Saturday, January 19, 2013

Attorney General Says Requiring DOJ to Comply with FOIA Law ‘Too Risky’

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 18 Jan 2013 | John Semmens

Attorney General Eric Holder is asking a federal court to absolve the Department of Justice (DOJ) from complying with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) because “not to do so would inflict irreparable harm.” The DOJ action came in response to a suit filed by Judicial Watch. The suit is aimed at obtaining public information on DOJ’s “fast and furious” scheme to supply guns to Mexican gangsters.
“There is no need for the people at Judicial Watch or, for that matter, anyone to know the details of this now defunct federal undertaking,” Holder insisted. “My Department has taken the necessary corrective actions. This belated attempt to poke around into government business is both unnecessary and destructive.”
While acknowledging that the FOIA mandates the requested information be released, the Attorney General asserted that “a higher law argues against blind obedience to a statute originally aimed at the misdeeds of a prior Administration. All we are asking is that the nation’s broader interests take precedence over a mere observance of formalistic rules.”
Holder further suggested that “something along the lines of the 75-year sealing of the records on the JFK assassination imposed by the Warren Commission might be the appropriate model for how we should handle this. The American people’s faith in their government must not be allowed to be undermined by what, at this point, can only be viewed as an effort to satisfy ‘academic curiosity.’”
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton described Holder’s stance as “beyond ironic. At the same time that the Obama Administration is demanding unprecedented access to all sorts of information about private citizens who are not charged with any crimes, we see the Attorney General contending that information relevant to actual crimes committed during its ill-conceived gun-running ‘sting’ operation be swept under the rug. His position is stunning in its ethical, moral, and legal incoherence.”

One crisis after another!

Townhall.com ^ | January 19, 2013 | Fritz Pfister

We can be proud of President Obama’s ability to create one crisis after another following his response to one crisis after another. A coordinated mayhem if you will. Look at what our Imperial President was able to accomplish.

In less than a month Obama went from ginning up hatred for the successful to passing the largest tax increase on the ‘rich’ in fifty years while avoiding falling off a mythical cliff. This included stealthily allowing the 2% payroll tax holiday to expire shocking tens of millions of his delusional supporters as they opened their paychecks in 2013.
On to a press conference where he pretended he was an innocent bystander to the $5 trillion in debt he placed on the backs of your babies, and although it was irresponsible and a failure of leadership by Bush in 2006 to raise the debt ceiling, this time it was all congresses fault and they would be irresponsible not to give him a blank check.
The economy would burst into flames and crash into recession due to the irresponsible Republicans who believe we should cut spending. President Obama shared with all of America that increasing the debt ceiling didn’t mean we were increasing spending. We simply continue the record rate of spending Obama has mandated.
While the Imperial Obama was blaming congress for his failures his stooge for attacking your second amendment rights, Joe Gaffe a Minute Biden pretended to listen to input from ‘all’ sides to the argument impacted by gun control. Sorry, gun violence.
The Imperial family were aghast when the NRA ran an advertisement addressing the royal children, at about the same time his majesty was using children as a prop to attack your second amendment rights. The serfs at the NRA arrogantly believe your children’s lives are as valuable as the royal family’s and should receive equal protection. Where did they get such an absurd notion asks Jay Carney?
Think of the accomplishments. In less than a month raising taxes on the rich and anyone who receives a paycheck, asking the debt ceiling be eliminated, and attacking the second amendment right of law abiding citizens to save the children.
The irony is none of the presidents solutions solve any problems, they are exacerbated to fester into another crisis where he can once again propose bad solutions. Coordinated mayhem.
While everyone is distracted by the three ring circus at the White House the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau introduced the Qualified Mortgage Rule. Again taking the simple and making it impossible.
To understand this new rule you almost have to be a liberal off your meds temporarily. The easiest way for you to understand what is being implemented is to picture a tug of war.
In the center holding one rope in each hand are mortgage lenders. Pulling on one rope is a group of regulators demanding (finally) prudent lending standards. Pulling on the other rope is a group of investigators ready to punish you if you don’t make enough loans to low income families.
Understand?
It’s a pattern just like the Imperial Presidents executive orders that doctors become national snitches for Big Sis Nepalitano gathering crucial information about whether you have evil guns in your home or if you’re a good defenseless future victim.
Doctors are being charged by His Majesty to turn in any patient who they believe might become violent and wipe out people in a gun free zone. This places the doctor with two years of advanced government snitching classes in a bad position.
By Imperial order your medical records are no longer private. If the doctor fails to turn in a patient that ends up murdering someone he is in trouble. If the doctor turns in someone he believes is dangerous but proven later not to be dangerous the doctor is in trouble.
See how this works? Coordinated mayhem perpetuated by the false notion the Imperial President and big government are the solution to all the people’s problems.
A sad day for America to have been fooled by the collectivist. While standing on the graves of victims to advance his radical agenda Obama said we are a free people but we are responsible for those around us. We must become responsible for other’s actions to save the children! Which means surrendering your rights for the common good.
Thomas Jefferson said: “Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.”
Now playing the next four years all across America; Coordinated Mayhem. Dinner will be served with weekend shows. Welfare State cards accepted.

