Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Is it time?
Marco Rubio was on "Hannity" last night. He made an appearance to give his endorsement of Romney. With him throwing his support toward the former Massachusetts Govenor it makes we stop an ask "Is it time?" Rubio is the latest GOP heavyweight to sign on to the Romney campaign. I know what you saying to yourself. Are Jeb and George part 1, real "conservative" Republicans? We could discus that but, it may be better in another blog entry. However, Rubio is one of the new breed, the Tea Partier, one of the names thrown into the ring in the early days of Presidential candiate speculation. His voice makes many GOPers stop, turn and listen. He has made it clear that he supports Romney and feels he has "earned" it. I admit, I am one of those guys who really wants libertarian/conservate leadership, a Ron Paul like vision. So, is Romney going to fill that void for me, probably not. But, is Rubio saying "it's time". Do we all know need to realize that "it's time"? Time to get behind a candiate. Time to find somebody who can get Obama out of office. I would love to hear your opinion, "Is it time?"
Rubio endorses Romney, saying he's 'earned' it
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., endorsed Mitt Romney for president Wednesday night on Fox News' "Hannity," saying Romney offers "a very clear alternative" to President Obama's vision for the future of the country.
Rubio, a young, first-termer who has been discussed as a possible vice presidential candidate, criticized talk of a fight for the Republican nomination on the convention floor, a possibility that is keeping alive the campaigns of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.
"I think that's a recipe for delivering four more years of Barack Obama," Rubio told Fox News' Sean Hannity.
Romney has "earned this nomination," Rubio said, though he again shot down questions about whether he would accept any offers of a spot on the ticket.
"I don't believe I'm going to be asked to be the vice presidential nominee," he said, adding it's not something he wants.
The endorsement comes after another big-name in Florida politics, former Gov. Jeb Bush, threw his support behind Romney, and former President George H.W. Bush is expected to officially endorse Romney on Thursday.
Romney has a comfortable lead in the delegate count, though Santorum has been able to pick up wins in several recent state contests, including Louisiana on Saturday.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/rubio-endorses-romney-saying-hes-earned-it/#ixzz1qVP6OlaZ
Rubio, a young, first-termer who has been discussed as a possible vice presidential candidate, criticized talk of a fight for the Republican nomination on the convention floor, a possibility that is keeping alive the campaigns of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.
"I think that's a recipe for delivering four more years of Barack Obama," Rubio told Fox News' Sean Hannity.
Romney has "earned this nomination," Rubio said, though he again shot down questions about whether he would accept any offers of a spot on the ticket.
"I don't believe I'm going to be asked to be the vice presidential nominee," he said, adding it's not something he wants.
The endorsement comes after another big-name in Florida politics, former Gov. Jeb Bush, threw his support behind Romney, and former President George H.W. Bush is expected to officially endorse Romney on Thursday.
Romney has a comfortable lead in the delegate count, though Santorum has been able to pick up wins in several recent state contests, including Louisiana on Saturday.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/rubio-endorses-romney-saying-hes-earned-it/#ixzz1qVP6OlaZ
Obama Opens White House to 'Super Pac' Donors
(AP) Obama 'super' PAC donors among White House guests
By JACK GILLUM
Associated Press
WASHINGTON
President Barack Obama is using privileged access to one of America's greatest landmarks to reward his most generous financial supporters in ways that Republicans Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum can't match: More than 60 of Obama's biggest campaign donors have visited the White House more than once for meetings with top advisers, holiday parties or state dinners, a review by The Associated Press has found.
The invitations to visit 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, which are a legal and established practice from incumbent presidents, came despite Obama's past criticisms of Washington's pay-for-access privileges and mark a reversal from early in the president's term when donors complained that Obama was keeping them at arm's length.
Once, when Obama was a candidate running against Hillary Rodham Clinton, his presidential campaign sharply noted that Clinton and her husband, President Bill Clinton, had invited David Geffen _ whom Obama's campaign said had raised $18 million for the Clintons _ to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. The AP found no evidence of Obama's own donors sleeping overnight in the White House, but timestamps showing arrivals and departures on the government's logs are incomplete for more than 1.7 million records.
The AP's review compared more than 470 of Obama's most important financial supporters against logs of 2 million visitors to the White House since mid-2009. It found that at least 250 of Obama's major fundraisers and donors visited the White House at least once, being cleared for events like dinners or one-on-one meetings with senior advisers.
Earlier this month, the White House extended invitations to more than 30 of the president's top fundraisers to an elaborate state dinner, where they mingled with celebrities and dined with foreign leaders on the South Lawn of the White House.
Other purposes for visits included one-on-one meetings with top West Wing staffers, such as former chief of staff Pete Rouse and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. Those donors include so-called "bundlers" _ supporters who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece for Obama's re-election.
Obama's campaign has said it would begin encouraging supporters to donate to the "super" political action committee supporting Obama, Priorities USA Action, to counterbalance the cash flowing to GOP groups. The decision drew rebukes from campaign-finance watchdogs and Republicans who said Obama flip-flopped on his prior stance assailing super PAC money. The group supporting Obama has raised $6.3 million so far.
Visitor-log details of some of Obama's donors have surfaced in news reports since he took office. But the financial weight of super PACs and their influence on this year's election have prompted renewed scrutiny of the big-money financiers behind presidential candidates _ and what those supporters might want in return.
Many of the White House visits by donors came before the president embraced the big-money, fundraising groups he once assailed as a "threat to democracy" on the grounds they corrode elections by permitting unlimited and effectively anonymous donations from billionaires and corporations. Obama was once so vocal about super PACs that, during his 2010 State of the Union speech, he accused the Supreme Court in its 2010 Citizens United decision of reversing a century of law that would "open the floodgates for special interests." But the success of Republicans raising money changed the stakes.
Top donors to the super PAC supporting Obama, like Chicago investment manager John W. Rogers Jr. and Hollywood director Steven Spielberg, gave more than $150,000 combined to Priorities USA Action, according to finance reports, while also making repeated trips to the White House.
Rogers is a longtime Obama friend who contributed $50,000 in January _ nearly all the money the super PAC collected the entire month. Rogers was selected by the administration in October 2010 to head a financial advisory council, and visited the White House more than two dozen times since Obama took office, including one-on-one meetings with former chief of staff Bill Daley and Jarrett, Obama's senior adviser. Two weeks before Rogers' contribution in January, Obama's campaign paid his firm, Ariel Investments, $600 for "event site rental," according to finance reports. An Obama campaign spokeswoman said the event was for a campaign retreat; a spokeswoman for Rogers did not follow up to repeated phone calls and emails from the AP seeking comment.
Other donors who visited the White House, either before they gave money to support Obama or afterward, include:
_Lenny Mendonca, a director of consulting firm McKinsey & Co., gave $50,000 to Priorities USA Action in November 2011, according to records submitted to the Federal Election Commission. Visitor logs showed Mendonca met in June 2011 with Carl Shapiro, one of Obama's top economic advisors, and three months earlier with Melody Barnes, the president's chief domestic policy advisor.
_Orin Kramer, a key Obama fundraiser who gave $15,000 to Priorities USA in October, attended White House events with Obama at least five times, according to visitor logs, plus his invitation to a state dinner March 14 honoring British Prime Minister David Cameron. His other visits included a smaller gathering in March 2011 that was described as a presidential meeting but records offered few details.
_Spielberg, another Obama supporter, donated $100,000 last July to Priorities USA _ one of the group's largest individual contributions. One month later, Spielberg attended a Rose Garden event with the president. He also has visited the White House at least three other times, including in March 2010 to screen a movie for the president and first lady Michelle Obama.
Through a spokeswoman, Mendonca declined to comment. Kramer told the AP the information obtained from the Obama administration was "completely inaccurate," but did not deny he has visited the White House. "I help candidates because I think election outcomes matter," Kramer said in an email.
The AP's review excluded visits like White House tours available to the general public.
A White House spokesman did not fully respond to repeated requests from the AP for details of visits by Obama's campaign donors, saying it was impractical to do so.
Obama so far has raised more than $120 million for his reelection effort _ not counting millions more from the Democratic Party _ an outsized figure compared with potential GOP rivals like Mitt Romney, who collected $74 million in checks through the end of February. That calculus may change as wealthy billionaires who have supported their favorite candidates this primary season may rally around the eventual Republican nominee.
By JACK GILLUM
Associated Press
WASHINGTON
President Barack Obama is using privileged access to one of America's greatest landmarks to reward his most generous financial supporters in ways that Republicans Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum can't match: More than 60 of Obama's biggest campaign donors have visited the White House more than once for meetings with top advisers, holiday parties or state dinners, a review by The Associated Press has found.
The invitations to visit 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, which are a legal and established practice from incumbent presidents, came despite Obama's past criticisms of Washington's pay-for-access privileges and mark a reversal from early in the president's term when donors complained that Obama was keeping them at arm's length.
Once, when Obama was a candidate running against Hillary Rodham Clinton, his presidential campaign sharply noted that Clinton and her husband, President Bill Clinton, had invited David Geffen _ whom Obama's campaign said had raised $18 million for the Clintons _ to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom. The AP found no evidence of Obama's own donors sleeping overnight in the White House, but timestamps showing arrivals and departures on the government's logs are incomplete for more than 1.7 million records.
The AP's review compared more than 470 of Obama's most important financial supporters against logs of 2 million visitors to the White House since mid-2009. It found that at least 250 of Obama's major fundraisers and donors visited the White House at least once, being cleared for events like dinners or one-on-one meetings with senior advisers.
Earlier this month, the White House extended invitations to more than 30 of the president's top fundraisers to an elaborate state dinner, where they mingled with celebrities and dined with foreign leaders on the South Lawn of the White House.
Other purposes for visits included one-on-one meetings with top West Wing staffers, such as former chief of staff Pete Rouse and senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. Those donors include so-called "bundlers" _ supporters who have raised hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece for Obama's re-election.
Obama's campaign has said it would begin encouraging supporters to donate to the "super" political action committee supporting Obama, Priorities USA Action, to counterbalance the cash flowing to GOP groups. The decision drew rebukes from campaign-finance watchdogs and Republicans who said Obama flip-flopped on his prior stance assailing super PAC money. The group supporting Obama has raised $6.3 million so far.
Visitor-log details of some of Obama's donors have surfaced in news reports since he took office. But the financial weight of super PACs and their influence on this year's election have prompted renewed scrutiny of the big-money financiers behind presidential candidates _ and what those supporters might want in return.
Many of the White House visits by donors came before the president embraced the big-money, fundraising groups he once assailed as a "threat to democracy" on the grounds they corrode elections by permitting unlimited and effectively anonymous donations from billionaires and corporations. Obama was once so vocal about super PACs that, during his 2010 State of the Union speech, he accused the Supreme Court in its 2010 Citizens United decision of reversing a century of law that would "open the floodgates for special interests." But the success of Republicans raising money changed the stakes.
Top donors to the super PAC supporting Obama, like Chicago investment manager John W. Rogers Jr. and Hollywood director Steven Spielberg, gave more than $150,000 combined to Priorities USA Action, according to finance reports, while also making repeated trips to the White House.
