Saturday, June 16, 2012

Unemployment leads Obama, GOP (Scott Walker) weekly address


CNN ^ | June 16, 2012 | Gregory Wallace



Unemployment was on the minds of President Barack Obama and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker on Saturday, as they delivered weekly addresses calling for leadership and action to put people back to work.

Walker touted the results achieved in part by controversial measures he took, including restricting the right of state employees to collectively bargain. Unions and others responded to his moves by trying to oust him, an effort that ended this month when Walker survived a recall vote.
He said his state's unemployment rate dropped and a budget deficit turned into a surplus since he took office in early 2011.

"Sadly, the president and many of his allies seem to measure success by how many people are dependent on government programs," Walker said. "Those policies have failed. In contrast, I and many other Republicans define success in just the opposite way - by how many people we can free from government dependence by growing the private sector."

(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...

Leaked Pacific Trade Pact Exempts Foreign Firms From U.S. Law?


Americans for Limited Government ^ | June 14, 2012 | Bill Wilson



Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today issued the following statement reacting to a leaked version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact with Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam:

“These new trade agreements will place domestic U.S. firms that do not do business overseas at a competitive disadvantage. Based on these leaked documents, foreign firms under this trade pact could conceivably appeal federal regulatory and court rulings against them to an international tribunal with the apparent authority to overrule our sovereignty. If foreign companies want to do business in America, they should have to follow the same rules as everyone else. No special favors.

“It is telling that the only apparent way these Pacific nations will enter a free trade agreement with the U.S. is if they are exempt from our onerous environmental and financial regulations that make it cost-ineffective to do business here. Instead of making these foreign firms exempt from these burdensome rules, they should just repeal the regulations and make it cheaper to do business here.

“This poses an even wider problem, though. Obama is negotiating a trade pact that would constitute a judicial authority higher than even the U.S. Supreme Court that could overrule federal court rulings applying U.S. law to foreign companies. That is unconstitutional. The U.S. cannot be allowed to enter a treaty that would abrogate our Constitution.

“This tribunal needs to be removed from this agreement, and no foreign company doing business on our soil should have a competitive advantage, created by some a dumb agreement, over American companies. What is Obama thinking? He is placing international organizations above the interests of our own country.” 

Independents say Obama hurts job creation


Reuters ^ | 06/16/2012 | Samuel P. Jacobs



With President Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney delivering dueling visions for the U.S. economy in speeches on Thursday, a majority of independents said that Obama's policies have made it harder for Americans to gain employment, a Reuters/Ipsos poll showed on Friday.

Fifty-two percent of independents said they agreed with the idea that the president has not helped create more jobs in America, an argument central to Romney's campaign.

Obama appears to have trouble convincing some members of his own party that his administration has been good for jobs: 29 percent of Democrats said they agreed with the claim that he has not been a job creator.

With the unemployment rate at 8.1 percent, the Obama campaign maintains that 4.2 million private-sector jobs have been created since he entered office in January 2009, although roughly as many have been lost.
"I think the thing that Obama's team is going to be worried about is the number of independents who agree that the policies the president has put in place make it harder to create jobs," said Ipsos pollster Chris Jackson. "The key conversation is convincing them that the things he has done have helped the economy or not certainly made things worse."
Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, argues that the Obama administration's healthcare reform has been bad for the economy, a view that now resonates with a majority of people.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...

Mr. President: U.S. Latinos Respect the Constitution, Too


Pajamas Media ^ | 06/16/2012 | Daniel Sosa



President Obama can rewrite U.S. immigration policy all by himself. Who knew?

The Obama administration will stop deporting — and begin giving work permits — to younger illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The administration’s policy will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants: they will avoid deportation and be eligible for work permits if they arrived in the U.S. before age 16, are younger than 30, and have been in the country for at least five continuous years.

This president has continually lied to people with my skin color and surname. I’m angry that he thinks me and other Latino-Americans too stupid to see this for what it is — election-year politics. I’m further upset that he is attempting to divert my attention from the most important issue facing my children: the state of the U.S. economy.
Our forebears came here in search of the economic freedom that had been taken from them in their leftist countries of origin. Yet under President Obama’s leadership, America is approaching the very thing my grandmother fled. The May jobs numbers spelled bad news for all Americans; whites and African-Americans were just as disgusted when the figures revealed that Hispanics were hit especially hard. (In May alone, the Hispanic unemployment rate soared from 10.3% to 11%.)
The last thing on my mind: trying to figure out how illegal immigrants can find work.
I’d prefer my president focus on putting Americans back to work — once we have full employment here, then we can turn our attention to helping the world. But that’s not President Obama’s way: he’s a “citizen of the world,” and I fear his collectivist mentality prevents him from taking care of business at home first.
Mr. Obama is supposedly well ahead of Mitt Romney within the Latino community, so why would he make this play? Likely, he did this because he isn’t as solid with Latinos as the mainstream press has presented him as being. At the start of 2010, the president enjoyed support from 69% of Hispanics, yet by October 2010 that figure hit 55%. The Democrats had taken the Latino vote for granted, which contributed to the historic 2010 “shellacking.” As of today, the president still hasn’t delivered on his 2008 promises of legal and illegal immigration reform, and he has reportedly deported over a million illegals — double George W. Bush’s total.
Obama’s crackdown was likely payback to his union supporters, who don’t like illegals very much: the sentiment was expressed long ago by Cesar Chavez, who famously referred to illegals as “human contraband” in congressional testimony. But when the Latino community cried foul over the deportations and the press got wind, the deportations stopped.
When polls ask who Latinos like, Romney or Obama, Obama wins hands-down. But the numbers from 2010 — and I suspect the current internals for the Obama campaign — show that like isn’t enough to get Latinos to the polls right now.
Latino groups were fighting mad at the president in the 2010 midterms. They actually took Obama at his word when he promised to address immigration issues in 2008. But it took a backseat to his stimulus spending, and then took a backseat to his Obamacare fight. When confronted, he claimed [1]:
I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.
I laugh when liberals try to convince me of George W. Bush’s supposed imperialism and lawlessness. And I have news for our president: not all Latinos are ignorant of the law; in fact, we American Latinos cherish our nation of laws. Some of us have studied our countries of origin, and now recognize when narcissistic thugs who sport the title “president” make unilateral decisions contradictory to established law or even their own prior claims.
I caution Mr. Obama not to believe the cover of Time magazine featuring illegals that arrogantly proclaims: “We are Americans. Just not legally.” It takes more to be an American than simply declaring yourself one.
The people of the world do not have a right to be an American. There is a process, as cumbersome as it is, to achieve that goal. It is my hope that legal U.S. Latinos will insist that the process of legal immigration be streamlined, while simultaneously insisting on the rule of law in the interim.
Legal Latinos value the rule of law as codified in the Constitution. It’s part of being an American.

