Weary of defending in court the Constitutional eligibility of their
man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Democrat Party has finally admitted
Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States– and
that it doesn’t matter. According to a motion
filed by Party attorneys in a Tennessee eligibility lawsuit,
“…Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National
Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Party has the right to
nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who
is not qualified for the office.”
In numerous previous lawsuits questioning the Constitutional
eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, Democrats have maintained that
voters, not the Constitution, should be the final arbiters of
presidential eligibility. Though a disgraceful assertion on its face,
such mindless rambling was about all that desperate Democrat attorneys
had in their arsenals, apart from the perpetually employed “plaintiffs
lack standing” defense.
But now, the cat is out of the bag, and the true sentiments of
Democrat Party officials have finally been aired. It seems that,
according to the left, as long as the acting president has the requisite
contempt for the United States, is willing to work tirelessly to
destroy the national economy, and will ignore both the rule of law and
his Constitutional duty to enforce it, he is eminently qualified to hold
the country’s top job.
In February, Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi ignored
Supreme Court precedent, made a shambles of case law, and distorted the
rulings of other courts in a pathetically obvious mission to find Barack
Obama eligible for the Georgia presidential ballot. Although the first
judge to decide an Obama eligibility case on the merits, his contempt
for an honest judicial process certainly did nothing to mend the rapidly
deteriorating reputation of the American legal system.
On Wednesday, United States District Judge S. Thomas Anderson joined a
long list of robed colleagues, ruling that plaintiffs in the Tennessee
case “lacked standing” to point out Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility
for the presidency. That is, plaintiffs could not claim sufficient
personal harm should the Manchurian Candidate remain in or be re-elected
to the White House.
Strange how the law works. After 3 ½ years of cynical disregard for
the borders, language, and culture of the United States, one would think
that some 240 million people have suffered “sufficient personal harm”
to claim legal standing for a crack at His Royal Highness in a court of
law! There are only 30 million illegals currently residing in the United
States, and those the Attorney General refers to as “his people” might
actually lack legal standing in the eyes of an honest arbiter.
At any rate, Democrats have finally admitted what the rest of us have
known for quite some time. Barack Obama is NOT qualified to hold the
job won for him by the national media in 2008. But it seems only the
voters will have the authority to reclaim it from him. God willing, the
vast majority who exercise that authority in November will be both
American and alive.
Wide Receiver was a small scale law enforcement gun smuggling
interdiction effort that involved Phoenix — I mistakenly said Tucson
yesterday — involved Phoenix-based ATF agents working in conjunction
with Mexican law enforcement. ATF supervisors and justice department
prosecutors in Arizona were trying to build a case against a violent
group of Mexican drug smugglers. Fast and Furious was an effort to build
a case against American gun dealers and the Second Amendment. That’s
the stark difference.
Wide Receiver was an attempt to build a case against gun smugglers
and the drug cartels, to find out who they were, where they are. The
purpose of Fast and Furious was to build a case against the Second
Amendment. In a nutshell, Wide Receiver began in 2005. It involved four
hundred guns. All of the weapons in Wide Receiver had RFID trackers
installed in them, and they were actively tracked. Only the Phoenix ATF
and DOJ were involved. The Mexican government was kept fully informed.
They were an active participant. In Wide Receiver, the ATF agents tried
to track the guns using radio devices and aircraft. They wanted to find
out where the guns ended up, into the hands of which cartels and where
they were, so that a case could be made. It was an effort to track these
people to find them, locate them.
The Bush administration, as part of Wide Receiver, notified the
Mexican government when arms and drug smugglers were crossing. When the
guns were being walked across the border or when they had been purchased
legally, being taken back to Mexico, the Mexican government was
notified. At least 1,400 arrests were made as part of Wide Receiver.
Now, once ATF found out the smugglers were disabling the tracking
devices, the RFID tracking devices that were planted in the guns, they
ripped them out and then the guns were lost. So the program was shut
down in October of 2007. Once the bad guys discovered the tracking
devices, the program was ended, in 2007. Ended.
Now, here’s Fast and Furious by contrast. Fast and Furious began in
October of 2009. Obama is in his tenth month. Wide Receiver doesn’t
exist. It’d been shut down for two years. Fast and Furious involved over
2,000 guns. Wide Receiver was 1,400 guns. Roughly. No tracking devices
were planted in the Fast and Furious guns. The regime didn’t care where
they ended up. There were no tracking devices. No effort was made to
track them. No helicopters. There was no on-the-ground surveillance of
the straw purchasers. None of it. The guns were sold, they were walked
across the border, and that was it. Four federal agencies were involved
in maybe as many as 10 cities in five states.
In contrast to Wide Receiver, the Mexican government was not notified
the program even existed. They did not use tracking devices or aircraft
to try to find and track the smugglers. The local ATF field agents were
ordered not to follow the straw purchasers. Fast and Furious is as bad
as everything you have conjured it to be in your mind. Wide Receiver has
nothing in common, other than guns crossing the border. That’s it.
Federal agents, furthermore — are you following all this, Snerdley? —
federal agents were not allowed to interdict the guns and they even ran
interference for the smugglers with local law enforcement on multiple
occasions to make sure those guns made it across the border.
Oh My... Jack has finally saw the light and is moving back toward the Right as he was raised in N/Nevada...Hey Jack ya may want to defect to @FoxNews...CNN may not like that comment...lol
CNN’s Jack Cafferty on Tuesday called House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) a horrible woman.
Twice.
On the 4PM installment of the “Situation
Room,” Cafferty expressed disgust with Monday’s revelation by the CBS
“Evening News” about reckless spending by members of Congress at last
month’s United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen.
“It’s a disgrace,” said Cafferty. “This
nation is hurting, but Nancy Pelosi can use three military jets for a
December trip to Copenhagen, and then refuse to answer any questions
about it.”
By the end of the segment, Cafferty could only say, “What a horrible woman she is” Click below to watch the video.
By B. Christopher Agee
A Charlotte, N.C., police chaplain recently received some ridiculous
news after seven years of serving local officers and the community in
that capacity.
Though he is also the pastor of a Christian church (keyword:
Christian), Terry Sartain and his fellow chaplains are no longer allowed
to mention the name of Jesus during public invocations. In fact, given
the invocation’s root word, “invoke”, the term refers to actually
calling upon a specific deity. I guess the department will scrap any
further use of the term because of this development.
The man in charge of the chaplain program reportedly said the
decision was a “matter of respecting that people may have different
faiths,” though Sartain said he’s never experienced any backlash from
those holding alternate religious views.
Sometimes the PC police infiltrate the actual police, which is
apparently what has happened in this community – a North Carolina
community nonetheless. I know the Charlotte area is not as conservative
as some other areas of the state, such as the beautiful Outer Banks on
which I lived for several years, but it’s still not San Fransisco or
Chicago. This is a place located squarely on the Bible Belt, which supposedly meant something at some point in the past.
“It brings about a very real concern about where we are heading as a
nation,” Sartain reportedly replied. I could not have said it better.
To be clear, the department’s police chaplains are still welcome to
pray, as long as the prayer is not directed to Jesus. This distinction
led Sartain to ask what I feel to be the only natural follow-up
question: to whom exactly should he direct his prayer?
The police department’s reply was that he should deliver “secular”
prayers. I’m sorry, but that phrase sounds like an oxymoron. I suppose
it could be some reference to meditation or thinking happy thoughts, but
either way, there’s not much need for an ordained Christian pastor to
deliver them.
Sartain, along with the officers in this department and their families, are just the latest victims in the ongoing culture war, leading the pastor to remove his name from consideration for future public invocations.