Rogers is a longtime Obama friend who contributed $50,000 in January _ nearly all the money the super PAC collected the entire month. Rogers was selected by the administration in October 2010 to head a financial advisory council, and visited the White House more than two dozen times since Obama took office, including one-on-one meetings with former chief of staff Bill Daley and Jarrett, Obama's senior adviser. Two weeks before Rogers' contribution in January, Obama's campaign paid his firm, Ariel Investments, $600 for "event site rental," according to finance reports. An Obama campaign spokeswoman said the event was for a campaign retreat; a spokeswoman for Rogers did not follow up to repeated phone calls and emails from the AP seeking comment.
Other donors who visited the White House, either before they gave money to support Obama or afterward, include:
_Lenny Mendonca, a director of consulting firm McKinsey & Co., gave $50,000 to Priorities USA Action in November 2011, according to records submitted to the Federal Election Commission. Visitor logs showed Mendonca met in June 2011 with Carl Shapiro, one of Obama's top economic advisors, and three months earlier with Melody Barnes, the president's chief domestic policy advisor.
_Orin Kramer, a key Obama fundraiser who gave $15,000 to Priorities USA in October, attended White House events with Obama at least five times, according to visitor logs, plus his invitation to a state dinner March 14 honoring British Prime Minister David Cameron. His other visits included a smaller gathering in March 2011 that was described as a presidential meeting but records offered few details.
_Spielberg, another Obama supporter, donated $100,000 last July to Priorities USA _ one of the group's largest individual contributions. One month later, Spielberg attended a Rose Garden event with the president. He also has visited the White House at least three other times, including in March 2010 to screen a movie for the president and first lady Michelle Obama.
Through a spokeswoman, Mendonca declined to comment. Kramer told the AP the information obtained from the Obama administration was "completely inaccurate," but did not deny he has visited the White House. "I help candidates because I think election outcomes matter," Kramer said in an email.
The AP's review excluded visits like White House tours available to the general public.
A White House spokesman did not fully respond to repeated requests from the AP for details of visits by Obama's campaign donors, saying it was impractical to do so.
Obama so far has raised more than $120 million for his reelection effort _ not counting millions more from the Democratic Party _ an outsized figure compared with potential GOP rivals like Mitt Romney, who collected $74 million in checks through the end of February. That calculus may change as wealthy billionaires who have supported their favorite candidates this primary season may rally around the eventual Republican nominee.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Gas Prices....the other Fast and Furious!
I was recently asked by a friend what she could do about gas prices. This is my reply.
As you may be aware gas pricing is determined by speculators. They read the market trends and set prices accordingly. While the President does not set the price he can control or ask for changes that can influence what those speculators see.
Several of those factors are:
1. Domestic drilling – the most lucrative areas for drilling in the U.S. have been made off limits by the government. Those area include ANWAR located in the northern part of Alaska. The Bakken Reserve in North Dakota and the out shelves of our coastline. The environmentalists have been very vocal (an obviously getting their way) on these public land areas.
2. Canadian Oil – We currently get more oil from Canada than any other country. The problem (if you care to call it that) is that the Canadians want to sell us more. Until recently the President has been blocking the creation of new pipelines. Oddly, he has them starting in the south and going north rather than the opposite. Naturally, Warren Buffet (the free markets biggest enemy) owns most of the rail lines that bring oil into the U.S. Do you think the two are linked?
3. The U.S. Dollar – Everybody knows that the dollar value has been decreasing. We all see that in the price of groceries. It’s called inflation. With the weakened dollar value comes greater crude pricing. Globally, the U.S. dollar is the currency by which oil is traded.
So, what can you do? Call your congressman and Senators. Do it daily! Tell them we need spending down and we need to open public lands for drilling. Until Congress pushes this administration and serious changes are made, get used to $5.00 gallon gas.
As you may be aware gas pricing is determined by speculators. They read the market trends and set prices accordingly. While the President does not set the price he can control or ask for changes that can influence what those speculators see.
Several of those factors are:
1. Domestic drilling – the most lucrative areas for drilling in the U.S. have been made off limits by the government. Those area include ANWAR located in the northern part of Alaska. The Bakken Reserve in North Dakota and the out shelves of our coastline. The environmentalists have been very vocal (an obviously getting their way) on these public land areas.
2. Canadian Oil – We currently get more oil from Canada than any other country. The problem (if you care to call it that) is that the Canadians want to sell us more. Until recently the President has been blocking the creation of new pipelines. Oddly, he has them starting in the south and going north rather than the opposite. Naturally, Warren Buffet (the free markets biggest enemy) owns most of the rail lines that bring oil into the U.S. Do you think the two are linked?
3. The U.S. Dollar – Everybody knows that the dollar value has been decreasing. We all see that in the price of groceries. It’s called inflation. With the weakened dollar value comes greater crude pricing. Globally, the U.S. dollar is the currency by which oil is traded.
So, what can you do? Call your congressman and Senators. Do it daily! Tell them we need spending down and we need to open public lands for drilling. Until Congress pushes this administration and serious changes are made, get used to $5.00 gallon gas.
Executive Branch - POLITICS During missile defense talk, Obama tells Medvedev he'll have 'more flexibility' after election Read more: http://www.foxn
President Obama assured Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Monday that he'd have "more flexibility" after the November election, during a conversation that appeared to focus on the touchy issue of missile defense.
Obama, during a sit-down with Medvedev in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him "space" until after November. The conversation was relayed by a TV pool producer who listened to the recording from a Russian journalist.
"This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility," Obama told Medvedev.
Obama appeared to be asking Medvedev to relay this point to Vladimir Putin, who recently won election to return to the Russian presidency.
"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense ... this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space," Obama said.
Medvedev told the president he understood the "message about space. Space for you ..."
After Obama noted he'd have more flexibility in the future, Medvedev told him: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."
U.S.-backed plans for a missile defense shield in Europe have been a sensitive subject in Russia, and one that Putin exploited during his presidential campaign.
The White House, though, downplayed the conversation between Obama and Medvedev.
Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, said the U.S. is "committed" to implementing the missile defense system, "which we've repeatedly said is not aimed at Russia."
"However, given the longstanding difference between the U.S. and Russia on this issue, it will take time and technical work before we can try to reach an agreement," he said in a statement.
"Since 2012 is an election year in both countries, with an election and leadership transition in Russia and an election in the United States, it is clearly not a year in which we are going to achieve a breakthrough. Therefore, President Obama and President Medvedev agreed that it was best to instruct our technical experts to do the work of better understanding our respective positions, providing space for continued discussions on missile defense cooperation going forward."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/26/obama-tells-medvedev-hell-have-more-flexibility-after-election-during-missile/#ixzz1qE0FudOB
Obama, during a sit-down with Medvedev in Seoul, urged Moscow to give him "space" until after November. The conversation was relayed by a TV pool producer who listened to the recording from a Russian journalist.
"This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility," Obama told Medvedev.
Obama appeared to be asking Medvedev to relay this point to Vladimir Putin, who recently won election to return to the Russian presidency.
"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense ... this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space," Obama said.
Medvedev told the president he understood the "message about space. Space for you ..."
After Obama noted he'd have more flexibility in the future, Medvedev told him: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir."
U.S.-backed plans for a missile defense shield in Europe have been a sensitive subject in Russia, and one that Putin exploited during his presidential campaign.
The White House, though, downplayed the conversation between Obama and Medvedev.
Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, said the U.S. is "committed" to implementing the missile defense system, "which we've repeatedly said is not aimed at Russia."
"However, given the longstanding difference between the U.S. and Russia on this issue, it will take time and technical work before we can try to reach an agreement," he said in a statement.
"Since 2012 is an election year in both countries, with an election and leadership transition in Russia and an election in the United States, it is clearly not a year in which we are going to achieve a breakthrough. Therefore, President Obama and President Medvedev agreed that it was best to instruct our technical experts to do the work of better understanding our respective positions, providing space for continued discussions on missile defense cooperation going forward."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/26/obama-tells-medvedev-hell-have-more-flexibility-after-election-during-missile/#ixzz1qE0FudOB
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Elena Kagan Breaks Federal Law By Hearing ObamaCare Case, Republicans Silent
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan will be in clear violation of federal law by virtue of her decision to hear the Affordable Care Act case coming before the Supreme Court today.
Upon joining the other justices to hear oral arguments she will fracture the federal statute which demands that judges recuse themselves from participation in a case “where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as council, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”
And according to emails obtained by the Media Research Center as the result of a 2010 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the DOJ, not only did she advise DOJ attorneys and express opinions concerning the merits of ObamaCare, she lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearings by answering “No” when asked specifically if she had any involvement in preparing the government’s defense for ObamaCare.
ObamaCare was signed into law By Barack Hussein Obama on March 23rd, 2010 while Kagan was United States Solicitor General, a month and a half before she was nominated to the Court. As Solicitor General it was Kagan’s sole responsibility to represent the Department of Justice and federal government in actions coming before the Supreme Court.
And although Eric Holder testified before a senate committee that Kagan was “physically removed from the room” whenever the subject of ObamaCare was to be broached–no doubt an untrue statement anyway—such a claim was not to the point.
For typical of the calculating minds of those who live by deceit and deception, it apparently never occurred to members of the Regime who saw Kagan as a sure fire Supreme Court vote for ObamaCare that the right thing was to have her do her job as Solicitor General and then properly and legally recuse herself when on the Court!
Of course this begs the question whether Kagan would have been nominated to the Court had her guaranteed decision in favor of ObamaCare not been the key point in her favor!
But Barack and his minions were going to have it BOTH ways. They would benefit from Kagan’s work in preparing the DOJ for upcoming ObamaCare fights in federal court and benefit yet again from her ruling the Act “Constitutional” when it finally came down to the decision of the 9 Justices in DC!
And why not! Obama clearly had nothing to fear from media reprisals. And the Republican Party had thus far permitted a Manchurian Candidate to smuggle guns to Mexico, make illegal recess appointments, ignore congressional subpoenas and brazenly trade tax dollars for campaign cash. Why would their craven behavior change now!
And it looks as though Barack will indeed get away with having his cake and eating it too! For with the scant few exceptions of Senator Jeff Sessions and Congressman Lamar Smith, there has been no outcry by members of the Republican Party, ensuring smooth sailing for the decision everyone knows Kagan will “phone in.”
No consequences for Elena Kagan. No spine in the Republican Party. And the liberty which still remains to the American people will depend upon all five non-Marxists on the Court doing the right thing.
Supreme Court Justice Thomas Clark made this observation in his majority opinion in the 1961 case Mapp v Ohio:
“Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own law, or worse, its disregard for the charter of its own existence.”
There can be no better example of the truth inherent in Clark’s warning than that exemplified by the Obama Regime.
Upon joining the other justices to hear oral arguments she will fracture the federal statute which demands that judges recuse themselves from participation in a case “where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as council, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”
And according to emails obtained by the Media Research Center as the result of a 2010 Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the DOJ, not only did she advise DOJ attorneys and express opinions concerning the merits of ObamaCare, she lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee during her confirmation hearings by answering “No” when asked specifically if she had any involvement in preparing the government’s defense for ObamaCare.
ObamaCare was signed into law By Barack Hussein Obama on March 23rd, 2010 while Kagan was United States Solicitor General, a month and a half before she was nominated to the Court. As Solicitor General it was Kagan’s sole responsibility to represent the Department of Justice and federal government in actions coming before the Supreme Court.
And although Eric Holder testified before a senate committee that Kagan was “physically removed from the room” whenever the subject of ObamaCare was to be broached–no doubt an untrue statement anyway—such a claim was not to the point.
