Sunday, May 27, 2012

Transforming America into Obama's Imperial Dictatorship.


oldironsides ^ | 5/26/2012 | Steve McCann



If Barack Obama is re-elected the United States will never be the same, nor will it be able to re-capture its once lofty status as the most dominant nation in the history of mankind.

The overwhelming majority of Americans do not understand that Obama's first term was dedicated to putting in place executive power to enable him and the administration to fulfill the campaign promise of "transforming America" in his second term regardless of which political party controls Congress. That is why his re-election team is virtually ignoring the plight of incumbent or prospective Democratic Party office holders.

The most significant accomplishment of Obama's first term was to make Congress irrelevant. Under the myopic and blindly loyal leadership of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have succeeded in creating an imperial and, in a second term, a potential dictatorial presidency During the first two years of the Obama administration when the Democrats overwhelming controlled both Houses of Congress and the media was in an Obama worshiping stupor, a myriad of laws were passed and actions taken which transferred virtually unlimited power to the executive branch.
The birth of multi-thousand page laws was not an aberration. This tactic was adopted so the bureaucracy controlled by Obama appointees would have sole discretion in interpreting vaguely written laws and enforcing thousands of pages of regulations they and not Congress would subsequently write.
For example, in the 2,700 pages of ObamaCare there are more than 2,500 references to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. There are more than 700 instances when he or she is instructed that they "shall" do something and more than 200 times when they "may" take at their sole discretion some form of regulatory action. On 139 occasions, the law mentions that the "Secretary determines." In essence one person, appointed by and reporting to the president, will be in charge of the health care of 310 million Americans once ObamaCare is fully operational in 2014.
Additionally, the Obama administration has, through its unilaterally determined rule making and regulatory powers, created laws out of whole cloth. The Environmental Protection Agency on a near daily basis issues new regulations clearly out of their purview in order to modify and change environmental laws previously passed and to impose a radical green agenda never approved by Congress. The same is true of the Energy and Interior Departments among many others. None of these extra-constitutional actions have been challenged by Congress. The left in America knows this usurpation of power is nearly impossible to reverse unless stopped in its early stages.
It is clearly the mindset of this administration and its appointees that Congress is merely a nuisance and can be ignored after they were able to take full advantage of the useful idiots in the Democrat controlled House and Senate in 2009-2010 and the Democrat Senate in the current Congress.
Additionally, Barack Obama knows after his re-election a Republican controlled House and Senate will not be able to enact any legislation to roll back the power previously granted to the Executive Branch or usurped by them. His veto will not be overridden as there will always be at least 145 Democratic members of the House or 34 in the Senate in agreement with or intimidated by an administration more than willing to use Chicago style political tactics.
The stalemate between the Executive and Legislative Branches will inure to the benefit of Barack Obama and his fellow leftists. The most significant power Congress has is the control of the purse-strings as all spending must be approved by them. However, once re-elected, Barack Obama, as confirmed by his willingness to do or say anything and his unscrupulous re-election tactics, would not only threaten government shutdowns but would deliberately withhold payments to those dependent on government support as a means of intimidating and forcing a Republican controlled Congress to surrender to his demands, thus neutering their ability to control the administration through spending constraints.
Further, this administration has shown contempt for the courts by ignoring various court orders, e.g. the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling moratorium, as well as stonewalling subpoenas and requests issued by Congress. The Eric Holder Justice Department has become the epitome of corruption as part of the most dishonest and deceitful administration in American history. In a second term the arrogance of Barack Obama and his minions will become more blatant as he will not have to be concerned with re-election.
Who will be there to enforce the rule of law, a Supreme Court ruling or the Constitution? No one. Barack Obama and his fellow-travelers will be unchallenged as they run roughshod over the American people.
I want to add only one postscript to this excellent article. I do not disagree with Steve McCann, but while he did a thorough job forecasting the gloom and doom that may be in our future he offered no solutions to the problem. The only way to protect America if Barack Hussein Obama manages to get reelected is to impeach Obama and throw him out of the White House and then put him on trial for his crimes. His list of high crimes and misdemeanors already demand a call for charges of treason. The only thing we need is a strong Republican majority in Congress with the courage to do the right thing.

President Blames Deficit on “Greedy Taxpayers”


Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 26 May 2012 | John Semmens



Despite running up federal deficits at a faster pace than any previous president, Obama says he is not at fault. “Deficits aren’t the result of spending alone,” the President pointed out. “Deficits occur when there is a gap between spending and revenue. If you look at the trends for both you will see that it is the revenue line that has flattened while the spending line has remained pretty much on track with prior periods.”
Of course revenues aren’t keeping up because taxpayer earnings aren’t keeping up. Business profits are down. Employees have been thrown out of work. The base upon which the tax revenue stream is founded has shrunk. Nevertheless, Obama complained that “These people are selfishly focused on their own problems. They pressure their congressmen to oppose the tax increases that are necessary to cover government expenses. When deficits inevitably soar they take no responsibility for how their own greed has caused the problem.”
Vice-President Joe Biden echoed Obama’s thinking in a speech accusing the Tea Party of “thwarting President Obama’s plan to save the economy. We’re trying to get everyone to pitch-in to help us get out of the recession. But these Tea Party guys got voters worked up using the false notion that whatever they own is theirs by right. Well, in this country, it’s the government that determines who owns what. It is our view that the government must control all our resources in order to ensure that they are used effectively and efficiently. Reelecting the President is the only way we can guarantee that this happens.”
The president also got support from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev), who said that “Americans must get used to paying higher taxes if they want the government to continue to serve them.” Reid denounced the idea that the government might already be taxing us too much as “extremism of the worst sort. It’s not the terrorists who pose the biggest threat. It’s those who would starve government of the resources it needs.”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...
http://azconservative.org/2012/05/26/president-says-world-is-entering-new-golden-age/

