Blog Archives

Unions Turn Against Obamacare Fearing Lost Coverage

The White House is losing support for Obamacare from some leading labor unions that are concerned their members could lose healthcare coverage once the program is fully implemented.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW) said it is worried that its members will actually lose healthcare coverage they have now once the Affordable Care Act is fully implemented early next year, reports The Hill.

Alert: Obama Movie Exposes Frightening Agenda. Get the DVD Here.

Joe Hansen, president of the UFCW, a 1.3 million-member group that endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, wrote in an editorial published in The Hill that Obama’s claim at the 2009 AFL-CIO convention that union members could keep their current insurance under the new law “is simply not true for millions of workers.”

“You can’t have the same quality health care that you had before, despite what the president said,” Hansen asserted, adding: “Now what’s going to happen is everybody is going to have to go to private for-profit insurance companies. We just don’t think that’s right. … We just want to keep what we already have and what we bought at tremendous cost.”

At issue is the fact that many UFCW members have multi-employer Taft-Hartley plans, and the law apparently does not provide tax subsidies for the approximately 20 million people covered by them.

Hansen said in The Hill editorial that his members normally negotiate with their employers to receive better healthcare services in lieu of higher wages, and that the bargaining chip could be eliminated because some employers won’t have the incentive to keep their workers’ multi-employer plans without tax subsidies.

Hansen’s concerns are shared by other labor groups. Last month, the president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers issued a statement calling “for repeal or complete reform of the Affordable Care Act.”

Unite Here, a prominent hotel workers’ union, and the International brotherhood of Teamsters are also calling for changes, according to The Hill.

Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

The Scathing Speech That Just Got a Standing Ovation During the IRS Hearing

Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., questions ousted IRS Chief Steve Miller and J. Russell George, Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, as they testify during a hearing at the House Ways and Means Committee on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) practice of targeting applicants for tax-exempt status based on political leanings on Capitol Hill, in Washington, Friday, May 17, 2013. Credit: AP

via TheBlaze.com

The gallery at the House Ways and Means Committee Friday had to be called to order after it burst into applause and some gave a standing ovation following an impassioned diatribe against the IRS by Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Mike Kelly.

Kelly took his time during the hearing on the IRS’s targeting of conservatives to lambaste outgoing head Steven Miller, reminding Miller that while the IRS would like to chalk the organization’s recent actions up to a mistake, regular Americans do not get that luxury when dealing with the IRS.

“If you think it’s uncomfortable sitting over there you ought to be a private individual when the IRS is across from you asking you questions,” Kelly began, and that set the tone for the subsequent four minutes.

Some of the highlights:

  • “I have a grandson who’s afraid to get out of bed at night because he thinks there’s someone under the bed that’s going to grab him. And I think most Americans feel that way about the IRS.”
  • “This kind of reconfirms that, you know what, they [the IRS] can do almost anything they want to anybody they want, anytime they want. This is very chilling for the American people.”
  • “This is a Pandora’s Box that has been opened and I don’t think we can get the lid back on it.”
  • “I don’t believe the White House just found out about this in a news report.”
  • “I got to tell you, where you’re sitting, you should be outraged — and you’re not. The American people should be outraged, and they are.”
  • “This reconfirms everything the American public believes! This is a huge blow to the faith and trust the American people have in their government!”
  • “Is there any limit to the scope of where you folks can go?”
  • “It’s sure as hell intimidating. And I don’t’ know that I got any answers from you today.”
  • “I am more concerned today than I was before. The fact that you all can do just about anything you want to anybody. You know, you can put anybody out of business that you want anytime you want.”
  • “And when the IRS comes in, you’re not allowed to be shoddy, you’re not allowed to be run horribly, you’re not allowed to make mistakes, you’re not allowed to do one damn thing that doesn’t come in compliance. If you do, you’re held responsible right then.”
  • “This is absolutely an overreach and this is an outrage for all America!”

you can watch the impassioned speech below and watch the gallery erupt:

Audience members applaud after Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., not pictured, questioned ousted IRS Chief Steve Miller as he testified on Capitol Hill, in Washington, Friday, May 17, 2013, before the House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) practice of targeting applicants for tax-exempt status based on political leanings. Credit: AP

Members of the audience stand and applaud after Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., criticized Steven Miller, the ousted chief of the Internal Revenue Service, as the House Ways and Means Committee focused on the extra scrutiny the IRS gave Tea Party and other conservative groups that applied for tax-exempt status, on Capitol Hill in Washington, Friday, May 17, 2013. Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin sits at front left. Credit: AP

D.C. turns on Obama

 DC & Media turn on Obama..

