barack-obama | 2010 Elections, Political News

DNC-Sponsored Mob Violence Possible: ACORN, Obama Behind Plan To Dump Garbage On Speaker Boehner’s Home?

Apr 08 2011 Published by TrudyS under 2010 Elections

The Democratic Party is officially encouraging supporters to go to Speaker John Boehner’s house and dump garbage on his lawn in order to intimidate him into rubber-stamping President Obama’s destructive spending spree. Such protests can easily turn violent, especially with the tense, hyper-partisan atmosphere on Capitol Hill right now. Is it a coincidence that not long after longtime ACORN operative Patrick Gaspard took over as executive director of the Democratic National Committee the DNC is planning destructive ACORN-like protests? Not bloody likely. As chief of the DNC’s day-to-day operations, Gaspard runs Organizing for America , the Saul Alinsky -inspired organization created to wage war on American democracy. Gaspard’s fingerprints are all over this. It’s what the former Obama White House political director does for a living. But how do we actually know this is a DNC-approved event? Because the event advertised on Facebook is organized by longtime DNC employee Jonah Goodman. Goodman is listed as a member of the DNC network on his Facebook page . According to Facebook rules (under the heading “How do I join a supported Facebook network?”) this means he is an employee of the DNC. Facebook instructs users as follows: “To join a work network, you need to have a work email address from a supported company. This will put you on a network with your coworkers.” If Goodman ceased to be an employee he was required to leave the Facebook network. The other organizer of the event is Nolan Treadway who is the political and logistics director for the leftist organization Nutroots Netroots Nation. (His Facebook profile is here .) There is no limit to what these despicable Alinskyites will do. They don’t care how many people get hurt in the process of radically transforming America. Follow me on Twitter and please buy my upcoming book Subversion Inc.: How Obama’s ACORN Red Shirts are Still Terrorizing and Ripping Off American Taxpayers .

View post:
DNC-Sponsored Mob Violence Possible: ACORN, Obama Behind Plan To Dump Garbage On Speaker Boehner’s Home?

No responses yet

Ominous Signals on Libya: A Response to Andrew Sullivan

Mar 25 2011 Published by mcnealystephanie under 2010 Elections

Andrew Sullivan takes exception to my observations that we are on a fool’s errand in Libya and a dangerous one. The other day I took issue with neo-conservatives who had learned nothing from failed attempts to create Western-style democracies in Muslim cultures. I had pointed to recent experiences in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza (let alone Turkey) and warned that our military invasion of Libya could lead to the creation of an al-Qaeda aligned totalitarian state. Here is how the Atlantic ’s Andrew Sullivan characterized these thoughts: “It looks as if David Horowitz has left the neocons and become an anti-Islam nationalist; …. he looks at the eruption in the Middle East and wants the dictators back.” Nice spin Andrew. First, I am not against people whose religion is Islam. I’m just a pragmatic realist who notes that in fifteen hundred years Islamic cultures have a very poor track record in creating democracies and that the emerging Islamic movements in the Arab Middle East are without exception totalitarian, jihadist and also Jew-hating, women-hating and gay-hating. These realities are apparently not enough to deter Andrew from supporting the exceptionally deceptive aggression, which is being led (sort of) by the dithering amateur in the White House in an audaciously deceptive campaign to put the Libyan rebels in power. As it happens at least one rebel commander already has been identified as a Guantanamo alumni (thank you liberals) and a jihadist veteran of the war in Afghanistan against us. How many more such rebel commanders might there be? Andrew doesn’t know (and neither does his leader) but that does not deter his hair trigger slander of a critic of this misguided war. Obama’s war has been “authorized” as an effort to establish a “no-fly” zone in Libya to prevent Libyan airstrikes against civilians. But everyone knows this is a lie. The Libyan air force has already been destroyed but the strikes go on because the real agenda is to help the (al-Qaeda?) rebels to win. Despite Obama’s assurance that there would be no American ground troops, there are reports that ground troops are already being sent in. To “protect civilians” does Obama propose to occupy the country and ensure that the rebels do not establish a regime more bloodthirsty than the present one? Is he interested in insuring that a new regime would not be a terrorist state as in Gaza and Lebanon, or would not ally with al-Qaeda, whom Gaddafi at least opposed? Andrew will of course twist this into a claim that I am pro-Gaddafi. For the record I wish that some brave Libyan or secret agent would kill him. What I do not want to see is the American military invading Libya with no idea of what they are doing or why, which is the position into which the present commander-in-chief – “a classic pragmatic realist conservative” in Andrew’s wonderland – has put them. The doctrine under which Hillary Clinton persuaded Obama to invade a sovereign country and thereby to disregard his Secretary of Defense (an actual pragmatist on Obama’s ship of state) is called “ Responsibility to Protect .” It is the invention of NSC adviser Samantha Power and her patron George Soros. Soros describes the doctrine like this: “If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified. By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states’ borders to protect the rights of citizens.” The right to “penetrate nation-states’ borders.” Now where have we heard this excuse for a big power stomp on a little nation before? Czechoslovakia 1938 perhaps? Wasn’t Hitler, by his own lights, protecting the rights of German-speaking citizens at the time? If Obama really means to protect the rights of Libyans he would have to occupy the country for a decade, rewrite its constitution, re-educate its population and institute a democratic educational system. Is that what Sullivan really wants – or has he just not thought this through?

