By: Jeffrey Klein
Although White House officials denied political reasons for scheduling President Obama’s first press conference of the new year on “Super Tuesday” of the Republican Primary race, stating it was just a “coincidence.”
Interestingly enough, in addition to the press conference today, they seem to usually lucky by hitting the coincidence thing on the head every time, by scheduling “important” Obama speeches in an attempt to steal the limelight from the GOP, every time the attention has been on them, according to a FOXNews article covering it today.
And, with equal coincidence, Obama’s opening remarks centered around the GOP hopefuls criticism of his handling of the Iran nuclear weapon building situation, about which he met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday.
BO: “Those folks don’t have a lot of responsibilities. They’re not commander in chief. And when I see the casualness with which some of these folks talk about war, I’m reminded of the costs involved in war,” Obama said. “This is not a game. There is nothing casual about it.”
Obama said if the candidates think it’s time to launch a war, “they should say so.”
JK: Candidate Obama had some very incredible things to say when running against “the ghost of George W. Bush” [John McCain] in 2008, regarding things he knew little, if yet still anything about–and was forced to vacate and retreat on just about every military oriented campaign promise he made–except for the historic elimination of don’t ask don’t tell.
None of the GOP candidates have access to the daily intelligence briefs or the tactical plans Obama gets (regardless of his reading or agreeing with them)–so, unlike him, they will not suffer the same, colossal embarrassments, by doing so prematurely.
And finally, Israel will not let Obama risk the lives and future of their nation, just because he wants to put off yet another difficult “leadership” choice—so as not to interfere with his reelection campaign.
BO: Obama announced plans to let borrowers with FHA mortgages refinance at lower rates, saving the average homeowner more than $1,000 a year. And Obama detailed an agreement with major lenders to compensate service members and veterans who were wrongfully foreclosed upon or denied lower interest rates.
JK: This is another complete waste of taxpayer money—which is exactly where it would come from to subsidize this round of “wealth re-distribution”…unless he wants to add to the fee he heaped on to Fannie and Freddie mortgage fees and have new home buyers pay for it…again.
This $83 per month will have the same non-affect on the economy as the ill-fated “Payroll Tax Holiday” lunacy that he prescribed, because it would not raise deficits or the national debt in a reelection year—but, it certainly will in less than two years, as the Social Security fund that depends on it will be insolvent and require hundreds of millions of dollars from General Revenue.
BO: Obama ridiculed the notion that he actually wants gas prices to rise, in order to wean Americans off fossil fuels … “Do you think the president of the United States going into reelection wants gas prices to go up higher?”
JK: If he didn’t want gas prices to go higher, he would have approved the Keystone XL Pipeline last November, and not have driven most of the oil rigs out of the Gulf of Mexico, which have simply made the speculators job easier, and left the door open for OPEC price aggression.
Obama’s actions have all pointed to an “Anything but Oil Energy Policy”–that he is using to “wean Americans off fossil fuels.”
President Barack Obama and his trusty administration would make Pinocchio proud.
Copyright (c) 2012 by Jeffrey Klein
By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media
The news for Media Matters keeps getting worse and worse. After weeks of stonewalling the excellent Daily Caller series that broke on February 12, Media Matters founder David Brock and his co-author Ari Rabin-Havt of the new book The Fox Effect have selectively responded to some of the allegations made in the series. Media Matters for America is the far-left, George Soros-backed organization that claims its purpose is to monitor and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. But as characterized in The Daily Caller series, “Media Matters has in less than a decade become a powerful player in Democratic politics. The group operates in regular coordination with the highest levels of the Obama White House, as well as with members of Congress and progressive groups around the country. Brock, who collected over $250,000 in salary from Media Matters in 2010, has himself become a major fundraiser on the left. According to an internal memo obtained by TheDC, Media Matters intends to spend nearly $20 million in 2012 to influence news coverage.”