236-obama-facepalm-270x189

The town is turning on President Obama – and this is very bad news for this White House.

Republicans have waited five years for the moment to put the screws to Obama – and they have one-third of all congressional committees on the case now. Establishment Democrats, never big fans of this president to begin with, are starting to speak out. And reporters are tripping over themselves to condemn lies, bullying and shadiness in the Obama administration.

Buy-in from all three D.C. stakeholders is an essential ingredient for a good old fashioned Washington pile-on — so get ready for bad stories and public scolding to pile-up.

(PHOTOS: 10 slams on the IRS)

Vernon Jordan, a close adviser to President Bill Clinton through his darkest days, told us: “It’s never all right if you’re the president. There is no smooth sailing. So now he has the turbulence, and this is the ultimate test of his leadership.” Jordan says Obama needs to do something dramatic on the IRS, and quick: “He needs to fire somebody. He needs action, not conversation.”

Obama’s aloof mien and holier-than-thou rhetoric have left him with little reservoir of good will, even among Democrats. And the press, after years of being accused of being soft on Obama while being berated by West Wing aides on matters big and small, now has every incentive to be as ruthless as can be.

This White House’s instinctive petulance, arrogance and defensiveness have all worked together to isolate Obama at a time when he most needs a support system. “It feel like they don’t know what they’re here to do,” a former senior Obama administration official said. “When there’s no narrative, stuff like this consumes you.”

(Also on POLITICO: Watchdog: IRS used ‘inappropriate criteria’)

600x492-243x200

Republican outrage is predictable, maybe even manageable. Democratic outrage is not.

The dam of solid Democratic solidarity has collapsed, starting with New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd’s weekend scolding of the White House over Benghazi, then gushing with the news the Justice Department had sucked-up an absurdly broad swath of Associated Press phone records.

Democrats are privately befuddled by the White House’s flat-footed handling of this P.R. and legal mess, blaming a combination of bad timing, hubris and communications ineptitude. The most charitable defense offered up on background is that Obama staffers are scandal virgins, unaccustomed to dealing with a rabid press.

Kirsten Powers on Benghazi: ‘Bill Clinton Would Not Have Gotten Away With This’

Kirsten Powers said something Saturday that should deeply embarrass so-called journalists across the fruited plain.

Appearing on Fox News Watch, Powers – who was Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Public Affairs in the Clinton administration – said of the job the current White House is doing with the Benghazi cover up, “Bill Clinton would not have gotten away with this” (video follows with transcript and commentary):

MONICA CROWLEY: Yeah, and you also have mounting evidence which we saw this week, too, of a White House and a State Department at the very highest levels engaging in lies and stonewalling, intimidation and bullying. If you reverse this and say if this were a President John McCain or President Mitt Romney, this media would be all over the story every single day.

KIRSTEN POWERS: If it was President Bill Clinton. I’m sorry, like I worked in the Clinton administration. I have never seen anything like this. Bill Clinton would not have gotten away with this.

Is she right?

 

CBS News President Brother of Obama National Security Official; Will He Oust Benghazi Reporter Sharyl Attkisson?

Saturday morning Patrick Howley of The Daily Caller dropped another nuke on the fire that is Benghazi-Gate. Howley connects the dots surrounding a number of recent leaks coming of out CBS News about the fate of its award-winning investigative reporter, Sharyl Attkisson.

 

From the beginning, Attkisson has been one of the few mainstream journalists willing to dig into the September 11 terror attack in Libya, and the Administration’s response to it. Fearing the story might lead exactly where it did yesterday with Jonathan Karl’s bombshell report, the mainstream media has poured most if its energy into wishing the story away or playing Palace Guard for the White House.

 

Attkisson’s dogged pursuit of the truth has not only pitted her against a media desperate to protect Obama, but also, apparently, against her bosses at CBS News, one of whom is the brother of a top Obama official.

 

Moreover, CBS News president David Rhoades is not only the brother of President Obama’s national security advisor, Ben Rhoades, but ABC News reports that Ben Rhoades was very much involved in the editing of the now-infamous CIA talking points.