See more here:
Ominous Signals on Libya: A Response to Andrew Sullivan

No responses yet

Our Nameless and Blameless President

Mar 24 2011 Published by Tony Ryals under 2010 Elections, Congress

Somehow I’m still on the Democrats’ radar, even though I left the Party a few years ago. Because, despite my best efforts to get off their list, Democrats.com keeps sending me emails. Usually I just delete the mail, but I couldn’t resist opening this one, since the subject heading shouted, “Tell Congress: Not One Dime for Libya.” I thought: finally! A major Democratic organization is taking Obama to task for instigating a new war without congressional approval. Imagine my shock when I saw that the missive makes absolutely no mention of Obama. Not a single word about the dude! Judging from the email, one would think that Obama was innocently partying in Rio when, unbeknownst to him, the “Tea Party Republican henchmen,” as the writer puts it, started a war. The email even names names; the men behind the Libyan attack are that evil troika, “McCain, Graham, and Joe Lieberman.” According to the email, the organization opposes another war partly because Afghanistan is costing a fortune. Yet, they also fail to utter the O word when condemning war with Afghanistan. Through some bizarre mental gymnastics, the organization implicates the “rightwing billionaires Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers.” The sad thing is that most Democrats will read this baloney and believe it. Why shouldn’t the average liberal? The MSM won’t tell them otherwise. Excusing Obama from any responsibility for Libya actually insults the man, when you think about it (which the Democrats will not bother to do.) What are the implications of Obama’s apparent cluelessness? Let’s consider the possibilities: One implication is that Obama had nothing to do with missiles being dropped in Libya. But doesn’t this suggest that Obama is some sort of dimwit? (Of course, the Dems would be horrified at this insinuation since it’s a racist one.) Another possibility is that the president is naive. Here, the affable Barack simply went on a well-deserved vacation, leaving the country in the hands of the Congress. These nefarious legislators went ahead and, behind his back, started a war. But doesn’t this intimate that Obama is a doe-eyed innocent? Okay, then; another possibility is that Obama does know what’s going on, but he has deferred to the powerful McCain, Graham, and Lieberman. The peace-loving Obama did not want this war, but he gave in. Yet, what’s the implication here, that Obama is a 98-pound weakling? Or perhaps Obama is just a victim of circumstances (yet again). The economy, Afghanistan, etc. etc. have nothing whatsoever to do with him. But doesn’t it defy logic that the President of the United States is a perpetual victim? Frankly, what I read between the lines is the following: yes, Obama started a war, but the Democrats can’t mention his name because he is special. If mistakes or wars happen, Obama shouldn’t be held accountable. But isn’t this stance the most paternalistic and racist of all? While the Left’s thinking is distorted and nonsensical, the tragedy is that most Obama supporters won’t care. The average liberal in the street will not change his or her views about Obama, no matter what he does. And since Obama is never to blame, the left needs their boogeyman, and any conservative will neatly fit the bill. Usually it’s Sarah and Rush; today it’s Lieberman, et al. Meanwhile, Democrats have absolutely no qualms about coming across as paternalistic and, yes, racist, each time they let Obama off the hook.