Reality Check: Entitlement Spending Dwarfs Wars Since 2001


Townhall.com ^ | May 27, 2012 | Kate Hicks



Some bad news for the vehement anti-war set: they've lost the spending argument. A new chart reveals that in the last decade, spending on national security, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined paled in comparison to entitlement spending -- 19% to 65%, respectively. Over to you, infographic:

Photobucket
"About 65 percent of federal expenditures over the last ten years have gone towards entitlements,"Paul Miller writes. "By comparison, about 15 percent has gone towards national defense, excluding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq has cost three percent, and only about one percent has gone towards the war in Afghanistan (including the cost of ongoing military operations and all reconstruction and stabilization assistance combined), according to my analysis of figures from OMB."
In other words, Miller says, "Afghanistan is the second-cheapest major war in U.S. history as a percentage of GDP, according to the Congressional Research Service."
And of course, it's worth noting that war spending is about to decline, as our efforts abroad wind down, but entitlement spending will only grow as more people retire. For all President Obama's talk of a cheaper, "leaner" military, that's clearly not the area in need of a trimming.

(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...

The Cost of Moochies Travels: In Graphic Detail


May 27, 2012 | frankenMonkey



Using the MSM's acknowledged $10 Million price tag for Moochie O'Bama's worldwide vacations, I have documented (in "unexpected" graphic detail) the cost in human suffering. Warning: Women and Children Hit Hardest.


I'm 'Uncomfortable' Calling Fallen Military 'Heroes'!


By Mark Finkelstein

Effete: affected, overrefined, and ineffectual; see "Chris Hayes." the name of the MSNBC host to the dictionary definition. But if ever you wanted to see the human embodiment of the adjective in action, have a look at the video from his MSNBC show this morning of the too-refined-by-half Hayes explaining why he is "uncomfortable" in calling America's fallen military members "heroes."

Hayes is worried that doing so is "rhetorically proximate" to justifications for more war. Oh, the rhetorical proximity! View the video


.


In fairness, Hayes and the other panel members distinguished between their respect for the valor of the individual military members who had given their lives with the worthiness of the various causes in which they fought. Even so, what does it say about the liberal chattering class, which Hayes epitomizes, that it chokes on calling America's fallen what they rightly and surely are: heroes? Watch the hesitant Hayes in what almost seems a parody of the conflicted intellectual.
CHRIS HAYES: Thinking today and observing Memorial Day, that'll be happening tomorrow. Just talked with Lt. Col. Steve Burke [sic, actually Beck], who was a casualty officer with the Marines and had to tell people [inaudible]. Um, I, I, ah, back sorry, um, I think it's interesting because I think it is very difficult to talk about the war dead and the fallen without invoking valor, without invoking the words "heroes." Um, and, ah, ah, why do I feel so comfortable [sic] about the word "hero"? I feel comfortable, ah, uncomfortable, about the word because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war. Um, and, I don't want to obviously desecrate or disrespect memory of anyone that's fallen, and obviously there are individual circumstances in which there is genuine, tremendous heroism: hail of gunfire, rescuing fellow soldiers and things like that. But it seems to me that we marshal this word in a way that is problematic. But maybe I'm wrong about that.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2012/05/27/chris-hayes-im-uncomfortable-calling-fallen-military-heroes#ixzz1w5tXRLX2

My brothers

 by Dusty Road


I went to the wall in TX
To see a few old friends
My brother in arms in 71
I hope to make amends
Rondo came from TX
His father was a rancher.
Steve from New York City
His father was a teacher
Ricky was my Buddie
Another TX boy
We volunteered together
And headed off to war
Like our fathers did before us
We chose to volunteer
We knew it was out calling
And we did it without fear
In the A Shau it's called Bastogne
We landed with a roar
The whirling blades of Huey's
As we're jumping out the door
The 502 is now our home
Mud is now our bed
Dry spots are a comfort
A place to lay you head
The valley starts to tremble
When the big guns start to roar
We've got some men in trouble
Down on the valley floor
Charlie didn't like us
He proved it every day
He'd come at us in darkness
It was Charlie's way
Mortar rounds and RPG's
Rained upon the hill
To stand your post amongst it all
Was a testing of your will
Ricky was the first to leave
A sniper took his life.
He was sitting on a sand bag
Writing to his wife.
Rondo was the next one
A motor hit it's mark
The tracers from his 60
Were screaming through the dark
Steve was on the 8 inch
When he left that muddy hill
All my friends have left me
It's an overwhelming chill
I stand alone before the wall
It's granite hard and cold.
I share with you these words
For their stories must be told
Heroes all are on that wall
Their names are in the thousands
Names of those I've never met
But these three were my friends
I kneel before you Lord
With my hand upon the wall
Praying for my brothers
Heroes one and all
Dusty

The Bully Administration!


Townhall.com ^ | May 27, 2012 | Kevin McCullough



Much has been said about the bullying history of both of the presumed presidential nominees for 2012.
Last week a North Carolina teacher was put on paid suspension because she got caught bullying her own classroom on the topic of which candidate had been the worse bully years previous.


Bullies--we are told--are the cause of everything from eating disorders to teen suicide.

The Trayvon Martin case had originally been sold through the media as a case in which an older vigilante wanted to bully a young child.

Bullying as a subject itself has even been bullied a great deal. Specifically, the man who started an all out effort to encourage people not to bully sexually confused children, then himself bullied children who shared a different view of faith than he did.

