should have been a single typewriter, there are just so many.”

Sign the petition now to show members of Congress how many Americans demand constitutional integrity.
Monckton also said the issue of Obama’s natural-born citizenship had to be cleared up with certainty, since every law signed by Obama could possibly be considered non-valid.
“Because he has signed as president various bills creating criminal offenses,” he noted, “it is open to the lawyers for any of those accused of such offenses to say in their defense, we want to satisfy ourselves that this law is a valid act.”

Also on Rivera’s program was Adam Peck of the left-leaning activist group Think Progress.
Regarding the irregularities discovered on Obama’s purported birth certificate, Peck said, “I’m sure I could scan in the Declaration of Independence and find some irregularities like via Photoshop. It’s fault science based on technological anomalies.”
Peck also took aim at Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio.
“This notion that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is one of the United States pre-eminent sheriffs is like saying Chef Boyardee is one of the nation’s pre-eminent cooks. I mean it’s absurd. It’s ridiculous. This investigation, if you want to call it that, was certainly not done in an attempt to prove once and for all that President Obama is in fact a U.S. citizen. It was done entirely to find fault with his birth certificate.”

WABC Radio has the Monckton interview listed on its archive page for Rivera’s radio show, but the program itself is missing. Monckton appeared with Geraldo on Thursday, May 24, 2012, but the audio presented is actually from the previous day’s broadcast on Wednesday, May 23.


This Memorial Day, Remember Those Who Died Defending Capitalism

Folks, like we said last year, for most people, Memorial Day is just another day off. But given Obama’s recent speeches, maybe this Memorial Day we ought to especially remember all of our soldiers who died defending capitalism and the freedom that capitalism has brought us. All of our soldiers who have died fighting communism. All of our soldiers who have died fighting National Socialism. It’s more than just a day off. We’re in the midst of a presidential campaign where one of the candidates, the incumbent, is running against capitalism on a weekend where we remember, honor, and memorialize those who fought and gave their lives defending it. Take a moment to think about that this weekend as you go about the other aspects of your day.

Continue Reading on ...

Liberals Plan Propaganda Campaign to Sway Media After Obamacare Ruling

A month before the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare, liberal supporters are already planning an aggressive propaganda campaign to sway media coverage and public opinion.
The focus of the liberal public-relations campaign will be on “real people” — individuals who can speak about the impact of the ruling regardless of what the Supreme Court decides. A newly released memo, first published by BuzzFeed, suggests liberals should adapt their message and events to defend government-run health care.

“No matter what the flavor of our response is, we’ll need real people who are impacted bythe decision to anchor our message and create urgency,” according to the memo, which was prepared by Health Care for America Now and circulated to coalition allies by the Herndon Alliance.
Liberal groups are encouraged to have statements prepared by Memorial Day. The memo advises them to host events within 12 to 24 hours after the Supreme Court decision.
Continue Reading on ...

Are Democrats Finally Seeing What We Knew About Obama Four Years Ago?

Okay, so Mr. Gogel of the private equity firm Clayton, Dubilier & Rice, says that when Obama’s minions come to raise money they wink and they say, “Look, we don’t really hate you. We just have to say we do. We’ve gotta do these things to get elected. We have to criticize what you do. After we get elected, it’s all gonna be fine.” So essentially Obama’s minions say to the private equity guys, “My base is so stupid, they hate your guts, and I’ve gotta make ‘em think I hate your guts too in order to get elected. But after I get elected, it’s gonna be cool.” He said the same thing to Dmitry Medvedev. “Look, tell Vladimir after the election I’ll have a lot more flexibility on getting rid of nukes.” Thing is, he was not lying to Medvedev. He was lying to the fat cats. He is lying to the private equity guys.

Every syllable he says is the truth when he talks about hating people who pursue profit, because this guy is running against capitalism, in the midst of an economic recession. How bizarre is this? To run against capitalism when your country is in the middle of a recession, when you’re trying to get the economy to expand, and when you say you’re trying to get businesses to hire. It is perverse. It’s perverse unless you don’t want the economy to expand, unless you want to prolong the misery in order to pass more safety net welfare funding. We all know Obama wants to expand the government. The fact that 88 million Americans are not working, but that they are eating, Obama loves, because he’s the one getting credit for feeding them, in his mind. And not only are they eating, they’ve got their televisions and they’ve got their cell phones, and they’ve got cable. And a number of these 88 million who aren’t working but have food, have cable, have cell phones, and have flat screens, may be saying, “What more do I need?”
Continue Reading on ...

Progressives: Caught in Their Own ‘Living Document’ Trap

by:Rich Tucker
We know that “progressives” favor what they call “living constitutions,” governing documents that change easily to accommodate the changing tastes of voters. Sometimes they rely on judges to “breathe life” into the Constitution, as the Supreme Court did in 1965’s famous Griswold v. Connecticut.
But some also seem to be rooting for dead constitutions. On Thursday, an NPR interviewer had an interesting idea: “I have to say that when I talk to friends across the country, they look at this system in California and they say: well, why don’t they just throw out this [state] constitution that requires voters to approve everything that they do?” Jeremy Hobson asked Governor Jerry Brown (D).
But Brown seemed to realize he’s stuck living under the document that’s been “perfected” by his progressive predecessors.
“Why don’t we just throw out this constitution?” Brown answered. “They’ve done that in a number of countries, it’s called a coup d’├ętat. Look, this is a democracy, you can find fault with it but compared to the paralysis in Washington, at least we have an ultimate arbiter, which are the people themselves.”
Brown and his fellow progressives are being hobbled by the very system they designed. It will be interesting to see how that plays out.

Obama Twice in 2 Days Mentions ‘My Sons’ — even with Teleprompter

In two campaign speeches over the last two days, President Barack Obama has twice mistakenly mentioned “my sons” when defending his administration’s regulation requiring virtually all health-care plans in the United States to provide women, without any fees or co-pay, with sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including those that can cause abortions.
Obama, of course, has two daughters–10-year-old Sasha and 13-year-old Malia–but no sons.

At the Iowa State Fair Grounds on Thursday, Obama said: “We don’t need another political fight about ending a woman’s right to choose, or getting rid of Planned Parenthood or taking away affordable birth control. We don’t need that. I want women to control their own health choices, just like I want my daughters to have the same economic opportunities as my sons. We’re not turning back the clock. We’re not going back there.”
Both the transcript of the Iowa speech distributed by the White House and a video of it posted by the Des Moines Register indicated that Obama mistakenly said “my sons.”
The video of the speech posted by the Des Moines Register also shows that despite his slip about "my sons," the president was speaking with the help of a teleprompter.
On Wednesday at the Fox Theatre in Redwood City, Calif., Obama made the same mistaken reference to “my sons.”
“We don’t need another political fight about ending a woman’s right to choose, or getting rid of Planned Parenthood, or taking away access to affordable birth control,” Obama said, according to the White House transcript of his speech. “I want women to control their own health care choices, just like I want my daughters to have the same opportunities as my sons. We’re not rolling back the clock.”