Read the rest here:
Our Nameless and Blameless President

No responses yet

Iraqi Christians Face Genocide, Demand Separate Province and Right to Exist

Mar 18 2011 Published by jtamimi under 2010 Elections

Iraqi Christians now face genocide and are claiming a “ right of existence ” for all non-Muslim minorities as Islamists continue their bloody holy war against all who dare profess belief in anything but Islam . Since 2003, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians have either fled to the northern Iraqi province of Kurdistan and other countries, or have been massacred while the leftist media , the Islamapologist brigade at the White House, and even the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops maintain complete silence about their status. Regardless of what one’s views may be on the War in Iraq , there is no excuse for turning a blind eye to genocide. No matter who the perpetrators and victims are. The world needs to know the truth about the Christians of Iraq. Freedom of conscience is one of the most important tenets of Christianity, but its infringement is among the harshest provisions of Sharia Law . While Islamapologists in the Obama Administration and the leftist media busy themselves with defending the virtues of Islam , smearing as bigots all who dare question the “‘ religion of peace ,” no one on the Left is mentioning how the Christians of Iraq are faring under Islamists who make up the majority in Iraq. In January, Catholic Archbishop Bashar Warda of northern Iraq announced that the Church is responding to the exodus of Christians from heavily persecuted regions farther south, like Baghdad , not by building bombs, but by building a hospital and a university . The plans we have been developing over the past few months are symbols of hope for the Christian presence in our country. Actions such as this are the only “ crusade ” you will find coming out of today’s Catholic Church, no matter what the Left may have you believe . These plans, for the construction of the hospital and university, reflect three things the Catholic Church in Iraq would like to promote: respect for the health (not destruction) of the human person, opportunity for freedom in education, and employment for those who are fleeing to the north in the face of Islamic aggression. Despite the nature of the Christian role in Iraq, in a March 15 report to Pope Benedict’s charity for persecuted Christians , Archbishop Warda could report no good news and said that Christians now face “ near genocide conditions ” as “ one of the non-Muslim minority inhabitants of Iraq.” Since 2003, nearly one million Iraqi Christians have either fled or been murdered. A systematic bombing campaign ” has resulted in attacks on 66 churches, two convents, a monastery and an orphanage. Who attacks orphanages? Not Mormons. Not Jews. Islamists attack orphanages. Whether in Indonesia , Ethiopia , Sudan , or Iraq , it’s not the papists who are attacking orphanages –it’s Muslims. Unlike Cardinal Sfeir of Lebanon , Archbishop Warda is clearly not content to give those who promote government based on Islamic law a pass for crimes against humanity. In Iraq, 40 years of war and oppression have strengthened our endurance and our resolve to stand strong and to claim our legal and historical right as a Church and as a people in Iraq. We have not come this far to give up. Through the international support and solidarity that this report will create, I believe we can be stronger in our unity and more strategic in our search for sustainable solutions. What we Iraqis are suffering is a crisis in cultural change. We are living in a region which cannot decide if it is for democracy or for Islamic law. It cannot decide if it is for the rights of human beings to live in freedom in all its exciting and challenging forms, or if it is for the control of the spirit and the minds of its people. This is the kind of control that welcomes the terrorist methods of intimidation, kidnapping and killing of religious minorities.