Yet no one seems to be noticing that those who claim to be against the worst forms of bullying are the very ones now exploiting their role in the federal government to bully others.
Hence is the battle before the University of Arkansas Fort Smith.
To be specific, the Department of Justice issued an "advisement" to the university earlier this month. And after having their attorneys review it the university acted on the "advice of counsel" and are following the advisement.
What was the great injustice that the University of Arkansas Fort Smith was committing?
They had refused to allow a 38-year-old male student to use any and all female facilities on campus. So per the communication from the administration, Eric Holder, Barack Obama and company, and acting on the hopes the DOJ would play nice, they caved.
And now the 38-year-old anatomically male student, who goes by the name Jennifer Braly, and refers to himself as a "transgender" (instead of transvestite) has been given campus wide permission to enter any and all female facilities.
Since the university had initially denied the access, I'm sure you're pondering how the DOJ got mixed up in this to begin with. According to Mark Horn, the Vice President of university relations it was pretty simple.
"Because of the stance we took, the individual (Braly) filed a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights at the DOJ. We tried to make reasonable accommodation to find 'common' ground, converting a number of bathrooms on campus to gender neutral (single user). But in the eyes of the law (DOJ) (Braly) is entitled to use the bathrooms that she identifies with."
So let me understand properly…
Under threat of legal action, point of gun, or whatever authority the executive branch cites, a state-run university must force the visible discomfort of the female students on campus, so that a 38-year-old male, with his male parts intact, can feel "ok" about himself, while putting on women's clothing? (Or in the case of the female locker rooms on campus--taking it off?)
Please also note the undercurrent of this action taken by the Department of Justice. The implication is that if the university doesn't comply the action they take will be based on the withholding of "civil" rights.
Practical question here: what's to keep any number of other men from donning female duds, claiming they feel feminine that day, and hang in locker rooms for say non-"identity"-related rationale?
Understand that this case doesn't involve any claim to sex change. Which from a medical standpoint shouldn't matter either. The human genome and DNA footprint of someone who undergoes a sex change operation still registers as their original gender for the rest of history regardless of what parts they had taken off or put on.
But Braly prefers to live--pretending to be female--while keeping his male parts.
Is it honestly the responsibility of the University of Arkansas to look into whatever dysfunction is being played out in Braly's mind, emotions, and heart and to attempt to re-order their universe to pander to it?
Does the Department of Justice--by turning this into a question of civil rights--and bullying the university into conformity--have any concern in their hearts for the women on campus who are already expressing their discomfort at the idea of a 38 year old member suddenly appearing before them in the locker rooms or bathrooms across campus?
Or would the Department of Justice label those women "unreasonable, hateful, or transgenderphobic?" Worse yet would DOJ seek to punish the women on campus for the natural shock and displeasure that the majority of them will feel at such a revelation?
Certainly the university could dare the DOJ to take them to the judicial branch to attempt objective voices to be heard in the matter. But depending on which circuit, and how long it takes, the university might have to pour millions of dollars to marshal a defense of something that only a generation ago was commonly understood to be ludicrous.
People like Braly are deeply injured and need a vast amount of empathy and compassion. But neither the university campus, nor the public dime should be used as resources to put innocent people at risk at best, or at worst further the dysfunction by allowing the behavior to be encouraged and duplicated.
And people… if they can force the University of Arkansas Fort Smith into conformity, what's to stop them from trying it on Ohio State, the University of Texas, or say you're local parochial private school?
At the end of the day, some of the best people to end bullying were parents who said "Stop… Because I said so!"
In this case, since "We The People" sit in authority over the DOJ, Eric Holder and even President Obama, perhaps it's time we serve as their parent and put an end to the true foolishness of such folly.
Especially since most bullies will only respond to an even stronger authority, an articulate instruction, and a firmer will.

Obama Should Blame Himself, Not The Court


Townhall.com ^ | May 27, 2012 | Phil Kerpen



Sometime in the next month, the United States Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Obama's individual mandate, the provision forcing everyone in the United States to buy health insurance. Based on how badly this provision was defeated in the oral arguments, it will likely be struck down as unconstitutional. If the law's most popular provision, the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions, is also struck down, Obama has nobody to blame but himself.
Obama campaigned against the individual mandate. In fact, it's the issue he won the nomination on. Obama said four years ago: "The main difference between my plan and Senator Clinton's plan is that she'd require the government to force you to buy health insurance." He even ran attack ads bashing Clinton on the issue.
Once Obama was in the White House, though, his tune changed. The mandate became the centerpiece of a corrupt deal that Obama cut with the insurance industry - in brief, the insurance industry agreed to accept the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions and several other expensive, onerous regulations in exchange for a mandate forcing everyone to buy their product, and hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies to further sweeten the pot.
Ron Suskind, who was granted insider access to the White House, explained that Obama made the deal even though "Obama, never much for the mandate, was concerned about legal challenges."
He should have been more than concerned. He should have upheld his sworn oath to the Constitution and said no to any deal that relied on an unconstitutional mandate.
The oral arguments before the Supreme Court showed this wasn't a close call. Even liberal commentators acknowledged it was a blowout. Jeffrey Toobin of CNN said it "was a train wreck for the Obama administration," and Andy Serwer of far-left Mother Jones magazine added "Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court."
It wasn't Verrilli's fault. Obama was making him defend the indefensible. A federal government with the power to order citizens to purchase politically-favored goods and services is a government of unlimited, unchecked powers-a government the Constitution exists to prevent.
If the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions falls with the mandate, as is likely, that will also be Obama's fault. The administration's brief to the Supreme Court argued that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta "was incorrect" to let the pre-existing ban stay in effect. Without the mandate, the Obama administration argued, the pre-existing ban has to go.
Unfortunately, they are right. There is no way to solve the pre-existing condition problem through economically destructive regulations - even if you try to pay-off the insurance companies with an unconstitutional mandate. Without the mandate, as Obama acknowledged, the pre-existing ban would put most insurance companies out of business.
If the Court, as expected, rejects Obama's unconstitutional mandate and the pre-existing condition ban he tied to it, he'll have nobody to blame but himself. His whole corrupt approach was a dead-end, and he knew it.