Read more see the video:

User’s Guide To Smoking Pot With Barack Obama

Barry was quite the accomplished marijuana enthusiast back in high school and college. Excerpts from David Maraniss’ Barack Obama: The Story dealing with the elaborate drug culture surrounding the president when he attended Punahou School in Honolulu and Occidental College in Los Angeles. He inhaled. A lot.
1. The Choom Gang
A self-selected group of boys at Punahou School who loved basketball and good times called themselves the Choom Gang. Choom is a verb, meaning “to smoke marijuana.”
2. Total Absorption
As a member of the Choom Gang, Barry Obama was known for starting a few pot-smoking trends. The first was called “TA,” short for “total absorption.” To place this in the physical and political context of another young man who would grow up to be president, TA was the antithesis of Bill Clinton’s claim that as a Rhodes scholar at Oxford he smoked dope but never inhaled.
3. Roof Hits
Along with TA, Barry popularized the concept of “roof hits”: when they were chooming in the car all the windows had to be rolled up so no smoke blew out and went to waste; when the pot was gone, they tilted their heads back and sucked in the last bit of smoke from the ceiling.
Continue Reading on

Friday, May 25, 2012

Democrats Label Arkansas’s Black Voters “Racists”

by: Kevin "Coach" Collins
Arkansas SC Democrats label Arkansas’s Black voters Racists
Anonymous Democrats are whispering “racism” as the reason for Barack Obama’s embarrassing “victories” in the Arkansas and Kentucky primaries last Tuesday.
They started whispering this after a federal inmate got 41% against Obama in West Virginia’s primary two weeks ago.
Child-like Democrats don’t do well with the truth, so they habitually devise comforting lies when they are forced to confront “inconvenient truths.”
If these butt kickings weren’t the result of racism, they were the result of Obama wrecking our economy or cramming Obamacare down our throats or attacking the Catholic Church, but more likely endorsing gay “marriage.” Democrats can’t face those possibilities or the real message of these primaries, so they prefer to dismiss the results as racism from messengers.

The results from Arkansas and Kentucky were similar but arrived at from quite opposite directions. Arkansas has a Black population (15%) which matches the national percentage; Kentucky’s is about half of that.
While there is no county level data from Kentucky, detailed information on Arkansas’ primary is readily available for those interested in finding it.
Arkansas’s African Americans could have saved Obama from his embarrassing “win” in their state, but they chose not to.
Arkansas has 29 counties with African American populations over 19% – six with over 50%- and these “significantly black” counties did not turn out to support Barack Obama.
In ten counties with Black populations between 19% and 41%, Obama actually lost 38/62! They must all be racists by Democrat “whispering standards!”
The official results showed that statewide, Barack Obama beat John Wolfe, a man no one knew by just 58/42. Since Wolfe is white, the ever race-conscientious Democrats churned out the “racism” charge because to them, white Americans who are not with them are racists if they “need” them to be.
When the votes from the 29 “significant black” counties were tabulated, Obama’s edge over Wolfe actually SHRINKS to 54/46. In other words, African Americans in Arkansas supported Obama by four points less than the state as a whole. They must all be racists!
These truths from Arkansas represent the first test of how much Obama’s support of gay “marriage” has hurt him among his African American base. The numbers aren’t good for The One.

Dem Senator Threatens Supreme Court

by:Doug Book
Patrick Leahy SC Dem Senator Threatens Supreme Court
Two months ago, Barack Obama decided he could intimidate the United States Supreme Court into finding his namesake healthcare plan Constitutional. Overturning the Affordable Care Act “…would amount to an unprecedented, extraordinary step of judicial activism” said the President at a rare White House news conference, adding “…I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”
Though someone with the hyper-arrogant mentality of the Manchurian Candidate doesn’t really need a reason to direct this sort of psycho-babble at a presumptive enemy, Obama was probably responding to information provided by far left Justice Elena Kagan that the Court’s closed-door, preliminary vote on ObamaCare had not gone very well. Each Friday, the 9 justices gather for an initial vote on the cases heard during the week. And although these weekly conferences are to be strictly confidential, it’s a safe bet that Obama’s Court stoolie was on the phone with the White House minutes after its conclusion.

However, as this preemptive strike on the court was met with a nationwide flurry of criticism even from a number of his media supporters, Obama made no further reference to the prospective ruling.
But on Monday, a new county was heard from. Dedicated leftist Senator Patrick Leahy directed a 2000 word dissertation at the Court from the Senate floor, selecting as his principle target Chief Justice John Roberts. “The constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act is the current instance in which narrow ideology and partisanship are pressuring the Supreme Court to intervene where it should not,” claimed Leahy, making clear his view that the Court has no business interfering with a Congressional assault on the Constitution. The senator advanced the 2000 Bush/Gore decision as an example of the sort of “judicial activism” that “shook the confidence of the American people in the Supreme Court.”  He ridiculed conservative justices for their tough questioning of principle ObamaCare advocate Solicitor General Donald Verilli during oral arguments, stating “their action will not help restore American’s confidence in the Court to fairly apply the law.”

And he alternately praised and threatened the Chief Justice, literally claiming that if Roberts joined other conservatives in a 5-4 decision against ObamaCare it would “…undoubtedly further erode the reputation and legitimacy of the Supreme Court.”
But what prompted Leahy’s sudden decision to lecture the Supreme Court as to its proper role in government? Was it a last ditch effort to intimidate justices into finding ObamaCare constitutional? Or has Kagan perhaps advised Democrats that Roberts is “wavering” a bit, leading Leahy to believe his misguided, nonsensical claims might persuade the Chief Justice to decide in favor of passage?
Since its enactment in 2010, liberals have believed the Affordable Care Act to be a sure thing to pass Constitutional muster. They were stunned when Justices took offense at the law’s contempt for individual liberty during oral arguments. After all, how could forcing Americans to purchase something they don’t want be unconstitutional if it’s for their own good!
If 5 Justices rule the ObamaCare individual mandate unconstitutional, the American people will hear a wailing and gnashing of teeth unequaled since the pro-Gore efforts of the Florida Supreme Court were undone after the 2000 election. We will be in for some very entertaining days.

Video: Flashback 1995: Holder Launches Anti-Gun PR Blitz

Eric Holder’s skewed anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment ideology has been festering for years, not just raising its sickening head with Fast and Furious. In this 1995 video clip, Holder put into motion a PR blitz to “brainwash” (his words) the public about “how carrying a gun is wrong” (again his words).