According to one of the sources who talked to The Daily Caller, “Every Tuesday evening, meanwhile, a representative from Media Matters attends the Common Purpose Project meeting at the Capitol Hilton on 16th Street in Washington, where dozens of progressive organizations formulate strategy, often with a representative from the Obama White House.”
While their tax exempt status with the IRS has been challenged in the past, it is coming under renewed scrutiny, says The Daily Caller, and some Republicans in Congress have expressed intentions to look into their activities to try to determine if they should be able to maintain their tax-exempt status. The issues include the fact that they are involved in “political training” of Democrats, and that their frequent calls and meetings with White House officials, according to C. Boyden Gray, former White House Counsel under President George H. W. Bush, “could prove problematic if the organization is privately sharing information with President Barack Obama’s staff.” Gray said that “If a section 501(c)(3) organization is privately providing to the Democratic Party information for their use in their political activities, that’s a contribution to the party,” and thus not allowed by the IRS code with their current status.
As AIM’s Cliff Kincaid reported in a column on February 7th, “the head of Media Matters has officially dropped the mask of media critic by creating a so-called Democratic ‘Super PAC’ devoted to re-electing President Obama, adding Democrats to the Senate Democratic majority, and taking back the House of Representatives from the Republicans.”
Brock heads up the Super PAC, American Bridge 21st Century, as well as Media Matters, and the two are housed in the same Washington D.C. offices.
In other developments, Fox News has reported, and provided links to all of the legal documents that reveal that Brock paid $850,000 in what he characterized as a “blackmail” payment. According to the documents, Brock was being threatened by a former domestic partner with information on Media Matters’ donors and the IRS. This might provide useful information if Congress actually investigates.
In yet another potential financial controversy, Media Matters has collected $365,000 in ill gotten gains from three foundations that convicted Ponzi-scheme operator Bernie Madoff had “invested” in. They have not said if they would return the money to the court appointed trustee who represents the victims of Madoff’s fraud. In February the general counsel of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), David M. Becker, disgorged more than a half-million dollars in his family’s ill gotten gains. Maybe that will serve as an example to Brock to do the right thing.
The Daily Caller also reported certain illegal and erratic behavior on the part of David Brock. The DC wrote that “Brock’s personal assistant, a man named Haydn Price-Morris, was carrying a holstered and concealed Glock handgun when he accompanied Brock to events, including events in Washington, D.C., a city with famously restrictive gun laws. Price-Morris told others he carried the gun to protect Brock from threats.” They said that Brock feared being exposed for this since George Soros and other backers of Media Matters were very supportive of strict gun control laws, and wouldn’t approve. Later that same year, after other Media Matters employees learned about the bodyguard’s gun, he was fired based on their objections.
Another issue is Media Matters’ position on Israel. Alan Dershowitz, who was a supporter of Barack Obama in 2008, has observed some of the writings on Israel by Media Matters staff. One of their staffers, MJ Rosenberg, has been a harsh critic of Israel, and refers to “Israel firsters.” These are people, who in his view, are more loyal to Israel than they are to the U.S. It is viewed by many Jewish organizations, including the non-partisan Simon Wiesenthal Center, as a classic anti-Semitic slur. Rosenberg, for his part, says that by Israel-firsters, he means Netanyahu-firsters, referring to the current Israeli prime minister.
But Politico, a liberal Washington newspaper, wrote recently that “The Center for American Progress, the [Democratic] party’s key hub of ideas and strategy, and Media Matters, a central messaging organization, have emerged as vocal critics of their party’s staunchly pro-Israel congressional leadership and have been at odds, at times, with Barack Obama’s White House, which has acted as a reluctant ally to Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government.”
This has raised the ire of Dershowitz, who has vowed to make an issue of this in the presidential campaign.
As reported by Alana Goodman, a former intern at Accuracy in Media’s American Journalism Center, now writing for Commentary: “Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who was a key supporter of Obama in 2008, told WOR710 today that he could not vote for President Obama’s re-election unless the president cuts ties with the controversial anti-Israel group Media Matters. He also warned that Obama’s association with Media Matters—which was raised by the Daily Caller in an investigative series this week—will lose him support in the pro-Israel community.”