Newsweek: Obama is 'The Second Coming'

Washington Examiner ^ | January 19, 2013 | Paul Bedart

How did the rest of the media miss this? According to the new issue of Newsweek online, President Obama, who this weekend begins his second term--the third president in a row to do so--is "The Second Coming."
With flattering photographs, the magazine edited by Obama fan Tina Brown holds out hope that in his second Inaugural Address, Obama can inspire and show that he can also lead.
The conservative media watch dog, Media Research Center, first noticed the God-like cover.
"Conservatives have long joked that the national press corps see Barack Obama as the second coming of Jesus Christ. Today, Newsweek - at least what's left of it, an online product for tablets and e-readers - made it official," said Center Vice President Brent Baker
"Next to a side shot of Obama's head, the 'Inauguration 2013' cover story pronounces: 'The Second Coming.'"
Baker notes that the author, long-time Newsweek veteran Evan Thomas, gave Obama God-like qualities during his first year in office, saying on MSNBC, "In a way, Obama's standing above the country, above -- above the world. He's sort of God. He's going to bring all different sides together."

Inaugural Sponsors Spent $160 Million Lobbying Government [Liar Obama claims the amount is zero]

breitbart.com ^ | January 18, 2013 | Mike Flynn

It's a fool's game to take anything Obama says at face value. There is always a catch. For his second inaugural, he publicly congratulates himself for banning lobbyists from sponsoring the events. Of course, no such prohibition exists on the companies who hire the lobbyists. The companies who are trying to influence the government are welcome to participate, even if their hired guns are not. The corporations who are the biggest donors to the inauguration have spent $160 million lobbying government since Obama first took office.
From a report by The Center for Public Integrity:
"Chief among corporate inaugural donors: AT&T Inc., Microsoft Corp., energy giant Southern Co., biotechnology firm Genentech and health plan manager Centene Corp. Together, more than 300 registered lobbyists worked on the five companies’ behalf to influence legislation and government policy, according to their latest federal filings covering January through September."
Corporations hire lobbyists to get access to officials so they can advocate for their positions. It is the access that is the main reason to hire a lobbyist. To a large extent, lobbyists are simply the middlemen. Obama's ban on lobbyist donations simply cuts out the middleman, allows corporations better, more direct, access to officials and allows him to reap dollars from those most trying to influence his Administration.
For his first inauguration, in 2009, Obama banned contributions from corporations and limited individual donations to less than $50,000. Those limits have been wiped away for this year's event.
Always a catch.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Flashback—Obama, Circa 1990s: 'I Don't Believe People Should Be Able to Own Guns'

breitbart.com ^ | 18 January, 2012 | AWR Hawkins

During the 2008 presidential campaign, gun rights author and scholar John Lott recounted meeting Barack Obama for the first time while he was a lecturer at University of Chicago.
When the two met, Lott's reputation on guns preceded him, and Lott claims Obama said, "I don't believe people should be able to own guns."
Read that again, and let it soak in; Barack Obama reportedly said, "I don't think people should be able to own guns." In my correspondence with Lott, he stood by his story.
And there's little reason to doubt Lott's account, especially when you take Obama's history of anti-gun legislation into account.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...

Obama Jobs Council hits 1 year without official meeting!

POLITICO ^ | 1/18/13 | JOSH GERSTEIN

Barack Obama's Jobs Council hit a notable milestone on Thursday: one year without an official meeting. The 26-member panel is also set to expire at the end of the month, unless Obama extends its tenure.
The group, formally known as the President's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, last convened on Jan. 17, 2012 for a White House session where it presented formal recommendations to Obama. It was the panel's fourth official meeting since it was created in early 2011.
A spokesman for Jobs Council chairman Jeffrey Immelt, who's the CEO of General Electric, referred questions about the panel's future to the White House.
A White House spokeswoman had no comment
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...