When an agency no longer allows a pastor to mention the namesake of
his faith, he can no more perform his duties than a doctor prohibited
from prescribing medicine.
These anti-Christian leftists tout fairness and compromise when
making these demands, as though taking away one group’s liberty will
somehow positively affect another group. Just as you won’t get rich if a
millionaire loses his money, this argument displays a failed
understanding of the word “fair.”
Long-held religious institutions, even the Charlotte police chaplain
program, must be preserved in order for the moral backbone of this
country to exist. Of course, many on the far left wish to change
everything about America, including its Judeo-Christian values. They see
government as the one true religion, a secular god in itself. Now that I
think about it, I guess that’s why they favor secular prayer.
In my understanding of the Bill of Rights, government is prohibited from
interfering in my faith. Liberals interpret it to mean the exact
opposite.
The two most important words in the current Obama administration scandal aren’t “Fast” or “Furious.” They are “Brian Terry.”
In December 2010, Brian Terry — a former
Marine and police officer turned Border Patrol agent — was working in
Arizona, 11 miles from the Mexican border. He was killed in a gunfight
with Mexican drug runners, and two of the AK-47s found at the scene were
linked to a then-unknown program of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms called “Operation Fast and Furious.”
The name is perfect, because the president wants you furious — and fast.
He wants you focused on those mean ol’
House Republicans who, according to Department of Justice consultant
Robert Raben, are just “doing the bidding of the National Rifle
Association.” Obama wants you debating Bush-era gun programs vs. his
own, the limits of presidential privilege — anything except the fact
that yesterday brought us the highest four-week average of initial
jobless claims for the year.
by Kevin "Coach" Collins
In the days immediately after Barack Obama decreed an amnesty for
800,000 illegal aliens, the Democrat cheerleaders in the media have been
giddily claiming that it has ignited Hispanic enthusiasm to vote for
Obama. According to Obama’s steno pool, this decree solved a problem
that has been plaguing Obama’s reelection campaign plans for months.
A Latino Decisions and America’s Voice survey
found “registered voters” are “very enthusiastic” about Barack Obama’s
announcement granting amnesty to these 800,000 people. Aside from the
fact that there is a difference between enthusiasm for a policy and
enthusiasm to vote for Obama, the “new surge of enthusiasm” only brings
Hispanics’ desire to vote roughly in line with that found among blacks
and young voters.
Enthusiasm among none of these groups stands above 48%. Numbers like this will not get Obama re-elected.
Before Obama’s announcement, 53% of Hispanics reported being less
enthused about voting next November than they were in 2009. Thirty
percent were more enthused to vote. The hidden gem in these numbers
shows that an alarming 22% were excited to vote before the BIG
announcement. Twenty two percent!
An August 2008 CNN Poll found 62% of Hispanics were looking forward
to voting, which they did at a rate of 66% for Obama. By 2010, Hispanic voting patterns had changed as they returned away from
Democrats. In 2010, Hispanics voted 63% Democrat, down from 69% in 2006.
Bad numbers speak for themselves.
The most recent survey of Hispanic voter enthusiasm before last
weekend was completed in February by YouGov. It found that just 43% of
Hispanic Democrats were looking forward to voting.
This means Obama’s BIG announcement may have moved Hispanic
enthusiasm up 5 points. This “put him over the top”? That’s doubtful.
While all of this is playing out, it is worth noting that in 2008,
CNN found that 92% of blacks were excited to vote, and they voted 95%
for Obama. A February 2012 YouGov poll reported that black voter
enthusiasm had fallen to 60%, which was what white voter enthusiasm was
just before the 2008 election.
Remember these numbers; they make sense of Obama’s moves and prove that predictions of his victory are wishful thinking at best.
While the House Oversight Committee has now
recommended that Congress hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt
for his conduct during the Fast and Furious scandal, one could make the
case that Holder has long held the American public in contempt.
After all, how many cabinet secretaries
begin their tenure by calling his fellow Americans “a nation of cowards”
where it concerned the question of racism? Never mind that America has
become a nation where racism is not only unacceptable but a nation
where, outside of being called a murderer or a rapist, nothing is worse
than being called a racist.
If anyone has behaved cowardly where it
concerns racism, it is Holder. What can one say about a man who sees fit
to drop a successfully prosecuted case of voter intimidation? If two
members of the Ku Klux Klan had held a baton in front of polling station
in Philadelphia, Mississippi, to intimidate black voters, Holder would
have spared no effort to prosecute them. But when it comes to two
members of the New Black Panthers holding a baton in front of polling
station in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to intimidate white voters,
Holder could not care less. During testimony before a House
Appropriations Subcommittee hearing in March 2011, Holder said:
“When you compare what people endured in
the South in the ’60s to try to get the right to vote for African
Americans, to compare what people subjected to that with what happened
in Philadelphia… I think does a great disservice to people who put their
lives on the line for my people.”
No, the great disservice here is an
Attorney General who does not comprehend the basic legal concept of
“equal justice under law.” Eric Holder is the Attorney General of the
United States, not the Attorney General of his people.
Yet what can we expect of a public official who does not have the courtesy to read legislation he contended would lead
to increased racial profiling? Oh, pardon me. Holder did say he
“glanced” at the Arizona immigration law. It would have been nice if
Holder taken the copy of S.B. 1070 that Texas Congressman Ted Poe so
generously offered him. Then again it probably wouldn’t have made a
difference. Holder’s Department of Injustice was going to sue Arizona
whether he read the bill or not.
by: Jeff Knox
Eighteen months after Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was murdered in
Arizona by Mexican bandits using guns purchased through a U.S.
government program called Fast and Furious, we still don’t know who
within the Department of Justice knew about the program, much less who
authorized it.
Certainly there has been no serious talk about prosecuting any of the
people responsible for assisting in the illegal sales of over 2,000
guns to Mexican arms traffickers – guns that were subsequently involved
in the murders of BPA Terry and Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Agent Jaime Zapata, as well as possibly hundreds of Mexican citizens.
But while that investigation has dragged on, with Attorney General
Eric Holder denying knowledge of the program, denying knowledge of who
was involved and denying congressional investigators access to tens of
thousands of documents that might answer those questions, New Mexico gun
dealer Rick Reese and his two sons Ryin and Remington have sat rotting
in separate detention centers, jails and prisons around the state
accused of a similar crime involving some 30 guns.
The Reese family, including Rick’s wife Terri, ran a gun shop in
Deming, N.M., and was arrested in late August of 2011 on charges of
knowingly selling guns to Mexican smugglers and various other related
charges.
After spending 6 months in jail, Terri Reese was finally granted bail
in March of this year, but Rick and the boys have been repeatedly
denied bail on the pretext that they are flight risks or might try to
engage in a Ruby Ridge-type standoff.
The rationale for denying the Reeses’ constitutional rights is that
Rick knows some people in Mexico, his home has a well and solar power
and there were guns and ammunition in their homes and businesses when
they were arrested. That’s right: Guns and ammo in the home and business
of a federally licensed firearms dealer (all of which were seized a
year ago and have never been returned) is being offered as evidence that
they can’t be trusted – and a judge bought it.
Well, there’s also the fact that Rick and Terri were involved with a
local tea-party group. That’s probably reason enough right there.
The Reeses are scheduled to finally get their day in court in late
July, almost a full year after they were arrested and incarcerated. The
first of several pre-trial motion hearings was held last week in which
the judge heard arguments as to whether the charge of criminal
conspiracy should be dropped. The prosecution contends that the Reese
family members were all in cahoots in a conspiracy to sell guns to
illegal buyers, falsify purchase paperwork, smuggle guns to Mexico and
launder the illegal proceeds. The defense contends that the family
operated a business buying and selling firearms, ammunition and
accessories, and that they made every effort to ensure that every sale
they made was legal and properly documented.