She then quoted Dershowitz as saying, “Let’s have a full and open debate on this, but to the extent that the Obama administration associates with these bigots [at Media Matters], they’re going to lose a lot of support among Christians, Jews and others who think that American support for Israel is in the best interest of the United States…So don’t confuse these bigots with liberals. They’re not. They’re extremists, they’re way, way beyond the pale. And any association with the Obama administration is going to hurt the Obama administration. There is not enough room under the big tent for people like me…and the bigots of Media Matters. The Obama administration is going to have to choose.…I could not vote for anyone who has anything to do with Media Matters, that’s clear. That’s just clear as can be. I will take an oath here that I will not vote for a candidate that has any direct association with Media Matters. That’s like asking me to vote for Hezbollah or asking me to vote for Hamas or asking me to vote for the Fascist Party. I won’t do it…That association has to stop. Just in the same way that President Obama totally terminated his association with the Reverend Wright, he has to terminate any association with Media Matters and with the intellectual thugs who are behind it.”
Media Matters normally has a lot to say in response to their critics, but their silence speaks volumes about these latest accusations from The Daily Caller, Fox News, and Alan Dershowitz. The Obama White House has been directly challenged, and implicated by these revelations, though the mainstream media is adopting its usual position. Pretend there is nothing there, and maybe it will all go away.
On February 27th, there was an authors night at Politics and Prose, a Washington D.C. bookstore that holds many such events. It was Brock’s first public appearance since The Daily Caller series broke, and since Dershowitz had made his comments. The first question of the evening, following comments and readings by Brock and his co-author, Ari Rabin-Havt, was whether or not they stand by the rhetoric of senior staffer MJ Rosenberg.
Rabin-Havt gave an indirect, rambling answer, saying that he is personally a Zionist and that “Israel is an issue that has a deep and heartfelt meaning to me. It’s an issue I’ve thought a lot about through the years. It’s one that’s had an impact on my family and an impact on my ancestors.” He said that what disappoints him about this debate, and the topic of Israel and disputes in the Middle East and Iran, is that this is the most important thing we’re dealing with. It involves potentially going to war with Iran, and shouldn’t in essence be trivialized by making it about some Twitter comments sent out by a Media Matters staffer. He then pushed back, saying, “I don’t feed trolls,” referring to The Daily Caller, which he repeated when he didn’t want to directly answer questions.
Brock and Rabin-Havt were also asked that night whether or not it was true that they had hired private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News executives and staff. They didn’t actually deny it, but said they had no interest in the personal lives or business of these people.
When asked to respond to the series in general, Rabin-Havt said, “I’m not going to respond to an article that’s basically filled up with just crap. There’s no point getting into a match back and forth with The Daily Caller, and that’s why we chose not to respond.”
The question about the private investigators was based on more findings in The Daily Caller series, in this case a memo from someone named Karl Frisch that had been emailed to Brock and Media Matters president Eric Burns, recommending a “Fox Fund” to attack the Fox News Channel.
“Simply put,” wrote Frisch, “the progressive movement is in need of an enemy. George W. Bush is gone. We really don’t have John McCain to kick around any more. Filling the lack of leadership on the right, Fox News has emerged as the central enemy and antagonist of the Obama administration, our Congressional majorities and the progressive movement as a whole.”
“We must take Fox News head-on in a well funded, presidential-style campaign to discredit and embarrass the network, making it illegitimate in the eyes of news consumers.” Frisch wrote, “We should hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff.” In addition, he argued that they should engage a “major law firm” and explore various legal actions against Fox, including class action and defamation claims for those who said they were wronged by the network.
While Media Matters was holding regular meetings and phone calls with White House staff, they were also coordinating with various journalists, including at MSNBC and The Washington Post, who they identified as being willing to work with them in exposing their opposition research.