MOOchelle Spends Hundreds of Thousands of YOUR Dollars to Go To a Beyonce Concert


Michelle Obama's Mirror ^ | 5-27-2012 | MOTUS



Well I thought I could take today off butt then Lady M goes and takes the Wee Wons to a Beyonce Concert at the “O”vation theatre in the brand new, swanky Atlantic City resort, Revel.

I have to make this quick as Raj, Little Mo, Little Bo and I are on the road again on our way to cousin Earl’s. We should have been there yesterday, butt had to hole up for awhile. High tech mirrors on Harleys don’t travel all that well in the rain.

Anyway, here’s all the info I got from my “source:”

Lady M and the Wee Wons occupied a suite to enjoy Beyonce’s first round of concerts at Revel’s since giving birth to her daughter Baby Bleu Ivy. You may recall that MO and Beyonce are members of a mutual admiration club. In fact, The Bey (pronounced like Opie’s Aint Bea) is the only other person on earth Lady M would rather be than her own glamorous self:

The First Lady of the United States says that if she was not heading the White House in Washington DC with American President Barack Obama, she would love to be a music artist.

She told People: "Gosh, if I had some gift, I'd be Beyoncé. I'd be some great singer."

Gosh, some people are never satisfied are they? Like how many more gifts does she want; she already has a big house, her own plane, more clothes than Barbie, more shoes than Imelda and an unlimited expense account! You would think she would be happy just living with a great singer.

(Excerpt) Read more at michellesmirror.com ...

Obama Campaign Again Urging Supporters to Report on Non-Believers!


Canada Free Press ^ | May 27, 2012 | Warner Todd Huston



Turning back to that page out of Stalin’s handbook for good citizenship, the Obama campaign has revived its program of asking Americans to inform on fellow citizens when they see someone, some organization, some politician, or some news outlet “attacking” the Obammessiah.

Some of you may recall the black eye that team Obama got when it tried to do this before. Obama’s Attack Watch was heavily lampooned. (See Video)

One of the best tools that the East German and Soviet regimes had to keep the average citizen of their oppressive regimes in line was a program that urged citizens to tattle on their neighbors!

(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...

Does the GOP's Demographic Death Spiral End in a Texas Graveyard?


The New American ^ | May 22, 2012 | Selwyn Duke



If Democratic voters were rapidly increasing in number and Republican voters rapidly decreasing, it should be pretty big news, shouldn’t it?

Not when at issue is a third rail of American social commentary: race.

Recently I wrote a piece on race and voting patterns, using as a lede the story about how white births now account for less than 50 percent of the U.S. total for the first time in history. And while most respondents agreed with my analysis, some reacted predictably: Uncomfortable even hearing about race and/or frightened by what lies ahead, they rationalized away obvious facts.

And here is one: You cannot understand where our nation is headed ideologically without grasping the link between racial identification and voting patterns — and demographic changes that will yield Democratic hegemony.
...
Republicans derive 90 percent of their presidential-election vote from whites. Democrats win the non-white vote by, on average, more than 70 percent.
Here is another “what”: One of these constituencies is shrinking, and the other is growing — rapidly.
...
So consider the two major parties’ electoral starting point. Every election now, Republicans have to spot the Democrats Calif. and N.Y. and their combined 84 electoral votes. Adding the votes of reliably Democrat Mass., Hawaii, Vt. and D.C. — and we can include Ill. in there now — brings the total to 125. And I’m being generous: A few more states probably belong in that guaranteed-Dem. column.
Yet it gets worse. If you look at the electoral map, states reliably or likely for Mitt Romney account for only 170 electoral votes while states reliably or likely for Barack Obama account for 243.
Only 270 are needed to win...
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...

Morality Counts in a Candidate


Set Our Children Free ^ | 5/26/2012 | Tony Caruso



You can always judge the merits of a cause by the means used to advance that cause. If lying and deceit are part and parcel of making the case, then the cause is unworthy. On the other hand, the truth needs no defense, nor does it need false advertising. It will eventually prevail – and it will prevail to the extent that we are willing to pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to it. Keep this in mind as the presidential campaign heats up.

(Excerpt) Read more at setourchildrenfree.com ...

Is This Obama's Brain on Drugs?


American Thinker ^ | May 27, 2012 | Selwyn Duke



We all know the difference between normal mistakes and those that hint at a deeper, more frightening problem, such as Alzheimer's or other brain conditions. In light of this, how do you interpret a shocking mistake recently made by Barack Obama? Writes Terry Jeffrey of CNS News:

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.


Given that Obama has, ostensibly, only daughters, where does such a mistake come from? And how do you make it twice on two different occasions without correcting yourself? Then again, how can an American president say, "I've now been in 57 states, I think - one left to go" without correcting himself? Yes, Obama's most recent bizarre slip of the mind makes me think of that older, equally bizarre one. I mean, there are mistakes. Then there are mistakes...

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Career Politicians Think Living within Your Means is “Extreme”!


Tea Party Patriots ^ | May 24, 2012 | Staff



The Tea Party Patriots, the nation’s largest tea party organization, today blasted Vice President Biden and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for bashing ordinary Americans who believe in governmental fiscal responsibility.