 

So…

 

1. According to ABC News, Obama’s national security advisor Ben Rhoades was deeply involved in the editing of the CIA talking points.

 

2. These same CIA talking points are central to what many believe is a White House coverup.

 

3. Ben Rhoades is the brother of CBS News president David Rhoades.

 

4. At CBS News, Sharyl Attkisson is one of the only mainstream media journalists with the dogged determination and moral courage to demand the truth about the White House’s involvement in the CIA talking points.

 

5. For months now  reports have surfaced that Attkisson’s bosses are unhappy with her, that she has trouble getting her Libya stories on the air, and that she’s being accused of engaging in “advocacy.”

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/11/Brother-top-Obama-Offical-Oust-Sharyl-Attkisson

 

 

 

 

 

ABC Exclusive: Benghazi Talking Points Underwent 12 Revisions, Scrubbed of Terror Reference

Hillary2016WhatDiff

ABC?

When it became clear last fall that the CIA’s now discredited Benghazi talking points were flawed, the White House said repeatedly the documents were put together almost entirely by the intelligence community, but White House documents reviewed by Congress suggest a different story.

ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack

Related: Read the Full Benghazi Talking Point Revisions

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

“Those talking points originated from the intelligence community.  They reflect the IC’s best assessments of what they thought had happened,” Carney told reporters at the White House press briefing on November 28, 2012.  “The White House and the State Department have made clear that the single adjustment that was made to those talking points by either of those two institutions were changing the word ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ because ‘consulate’ was inaccurate.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-benghazi-talking-points-underwent-12-revisions-scrubbed-of-terror-references/

Operation Smear Benghazi Whistleblowers

It’s on. As the White House grapples with a growing backlash over its Libya lies and lapses, President Obama’s apologists are gearing up for battle. Put on your hip-waders. Grab those tar buckets. Get ready for Operation Smear Benghazi Whistleblowers.

Capitol Hill hearings this Wednesday on the deadly 9/11 consulate attack by jihadists will feature three compelling witnesses, all State Department veterans: Gregory N. Hicks, deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya and highest-ranking U.S. diplomat in the country at the time of the Benghazi jihad attacks; Mark I. Thompson, a former Marine who now serves as deputy coordinator for operations in the agency’s Counterterrorism Bureau; and Eric Nordstrom, a diplomatic security officer who was the top security officer in Libya.

Nordstrom first testified last fall about how State Department brass spurned his requests for increased security at the compound. Hicks and Thompson are coming forward publicly for the first time this week with more damning evidence contradicting Team Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s claims about the administration’s response the night of the attack and in the ensuing months of cover-ups.

According to the House Oversight Committee, Hicks reportedly will refute Team Obama’s claims that nobody was told to stand down and that all military resources available were used in the rescue efforts. As Special Forces prepared to fly from Tripoli to Benghazi to save lives during the attacks, Hicks says the team received a phone call from the U.S. Special Operations Command Africa telling them “you can’t go” and that the decision was “purely political.”

The State Department press office already has accused Victoria Toensing, attorney for one of the Benghazi whistleblowers, of “lying” about administration pressure on her clients. Left-wing operatives funded by billionaire George Soros have taken to Twitter to mock reports of fear and intimidation among the new witnesses. White House press secretary Jay Carney continues to sing “Long, Long Ago” and deny all wrongdoing.

And one anonymous State Department official told Fox News reporter James Rosen that Hicks and Thompson have “axes to grind.”

Gee, who wouldn’t have an “axe to grind” if your bosses lied to you, blocked you from saving your co-workers and friends, and lied shamelessly and repeatedly to the American public about the reasons for their deaths?

It’s this corrupt and vengeful White House that wields the sharpest axes and biggest grindstones. The casualty count in Obama’s war on whistleblowers is double-digit.

ATF insiders who testified before Congress about Obama’s Fast and Furious gun-running nightmare faced systemic retaliation and harassment — both from government supervisors who openly declared witch hunts against them and from liberal media water-carriers.

Is This Man The Mastermind Behind The Benghazi Cover Up?

Is This Man The Mastermind Behind The Benghazi Cover Up?