In a very damning series of quotes based on these memos as well as individuals who had worked there and become disillusioned, The Daily Caller named names of journalists who they could count on at Media Matters. This is from The Daily Caller story:
“‘The entire progressive blogosphere picked up our stuff,’ says a Media Matters source, ‘from Daily Kos to Salon. Greg Sargent [of the Washington Post] will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff.” Another source added that “If you can’t get it anywhere else, Greg Sargent’s always game.” Sargent declined to comment for the series.
“The people at Huffington Post were always eager to cooperate, which is no surprise given David’s long history with Arianna [Huffington],” said another source.
“Jim Rainey at the LA Times took a lot of our stuff,” a staffer continued. “So did Joe Garofoli at the San Francisco Chronicle. We’ve pushed stories to Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne [at the Washington Post]. Brian Stelter at the New York Times was helpful.”
“Ben Smith [formerly of Politico, now at BuzzFeed.com] will take stories and write what you want him to write,” explained the former employee, whose account was confirmed by other sources.
The relationship between Media Matters and the White House makes it very unlikely that any sort of meaningful investigation from the executive branch, including the IRS, will occur. Thus, it is incumbent upon Congress to take the lead. But unfortunately, the mainstream media have shown no interest in even acknowledging that this scandal exists, much less applying pressure for such hearings. The reasons for this reluctance are obvious. This groundbreaking series by Tucker Carlson’s “Daily Caller” has done much to expose the corruption and collaboration taking place today within the liberal media, and among the politicians who are the beneficiaries of their brand of advocacy journalism.
Dear Fellow Media Watchdogs:
It was with a deep sense of sadness and loss that we learned, along with the rest of America, that Andrew Breitbart had passed away on March 1st in Los Angeles at the young age of 43. Yes, he was a fearless fighter and a serious media watchdog. That is why we at Accuracy in Media held him in such high regard.
One of our close associates, Dr. Peter Rollins (producer/director of “Television’s Vietnam”) wrote me that morning calling him a “young Reed Irvine,” Reed being the founder and long-time chairman of AIM. He wrote that “[Breitbart] was a real, dramatic force—a young Reed Irvine who was not afraid to look ‘eccentric.’ Indeed, like Reed, he thrived on it. The pre-Weiner press conference was one of his best examples of ‘political theatre.’”
In 2010, we honored Andrew, and he honored us, by accepting the Reed Irvine Award for Investigative Journalism, for his work on exposing the widespread corruption at ACORN. When he accepted the award, he started by saying it was the first award he had won since being named Most Improved Player on his high school JV baseball team.
He was one of those people who every time he was in front of a microphone, or on TV, you had to watch. Certainly he had his haters and detractors, but for one day at least, many on the left chose to offer respectful comments, such as this by Arianna Huffington, who used to work with Breitbart when she was still a conservative, married to a Republican congressman from California: “My thoughts and prayers go out to Andrew Breitbart’s family and friends, especially his wife Susie and their four beautiful children.”
We last saw Andrew when he was at our February 9th event at CPAC, as sort of a proud papa, when we presented the Reed Irvine Award for Grassroots Journalism to Dana Loesch, the Editor-in-Chief of Breitbart’s BigJournalism. We hope his legacy lives on in all of his wonderful, provocative websites. We’ll miss you, Andrew.
The subject of this AIM Report is Media Matters, mired in scandal, yet ignored by the mainstream media. Media Matters had attacked us and CBS because we honored CBS’s investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson for her great work exposing scandals and corruption within the Obama administration that the rest of the mainstream media were ignoring. Media Matters played the role of attack dog on behalf of the Obama administration, a role they are all too familiar with. They called AIM “a cesspool of hate.”
(WASHINGTON) — Congressman Allen West (R-FL) released this statement today:
“I have grave concern today that President Barack Obama and his Administration are continuing to jeopardize the safety and security of Israel, by saying one thing while doing another, when it comes to standing by the United States’ one true ally in the Middle East.