Obama Breaks the First Rule of Lying Believably

by: Tad Cronn
The GOP has been “bamboozling” Americans and running up “wild debts,” the president told an audience in Denver this week.
If you’re going to be a liar in a political campaign and get away with it, there are some ground rules that must be followed.
Now it’s true that if you repeat a lie three times in public, it generally sticks. Especially if you have the help of sycophantic media to trumpet your lie far and wide, comment on what it means to the world, and so forth.
Wording is also important, particularly phrased in the form of a question, such as the ever-popular, “So, senator, is it true you’ve stopped beating your wife?” No matter the answer, your victim is fixed like a bug on a pin.
President Obama’s campaign is skilled at these tactics.
But it seems that Obama and his teleprompter have forgotten another basic rule of successful lying: The lie must be believable.
I think this is the blind spot that may do in the Obama campaign. Three years into his presidency, and while asking for a second term, Obama is still blaming Republicans for our massive debt. Without facts on his side, he expects voters to believe it just because he said it.
For a lie to be believable, it has to stick close to the truth. It is true that the Bush Administration ran up a hefty tab on its own, but most people are capable of remembering that Bush had to deal with a profligate Democrat Congress that carried itself over into Obama’s regime. Even with the House going to the GOP in midterm elections, Obama still has the Senate and considerable pull in the House.
All the programs Obama points to as his great achievements — particularly the failed trillion-dollar  stimulus and health care — happened right out of the gate, under a Democrat House and Senate.
It’s also the time when our country’s deficit bloomed like some giant alien ficus out to devour Tokyo.

Yet, it’s precisely the time period the Obama Administration doesn’t want you to count. It was the end of fiscal 2009, therefore in the official White House version of the universe, all that spending by Obama and the Democratic Party was actually being done by President Bush, who by that time was grilling steaks back at the ranch and enjoying retirement.
Any look at the numbers reveals Obama’s corrosive influence on our debts. The 2009 budget deficit was triple 2008′s. The deficit went from 3.1 percent of GDP in 2008 to 9.9 percent in 2009.

Now then, who was president?
Obama has also been telling his audiences that he signed into law more than $2 trillion in spending cuts. Those “cuts” he refers to were mostly of the Washington sort: Instead of raising a program’s budget by $12 billion, you only raise it $10 billion and voila! You’ve “cut” $2 billion.
That sort of math wouldn’t fly in most classrooms.
The other side of that funky equation is the beyond-rosy budget and economic projections used by the Obama Administration, such as the ridiculous guesstimate of 6.26 percent GDP growth for 2012, instead of the 1 to 2 percent we’re currently living through.
The 2010 budget had predicted a cut in the deficit to $533 billion by 2013. Each year, that estimate has grown to the current $912 billion projection. Given the current White House’s love of “fun with numbers,” it’s a safe bet that the reality will be at least double that, perhaps triple or more — not that you’ll ever see it in the papers.
Obama has overseen a more than $4.2 trillion increase in the national debt. That’s more than all presidents from Washington up to the first President Bush — combined.
With such dismal failure to reign in spending, it’s probably no wonder Obama feels he has to lie.
But it’s such a huge lie, it’s no wonder people are seeing through it.

Whose Side is Barack Obama On: Ours or Iran’s?

by: Giacomo
When President George Bush was president, he took a strong stand with Iran and their nuclear program.  He led the efforts to place a number of strict UN sanctions against Iran pending the suspension of their uranium enrichment program.
Shortly after taking office in 2009, Barack Obama decided to take a different approach with Iran.  Instead of the strong stance of the Bush administration, Obama chose to try peaceful negotiations.  At the time it was believed that Iran was in possession of 1.3 tons of low-enriched uranium considered to be only about 3.5% enriched.

According to the report of an ex-CIA spy that had infiltrated Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, the Islamic government saw Obama’s gesture of peace and negotiations as a sign of weakness.  They also saw the US’s weakness as a chance to stall any serious consequences for their nuclear program and give them time to further enrich their uranium to help bring it up to weapons grade.
Most reports currently place Iran’s uranium to be at the 20% enrichment stage.  This is not enriched enough for weapons grade, but it is close enough that it could easily be enriched further in a relatively short period of time.
After a year of failed negotiations, it seems Obama realized that he needed to do something else, so he finally turned to sanctions.  However, his version of sanctions were nothing more than scolding a naughty child, giving them a little slap on the wrist and then telling them to never do it again.  Again, according to the ex-CIA agent, Iran’s leading clerics saw Obama’s sanctions as a sign of weakness and made them believe that the US was impotent and unable to do anything to stop them.

During Obama’s wimpy stance on Iran, they managed to increase their stockpile of enriched uranium from the 1.3 tons to over 5.5 tons.  They continue to process their uranium to bring it up from the 3.5% level to the 20% level at two facilities within Iran. Knowing that the current sanctions have been less than effective, Obama again led a round of negotiations that just took place in Istanbul.  And once again, Obama showed the Islamic regime of Iran just how weak and impotent the US is by offering Iran acceptance of their nuclear program providing they ceased all procedures to enrich the uranium they have on hand to the 20% level.
Instead of spanking the dickens out of the naughty child, Obama chose to let them keep their ill-gotten toys and once again to promise not to do what they keep doing despite being repeatedly told not to do it.  Each and every time Obama does something like this, Iran and their Islamic leaders see it as an encouragement to continue to carry out their nuclear program.  They see the US as completely inept and powerless to stop them.
Regardless of what Barack Obama says publicly, his actions indicate that he is assisting and abetting Iran and their nuclear program.  He has done nothing to improve US national security or the security of any of our allies, especially Israel.  Iran continues to preach for the total annihilation of Israel and Jews in the region and Obama’s failure to exert any show of strength has only helped to empower and embolden Iran to escalate their uranium enrichment program and their plans to destroy Israel.

It's Rand Paul vs. armed bureaucrats

By: Bob Unruh
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., dropped a potential bomb into the ongoing battle between local food producers and federal bureaucrats who want to regulate all food transactions.
Paul introduced an amendment that would disarm Food and Drug Administration bureaucrats and accomplish several other goals.
“I’m troubled by images of armed agents raiding Amish farms and preventing them selling milk directly from the cow,” he said in a Senate floor statement posted online. “I think we have bigger problems in our country than sending armed FDA agents into peaceful farmers’ land and telling them they can’t sell milk directly from the cow.”
Mike Adams, who writes at as the “Health Ranger,” said the move was “stunning and completely unannounced.”
The amendment, he said, “would disarm the FDA and make the agency stop using guns against the American people; it would halt the FDA’s armed raids on raw milk farmers; it would also stop the FDA’s outrageous and longstanding censorship of truthful health claims of dietary supplements and medicinal herbs.”
“This is a big deal,” he said. “While it may not pass … the very fact that U.S. Sen. Rand Paul has introduced such an amendment is proof positive that Rand Paul is exactly the kind of leader that can help take our nation out of the age of government tyranny and censorship and into a new era of transparency, accountability and liberty.”

In fact, the amendment hours later was defeated 78-15.
The core of the conflict stems from the federal government’s desire to regulate the food industry from start to finish. Local growers and producers who would like to sell their products often face enforcement actions for not having a proper packaging facility or following some other regulation. A major dispute has developed over the sale of unpasteurized milk, which many people consider more healthy. Thirty states allow it but 20 don’t, and the federal government forbids it in interstate commerce. Paul’s amendment addresses those concerns.