If We Took the Constitution Seriously, Obama Would Be Impeached!


American Thinker ^ | June 15, 2012 | Michael Filozof



If the citizens of this Republic still took the Constitution seriously, Obama would be impeached for his decision to unilaterally grant amnesty to certain illegal aliens.

Article 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the power of Congress, states that "Congress shall have the Power To... establish an [sic] uniform Rule of Naturalization."

Congress has passed numerous laws pertaining to immigration and naturalization, including laws requiring the deportation of illegals.
The role of the President, according to Article II, Sec. 3, is to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Obama's refusal to execute Congress's immigration laws (or, for that matter, Congress's Defense of Marriage Act) is an impeachable offense.
Article II, Sec. 4 states that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for... Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors."
The deliberate failure to enforce valid immigration law and allow hordes of foreigners to live and work in the U.S. is, arguably, "treason," and doing so in an election year to appease Hispanic voters could certainly be considered "bribery."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

Obama his A.G. and corruption


06/16/2012 | Richard D Gregory Sr



HOW MANY TIMES?

How many times will you let Mr Obama side step you? How many times will you submit to the man that holds our nation in contempt?

I am really having a hard time with this. His Attorney General has no scruples; he seems to choose which laws he will allow, and which he will decide to enforce; after a year and a half!

Corruption is rampant and you keep giving Mister Obama space. You have allowed his A G to choose which laws to enforce and which to allow. You have authority; if you will use it!
You are Congress; you have the authority to put a stop to this. His A G is laughing at you. They are making a mockery of the rule of law. While you stand by and do nothing!
If we are fortunate enough to get another election; and if you continue to do nothing; I assure you America will change Congress. You continue; except tea party newbie’s; continue to get poor revues; what are the chances you will be replaced?
I expect you will send a “form letter” for my reply to show, so I will post your answer on the many teaparty forums.
Thank you for the use of your soapbox, Richard Gregory

Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws!


Politico ^ | 16 Jun 2012 | STEVE FRIESS



President Obama returned Friday to a trusted tactic — satisfying his political allies by not doing something.

Conservatives were angry when Janet Napolitano announced the administration would stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants but they should have seen it coming. On issue after issue – gay rights, drug enforcement, Internet gambling, school achievement standards – the administration has chosen to achieve its goals by a method best described as passive-aggressive.
Rather than pushing new laws through a divided Congress to enact his agenda, Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters –like Hispanic voters and the gay community — don’t like.
“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt said. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”
A White House official said the strategy is the result of a stalemate in Washington.
“We we work to achieve our policy goals in the most effective and appropriate way possible,” the official said. “Often times Congress has blocked efforts (ie [No Child Left Behind] and DREAM) and we look to pursue other appropriate means of achieving our policy goals. Sometimes this makes for less than ideal policy situations - such as the action we took on immigration - but the president isn’t going to be stonewalled by politics, he will pursue whatever means available to do business on behalf of American people.”
For Obama – and future presidents should Washington remain polarized to the point of perpetual inaction —it may be the only way to fulfill a range of campaign promises.
As of Friday, the federal government won’t deport undocumented immigrants under age 30 who came to the United States as children.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...

Small Businesses May Not Get to Keep Their Self-Insured Health Plans! (SHOCK)


Obamacare Watcher.org ^ | 06/05/2012 | Obamacare Watcher



Imagine that, in order to increase competition among grocery stores, the government created local farmers’ markets all across the country. Anyone could sell food within these farmers’ markets—including the grocery stores. But when the grocery stores refused to participate, the government enacted regulations to force them to do so. Thus, what was meant to encourage competition instead became the means of suppressing it.

Similarly, the Obama Administration has signaled that it may create new regulations in order to protect Obamacare’s online health insurance marketplaces called Health Insurance Exchanges. Despite Obama’s promise that if you like your health plan you can keep it, some small businesses may not be able to keep their self-insured health plans if the Obama Administration has its way.

