DIOGENES invites you to pull up a chair on this fine day and read posts from around the world. The writing may lean to the right...but that's the way Diogenes wants it! You may leave your opinion, but Diogenes rarely changes his! WELCOME!
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
Media botches Trayvon Martin coverage [nails DBM, PMSNBC, Sharpton etc...]
Arkansas Times ^ | April 25, 2012 | Gene Lyons
I was also leery of journalists and TV personalities like Al Sharpton and his MSNBC colleagues setting up as prosecutor, judge and jury. Even if you didn't know about Sharpton's previous misadventures — he became famous due to his outrageous conduct during the 1987 Tawana Brawley rape hoax — the network's permitting him to report about a public event in which he'd enrolled as an active participant violated every known rule of journalistic ethics.
-snip-
A festival of bad reporting, speculation and mind-reading from the outset, the Zimmerman-Martin affair has turned into a classic example of what University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt calls a "consensual hallucination."
-snip-
Needless to say, no corrections were forthcoming. Instead fresh outrage was manufactured over murky video footage of Zimmerman being led into police headquarters in handcuffs, seemingly unmarked after being treated by EMS technicians.... Not only the Rev. Sharpton, but Big Ed, Lawrence O'Donnell and their guests repeatedly portrayed it as the linchpin of their case. Zimmerman had clearly lied about Trayvon assaulting him. Therefore there was no self-defense. Case closed.
So when ABC News published a contemporaneous photo of Zimmerman with blood streaming from two wounds on the back of his head on the day of his bail hearing, a naïve observer might have imagined that an attitude adjustment might be in order. No chance. Sharpton ignored the photos altogether; the rest gave them short shrift
(Excerpt) Read more at arktimes.com ...
SEALs slam Obama for using them as 'ammunition' in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaign
Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.
The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.
In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.
Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ‘gutsy call’ made by the President.
Scroll down for
video
Taking credit: President Obama has used bin Laden's death
as a campaign tool
‘I said that I'd go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did,’ Mr Obama said. ‘If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they'd do something else, then I'd go ahead and let them explain it.’
More...
- 'Forward' revealed as Obama's new campaign slogan
- Barack Obama's mother 'was secretly in contact with his estranged father during his entire childhood without his knowledge'
- Why 'annoying cuss' Jimmy Carter is the least popular member of the Presidents' Club
- U.S. on alert for terrorists with bombs INSIDE their bodies on eve of anniversary of bin Laden's death
Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.
‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice - it was a broader team effort.’
Mr Zinke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’
Target: Bin Laden, pictured in his compound in Pakistan,
was killed a year ago
Mission: Senior figures gathered to watch Navy SEALs
invade the compound
She told CBS: ‘We should celebrate the fact that they did such a great job. It's one thing to have an NBC special from the Situation Room... all that to me is perfectly legitimate, but to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.’
Campaigning in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Mr Romney responded to a shouted question by a reporter by saying: ‘Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.’
A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.
‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’
Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.
‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.
‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’
Rival: Mr Obama has questioned whether Mitt Romney would
have done the same
Mr Kyle added: ‘He's trying to say that Romney wouldn't have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican. Obama is taking more credit than he is due but it's going to get him some pretty good mileage.’
A former intelligence official who was serving in the US government when bin Laden was killed said that the Obama administration knew about the al-Qaeda leader’s whereabouts in October 2010 but delayed taking action and risked letting him escape.
‘In the end, Obama was forced to make a decision and do it. He knew that if he didn’t do it the political risks in not taking action were huge. Mitt Romney would have made the call but he would have made it earlier – as would George W. Bush.’
Brandon Webb, a former SEAL who spent 13 years on active duty and served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said: ‘Bush should get partial credit for putting the system in place.
‘Obama inherited a very robust package with regards to special ops and the intelligence community. But Obama deserves credit because he got bin Laden – you can’t take that away from him.
‘My friends that work in Special Operations Command (SOCOM) that have been on video teleconferences with Obama on these kill or capture situations say that Obama has no issue whatsoever with making decisions and typically it's kill. He’s hitting the kill button every time. I have a lot of respect for him for that.’
But he said that many SEALs were dismayed about the amount of publicity the Obama administration had generated about SEAL Team Six, the very existence of which is highly classified.
‘The majority of the SEALs I know are really proud of the operation but it does become “OK, enough is enough – we’re ready to get back to work and step out of the limelight.” They don’t want to be continuously paraded around a global audience like a show dog.
‘Obama has a very good relationship with the Special Operations community at large, especially the SEALs, and it’s nice to see. We had the same relationship with George W. Bush when he was president.’
It was ‘stretching a little much’ for Mr Obama to suggest only he would have made the decision. ‘I personally I don't think Romney would have any problem making tough decisions. He got a very accomplished record of making decision as a business professional.