The senator said the first provision would halt the “overzealous regulation of vitamins, food and supplements by codifying the First Amendment prohibition on prior restraint.”
“The First Amendment says you can’t prevent speech, even commercial speech, in advance of the speech. You can’t tell Cheerios that they can’t say there’s a health benefit to their Cheerios. Under our current FDA laws, FDA says if you want to market prune juice, you can’t say that it cures constipation,” he said.
“Despite four court orders condemning the practice as a violation of the First Amendment, the FDA continues to suppress consumers’ rights to be informed and to make informed choices.”

Read More:

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Oversight panel gets tough, moves to slam brakes on Obama’s runaway EPA

by: Ron Arnold
In a scorching showdown letter dated May 10, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa and Subcommittee Chairman Jim Jordan demanded that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson surrender documents she doesn’t want made public.
The seething but civil congressmen requested all the documentation that went into the EPA’s unprecedented and legally questionable attempt to preemptively block the permit of Alaska’s multi-billion dollar Pebble copper mine even before the permitting process begins.
This novel, front-end attack on jobs and economic development hinges on the convoluted Clean Water Act (CWA) and clever gimmicks lurking in its litigation-prone Section 404(c). Water is the regulator’s perfect power grab target; nearly every development needs water.

The proposed mine itself, with its massive copper deposit and smaller amount of gold, is just a convenient symbol to trigger anti-mine public emotion. Issa and Jordan evidently realized that the EPA was using the Pebble project as a test bed to inflate the agency’s total regulatory authority far beyond the clear intent of Congress.
EPA’s weapon is what matters; it’s a supposedly scientific “watershed assessment” of the Bristol Bay locale surrounding the proposed mine, conducted before the scientists had any idea of what the mine would look like, with no input from the mine developers, and manipulated to show potentially horrible damage to a prized salmon run, something scary enough to justify withholding the permit.
That’s the EPA’s clever new power grab gimmick: a preemptive veto. No permit, no mine.
Now, hypothetically apply that power to every new development in America’s future: No permit, no anything. You can see where this is going.
The Issa and Jordan oversight letter specifically told EPA to “provide the requested information prior to EPA’s release of its Bristol Bay watershed assessment, but no later than 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, May 24, 2012.”
EPA thumbed its nose at congressional oversight and defiantly released the Bristol Bay watershed assessment on Friday, May 18, to huge and clearly orchestrated media attention, showing potentially horrible damage to a prized salmon run, something scary enough to justify withholding the permit.

EPA did not provide the requested documentation to the Congress of the United States.
Obama’s increasingly dictatorial agency and its autocratic boss Lisa Jackson may not like what they get back. Rep. Darrell Issa “has become a major figure since taking over as chairman of the oversight panel following the Republicans regaining the House majority in 2010,” said Washington Examiner Executive Editor Mark Tapscott, “especially as a result of his dogged pursuit of the facts behind the Operation Fast and Furious scandal.”

Fast and Furious was an incredibly stupid undercover program operated by the Justice Department, a botched “gun-walking” project supposedly intended to smoke out Mexican drug lords by allowing thugs to “walk” firearms across the border as bait to catch higher-ups. After intense probing and confrontational oversight hearings, Issa revealed that the project had captured no big-time crooks and only inflamed border violence – at taxpayer expense. Today, Issa is an investigative hero.
When the EPA oversight issue came before the committee, Issa’s exceptional instinct never seemed to swerve off of the real target: stopping the agency from expanding its regulatory authority.

President Obama alienated West Virginia’s powerful Democrats, Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin and Sen. Joe Manchin, when his EPA used Section 404(c) to yank the lawful permit of a large and well-established in-state coal mine. West Virginia’s “coal vote” then spoke. Keith Judd, a convicted felon incarcerated in a Texas federal prison, won nearly 41 percent of the state’s May 8 Democratic presidential primary vote away from Obama. Joe Biden told the media in priestly tones, “I understand. They’re frustrated. They’re angry.”

West Virginia also figured significantly in Issa’s oversight letter; the dispossessed coal company sued the EPA for retroactively pulling its permit and won.
Issa reminded Jackson of her defeat: “Last month, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that EPA’s action in this instance was illegal. In its opinion, the Court noted:
“EPA’s position is that section 404(c) grants it plenary authority to unilaterally modify or revoke a permit that has been duly issued by the Corps [the Army Corps of Engineers] – the only permitting agency identified in the statute – and to do so at any time.
“This is a stunning power for an agency to arrogate to itself when there is absolutely no mention of it in the statute. It is not conferred by section 404(c), and is contrary to the language, structure, and legislative history of section 404 as a whole.”
That made it clear to Jackson on May 10 that Issa saw a similar court test coming on Pebble. Yet she insolently released the watershed assessment on May 18 despite congressional oversight’s instructions to the contrary.
Why was Jackson so confident of ultimate success? Who would benefit from a massive EPA power grab? Who had her back?
Perhaps Issa’s most inspired demand for documentation was this: “Please provide a list of all individuals, along with their organizational affiliations, that you have met with regarding these petitions for the Bristol Bay watershed assessment and the dates of those meetings.”

With that, the oversight letter leaves us to our own resources. Who’s on Issa’s list?
To begin, who first got the idea that Section 404(c) was the EPA’s passport to imperial power?
The EPA’s website says that “EPA initiated this assessment in response to petitions from nine federally recognized tribes and other stakeholders who asked us to take action to protect Bristol Bay’s salmon populations.”
Enter Geoffrey Y. Parker, a sixty-something lawyer in Anchorage, Alaska, who penned a 60-page article in a 2012 Seattle law review with a long title beginning, “Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act…”
It also contained an author biography which tells us that Parker is “co-counsel to six federally recognized tribes which filed the initial petition [dated May 2, 2010] to EPA that it commence a public process under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act.”
The six original tribes grew to nine, and a flood of nearly identical letters came from various tribes and commercial fishing trade groups, insisting that EPA use Section 404(c) to stop Pebble mine. The letters also emphasized that “leadership and purpose” from EPA would be necessary, hinting that some kind of blank check, a large “Support EPA” effort, was in the works.
Ten months later, the EPA had the blank check. Jackson somehow seemed to know she could depend on the makers, so she cashed it. On February 7, 2011, the EPA announced it would begin a “public process” for Pebble in the form of a watershed assessment.