During this first hearing, we learned several things about the
prosecution’s case. For instance, we learned that prosecutors
acknowledge that every gun the Reeses sold was properly logged into and
out of their store inventory, and that FBI background checks were conducted, and
approvals received, for each purchaser. They also agree that all taxes
were paid and no money was exchanged “under the table,” nor did any of
the family members receive compensation above their normal company
paycheck.
We learned that Rick Reese also employed retired and off-duty law
enforcement officers as part-time help in the shop, and that a
substantial portion of the company’s business came from law enforcement
officers and agencies.
We learned that prosecutors consider three family members standing
close to each other and quietly talking to be evidence of conspiracy and
that the lead investigator in the case has a very low opinion of fellow
law enforcement officers. When asked if he considered the fact that the
Reeses employed LEOs in the shop to be contraindicative of a criminal
conspiracy, he replied that he did not because “a lot of them [cops and
former cops] are dirty.”
Probably the most important fact we learned at this hearing was that
the entire investigation was instigated based on a tip that a woman
named Penny Torres was making suspicious purchases of guns and
ammunition, and might be illegally buying for someone else. That tip led
to Torres’ arrest and her subsequent grand jury testimony against the
Reese family and another gun shop where she had made some purchases. The
presumption is that her cooperation garnered her leniency in the
charges and sentence she was facing for her criminal activity.
What is most significant about the arrest of Penny Torres is that the
original tip identifying her as a potential “straw buyer” came from
Terri Reese.
Torres had claimed that her purchases were in preparation for a large
family reunion at an area ranch where her relatives wanted to do a lot
of shooting. At some point after the sales, Terri Reese became
suspicious of Torres’ story and contacted a friend in the Luna County
Sheriff’s office, who acted as the shop’s go-to guy in law enforcement.
He assured Terri that he would make a report to ATF and get back to her.
Torres testimony against the Reese family led to a months-long sting
operation conducted against the Reeses by a federal agency called
Homeland Security Investigations, or HSI. That investigation involved a
confidential informant named Roman, who was trying to earn a reduced
sentence for drug and human smuggling. His job was to make purchases of
firearms and ammunition from the Reeses while dropping hints that his
intent was to illegally take the guns to Mexico. The trick was to drop
those hints in such a way that they wouldn’t alarm the Reeses, but that
someone listening to a recording of the tape and reading a transcript
would conclude that the Reeses knew, or should have known, his
intentions.
Roman, by the way, speaks only broken English, and his conversations
with the Reeses included a lot of Spanish, a language that no one in the
Reese family speaks, but which has been transcribed for the court in
English.
Who would believe that a gun dealer’s report of a suspicious
purchaser would lead to a federal investigation of the dealer herself,
culminating in a raid with armored vehicles, helicopters and heavily
armed officers and agents from multiple jurisdictions?
Or that a few firearms and ammunition sales in a high-volume gun
store, including the sales that Terri Reese had reported as suspicious,
would result in confiscation of virtually everything the family had
accumulated over a 25-year marriage and 17 years in business – bank
accounts, gun and coin collections, store inventory, vehicles, real
estate, just about everything the family had?
Or that the same Justice Department that had instructed dealers to
sell over 2,000 guns to known straw buyers for Mexican drug cartels
while making no attempt to track or interdict them – with a few arrests
and minor charges against the straw purchasers, but no charges against
the ATF and DOJ employees who masterminded the criminal operation –
would effectively destroy a family for not being quite diligent enough
in their efforts to screen their customers?
It is worth noting that as HSI progressed in their investigation
against the Reese family, they were briefing and receiving guidance from
Phoenix ATF Bureau Chief Bill Newell – the man responsible for directly
overseeing Operation Fast and Furious.
For the Reese family, who have already served 10 months behind bars
and have had all of their worldly possessions taken from them, the July
trial is an opportunity to prove their innocence and try to reassemble
what’s left of their lives.
For the prosecution, it is imperative that they prove that the Reeses
were intentionally engaging in the criminal activity they have already
been being punished for. Failure to get a conviction would leave egg on
the face of a relatively new federal law enforcement agency trying to
establish itself, and would mean that the various agencies involved
wouldn’t get to divvy up the spoils already pillaged.
Once again though, we see a case where those inside the government
and law enforcement are handled with kid gloves and given the benefit of
every doubt, while those outside of government and law enforcement are
presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence – even after the
government has taken away the resources they need to make their case. If you would like to help the Reese family in their struggle, a defense fund has been set up at:
REESE DEFENSE FUND
ATTENTION Patricia Arias
First Savings Bank
520 South Gold
Deming, NM 88030
When Barack Obama claimed executive privilege today in an effort to
protect Attorney General Eric Holder from a contempt-of-Congress charge
in the Fast and Furious gunrunning scandal, he may have inadvertently
exposed himself as an accessory to murder.
For eight months, Holder has been stonewalling congressional
investigators looking into the Justice Department scandal responsible
for the deaths of at least two U.S. law enforcement officers and untold
numbers of civilians on either side of the border with Mexico.
Holder has repeatedly lied to Congress, besides withholding the documents investigators have subpoenaed.
When asked earlier this year when he first learned about Fast and
Furious, Holder claimed about two weeks earlier. Later, congressional
investigators found documents proving he had known about it for at least
a year and a half longer.
Holder also claimed the Bush administration started the program and
that his predecessor knew all about it. When pressed on that point by
Sen. Charles Grassley, Holder and the Justice Department retracted the
claim.
Holder then offered the House Judiciary Committee, headed by Rep.
Darrell Issa, a deal. Holder would provide all the documents the
committee demanded for a pledge to close the investigation.
Issa, of course, reacted incredulously. What would be the point of an
investigation if the results were predetermined by the target of the
investigation? What investigator in his right mind would accept such a
deal?
Then Obama stepped in and claimed executive privilege.
Now understand what this means. Obama cannot claim executive
privilege for any member of his administration. He can only do so for
himself and his inner circle of advisers, and should never do so unless
it’s a matter of national security.
What Obama did, in apparent desperation, was to expose his own
personal complicity in this scandal, making him, quite possibly, an
accessory to murder.
Can you imagine how big this scandal is and how far it reaches for the administration to take such a gamble?
Even the once-friendly media are seeing through this charade.
Obama sniffed in 2007 how unreasonable it was for George W. Bush to
claim executive privilege regarding the dismissal of a handful of
Justice Department lawyers. Bill Clinton fired ALL of his federal
prosecutors the day he took office. Not a single Democrat blinked.
But now we’re talking about a scandal in which people, Americans, law
enforcement officers and, no doubt, Mexican and U.S. citizens, were
murdered by weapons purposely placed into the hands of the drug cartels
in Mexico and the U.S.
Those old enough will recall how Democrats were outraged by the claim
of executive privilege by Richard Nixon during Watergate. I was one of
them. But no one died in Watergate. Fast and Furious is about murder –
and complicity by the U.S. Justice Department. Now we learn, by Obama’s
own admission, he was somehow involved.
But it gets worse. Obama must now explain the following: Fifteen
months ago, Holder pledged full cooperation in the congressional
investigation into Fast and Furious. He didn’t mean it, of course. But
he pledged it any way. Now Obama has claimed executive privilege. That,
of course, raises the question of what happened in the last 15 months to
make this, suddenly, a state secret to be guarded by executive
privilege.
I can only hope and pray that Republicans in Congress stand united in
demanding the truth be told to the American people and that justice be
served. In addition, though unlikely, it might be a good time for some
Democrats in Congress to realize that they, too, are participating in
one of the most evil, immoral, illegal cover-ups in American political
history. If they have any conscience at all, it might be a good time to
rediscover it.