Jenny Beth Martin, Co-founder and National Coordinator of Tea Party Patriots, reacted strongly to accusations that the Tea Party Movement bears responsibility for the financial crisis facing our nation:



“Only entrenched career politicians in Washington, D.C., would think living within your means is ‘extreme.’ What is truly extreme are the lengths Vice President Biden and Sen. Reid will go to blame everyone else for their lack of courage to lead this nation out of the financial wreckage they helped create. What is extreme is a Senate that refuses to pass a budget for three straight years. What is extreme is accelerating the nation’s financial troubles by refusing to cut government spending. What is extreme is a Congress, a President and a Vice President that don’t have the courage to lead this nation back to economic prosperity. Dysfunction and overspending is troubling and extreme.

The Vice President and Senator Reid are now screaming that Americans are ‘extremists’ for demanding fiscal responsibility. Is there a better example of how distorted and divisive this Administration and Congress have become in the national debate?

There used to be a time in America when spending money you didn’t have was frowned upon. Mr. Biden and Reid’s combined 64 years in Washington has clouded their ability to understand that a $15 trillion deficit and no budget is extreme mismanagement.”



The blame game is ramping up in DC to try and put the blame on us when Congress reaches its debt ceiling AGAIN without having done ANYTHING to stop the problems caused by its own dereliction of duty.

If placing the blame on an organization formed solely for the purpose of fixing government strikes you as extreme, please let us know you’re with us because it’s going to get pretty ugly before it gets pretty in DC.

Al Sharpton alleges GOP like Hitler, ready to exterminate blacks!


Examiner.com ^ | May 27, 2012 | Joe Newby





On Thursday, MSNBC's Al Sharpton took the race card to a whole new level by falsely claiming Republicans are like Hitler, and are prepared to kill African-Americans en masse.

"It seems like they [Republicans] act as though, some wiping out of people, some of the right-wing, is all right, it’s not all right to do to any innocent people. If you had war and people that’s one thing, but to wipe out innocent people just because of who they are like what was done in Hitler’s Germany or what was done to Native Americans is not justifiable," he said.

"You know but Rev, I think and what is similar to Hitler’s Germany is that Hitler did not believe those people to be human," New York Amsterdam News publisher Elinor Tatum said in response.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...

Barack Obama Was a Stoner Bully


New York Magazine ^ | Dan Amira | 5/25



When the Washington Post revealed recently Mitt Romney's past as a cruel boarding-school tyrant, conservatives cried foul. Where were the stories about Barack Obama's days as the entitled son of a governor? What was the media hiding?
Finally, David Maraniss, in his upcoming Obama biography, Barack Obama: The Story, has found the dark truth of Obama's past. It turns out that Obama was a bully as well — someone who threw his weight around and terrorized even those closest to him.
Barry also had a knack for interceptions. When a joint was making the rounds, he often elbowed his way in, out of turn, shouted "Intercepted!," and took an extra hit. No one seemed to mind.
Did they not mind because they had all smoked themselves into a blissful stupor, or did they not mind because they were terrified of Barry?

20 Years Later, It Turns Out Dan Quayle Was Right About Murphy Brown And Unmarried Moms!


Washington Post ^ | May 25, 2012 | Isabel Sawhill



20 Years Later, It Turns Out Dan Quayle Was Right About Murphy Brown And Unmarried Moms

On May 19, 1992, as the presidential campaign season was heating up, Vice President Dan Quayle delivered a family-values speech that came to define him nearly as much as his spelling talents. Speaking at the Commonwealth Club of California, he chided Murphy Brown — the fictional 40-something, divorced news anchor played by Candice Bergen on a CBS sitcom — for her decision to have a child outside of marriage.

“Bearing babies irresponsibly is simply wrong,” the vice president said. “Failing to support children one has fathered is wrong. We must be unequivocal about this. It doesn’t help matters when prime-time TV has Murphy Brown, a character who supposedly epitomizes today’s intelligent, highly paid professional woman, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone and calling it just another lifestyle choice.”
Quayle’s argument — that Brown was sending the wrong message, that single parenthood should not be encouraged — erupted into a major campaign controversy. And just a few weeks before the ’92 vote, the show aired portions of his speech and had characters react to it.
“Perhaps it’s time for the vice president to expand his definition and recognize that, whether by choice or circumstance, families come in all shapes and sizes,” Bergen’s character said.
Her fictional colleague Frank, meanwhile, echoed some of the national reaction: “It’s Dan Quayle — forget about it!”
Twenty years later, Quayle’s words seem less controversial than prophetic. The number of single parents in America has increased dramatically: The proportion of children born outside marriage has risen from roughly 30 percent in 1992 to 41 percent in 2009. For women under age 30, more than half of babies are born out of wedlock.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...

City Of Newport Beach Sends Obama Campaign A Bill For $35K


losangeles.cbslocal./ ^ | May 25, 2012 11:21 PM



NEWPORT BEACH (CBS) — The City of Newport Beach has decided a recent presidential trip really fit the bill.

Literally.

Newport Beach’s revenue division is charging the Obama campaign — specifically Obama For America — $35,043.04 for extra police officers, reserve officers and overtime pay to cover a recent fundraising visit.

The fundraiser was held in a Newport Beach home, causing traffic closures and security issues in the neighborhood.