President Obama assured Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu yesterday that the United States ‘has Israel’s back,’ when it comes to defending Israel against Iran, yet the President stopped short of defining exactly what that entails. Today, the President tells Americans it ‘it is deeply in everybody’s interests — the United States, Israel and the world’s — to see if this can be resolved in a peaceful fashion.’ This President continues to talk from both sides of his mouth, and it is dangerous. Israel needs action, not more words from the President.
The facts are that Iran is not responding to increasing sanctions by either the United States or the European Union, and continues to proceed with building a nuclear arsenal. Iran is not interested in anything other than playing a stall game, a game that gives them additional time to fortify their defenses, and acquire the means to convert their knowledge into actual weapons.
We are running out of time and the President’s insistence to wait for a ‘diplomatic resolution’ with Iran, proves our Commander in Chief does not fully understand, or is simply ignoring, the imminent threat looming, and it is putting not only our friends in Israel at severe risk, but freedom and democracy as we know it. Recent history shows us that sanctions, no matter how severe, will not curtail a country’s effort to develop nuclear weapons, when its leaders are determined. North Korea, for example, has been subject to international sanctions since 2006. The regime is believed to be turning to illegal ventures, including the sale of weapons technology, to raise funding for its nuclear program.
The consequences of inaction, could lead to a nuclear arms race in the entire Middle East.
I see this Administration’s lack of commitment to stand up to Iran as a much deeper problem. This President has consistently shown a willingness to appease and apologize to radical Islamists. From writing a private letter to the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khameini, to issuing knee-jerk apologies concerning the American Military Koran burning, and most recently, allowing the United States to pay $5 million of taxpayer money to bail out pro-democracy activists facing charges in Egypt.
When is President Obama going to stand up publicly against this theocratic-political, Islamic totalitarian ideology with the courage and convicton that has made the United States the greatest country the world has ever known? After spending 22 years commanding United States troops, much of it the Middle East, I can tell you these nations only respect one thing- and that is strength. President Obama has yet to intimidate Iran, as evidenced by the country’s continual game- playing and testing our demands. Until President Obama stands firm, America, Israel, and democracy as we know it will continue to be at risk.
Iran is as dangerous as Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Imperial Japan, and the Communist Soviet Union once were, and it represents a clear and present evil in these times.”
Hat Tip: BB
Hazel Crest is a village in Cook County, Illinois whose population is 72.4% African American. While speaking at Obama reelection headquarters in Hazel Crest at a candidates forum, the Congressman was challenged about his loyalty to the President. Jackson embarked on an awkward response of name dropping and wedding guest lists to prove his Obama alliance to the majority African American voters district.
By: Toddy Littman
This video is a fuller excerpt, please play it to appreciate the tenor of the article, thank you.
Obama, the consistent creator of “artificial limits” as Commander-In-Thief, has proven that what he said in the video above from 2008 is true, that high energy costs are associated with social engineering the American People to achieve his personal goals relating to what Obama sees wrong with America. This is obvious when you consider that today Obama says he wants to get rid of tax breaks for oil companies because “manufacturing creates more jobs,” a specious argument in misdirection. Don’t fall for it.
First, it is the left who wants to tell us there’s a limited amount of money available, á la Michael Moore, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/02/. Of course, what is ignored by Moore, a staunch liberal and supporter of Obama, is that President Obama voted for the Bank Bailouts, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26953481/. Then Senator Obama didn’t pass up the opportunity to share his socialist positions in a speech, positions which are inconsistent with voting for the Bank Bailout except in politics. I bet Moore didn’t mention Obama’s vote to his OWS comrades when he decided to join them and put money behind them, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCZLhEOJ8XA (note Michael Moore mentioned, at 7 minutes in, going against GM too), and I am sure Obama’s words for why Government needed to bail out the banks would have soothed them, “We are all going to need to sacrifice… We’re all going to need to pull our weight, because now more than ever we are all in this together. That is part of what this crisis has taught us.” Sure sounds familiar doesn’t it? I wonder how much of OWS (as I know the Tea Party doesn’t buy this line) will buy into the idea of bailing out the banks as “… now more than ever we are all in this together.” I bet the unions love this one too, or was this an incredible Obama Gaffe? Toddy Littman blogs, you decide.