I wrote yesterday about how the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) knew that the attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012 was a terrorist attack by Al-Qaeda operatives. We know the Obama White House put out the story for nearly a week that it was just Muslims upset over a benign YouTube video. In spite of knowing what was going on and having the ability to intervene, the Obama administration did nothing to stop or assist Americans who they knew were being attacked by Al-Qaeda. Instead, they chose to cover it up and intimidate witnesses. Stephen F. Hayes has an excellent piece at the Weekly Standard titled The Benghazi Talking Points, in which he fingers the man he believes is the main person behind the Benghazi coverup, Ben Rhodes.

Of course, one would immediately have to wonder about those who would be around a man who has vowed to stand with the Muslims instead of America. If you recall, Barack Obama made a speech in Cairo, Egypt to an audience which included the Muslim Brotherhood, in which he distorted the Qur’an to put it in a good light and then attempted to make out like Islam had made great contributions to both America and the world. That speech was written by Ben Rhodes, Obama’s foreign policy speechwriter and now a part of a his National Security Council.

Hayes writes in his article about the talking points that were first put out to officials. He writes:

The talking points were first distributed to officials in the interagency vetting process at 6:52 p.m. on Friday. Less than an hour later, at 7:39 p.m., an individual identified in the House report only as a “senior State Department official” responded to raise “serious concerns” about the draft. That official, whom The Weekly Standard has confirmed was State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland, worried that members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for “not paying attention to Agency warnings.”

In an attempt to address those concerns, CIA officials cut all references to Ansar al Sharia and made minor tweaks. But in a follow-up email at 9:24 p.m., Nuland wrote that the problem remained and that her superiors—she did not say which ones—were unhappy. The changes, she wrote, did not “resolve all my issues or those of my building leadership,” and State Department leadership was contacting National Security Council officials directly. Moments later, according to the House report, “White House officials responded by stating that the State Department’s concerns would have to be taken into account.” One official—Ben Rhodes, The Weekly Standard is told, a top adviser to President Obama on national security and foreign policy—further advised the group that the issues would be resolved in a meeting of top administration officials the following morning at the White House.

Benghazi buzz: Obama predicted to LEAVE OFFICE.. Is it even conceivable?

 

 

 

 

Obama: The Fall…by Krauthammer

Obama: The fall

By , Published: May 2

Fate is fickle, power cyclical, and nothing is new under the sun. Especially in Washington, where after every election the losing party is sagely instructed to confess sin, rend garments and rethink its principles lest it go the way of the Whigs. And where the victor is hailed as the new Caesar, facing an open road to domination.

And where Barack Obama, already naturally inclined to believe his own loftiness, graciously accepted the kingly crown and proceeded to ride his reelection success to a crushing victory over the GOP at the fiscal cliff, leaving a humiliated John Boehner & Co. with nothing but naked tax hikes.

Thus emboldened, Obama turned his inaugural and State of the Union addresses into a left-wing dream factory, from his declaration of war on global warming (on a planet where temperatures are the same as 16 years ago and in a country whose CO2 emissions are at a 20-year low) to the invention of new entitlements — e.g., universal preschool for 5-year-olds— for a country already drowning in debt.

To realize his dreams, Obama sought to fracture and neutralize the congressional GOP as a prelude to reclaiming the House in 2014. This would enable him to fully enact his agenda in the final two years of his presidency, usually a time of lame-duck paralysis. Hail the Obama juggernaut.

Well, that story — excuse me, narrative — lasted exactly six months. The Big Mo is gone.

It began with the sequester. Obama never believed the Republicans would call his bluff and let it go into effect. They did.

Taken by surprise, Obama cried wolf, predicting the end of everything we hold dear if the sequester was not stopped. It wasn’t. Nothing happened.

Highly embarrassed, and determined to indeed make (bad) things happen, the White House refused Republican offers to give it more discretion in making cuts. Bureaucrats were instructed to inflict maximum pain from minimal cuts, as revealed by one memo from the Agriculture Department demanding agency cuts that the public would feel.

More..http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-the-fall/2013/05/02/6fa564c4-b348-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_print.html

US drone strikes being used as alternative to Guantánamo, lawyer says

US drone strikes being used as alternative to Guantánamo, lawyer says Lawyer who drafted White House drone policy says US would rather kill suspects than send them to Cuban detention centre…

13

The lawyer who first drew up White House policy on lethal drone strikes has accused the Obama administration of overusing them because of its reluctance to capture prisoners that would otherwise have to be sent to Guantánamo Bay.

John Bellinger, who was responsible for drafting the legal framework for targeted drone killings while working for George W Bush after 9/11, said he believed their use had increased since because President Obama was unwilling to deal with the consequences of jailing suspected al-Qaida members.