Obama is going down for this – whether it’s in the election in
November or before. Democrats should start deciding now if they want to
go down with him or stand up for principle as many Republicans did
during the darkest days of Watergate.
Guaranteed to to take ya back to the old west days...when men were men and women were women...no metros allowed in city limits...check yo guns and ego when entering lest ya be arrested by the Ghost of Wyatt Earp or proxy thereof..lol Come have some fun and forget politics as usual for a few moments in your busy life...bring money and friends we could use the no tax revenue:)
Barack Obama’s transition from president to king continues with his
invoking of executive privilege to block Congress from documents related
to Eric Holder’s involvement in “Fast and Furious,” the Justice
Department program that put U.S. guns in the hands of Mexican drug
runners.
For the second time in a week, President Obama has shown he not only
doesn’t care what Congress thinks, but he has the power and the
inclination to just roll over the Legislative Branch and anyone in it,
particularly the GOP members.
Executive privilege is something to which presidents occasionally
resort, but given the nature of the Fast and Furious probe, and
following hot on the heels of Obama’s decree of amnesty for millions of
illegal immigrants, this is not the normal legal functioning of the
executive office so much as the second in a one-two punch to Congress’
midsection.
By keeping subpoenaed documents related to Fast and Furious out of
the hands of the congressional panel led by California Congressman
Darrell Issa, Obama is hiding information about a federal operation that
didn’t just go awry, but that resulted in the death of a Border Patrol
agent.
The Democrats are accusing Republicans of being political in issuing a
contempt citation to Eric Holder because of his refusal to hand over
additional documents in the Fast and Furious case. Of course the
Republicans are being political. Both sides are political. Let’s
everybody admit that politics is involved in everything a politician
does. We’re not stupid, at least not all of us.
While Executive Privilege is not mentioned in the Constitution, the
Supreme Court has ruled that the principle is there in the Separation of
Powers doctrine. The problem for President Obama is that Eric Holder
has repeatedly said that Fast and Furious didn’t have anything to do
with the White House. If this is true, then how can the President claim
Executive Privilege? In the end, the courts might have to rule on
whether the Republicans will get the documents they want.
I hope Eric Holder does NOT resign. See why here.
by: Giacomo
Everyone, Republicans and Democrats, has been watching GOP heir
apparent Mitt Romney for any signs of who he might pick to be his vice
presidential running mate. A hand full of names have been bantered
around the media and Washington, but as yet, Romney has given no
indication of who he might choose.
Among the leading candidates is Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Some
political commentators have suggested that Rubio would help Romney pick
up some of the Hispanic vote since he is of Cuban descent. However,
that descent may well work against Rubio.
There are a number of lawsuits being filed across the nation that
question Barack Obama’s eligibility to run for or hold the office of
President of the United States. Most of the lawsuits, including the one
before Judge Terry Lewis in Florida,
are basing their challenges on the definition of natural born citizen.
In the case in Florida, the attorney representing Michael Voeltz is
relying on the intent of the Founding Fathers when they placed that
criteria in the US Constitution and the 1875 case of Minor v
Happersett. In this case, the US Supreme Court ruled that both parents
must be US citizens at the time of birth for someone to be a natural
born citizen.
Read More: http://godfatherpolitics.com/5772/if-obama-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-then-neither-is-marco-rubio/
In a move described by Sheriff Joe Arpaio as political payback, the
Maricopa County, Ariz., Board of Supervisors today rejected a $5,000
reimbursement from the sheriff’s volunteer Cold Case Posse for expenses
incurred on a trip to Hawaii to investigate Barack Obama’s presidential
eligibility.
“It’s sad that they use these politics to reject money,” Arpaio told
WND. “I made the promise when I launched the investigation to do
everything I can to not use taxpayer money.”
He confirmed his Cold Case Posse team would not be deterred by any disagreement over a donation, however.
“If they want to know what’s going on, there’s a press conference in three or four weeks,” he said.
“This is a criminal investigation,” Arpaio asserted. “You cannot have
the board of supervisors interfere with the elected sheriff’s duties and
responsibilities that he gets from the Constitution.”
The expenses incurred by the county were for a deputy who accompanied
Cold Case Posse lead investigator Mike Zullo for security purposes.
The reimbursement was rejected on a 2-2 vote, with the absence of Supervisor Fulton Brock.
The supervisors who voted to reject the funds were Mary Rose Wilcox
and Don Stapley, who both were subjects of sheriff’s investigations in
the past and filed claims alleging wrongful prosecution, explained
Arpaio spokeswoman Lisa Allen.
Another news conference is scheduled in a few weeks, and the sheriff says there will be major additional revelations.
Arpaio’s investigation was launched at the request of constituents
who feared that placement of Obama’s name on the state’s 2012 would
constitute fraud if Obama were found to be ineligible.
Allen told WND that the supervisors who rejected the funds appeared
to be following the lead of Randy Parraz, an anti-Arpaio activist who
has lobbied the supervisors to oppose the sheriff.
About 30 members of Parraz’s group, Citizens for a Better Arizona, attended the meeting today to protest. The Arizona Republic newspaper reported the group asked the board not to accept private donations to “back fill” the sheriff’s use of public funds.
The protesters contended the investigation was “well outside the
jurisdiction of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and the duties and
responsibilities of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
At the board meeting, Kunasek argued the supervisors and sheriff are
elected separately, and supervisors should not determine which criminal
investigations the sheriff pursues. Parraz responded at that point and
yelled at Kunasek, accusing him of wasting taxpayer money.
Posse lead investigator Zullo told WND the Hawaii trip was all business.
“From my [motel] balcony I had a view of an alley, a check cashing place
and a liquor store,” he said, noting the room cost only $129 per night,
a low rate for most locations in Hawaii.
He said the investigation is important because it focuses a document
that appears to be fraudulent, and people are wrongly injecting
politics. He has told his team that it doesn’t matter whose name is on
the document.
“We are trying to conduct an investigation with zero cost to the
taxpayers,” he said. “They refused to take the money. We don’t
understand how that helps the taxpayers.”
Zullo said the deputy was needed on the Hawaii trip because as a
sworn officer, he was allowed to be armed, while investigators from the
Cold Case Posse, as volunteers, were not.
After the investigative trip to Hawaii, WND reported an intelligence source who warned early last year that a forged Obama birth record would be released
now says a forged “original” birth certificate intended to pass
forensic inspection by using 1961 materials is being prepared and could
be released as an “October surprise.”
The source, who has contact with Hawaii government officials, was
questioned by Zullo, who said regardless of whether the Hawaii source’s
information pans out, he wants to see the original microfilm record of
Obama’s birth.
“If they decide to try to produce a document, we’re going to be
skeptical,” he said. “We’ve been calling for the microfilm from the
beginning.”
Arpaio has said he wants to see the entire roll of microfilm that
contains Obama’s birth record and submit it to court-certified forensic
examiners to determine its authenticity.
by: Rev. Michael Bresciani
Bill O’Reilly was heard on his show recently parroting the
all-too-familiar adage about always “respecting the office of the
President even if you don’t necessarily respect the president.” The
discussion was about Obama’s heated reply to the outbursts of one
Texas-based TV reporter who couldn’t wait to speak until the
question-and-answer period of the meeting took place. Politico has
labeled the incident as – ‘The outburst heard round the world.’
Insult was added to injury when, in the same week as the famous
outburst, two other Obama appointees also inserted their worst into the
public record by saying not just the ridiculous, but what to some would
qualify as downright undignified and disrespectful to the Congress, the
Constitution, and virtually every American.