Then “President Barack Obama of the House of Downgrade,” who has spent a whopping 5 trillion plus in his effort to make the Government the sole engine of the economy, the investment banker and venture Capitalist of Patronage to be sure, investing in Solyndra, http://www.newser.com/story/130484/, Beacon Power, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/31/, and by tax loopholes Obama isn’t arguing to close, which aided GE, the 14 billion dollar Pulitzer Tax Evasion by Patronage Poster Child Winner (if there were such a category and Timothy Geithner didn’t object to Geoffrey Immelt receiving it), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/. Of course, the grand daddy of them all, GM’s volt, “your tax dollars at waste,” http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/volt/2011/, more recently canned, http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/03/02/.
Notice how the stories aren’t — and yeah I wanna beat the Liberal MSM on this one — “Oil Company Goes Bankrupt After Government Bailout,” or “Oil Company Pays Zero Income taxes?” This is because they do pay taxes, and permit fees, royalties, licensing, along with the front money for their exploration costs, thus Oil Production is an established industry. This industry has, over the 100ish years of their production, lobbied for tax breaks to help them produce oil for less, and thereby pass less of the cost on as higher prices to the consumer. Now, if there were a proven Solar, Wind, etc., alternative technology, that had an entirely repeatable outcome and sustainable energy production we can count on, and certain tax changes would allow them to produce energy, or the means to produce energy, for less cost, and thereby, lower the cost to the consumer, sure, these alternative companies would deserve that. However, there is a great distance between tax breaks and government programs to lend them money, particularly as in the Solyndra case where the U.S. Treasury, our money and the People of the United States in representation as the Government, was illegally made the subordinate holder of debt, subordinate to the original investors and bond holders. We ended up giving them money because of this illegal arrangement.
Now, I must break with being civil about this, to call out the Obama Administration for the blatant hypocrisy in subordinating the Government loan to Solyndra to the original investors and bondholders, while he made sure to subordinate the GM bondholders and stockholders to unions that were given a percentage in ownership (40%) without having paid for it in the course of the “managed” bankruptcy – “Redistribution of wealth patronage” — http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?. In even more perfect patronage fashion, this is why the GM Bankruptcy Case never went to the U.S. Supreme Court, http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7978321&page=1. This is Obama’s hand deciding the fate of others claims, in perfect loathsome, disgusting, sinister dishonor, his actions leading to the most certain abuse of government force against those who were harmed by GM or Chrysler’s products. All of it done in the interest of “Social Justice,” http://www.programbusiness.com/News/.
Let’s, for the sake of discussion, assume for a moment that Our “Social Justice” President, knowing full well the energy investment losers by patronage that he’s picked, then avoids discussing all of his “green agenda” failure in Community Organizing the American People, by arguing instead that “more jobs are created by manufacturing.” Now, if we assume this is true, then the President is claiming to have unilaterally implemented a “cap on jobs” in America. Last I knew, in a free enterprise system, with the remnants of Capitalism continuing all on their own, jobs are created by people, their businesses, investment and purchases. Finding a market and filling a niche are actions of private inventors, producers, and others who provide goods and services, who then require greater numbers of people to aid in their business endeavor.
The President of the United States has no claim as to who creates more jobs, save historical records that fluctuated throughout the history of this nation, from our agrarian roots through the industrial revolution and now the information age. Today companies such as Apple Computer, Honda, Toyota, and others, which have robotic factories, have a need for an increased number of employed positions so their factories can put out many more products that are built better than ever before. Of course this is true unless the market for their product decreases, Government policies, taxation most of all, influence this activity, but these policies are, in part, to support and help the industries thrive.