‘He may not have charisma but he clearly has leadership skills. I don’t think he'd have any problem taking that decision.’
Clint Bruce, who gave up the chance of an NFL career to serve as a SEAL officer before retiring as a lieutenant after nine years, said: ‘We were extremely surprised and discouraged by the publicity because it compromises the ability of those guys to operate.
‘It’s a waste of time to speculate about who would and wouldn’t have made that decision. It was a symphony of opportunity and intelligence that allowed this administration to give the green light. We want to acknowledge that they made that decision.
‘Politicians should let the public know where they stand on national security but not in the play-by-play, detailed way that has been done recently. The intricacies of national security should not become part of stump speeches.’
Watch the
ad:
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2137636/Osama-bin-Laden-death-SEALs-slam-Obama-using-ammunition-bid-credit.html#ixzz1tdbFX5mZ
Obama's Chicago-Style Campaign (he is a thug who has disgraced the office of the president)
American Thinker ^ | May 1, 2012 | Ed Lasky
Barack Obama has a take-no-prisoners approach when it comes to waging political campaigns. But perhaps he has taken a step too far this time around. Not content to attack his opponent, his campaign is going after his opponent's supporters. Kimberly Strassel, columnist for the Wall Street Journal, gives us one more reason not to vote for Barack Obama: he is a thug who has disgraced the office of the president of the United States by engaging in behavior more befitting of the dictator of a banana republic.
Strassel writes of the Obama's campaign's latest efforts to smear and attack donors to Mitt Romney. She projects what happens when one exercises one's right in a democracy to support a candidate:
[...] Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for "betting against America," and accuses you of having a "less-than-reputable" record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money. [...]
Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.
Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled "Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney's donors." In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having "less-than-reputable records,"...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Top (DEMOCRAT) ICE figure pleads guilty in brazen, $500G scam!
In a brazen criminal scheme to defraud taxpayers, one of the highest-ranking officials in the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency pleaded guilty Tuesday in federal court to helping embezzle more than $500,000 from the federal government.
Over three years, James Woosley and at least five other ICE employees scammed the agency by fabricating expenses for trips that were never taken and for hotel, rental car and restaurant expenses that did not exist, according to court records.
His son, also named James Woosley, and live-in girlfriend, Lateisha Rollerson -- both ICE employees -- allegedly ran the scam out of the elder Woosley's two Virginia homes.
Here's how it worked, according to court records:
ICE employees traveled to Washington, D.C., on business, but instead of staying at a hotel, they stayed with Woosley. Rollerson allegedly created false receipts from hotels like the local Marriott, while Woosley approved their fraudulent expense reports and charged each employee a kick-back fee for half the amount.
Prosecutors accused Woosley of receiving about $188,000, some of which he used to buy a new house and a boat.
Sources inside ICE tell Fox News the scam represents total breakdown of oversight within the agency, especially given the periodic background checks and financial examinations given to agents working within the sensitive Office of Intelligence.
"It tells us that the vetting process and the checks and balances, the internal controls at ICE, obviously are inadequate," said Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mich., who sits on the House Committee on Homeland Security.
"It's bad enough you find some employees, federal employees, who are misusing taxpayer dollars," Miller said. "However, in this case, these are ... intelligence officers that are handling classified information."
One ICE employee involved was Ahmed Abdallat, the agency's intelligence supervisor in El Paso, Texas. Abdallat, a former colonel in the Jordanian Air Force, joined the agency in 1995 and worked throughout the Middle East, including three years in Saudi Arabia.
Abdallat's salary was by no means enough to make him rich, yet in 2010 he made three wire transfers to Middle Eastern accounts totaling $570,000, and he maintained personal accounts in Jordan totaling $1.2 million, authorities say.
Shannon Enochs, an FBI special agent, said during a lengthy court hearing that the FBI does not know where Abdallat got the money but doubted he made it working as a civil servant within the U.S. or Jordanian governments.
Abdallat travelled to D.C. at least 13 times in 2009 and 2010. Each time he submitted travel vouchers that allegedly contained fictitious charges not supported by any receipts or fake receipts created by Rollerson on her home computer. Each time, ICE paid.
More serious, however, were his trips to Jordan. Federal prosecutors charged him with eight counts of misusing a diplomatic passport he was not supposed to have to fly to Jordan.
During a search warrant of Abdallat's home in El Paso, the FBI reported pulling out 29 boxes of evidence, including two Jordanian passports he denied having during background checks in 2000, 2005 and 2010. He also denied having foreign bank accounts, though the FBI found several written in Arabic after serving their search warrant.
As a life-long intelligence officer with clearance to secret and classified papers on terrorism, narcotics and human smuggling along the Southwest border, Abdallat's file should have received priority review. Instead, he maintained close personal and financial ties to Jordan, apparently without suspicion.