Parker appears to be the first person to see the possibility of slanting regulations in favor of EPA power by using Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, but how did an otherwise unremarkable Alaskan lawyer arrange the splashy, orchestrated anti-Pebble campaign that exploded on Washington, D.C. less than a month later?
He didn’t. He didn’t have to. His private law firm had represented the multimillion dollar angler’s group Trout Unlimited for at least a decade, and that’s where the highly coordinated anti-Pebble drive – and possibly even Parker’s idea – sprouted.  Trout Unlimited is the first name on Issa’s list.
The first Trout Unlimited event was “Save Bristol Bay Week”, beginning April 1, 2011 in Washington, D.C., with a delegation of Alaska fishermen, state and tribal officials, and students trekking through a series of lobbying visits, bigwig receptions, dinners with chefs serving Bristol Bay salmon, and exclusive high-profile events.
A congressional reception for the delegation was hosted by Senators Mark Begich (D-AK) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA). Sen. Cantwell would later write an impassioned letter to Jackson urging her to use the 404(c) authority – if necessary – to stop the Pebble mine, which swayed some lawmakers to oppose a bill by Alaska’s Rep. Don Young designed to strip the authority from the EPA.
Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, an avid fly-fishing devotee, hosted an invitation-only reception to bolster opposition to Pebble, said National Review. O’Connor would open for the headline act: EPA Administrator Lisa Perez Jackson, followed by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

Groups attending included Natural Resources Defense Council (2010 revenue: $99.6 million), Earthworks ($2.3 million), National Parks Conservation Association ($38.9 million) and Trout Unlimited ($26.6 million) – the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation gave Trout Unlimited $2.6 million specifically to stop Pebble mine.
The fact that these groups were in a closed-door session with Lisa Jackson told insiders that the fix was in. She wanted supreme power, and they wanted it for her.
Shortly before the salmon hoopla in Washington began, Trout Unlimited hired a new public relations and lobbying firm, the Seattle-based Strategies 360 (run by high-profile CEO Ron Dotzauer, a political talent of exceptional influence.) He ran Sen. Maria Cantwell’s election campaigns “in all of her races since the mid-1980s,” according to a Seattle Times story.
The story goes on to say, “When Dotzauer opened his consulting firm in 1985, Cantwell, then in her mid-20s, was his first employee. They began dating, and they continued a relationship after she was elected to the Legislature in 1986.”
Sound Politics, a Seattle blog operated by gadfly Stefan Sharkansky, ran a 2006 item headlined, “Maria Cantwell was the ‘other woman’ in lobbyist’s divorce,” citing court records of that 1985 divorce confirming that Dotzauer was the “lobbyist” and a “Maria” was “the other woman.” Cantwell was a sitting state legislator at the time, and the testimony was given by Ron and Angela Dotzauer’s family counselor, who declined to give “Maria’s” last name for confidentiality reasons.

So, we could draw a path from the Moore Foundation to Trout Unlimited to Strategies 360 / Ron Dotzauer to Sen. Maria Cantwell to Lisa Jackson to an unlawful watershed study to an unlawful permit denial.
The sprawling campaign against Pebble mine is one of the most transparently self-interested and dollar-intensive in Big Green history. Yet it’s only a test bed to inflate EPA’s total regulatory authority far beyond the clear intent of Congress.
It never ends. Power lust scoffs at bounds. On May 10, when Issa and Jordan’s oversight letter was dated, and before the EPA released its Bristol Bay watershed assessment, environmentalists predictably began calling on the agency to conduct a similar assessment of mining activity in the Great Lakes region. The Bristol Bay study “is comparable to what we’d like to see” in the Great Lakes, National Wildlife Federation attorney Michelle Halley said, according to
This journey into the innards of EPA abuse is necessarily long. If it prompts you to any kind of action, whether it be signing a petition, telling a friend, or forwarding it to your social media contacts, I believe it will be worth the reading time, and – God willing – help stem the power of our most dangerous bureaucrats.
Read the entire Issa and Jordan oversight letter to EPA Administrator Jackson

Welcome to the Democrats’ Julia Crow Era

by: Christopher Chantrill
Christopher Chantrill
When I watch the Democratic attacks on Bain Capital, I wonder: just how do Democrats think the economy is supposed to work?
Take the Kansas City steel plant that Bain took private in 1993 and reassembled as GST Steel.  Here we had a faltering unionized steel plant.  Nothing remarkable about that, of course.  Unionized steel plants had been going out of business for two decades previously, because they were just too expensive and antiquated to be profitable.  I remember experiencing that visiting Cleveland, Ohio, in the 1970s.  The grand old basic steel plants in the Cuyahoga valley south of town were already wastelands, shuttered and abandoned, and their “good union jobs” gone for good.

Bain struggled with GST Steel for nearly a decade and then shuttered the plant in 2001.  Now, in 2012, the Democrats run an ad featuring a former employee calling Bain a “vampire.”  I assume he meant that Bain sucked the blood out of the company and then spat it out.  That’s after Bain had transfused $100 million into the company over ten years.
If Bain’s actions are reprehensible, then what about the government’s bank bailouts, in which the taxpayers stood bail on the banking system, or the auto bailouts when a Democratic administration showered benefits on Democratic constituencies with taxpayer money?
Just what is the principled Democratic way of dealing with industries in decline?  What do Democrats think is the fair and efficient way to deal with failing corporations?  What about Hewlett-Packard that just announced a layoff of 30,000 this week?

The world is waiting with bated breath for the answer, because, as we know, liberals and Democrats are the educated, the evolved, the intelligent people.
At the dawn of the postwar era the liberal prophet of cartel capitalism, John Kenneth Galbraith, barely worried in American Capitalism that there was “a chance that power developed and even encouraged to neutralize other power, will start on a career of its own.”  Fortunately, he assured us, these powers–big business, big unions, big government–had “so far comported themselves with some restraint.”  That was in 1952.
Since then there has been no sign that liberals have departed an inch from this top-down crony-capitalist model.  In fact the Obama administration has seemed determined, while still splattered with the debris of the cratered auto industry and the housing bubble, to test their Big Unit capitalism to destruction with ObamaCare, green energy, and very fast trains.

Meanwhile, the private capital industry has developed to help entrepreneurstart-ups and to discipline corporations that have taken their eye off the ball.  The only thing liberals can think to do is milk the private capitalists for campaign contributions.
There was another time in America when a whole sector of the nation chose to marinate in the past, standing against the future, and that was the Jim Crow era in the South.  Defeated in the Civil War, their profitable system of plantation slavery demolished, Southerners could still use political muscle to maintain a bitter and twisted domination over the newly-freed slaves and keep the freedmen from challenging the white political and economic ascendancy.  It was liberals that called the nation to abolish that racist abomination.

Today’s liberals are in the same position as the Southrons of 1900.  Their vision of good jobs, strong unions, defined benefits, and lifetime employment is gone with the wind, never to return.  Instead we have the economy of “creative destruction” prophesied by that other mid-century prophet, Joseph Schumpeter.
Nothing, we know, is forever in the economy — or ever was.  Railroads, the wonder of 1850, were replaced by oil and steel, the wonders of 1900, and they were replaced by autos and electricity in the 1920s, electronics in the 1950s, computers in the 1980s, and the information revolution of the 1990s.