Gun Crime Not Nearly So Serious When Committed by the Obama Administration?

Canada Free Press ^ | 18 Jan, 2013 | John Lillpop

President Obama and Eric Holder, US Attorney General and fellow gun slinger, are salivating with delight at the opportunity to make political hay at the expense of dead children and adults from the Sandy Hook massacre.
However, the anti-gun sentiment in the hearts of these die-hard liberals applies ONLY to weapons possessed and used by private American citizens and defended by the NRA.
When it comes to potential weapons crimes committed by the Obama administration itself, Obama and Holder are quick to look the other way and deny, obstruct, and deny still more.
As reported , the search for truth launched by Judicial Watch with regard to the administration’s reckless, deadly stunt known as Fast and Furious, is being fought by Obama-Holder every step of the way:
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...

Labor unions give to Obama’s inauguration!

The Hill ^ | January 18, 2013 | Kevin Bogardus

Several unions have contributed to President Obama’s inauguration.

At least nine unions are listed as donors to the inauguration, according to the latest update on the Presidential Inaugural Committee’s website. The committee has been releasing donors’ names to the inauguration every Friday for the past several weeks.
The unions that have donated to Obama’s second inauguration include the American Federation of Government Employees; the American Postal Workers Union; the International Association of Fire Fighters; the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the Laborers International Union of North America; and the United Food & Commercial Workers.
Labor was a key ally of the president and Democratic candidates last election. Unions revved up their political operation and helped get voters to the polls in November for Obama in several vital battleground states.
Several unions endorsed Obama for reelection over his Republican challenger Mitt Romney. Labor’s relationship with the White House, however, has grown tense at times — the latest episode being unions’ concerns over the president offering to cut Social Security benefits during “fiscal-cliff” negotiations with Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) last month.
Many corporations, including Bank of America, the Coca-Cola Company and FedEx, also appeared on the Inaugural committee’s donor list for the first time on Friday. Almost 20 corporations have now given to the inauguration.
Brand-name companies like AT&T and Microsoft already had been listed as contributors to the inaugural festivities.
Obama did not accept contributions from corporations as well as unions for his first inauguration. Donations were also capped at $50,000. Obama raised more than $53 million for his first inauguration.
This time, there is no cap on contributions or ban against corporate or union donations for Obama’s second inauguration. Donors are also being offered several packages priced between $75,000 and $1 million to gain access to select events, including the inaugural ball and parade.
Lobbyists and political action committees are not permitted to give Obama’s second inauguration, which was also the case in 2009.
The New York Times reported on Jan. 11 that the Presidential Inaugural Committee was struggling to meet its fundraising goal of $50 million. Representatives for the committee, however, have contended that they will have enough funds to meet the inauguration’s needs.
The Presidential Inaugural Committee is disclosing less information about its donors when compared to 2009. The committee has released the donors’ names online this time, but not the contribution amount or the contributor’s occupation and city like they did for Obama’s first inauguration, according to the Sunlight Foundation.
More information about the inauguration’s donors will be released in a Federal Election Commission report. The committee must file that report 90 days after the inauguration takes place.

A Thought To Brighten Your Day~

Reaganite Republican ^ | 19 January 2013 | Reaganite Republican




When you are down in the dumps, all looks gray,
and you think you have real problems, just remember...

Somewhere, out there in this world, there's
a poor bastard named MR. PELOSI


BigHairyNews h/t Speedunque

Dear Abby


Dear Abby,
My husband has a long record of money problems. He runs up huge credit-card bills and at the end of the month, if I try to pay them off, he shouts at me, saying I am stealing his money. He says pay the minimum and let our kids worry about the rest, but already we can hardly keep up with the interest. Also he has been so arrogant and abusive toward our neighbours that most of them no longer speak to us. The few that do are an odd bunch, to whom he has been giving a lot of expensive gifts, running up our bills even more. Also, he has gotten religious. One week he hangs out with Catholics and the next with people who say the Pope is the Anti-Christ, and the next he's with Muslims.. Finally, the last straw. He's demanding that before anyone can be in the same room with him, they must sign a loyalty oath. It's just so horribly creepy! Can you help?
Signed, Lost

Dear Lost,
Suck it up and stop whining, Michelle. You're getting to live in the White House for free, travel the world, and have others pay for everything for you. You can divorce the jerk any time you want. The rest of us are stuck with the idiot for 4 more years.
Signed, Abby