Four of the five suspects indicted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in this ICE scam already pleaded guilty to embezzlement and received one to two years in prison.
Sheriff Arpaio: ‘I’ll Put up More Tents’ If Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Immigration Law
CNSNews.com ^ | April 30, 2012 | Penny Starr
(CNSNews.com) – If the Supreme Court decides in favor of Arizona’s tough immigration bill, the Obama attorney arguing against SB 1070 predicted “mass incarceration” of Latinos.
But Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told CNSNews.com that he does not see that as a problem in his jurisdiction.
“We lock up people all the time,” Arpaio said in a phone interview last week. “Since I started enforcement, we’ve arrested on the streets, investigated – in our jails over 51,000.
“I didn’t see any problem, other than the fact that some activists and politicians in Washington (don’t) like me enforcing the illegal immigration law,” Arpaio said.
“And by the way, if they think that it will overcrowd the jails, I’m not concerned,” Arpaio said. “I got room in the tents. I got plenty of room.
“I’ll put more tents up,” Arpaio said. “So that should never be an excuse (that) you can’t house these people.”
As reported earlier by CNSNews.com, during oral arguments before the high court on the law – which allows state police to check the immigration status of individuals stopped, detained or arrested for other reasons – Solicitor General Donald Verrilli responded to Justice Antonin Scalia’s remarks that Arizona seems to be merely enacting laws that are already federal statutes.
“Well, what I think they are going to do in Arizona is something quite extraordinary, that has significant, real and practical foreign relations effects,” Verrilli said. “And that's the problem, and it's the reason why this power needs to be vested exclusively in the federal government.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Supreme Court will rule states within their rights!
Philly.com ^ | Mon, Apr. 30, 2012, 3:00 AM | Jan C. Ting
The Obama administration’s challenge to an Arizona immigration law will not hinge on the law’s popularity or wisdom; state legislatures are permitted to enact unpopular and unwise laws. And as Chief Justice John Roberts observed — and the administration’s lawyer agreed — this case is not about civil rights or racial profiling, either.
The challenge to Senate Bill 1070 hinges on the narrow question of whether it conflicts with federal immigration law.
Since last week’s arguments before the Supreme Court, supporters of the Arizona law are increasingly hopeful that the court will find it does not conflict with federal law and will uphold most if not all of it.
S.B. 1070 requires state and local law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of those legally stopped if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally. It also allows arrests without a warrant if authorities have probable cause to believe a noncitizen has committed an offense that subjects him to deportation.
Those provisions are entirely consistent with federal law. Federal statutes allow state and local officials to communicate with federal officials to ascertain a person’s immigration status. The federal government is also required to respond to state or local government inquiries about an individual’s immigration status for any lawful purpose.
As the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has noted, “Congress passed a series of provisions designed to encourage cooperation between the federal government and the states in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. … This collection of statutory provisions evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.”
S.B. 1070 criminalizes the presence in Arizona of noncitizens without legal documentation. Federal law criminalizes any noncitizen’s failure to register with the federal government and “at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession” proof of registration. There’s no conflict with federal law there.
While federal law punishes employers who hire illegal immigrants, Arizona’s statute makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek work. This is the provision most likely to be found in conflict with federal law, but it’s debatable. Is it a conflict — or an example of a state accepting Congress’ invitation “to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws”?
At the root of the national debate over immigration is the unwillingness of Washington officials of both parties, including President Obama, to decide whether the United States should have open borders, with no limit on immigration, or should enforce the annual numerical limit on immigration enacted by Congress. It’s a simple question: limits or no limits?
Federal officials don’t want to repeal the limit and declare the borders open, which would be unpopular. But they also don’t want to enforce the limit enacted by Congress, because that would require removing people who have entered the country in violation of the limit, which could cost them votes and support, too.
So we end up with the current illogical policy of maintaining a legal limit but refusing to enforce it against anyone who hasn’t been convicted of a serious crime and isn’t a national-security threat. This incoherent policy leaves Arizona, which shares 370 miles of border with Mexico, in the lurch.
Illegal immigrants are believed to account for 400,000 of Arizona’s 6.4 million residents, which has caused a continuing crisis over the cost of public education, emergency health care, law enforcement, and incarceration. In 2005, then-Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, who is now Obama’s homeland security secretary, declared an immigration emergency in the state, saying, “The federal government has failed to secure our border, and the health and safety of all Arizonans is threatened daily. ...”
Whether you think S.B. 1070 is good policy or not, everyone should understand why the Arizona Legislature enacted it — and why the Supreme Court is likely to uphold it.
Jan C. Ting is a professor of law at Temple University Beasley School of Law. He can be reached at janting@temple.edu.
Fingering Zimmerman: Payback for the Sanford Police?