Scott Mason has lived for 20 years on the street where the fundraiser was held.
“I don’t care what the political party is…I am not in the President’s party…if you are using the public sector to support fund-raising..you have to pay for that,” Mason said.
Several other Newport Beach residents agree with Mason.
“It’s kind of ridiculous. Yeah, kind of ridiculous,” said resident Kristen O’Brien.
“He should pay it back. He should pit back to the police force. He should pay it back to the administration. He should pay it back to the city and the people of California,” said Sam Porter, who also lives in the affluent community.
The city wants to be reimbursed for the officers used for the event – both the daily cost and the overtime hours racked by four members of law enforcement.
The city also wants the money back for the dedicated dispatcher and communications officers used for the event.
Newport Beach City Manager Dave Kiff made the decision to charge the President’s campaign.
“It is appropriate to treat it like a private event. We would bill the event sponsor,” Kiff said in a statement.
“Our country is broke…you have to pay for that,” Mason added.
President Obama raised $8 million dollars in fundraisers held across California in February, including the one held in Newport Beach

President Says World Is Entering New ‘Golden Age’


Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 26 May 2012 | John Semmens



President Barack Obama told Air Force Academy graduates that “the world is entering a new ‘golden age’ thanks to me. I have bridged the differences that set America apart from what were our adversaries in an earlier era.”
The president cited his “reset button” policy for bringing the US and Russia closer together. “I have transformed Ronald Reagan’s ‘evil empire’ into a true partner for peace,” Obama boasted. “President Putin and I are on the same page when it comes to issues of war and peace. I can’t tell you all the details right now, but we are jointly working to fundamentally change the way our two nations interact.”
“We have also reached a new understanding with Islam,” he continued. “Their leaders have accepted the sacrifice of the renegade Osama bin-Laden as a necessary step if we are to mute anti-Islamic anxiety and achieve a more harmonious environment for cultural interchange, learning, and enlightenment. The day when every Muslim can freely practice his religion wherever he might find himself is closer than it has ever been.”
The president also tried to reassure Academy grads that “though we are cutting back on military expenditures, salaries and pensions won’t be on the chopping block. It is our weapons, not our young men and women in uniform that create fear throughout the world. As we reduce our dominance in weapons of mass destruction we will reduce the perceived threat we pose to the rest of the world. History will look back on this moment as the fountainhead of a new humanity—homo pacificus—that will usher in peace for all time.”
In related news, New York City’s PS368 has made learning Arabic mandatory. “Considering the way things are going, we deem it prudent to teach our students these critical language skills,” said Principal Nicky Kram Rosen. “Those who can’t communicate in the dominant language will be at a significant disadvantage. Look at how immigrants who don’t speak English end up at the bottom of the economic heap.”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...
http://azconservative.org/2012/05/26/president-says-world-is-entering-new-golden-age/

FACT CHECK: Obama off on thrifty spending claim (Surprise! AP guts Obama on budget lies)


The Associated Press ^ | Saturday, May 26, 2012 | Andrew Taylor



The White House is aggressively pushing the idea that, contrary to widespread belief, President Barack Obama is tightfisted with taxpayer dollars. To back it up, the administration cites a media report that claims federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since the Eisenhower years.
"Federal spending since I took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years," Obama said at a campaign rally Thursday in Des Moines, Iowa.

So how does Obama measure up?
If one assumes that TARP and the takeover of Fannie and Freddie by the government as one-time budgetary anomalies and remove them from calculations - an approach taken by Holtz-Eakin - you get the following picture:
-A 9.7 percent increase in 2009, much of which is attributable to Obama.
-A 7.8 percent increase in 2010, followed by slower spending growth over 2011-13. Much of the slower growth reflects the influence of Republicans retaking control of the House and their budget and debt deal last summer with Obama. All told, government spending now appears to be growing at an annual rate of roughly 3 percent over the 2010-2013 period, rather than the 0.4 percent claimed by Obama and the MarketWatch analysis.
(Excerpt) Read more at m.apnews.com ...

Obama's Re-Election Campaign - The Thrill Is Gone!


The San Francisco Chronicle ^ | Saturday, May 26, 2012 | Willie Brown



The president's trip to the Bay Area last week made it painfully clear that the Barack Obama re-election campaign has lost its mojo.
There was no life, no personality, no memorable line or moment and no real enthusiasm in the entire fundraising foray. In short, there was no buzz.
It was like a summer rerun of a show that wasn't very interesting to begin with. Worse yet, Obama sounded like he was playing catch-up to Mitt Romney. I can't think of anything that should have him in that role, but he's acting like the underdog.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...

Warning signs for Obama on path to electoral votes


Yahoo News ^ | May 26 | Thomas Beaumont



Obama's new worries about North Carolina and Wisconsin offer opportunities for Republican Mitt Romney, who must peel off states Obama won in 2008 if he's to cobble together the 270 electoral votes needed to oust the incumbent in November.
Iowa, which kicked off the campaign in January, is now expected to be tight to the finish, while New Mexico, thought early to be pivotal, seems to be drifting into Democratic territory.
If the election were today, Obama would likely win 247 electoral votes to Romney's 206, according to an Associated Press analysis of polls, ad spending and key developments in states, along with interviews with more than a dozen Republican and Democratic strategists both inside and outside of the two campaigns.
Seven states, offering a combined 85 electoral votes, are viewed as too close to give either candidate a meaningful advantage: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia.
"As of today, the advantage still lies with the president, but there is a long and hard road ahead in this election," said Tad Devine, who was a top strategist to Democratic presidential candidates Al Gore and John Kerry but isn't directly involved in this year's race.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

Duty and Sacrifice - Memorial Day is not about death. It is about duty.