Of course it could be that, as you heard in the 2008 video above and can review of Obama’s factual record over the course of 4 years since, the Obama policies are against industries thriving, and in this alone he can make his claim, that his actions are causing a cap on the number of jobs, much like FDR, http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/. However, the fact is that his claim keeps him from talking about the Obama energy investment losers where this President has put our tax dollars, the other part of tax policy, on behalf of the American People. This part of tax policy on the individual, who often has a small business or some independent contractor work, is what often negatively affects the expansion of the market for the products and services of the producers, manufacturers and others.
Progressive income taxation, implemented since the first Income Tax under Woodrow Wilson, higher percentages “owed” based on higher incomes, are the worst offense to having a growing marketplace as these punish achievement and ambition unequally, assuming the cost to achieve and play political business risk is not taxing in and of itself. The fact is we all work for our money in whatever way we do, our choices in job (and futures from this choice), our associations as well, are our own responsibility. Opportunity can take many forms and it’s up to us, as a part of our Individual Liberty and Freedom to discern them and choose for ourselves based on our own Character. Through Progressive Taxation Government denies us the fruits of our labor for following Freedom if we choose the road to success.
Note, that while Obama wants to get rid of Oil Company tax breaks, he signed off on a loan to, now again Soros owned, Petrobras for $2,000,000,000 to help them drill off the shores of Brazil, http://online.wsj.com/article/. Although Forbes Magazine is having a fit over the notion Obama made the Petrobras loan as some sort of false statement, http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2011/03/17/, the fact is, according to Bloomberg, Brazil didn’t need the loan guarantee and only received 20% as much from the U.S. as it did from China ($10,000,000,000) who is now Brazil’s largest trading partner, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?. Maybe it is that there is some international limit to how much China can help a nation, or Obama has agreed that the money we borrow from them we’ll put into countries that China supports, so at least it doesn’t appear as though China is the unopposed largest lender to them. I mean, aren’t we just lending Brazil money we got from China? But that’s how it is with a Saul Alinsky Radical in the White House; Proudly placing on his head the other hat Obama wears, Chicago Way Commander-In-Chief Community Organizer & Master of Patronage Extraordinaire, placing all things on the table as commodities to be negotiated, including your unalienable Rights, and all other forms of property you own to achieve “Social justice” — This is the mantra root of Progressive taxation to afford any and all American Government enterprise solely done at the whim of the Executive Branch; a Communist bent on destroying America, under the erroneous belief we’re the oppressor, he is doing all he can do to make sure Americans never wake up to feel the Government hand in their back pocket, and anywhere else it can grope and get another pound of flesh.
Hat Tip: Dan Friedman
By: Chad Kent
It’s pretty obvious at this point that our country is headed in the wrong direction. And with a little perspective, it’s just as obvious why. Over the last few decades, in many ways we have actually allowed our politicians to reverse the Constitution.
Take a look:
- We no longer focus on what government can’t do to us. Our current political conversation largely surrounds what we should expect the government to give to us. That has gotten us to the point where apparently the government now has enough power to force us to violate our religious beliefs… but who cares? Look… free condoms!!
- This nation was founded with the mindset that individuals should have the freedom to do whatever they choose (to the greatest extent possible) and that the power of the government should be strictly limited. But the prevailing wisdom in Washington D.C. is that the government can do whatever it wants and that the freedom of individuals should be limited.
- There is no provision in the Constitution for entitlement spending, yet we increase it. National defense is one of few areas of spending specifically mentioned in the Constitution, yet we decrease that. Our politicians talk as if entitlement spending were mandatory and defense spending were an option. It seems that our politicians now feel it’s now a higher priority to protect Americans from the burden of paying for their own retirement than to protect them from foreign invasion.
Our Constitution was founded on principles that have been proven to be effective in protecting our rights as individuals. When we do the opposite of what is provided for in the Constitution, it only makes sense that we would get the opposite of protection. And that’s what we’re getting – the government is waging an all out assault on our liberty. But who cares? Look… free condoms!