Last month, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a Request for Information (RFI)[1] notice in the Federal Register signaling that the Obama Administration may regulate small, self-insured health plans, making it difficult or impossible for small businesses to insure their employee's health benefits themselves instead of purchasing a plan from an insurance company.
An increasing percentage of American workers obtain their health insurance from employers who self-insure their employees’ health benefits by assuming the risk of paying their employees’ health claims.[2]
Self-insurance is attractive to businesses because it provides them the flexibility to design their own health plan. Plus, many employers find it a less expensive alternative to purchasing health insurance from an insurance company. And, while self-insured plans are subject to federal regulation, federal law prohibits states from regulating them.[3]
Large employers that self-insure have the personnel to manage the plan and can spread their risk between their many employees. But small employers typically hire an outside, third-party expert to manage their self-insured plan. They also purchase stop-loss insurance to protect themselves from the potential of unusually high health claims.
For example, a small company might be willing to pay a limit of up to an average of $20,000 per employee for health claims in a year. But that company might be ruined financially if claims in a particular year spike too high. To protect itself, that company, then could purchase stop-loss insurance to reimburse them should their actual spending on health claims surpass a certain limit. That limit is called an “attachment point.” It is the point at which the stop-loss insurance plan kicks in and reimburses the employer for claims it pays over a chosen limit.
Stop-loss plans can have attachment points that are low enough to make it feasible for small businesses to accept the risk of implementing their own self-insured health plan.
While subject to many of Obamacare's new mandates, self-insured plans are not subject to the Essential Health Benefits, risk pooling, risk adjustment, rate review, or medical loss ratio mandates.[4]
This concerns liberal “consumer advocates” like Professor Timothy Jost of Washington and Lee University School of Law. Jost calls self-insurance a “loophole” in Obamacare.[5] Jost and other Obamacare ideologues have called on the Obama Administration to use its regulatory powers to close this so-called “loophole.”[6] Their particular concern is that self-insured plans with low attachment points are a risk to Obamacare’s Exchange marketplaces. Now HHS, in its RFI is echoing this concern.
For this reason, we expect that the information collected from the RFI will be the basis of a future regulation. We further expect that such a future regulation may regulate self-insured plans with stop-loss insurance and thereby may attempt to make it difficult or impossible for small businesses to self-insure.
The problem with government-created marketplaces is that the government feels obligated to protect them—even at the expense of competition and market alternatives.


http://obamacarewatcher.org/about
Kevin Hassett, in his August 1, 2010 editorial on Bloomberg.com, reported that Obamacare
“creates 68 grant programs,
47 bureaucratic entities,
29 demonstration or pilot programs,
six regulatory systems,
six compliance standards and
two entitlements
.”

The full title is 'Obama Administration Signals that Small Businesses May Not Get to Keep Their Self-Insured Health Plans.' 

Obama Celebrates Anti-Police Riot Started at Mafia-Owned Bar for Transvestites! (What a pathetic president)


CNSNews ^ | June 16, 2012 | Terence P. Jeffrey



(CNSNews.com) - At a White House reception held Friday evening in honor of Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Pride month, President Barack Obama celebrated a 1969 anti-police riot that started in what the New York Times reports was an illegal Mafia-owned bar for transvestites.


“Now, each June since I took office, we have gathered to pay tribute to the generations of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans who devoted their lives to our most basic of ideals--equality not just for some, but for all,” Obama said.

“Together we’ve marked major milestones like the 40th anniversary of the Stonewall riots, when a group of brave citizens held their ground against brutal discrimination,” said Obama. “Together, we’ve honored courageous pioneers who, decades ago, came out and spoke out; who challenged unjust laws and destructive prejudices. Together, we’ve stood resolute; unwavering in our commitment to advance this movement and to build a more perfect union.”

The “Stonewall Riot” that president Obama referred to started when police raided a New York City saloon called the “Stonewall Inn” that catered to transvestites. In a 2010 obituary for Seymour Pine, the police inspector who led the raid, the New York Times reported the basic facts of the incident, describing the inn as "an illegal club frequented by cross-dressers."
“The club, on Christopher Street near Seventh Avenue South, was owned by members of the Mafia,” the Times reported. “Inspector Pine later said he conducted the raid on orders from superiors.
“About 200 people were inside,” said the Times. “When the officers ordered them to line up and show identification, some refused. Several transvestites refused to submit to anatomical inspections. Word of the raid filtered into the street, and soon hundreds of protesters gathered outside, shouting ‘gay power’ and calling the police ‘pigs.’
“The turning point came when a lesbian fought with officers as she was pushed into a patrol car,” said the Times. “The crowd rushed the officers, who retreated into the club. Several people ripped out a parking meter and used it as a battering ram; others tried to set fire to the club. It took police reinforcements an hour and a half to clear the street.
“It was the start of several nights of rioting, during which the police used force to disperse crowds that sometimes numbered in the thousands,” said the Times. “Fewer than three dozen protesters were arrested, but hundreds were detained and released.”
At Friday's White House reception, Obama predicted the LGBT movement would achieve the additional goals it seeks--including waht he called "marriage equality"--because of what he perceives as their persuasiveness and the example they set.
"We’ll get there because of every man and woman and activist and ally who is moving us forward by the force of their moral arguments, but more importantly, by the force of their example," said Obama.

A Change We Can Hope For!


Townhall.com ^ | June 16, 2012 | Ken Blackwell



Vice President Joe Biden is almost casual about ending marriage. It’s “inevitable,” he says. He thinks it’s not such a big deal.

But it is a big deal. Recognizing same-sex couplings as marriages will mean the end of marriage. That’s because saying yes to two men or two women marrying opens the door to polygamy.
Those who have delved into the issue know this. George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley believes that conferring legal status on same-sex couples will lead to polygamyand he says he’s for that.

When Turley told a packed house at the Newseum in 2008 that he was for polygamy, his audience cheered wildly. Those cheering for the end of marriage included federal court clerks, grad students, congressional staffers, and journalists--the Inside-the-Beltway elite. With same-sex couplings and polygamous arrangements recognized, where would that leave marriage? Ended, that’s where. When everyone can marry, no one can marry. There is no marriage left.