Former New Jersey EPA head and Obama appointee to the nation’s
Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, has raised the question
of John Q. Public’s ability to read above the fifth grade level. She
said “In accordance with the law, we moved forward with sensible, cost
effective steps at the federal level on climate, using the Clean Air
Act. And I would have a second sentence — see, I can’t write headlines!
But it would be something like, ‘The progress at state and local levels,
combined with the federal level, does not obviate the need’ — you can’t
use obviate, it’s above fifth-grade level!”
This week, and for the past eighteen months, Attorney General Eric
Holder has repelled the Congressional Committee with a barrage of
obfuscation and smokescreens and then warned the Congress, in a
defiantly undignified flip off to that entire body, that he has “no
intention of resigning.” In the minds of Americans who now see the
Attorney General as a smear against justice are thoughts that Border
Patrol Agent Brian Terry had no chance to tell the same Congressional
Committee that he had “no intention of dying.”
Nobody really likes a complainer, especially when it is endless
chronic dissatisfaction without any credence or foundation. Mr. Obama’s
critics have long since risen above the low place of the inveterate
complainer. The endless list of indignities and disrespect to American
traditions, laws, and conventions is too much a part of the Obama legacy
to hide, quash, or deny.
The short list includes disrespect for DOMA (Defense of Marriage
Act), private sector businesses and entrepreneurs, and religion (attacks
on Catholics). It also includes attacks on dignity and American
protocol (bowing to a Saudi king); a blast against doctors, insurance
companies, and the public with a burgeoning healthcare bill most don’t
want; the social shock of being whacked with a giant club labeled “the
gay agenda”; and last but not least, the circumventing of the Congress
with endless executive orders (900 to date).
Now the Congress and lawful legislative process has been ignored for a
move that no American left with a mere pint of blood and a single brain
cell does not see as a political move to bolster a shaky re-election
bid. The announcement to give amnesty to illegal immigrants is a serious
and disrespectful blow to those trying to enter the country legally. It
is insulting to states with overburdened welfare and education systems
and their respective governors. Why haven’t we considered breaking open
all our jails and prisons to find those offenders who have only one
non-violent felony on their records and giving our own citizens some of
that easy amnesty?
We heard Mr. Obama swear he would defend the Constitution from all
enemies foreign and domestic at his inauguration. But we also know that
to constantly cast all that is foreign, against all that is domestic, is
to create a new enemy to the constitution. It is not a new enemy, but
one that has always been known and named as ‘the enemy within.’
J. J. Jackson of ‘The Land of the Free’ website said “I hear people
in certain sectors of the economy, like the Natural Gas industry, glow
about how Obama is ‘for’ them because he is against their competitors
(i.e. coal and oil). Most often, I hear about how Obama is ‘for’ the
little guy because he is out to sock it to the vile rich. Yet, when you
actually look at what Obama does, you see that he is not really ‘for’
any one of these people. As I said, he is just out ‘for’ himself.”
Buying voting blocs through executive orders and promising happier
days in Xanadu is the kind of callous disrespect that has been ongoing,
unabated, in this administration for nearly four years. It would be easy
to say that Mr. Obama is taking on the pathology of the megalomaniac,
but pragmatism and reason call for an answer to the malady rather than
just railing against it. To get to the nature of the festering, we need
to discover the root of the problem and work from that point outward.
That would bring us full circle to the question of respecting the
office, even if we don’t have so much respect for the office holder. How
far can we stretch this bad philosophy to cover a failing and
amateurish presidency?
In the New International Version of the Bible, we see that Paul
addressed the subject of respect for leaders in part when he said, “Give
to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue,
then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” (Ro 13:
7) Christian ministers like to emphasize the “respect” angle of this
passage but all too often ignore the very important phrase “Give to
everyone what you owe them.”
When we owe something, it is safe to assume that we received
something (a product, a service, a loan, a license, or a passage or
something of value.) This is why most Americans will tell you that they
usually don’t load respect on anyone unless it has been earned. Here is
where we see that regardless of how many times O’Reilly raises the
‘respect for the office’ thing, and regardless of Lisa Jackson’s
allusion to a nearly illiterate citizenry, we all know what we have
seen, read, and witnessed. The bottom line is that we are not getting
much respect, and very few Americans are willing to accept a bill from
the Obama White House marked “accounts receivable.”
We are only a few months away from our chance to deal with the kind
of disrespect we have endured. It is that revered and oft-visited quiet
and private little space we call the voting booth. It is there we will
voice our refusal to endure any more disrespect and the dissolution of
what may be left to our dignity as a nation.
This writer is a firm believer that Mr. Obama has exhibited many
behaviors that seem foreign to the American way of life and traditions.
The sum total of those behaviors indicates to me that something in his
experience or his personality is missing. I long ago came to the
conclusion that he, Mr. Obama, simply does not love this country the way
our previous presidents have. Adding to that is a streak of hidden
motives and a plethora of lies that are now a matter of public record.
The words of author Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the author of Crime and Punishment, seem to speak directly to my view of Mr. Obama’s condition.
In his novel The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevsky penned
these telling words: “The man who lies to himself and listens to his own
lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him,
or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And
having no respect he ceases to love.”
My only question is: why doesn’t someone who Mr. Obama really
respects tell these telling words to the President for the rest of us.
We will always respect the office of the president, but on this two
way street in these days, we see that all men are not created equal. We
see the president’s respect for the environmentalists, the gays, and the
immigrants. But this is a nation of 350 million, and from the learned
statesmen to those struggling to read at a fifth grade level, we don’t
feel or see the respect for our citizens.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Republican-controlled
House moved toward approval Tuesday of a bill that would allow the
Border Patrol to circumvent more than a dozen environmental laws on all
federally managed lands within 100 miles of the borders with Mexico and
Canada.
Supporters say the measure is needed to
give border agents unfettered access to rugged lands now controlled by
the Interior Department and Forest Service. Laws such as the Wilderness
Act and Endangered Species Act often prevent agents from driving
vehicles on huge swaths of land, leaving it to wildlife, illegal
immigrants and smugglers who can walk through the territory undisturbed,
they said.
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, said the
restrictions have turned wilderness areas into highways for criminals,
who not only bring in drugs but also abuse and rape women and leave
behind thousands of tons of trash.
“Drug traffickers couldn’t care less about
environmental sensitivities,” he said. “The removal of these criminals
from our public lands is a value to the environment as well as the
mission of the land managers.”
But opponents, including hunters,
conservationists and Hispanic advocacy groups, call the bill a
heavy-handed fix that guts important environmental protections. They
also question whether the measure is needed along the vast Canadian
border, where there is scant evidence that illegal immigrants are hiking
through national parks or wilderness areas in an attempt to slip into
the U.S.
Let's just play with one of Bill Maher's quotes from his mini-bio...After the attack on the Twin Towers Bill 'Not so Braveheart' said: "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away.
That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say
what you want about it, it's not cowardly."
Well Golly gee Billy Bob..what does that make you?...You were a 'super coward' went for college deferment during the Viet Nam era..how dangerous could college life be?...Oh wait jello shots with beer chasers can be very dangerous..! Not to forget dodging STDS!
Let's see you are 5'8" 145 lbs of dynomite with a two inch fuse....yeppers a real ladies man ya be...oh wait ya make big bucks so the Bimbos luvs ya money! A little firecracker with a large bank account surely draws in the Gold Diggers...hows it feel to not be loved Bill?
And you love to call intelligent,conservative and strong women sluts,cunts and ho's...well Billy Bob that would describe you to a Tea and not the party...Herbal Tea with Mary Jane Brownies is your breakfast of Champions...Pot really makes ya feel brave huh? and all those after high snacks gives ya a tad of a Buddha Belly..for the Bimbos to rub for luck!