American Thinker ^ | May 1, 2012 | Jeff Lipkes
The shooting of Trayvon Martin went viral after Tracy Martin, Travyon's father, approached civil rights lawyer Benjamin Crump, who in turn enlisted the Orlando publicist Ryan Julison.
But why did Martin senior contact the lawyer? Had he been told simply that his son had attacked a man who turned out to be armed, he might not have pursued the case. But he had been led to believe that manslaughter charges were about to be filed against the shooter. When this didn't happen, he naturally felt aggrieved, and sought "justice for Trayvon."©
It was lead investigator Chris Serino who gave Martin the impression that charges were imminent. The story of what Martin was told comes from Martin himself. Serino has never spoken with the media.
Martin's recollection seems credible, though he was less than candid about his son's suspension, telling the press that it was because Trayvon had been in an unauthorized area. His son had been suspended once for this, but he'd been suspended twice after that on more serious grounds. Reversing himself and attributing Zimmerman's screams to his son also does not do Tracy Martin credit.
According to Martin, Serino said three things about the minutes before the shooting:
1. George Zimmerman was following Trayvon Martin.
2. There was a brief conversation at Zimmerman's truck. George was inside the vehicle. Martin asked him why he was following him, and Zimmerman said he wasn't.
3. Zimmerman exited the truck and started walking between the two rows of townhouses. Martin, hiding behind a building, surprised Zimmerman and asked, "What's your problem, homes?" When the watch captain denied he had a problem and reached for his cell, Martin hit him....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
How Romney and Our Republic Can Win
Townhall.com ^ | May 1, 2012 | Chuck Norris
With President Barack Obama's officially starting his campaign this Saturday, many are wondering whether the GOP front-runner and former Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney, has a real chance at winning the general election. But I know a way he could pull it off, and my wife, Gena, even dreamed about it.
I said that I would vote for whichever candidate won the GOP nomination. As of this writing, it appears to be Romney. Truthfully, I believe that Mitt has the skills and organization to defeat Obama and stop his fundamental transformation of America. We all know what four more years of increased socialistic decisions would do to our country.
By all reasonable rationale and political forecast, in a couple of months Romney will reach the necessary delegate count and become the Republican Party's official nominee. And before the GOP fractures with a third-party candidate (as it did in 1992 and 1996) and hands over the election again in doing so, I want to propose to Romney a way to rally the GOP base and even, I believe, those who dislike him.
Typically, this is the time when we all speculate about the GOP nominee's choice for vice president -- his running mate -- and we pray to God that his decision is so magnanimous that it instantly will rally the entire spectrum of political preferences at his side. Of course, that's a political pipe dream and, I believe, a shortsighted, typical campaign technique in a unique election war that requires a very unconventional strategy for winning. With existing polarities (indeed, divisiveness) in the GOP and conservative base alone, choosing the right VP is alone not going to be enough, inasmuch as a Super Bowl team couldn't rally its fan base based upon just a controversial quarterback and a great wide receiver.
For those optimistic statisticians who would point out that just last week a Fox News poll showed that the race between Obama and Romney is dead-even -- with 46 percent of society favoring each -- I would remind them that those numbers are equal despite four years of President Obama's reckless decisions against our republic and despite the fact that his re-election campaign hasn't even unleashed its billion-dollar war chest against Romney. (That sum makes Romney's effectual $20 million he used to destroy Newt Gingrich's candidacy back in the Florida primary look like chump change.)
If the Obama campaign machine and its mainstream media minions are already pigeon-holing Romney as "extreme" and "right-wing" (are you kidding?!), imagine what they will say and do to his likely more conservative running mate. (Does anyone remember the plight of Sarah Palin with Sen. John McCain in '08?)
I think Romney and maybe even most Republicans are underestimating the difficulty of persuading conservatives, evangelicals and libertarians, let alone the rest of the country, to vote for Romney, despite the prospect of the sultan of socialist swing's remaining in the Oval Office. General election apathy and depression in the fall could take their toll.
It doesn't take a political scientist to see that if liberals such as former President Jimmy Carter say they would be "comfortable" with Romney, conservatives, evangelicals, libertarians and others are going to have a gigantic struggle rallying around Romney. But if he would take the following course of action, they might find backing him much more palatable.
Enough talk. The idea is this, and it is not my idea but the action of President Abraham Lincoln.
A book that highlights Lincoln's brilliant action is titled "Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," by Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and presidential historian. In addition to topping charts and receiving scholarly acclaim, the book itself is political genius and outlines the crucial strategy needed not only to rally the present GOP base but also to win the White House and save our republic. (I also wrote about this unifying strategy in a former column, "The 8th Miracle To Save America," which can be read at http://www.creators.com/opinion/chuck-norris/the-8th-miracle-to-save-america.html.)
Goodwin's prize-winning treatise details how Lincoln brought together his candidate rivals by appointing them to key positions in his administration when he became president.