Advocates for same-sex couplings have never agreed to bar polygamous groups being granted marriage rights. After all, if “marriage equality” is the real goal, then three or four marital partners are even more equal than two.
Democrats might want to think twice before adopting a platform plank to end marriage.
When they meet in Charlotte, North Carolina, September 3-6, they may want to look deeply into the numbers from the North Carolina marriage referendum.
Those numbers prove that polls are not votes. The latest public opinion polls showed marriage winning by a margin of 55-39%. But the final vote tally—61-39%--shows clearly that marriage scores consistently better in the voting booth than in the public opinion polls.
In North Carolina, we saw the heaviest turnout for a primary election. With no opponent for President Obama on the Democratic side, and with the GOP contest already wrapped up for Gov. Romney, this fact alone should command attention.
The American Enterprise Institute recently blogged on the marriage issue. Lazar Berman and Daniel Berman wrote “Why Young Voters Won’t Tip the Gay Marriage Debate Anytime Soon.”
Democrats should seriously study what the Bermans found in the election returns. Delegates may learn some amazing facts about the voters of that state—and the 32 other states that have voted to support true marriage.
Democrats in North Carolina voted 53% to end marriage. But fully 46% of Democrats voted for true marriage. Independents broke 54-46% for marriage.
Women voters supported marriage by a healthy 59-41%. Who’s really waging “a war on women”? Apparently, women don’t think it’s those of us who defend true marriage.
The racial breakdown was fascinating. Whites voted 59-41% for marriage, but blacks scored even higher, at 65-35% for true marriage. The category “other” must have included Hispanics, Asian-Americans, and Indian tribes. This demographic voted 66-34% for true marriage.
Yes, young voters were a better group for the marriage enders. But even here, the 18-29 year olds broke just barely for ending marriage, 49-51%. Much media talk about how young people support same-sex couplings does not translate into votes. There is a silenced minority here. Young people are constantly told it’s not cool to be against
same-sex demands.
With Americans waiting longer to get married, it should not surprise us that the youth cohort is the least supportive of true marriage. They’re not married yet. But what political movement would be prudent to move ahead with a radical social experiment based on such a slender majority--51-49%--among the 18-29 year olds?
Candidate Barack Obama did an amazing thing in 2008. His uplifting talk of Hope and Change truly inspired the youth. He was able to bring a surge of young voters to the polls to support him.
Defenders of true marriage need to be equally bold in speaking with younger audiences. Candidates need to tell the young the truth: that if they support marriage rights for same-sex couplings, they will be voting to end marriage.
The young, according to all polls, are disproportionately pro-life. That may be because so many of them and their friends have experienced the tragedy of abortion. They know how heartbreaking a choice it is.
We need to share with the young this hopeful message: Marriage is the best protector for unborn children that we have. Four out of five unborn children who are killed in abortion are the children of single parents. If you really care about unborn children, protect the institution that best protects them.
Candidates who embrace the pro-life position, and who defend true marriage, are not driving a wedge between age groups or ethnic groups, between men and women. These issues are not wedge issues at all; they are bridge issues. They bring us together. That’s a change we can hope for.

What Republicans Think


NYTimes ^ | 6/16/2012 | David Brooks



In the 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower reconciled Republicans to the 20th-century welfare state. Between Ike and George W. Bush, Republican leaders basically accepted that model. Sure, they wanted to cut taxes and devolve power, but, in practice, they sustained the system, often funding it more lavishly than the Democrats.

But many Republicans have now come to the conclusion that the welfare-state model is in its death throes. Yuval Levin expressed the sentiment perfectly in a definitive essay for The Weekly Standard called “Our Age of Anxiety”:

“We have a sense that the economic order we knew in the second half of the 20th century may not be coming back at all — that we have entered a new era for which we have not been well prepared. ... We are, rather, on the cusp of the fiscal and institutional collapse of our welfare state, which threatens not only the future of government finances but also the future of American capitalism.”

To Republican eyes, the first phase of that collapse is playing out right now in Greece, Spain and Italy — cosseted economies, unmanageable debt, rising unemployment, falling living standards.

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

Obama In March 2011: Can't Stop Deportations Through Executive Order!

Watch this Video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfZ3kaKZoIw

Obama Energy Dept. awards $2 million grant to solar company linked with Van Jones


The Daily Caller ^ | June 14, 2012 | Hal Libby



On Wednesday the Department of Energy began financing solar power installation research with a $2 million award to Solar Mosaic. The solar energy research company has former Obama “green jobs” czar Van Jones (listed as an advisor) it also (employed) Rebuild the Dream, Jones’ firm, to do its public relations work.


The DOE’s (grant money) will be distributed to nine companies in four states. Solar Mosaic received the most money, four times the amount of most other grants.


Jones resigned his post in the Obama administration three years ago amid controversy stemming from his past remarks.


Before working in the Obama White House, Jones signed a petition alleging officials in the George W. Bush administration “may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”


Jones later made crude remarks about Republicans in a public speech and expressed support for Mumia-Abu Jamal, a death row inmate convicted of killing a Philadelphia police officer.

It’s unclear whether the Department of Energy knew of Jones’ position at Solar Mosaic. Agency spokeswoman Jen Strutsman told The Daily Caller that grantmaking was “decided solely on the merits of the project, assessed by career civil servants.”

“Each of the awards … was selected because of its technology and the project’s potential to reduce the cost of solar energy for American families and businesses,” she added.