No responses yet

Game On, Harry Reid: House Votes To Repeal Obamacare

Jan 20 2011 Published by Caldwell35WINNIE under 2010 Elections, Congress, Senate

House Republicans made good on their promise to repeal Obamacare today , and somewhere, Harry Reid is curled in a fetal position crying. The House voted on Wednesday to repeal the sweeping healthcare law enacted last year, as Republicans made good on a central campaign pledge and laid down the first major policy marker of their new majority. The vote was 245-189. Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the healthcare law on the books would increase spending, raise taxes and eliminate jobs. “Repeal means paving the way for better solutions that will lower the costs without destroying jobs or bankrupting our government,” Boehner said in remarks on the floor before the vote. “Let’s stop payment on this check before it can destroy more jobs or put us into a deeper hole.” The vote to roll back the president’s signature domestic achievement of the 111th Congress just 10 months after its passage underscores the deep divisions that still surround the new law. But whether House action will signal the beginning of a rapid dismantling of the healthcare overhaul or serve merely as a historical footnote remains to be seen. Democratic leaders in the Senate have vowed to shelve the repeal bill, and Obama has said he would veto repeal if it ever reached his desk. With those threats in mind, GOP leaders dared the Senate to take up the measure, and they promised to fight the healthcare law in other ways if repeal failed. Harry Reid has put on a brave face, saying that a vote for repeal in the Senate would be a waste of time because it would undoubtedly fail. Not only that, but Reid claims Americans want Obamacare ! Of course, if either of the above were a certainty then surely it wouldn’t matter if they voted on it in the Senate. If Americans truly love Obamacare so much, then this would be his golden opportunity to show how the radical Republicans who hate the poor are out of touch and out of control, and the Senate Democrats are the ones who really care about the country. Reality is that there are a number of politically vulnerable Democrats in the Senate (hello, Ben Nelson?) who can’t afford to vote for Obamacare a second time. Democrats from swing states won’t necessarily feel comfortable screwing over their constituents by voting to support Obamacare for a second time, especially when they’ve got to face those constituents next year. Is it likely that an Obamacare repeal would pass the Senate? No, but it is possible, which is why Reid is probably crying into a little pink blanket somewhere right now. He’s politically in a tough spot. If Obamacare is so great and makes voters so happy, then what’s the problem with having another go-around with it in the Senate? What is for sure is that even if the repeal were to pass in the Senate, there aren’t enough votes to overturn Obama’s veto. And Obama would veto the repeal, which is fine, because it would just make him look even more entrenched, radical, and out of touch. Republicans, meanwhile, are promising that if they can’t repeal Obamacare, they’ll defund and delay it as much as they can. “Today we are keeping that pledge, and it is a start,” GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) said. If repeal were ultimately unsuccessful, Cantor has said, Republicans would “do everything we can to delay and defund the provisions of the bill.” This is exactly what Republicans need to be focusing on if they want to remain in office. We need to restore some sense of fiscal sanity to Washington, and that’s what Republicans need to concentrate on doing for the next two years. – Follow Cassy on Twitter and read more of her work at CassyFiano.com and Hard Corps Wife .

See the rest here:
Game On, Harry Reid: House Votes To Repeal Obamacare

No responses yet

A Dignified President in a Tawdry Hall

Jan 13 2011 Published by benjaminklein under 2010 Elections

Last night, President Obama delivered a pitch perfect speech in Tucson at the memorial service for the shooting victims. It was full of measured reason. He yanked the national discussion back to where it belongs. “For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack,” he said, stating what is obvious to most Americans. It is a shame those in the audience, and those planning the event, could not have followed the president’s lead. While the president gave a dignified speech, he was surrounded by a tawdry and politicized atmosphere. A logo was produced for the event and t-shirts were passed out . If that wasn’t bad enough, when various officials took the stage, hoots and hollers followed from the audience. Women could be heard yelling “we love you” during the president’s address. Naturally, not all politicians were cheered. Republican Governor Jan Brewer was booed . I cannot help but wonder if this nation has forever crossed a threshold where the profane and bombastic is acceptable, even at memorials for the dead. Are quiet dignity and measured character a relic of yesteryear? Are future memorial services to be tainted with trumpet flourishes, cheers for political friends and boos for political enemies? From whence does this loss of national dignity come? Only 25 years ago, hoots, hollering, boos and pomp would never be part of a memorial service. I actually know someone who thinks the outrageous behavior at Senator Paul Wellstone’s funeral was perfectly acceptable. For these apologists, ideology is their religion. They have no other higher God. A number of years ago, National Review did a piece on the “Best Conservative Movies.” On the list was the Oscar nominated “Metropolitan.” Mark Henrie opined in the piece that “Metropolitan” “manages the impossible: He brings us to see what is admirable and necessary in the customs and conventions of America’s upper class.” Yesterday’s memorial service reminded me of Henrie’s review and what is “admirable and necessary” at such events. It is inescapable that many Americans no longer know what is proper or improper. The president’s words provided healing moderation and a dignified response to the heated debate of the last week. Unfortunately, the spectacle around him spoke to the divide in our nation, except this time regarding proper decorum. The memorial in Tucson also managed the impossible, it exposed a divide even in how our nation remembers the dead.