Let me re-highlight a few critical points from Goodwin's book review in The New York Times:
"The party in the 1860's was a coalition of politicians who only a few years earlier had been Whigs (Lincoln, Seward, Bates), Democrats (Blair, Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles and Vice President Hannibal Hamlin), Free Soilers (Chase), or had flirted with the short-lived anti-immigrant American Party, or Know Nothings (Cameron and Bates). In addition, several cabinet members personally disliked each other: Blair and Chase, Seward and Welles, Chase and Seward, Blair and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton, who replaced Cameron in January 1862. Lincoln's 'political genius' enabled him to herd these political cats and keep them driving toward ultimate victory.
"How did he do it? Goodwin deals with this question better than any other writer. Part of the answer lay in Lincoln's steadfastness of purpose, which inspired subordinates to overcome their petty rivalries. Part of it lay in his superb sense of timing and his sensitivity to the pulse of public opinion as he moved to bring along a divided people to the support of 'a new birth of freedom.' And part of it lay in Lincoln's ability to rise above personal slights, his talent for getting along with men of clashing ideologies and personalities who could not get along with each other."
Whether you agree with Lincoln or not, his team of rivals worked, propelled his leadership and ultimately unified the country.
Isn't our divided country again ripe for a new "team of rivals," made up of past presidential candidates and other vetted, qualified and esteemed national leaders, rather than merely a dynamic duo fighting the Obama campaign machine?
Lincoln recognized the wisdom of Jesus when it came to collective success: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
The question is this: Will Romney?
Next week, I will not only elaborate more on this concept of a team of rivals and the people I believe should be a part of it but also share the inspiring dream Gena had, which we both hope comes true.
Obama Is Headed Anywhere but Forward!
Townhall.com ^ | May 1, 2012 | David Limbaugh
You have to hand it to President Obama and his cabal of re-election strategists; they are masters of illusion. Their newly released Web video and its accompanying campaign slogan, "Forward," are science fiction-level fantastical.
We're all familiar with Obama's penchant for deflecting responsibility and blaming his policy failures on George W. Bush, but after more than three years in office for Obama, it has gone from childish mischief to juvenile delinquency. This is a question for Guinness: Has any other president run for re-election against the record of his retired predecessor?
Indeed, Obama is still feeding us this dodge years beyond its spoil date, apparently hoping we won't realize we have salmonella until he's safely voted in to his second term.
Watch the video. In the words of The Hill's John Easley, "it blames GOP policies for the still-sluggish economy."
It attempts to draw a clear dichotomy between the dark days of the last year of Bush's term and the glorious remedial reign of President Obama, which began in January 2009.
The first period is depicted as one of excessive job losses, the housing and foreclosure crisis, the stock market free fall, and the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, with ominous images of President Bush and Vice President Cheney, the sinister masterminds of these disasters, strategically placed throughout, for maximum effect.
The second period begins with the inauguration of President Obama, underscoring his heroic agenda -- the one Obama has cited in placing himself among the greatest American presidents -- the stimulus, the GM and Chrysler bailouts, financial reform, the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell," bringing the Iraq War to a close and, of course, the killing of Osama bin Laden. Before the video ends, the video dutifully boasts about Obama's signature "accomplishment," Obamacare, going so far as to include the controversial birth control mandate in his plus column. Likewise with his green energy policies.
According to the video, the most polarizing chief executive in the history of the American presidency is not the cause of our current dreadful economic conditions, about which, in any event, the White House is mostly in denial, as we'll see. Nor is Obama to blame for our nearly unprecedented partisan acrimony. No, the root of our problems is obstructionist GOP Republicans, who -- along with their evil media mouthpieces Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck -- "instead of working together to lift America up ... (have waged) a campaign to tear the president down."
But despite the pernicious efforts of the GOP and its loudmouth conservative co-conspirators to thwart President Obama's salutary agenda, Obama has persevered and triumphed. That's right; his record is not one of failure but one of extraordinary achievement against this right-wing hydra and the multifaceted adversity it has hurled at him.
In fact, the White House would have us believe the economy is doing pretty well. "The president's stimulus plan saved up to 4.2 million jobs" and has given us steady economic growth, and the manufacturing sector is going gangbusters.
What this little clip doesn't tell you -- apart from the meaningless and immeasurable metric of "saved jobs," which has now been further diluted to the ludicrous rendering "saved up to" -- is how much these possibly or possibly not saved jobs cost the American taxpayer. It doesn't reveal Obama's miserable record in creating new private-sector jobs or that overall, he has delivered us a net loss of millions of jobs and unemployment at levels consistently 60 percent higher than what economists consider normal.
It doesn't report that taxpayers lost billions on his vaunted auto bailouts or that through his abuses of power, secured creditors were literally cheated out of their money.