Van Jones did not respond to requests for comment.

Obama: The Biggest Government Spender In World History!


Forbes ^ | June 14, 2012 | Peter Ferrera



The U.S. has never before had a President who thinks so little of the American people that he imagines he can win re-election running on the opposite of reality. But that is the reality of President Obama today.

President Obama's own 2013 budget shows that as a result federal debt held by the public will double during Obama's four years as President. That means in just one term President Obama will have increased the national debt as much as all prior Presidents, from George Washington to George Bush, combined.

But this 2012 election is defined for the voters by the future, not the past. And that future is fully revealed by the stark contrast between President Obama's spending, deficits and debt projected under his proposed 2013 budget, and the projections under House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's budget, adopted by the Republican House, and endorsed by presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Obama's 2013 budget proposes to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years, the most in world history by far, increasing federal spending by $1.5 trillion above the current CBO baseline. Ryan's budget proposes to cut that by $6.8 trillion. By 2022, Ryan's budget would be spending nearly a trillion dollars less per year than President Obama's budget.

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

Obama's policy strategy: Ignore laws


Politico ^ | June 16, 2012 | STEVE FRIESS



President Obama returned Friday to a trusted tactic — satisfying his political allies by not doing something.

Conservatives were angry when Janet Napolitano announced the administration would stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants but they should have seen it coming. On issue after issue - gay rights, drug enforcement, Internet gambling, school achievement standards - the administration has chosen to achieve its goals by a method best described as passive-aggressive.

Rather than pushing new laws through a divided Congress to enact his agenda, Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters - like Hispanic voters and the gay community - don't like.

"If the president says we're not going to enforce the law, there's really nothing anyone can do about it," University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt said. "It's clearly a political calculation."

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

Nokia Implodes... Taking Microsoft's Mobile Dreams Down With It (Watch video)


Business Insider ^ | 06/15/2012 | Henry Bldoget



The once-great Finnish cell-phone giant Nokia (NOK) is now undergoing one of the most spectacular implosions in the history of business. (video at link)
Several years ago, Nokia was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world when it came to making phones. Now, the company is frantically cutting costs and downsizing in a desperate bid to survive.
What happened?
The iPhone happened.
In the five years since Apple (AAPL) released its first iPhone, Nokia has lost a staggering 90% of its market value.
Worse, the company has gone from coining money to burning it. And the situation has gotten so bad that Nokia announced yesterday that it plans to fire another 10,000 employees.
Nokia's problem is that the cell-phone market has become a "platform" market, in which third-party developers build apps that run on top of cell phones. Platform markets tend to standardize around one or two winners. And the smartphone market is already standardizing around Apple's iPhone and Google's Android.
Nokia recognized this market shift last year. Its new CEO wrote a bold memo likening the company's predicament to being stuck on a "burning oil platform" in the middle of the ocean. He then radically changed Nokia's strategy and bet the company's future on Microsoft's forthcoming entry into the mobile platform market--a new version of Windows.
Unfortunately, Nokia's Microsoft phones have not been selling well. And, in the meantime, Apple and Google (GOOG) have only gotten stronger. So Nokia's situation has become even more dire.
Because Microsoft (MSFT) and Nokia are now in bed together, moreover, Nokia's problems have become Microsoft's problems. Microsoft is desperate to regain some of the ground it has lost to Apple and Google in smartphones. But its one major global partner, Nokia, is now drowning. So that puts Microsoft back at square one again.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

North Dakota has surpassed Alaska in crude oil production.


EIA ^ | June 15 2012



In March 2012 Alaska produced 17,592,000 barrels of crude oil.
In March 2012 North Dakota produced 17,840,000 barrels of crude oil.

North Dakota is now the 2nd largest producer of crude oil in the USA behind Texas.

North Dakota has really increased crude oil production over the past few years. 2005 = 35,660,000
2006 = 39,911,000
2007 = 45,058,000
2008 = 62,776,000
2009 = 79,736,000
2010 = 113,064,000
2011 = 152,910,000

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpnd1&f=a  

Sheriff Joe: I’ll Keep Arresting Illegals Under Arizona Law Despite Obama Amnesty!


Stand With Arizona ^ | 06-15-2012 | John Hill




by John Hill
Stand With Arizona


If illegal aliens covered by Obama's lawless amnesty edict are breathing a sigh of relief that they no longer face the legal consequences of their illegal status, they'll have another thing coming in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Because this is Sheriff Joe's County, and he will continue to enforce the laws on the books as written.
When asked by a reporter if Arpaio will "help those new immigrants who are here under that provision to feel welcome?" the Sheriff simply said he had no contact with those people and that "I'm going to continue to enforce all our illegal immigration laws."
In other words, if you are a so-called "Dreamer" in the 4th largest county in America, there is a pair of pink underwear in Tent City with your name on it - Obama amnesty be damned.
Joe also gave his opinion that Obama chose this Friday to spring this surprise on America, as a preemptive strike against the likely upcoming Supreme Court approval of S.B. 1070...
Well first of all, it seems to be politically-motivated. We have our 1070 Supreme Court ruling coming out maybe Monday and here's an election year. I would rather see the president let the congress decide what to do with this issue and other illegal immigration problems.
And finally, Joe was the first political leader today to grasp what we tried to convey this morning - that the "800,000" or "1 million" figures are irrelevant - this amnesty order will spark a new bum rush for the border from the Mexican side. Because it is so easy, so little verification by DHS, it is so easy to lie and use fraudulent documents...once you get inside the border. Joe gets it...
"As the President keeps with these executive orders, I think people from Mexico are now going to feel, 'Hey come on in and we'll get by with it.' But it won't happen in this county. They will still be arrested," Arpaio said.
When we remember that Sheriff Joe and his deputies detain a whopping 25% of ALL illegal aliens captured in the entire U.S. every year, we realize just how critical his department will be to STOPPING the amnesty by continuing to enforce STATE laws against illegal immigration. This is why it is SO critical that Sheriff Joe Arpaio be re-elected this year, and why George Soros is willing to spend $10 million to defeat him. Arizona is the gateway, and Sheriff Joe is the gate. We cannot afford for that gate to fall. We must stand with Joe.
Here is the video of the interview...