For typical of the calculating minds of those who live by deceit and deception, it apparently never occurred to members of the Regime who saw Kagan as a sure fire Supreme Court vote for ObamaCare that the right thing was to have her do her job as Solicitor General and then properly and legally recuse herself when on the Court!
Of course this begs the question whether Kagan would have been nominated to the Court had her guaranteed decision in favor of ObamaCare not been the key point in her favor!
But Barack and his minions were going to have it BOTH ways. They would benefit from Kagan’s work in preparing the DOJ for upcoming ObamaCare fights in federal court and benefit yet again from her ruling the Act “Constitutional” when it finally came down to the decision of the 9 Justices in DC!
And why not! Obama clearly had nothing to fear from media reprisals. And the Republican Party had thus far permitted a Manchurian Candidate to smuggle guns to Mexico, make illegal recess appointments, ignore congressional subpoenas and brazenly trade tax dollars for campaign cash. Why would their craven behavior change now!
And it looks as though Barack will indeed get away with having his cake and eating it too! For with the scant few exceptions of Senator Jeff Sessions and Congressman Lamar Smith, there has been no outcry by members of the Republican Party, ensuring smooth sailing for the decision everyone knows Kagan will “phone in.”
No consequences for Elena Kagan. No spine in the Republican Party. And the liberty which still remains to the American people will depend upon all five non-Marxists on the Court doing the right thing.
Supreme Court Justice Thomas Clark made this observation in his majority opinion in the 1961 case Mapp v Ohio:
“Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own law, or worse, its disregard for the charter of its own existence.”
There can be no better example of the truth inherent in Clark’s warning than that exemplified by the Obama Regime.
Oscar-Winning Producer Presents '2016': Investigative Obama Documentary
by Brandon Darby
Director Steven Spielberg, who donated more than $87,000 to the Democratic Party in the last election cycle, has a co-producer who feels a little differently than he does about President Barack Obama.
Meet Gerald R. Molen: Spielberg’s co-producer on Hollywood blockbusters such as "Schindler’s List," "Jurassic Park" and "Minority Report." Molen is the driving force behind “2016,” a documentary -- based on "The Roots of Obama's Rage," a book written by Dinesh D'Souza -- about President Obama scheduled to hit theaters this summer.
Molen promises, that like D'Souza's book, the film will take viewers deep into the heart and mind of our president, a leader he contends is unique in the course of our nation’s history because of his far-left radical views.
The film’s trailer debuted at CPAC 2012 earlier this year and was followed by a moving speech by D’Souza himself. The film's, as explained by D’Souza, is simple: Obama is not a traditional Democrat like Bill Clinton and Michael Dukakis. Nor is Obama akin to left-wing liberals such as John Kerry or Jimmy Carter.
Traditional liberals, D’Souza explained, only want to redistribute wealth within America. Obama, he says, wants to redistribute America’s power among smaller nations throughout the world.
Why? D’Souza explained that Obama is literally trying to fulfill the title of his book, “Dreams from My Father.” Obama’s father, who was Kenyan, viewed the world from an anti-Colonial perspective. Molen says Obama now wants to use his power as the American president to rid the world of colonialism … starting with downsizing the very power of the U.S.A.
D’Souza explained the premise further:
What is this anti-colonialism? It is, in fact, the most powerful ideology in Asia, in Africa, in South America, in the past 100 years. If you want to know why there’s anti-Americanism around the world, it’s not just because of Islamic radicalism - that would help to explain it in the Middle East. It’s anti-colonialism.
The anti-colonial ideology very simply says that the world is divided into the oppressors and the oppressed. There is the West, now led by America. Then there are the poor people led by Asia, Africa, and South America. The anti-colonial ideology is that the rich countries got rich by invading, occupying, and looting the poor countries. The ideology says that to fight against all of this, you have to put a leash on the rogue elephant that is America. It also says that there are concentrations of economic power: The banks, the insurance companies, the oil companies - this is the economic wing of colonialism. And what you have to do to fight this is to use the power of the state to control it.
Molen named his film “2016” because he’s attempting to demonstrate what America and the world could look like if Obama is re-elected. And that, Molen and D'Souza believe, would be a dangerous thing for those who want to preserve the American dream.
D’Souza told the crowd that Obama's second term would mean the president "won't be tethered to public opinion, he won’t have to run for re-election again, he will be truly, in a sense, a free man in the White House to do what he wants.”
Molen’s “2016” is scheduled to be released nationwide this summer.
Director Steven Spielberg, who donated more than $87,000 to the Democratic Party in the last election cycle, has a co-producer who feels a little differently than he does about President Barack Obama.
Meet Gerald R. Molen: Spielberg’s co-producer on Hollywood blockbusters such as "Schindler’s List," "Jurassic Park" and "Minority Report." Molen is the driving force behind “2016,” a documentary -- based on "The Roots of Obama's Rage," a book written by Dinesh D'Souza -- about President Obama scheduled to hit theaters this summer.
Molen promises, that like D'Souza's book, the film will take viewers deep into the heart and mind of our president, a leader he contends is unique in the course of our nation’s history because of his far-left radical views.
The film’s trailer debuted at CPAC 2012 earlier this year and was followed by a moving speech by D’Souza himself. The film's, as explained by D’Souza, is simple: Obama is not a traditional Democrat like Bill Clinton and Michael Dukakis. Nor is Obama akin to left-wing liberals such as John Kerry or Jimmy Carter.
Traditional liberals, D’Souza explained, only want to redistribute wealth within America. Obama, he says, wants to redistribute America’s power among smaller nations throughout the world.
Why? D’Souza explained that Obama is literally trying to fulfill the title of his book, “Dreams from My Father.” Obama’s father, who was Kenyan, viewed the world from an anti-Colonial perspective. Molen says Obama now wants to use his power as the American president to rid the world of colonialism … starting with downsizing the very power of the U.S.A.
D’Souza explained the premise further:
What is this anti-colonialism? It is, in fact, the most powerful ideology in Asia, in Africa, in South America, in the past 100 years. If you want to know why there’s anti-Americanism around the world, it’s not just because of Islamic radicalism - that would help to explain it in the Middle East. It’s anti-colonialism.
The anti-colonial ideology very simply says that the world is divided into the oppressors and the oppressed. There is the West, now led by America. Then there are the poor people led by Asia, Africa, and South America. The anti-colonial ideology is that the rich countries got rich by invading, occupying, and looting the poor countries. The ideology says that to fight against all of this, you have to put a leash on the rogue elephant that is America. It also says that there are concentrations of economic power: The banks, the insurance companies, the oil companies - this is the economic wing of colonialism. And what you have to do to fight this is to use the power of the state to control it.
Molen named his film “2016” because he’s attempting to demonstrate what America and the world could look like if Obama is re-elected. And that, Molen and D'Souza believe, would be a dangerous thing for those who want to preserve the American dream.
D’Souza told the crowd that Obama's second term would mean the president "won't be tethered to public opinion, he won’t have to run for re-election again, he will be truly, in a sense, a free man in the White House to do what he wants.”
Molen’s “2016” is scheduled to be released nationwide this summer.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Three Reasons The Supreme Court Should Overturn ObamaCare's Individual Mandate
Today the High Court will hear arguments over Florida vs. Sebelius. That’s right. We’ve finally reached the ninth inning of the legal battle between 26 states and the Administration, over the constitutionality of the health reform legislation.
I covered the first hearings on this case back when it was filed in Federal District Court. When Judge Roger Vinson later ruled to overturn the health law it sent out quite a shock wave, surprising the White House and its supporters. Few imagined the legislation would be so vulnerable to legal challenges.
In retrospect, the fact that the legislation wasn’t perfectly formulated shouldn’t have been such a surprise. It was 2,300 pages long, filled with dozens of political favors, policy ideas, and power plays.
The hole in the bill was in a very specific location. By using a penalty structure to enforce the requirement that everyone must buy health insurance, President Obama may have been able to more easily sell it. And the Congressional Budget Office was able to score it more favorably. But the penalties also appeared to overstep the President’s Constitutional power.
But I’m not a lawyer (proud to say!) so I’m reluctant to make legal arguments against the bill.
Instead here are three more practical reasons why the Supreme Court should join lower courts in overturning the law. For those readers who (like me) can be flexible in their thinking also check out: Three Reasons The Supreme Court Should Uphold The Individual Mandate and Three Reasons The Supreme Court’s Decision Doesn’t Matter.
ObamaCare Is Intrusive
You probably know that the bill forces you to buy insurance or pay a $700 penalty. The penalty is $2,000 for a company that doesn’t offer a plan to its workers. The bill also says exactly what kind of insurance you must buy. You have to buy expensive first-dollar coverage for virtually everything–even if you’re young and healthy. Let’s say you don’t want to insure yourself against the possibility of needing drug rehab. Too bad. It will also intrude into your benefits at work. The bill encourages your employer, in some cases, to withdraw insurance in favor of pushing you into a government run exchange where you will likely have to fend for yourself.
ObamaCare Is Unaffordable While Not Achieving Its Own Objectives
Folks, last year we had a $1.3 billion budget deficit. This year the federal government will spend 31% more than it takes in. That was without ObamaCare. Given the likely to never-be-enacted Medicare cuts and other financial contortions that were used to score health reform’s future deficit effects–coupled with the country’s inability to otherwise raise revenue–we’re digging ourselves into a major hole. Meanwhile, the bill will still leave 25 million uninsured, fails to control aggregate health spending in any meaningful way, and raises private health premiums substantially.
ObamaCare Will Politicize The Doctor-Patient Relationship
Since the health care exchanges will be run at the state level, specific decisions about what health insurance covers and doesn’t cover will be made in reaction to lobbyists representing various medical industries, patient groups, political causes, and so forth. The lamentable birth control debate was only the first round. Get ready for California to ban circumcisions but cover New Age healing, for the Deep South to impose the abortion debate on top of its health exchanges, and for more liberal, spendy states to mandate that insurance cover anything and everything. And if that’s not enough mixing of politics and health care, there’s always the IPAB. The independent payment advisory board will get to decide when to block coverage for certain medical procedures deemed either unproven or too expensive. Then, Congress will rush to the rescue, aided by lobbyists. Left behind in all this are patients and doctors, who will rapidly lose control of their health care decision-making ability to a group of strangers.
David Whelan, Contributor
Health care cost and quality, entrepreneurship, and business stories.
I covered the first hearings on this case back when it was filed in Federal District Court. When Judge Roger Vinson later ruled to overturn the health law it sent out quite a shock wave, surprising the White House and its supporters. Few imagined the legislation would be so vulnerable to legal challenges.
In retrospect, the fact that the legislation wasn’t perfectly formulated shouldn’t have been such a surprise. It was 2,300 pages long, filled with dozens of political favors, policy ideas, and power plays.
The hole in the bill was in a very specific location. By using a penalty structure to enforce the requirement that everyone must buy health insurance, President Obama may have been able to more easily sell it. And the Congressional Budget Office was able to score it more favorably. But the penalties also appeared to overstep the President’s Constitutional power.
But I’m not a lawyer (proud to say!) so I’m reluctant to make legal arguments against the bill.
Instead here are three more practical reasons why the Supreme Court should join lower courts in overturning the law. For those readers who (like me) can be flexible in their thinking also check out: Three Reasons The Supreme Court Should Uphold The Individual Mandate and Three Reasons The Supreme Court’s Decision Doesn’t Matter.