The video conveniently fails to mention that Obama has rightfully earned his nickname "The Food Stamp President" with the objectively measurable skyrocketing increases in government dependency payouts during his term, a great portion of which cannot be blamed on the recession, which his policies grossly worsened anyway. It doesn't disclose that Obamacare will cost nearly twice what Obama promised or that Dodd-Frank is likely to exacerbate the very problems it is ostensibly designed to prevent.
The video casually glosses over Obama's real record on green jobs, the wasted billions and the shameless corporatist corruption. It doesn't showcase his gutting of the military or his plans for radical nuclear disarmament.
But the most gaping hole in this propaganda piece is its glaring omission of the debt crisis Obama has engineered, his abdication of leadership in failing to pressure his party's Senate majority to produce a budget -- even a phony, superficial one -- in more than 1,000 days, and his egregious refusal to work on entitlement reform and balancing the budget.
Team Obama is gifted in community organizing, but not even these wizards can re-create reality to make Obama's record appear anywhere north of calamitous failure. This "progressive" president is headed anywhere but forward.
GOP money floods battlegrounds, threatens Dems' hold on Senate!
By Alexander Bolton - 05/01/12 05:00 AM ET
Third-party groups allied with the Republican Party have vastly outspent Democratic incumbents and their backers in Senate battlegrounds.
The disparity in advertising firepower threatens Democratic control of the Senate and could have an impact on the presidential race as well.
Sen. Sherrod Brown, a first-term Democrat from Ohio, has been the primary target of outside groups, which have outspent his allies by a ratio of 10-1 this election cycle.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Crossroads GPS and 60Plus Association have funded the bulk of a $5 million attack campaign against Brown, according to Brown’s campaign. Another Democratic source puts the cost of the campaign at $5.1 million.
Brown has received limited support from liberal groups. The League of Conservation Voters has spent $516,000 on television ads touting Brown’s vote to build the clean-energy industry in Ohio.
“Things are looking pretty good in Ohio,” a senior GOP senator told The Hill.
Brown’s campaign manager, Sarah Benzing, sent an anxious appeal to potential donors Saturday.
“Karl Rove, Pat Boone and all their special-interest pals are saturating Ohio with negative ads and smear campaigns — they’ve already spent $5 million, and that number is only going to increase,” she wrote. “So far, the special interests have outspent our campaign more than 10-to-1 in this race.”
GOP political strategist Karl Rove is the mastermind behind Crossroads GPS, and the singer Pat Boone appears in the 60Plus Association ad.
“We aren’t funded by unlimited contributions from corporations and the super-rich, and so we need you guys to come through. Big time,” Benzing added.
Brown aired his first campaign ad in late April, a $150,000 buy in several cities.
“This comes after more than a year of $5 million in ads against Sherrod Brown without any response,” said campaign spokesman Justin Barasky.
Outside groups will likely offset any edge Democratic incumbents might have over challengers in regular campaign funds. Brown, for example, had $6.3 million in cash on hand at the end of March, while his opponent, Josh Mandel, reported $5.3 million.
Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief political strategist, sees the uneven spending war between Republican- and Democratic-allied outside groups as the biggest threat to Democrats’ retaining control of the Senate.
Democrats are planning to make the spending of secretive third-party groups a bigger political issue by bringing campaign finance legislation to the Senate floor, perhaps in June.
The law, an overhauled version of the Disclose Act, would require groups classified under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code to disclose donors of more than $1,000 publicly. It would also require groups to claim responsibility more obviously for the content of ads and disclose their five biggest donors at the end of the clips.
Brian Walsh, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said Democratic leaders should focus on the economy instead of third-party groups.
“The biggest threat to the Democratic majority is not outside spending, it’s their failed economic record,” he said.
Conservative and pro-business groups have outspent liberal groups by more than 4-to-1 in Missouri, where Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) faces a difficult reelection. Polls show her trailing or even with several Republican opponents.
Crossroads GPS has spent about $1.6 million, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent $988,000 and the 60Plus Association has spent $481,000 on television advertising, according to Democratic sources who track media buys.
While McCaskill has suffered $3.9 million in attacks, pro-Democratic groups have funded $887,000 in ads praising her record on veterans and other issues, according to Democratic media-tracking sources.
Patriot Majority has spent $446,000, Vote Vets has spent $193,000 and Senate Majority PAC has spent $227,000, according to the Democratic source.
A second Democratic source said outside groups have spent a total of $4.3 million against McCaskill and $908,000 to support her. This source said McCaskill has spent $677,000 so far to promote her own candidacy.
McCaskill has tried to make the uneven battle between conservative and liberal outside groups an issue in the campaign. She recently aired a television ad criticizing groups “not from around here” for “spending millions to attack and attack.”