So Papa was a Catholic ...Momma was a Jew what does that make you? Well by the Jewish Faith ya be Jewish of course since Momma was Jewish....I bet your parents are Really~Really proud of you?
I'm sleepy and tired....I may add more later...depends on how bored I am..cause fer sure you are one boring little coward! With a nasty mouth and personality to match..Have a nice Night Creep!
Only a face a Mother could love...oh and Gold Digger Bimbos:
It is a crying shame that MSM including Fox News failed to properly Vet Barack Obama 2008... as a journalist should...fair, balanced and with facts supporting the evidence rather than taking the easy proverbial 'High Road' ...The right and proper thing to do...and hows the right thing to do working out for ya' mainstream ~so called journalist? 4 years of pure chaos !
Retro article filed by: Cliff Kincaid —
February 18, 2008
In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama’s
life as a “secret smoker” and how he “went to great lengths to conceal
the habit.” But what about Obama’s secret political life? It turns out
that Obama’s childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.
In his books, Obama admits attending “socialist conferences” and
coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge
of being a “hard-core academic Marxist,” which was made by his colorful
and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.
However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted
relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the
Communist Party USA CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii
from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close
relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry”
and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father,refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”
The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a
party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the
Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory
of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What’s more, anti-communist
congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities
Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several
communist-front organizations.
Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand-based libertarian activist, researcher and blogger, noted evidence that “Frank” was Frank Marshall Davis in a posting in March of 2007.
Obama’s communist connection adds to mounting public concern about a
candidate who has come out of virtually nowhere, with a brief U.S.
Senate legislative record, to become the Democratic Party frontrunner
for the U.S. presidency. In the latest Real Clear Politics poll average, Obama beats Republican John McCain by almost four percentage points.
AIM recently disclosed that Obama has well-documented socialist connections, which help explain why he sponsored a“Global Poverty Act” designed
to send hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid to the rest
of the world, in order to meet U.N. demands. The bill has passed the
House and a Senate committee, and awaits full Senate action.
But the Communist Party connection through Davis is even more
ominous. Decades ago, the CPUSA had tens of thousands of members, some
of them covert agents who had penetrated the U.S. Government. It
received secret subsidies from the old Soviet Union.
You won’t find any of this discussed in the David Mendell book, Obama: From Promise to Power. It
is typical of the superficial biographies of Obama now on the market.
Secret smoking seems to be Obama’s most controversial activity. At best,
Mendell and the liberal media describe Obama as “left-leaning.”
But you will find it briefly discussed, sort of, in Obama’s own book, Dreams From My Father. He
writes about “a poet named Frank,” who visited them in Hawaii, read
poetry, and was full of “hard-earned knowledge” and advice. Who was
Frank? Obama only says that he had “some modest notoriety once,” was “a
contemporary of Richard Wright and
Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago…” but was now “pushing
eighty.” He writes about “Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self”
giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the
age of 18.
This “Frank” is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black
communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of
prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue of
African American Review, James A. Miller of George Washington
University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the
University of Kansas, about Davis’s career, and notes, “In Davis’s case,
his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party
during the middle of World War II-even though he never publicly admitted
his Party membership.”
Tidwell is an expert on the life and writings of Davis.
Is it possible that Obama did not know who Davis was when he wrote his book, Dreams From My Father,first publishedin 1995?That’s not plausible since Obama refers to him as acontemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes and says he saw a book of his black poetry.
The communists knew who “Frank” was, and they know who Obama is. In
fact, one academic who travels in communist circles understands the
significance of the Davis-Obama relationship.
Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs,
talked about it during a speech last March at the reception of the
Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York
University. The remarks are posted online under the headline, “Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party.”
Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that
Davis, who moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 “at the suggestion of
his good friend Paul Robeson,” came into contact with Barack Obama and
his family and became the young man’s mentor, influencing Obama’s sense
of identity and career moves. Robeson, of course, was the well-known
black actor and singer who served as a member of the CPUSA and apologist
for the old Soviet Union. Davis had known Robeson from his time in
Chicago.
As Horne describes it, Davis “befriended” a “Euro-American family”
that had “migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this
family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East
Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of
Davis eventually decamped to Chicago.”
It was in Chicago that Obama became a “community organizer” and came
into contact with more far-left political forces, including the
Democratic Socialists of America, which maintains close ties to European
socialist groups and parties through the Socialist International (SI),
and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS),
William Ayers and Carl Davidson.
The SDS laid siege to college campuses across America in the 1960s,
mostly in order to protest the Vietnam War, and spawned the terrorist
Weather Underground organization. Ayers was a member of the terrorist
group and turned himself in to authorities in 1981. He is now a college
professor and served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of
Chicago. Davidson is now a figure in the Committees of Correspondence
for Democracy and Socialism, an offshoot of the old Moscow-controlled
CPUSA, and helped organize the 2002 rally where Obama came out against
the Iraq War.
Both communism and socialism trace their roots to Karl Marx,
co-author of the Communist Manifesto, who endorsed the first meeting of
the Socialist International, then called the “First International.”
According to Pierre Mauroy, president of the SI from 1992-1996, “It was
he [Marx] who formally launched it, gave the inaugural address and
devised its structure…”
Apparently unaware that Davis had been publicly named as a CPUSA
member, Horne said only that Davis “was certainly in the orbit of the CP
[Communist Party]-if not a member…”
In addition to Tidwell’s book,Black Moods: Collected Poems of Frank Marshall Davis,confirming Davis’s Communist Party membership, another book, The New Red Negro: The Literary Left and African American Poetry, 1930-1946,names
Davis as one of several black poets who continued to publish in
CPUSA-supported publications after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin non-aggression
pact. The author, James Edward Smethurst, associate professor of
Afro-American studies at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, says
that Davis, however, would later claim that he was “deeply troubled” by
the pact.
While blacks such as Richard Wright left the CPUSA, it is not clear if or when Davis ever left the party.
However, Obama writes in Dreams From My Father that he saw
“Frank” only a few days before he left Hawaii for college, and that
Davis seemed just as radical as ever. Davis called college “An advanced
degree in compromise” and warned Obama not to forget his “people” and
not to “start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and
the American way and all that ####.” Davis also complained about foot
problems, the result of “trying to force African feet into European
shoes,” Obama wrote.
For his part, Horne says that Obama’s giving of credit to Davis will
be important in history. “At some point in the future, a teacher will
add to her syllabus Barack’s memoir and instruct her students to read it
alongside Frank Marshall Davis’ equally affecting memoir, Living the Blues and
when that day comes, I’m sure a future student will not only examine
critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created
in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to
this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has
befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside,” he
said.
Dr. Kathryn Takara, a professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at the
University of Hawaii at Manoa who also confirms that Davis is the
“Frank” in Obama’s book, did her dissertation on Davis and spent much
time with him between 1972 until he passed away in 1987.
In an analysis posted
online, she notes that Davis, who was a columnist for the Honolulu
Record, brought “an acute sense of race relations and class struggle
throughout America and the world” and that he openly discussed subjects
such as American imperialism, colonialism and exploitation. She
described him as a “socialist realist” who attacked the work of the
House Un-American Activities Committee.
Davis, in his own writings, had said that Robeson and Harry Bridges,
the head of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and a
secret member of the CPUSA, had suggested that he take a job as a
columnist with the Honolulu Record “and see if I could do something for
them.” The ILWU was organizing workers there and Robeson’s contacts were
“passed on” to Davis, Takara writes.
Takara says that Davis “espoused freedom, radicalism, solidarity,
labor unions, due process, peace, affirmative action, civil rights,
Negro History week, and true Democracy to fight imperialism,
colonialism, and white supremacy. He urged coalition politics.”