You can see the new economy in the flap over Jack Welch and women in business.  Never mind “diversity, mentorships and affinity groups…  ‘Over deliver,’ Mr. Welch advised. ‘Performance is it!’”  Predictably the feminazis exploded, so the Wall Street Journal’s John Bussey went to 18 woman CEOs of Fortune 500 companies to ask their opinion.  They agreed with Welch.  “Be open to opportunity and take risks. In fact, take the worst, the messiest, the most challenging assignment you can find, and then take control,” said one woman.  “I have stepped up to many ‘ugly’ assignments that others didn’t want,” said another.
But the liberals are stuck in the past, marinating in their acidic Julia Crow politics.  They still have to power to defame and deny, but lack the goodwill do lend a hand and help.  And as for “the worst, the messiest, the most challenging assignment?” Today’s trustafarian liberals don’t believe in getting their hands dirty any more than the scion of yesterday’s cotton plantation.
America deserves better from its educated elite.
Christopher Chantrill runs two prominent conservative websites, US Government Spending and UK Public Spending. Follow Christopher at @chrischantrill

Obama Campaign Ad Controversy, 2000: ‘This Guy Says One Thing About You in Your Presence, And Then…’

All week, Democrats have been disagreeing publicly with President Barack Obama’s attacks on Bain Capital, with Newark Mayor Cory Booker describing the ad campaign as “nauseating.” It is not the first time that Democrats have attacked Obama for running dishonest campaign ads. Breitbart News has unearthed a long-overlooked report of an off-air argument between Obama and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) during a break in a debate on a Chicago radio station during Obama’s ill-fated primary challenge in 2000.
Curtis Lawrence, reporting at the time for the Chicago Sun-Times, covered the debate between then-state Senator Obama, Rush, and State Senator Donne E. Trotter, held on WVON-AM 1690 on Feb. 18, 2000. Lawrence described the exchanges as polite, and that the three candidates “agreed most of the time” on the issues. “But during breaks–which included an Obama commercial accusing Rush of being insensitive to seniors’ concerns about prescription drugs–the tension rose,” Lawrence reported on Feb. 20.
As Lawrence had noted in an earlier, Feb. 19 report on the radio debate, the Obama attack ad set off a fierce fight, and the candidates went from “behaving like perfect gentlemen on the airwaves” to “letting the venom fly when the microphones were off.”

Read More:

Obama Supporter May Be More Responsible for Bain Layoffs At Ampad Than Romney

by: Giacomo
President Barack Obama and his campaign have decided to make Mitt Romney’s leadership at Bain Capital a campaign issue.  They are painting Romney as a job killer by focusing on American Pad & Paper (Ampad).  The ad says that Mitt Romney is personally to blame for the closing of the Ampad plant in Marion, Indiana resulting in 250 people losing their jobs.
But when you look closer, it appears that a close friend and campaign contributor of Barack Obama may have been more responsible for the Ampad closing and job loss than Romney.
Jonathan Lavine was an executive at Bain Captial from 1993 to 1999.  While at Bain, Lavine sat on the board of Ampad along with 2 other Bain executives.  According to the person that replaced Lavine, he had a more profound impact in the events that led to the closure of Ampad and the layoffs.
Lavine is now co-owner of the NBA Boston Celtics.  He has also helped raise over $200,000 for the Obama campaign.
Ben Labolt, a campaign spokesman for the Obama campaign denies the accusation of Lavine’s involvement with Ampad and has laid the full blame on Romney as Bain’s CEO.  Labolt points out that Lavine was no longer with Bain when the decision was made to close the paper plant.
A spokesperson for Bain Capital has also released a statement exonerating Lavine from any involvement with Ampad, but Lavine’s replacement said that he had set things in motion that directly led to the closure after his departure.  He may not have been with Bain at the time the jobs were lost, but Lavine is being implicated in directing the events that led to the final conclusion.

Even if Romney was involved with what happened at Ampad, let’s look at Obama’s jobs record.  How many green jobs have been lost due to Obama?  He promised to create 5 million green jobs, but all we hear about is how companies like Solyndra have had to either close their doors or lay off hundreds of workers.  Under Obama’s orders, thousands of military positions have been lost because of the drastic cut to the Pentagon budget.  Obama has also cut the Border Patrol agents that have the duty to protect the US border from illegal entry.
If Obama really wants to start throwing stones over records, he better be prepared for a rocky avalanche that should soon be coming his way.

Unearthed: Young Obama took racial swipe at Colin Powell

by: AAron Klein
President Obama took an apparent racial swipe at Colin Powell in a 1994 NPR interview in which he implied the four-star general is acceptable to “white America.”
In the same interview, Obama advocates that the government should provide jobs for every citizen and prenatal care for all women.
Obama in 1994 was a community organizer and lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.
WND unearthed an Oct. 28, 1994, interview the future president gave to NPR in response to political scientist Charles Murray’s controversial book “The Bell Curve,” which argues that there are racial differences in intelligence.
During the radio interview, Obama said “the idea that inferior genes account for the problems of the poor in general, and blacks in particular, isn’t new, of course.”
“Racial supremacists have been using IQ tests to support their theories since the turn of the century,” he said.
Obama accused Murray of “pushing a very particular policy agenda, specifically, the elimination of affirmative action and welfare programs aimed at the poor.”
Obama then made the remarks about Powell.

“With one finger out to the political wind, Mr. Murray has apparently decided that white America is ready for a return to good old-fashioned racism so long as it’s artfully packaged and can admit for exceptions like Colin Powell,” Obama said.
While Obama clearly focused his ire on Murray, his singling out of Powell as acceptable to “white America” may raise some eyebrows.
In 1994, Powell was coming out of a six-year high-profile stint as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including during the first Gulf War.

Radical black leaders have long taken racial swipes at Powell, accusing him of being a “sell out” and an “Uncle Tom” for joining Republican administrations.
Such anti-Powell rhetoric, for example, was routine for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who in the 1990s was a regular guest lecturer at Obama’s Trinity United Church. In 1995, Obama, Wright and Al Sharpton marched in Farrakhan’s Oct. 16 Million Man March.
In an Oct. 24, 1989, Washington, D.C., speech, Farrakhan even claimed Powell was planning “a war against the black people of America.”
To this day, Farrakhan still sounds off about Powell. In an address in April, the extremist preacher called Powell “a black man in front of a policy to kill black people.”

In the same speech, Farrakhan stated both Obama and Powell want a “pat on the back” from their “former slave-masters and their children.”
In a May 2003 speech sponsored by Harvard Law School, Sharpton likened Powell and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to subservient house slaves.
In a 2007 Tennessee speech, Sharpton was asked by an audience member whether Powell and Rice are “house Negros.”
Sharpton replied: “I don’t know that they are viewed as house Negros in the term. I believe that they are in the house and the rest of us are in the field. So it would not be an inaccurate description.”

In 2002, actor and activist Harry Belafonte compared Powell to a plantation slave who moves into the slave owner’s house and says only things that will please his master.
“Colin Powell’s committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture.”
In 2008, Powell supported then-Sen. Obama, but he hasn’t indicated that he will back Obama again in the upcoming election. Earlier this week, he told NBC’s Matt Lauer:
“I feel as a private citizen that I ought to listen to what the president says and what the president has been doing. but I know I also have to listen to what the other fellow is saying. I’ve known Mitt Romney for many years, good man. … I’m still listening to what the Republicans are saying they’re going to do to fix the fiscal problems we have, to get the economy moving. I think I owe that to the Republican Party.”