A senior Democratic aide said other vulnerable Senate Democrats might pursue the same strategy.
“Middle-class Americans feel their concerns and economic situation is on the backburner in favor of a system rigged for the very wealthy and well-connected,” the aide said.
In Montana, outside groups have spent nearly $1.97 million in ads attacking Sen. Jon Tester (D), while Democratic-allied organizations have spent $857,000 blasting his opponent, Rep. Denny Rehberg (R), according to Tester’s campaign.
“Congressman Dennis Rehberg has voted for corporate special interests during the 30 years he’s been in elected office, so it’s not surprising to see that they’re now spending millions of dollars on his behalf,” said Tester’s campaign manager, Preston Elliott.
A GOP source who tracks media buys noted, however, that Democratic allies had spent a combined $1.7 million on positive ads extolling Tester’s record and spots attacking Rehberg, narrowing the funding disparity in Montana.
“It’s remarkably hypocritical that even as Tester tries to make campaign spending transparency a central issue of this race, his own advisers and special-interest allies have spent more than $1.6 million running campaign ads on his behalf without disclosing their donors,” said Chris Bond, a spokesman for Rehberg.
And Republicans say that liberal groups outspent their more conservative counterparts last year in Massachusetts, where Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) faces a stiff challenge from Harvard Professor Elizabeth Warren (D).
The League of Conservation Voters aired a nearly $2 million ad buy before Thanksgiving of last year chastising Brown for “siding with Big Oil” and “voting repeatedly against our environment and public health.” But whatever advantage Democrats might have had this year was neutralized by the “People’s Pledge” Brown and Warren signed to ban third-party ads in their race.
Mike Palamuso, a spokesman for the League of Conservation Voters, said the group would honor the pledge.
Obama Is a Big-Time Law Violator
Townhall.com ^ | May 1, 2012 | Phyllis Schlafly
Where is the mainstream media's coverage of the shocking "memo" issued by nine state attorneys general detailing 21 specific violations of law by the Obama administration?
That's too many violations to list in this column, but here are some of the more outrageous examples of what the attorneys general call "violations of law" by "an increasingly overreaching federal government."
One consistent aspect of these actions is that the Obama administration is aggressively using administrative agencies to enforce policy objectives that are outside the law and would not be approved by Congress. Not even by Harry Reid's democratic Senate.
In Florida, the Environmental Protection Agency imposed its own unscientific "numeric nutrient" criteria, which would cost billions of dollars for compliance and the loss of thousands of jobs. A federal court found that EPA had violated the law because its rules were not based on sound science and because the EPA failed to prove that its rules would prevent harm to the environment.
In South Carolina, the National Labor Relations Board tried to tell Boeing, a private company, where it could or could not locate a new manufacturing plant and also threatened to sue the state for guaranteeing a secret ballot in union elections. The NLRB backed down after a high-profile battle.
In Arizona, the Obama administration is trying to nullify a referendum passed by the voters requiring individuals registering to vote to show a driver's license or another government-issued document as evidence they are citizens. This case may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Health and Human Services Agency mandated religious employers, including Catholic, Baptist and Jewish schools, churches and hospitals, to provide all their employees with medical devices prohibited by their religion. Since many are self-insurers, Obama's subsequent "accommodation" only reinforced this attack on religious liberty, so seven attorneys general have filed suit to cancel this anti-religious-liberty mandate.
Obama pressured Congress to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), using procedural shenanigans, against the will of the majority of Americans. More than half the states are now challenging the law's constitutionality in the Supreme Court.
In Oklahoma, the EPA imposed its own federal plan, illegally usurping Oklahoma's authority in the Clean Air Act to determine the state's plan to deal with sources of emissions. The federal plan, which goes beyond the authority granted in the Clean Air Act, will result in a $2 billion cost to install technology and a permanent increase of 15-20 percent in electricity costs, and the Obama administration is fighting Oklahoma's appeal in court.
In Arizona, in violation of the 10th Amendment, Obama's Department of Justice is suing to prevent Arizona from using reasonable means to discourage the illegal entry of aliens across Arizona's border, because they are costing the state so much in medical care, education and crime. This case is now before the Supreme Court.
In Arizona, another violation is that Obama's Department of Justice has granted "reservation status" to a 54-acre plot in Glendale, where the Tohono O'odham Nation plans to build a casino. This means the Obama administration is forcing a family-oriented town, against its will, to become another Las Vegas.
Obama made four appointments to important federal positions (NLRB: three and CFPB: one), which he dishonestly called "recess appointments" in order to evade Senate confirmation hearings on left-wing nominees. Obama ignored the fact that the Senate was not in recess.
The "memo" released by the nine attorneys general confirms that the "administration repeatedly shows disdain for states, federal laws it finds inconvenient, the Constitution and the courts." A statement made by EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, which became public last week, vividly illustrates the contempt that Obama bureaucrats have for the law.