TAKE ACTION on Facebook at Stand With Arizona (596k Strong)
Follow Stand With Arizona on Twitter

Obama 'pandering' on immigration (It’s called illegal for a reason)


Politico ^ | 6/16/12 | JAMES HOHMANN



LAS VEGAS — Sarah Palin on Friday condemned President Barack Obama’s new immigration policy as both unconstitutional and cravenly political.

“He’s absolutely pandering to a specific demographic that no doubt polls have shown … he would be helped in this demographic if he just makes this move,” the former Alaska governor told POLITICO late Friday as she left the Venetian hotel after a speech to the RightOnline conference. “And I say that because all of President Obama’s actions are based on polls that are provided him that would lead him to believe he can garner support for his reelection bid.”

She decried the executive order declared Friday as “amnesty” that violates Congress’s constitutional right to pass laws.

“Our president still doesn’t understand the three branches of government,” she said. “He thinks he can usurp the Congressional branch of our government and dictate and mandate a policy like this.”

The 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee said it will make the borders more porous.
She took umbrage about an explanation she read in the press that said the law would only affect “law-abiding illegal immigrants.”

“That is a contradiction right there,” she said in the interview. “I think we need to characterize it and describe it more accurately. It’s called illegal for a reason.”

The Myth of the Good Conservative

 
National Review Online ^ | June 15, 2012 | Jonah Goldberg




My daughter learned a neat rhetorical trick to avoid eating things she doesn’t like. “Daddy, I actually really like spinach, it’s just that this spinach tastes different.”

Democrats and the journalists who love them play a similar game with Republicans and conservatives.
“Oh, I have lots of respect for conservatives,” goes the typical line, “but the conservatives we’re being served today are just so different. Why can’t we have Republicans and conservatives like we used to?”

Q: What kind of Republicans are extremists, racists, ideologues, pyschopaths, radicals, weirdos, hicks, idiots, elitists, prudes, potato-chip double-dippers, and meanies?
A: Today’s Republicans.
“The Republican Party got into its time machine and took a giant leap back into the ’50s. The party left moderation and tolerance of dissent behind.” So reported the Washington Post’s Judy Mann — in July of 1980.
Today, of course, the 1950s is the belle époque of reasonable conservatism. Just ask New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, or, for that matter, President Barack Obama, who insists that the GOP is in the throes of a “fever” and is displaying signs of “madness.” It’s his humble wish that the GOP will regain its senses and return to being the party of Eisenhower.
Today’s intellectual conservatives, likewise, are held against the standard of yesterday’s and found wanting. New York Times Book Review editor Sam Tanenhaus wrote a book on “the death of conservatism” a few years ago (inconveniently, right before conservatism was dramatically revivified by the Tea Party, which helped the GOP win historic victories in the 2010 elections), in which he pined for the conservative intellectuals of the 1950s and 1960s.
Of course, the Tanenhauses of their day were horrified by the very same conservative intellectuals. Within a year of William F. Buckley’s founding of National Review in 1955, liberal intellectuals insisted that the magazine’s biggest failure was its inability to be authentically conservative. The editor of Harper’s proclaimed the founding editors of NR to be “the very opposite of conservatives.” Liberal titan Dwight Macdonald lamented that the “pseudo-conservative” National Review was nowhere near as wonderful the old Freeman magazine.
Again and again, the line is the same: I like conservatives, just not these conservatives.
As far as I can tell, there are competing, or at least overlapping, motives for this liberal nostalgia for the conservatives and Republicans of yesteryear. Some liberals like to romanticize and glorify conservatives from eras when they were least effective but most entertaining. Some like to cherry-pick positions from a completely different era so as to prove that holding that position today is centrist.
But whatever the motivation, what unites them is the conviction that today’s liberals shouldn’t cede power, respect, or legitimacy to today’s conservatives. Hence when compassionate conservatism was ascendant, liberals lamented that the GOP wasn’t more libertarian.
When, in response to the disastrous explosion in debt and spending over the Bush/Obama years, the GOP enters a libertarian phase, the same people who insisted they’d love Republicans if they became libertarian are horrified by their “social Darwinism.”
The latest twist on this hackneyed hayride is the renewed caterwauling about how Ronald Reagan couldn’t even get elected today.
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush reignited the topic by lamenting how Reagan couldn’t be nominated today because the GOP has become too rigid and ideological for even the Gipper. I think Jeb Bush is one of the best conservative politicians in the country, but this was not his best moment. Assuming Mitt Romney gets the nomination, here are the GOP nominees since Reagan left office: Bush I, Dole (Gerald Ford’s running-mate in 1976), Bush II, McCain, and, finally, Romney — the Massachusetts moderate the Tea Party spent much of the last months lambasting as, well, a Massachusetts moderate.
Look at all those crazy right-wingers!
Looking at that record, any rational person would conclude that Reagan couldn’t get elected today because the party has become too liberal.
Of course, the reality is more complicated than that. But the idea that Reagan’s problem today would be his moderation is quite simply ridiculous.
Look where G. W. Bush’s moderation got him: denounced as a crazed radical by much of the liberal establishment, despite having run as a “compassionate conservative” and, once in office, expanded entitlements and worked closely with Teddy Kennedy on education reform.
Right on schedule, Dubya is now entering the rehabilitation phase.
It’ll be some time before liberals bring themselves to say, “I miss George W. Bush.” But already the New York Times is proclaiming that Bush represented “mainstream conservatism,” unlike today’s Republicans, of course.
As always, the problem with conservatism today is today’s conservatives.
— Jonah Goldberg, an editor-at-large of National Review Online, is the author of the recently released book The Tyranny of Clichés. He can be contacted by e-mail at JonahsColumn@aol.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © Copyright 2012 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