ObamaCare Is Intrusive
You probably know that the bill forces you to buy insurance or pay a $700 penalty. The penalty is $2,000 for a company that doesn’t offer a plan to its workers. The bill also says exactly what kind of insurance you must buy. You have to buy expensive first-dollar coverage for virtually everything–even if you’re young and healthy. Let’s say you don’t want to insure yourself against the possibility of needing drug rehab. Too bad. It will also intrude into your benefits at work. The bill encourages your employer, in some cases, to withdraw insurance in favor of pushing you into a government run exchange where you will likely have to fend for yourself.
ObamaCare Is Unaffordable While Not Achieving Its Own Objectives
Folks, last year we had a $1.3 billion budget deficit. This year the federal government will spend 31% more than it takes in. That was without ObamaCare. Given the likely to never-be-enacted Medicare cuts and other financial contortions that were used to score health reform’s future deficit effects–coupled with the country’s inability to otherwise raise revenue–we’re digging ourselves into a major hole. Meanwhile, the bill will still leave 25 million uninsured, fails to control aggregate health spending in any meaningful way, and raises private health premiums substantially.
ObamaCare Will Politicize The Doctor-Patient Relationship
Since the health care exchanges will be run at the state level, specific decisions about what health insurance covers and doesn’t cover will be made in reaction to lobbyists representing various medical industries, patient groups, political causes, and so forth. The lamentable birth control debate was only the first round. Get ready for California to ban circumcisions but cover New Age healing, for the Deep South to impose the abortion debate on top of its health exchanges, and for more liberal, spendy states to mandate that insurance cover anything and everything. And if that’s not enough mixing of politics and health care, there’s always the IPAB. The independent payment advisory board will get to decide when to block coverage for certain medical procedures deemed either unproven or too expensive. Then, Congress will rush to the rescue, aided by lobbyists. Left behind in all this are patients and doctors, who will rapidly lose control of their health care decision-making ability to a group of strangers.
David Whelan, Contributor
Health care cost and quality, entrepreneurship, and business stories.
College Mate: Obama Was an 'Ardent' 'Marxist-Leninist'
By Selwyn Duke, The New American
But is it really fair to suggest he may be a Marxist? Or was there evidence for it all along?
Well, consider the words of John Drew, a man whom writer Paul Kengor calls “Obama’s Missing Link.” A contemporary of Obama’s at Occidental College three decades ago, Drew says that he himself was a Marxist at the time — and part of Obama’s inner circle. And what does he reveal?
Obama was an “ardent” “Marxist-Leninist” who “was in 100 percent, total agreement with [his] Marxist professors,” said Drew.
In fact, Drew states that while he was a more nuanced Marxist who tried to convince Obama that old-style communist revolution was unrealistic in the West, the future President would have none of it and considered Drew a “reactionary.”
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/12/12/college-mate-obama-was-ardent-marxist-leninist#ixzz1pyEhTU68
But is it really fair to suggest he may be a Marxist? Or was there evidence for it all along?
Well, consider the words of John Drew, a man whom writer Paul Kengor calls “Obama’s Missing Link.” A contemporary of Obama’s at Occidental College three decades ago, Drew says that he himself was a Marxist at the time — and part of Obama’s inner circle. And what does he reveal?
Obama was an “ardent” “Marxist-Leninist” who “was in 100 percent, total agreement with [his] Marxist professors,” said Drew.
In fact, Drew states that while he was a more nuanced Marxist who tried to convince Obama that old-style communist revolution was unrealistic in the West, the future President would have none of it and considered Drew a “reactionary.”
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/12/12/college-mate-obama-was-ardent-marxist-leninist#ixzz1pyEhTU68
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Lousiana's turn.
Gingrich did not win the last two contests in the south. Santorum took both Alabama and Mississippi. Will he do it again in the "Union, Justice and Confidence" state?
Friday, March 23, 2012
Obama: 'If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon'
By BYRON TAU |
3/23/12 10:23 AM EDT
President Barack Obama weighed in Friday on the shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, calling it a national tragedy — and saying that the young man reminded him of his own children.
"When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids," Obama said in the Rose Garden. "I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this. And that everybody pull together."
Obama has come under fire from some black leaders for failing to comment on a case that has become a major national story — and brought thousands of Americans into the streets for demonstrations calling for the arrest of Martin's shooter. One black leader even wondered why Obama called a Georgetown student who was attacked by Rush Limbaugh but not Martin's family. Obama's comments Friday represent the first time the president has addressed the growing controversy.
"My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Obama said. "All of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves."
"Obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through," Obama said. "All of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this has happened."
(Also on POLITICO: Geraldo Rivera: Trayvon Martin killed due to 'hoodie')
The president was careful not to comment too extensively on an active investigation on both the federal and state levels, noting that as head of the executive branch, the Department of Justice reports to him. Earlier this week, under intense public pressure, the FBI and the DOJ joined the investigation into the Martin case.
Obama's answer also reflects a departure from usual precedent. The president, who was ostensibly announcing the nomination of a new World Bank head, usually does not take questions shouted by reporters at the end of his prepared remarks — but today, he made an exception for the Martin case.
Martin, a middle-class black teen with no history of trouble, was shot and killed in Sanford, Fla., a community just north of Orlando. His alleged assailant, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain and criminal justice student, apparently killed him on Feb. 26 as the 17-year-old walked home from a convenience store near his suburban neighborhood to his father's house a few blocks away.
Before the shooting, Zimmerman, who has a weapons permit, told a police dispatcher there was "a real suspicious guy" who looked "like he was up to no good or on drugs or something" and looked to have "something in his waistband." Against the dispatcher's advice, Zimmerman chased Martin on foot and eventually shot him. Martin was unarmed, carrying only a bag of candy and an iced tea he had just purchased.
The case exploded into a national story after reports that the town's police department had not arrested or charged Zimmerman, who says he was acting in self-defense and pointed to a state law allowing him to respond with deadly force. On Wednesday, Sanford's police chief announced he'll take a voluntary leave of absence, effective immediately, to avoid becoming a distraction in the investigation. And on late Thursday, Florida Gov. Rick Scott appointed a new prosecutor to investigate the killing.
The White House had originally said not to expect Obama to stand at a lectern and speak about the tragedy anytime soon. Though staffers and Democratic operatives interviewed Wednesday said the shooting has been a hot topic inside the West Wing — and that Obama is monitoring the situation closely — they're wary of a repeat of the uproar caused by Obama's 2009 comment at a news conference that a Cambridge, Mass., policeman "acted stupidly" in arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.
That remark, hailed by African Americans but condemned by some whites and many conservatives, unleashed a firestorm of criticism. The furor lasted for weeks and didn't subside until after Obama's awkward White House "beer summit."
The White House had said Obama wasn't likely to talk about the Martin case because — unlike the Gates arrest and the firing of Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod over video of what appeared to be racially insensitive remarks — the shooting is a law-enforcement matter still under investigation by local police as well as the Justice Department. And Obama was careful in his remarks to steer clear of specifics on the case.
On Tuesday, White House press secretary Jay Carney delivered the administration's official position on the case.
"We here in the White House are aware of the incident, and we understand that the local FBI office has been in contact with the local authorities and is monitoring the situation," Carney said. "Our thoughts and prayers go out to Trayvon Martin's family but obviously, we're not going to wade into a local law-enforcement matter."
Attorney General Eric Holder announced late Tuesday that a team of investigators from the FBI and other Justice offices were headed to Sanford to investigate the case and monitor developments. But just before federal investigators departed for Florida, the Congressional Black Caucus called for the shooting to be investigated as a federal hate crime.
Martin's death "compromises the integrity of our legal system and sets a horrific precedent of vigilante justice," Congressional Black Caucus Chair Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said in a statement. "As a nation we cannot, should not, and will not ignore, Trayvon's brutal murder and the inconceivable fact that his killer remains free. ... Trayvon had a family, friends and a future all taken away because of the color of his skin."
Joe Williams contributed to this story.
3/23/12 10:23 AM EDT
President Barack Obama weighed in Friday on the shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, calling it a national tragedy — and saying that the young man reminded him of his own children.
"When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids," Obama said in the Rose Garden. "I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this. And that everybody pull together."
Obama has come under fire from some black leaders for failing to comment on a case that has become a major national story — and brought thousands of Americans into the streets for demonstrations calling for the arrest of Martin's shooter. One black leader even wondered why Obama called a Georgetown student who was attacked by Rush Limbaugh but not Martin's family. Obama's comments Friday represent the first time the president has addressed the growing controversy.
"My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon," Obama said. "All of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves."
"Obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through," Obama said. "All of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this has happened."
(Also on POLITICO: Geraldo Rivera: Trayvon Martin killed due to 'hoodie')
The president was careful not to comment too extensively on an active investigation on both the federal and state levels, noting that as head of the executive branch, the Department of Justice reports to him. Earlier this week, under intense public pressure, the FBI and the DOJ joined the investigation into the Martin case.
Obama's answer also reflects a departure from usual precedent. The president, who was ostensibly announcing the nomination of a new World Bank head, usually does not take questions shouted by reporters at the end of his prepared remarks — but today, he made an exception for the Martin case.
Martin, a middle-class black teen with no history of trouble, was shot and killed in Sanford, Fla., a community just north of Orlando. His alleged assailant, George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain and criminal justice student, apparently killed him on Feb. 26 as the 17-year-old walked home from a convenience store near his suburban neighborhood to his father's house a few blocks away.
Before the shooting, Zimmerman, who has a weapons permit, told a police dispatcher there was "a real suspicious guy" who looked "like he was up to no good or on drugs or something" and looked to have "something in his waistband." Against the dispatcher's advice, Zimmerman chased Martin on foot and eventually shot him. Martin was unarmed, carrying only a bag of candy and an iced tea he had just purchased.
The case exploded into a national story after reports that the town's police department had not arrested or charged Zimmerman, who says he was acting in self-defense and pointed to a state law allowing him to respond with deadly force. On Wednesday, Sanford's police chief announced he'll take a voluntary leave of absence, effective immediately, to avoid becoming a distraction in the investigation. And on late Thursday, Florida Gov. Rick Scott appointed a new prosecutor to investigate the killing.
The White House had originally said not to expect Obama to stand at a lectern and speak about the tragedy anytime soon. Though staffers and Democratic operatives interviewed Wednesday said the shooting has been a hot topic inside the West Wing — and that Obama is monitoring the situation closely — they're wary of a repeat of the uproar caused by Obama's 2009 comment at a news conference that a Cambridge, Mass., policeman "acted stupidly" in arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.
That remark, hailed by African Americans but condemned by some whites and many conservatives, unleashed a firestorm of criticism. The furor lasted for weeks and didn't subside until after Obama's awkward White House "beer summit."
The White House had said Obama wasn't likely to talk about the Martin case because — unlike the Gates arrest and the firing of Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod over video of what appeared to be racially insensitive remarks — the shooting is a law-enforcement matter still under investigation by local police as well as the Justice Department. And Obama was careful in his remarks to steer clear of specifics on the case.
On Tuesday, White House press secretary Jay Carney delivered the administration's official position on the case.