The American ^ | May 25, 2012 | Ralph Kinney Bennett





For the majority of Americans, Memorial Day is first and foremost a three-day weekend. Time to watch the Indianapolis 500 or a baseball game; time to open the swimming pool or have a picnic. The American flag will be appropriated to embellish ads for supermarkets, department stores, car dealers, and home improvement centers. Sales on everything from garden fertilizer to bedroom furniture will be accompanied by perfunctory messages urging us to “remember those who died for our country” as we clip our coupons and make our way to the mall. The nearest most folks will get to any graveyard, let alone a military cemetery, is a file photo in the local newspaper or obligatory footage on the television news.
It is perhaps inevitable that days set aside for even the most poignant purposes soon become mere “holidays.” The majority of people observe them as such, ignoring even their rote civic rituals. So it is with Memorial Day. Only a relatively small core of people–veterans, those still in the military, their relatives, a cadre of willing, obliged, or calculating politicians, and those citizens who retain a vestigial sense of tradition or patriotism–plan and participate in its observation.
It is a time to remember that who we are and what we are as a nation unique in history has depended on our sense of duty and its inevitable call to sacrifice.
At our cemetery on the hill above Ligonier, Pennsylvania, the observation has already begun. The folks from the veterans’ organizations have walked the rows and planted fresh American flags at the graves of their comrades. You can see hundreds of them fluttering in the sunlight or soaking limply in the rain, and there are thousands more, millions more, in cemeteries all across the United States. And in U.S. military cemeteries all over the world, the marshaled lines of simple stones stand as milestones marking the endless road of duty.
Memorial Day is not about death.
It is about duty.
And about the ultimate limit of duty–sacrifice.
It is a time to remember that who we are and what we are as a nation unique in history has depended on our sense of duty and its inevitable call to sacrifice.
And while the particular duty–the often perilous duty–of defending our country is accepted by the professional soldier, it has often been imposed on many others and carried out reluctantly and with trepidation. For most, this duty has meant the sacrifice of time–“the best years of our lives”—and of broken bodies. But for many others it has meant a sacrifice of life itself.
It is easy to forget what those gravestones and fluttering flags mean; easy to fly on past the cemetery, headed for the lake or ball game without giving it a thought. I’ve been no better than most about this. So in recent years, I have made it a point to remember. I drive up to the Ligonier Valley Cemetery on or around Memorial Day. I park on the narrow road below Section D and walk up the grassy, flag-bedecked slope to row 4. There at my feet are two small rectangles of granite. Incised on the larger, older one is the inscription:
ALVIN P. CAREY 1916 – 1944 S/Sgt 38 Inf 2nd Div
A few feet below this monument, a newer, smaller stone, emplaced years later, bears Staff Sergeant Carey’s name and the words CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR. I never look down at those gray rectangles set against the green grass without my mind rushing back to a hot day in July 1948 when, as a little boy, I sat in a church pew transfixed by something I had never seen before–a coffin covered completely by a fresh new American flag.
The nearest most folks will get to any graveyard, let alone a military cemetery, is a file photo in the local newspaper or obligatory footage on the television news.
Alvin Carey, quiet, bookish Alvin Carey, had come home. His body had been removed from a military grave in France and brought back to the green and forested valley he loved. I remember little about that day except my restlessness in the heat and the creaking sound of the floor and wooden pews in Laughlintown Christian Church as I stared at that flag-draped coffin and tried to imagine a soldier inside. It would be many, many years before I understood who he was and what he had done.
Today, the high school building in Ligonier is named after him and the road leading to it is called Carey School Road. But many people have no idea of the significance of the name. Alvin Carey was a handsome, brainy kid from the nearby village of Laughlintown. He was a voracious reader and by all reports a natural athlete, excelling in football and baseball. Going on to college in those Depression years after his high school graduation in 1935 was out of the question. So he worked at various jobs around Ligonier until, in January 1941, he joined the U.S. Army. By the end of that year, Pearl Harbor had been attacked and the United States was at war.
And so it was that on an August day in 1944, near the French village of Plougastel, Sgt. Carey, commanding a machine gun squad, found himself and his men pinned down by withering fire from German troops in and around a concrete pillbox high on a hill called 154. We will never know what went through Carey’s mind as machine gun bullets poured down on his exposed position 200 yards below that pillbox. He had placed his guns as best he could to return fire and tried to find what shelter he could for his men. He had done his duty.
But as the fire continued, Carey crawled quickly among his men, gathering up as many hand grenades as he could stuff in his pockets and belt. Then, armed with the grenades and his M1 carbine, he began crawling up that hill toward the distant pillbox.
Two hundred yards. That’s two football fields. Uphill. Under fire.
Killing one German infantryman who suddenly confronted him, Carey finally managed to reach a point just under the incessant muzzle flashes bursting from the narrow slit in the concrete face of the pillbox. He began throwing his grenades. He was trying to aim them directly into the slit where the German machine guns played back and forth. To do so he had to expose himself directly to the fire.
Whatever the combination of calculation and inchoate fear and anger within him, it is doubtful that the words duty or sacrifice or any thoughts connected with them crossed his mind.
Machine gun bullets tore into his body, knocking him back. He got up. With his life fast bleeding out of his shattered body, he got up. In the crisp, spare words of his Medal of Honor citation, “Undaunted, he gathered his strength and continued his grenade attack.” Carey, a pretty good baseball player, finally pitched one grenade through the slit straight into the pillbox, killing the crew and silencing the guns. Then he fell dead. Stunned by what they had just seen, the men of the 38th rushed up Hill 154 and ended German resistance in that area.
Medal of Honor citations are notably chaste in their narration, so we can only guess Carey’s state of mind when, with “conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life,” he went beyond the edge of duty that long ago August day. Whatever the combination of calculation and inchoate fear and anger within him, it is doubtful that the words duty or sacrifice or any thoughts connected with them crossed his mind.
But the sense was there. The sense that this thing had to be done, and Carey was there to do it. And thus, on an obscure hill by a tiny village in Brittany, he fulfilled his duty and went beyond—to the ultimate sacrifice.
You may have your own personal touchstone to remember Memorial Day. A friend or relative lost in Afghanistan or Iraq, or on the high seas, or in the air. Perhaps someone who never returned from Korea or Vietnam, or the Marine barracks in Lebanon. Remember them. Give thanks for them. Consider, for a few moments, the cost of duty.
If no such personal connection exists, go and visit a cemetery. Go to those little flags fluttering by the stones. Pick out one, or just consider the hundreds, the thousands, the hundreds of thousands, that mark the long road of duty… and of sacrifice.
Ralph Kinney Bennett is a contributing writer to THE AMERICAN.
FURTHER READING: Bennett also writes “Remembering: With Pain, Anger, and Vigilance,” “This Astounding Enterprise,” and “Funny Thing about Christmas.” Thomas Donnelly, Gary J. Schmitt, and Mackenzie Eaglen contribute “Defending Defense: Sequestration Must be Stopped.” Mackenzie Eaglen says “Entitlement Programs, not Defense, the Source of Deficit Crisis.” John R. Bolton claims “The Choice is Clear: Romney Will Keep Us Safer.”
Image by Rob Green / Bergman Group