Read the rest here:
A Dignified President in a Tawdry Hall

No responses yet

Is It Time To Use The “T” Word To Describe The Obama Administration?

Dec 30 2010 Published by Caldwell35WINNIE under 2010 Elections, Congress

Is it time to start openly describing this administration as tyrannical? I’ve been calling Obama and his left-wing allies in Congress Democrat Socialists for two years, now, (because that is what so many of them are) , but this is something altogether different. It’s a stronger, harsher word that conjures up images of leftist dictators like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. But – what else do you call it when the administration flouts the will of Congress, the courts, and the American people to impose its far-left agenda through arbitrary regulation? What other name is there for it? As Robert Allen Bonelli notes in his Big Government piece, “Using Regulation Against The Will Of The People” : Written into the Declaration of Independence is a simple imperative, “ Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Our nation was built on this concept, but the Obama administration is using its power to write regulation to circumvent the will of the people and advance its own agenda. Three recent examples of this over reach are shocking and all Americans should demand an end to the practice and a reversal of what has already been done. Citizens need to think, whether they agree with the reasons for the circumvention or not, about what is at stake. Using regulation to specifically subjugate the will of the people to the agenda of any president is nothing less than tyranny. The three examples he cites are the return of the mandate for end-of-life planning, aka “death panels” , the FCC “Net Neutrality” power grab , and the EPA’s move to regulate carbon dioxide. Ed Morrissey addresses the end-of-life mandate at Hot Air : “Surprise! End-of-life advisory incentives return — through regulation “: The process used by Obama and Kathleen Sebelius to get this into ObamaCare is more disturbing, and in a very specific way. Congress made it clear that it didn’t want this incentive as part of the new law. However, thanks to the miles and miles of ambiguity in the final version of ObamaCare, with its repetitive the Secretary shall determine language, Congress has more or less passed a blank check for regulatory growth to Obama and Sebelius. This is just the opening gambit of a strategy Obama will use throughout the coming year in order to achieve through regulation what a Democrat-run Congress could not deliver through legislation. The new Republican House will have to use its power of the purse to stop this autocratic imposition of regulation, and remain vigilant in doing so on all fronts. Let’s hope the GOP gets used to fighting this process over the next two years. Peter Ferrera aptly covers the Net Neutrality issue in The American Spectator : “ Net Neutrality Is Theft” : The FCC starts out by proclaiming that its net neutrality rules are just meant to ensure equal access by all to the Web. But as George Orwell showed us, that is how socialism started out too, until we later discovered that some were more equal than others. Once the founding principle is laid for government regulation and control, then that power can be used to regulate and control access to the Internet “in the public interest.” In English translation, that means in the special interest of the Ruling Class. There are precedents in China and Iran for how that has worked out in practice. Dissenting FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell explained further in the Wall Street Journal on December 20 why the FCC’s net neutrality regulation makes no sense: Nothing is broken and needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure. But what I have learned in life is that when something doesn’t make sense, that means there is something else behind it that people are trying to hide. And that is exactly what we have here. For what is behind the FCC’s net neutrality crusade is reflected by an organization calling itself Free Press. That is an Orwellian title in this case, because what Free Press is for is the opposite of a free press. Free Press is one of those pseudo-Marxist front groups that Barack Obama has always traveled with so easily throughout his life. It is a grown-up, slick, sophisticated version of those campus radicals who shout down college speakers with whom they don’t agree. Always look behind the curtain, instead of listening to what leftists say. That’s how you discover the true motives behind their policies.