He described his "philosophy" of EPA enforcement: "kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw and they'd crucify them. Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years."
That wasn't hyperbole. That exactly describes the Obama bureaucrats' attitude about enforcing their policy goals and dictatorial actions.
It is encouraging that we have patriotic state attorneys general in nine states who know the Constitution and are willing to litigate against unconstitutional administration actions. Cheers to the valiant nine attorneys generals: Tom Horne, Arizona; Pam Bondi, Florida; Sam Olens, Georgia; Bill Schuette, Michigan; Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma; Marty Jackley, South Dakota; Alan Wilson, South Carolina; Greg Abbott, Texas; and Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia. We hope more attorneys general will soon join this brave bunch.
Note: I congratulate WND, which is celebrating its 15th anniversary this week. We can always count on WND to give us news that others fail to cover.
Obama's Energy Shell Game
Townhall.com ^ | May 1, 2012 | Bob Beauprez
Remember the shell game? The magician keeps up a steady stream of patter and diversions to make it difficult or even impossible to know where the pea is hiding. Our national energy policy today is much like the shell game.
In his patter President Obama says we need an “all of the above” approach—we heard it in his State of the Union address to Congress, meaning the country will benefit most by developing its vast oil, natural gas and coal resources along with hydro and nuclear power, while pursuing the development of renewable technologies.
But the President’s actions, as reflected by his budget proposal and his Administration’s various regulatory initiatives, reveal a strong bias against “all of the above” and a big tilt toward energy forms that are not able to compete in the marketplace. There is no level playing field.
Take two recent examples. In mid-April Obama ordered creation of a “task force” to “coordinate” the efforts of ten federal agencies seeking regulatory authority over hydraulic fracturing, the decades-old technology that is unlocking vast amounts of oil and gas from shale rock deep in the ground. Does anyone believe that a larger federal bureaucracy and more federal regulations piled atop state regulations is going to expedite responsible development of domestic oil and natural gas?
In another display of magical misdirection intended to shift focus from high gasoline and diesel prices, Obama asked Congress for $52 million to expand the federal bureaucracy to fight “oil speculators” and “market manipulation” and “illegal activity.” Oil companies are among his targets, but as The Washington Post pointed out, “a senior administration official deflected questions about whether regulators have detected any hint of manipulation and would not give an example of the sort of rigging the president suspected regulators might find with more resources.”
The problem isn’t speculators. The problem is we need more supply and this Administration throws up more roadblocks.
These roadblocks can’t alter chemistry. The energy sources that provide the most bang for the buck are oil and natural gas. And there is more domestic oil and gas available than experts previously thought. In fact, there’s an energy revolution underway in the United States, sparked by the application of hydraulic fracturing to reserves of oil and natural gas once thought to be uneconomical. It’s happening in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Texas, North Dakota, and right here in Colorado.
The oil and gas industry is now producing enough U.S. natural gas to meet our needs for 100 years. Domestic oil production has grown by almost 20 percent in the last four years. These resources called “unconventional” or “tight oil” and “tight gas” are a factor in reducing energy imports from unfriendly and unstable countries. Their development is creating hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Increased supplies of natural gas have driven down the price to below $2 per thousand cubic feet, saving consumers hundreds of millions of dollars in heating, cooling and manufacturing costs.
The White House website prominently features a graphic under the title of The Obama Energy Agenda that suggests the record production of natural gas and ramp up in domestic oil output somehow are a result of his Administration’s policies, though nothing could be farther from the truth. Production on federal lands and offshore is actually down. Gains have come from private lands in spite of Obama’s policies, not because of them. Obama has cancelled scores of existing leases, implemented moratoriums in the gulf, made millions of acres off limits to energy development, and blanketed the industry with regulations.
The oil and gas industry contributes nearly half a trillion dollars a year to the economy in wages, taxes, royalty payments, fees, and dividends. Yet in the president’s proposed budget, there are at least eight provisions that would punish this one targeted essential industry with increased taxes or costly regulation. At the same time, his budget includes generous doles to the “green energy” sector that the White House says will be the future of America’s competitiveness – that’s what he said about Solyndra, too.
Obama promised an energy policy based on science and transparency, but it has proven to be all about politics. While establishing the “most anti-oil and gas record in U.S. history” according to Steve Forbes, Obama has thrown away billions of borrowed dollars to reward and pacify his green constituency.
The United States does need an “all of the above” approach to assuring steady supplies of affordable energy. But, that likely won’t happen if the Administration more committed to playing an energy policy shell game than doing what’s right.
This article orginally appeared in the Pueblo Chieftain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
The Daily Mail ^ | 02/24/19 | Brendan Mcfadden Guidance about the compulsory lessons from age five is published tomorrow The lessons m...