47-year-old man who was caught molesting a girl and then beaten to death by the child's father!

Victoria (Texas) Advocate ^ | June 15, 2012


Lavaca County authorities on Friday identified the 47-year-old man who was caught molesting a girl and then beaten to death by the child's father.


(Illegal Alien)Jesus Mora Flores was killed on the afternoon of June 9 on a rural farm pasture on County Road 302 between Shiner and Yoakum.


In a press release issued Friday, authorities said Flores was attempting to sexually assault the girl, whose age was corrected by officials Friday to be 5 years old.


"When emergency medical personnel arrived, Jesus Mora Flores' pants and underwear were down and the man's genitals were exposed," said Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon, who was quoted in a press released issued by District Attorney Heather McMinn.


Flores had been hired by the child's father to care for horses on the property, according to a neighbor.
A public records search shows no permanent address for Flores in Lavaca County.
The press release also confirms that law enforcement officials discovered a witness to the attacks, but does not identify that person.


Investigators found that "a witness observed Jesus Mora Flores forcibly carrying a 5-year-old child off to a secluded area, the witness ran for help and alerted the child's father."


The father then heard the child's scream and ran to help her, the release said. The father then "immediately removed Jesus Mora Flores from on top of his child" and inflicted "several blows" to the man's head and neck area.
The release stated that all of the physical evidence and witness statements in the case corroborated the father's statement.
Harmon said Flores was in the United States illegally!
The sheriff said his office has been working with Mexican Consulate officials to locate Flores' family.
Complete results of the autopsy conducted in Travis County are not expected for several weeks.
Harmon said the girl's family and father have cooperated with authorities.
McMinn said in the press release that Harmon "made the right decision in not arresting the father at the time of the incident."
The girl's father remains remorseful about Flores' death, said Harmon, who said he expects a grand jury to hear the case next week.
"This case has been very traumatizing on the child, her father and his entire family," he said.

For the benefit of Libtards everywhere, it should be noted that:
  1. This case has nothing whatsoever to do with handguns.

  2. This case has nothing whatsoever to do with stand your ground.

  3. This case has nothing whatsoever to do with self-defense.

  4. This case has everything to do with stopping a green card pervert from raping a five year old girl.

  5. Texas statutes expressly permit the use of deadly force to: prevent the ... imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

  6. This law protects citizens by deterring crime and stopping crime in progress.

  7. This law saves the taxpayers money.

  8. This law is one of many things that makes Texas a special place.

Reporter who interrupted Obama: I thought he was finished (MSM circles wagons for Dear Leader)

Yahoo! News' Destination 2012 ^ | June 15, 2012 | Oliver Knox



The journalist who sparked a ruckus inside the Beltway and on Twitter by interrupting President Barack Obama's formal remarks on immigration wants the world to know it was all a big misunderstanding. The Daily Caller's Neil Munro implausibly claims that he never meant to cut off the president and thought he was finished speaking.

"I timed the question believing the president was closing his remarks, because naturally I have no intention of interrupting the President of the United States," Munro said in a statement on the Daily Caller's website after his Rose Garden showdown with Obama.

"A reporter's job is to ask questions and get answers," said the site's editor in chief, Tucker Carlson. "Our job is to find out what the federal government is up to. Politicians often don't want to tell us. A good reporter gets the story. We're proud of Neil Munro."

The Daily Caller's publisher, Neil Patel, also chimed in: Munro "in no way meant to heckle the President of the United States."
"We are very proud of, @NeilMunroDC for doing his job," the Daily Caller said on its official Twitter feed.
But reporters near Munro during the outburst said, well, not so much to the whole "didn't mean to interrupt" the president thing. Many took to Twitter to share their doubts."I was two people over from Neil Munro. No one thought the president was wrapping up. I give that statement a great big Cow Pie Award," Brianna Keilar of CNN said on Twitter.
"I was standing right behind Munro in the Rose Garden," said Todd Zwillich, Washington correspondent for The Takeaway from Public Radio International, on Twitter. "Idea he 'mistimed' his questions isn't credible. He purposely interrupted."
"Munro told other reporters after Obama's statement, 'I'm asking questions. Because you people won't,'" Zwillich tweeted....
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...

The Obama Gaffe Machine Keeps Rolling


Townhall.com ^ | June 16, 2012 | John Ransom



If Obama blows his reelection bid, maybe he can apply for a gig with a late night talk show.
Sure, his jokes aren’t that funny, but I presume that most of what he saying now really is just a joke.
And perhaps between now and November the jokes will get much better.

They could get worse, but let’s hope for the sake of our country that they don’t get that much worse.
After months of Obama telling us “All is well, the recovery is finally beginning!” the country faces one of the most dramatic slowdowns in economic activity since 2008-2009.

And it wasn’t like we didn’t predict this- since even before Obama was elected.