"We here in the White House are aware of the incident, and we understand that the local FBI office has been in contact with the local authorities and is monitoring the situation," Carney said. "Our thoughts and prayers go out to Trayvon Martin's family but obviously, we're not going to wade into a local law-enforcement matter."
Attorney General Eric Holder announced late Tuesday that a team of investigators from the FBI and other Justice offices were headed to Sanford to investigate the case and monitor developments. But just before federal investigators departed for Florida, the Congressional Black Caucus called for the shooting to be investigated as a federal hate crime.
Martin's death "compromises the integrity of our legal system and sets a horrific precedent of vigilante justice," Congressional Black Caucus Chair Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) said in a statement. "As a nation we cannot, should not, and will not ignore, Trayvon's brutal murder and the inconceivable fact that his killer remains free. ... Trayvon had a family, friends and a future all taken away because of the color of his skin."
Joe Williams contributed to this story.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Classic Liberal Hypocrisy–Exposed!
Posted on March 5, 2012 by Jason Lewis
One’s Break is Another’s Tax Burden: Here’s a rogue’s gallery of local outfits that happily take what the system gives.
Barack Obama, in his newfound role as patriarch-in-chief, has been lecturing the American family on the evils of selfishness. Pedestrian pursuits of individual happiness must forever be subordinated to the idea of “shared responsibility,” a favorite presidential buzzword.
Of course, for anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Democrat-speak, this is code for raising taxes and closing corporate loopholes.
In fact, rarely does the president miss an opportunity to talk about all those nasty oil company “tax breaks” he’s trying to repeal (even though, according to the Tax Foundation, the industry has actually paid $388 billion in income taxes to the federal and state governments over the last three decades). Liberals call these routine deductions “tax expenditures” as though they were the same as spending.
Nevertheless, as long as we’re talking about paying our fair share, it’s time we take a look at perhaps one of the greatest loopholes of them all: the tax-exempt organization. You see, tax-exempt entities raise massive amounts of capital, and what others might refer to as “profits,” they call expenses.
Consider the self-described “social purpose capitalism” of Minnesota Public Radio, which has resulted in a massive radio empire competing with its taxable broadcast brethren.
Oh, yes, I’m well aware of all the work these wonderful groups perform for the downtrodden, so spare me the outrage over questioning the status of so-called “nonprofits.” But someone has to create wealth before it can be redistributed.
Dare I say, the most beneficial social organization in society remains the profitable business. Indeed, the evil entrepreneur, far from begging for donations, is the one providing the goods and services for which people are actually willing to pay.
On the other hand, imagine a 501(c)3 tax-exempt outfit whose mission is to ensure that “resources accrue to all local citizens” within the “creation of ecologically sound and economically equitable communities.” Uh? Well, try the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
Or how about a collection of smart growth groupies at Transit for Livable Communities, dedicated to increasing government funding for “bus and rail transit, bicycling, walking and transit-oriented development.”
And don’t forget to take that “charitable” tax deduction for contributing to the gang at Growth & Justice, a merry band of collectivists who think Minnesota state government isn’t big enough.
Of course, for sheer audacity you can’t ignore ClearWay Minnesota, granted tax favored status under section 509(a)3 of the IRS code for living off the largesse of the state’s tobacco lawsuit. Private shareholders may not benefit, but the six-figure salary management team isn’t fairing too poorly.
But, hey, how do you put a price on lobbying for smoking bans and funding vital programs that “build capacity in the African/African American, Asian American and Pacific Islander, Chicano Latino, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered and American Indian Communities to develop and implement effective tobacco prevention and control programs and policies”?
The irony here is that far from relieving the government’s (taxpayer’s) social burden, most of these “public charities” seek to expand it.
Regardless, my favorite “tax expenditure” is a fledgling little project known as MinnPost. Here you’ll find a group of scribes still smarting over a market devaluation of their services. Hence, MinnPost’s creed is that high-quality journalism “can no longer depend only on the private sector.” Maybe that’s why they’re propped up by grants from yet another tax-exempt entity, the mega-McKnight Foundation.
In fact, these private foundations alone, says Virginia business attorney Ross C. Reeves, control $650 billion in wealth and, depending on the year, have investment income of around $60 billion — none of which is subject to income taxes.
This has proved to be a convenient tool for the Warren Buffets of the world to claim an immediate write-off, reduce their estate tax, and promote such charitable causes as reproductive rights, saving the planet, and world peace. All the while clamoring for higher taxes on someone else.
What a country.
Published in the Star Tribune, March 4, 2012
One’s Break is Another’s Tax Burden: Here’s a rogue’s gallery of local outfits that happily take what the system gives.
Barack Obama, in his newfound role as patriarch-in-chief, has been lecturing the American family on the evils of selfishness. Pedestrian pursuits of individual happiness must forever be subordinated to the idea of “shared responsibility,” a favorite presidential buzzword.
Of course, for anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Democrat-speak, this is code for raising taxes and closing corporate loopholes.
In fact, rarely does the president miss an opportunity to talk about all those nasty oil company “tax breaks” he’s trying to repeal (even though, according to the Tax Foundation, the industry has actually paid $388 billion in income taxes to the federal and state governments over the last three decades). Liberals call these routine deductions “tax expenditures” as though they were the same as spending.
Nevertheless, as long as we’re talking about paying our fair share, it’s time we take a look at perhaps one of the greatest loopholes of them all: the tax-exempt organization. You see, tax-exempt entities raise massive amounts of capital, and what others might refer to as “profits,” they call expenses.
Consider the self-described “social purpose capitalism” of Minnesota Public Radio, which has resulted in a massive radio empire competing with its taxable broadcast brethren.
Oh, yes, I’m well aware of all the work these wonderful groups perform for the downtrodden, so spare me the outrage over questioning the status of so-called “nonprofits.” But someone has to create wealth before it can be redistributed.
Dare I say, the most beneficial social organization in society remains the profitable business. Indeed, the evil entrepreneur, far from begging for donations, is the one providing the goods and services for which people are actually willing to pay.
On the other hand, imagine a 501(c)3 tax-exempt outfit whose mission is to ensure that “resources accrue to all local citizens” within the “creation of ecologically sound and economically equitable communities.” Uh? Well, try the Institute for Local Self-Reliance.
Or how about a collection of smart growth groupies at Transit for Livable Communities, dedicated to increasing government funding for “bus and rail transit, bicycling, walking and transit-oriented development.”
And don’t forget to take that “charitable” tax deduction for contributing to the gang at Growth & Justice, a merry band of collectivists who think Minnesota state government isn’t big enough.
Of course, for sheer audacity you can’t ignore ClearWay Minnesota, granted tax favored status under section 509(a)3 of the IRS code for living off the largesse of the state’s tobacco lawsuit. Private shareholders may not benefit, but the six-figure salary management team isn’t fairing too poorly.
But, hey, how do you put a price on lobbying for smoking bans and funding vital programs that “build capacity in the African/African American, Asian American and Pacific Islander, Chicano Latino, Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered and American Indian Communities to develop and implement effective tobacco prevention and control programs and policies”?
The irony here is that far from relieving the government’s (taxpayer’s) social burden, most of these “public charities” seek to expand it.
Regardless, my favorite “tax expenditure” is a fledgling little project known as MinnPost. Here you’ll find a group of scribes still smarting over a market devaluation of their services. Hence, MinnPost’s creed is that high-quality journalism “can no longer depend only on the private sector.” Maybe that’s why they’re propped up by grants from yet another tax-exempt entity, the mega-McKnight Foundation.
In fact, these private foundations alone, says Virginia business attorney Ross C. Reeves, control $650 billion in wealth and, depending on the year, have investment income of around $60 billion — none of which is subject to income taxes.
This has proved to be a convenient tool for the Warren Buffets of the world to claim an immediate write-off, reduce their estate tax, and promote such charitable causes as reproductive rights, saving the planet, and world peace. All the while clamoring for higher taxes on someone else.
What a country.
Published in the Star Tribune, March 4, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Illinios Results
Romney won at least 41 delegates in Illinois. Giving him a total of 563. Santorum won at least 10. That put him at 263. With the last three still undecided.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Illinois up for grabs.
Obama's home state (or at least that's what they tell us) has it's Primary today. Who wins? By how much?
Obama raises eyebrows with executive order revising authority to nationalize resources for defense
Published March 19, 2012
FoxNews.com
President Obama's signature on an executive order that updates presidential authority to take control over national defense resources in time of emergency has legal minds arguing over whether the White House is trying to expand power or merely organize rules 18 years in the making.
The executive order, signed late Friday, revokes an earlier order put in place by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and says any other previously issued orders or rulings by previous presidents shall remain in effect unless they are inconsistent with the new order.
The purpose of the order, according to its contents, is to make sure the U.S. is prepared to mobilize technological and industrial resources "capable of meeting national defense requirements" and ensure "technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency."
It orders Cabinet agencies to determine military and civilian staffing and evaluate access to resources like suppliers, materials, skilled labor and professional and technical personnel. It also is intended to ensure the U.S. government is prepared "in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States."
The executive order gives the homeland security secretary authority to issue guidance to other department heads to establish and activate a National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER) composed of experts in the private and public sector -- though not full-time federal employees -- to fill executive positions in the federal government in the event of a national defense emergency.
That includes employing consultants or other experts without compensation. The labor secretary can also begin training workers to help address national defense requirements.
The order scopes out the different roles of the National Security Council, Homeland Security Council and National Economic Council in advising the president -- giving the secretary of homeland security authority to provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs delegated under the order.
It also gives authority to the secretary of Commerce to determine how to get the industrial base to support the national defense and meet defense program needs. The Agriculture Department will take care of food resources while the Defense Department will handle water resources in addition to its military role. The heads of the Energy, Health and Human Services and Transportation departments also are responsible for their jurisdictions.
The order notes that unless determined otherwise by the president or his national security adviser, the authority "may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense."
This order came on the heals of another presidential order a few days prior that reiterated the United States' "national emergency" stance toward Iran -- a rather routine measure that has been repeated every year since 1995 but that might have caused some confusion.
Several legal eagle bloggers say there's nothing to fear.
"There is enough that Obama actually does wrong without creating claims which do not hold up to scrutiny," wrote William Jacobson, associate clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School and blogger for the Legal Insurrection blog.
"I’m not ruling out the possibility that this is more than it seems, but unless and until someone does more than merely state that martial law is coming, I’ll consider this to be routine," he wrote.
Ed Morrisey of HotAir blog explained his take on the document dump that occurred late Friday night before St. Patrick's Day.
"Why the update? If one takes a look at EO 12919 (the previous executive order), the big change is in the Cabinet itself. In 1994, we didn't have a Department of Homeland Security, for instance, and some of these functions would naturally fall to DHS,” he wrote. "Otherwise, there aren't a lot of changes between the two EOs, which looks mainly like boilerplate. In fact, that's almost entirely what it is.”
But as gas prices rise and fears are raised that the U.S. is heading down a warpath with Iran, not everyone is convinced the new language isn't part of the administration's plan to gear up for a possible power grab.
"I am not an alarmist, but the idea of the Obama regime having total control over anything is disturbing. No, it isn't disturbing, it is totally, freaking scary," wrote Judson Phillips, founder of the Tea Party Nation and a former assistant district attorney in Shelby County, Tenn.
"The problem is there is an appearance of an expansion here," Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a senior fellow at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, told Fox News. "And I think this is where the White House owes Congress and the American people a bit more of an explanation of, why now?"
On Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the order was nothing out of the ordinary.
"I think it was a fairly standard and routine piece of business," he told reporters, dismissing suggestions that there's a relationship between revising the existing executive order and plans for dealing with Iran.
"I cannot explain that reaction to it," Carney said. He added that approach to Iran right now is a diplomatic one because "we have the time and space to do that."
One person steeped in the legal basis said the document is pretty standard fare -- presidents have been preparing for the possibility of a national emergency since before World War II, when the government ordered the private sector to shift from making cars and refrigerators to making airplanes, boats and other items.
"What he is saying is this one is a new one, this incorporates all the old provisions and this is the one that will control," said Paul Rothstein, a professor at Georgetown Law School. "And that's not unusual in this kind of implementing presidential orders, and I emphasize that is implementing powers that Congress over the years has given the president and have been used repeatedly.”
But suspicions about the Obama administration spilled over as a result of the Friday document dump, lighting up the blogosphere with phrases like "terrifying" and "martial law" and pointing out potentially big changes in the order.
"According to the new law, yes, the president can direct private companies, private elements of our infrastructure to give things up or do things without regard to due process," Shaeffer said.
Rothstein, however, said presidents have to prepare for emergencies -- and even peacetime contingencies. He added that the powers are ceded to presidents over the years by Congress and closely monitored by the courts.
"This act is employed all the time, usually when foreign powers like China or Dubai seem to be gaining too much economic control in this country by ownership of things. Those things have to be approved," he said. "They are established and traditional powers, and the president is just implementing them in the form of regulations and not really adding to those powers."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/19/obama-signs-executive-order-revising-authority-to-nationalize-resources-for/#ixzz1pexBSvQE
FoxNews.com
President Obama's signature on an executive order that updates presidential authority to take control over national defense resources in time of emergency has legal minds arguing over whether the White House is trying to expand power or merely organize rules 18 years in the making.
The executive order, signed late Friday, revokes an earlier order put in place by President Bill Clinton in 1994 and says any other previously issued orders or rulings by previous presidents shall remain in effect unless they are inconsistent with the new order.
The purpose of the order, according to its contents, is to make sure the U.S. is prepared to mobilize technological and industrial resources "capable of meeting national defense requirements" and ensure "technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime and in times of national emergency."
It orders Cabinet agencies to determine military and civilian staffing and evaluate access to resources like suppliers, materials, skilled labor and professional and technical personnel. It also is intended to ensure the U.S. government is prepared "in the event of a potential threat to the security of the United States."
The executive order gives the homeland security secretary authority to issue guidance to other department heads to establish and activate a National Defense Executive Reserve (NDER) composed of experts in the private and public sector -- though not full-time federal employees -- to fill executive positions in the federal government in the event of a national defense emergency.
That includes employing consultants or other experts without compensation. The labor secretary can also begin training workers to help address national defense requirements.
The order scopes out the different roles of the National Security Council, Homeland Security Council and National Economic Council in advising the president -- giving the secretary of homeland security authority to provide for the central coordination of the plans and programs delegated under the order.
It also gives authority to the secretary of Commerce to determine how to get the industrial base to support the national defense and meet defense program needs. The Agriculture Department will take care of food resources while the Defense Department will handle water resources in addition to its military role. The heads of the Energy, Health and Human Services and Transportation departments also are responsible for their jurisdictions.
The order notes that unless determined otherwise by the president or his national security adviser, the authority "may be used only to support programs that have been determined in writing as necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense."
This order came on the heals of another presidential order a few days prior that reiterated the United States' "national emergency" stance toward Iran -- a rather routine measure that has been repeated every year since 1995 but that might have caused some confusion.
Several legal eagle bloggers say there's nothing to fear.
"There is enough that Obama actually does wrong without creating claims which do not hold up to scrutiny," wrote William Jacobson, associate clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School and blogger for the Legal Insurrection blog.
"I’m not ruling out the possibility that this is more than it seems, but unless and until someone does more than merely state that martial law is coming, I’ll consider this to be routine," he wrote.
Ed Morrisey of HotAir blog explained his take on the document dump that occurred late Friday night before St. Patrick's Day.
"Why the update? If one takes a look at EO 12919 (the previous executive order), the big change is in the Cabinet itself. In 1994, we didn't have a Department of Homeland Security, for instance, and some of these functions would naturally fall to DHS,” he wrote. "Otherwise, there aren't a lot of changes between the two EOs, which looks mainly like boilerplate. In fact, that's almost entirely what it is.”
But as gas prices rise and fears are raised that the U.S. is heading down a warpath with Iran, not everyone is convinced the new language isn't part of the administration's plan to gear up for a possible power grab.
"I am not an alarmist, but the idea of the Obama regime having total control over anything is disturbing. No, it isn't disturbing, it is totally, freaking scary," wrote Judson Phillips, founder of the Tea Party Nation and a former assistant district attorney in Shelby County, Tenn.
"The problem is there is an appearance of an expansion here," Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a senior fellow at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies, told Fox News. "And I think this is where the White House owes Congress and the American people a bit more of an explanation of, why now?"
On Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the order was nothing out of the ordinary.
"I think it was a fairly standard and routine piece of business," he told reporters, dismissing suggestions that there's a relationship between revising the existing executive order and plans for dealing with Iran.
"I cannot explain that reaction to it," Carney said. He added that approach to Iran right now is a diplomatic one because "we have the time and space to do that."
One person steeped in the legal basis said the document is pretty standard fare -- presidents have been preparing for the possibility of a national emergency since before World War II, when the government ordered the private sector to shift from making cars and refrigerators to making airplanes, boats and other items.
"What he is saying is this one is a new one, this incorporates all the old provisions and this is the one that will control," said Paul Rothstein, a professor at Georgetown Law School. "And that's not unusual in this kind of implementing presidential orders, and I emphasize that is implementing powers that Congress over the years has given the president and have been used repeatedly.”
But suspicions about the Obama administration spilled over as a result of the Friday document dump, lighting up the blogosphere with phrases like "terrifying" and "martial law" and pointing out potentially big changes in the order.
"According to the new law, yes, the president can direct private companies, private elements of our infrastructure to give things up or do things without regard to due process," Shaeffer said.
Rothstein, however, said presidents have to prepare for emergencies -- and even peacetime contingencies. He added that the powers are ceded to presidents over the years by Congress and closely monitored by the courts.
"This act is employed all the time, usually when foreign powers like China or Dubai seem to be gaining too much economic control in this country by ownership of things. Those things have to be approved," he said. "They are established and traditional powers, and the president is just implementing them in the form of regulations and not really adding to those powers."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/19/obama-signs-executive-order-revising-authority-to-nationalize-resources-for/#ixzz1pexBSvQE
Friday, March 16, 2012
Happy St Patty's Day MO!
Not only is tomorrow one of my favorite holidays but, it also is caucus day in the Show Me State. 52 delegates up for grabs.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Irony! Arguing against identity loses identity.
UN rights council delves into US voter I.D. laws
By Eric Shawn
Published March 14, 2012
| FoxNews.com
The controversy over requiring voters to provide photo IDs has reached the world stage.
The United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the issue of American election laws at its gathering on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland.. This, despite the fact that some members of the council have only in the past several years allowed women to vote, and one member, Saudi Arabia, still bars women from the voting booth completely.
Officials from the NAACP are presenting their case against U.S. voter ID laws, arguing to the international diplomats that the requirements disenfranchise voters and suppress the minority vote.
Feb 27: Federal Councilor and Head of the Federal Department for Foreign Affairs of Switzerland Didier Burkhalter, seen on a video screen, addresses his statement, during the high-level segment of the 19th session of the Human Rights Council, at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.The Human Rights Council opens a four-week session with member states and top officials.
Eight states have passed voter ID laws in the past year, voter ID proposals are pending in 32 states and the Obama administration has recently moved to block South Carolina and Texas from enacting their voter ID measures.
"This really is a tactic that undercuts the growth of your democracy," said Hillary Shelton, the NAACP's senior vice president for advocacy, about voter photo ID requirements.
In a Fox News interview prior to his trip, Shelton said the message from the NAACP delegation to the Human Rights Council is that the photo ID law "undercuts the integrity of our government, if you allow it to happen. It's trickery, it's a sleight-of-hand. We're seeing it happen here and we don't want it to happen to you, and we are utilizing the U.N. as a tool to make sure that we are able to share that with those countries all over the world."
The United Nations has no legal jurisdiction over the American electoral system, which Shelton acknowledges. Asked whether he thinks that the U.N. should be involved in domestic American laws, he answered, "No, not specifically. The U.N. should certainly be involved in sharing a best practice for the world."
"We're the greatest country on the face of the earth, but we can be better still," he said.
The NAACP had scheduled two American citizens to present their claims at the U.N. panel who, the group says, worry they will be disenfranchised by the requirement to present a photo ID to vote. The civil rights group says one, Kemba Smith Pradia, was convicted of a drug-related offense and is concerned that if she moves back to Virginia from the Midwest, state law will block her voting because of her record, even though she was granted clemency by President Bill Clinton.
A second American, Austin Alex, is a Texas Christian University student. The NAACP says he is worried that he will be barred from voting because he only holds an out-of-state driver's license and a non-government student ID, not a Texas issued photo ID.
But supporters of photo ID requirements argue that states provide such identifications for free, and in some cases, voters can cast provisional or absentee ballots that do not even require a photo ID. The NAACP disputes those claims.
In 2008, the United States Supreme Court upheld the voter photo ID law enacted in Indiana.
The U.N. Human Rights Council members include communist China and Cuba. In addition, several Arab nations are on the council that have only granted the right to vote to women in recent years, such as Kuwait in 2005 and Qatar in 2003. Women in the Republic of Moldova have had the right to vote for less than 20 years.
Council member Saudi Arabia announced six months ago that women will be granted the right to vote, but that change does not go into effect until 2015.
"The idea that this is a human rights abuse is ridiculous," said Hans von Spakovsky, a voter fraud expert and senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, in Washington, D.C.
"The UN allowing this to take place under their roof makes them, unfortunately, complicit in what really is a publicity stunt by the NAACP, and I think it wastes their time, when they should be going after real and sustained human rights abuses like the things going on in horrible places, like North Korea."
Spakovsky, who supports voter photo ID laws, says it is a hypocritical and meaningless waste of time to present a case against American electoral laws at the UN forum.
"I think the leadership of the NAACP is, quite frankly, doing a disservice to American citizens and the democracy that we have here, by going abroad to the Human Rights Council, which is filled with dictatorships and other countries that actually and really abuse human rights."
He called the council's weighing of U.S. laws "an insult to the United States that the NAACP thinks we should be getting advice from those kinds of countries, which are not democracies, on how to administer elections in this country.”
But Shelton argues that the NAACP's presence at the Geneva conference can teach other nations how to improve their electoral systems.
"We can learn a lot from those who haven't gone through as much as we have," he said.
"Everyone has a different struggle, but there's lessons to learn from whoever we come across ... but there's also some things I think we can still help teach the rest of the world."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/14/un-delves-into-us-voter-id-laws/#ixzz1p7maXpYx
By Eric Shawn
Published March 14, 2012
| FoxNews.com
The controversy over requiring voters to provide photo IDs has reached the world stage.