Is “coalition politics” at work in Obama’s rise to power?
Trevor Loudon, the New Zealand-based blogger who has been analyzing
the political forces behind Obama and specializes in studying the impact
of Marxist and leftist political organizations, notes that Frank
Chapman, a CPUSA supporter, has written a letter to the party newspaper
hailing the Illinois senator’s victory in the Iowa caucuses.
“Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a
dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle,”
Chapman wrote. “Marx
once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who
sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of
his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,’ not
only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.”
Let’s challenge the liberal media to report on this. Will they have the honesty and integrity to do so?
Few would dispute that Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod are two of President Barack Obama's key advisors.
I
wrote here that Valerie Jarrett's father-in-law Vernon Jarrett, worked
with Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, in at least three
communist dominated organizations in late 1940s Chicago.
Davis then went on to eventually mentor the young Barack Obama in Hawaii.
David Axelrod too has connections that that stretch back to post War Chicago communism.
While
a New Yorker by birth, David Axelrod studied political science at the
University of Chicago in the early 1970s. Later, while a start-out
journalist with the Hyde-Park Herald, Axelrod was mentored by two older
journalists cum political activists, Don Rose and David S Canter.
According to the Chicago Tribune
In
his early years as a political consultant, Axelrod, following in the
footsteps of his mentor, the political strategist Don Rose, carved out a
reputation for himself as a skillful specialist working for local
progressive candidates...says Rose. "I think he's a principled,
generally progressive guy... ."
From 1966 until 1975 Don Rose and
his partner David S Canter co-owned a small newspaper called the Hyde
Park Kenwood Voices. The paper's radical tone suited the neighbourhood.
It tended to follow the Communist Party line-campaigning for example to
abolish the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
The paper
sympathetically covered the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)
riots at the 1968 Chicago Democratic Party convention and the SDS
convention that gave birth to the Weather Underground.
It gave a
voice to prominent figures of the Hyde Park left. These included several
future Obama mentors such Abner Mikva, Leon Despres, Timuel Black and
Quentin Young.
Racy photos of Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, have surfaced in
vintage fetish and bondage magazines. The photos, taken at Frank
Marshall Davis’ house in Honolulu, help illustrate the intimate
relationship between Dunham and Davis. Is he Obama’s real father?
From The Honolulu Advertiser: In
1728, Ben Franklin opened a printing office in Philadelphia. He
produced a newspaper called The Pennsylvania Gazette and his annual Poor
Richard’s Almanack.
Journalism used to be an honorable profession dating back to the time
of the heralds. Journalism is writing history in real time. It isn’t
the business of peering backwards through a glass darkly in a
retrospective. It isn’t consensus. It isn’t repeating the meme. It isn’t
filtered for political correctness or partisanship. It’s raw and, in
its pure form, the unvarnished reality – the deeply disturbing photo of a
summary execution, the hysterical observation of the conflagration of a
crashing Zeppelin or the fearless observation that a government
official has violated both the law of the land – even including the
Constitution – and international treaties by supplying arms to active
criminals in a subversive effort to abrogate the rights of his own
citizenry.
Journalism isn’t who you are, journalism is what you do. It is the
courage to tell the truth regardless of personal risk. And so it used to
be; today though, we live in an age where being a “professional
journalist” means having a license to lie.
When I first saw the video above, I was overcome by several emotions.
The first of which was incredulity closely followed by anger as I just
could not believe how viciously Juan Williams attacked Michelle Malkin,
slinging at her what he considered an insult: “I’m a real reporter, I’m
not a blogger out in the blogosphere somewhere…” He couldn’t debate her
in the present with a solid retort, so he resorted to what he deemed
insults. When Williams was unjustly fired from NPR, the entire
conservative blogosphere stood up as one and defended him vociferously.
Let’s see, it took him a matter of seconds to revert to his bitter
liberal ways, I believe. Juan, I’ve got news for you. The old media is
dead, not dying, dead. The new media is what real journalism is –
unfettered, real and in your face. A reporter used to make his bones as a
journalist by breaking a big story and I do believe you’ve forgotten
what that is like. You can just toddle off back to your dinosaur media
roots, where all you have to do is look good and pretend to be wise
while your viewership slips into oblivion. It’s time for the big boys
and girls to roll up their sleeves and do the real work you faux
journalists can’t be bothered to do.
If being a true journalist is defined by bravery, ethics, excellent writing and oratory skills –
by: Jack Cashill
Maraniss’ new book, “Barack Obama: The Story,” the chattering classes
seem to have overlooked the most significant of Maraniss’ revelations,
namely that the story on which Obama based his 2008 candidacy is
“received myth, not the truth.”
“My parents shared not only an improbable love,” said Obama famously
in his 2004 Democratic Convention keynote, “they shared an abiding faith
in the possibilities of this nation.” This concept of multicultural
romance shaped his persona and his campaigns.
At the 2008 Democratic Convention in Denver, Obama leaped into the story
in the very first sentence. “Four years ago,” he began, “I stood before
you and told you my story – of the brief union between a young man from
Kenya and a young woman from Kansas who weren’t well-off or well-known,
but shared a belief that in America, their son could achieve whatever
he put his mind to.”
As Maraniss concedes, these two young people shared very close to
nothing. “In the college life of Barack Obama in 1961 and 1962,” writes
Maraniss, “as recounted by his friends and acquaintances in Honolulu,
there was no Ann; there was no baby.”
Although Maraniss talked to many of Obama Sr.’s friends, none of the
credible ones ever so much as saw him with Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham.
One Obama friend, a Cambodian named Kiri Tith, knew the senior Obama
“very well.” He had also met Ann through a different channel. “But he
had no idea,” writes Maraniss, “that Ann knew Obama, let alone got hapai (pregnant) by him, married him, and had a son with him.”
Only Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie claims to have seen the pair
together during the presumed courtship stage, but he is not close to
credible.
“Maybe I’m the only one in the country,” Abercrombie told the Los
Angeles Times in December 2010, “that could look you right in the eye
right now and tell you, ‘I was here when that baby was born.’” This was
pure lie, no other word for it.
A few days later, Abercrombie clarified to Mark Niesse of the
Associated Press that he didn’t exactly see Obama’s parents with their
newborn son at the hospital, but that he “remembers seeing Obama as a
child with his parents at social events.” Another lie.
Maraniss should have quoted Abercrombie with the stated qualifier
that he has proved unreliable on all things Obama, but he did not.
Abercrombie was too important. Without Abercrombie, there is no
contemporary witness to any kind of relationship. Maraniss, however,
knew enough not to quote Abercrombie on his claim to having seen the
baby with his parents.
Despite his Herculean digging into the dung of Obama’s life,
Maraniss’ shovel comes up empty on the couple’s alleged February 1961
wedding. He footnotes his comments thusly: “Marriage facts recorded in
divorce records.”
There is no doubt that both Ann Dunham and Obama claimed a wedding.
It suited both their purposes, Obama to extend his visa and Dunham to
legitimize her baby with a black husband.
As to the divorce, Dunham at the time was desperately trying to keep
her future husband, Lolo Soetoro, in the country. The INS believed her
to be married to Obama. Even if she were not married, a divorce would
have been useful to clear the way for a marriage to Soetoro.
Like all other biographers of either Obama or his parents, Maraniss
is totally silent on Dunham’s whereabouts from the February marriage to
the August birth. He adds one detail, however, that deepens the mystery.
According to the birth certificate and the newspaper announcements,
the young family lived at 6085 Kalanianole Highway where Dunham’s
parents lived. Obama Sr. clarified to the INS that mother and baby lived
there without him.