Economists are generally sticking with GDP growth rates for the United States of around an anemic 2-2.5 percent now that the inflation gravy train has slowed to a standstill. But if the optimistic forecasts of the same guys who did the math to take the risk out the subprime mortgage market doesn’t make you nervous, let’s try out the dystopian views of our Comedian-in-Chief.
Certainly he’s a comedian.
A poor comedian, for sure, but a jokester none the less.
But that’s not the latest joke.
Stop me if you’ve heard this one:
OBAMA:
This notion that somehow we caused the deficit is just wrong. It's like somebody goes to a restaurant, orders a big steak dinner, martini, all that stuff, and then just as you're sitting down, they leave and accuse you of running up the tab.
Yeah. The rest of us ran up the tab. Sure.
Who’s writing this material? Steve Martin?
Because: Excuuuuuuse me.
At least there was a tab before Obama. Obama now just demands blank checks and then never pays the tab.
Even the room full of Democrats laughed at that one.
Or how about the one he told yesterday where he is now majestically, regally allowing illegal immigrants stay and take jobs from people who reside in the country legally? With unemployment tracking at the highest level since the Great Depression?
That sure was funny to the 14.8 percent- and rising!- of people who are officially counted on the Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment/underemployment rolls.
It was especially funny to Hispanics because Obama’s policy actually just encourages illegal immigrants to register for later deportation.
True fact: Obama used to brag that he deported more illegal immigrants than George W. Bush.
That’s Obama hypocrisy that we all can find quite hilarious.
It’s of the same type of hypocrisy that has Obama passing healthcare reform that does nothing to contain costs, banking reform that does nothing to contain systemic risks, a green jobs program that contains no jobs, a deficit reduction plan…oh yeah.
Biggest joke of all.
Remember last year when the budget deficit played for fifteen minutes of fame on D.C.’s Short Attention Span Theatre?
Obama couldn’t sit down at the table because he wasn’t even at the restaurant.
He was on vacation.
Ha!
Funny, right?

Obama to (high school drop-outs) celebrities: “You’re the ultimate arbiter” of this country’s direction!


Hotair ^ | 06/15/2012 | Erika Johnsen



Barack Obama and Michelle Obama visited the home of actors Sarah Jessica Parker and Matthew Broderick for a joint fundraising appearance on Thursday night, during which the president offered the gathered stars a rather frightening piece of flattery.
The intimate dinner banked about $2 million, with 50 people paying $40,000 each. "
Speaking in a dimly lighted, art-filled room, Obama told supporters they would play a critical role in an election that would determine a vision for the nation's future. 
"You're the tie-breaker," he said. "You're the ultimate arbiter of which direction this country goes." 
Among the celebrities on hand to hear Obama’s remarks were Oscar winner Meryl Streep, fashion designer Michael Kors and Vogue editor Anna Wintour…
The president and Mrs. Obama also headlined a second glitzy fundraiser in Manhattan Thursday night that included a performance from singer Mariah Carey and remarks by singer Alicia Keys. The 250-person dinner yielded the Obama campaign at least $2.5 million.
Let me be clear.

ar·bi·ter

[ahr-bi-ter] noun
1. a person empowered to decide matters at issue; judge; umpire.
2. a person who has the sole or absolute power of judging or determining.
Who knows whether The One meant to merely butter up the glamorous group of One Percenters assembled specifically to give him gobs of cash, or if he actually believes what he just said — but either way, consider me outrageously outraged. I don’t think I could come up with a group of people less suited to the task of passing the “ultimate” judgment on the state of our nation.
I’m not knocking what celebrities do for a living — I enjoy the artistry of movies, music, and fashion as much as the next gal. But, if Mitt Romney is ostensibly “out of touch” with the middle class and “removed” from the issues concerning the common man because he was a movin’ and shakin’ businessman who earned a large fortune… I don’t even know what to say. The hypocrisy confounds me.
These wealthy Hollywood types seem to dearly love their Occupy-solidarity and their “war on women” and their extreme environmentalism, issues about which most Americans don’t care at all. President Obama heeds their opinions at his own peril, writes Michael Barone:
But there is one group of people Obama has to listen to: the people who give him large sums of money. He recently attended his 150th fundraiser. That’s more than the number attended by the last four presidents put together.
Obama has seen enough Architectural Digest-type interiors in Park Avenue triplexes and Beverly Hills mansions, and on the block in San Francisco’s Pacific Heights, where every house is owned by a billionaire, to develop an expertise in Louis XV walnut commodes and Brunschwig & Fils fabrics.
He’s also had plenty of chances to absorb the advice of the kind of rich liberals who like to give money to Democratic presidents. And the evidence that he has taken some of that advice is his initiatives on three controversial issues…
If the same-sex marriage reversal seems somewhat risky politically and the contraception mandate considerably riskier, the Keystone pipeline decision seems downright foolish politically. Voters tend to favor it by 2-1 margins, and if they’re not aware of it, the Republicans (and maybe the pro-pipeline unions) will make sure they are.

Are We in Revolutionary Times?


NRO The Corner ^ | 16 June 2012 | Victor Davis Hanson



Legally, President Obama has reiterated the principle that he can pick and choose which U.S. laws he wishes to enforce (see his decision to reverse the order of the Chrysler creditors, his decision not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, and his administration’s contempt for national-security confidentiality and Senate and House subpoenas to the attorney general). If one individual can decide to exempt nearly a million residents from the law — when he most certainly could not get the law amended or repealed through proper legislative or judicial action — then what can he not do? Obama is turning out to be the most subversive chief executive in terms of eroding U.S. law since Richard Nixon.

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