The United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the issue of American election laws at its gathering on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland.. This, despite the fact that some members of the council have only in the past several years allowed women to vote, and one member, Saudi Arabia, still bars women from the voting booth completely.
Officials from the NAACP are presenting their case against U.S. voter ID laws, arguing to the international diplomats that the requirements disenfranchise voters and suppress the minority vote.
Feb 27: Federal Councilor and Head of the Federal Department for Foreign Affairs of Switzerland Didier Burkhalter, seen on a video screen, addresses his statement, during the high-level segment of the 19th session of the Human Rights Council, at the European headquarters of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland.The Human Rights Council opens a four-week session with member states and top officials.
Eight states have passed voter ID laws in the past year, voter ID proposals are pending in 32 states and the Obama administration has recently moved to block South Carolina and Texas from enacting their voter ID measures.
"This really is a tactic that undercuts the growth of your democracy," said Hillary Shelton, the NAACP's senior vice president for advocacy, about voter photo ID requirements.
In a Fox News interview prior to his trip, Shelton said the message from the NAACP delegation to the Human Rights Council is that the photo ID law "undercuts the integrity of our government, if you allow it to happen. It's trickery, it's a sleight-of-hand. We're seeing it happen here and we don't want it to happen to you, and we are utilizing the U.N. as a tool to make sure that we are able to share that with those countries all over the world."
The United Nations has no legal jurisdiction over the American electoral system, which Shelton acknowledges. Asked whether he thinks that the U.N. should be involved in domestic American laws, he answered, "No, not specifically. The U.N. should certainly be involved in sharing a best practice for the world."
"We're the greatest country on the face of the earth, but we can be better still," he said.
The NAACP had scheduled two American citizens to present their claims at the U.N. panel who, the group says, worry they will be disenfranchised by the requirement to present a photo ID to vote. The civil rights group says one, Kemba Smith Pradia, was convicted of a drug-related offense and is concerned that if she moves back to Virginia from the Midwest, state law will block her voting because of her record, even though she was granted clemency by President Bill Clinton.
A second American, Austin Alex, is a Texas Christian University student. The NAACP says he is worried that he will be barred from voting because he only holds an out-of-state driver's license and a non-government student ID, not a Texas issued photo ID.
But supporters of photo ID requirements argue that states provide such identifications for free, and in some cases, voters can cast provisional or absentee ballots that do not even require a photo ID. The NAACP disputes those claims.
In 2008, the United States Supreme Court upheld the voter photo ID law enacted in Indiana.
The U.N. Human Rights Council members include communist China and Cuba. In addition, several Arab nations are on the council that have only granted the right to vote to women in recent years, such as Kuwait in 2005 and Qatar in 2003. Women in the Republic of Moldova have had the right to vote for less than 20 years.
Council member Saudi Arabia announced six months ago that women will be granted the right to vote, but that change does not go into effect until 2015.
"The idea that this is a human rights abuse is ridiculous," said Hans von Spakovsky, a voter fraud expert and senior legal fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, in Washington, D.C.
"The UN allowing this to take place under their roof makes them, unfortunately, complicit in what really is a publicity stunt by the NAACP, and I think it wastes their time, when they should be going after real and sustained human rights abuses like the things going on in horrible places, like North Korea."
Spakovsky, who supports voter photo ID laws, says it is a hypocritical and meaningless waste of time to present a case against American electoral laws at the UN forum.
"I think the leadership of the NAACP is, quite frankly, doing a disservice to American citizens and the democracy that we have here, by going abroad to the Human Rights Council, which is filled with dictatorships and other countries that actually and really abuse human rights."
He called the council's weighing of U.S. laws "an insult to the United States that the NAACP thinks we should be getting advice from those kinds of countries, which are not democracies, on how to administer elections in this country.”
But Shelton argues that the NAACP's presence at the Geneva conference can teach other nations how to improve their electoral systems.
"We can learn a lot from those who haven't gone through as much as we have," he said.
"Everyone has a different struggle, but there's lessons to learn from whoever we come across ... but there's also some things I think we can still help teach the rest of the world."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/14/un-delves-into-us-voter-id-laws/#ixzz1p7maXpYx
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Southern Comfort!?
Santorum sweeps the south. Romney has a poor showing. What does this mean for the nomination? Care to speculate? Does it show that Romney is a weak candidate? Was it a shock that the Christian Candidate won the very Christian south?
Gas up, Obama down.
We can all agreed that for good or bad we are a Petro dependent nation. All Americans depend on gasoline in some for or another. Weather you are driving a car, taking the bus, catching the train or even purchasing milk (plastic containers). We all use it everyday. So, when the gas market decides to get more expensive, it stands to reason "We the people" look to our leaders for answers. Sadly, most Americans do not realize just how the pricing is set. They are not aware of what factors drive those prices. Government over spending, the weakening value of the dollar, the list can go on. Speculators look at it all. Now back to my point. As we look to our leaders for answers. What do we get? "We need to lessen our dependance on foreign oil" or "We need to look at alternative forms of energy". How does that help us now? The President does not want a pipeline from Canada. He doesn't recognize how valuable the boom in North Dakota is. He wants to build more electric cars. Let's face it he is out of touch with reality. Because of that maybe America is waking up. Maybe! As the price of gas goes up, Mr. Obama seems to see his approval number go down. So the question is this. Are you willing to have $5 per gallon gas for the summer?
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Chess gets trickier.
Rumor has it the Newt has been debating a pre-convention Vice-President candidate. Gov. Perry has been eye balled to be on the ticket with Gingrich. That obviously helps him in the south, with evangelicals and some Tea Partiers. Smart play or not? What do you think?
Afganistan...Argh
With the tragic events over the weekend. Does that solidify your position on Afganistan? Should we stay or should we go?
Friday, March 9, 2012
GOP Should take Senate
Norquist to Newsmax: GOP Should Take Senate, Hold House
Wednesday, 07 Mar 2012 06:11 PM
By Jim Meyers and John Bachman
Low-tax crusader and Republican strategist Grover Norquist tells Newsmax the country is suffering from a very weak recovery because President Obama “did all the wrong things” in reaction to the recession.
But as pundits tallied up the results from Super Tuesday, Norquist on Wednesday struck an optimistic tone on the GOP's chances in November.
Whoever wins the exhausting battle for the Republican presidential nomination, he points out, that candidate will be a staunch Reagan conservative with a tough fiscal approach on spending. That's true whether it's Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.
But if President Obama somehow gets re-elected, Republicans more than likely will be in control of both the U.S. Senate and the House, meaning Obama will not have any power of the purse.
“If there is a Republican president then you can immediately move to do a budget and extend all the tax cuts and begin to cut spending," Norquist says. "If Obama is still the president, we have a train wreck, and Obama likes train wrecks because he takes advantage of that kind of crisis to try to push for bigger government.
“Certainly it’s important to have a Republican House and Senate even with a Democratic president, but it’s difficult to get legislation passed. You can not give the president money, that’s not a bad first step, but you can’t cut taxes without the president’s signature.”
Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, says Republican voters are engaged in “sort of serial monogamy” in choosing a front-runner because the candidates are “pretty much the same.”
Americans for Tax Reform is a coalition of taxpayer groups, individuals, and businesses opposed to higher taxes at the federal, state, and local levels.
Norquist is also on the board of the American Conservative Union, a regular Newsmax contributor, and co-author of the new book “Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future.”
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, he assesses the current state of the American economy.
“We had a problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mal-investing, then Obama, Reid, and Pelosi came in and they made everything worse,” he says. “So we have a very, very weak recovery going on now. This is a much weaker recovery than we’ve had in the past. In the third year of Reagan’s presidency he created four million jobs. We created like a million jobs last year.
“We have a weak recovery because Obama did all the wrong things in reaction to the recession, and now what we need to do is the opposite — spend less, lower taxes, have deregulation, fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The banking regulation bill did everything except fixing the people who caused the problems for the banking crisis.
“We have a huge challenge. Obama’s been taking us in the wrong direction for three years now. We need to do a U-turn.”
Asked about the likely scenario in the immediate aftermath of November’s presidential election, Norquist responds: “It all depends on who comes in.
“Right now it looks like the Republicans will hold the House and win the Senate — half the Democrats running for the Senate are vulnerable, very few Republicans running for the Senate are vulnerable. It should be a Republican House and Senate."
Norquist says the current race for the Republican presidential nomination is different from those in in past.
“In the old days — Taft, Eisenhower, Goldwater, Rockefeller — there were these ideological divides. You had two different wings of the modern Republican Party that wanted to go in two different directions.
“Today the candidates running for president are all Reagan Republicans. So when Republicans are looking, they can be excused for lusting after Rick Perry and then moments later Herman Cain and then Newt Gingrich and then Rick Santorum. They go from one to the other in a sort of serial monogamy because they’re all pretty much the same.
“So people pick odd reasons for being for one and not another. But it is a healthy thing that they’re all Reagan Republicans and we can choose.”
In a similar vein, Norquist says that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum split the tea party vote in Tuesday’s Ohio primary because both seek to reduce spending.
“The tea party is new people coming into the party. Tea party people weren’t politically active before but were terrified by Obama’s spending, so they came in and want to fix the spending issue. They can go for any of these candidates.”
All the Republican candidates are “moving in the same direction of reducing rates and broadening the base and not bringing a tax increase,” he adds.
“I think Rick Perry had the best tax plan of the year, and Newt Gingrich has one that is similar. They’ve all basically come out and said let’s dramatically reduce rates, let’s simplify the code. They’re looking at what Reagan did in 1986.”
Legislators are reportedly working behind the scenes to formulate a program to combat the deficit that could resemble the Simpson-Bowles plan, which called for reduced spending and increased taxes. Asked if they are likely to have any success in pushing the new program forward, Norquist says flatly: “No, because the whole goal of Simpson-Bowles was to raise taxes significantly to pay for the bigger government of Obama.
“The reason why Obama liked it was in the middle of it was a $2 or $3 trillion tax increase over the next decade. There were in theory some spending cuts. Obama never put any of those into his budget. Unfortunately all you get from putting Simpson-Bowles on the table is a tax increase, no spending cuts.”
Assessing the success of his years-long crusade for low taxes, Norquist tells Newsmax: “The top tax rate is 35 percent, half of what is was when Reagan came into the presidency, so we’ve made some progress on reducing marginal tax rates.
“But Reagan got it down to 28 percent, and now it’s drifted back up again, so we need to get back to the Reagan levels and then back on track to continue to reduce rates. The total tax burden and the total spending have shot up significantly unfortunately over the past years.”
Asked if cutting taxes is only way to shrink the size of government, Norquist responds: “Step one is never raise taxes. That’s why [we have] the Taxpayer Protection Pledge that Americans for Tax Reform shares with all candidates and incumbents in the House and Senate. If you say that taxes are off the table, we’re never raising taxes, then and only then do you get to a conversation of reforming spending.
“Politicians like to raise taxes instead of reforming government. They want to raise taxes instead of reducing spending. So first you say no new taxes.
“Now we need to do more reforms like some of our governors have done around the country — Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Rick Scott in Florida, Perry in Texas, New Jersey’s Chris Christie, those are all governors who said no to tax increases, yes to spending cuts.
“But if you don’t say no to tax increases you never get to the second part of that project. Our friend George W. Bush got the no tax increase part. He forgot the second part of the dance sheet, which is stop spending so much.”