Government provided jobs, healthcare
In the NPR interview, Obama also advocated massive government expansion over jobs and health care.
“Real opportunity would mean quality prenatal care for all women and well-funded and innovative public schools for all children,” he said. “Real opportunity would mean a job at a living wage for everyone who was willing to work, jobs that can return some structure and dignity to people’s lives and give inner-city children something more than a basketball rim to shoot for.”
Obama said that in the short run, “such ladders of opportunity are going to cost more, not less, than either welfare or affirmative action.”
“But, in the long run, our investment should pay off handsomely,” he said. “That we fail to make this investment is just plain stupid. It’s not the result of an intellectual deficit. It’s the result of a moral deficit.”
With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Iran: Discovery will collapse Christianity?

This is so laughable..the leather bound written on animal hide so called 'Gospel of Barnabas'..dates back to the 'Ottoman Empire' written long after the Christian of course this fake would praise Allah &  Muhammad over Jesus and God (Yawee)...This is about as fake as Obama's Certificate of Live Birth! I find it interesting that the Ayatollah of Iran ordered the 'burning and desecration of' all Christian bibles...yet go 'postal' when the Quran is burned!
I also find it interesting that Turkey is pushing this as authentic...well golly gee Mr.Wizard why not they want the return of the Ottoman Empire!

A must read:
By Reza Kahlili
Iran’s Basij Press is claiming that a version of the Gospel of Barnabas, found in 2000, will prove that Islam is the final and righteous religion and the revelation will cause the collapse worldwide of Christianity.
Turkey confiscated a leather-bound text, written on animal hide, in an anti-smuggling operation in 2000. Turkish authorities believe the text could be an authentic version of the Gospel of Barnabas, one of Jesus’ apostles and an associate of the apostle Paul.
This version of the Barnabas Gospel was written in the 5th or 6th century and it predicted the coming of the Prophet Mohammad and the religion of Islam, the Basij Press claims.
The Christian world, it says, denies the existence of such a gospel.

However, religious scholars have said another version of the Barnabas Gospel, discovered a century ago, was written less than 500 years ago, which would post-date Mohammad.
In Chapter 41 of the Barnabas Gospel, Basij claims, is this statement: “God has hidden himself as Archangel Michael ran them (Adam and Eve) out of heaven, (and) when Adam turned, he noticed that at top of the gateway to heaven, it was written ‘La elah ela Allah, Mohamad rasool Allah,’” meaning Allah is the only God and Mohammad his prophet.

The Turkish army has taken possession of the Barnabas Gospel because the “Zionists” and the governments of the West are trying to suppress its contents, Basij Press claims.
According to the Barnabas Gospel in Turkey’s hands, Basij Press says, Jesus was never crucified and that not only is He not the son of God, but that He himself predicted the coming of the Prophet Mohammad. The book even predicts the coming of the last Islamic messiah, the report says.
“The discovery of the original Barnabas Bible will now undermine the Christian Church and its authority and will revolutionize the religion in the world,” the Basij report says. “The most significant fact, though, is that this Bible has predicted the coming of Prophet Mohammad and in itself has verified the religion of Islam, and this alone will unbalance the powers of the world and create instability in the Christian world.”

The Basij report concludes that the discovery is so immense that it will affect the world’s politics and that the world powers are aware of the coming effects of this event.
Turkey plans to put the Bible on public display. Though Turkish authorities believe this could be an authentic version of the Gospel of Barnabas, others believe it only goes back to the 16th century and is a fake because it would have been written centuries after Mohammad’s life.

“The Iranian regime is committed to stamping out Christianity by any means necessary, whether that means executing Christian converts, burning Bibles or raiding underground churches,” said Erick Stakelbeck, host of the Christian Broadcasting Network’s “Stakelbeck on Terror” show and a close observer of Iranian affairs. “In promoting the so-called Barnabas Bible – which was likely written sometime in the 16th century and is not accepted by any mainstream Christian denomination – the regime is once again attempting to discredit the Christian faith. Record numbers of young Iranians are leaving Islam and embracing Christ, and the mullahs see Christianity as a growing threat to their authority.”
The Vatican has requested to see the scripture but it is unknown if Turkey has provided it access to the text.
Recently Iranian ayatollahs have been outspoken that Islam is the last and only righteous religion sent by God.

Grand Ayatollah Jafar Sobhani, in a recent statement, announced that since the Quran was the last holy book and provides the most complete religion to the world and Mohammad the last prophet as indicated in the Quran, there is no authority to abide by other books. The Quran clearly indicates that only those who have accepted the true religion of Islam are the guided ones, he said.
As reported recently, a former intelligence officer in the Revolutionary Guards revealed that tens of thousands of Bibles were confiscated and burned in Iran, under the order of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who said the Bible is not a holy book and its burning is morally acceptable.
As the Islamic regime in Iran continues to suppress its people with violations of human rights and challenges the world over its nuclear program, Khamenei said, “In light of the realization of the divine promise by almighty God, the Zionists and the Great Satan (America) will soon be defeated. Allah’s promise will be delivered, and Islam will be victorious.”
Reza Kahlili translated this Iranian video about Islamic prophecies of a coming messiah and the destruction of Israel:

Video:What If Obama Had Never Been President?

by: Daniel Noe
This is a hard-hitting web ad from the Restoring America Project Super-Pac. It is nostalgic in a way; many things were a lot better before Obama was elected.

An Open Letter To The “Senior Staff” At

by: Tom Ballantyne Jr
We Will Miss Breitbart SC An Open Letter to the Senior Staff at

Let’s get a few things straight here.  As much as we all loved Andrew Breitbart’s moxie, he, like virtually every other national Conservative who was or is a part of the “establishment” (read, those who have established themselves financially, and been acknowledged by their peers) had avoided the issue of the Constitutional eligibility of the president of the United States. Much like Sewanee, the University of the South, has avoided gridiron rematches with Texas, Tennessee, Texas A&M, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Auburn, LSU, and Ole Miss since beating all eight (along with four other schools) in their 12-0 1899 season.  Far better to boast that they had once proved their mettle on the playing field than to have to do it again…in real time.

So, like the mythically-fearless Michelle Malkin, or the once-cocky and courageous Ann Coulter, the “Senior Staff” at Breitbart prefers to live off of past – and in their case, borrowed – glory. And, given their namesake’s own calculated denial of this historic issue, the youngsters at Breitbart apparently believe they can get away with it. But it’s tough trying to be all things to all people – especially when the views encompassed are diametrically opposed.