Dear Graduates: You’re Screwed!


Townhall.com ^ | May 27, 2012 | Derek Hunter



It’s graduation season, and prominent political and media figures are making the rounds to give commencement speeches at colleges across the country. The president, administration officials, progressive members of Congress, left-wing television talking heads, liberal columnists, etc., are spewing so many feel-good platitudes that you’d think doing so was an Olympic event and they were training for the gold in London.

The one thing missing from these speeches is reality.

As such, and since not even an online college has asked me to deliver a commencement address, I’ll give mine here.

Graduates, congratulations on successfully completing college. Since I was able to do it, it can’t be that hard. But it’s a feat worthy of celebration nonetheless. Kudos on a job well done.
Now comes the bad part.
After the hangovers from your graduation parties fade away, the hangover of reality will set in. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if you rely on the mainstream media for your information, you probably haven’t heard this – you’re screwed.
In addition to the tens of thousands of dollars in student loans you now owe, your share of the national debt as a citizen is more than $50,000. Once you find a job and become one of the elite 53 percent of Americans who pay taxes, your share will jump to $138,000.
But don’t think about that number just yet; it won’t apply to about half of you for some time. You see, in President Obama’s economy about half of you won’t find full-time employment – or any job – for quite some time.
Sure, you’ve been hearing for months about the dropping unemployment rate and are probably thinking your prospects are looking up. Well, I’m the pin here to burst your bubble, because someone has to.
The rate hasn’t fallen because jobs have been created. It’s fallen because hundreds of thousands of people have given up looking for work. In the government’s dishonest way of calculating labor statistics, these people no longer exist. In fact, not only do they exist, but the more they give up looking for work, the fewer workers we actually need. That’s an even bigger problem for you, and it’s one unlikely to be solved by the people who consider spending more than last year, but less than planned, to constitute a “draconian cut” in spending.
To those who went into practical fields of study, such as physical and computer sciences, you’ll probably be all right. Those jobs are always in demand and I can’t really tell you anything you either don’t already know or won’t be better off discovering on your own.
Those of you with a degree in Caribbean Pygmy, Eskimo Gender or theater studies…Yeah, that wasn’t a smart move. On the bright side, you can learn early decisions have consequences, and you might as well own it because you bought it.
For the record, when we run into each other in the future, to make that interaction less awkward – yes, I would like fries with that.
Some of you will go on to accomplish great things, live amazing lives and enjoy tremendous success. With a little luck and a lot of hard work, you may even become successful enough to become the type of people many of your fellow students, professors and even our president demonize on a daily basis. It’s the new American Dream, so to speak – to become successful enough your government attempts to turn your fellow Americans against you.
On the other hand, if government keeps spending the way it is, it’s unlikely you’ll ever obtain the level of success government would like to deny you.
But I’m not talking about the end of the world here – only the end of the civilized world. That’s because, just as much of our past comes from Greece, our future lies there too – unless we start to take fiscal responsibility seriously.
We’ll know if we are at least interested in avoiding a trip off the financial cliff on November 6. Neither candidate for president offers the sort of sanity we need. But hopefully, if we can defeat President Obama, we at least can start to get our government used to the idea of taking its medicine.
I know that thought isn’t popular here on college campuses, but then neither is independent thought in general, so…
Since we now live in a culture that rewards stupidity with reality shows and everyone gets a participation ribbon, maybe the key to our economic future is to be the world’s cautionary tale. I hope not.
Ultimately that’s up to each of you. Do we pull up from our current nosedive and continue moving down the road to greatness or do we get distracted by shiny plastic objects and keep the focus on who is Kim Kardashian’s husband of the week? Are we a beacon of hope for the world or people who obsess over who advanced on American Idol and fall for the false promise of candy land where birth control grows on trees, health care is magically free and where personal choices and responsibilities become rights and freebees?
The path paved with freebees is always the most alluring because who doesn’t like free stuff? But remember – Democrats have promised you that path your whole life. And now that you’ve graduated college, many of you will realize it’s only led you into debt and back to your parent’s basement. If that’s your version of Utopia…you misread the book.
I hate to end this speech on a down note, but as so many of your fellow graduates have joined the “Occupy movement,” mostly the philosophy majors and those getting their Ph.D. in disciplines like gender and race privilege studies, and, as such, haven’t showered since Republicans took back the House of Representatives, my eyes are burning and I must stop.
Good luck to you, good luck to us all. We’re gonna need it.

Woodshed

DORK

Attack Ads

Focus

Forward?

How am I doing?

Turn Around Artist