Read more on Newsmax.com
Wednesday, 07 Mar 2012 06:11 PM
By Jim Meyers and John Bachman
Low-tax crusader and Republican strategist Grover Norquist tells Newsmax the country is suffering from a very weak recovery because President Obama “did all the wrong things” in reaction to the recession.
But as pundits tallied up the results from Super Tuesday, Norquist on Wednesday struck an optimistic tone on the GOP's chances in November.
Whoever wins the exhausting battle for the Republican presidential nomination, he points out, that candidate will be a staunch Reagan conservative with a tough fiscal approach on spending. That's true whether it's Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.
But if President Obama somehow gets re-elected, Republicans more than likely will be in control of both the U.S. Senate and the House, meaning Obama will not have any power of the purse.
“If there is a Republican president then you can immediately move to do a budget and extend all the tax cuts and begin to cut spending," Norquist says. "If Obama is still the president, we have a train wreck, and Obama likes train wrecks because he takes advantage of that kind of crisis to try to push for bigger government.
“Certainly it’s important to have a Republican House and Senate even with a Democratic president, but it’s difficult to get legislation passed. You can not give the president money, that’s not a bad first step, but you can’t cut taxes without the president’s signature.”
Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, says Republican voters are engaged in “sort of serial monogamy” in choosing a front-runner because the candidates are “pretty much the same.”
Americans for Tax Reform is a coalition of taxpayer groups, individuals, and businesses opposed to higher taxes at the federal, state, and local levels.
Norquist is also on the board of the American Conservative Union, a regular Newsmax contributor, and co-author of the new book “Debacle: Obama’s War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future.”
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, he assesses the current state of the American economy.
“We had a problem with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mal-investing, then Obama, Reid, and Pelosi came in and they made everything worse,” he says. “So we have a very, very weak recovery going on now. This is a much weaker recovery than we’ve had in the past. In the third year of Reagan’s presidency he created four million jobs. We created like a million jobs last year.
“We have a weak recovery because Obama did all the wrong things in reaction to the recession, and now what we need to do is the opposite — spend less, lower taxes, have deregulation, fix Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The banking regulation bill did everything except fixing the people who caused the problems for the banking crisis.
“We have a huge challenge. Obama’s been taking us in the wrong direction for three years now. We need to do a U-turn.”
Asked about the likely scenario in the immediate aftermath of November’s presidential election, Norquist responds: “It all depends on who comes in.
“Right now it looks like the Republicans will hold the House and win the Senate — half the Democrats running for the Senate are vulnerable, very few Republicans running for the Senate are vulnerable. It should be a Republican House and Senate."
Norquist says the current race for the Republican presidential nomination is different from those in in past.
“In the old days — Taft, Eisenhower, Goldwater, Rockefeller — there were these ideological divides. You had two different wings of the modern Republican Party that wanted to go in two different directions.
“Today the candidates running for president are all Reagan Republicans. So when Republicans are looking, they can be excused for lusting after Rick Perry and then moments later Herman Cain and then Newt Gingrich and then Rick Santorum. They go from one to the other in a sort of serial monogamy because they’re all pretty much the same.
“So people pick odd reasons for being for one and not another. But it is a healthy thing that they’re all Reagan Republicans and we can choose.”
In a similar vein, Norquist says that Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum split the tea party vote in Tuesday’s Ohio primary because both seek to reduce spending.
“The tea party is new people coming into the party. Tea party people weren’t politically active before but were terrified by Obama’s spending, so they came in and want to fix the spending issue. They can go for any of these candidates.”
All the Republican candidates are “moving in the same direction of reducing rates and broadening the base and not bringing a tax increase,” he adds.
“I think Rick Perry had the best tax plan of the year, and Newt Gingrich has one that is similar. They’ve all basically come out and said let’s dramatically reduce rates, let’s simplify the code. They’re looking at what Reagan did in 1986.”
Legislators are reportedly working behind the scenes to formulate a program to combat the deficit that could resemble the Simpson-Bowles plan, which called for reduced spending and increased taxes. Asked if they are likely to have any success in pushing the new program forward, Norquist says flatly: “No, because the whole goal of Simpson-Bowles was to raise taxes significantly to pay for the bigger government of Obama.
“The reason why Obama liked it was in the middle of it was a $2 or $3 trillion tax increase over the next decade. There were in theory some spending cuts. Obama never put any of those into his budget. Unfortunately all you get from putting Simpson-Bowles on the table is a tax increase, no spending cuts.”
Assessing the success of his years-long crusade for low taxes, Norquist tells Newsmax: “The top tax rate is 35 percent, half of what is was when Reagan came into the presidency, so we’ve made some progress on reducing marginal tax rates.
“But Reagan got it down to 28 percent, and now it’s drifted back up again, so we need to get back to the Reagan levels and then back on track to continue to reduce rates. The total tax burden and the total spending have shot up significantly unfortunately over the past years.”
Asked if cutting taxes is only way to shrink the size of government, Norquist responds: “Step one is never raise taxes. That’s why [we have] the Taxpayer Protection Pledge that Americans for Tax Reform shares with all candidates and incumbents in the House and Senate. If you say that taxes are off the table, we’re never raising taxes, then and only then do you get to a conversation of reforming spending.
“Politicians like to raise taxes instead of reforming government. They want to raise taxes instead of reducing spending. So first you say no new taxes.
“Now we need to do more reforms like some of our governors have done around the country — Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Rick Scott in Florida, Perry in Texas, New Jersey’s Chris Christie, those are all governors who said no to tax increases, yes to spending cuts.
“But if you don’t say no to tax increases you never get to the second part of that project. Our friend George W. Bush got the no tax increase part. He forgot the second part of the dance sheet, which is stop spending so much.”
Read more on Newsmax.com
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Breitbart Lives On!
Sadly, as you know by now the Conservative Movement lost a very valuable man last week.
However, he did have many items left in this bag of goodies. The legacy lives on and there may be a shocker to many this year. Keep you eyes on the prize and follow his new site.
theobamatapes.com
However, he did have many items left in this bag of goodies. The legacy lives on and there may be a shocker to many this year. Keep you eyes on the prize and follow his new site.
theobamatapes.com
'Bama and Ol Miss
With these two southern states in the sights of the candidates. Who do you think fairs the best? Gingrich does well in states close to home. But, Santorum is liked in the Bible belt. Could be interesting.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Super Tuesday Results
Romney wins the big one, Ohio. He also claimed Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, Virginia and Vermont. His delegate total is now 415.
Santorum gets Oklahoma, Tennessee and North Dakota. His count is at 176.
Gingrich wins Georgia. 105 delegates to his credit.
Dr Paul has 47 delegates.
Next Mississippi and Alabama.
Santorum gets Oklahoma, Tennessee and North Dakota. His count is at 176.
Gingrich wins Georgia. 105 delegates to his credit.
Dr Paul has 47 delegates.
Next Mississippi and Alabama.
7th advertiser pull out of Rush's show.
NEW YORK – A flower company is the seventh advertiser to pull its ads from conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh's radio program in reaction to his derogatory comments about a law student who testified about birth control policy.
ProFlowers said Sunday on its Facebook page that it has suspended advertising on Limbaugh's program because his comments about Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke "went beyond political discourse to a personal attack and do not reflect our values as a company."
The six other advertisers that say they have pulled ads from his show are mortgage lender Quicken Loans, mattress retailers Sleep Train and Sleep Number, software maker Citrix Systems Inc., online data backup service provider Carbonite and online legal document services company LegalZoom.
ProFlowers had said on Twitter that posts it received about Limbaugh's remarks affected its advertising strategy. ProFlowers is an online flower delivery service.
Limbaugh called the 30-year-old Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute" last week after she testified to congressional Democrats in support of national health care policies that would compel employers and other organizations, including her university, to offer group health insurance that covers birth control for women.
He apologized to Fluke on Saturday after being criticized by Republican and Democratic politicians and after several advertisers left the show.
Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks Inc. hosts Limbaugh's program, one of the country's most popular talk radio shows. The company is supporting Limbaugh, whose on-air contract with Premiere runs through 2016.
"The contraception debate is one that sparks strong emotion and opinions on both sides of the issue," Premiere Networks said in a statement emailed Sunday by spokeswoman Rachel Nelson. "We respect the right of Mr. Limbaugh, as well as the rights of those who disagree with him, to express those opinions."
Clear Channel Media and Entertainment operates more than 850 radio stations in the U.S., and Premiere says it's the largest radio content provider in the country, syndicating programs to more than 5,000 affiliate stations.
When asked which companies or organizations were the largest advertisers on Limbaugh's show, Nelson said that that information was "proprietary." Nelson declined to say how much revenue the company will lose with the advertiser defections or how much revenue Limbaugh's show brings in.
Clear Channel's parent company was taken private in 2008 by private equity firms Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital.
Taken from FoxNews.com
ProFlowers said Sunday on its Facebook page that it has suspended advertising on Limbaugh's program because his comments about Georgetown University student Sandra Fluke "went beyond political discourse to a personal attack and do not reflect our values as a company."
The six other advertisers that say they have pulled ads from his show are mortgage lender Quicken Loans, mattress retailers Sleep Train and Sleep Number, software maker Citrix Systems Inc., online data backup service provider Carbonite and online legal document services company LegalZoom.
ProFlowers had said on Twitter that posts it received about Limbaugh's remarks affected its advertising strategy. ProFlowers is an online flower delivery service.
Limbaugh called the 30-year-old Fluke a "slut" and "prostitute" last week after she testified to congressional Democrats in support of national health care policies that would compel employers and other organizations, including her university, to offer group health insurance that covers birth control for women.
He apologized to Fluke on Saturday after being criticized by Republican and Democratic politicians and after several advertisers left the show.
Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks Inc. hosts Limbaugh's program, one of the country's most popular talk radio shows. The company is supporting Limbaugh, whose on-air contract with Premiere runs through 2016.
"The contraception debate is one that sparks strong emotion and opinions on both sides of the issue," Premiere Networks said in a statement emailed Sunday by spokeswoman Rachel Nelson. "We respect the right of Mr. Limbaugh, as well as the rights of those who disagree with him, to express those opinions."
Clear Channel Media and Entertainment operates more than 850 radio stations in the U.S., and Premiere says it's the largest radio content provider in the country, syndicating programs to more than 5,000 affiliate stations.
When asked which companies or organizations were the largest advertisers on Limbaugh's show, Nelson said that that information was "proprietary." Nelson declined to say how much revenue the company will lose with the advertiser defections or how much revenue Limbaugh's show brings in.
Clear Channel's parent company was taken private in 2008 by private equity firms Thomas H. Lee Partners and Bain Capital.
Taken from FoxNews.com
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Super Tuesday!
The big one is here. Today's results may be what decides the GOP nomination. Do you think it will be decided today?
Monday, March 5, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
Grand Old Party Social Mixer
This evening in Wyoming, the Chisago County GOP is hosting what promises to be the first of many social mixers. For details head to their website as listed below. Hope to see you there. Stop by our table and say "hi".
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Makes me wonder?
Now that Michigan has finished and the results are a Romney win, it makes me wonder. What was the cause of Santorum not finishing the way the talking heads thought he would? I have two schools of thought. First, middle America (shoot many on the right) my feel that Rick is to pushy with his religion. Sometimes he smells of Theocracy. Or could it be that Romney just looks like the best chance to defeat Obama? What is your opinion? Inquiring minds want to know!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)