So here come the princes of political archeology – they can hardly be called monarchs in their own right – and they have a find…but it’s a sticky one.  You see, the recognized king of sequestration, the billionaire financier of burying (not excavating) the past, has declared certain digs “off limits.”  Those would be any that might uncover relics from the entombed past of the current Occupier-in-Chief.  So…to disclose or not to disclose?  Such a dilemma!  The heady thrill of breaking a story of potentially enormous national interest, as well as consequence…but on an officially quarantined (and hermetically-sealed) topic….  How to proceed?
Ah, the obvious approach…to break the story, but make sure that the purse-strings-that-be know that you yourselves don’t take it seriously.  Heaven forbid!  Bittersweet, but what could be more important at this point than one’s Arianna-approved “intellectual” (press) credentials – even if such a notion is in its very essence oxymoronic…or, just plain moronic?  So here we have it, in their own contortionist’s attempt at simultaneously claiming credit for, and dismissing, the obvious implications of a recently unearthed find:
Note from Senior Management:
Andrew Breitbart was never a “Birther,” and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of “Birtherism.” In fact, Andrew believed, as we do, that President Barack Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, on August 4, 1961.
Yet Andrew also believed that the complicit mainstream media had refused to examine President Obama’s ideological past, or the carefully crafted persona he and his advisers had constructed for him.
It is for that reason that we launched “The Vetting,” an ongoing series in which we explore the ideological background of President Obama (and other presidential candidates)–not to re-litigate 2008, but because ideas and actions have consequences.
It is also in that spirit that we discovered, and now present, the booklet described below–one that includes a marketing pitch for a forthcoming book by a then-young, otherwise unknown former president of the Harvard Law Review
It is evidence–not of the President’s foreign origin, but that Barack Obama’s public persona has perhaps been presented differently at different times.
Wow!  Where to begin…?  Let’s start with disclaimer #1:  “Andrew Breitbart was never a ‘Birther,’ and Breitbart News is a site that has never advocated the narrative of ‘Birtherism.’”
Reading this makes me want to ask in bemused wonder:  How old are you?  (I could, of course, ask the same question of Anderson Cooper, Bill O’Reilly, Mark Levine, Neal Boortz, or Glenn Beck – who are clearly much older to a man.)  But seriously, how immature – or insecure, at least – must one be to be so concerned with what the cultural elites think of them?  Young Ben Shapiro (twenty-eight, and reportedly the youngest nationally syndicated writer in the country) went to Harvard Law. One wonders if he had been president of the Law Review if we would have ever seen one of his publications…but I digress.  Joel Pollak…sure enough, went to both Harvard and Harvard Law – just as I had expected.

While I must congratulate the two on emerging from that milieu with any non-collectivist values, it seems that neither of them escaped with a penchant for identifying and confronting the Alinsky staple of marginalization…or, they accept the practice so fully that they simply can’t bear the thought of being on the receiving end thereof.  Well, grow up, boys!  If what Media Matters says about you is a concern (and it clearly is), then perhaps you should choose another line of work.

read more:

Sheriff Joe: 'I'm not going to call it quits'

Good for Sheriff Joe Arpaio...he appears to be the only elected Sheriff that has the Cahunas to go up against not only Barack Obama but the corrupted GOP machine as well!

by: Jerome R. Corsi
Sheriff Joe Arpaio says the decision by Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett to place Barack Obama’s name on the state’s presidential ballot won’t put an end to the investigation by his Cold Case posse team, which now has its lead detective on the ground in Honolulu.
“No, I’m not going to call it quits,” Arpaio told WND.
“I’m not calling my Cold Case Posse investigators home from Hawaii, and I don’t plan to end my investigation prematurely.”
After more than eight weeks of pressing Hawaii’s Department of Health, Bennett said last night that he finally received information that proves Obama’s American birth and satisfies Arizona’s requirements for having the president on the ballot, reported
Sign the petition now to show members of Congress how many Americans demand constitutional integrity.

The reported verification from Hawaii came only after Bennett, a Republican who has aspirations to run for governor, closely tailored his request to conform to the demands of Hawaii’s attorney general.
Arpaio said that as the highest elected law enforcement officer in Maricopa County, “I am determined to remain above politics in the effort of my Cold Case Posse to discover the truth.”
As WND reported, Arpaio launched his investigation last September after 250 Maricopa County residents belonging to the Surprise, Ariz., Tea Party presented him with a petition claiming their voting rights would be compromised if Obama used a forged birth certificate to win a place on the 2012 Arizona presidential ballot.

“As with any investigation undertaken by my office, it is my responsibility to the residents of Maricopa County to investigate until I discover the truth, regardless how intensely political pressure is applied to me by the White House and now by the Arizona secretary of state,” Arpaio told WND late last night.
WND has also reported U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has decided to take the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office to federal District Court in pursuit of the Justice Department claims that Arpaio has implemented policies that systematically deprive Hispanics of federal civil rights.
Arpaio spelled out to WND last month his response to the federal lawsuit: “Clean your own house, Eric Holder, before you come trying to clean mine.”
Does anyone really know where Obama is from? Find out the startling truth from New York Times best-selling author Jerome Corsi.

Bennett’s announcement yesterday that a back-and-forth exchange of emails with Hawaii state officials had concluded came as Maricopa County Cold Case Posse investigators were in Hawaii probing the authenticity of the document released by the White House April 27, 2011, as Obama’s long-form birth certificate.
Dismissing the likelihood Bennett’s move will end the birth certificate controversy, Mike Zullo, the lead investigator for Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, told WND his team will remain in Hawaii until their investigations are completed.
Zullo said the possibility remained that Arpaio’s law enforcement investigation will conclude Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service registration form are fraudulent – a result that would pit the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office against the Arizona state government. The posse announced March 1 probable cause exists that the documents were forged.

“In my meetings with Mr. Bennett on behalf of Sheriff Arpaio, he was uninterested in reviewing the evidence the Cold Case Posse has accumulated,” Zullo said, characterizing Bennett’s late-night announcement as a “desperate rush to judgment” after weeks of negotiation to get Hawaii to provide the assurances he required.
“Evidently Hawaii has had a change of heart,” Zullo said. “I’m now happy to return once again to the Hawaii Department in Health to repeat our request that Hawaii release whatever birth records may yet remain concealed in the Hawaii Department of Health vaults to public examination by a court-certified group of forensic examiners.”
Bennett made his announcement after the close of business in Phoenix yesterday, apparently before he had an opportunity to read the emails sent to his office by Joshua Wisch, special assistant to Hawaii Attorney General David Louie.

Surprise Tea Party members responded angrily to Bennett’s announcement, charging he had caved to political pressure applied by prominent Republican Party members, including Arizona’s Republican Sen. John McCain.
As WND reported, Bennett had responded in writing to inquiries from Arizona Tea Party officials with the promise that he would remove Obama from the Arizona presidential ballot unless Hawaii provided verification that Obama’s birth certificate is valid.
Many times during the weeks-long controversy, Bennett expressed surprise that the certification he required from the state of Hawaii was not immediately forthcoming.

As the confrontation between the Arizona secretary of state and the Hawaii attorney general’s office unfolded, the Obama birth controversy took an unexpected turn when Breitbart News disclosed Obama’s literary agency published in 1991 on Obama’s behalf a biography claiming the future president was born in Kenya.
WND has reported that the agency, Dystel & Goderich, continued publishing until 2007 biographical summaries declaring Obama was Kenyan-born, many years after the publishing in 1995 of his autobiography, “Dreams from My Father.”
Bretbart News reported today that Dystel & Goderich requires authors represented by the agency to provide the biographical information upon which the agency’s publications are based.
Read the preliminary findings of Sheriff Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse investigation.