Maraniss definitively states that “[Dunham] and Obama and the infant
never lived [at 6085 Kalanianole].” There was no room. The senior
Dunhams shared the house with the Pratt family. The Pratt daughter “has
no memory of the Dunhams’ daughter bringing an infant home.”
And yes, finally, an Obama biographer admits what the blogosphere has
known for the last four years: “Within a month of the day Barry came
home from the hospital, he and his mother were long gone from Honolulu,
back on the mainland. …”
“This period, Washington State revisited,” Maraniss writes, “is
missing from the memoir the son would write decades later.” In fact, as
recently as Father’s Day 2012, Obama was claiming that his father left
home when he was 2.
What Maraniss does not say is that he missed the Seattle hegira story himself in the 10,000-word Washington Post article he wrote on the eve of the 2008 election.
He was hardly unique. No one in the mainstream media wanted to blow
the whistle on the fraudulent family fable that got Obama elected
president.
The New Yorker’s David Remnick chose to overlook it in his 2010 Obama
bio. The New York Times’ Janny Scott overlooked it in her 2011 bio of
Obama’s mother. The Boston Globe’s Sally Jacobs overlooked it in her
2011 bio of Obama’s father, and the Times’s Jodi Kantor overlooked it in
her 2012 book on the whole extended family.
Worse, conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza chose not to report the
fraud in his disingenuous best-seller, “The Roots of Obama’s Rage.” As
D’Souza explains, Obama was “his father’s son.” Dunham served largely as
the vehicle through which the absent Obama exercised his will on the
young Obama, she being “Obama Sr.’s first convert” to anti-colonialism.
D’Souza should have known this was nonsense. Conservative writer
Michael Patrick Leahy had broken the Seattle story as early as 2008 in
his book, “What Does Barack Believe.” It was accepted knowledge in the
conservative blogosphere by 2009.
What Maraniss has laid bare, perhaps without meaning to, is a
journalistic scandal of historic proportions in which, alas, he himself
has played a part.
by: Joe Kovacs
Young children singing “God Bless the USA” outside a New York school
were shouted at by angry adults and told those organizing the event were
going to “burn in hell.”
U.S. Rep. Bob Turner, R-N.Y., gathered the students outside Public
School 90 in Coney Island whose principal had yanked the singing of the
patriotic song at a graduation ceremony, while Justin Bieber’s pop tune
“Baby” reportedly remained on the roster.
“The kids don’t even know what they’re singing!” one of the hecklers
yelled as the kids belted out the Lee Greenwood classic at Turner’s
event.
“They got something you tell them to say! It’s ridiculous! It’s sad,
sad, sad. Y’all are going to burn in hell! You all burn in hell! Shame
on you! Shame on you!”
“You Republicans come go to a Republican area and do that, we don’t
do that here,” the heckler said. “This is ridiculous, this is sad. This
is so crazy. This is sad.”
“Excuse me sir, can you let the kids sing please?” Turner’s staffer interjected.
After the song, the shoutfest continued, and the children themselves
tried to drown out the noise of the protesters by chanting in unison,
“USA! USA!”
Radio host Rush Limbaugh commented on the matter this afternoon,
noting: “A bunch of Democrat adults show up to heckle them. ‘You are all
gonna burn in hell! Burn in hell!’ That was the reaction to kids
singing God Bless the USA.’ Why in the world would that make anybody
mad? And the fact that it does tells us a whole lot.”
The New York Times
reported that Principal Greta Hawkins had actually cut both “God Bless
the USA” and Bieber’s “Baby” from the song roster at the same time.
Holder's failure to produce the subpoena records today leaves no option but to hold AG Holder in contempt of Congress...arrest and detain immediately
With new wiretap evidence suggesting Attorney General Eric
Holder and his Department of Justice officials knew all about
the reckless and rogue nature of the “Fast and Furious”
gun-tracking scandal and refused to shut it down, it is up to
the American people to demand accountability and justice. It may
not be the Oscar-winning drama of Gary Cooper in High Noon, but there is
no denying that this afternoon's showdown between Attorney General Eric
Holder and Darrell Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government
Reform committee has the potential to be a blockbuster ...
With the contempt vote literally hours away, many believe this is
Holder's last stand as he desperately tries to work a deal to keep from
triggering what he calls a "constitutional crisis."
There's no question grassroots Americans are fueling this
investigation into Holder's involvement with the botched "Fast and
Furious" gun-walking scandel
Now in this window of high-stakes drama, your role can't be overstated.
Grassfire is urging all members of our team to use these next 18-24
hours to blitz congressional offices with faxes and phone calls
demanding Holder's ouster.
Bursting onto the national scene amid the 2008 Presidential campaign,
former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has certainly gained a huge amount of
conservative and Tea Party support along the way, and few admire her
unique approach to politics more than me. Equally ardent, if not much
more in some cases, are her detractors, though, as comments by supposed
comedian Bill Maher and other liberal losers will prove.
Among the nuttiest expressions of opposition to Palin came last
September, when Stephen Hanks, a man in his 40s, attacked Palin’s
daughter Bristol in a California bar. Calling Sarah Palin “a whore” and
“evil” to Bristol’s face, Hanks also used vulgar language referring to
Bristol herself.
Adding insult to injury, Hanks recently filed a federal defamation
suit against Bristol. He claims the 21-year-old mother defamed him by
inquiring whether he was a homosexual and stating her encounter with him
led to her decision to move away from Los Angeles. Additionally, Hanks
is suing the Lifetime network for including footage of the encounter in
Bristol’s upcoming reality show. It’s amazing to me that Hanks feels
that his freedom of speech covers questioning someone’s sexuality
(calling Sarah Palin a whore) but does not cover someone else
questioning his in return.
Though I shouldn’t be shocked at the idiotic depths to which leftists
will sink in order to disparage conservatives, suing a young woman
after you viciously attack both her and her family is almost
inconceivable. According to reports, Hanks is not just seeking a few
dollars. The lawsuit was reportedly filed in federal court only because
he is seeking an award of more than $75,000.
I hesitate to speculate too much before all the facts are out, but
there’s a reason “Your Momma” jokes are so popular among kids on the
playground. They require little advanced intelligence, and they
instantly elicit an emotional response from the target. Ridicule instead of reasoned debate
is a recurring theme in the liberal’s playbook, yet another similarity
between those on the left and immature schoolkids.
Who among us would not snap back with a pointed accusation after a
stranger espouses such vitriol? I’m sure the Palins are used to hateful
ad hominem attacks, but I think Bristol actually showed restraint in
dealing with this verbal onslaught. As for the additional claim in the
suit (alleging Hanks was not actually the reason Bristol decided to
leave California, citing the fact she purchased a home in Alaska prior
to the incident in question), I’m not sure how one goes about deciding
what influences someone’s decision-making. Whether or not she bought a
home near her hometown, is it not within the realm of possibility that
she was toying with the option of living in L.A., too, before she was
savaged by Hanks’ foul-mouthed tirade?
Cases like this really drive home the need for comprehensive changes
to our nation’s legal system. As I believe tort reform would result in
health care reductions across the board, negating the major argument
from the left in favor of socialized medicine, I think proposed “loser
pays” laws would put an end to many abuses of the court system. This
suit, in my estimation, will ultimately be exposed as such an abuse.
While I would be incredibly surprised to see Hanks victorious after
all is said and done, his defeat would be so much sweeter to witness
knowing he was now on the hook for Bristol’s legal expenses.
Photo credit: forwardstl (Creative Commons)
Weary of defending in court the Constitutional eligibility of their
man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Democrat Party has finally admitted
Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States– and
that it doesn’t matter.