“This government has decided that instead of detaining members of al-Qaida [at Guantánamo] they are going to kill them,” he told a conference at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Obama this week pledged to renew efforts to shut down the jail but has previously struggled to overcome congressional opposition, in part due to US disagreements over how to handle suspected terrorists and insurgents captured abroad.

An estimated 4,700 people have now been killed by some 300 US drone attacks in four countries, and the question of the programme’s status under international and domestic law remains highly controversial.

Bellinger, a former legal adviser to the State Department and the National Security Council, insisted that the current administration was justified under international law in pursuing its targeted killing strategy in countries such as Pakistan and Yemen because the US remained at war.

“We are about the only country in the world that thinks we are in an armed conflict with al-Qaida,” Bellinger said. “We really need to get on top of this and explain to our allies why it is legal and why it is permissible under international law,” he added.

“These drone strikes are causing us great damage in the world, but on the other hand if you are the president and you do nothing to stop another 9/11 then you also have a problem,” Bellinger said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/02/us-drone-strikes-guantanamo

Fraud put Obama on ’08 ballot

Jury: Forged signatures put Obama on ballot

It’s the mother of all vote-fraud scenarios.

The names were real, but the signatures were fake.

And guess who it may have helped propel into the White House?

Two Democrats in Indiana have been found guilty of submitting unauthorized names on the petition that placed then-Sen. Barack Obama on the 2008 presidential election primary ballot, meaning he likely did not qualify.

Fox News reports the jury in South Bend found guilty on all counts former longtime St. Joseph County Democratic Party chairman Butch Morgan Jr. and former county Board of Elections worker Dustin Blythe.

The two faced accusations of petition fraud and forgery, as well as falsely making a petition.

The verdicts raise anew questions about election fraud by Democrats, a subject that was analyzed after the 2012 election

 

Read the latest now on WND.com.

 

 

American Way: why it’s become clear that Obama’s White House is open to the rich and closed to the poor

President Obama’s pledges to open up the White House are going in reverse, says Mark McKinnon

via Telegraph

King Obama to the poor

King Obama to the poor

Once, only nobles were granted an audience with the King.

In America, we’ve prided ourselves on abandoning those privileges of class some 237 years ago, following that little uprising in the 13 colonies.

And we again congratulated ourselves at 12:01 pm Eastern Time on January 20, 2009, just moments after Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States and as he committed to making his administration the most transparent and open in history.

But more than four years later it is time to ask questions. The most transparent administration ever? The most transparently political, yes. The most open government? If you have the money to buy access, yes.

Since last weekend, Mr and Mrs Regular Citizen have been denied the access people used to be granted to tour the White House, purportedly because of the clampdown on federal spending since the “sequester” that imposed cuts across the board.

These tours, most recently guided by volunteers though monitored by paid Secret Service staff, have been an American tradition since John and Abigail Adams, the first White House residents, personally hosted receptions for the public.

And their cancellation is an austerity measure that saves a pittance, while more frivolous taxpayer funding for items like the White House dog walker continues.

Meanwhile, noble Americans can buy time with the president for a suggested donation of $500,000 to his new campaign group, Organising for Action.

Yes, the announcement offering access to the president for cold, hard cash was made openly and with total transparency. But it was also made without shame.

MORE . . . .

40 Obama White House Aides Owe the IRS $333,000 in Back Taxes :: Minute Men News

40 Obama Aides Owe the IRS $333,000

President Obama has done a lot of talking the last year about Americans paying their fair share of taxes.

Just do as I say, not as my staff does.

I am not a Dic-tator

so what

A new report from the Internal Revenue Service has just revealed that 40 of Obama’s White House aides owe their employer, the federal government, a total of $333,485 in back taxes.

This is the third straight year that the chief executive of the United States has been unable to get his own staff members to keep up with a citizen’s legal income tax obligations. to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars in back taxes owed. All this while Obama has made such rhetorical hay about corporations and the wealthy paying their fair share.

In its previous report the annual IRS audit accounting found that 36 of the Democrat’s White House aides owed $833,000 in back taxes. The year before it was 41 Obama staff members owing $830,000. In the past year Obama’s teleprompter has been on automatic pilot with oft-repeated demands that Americans and profitable corporate giants pay their fair share of taxes.

Because, as you may have heard him claim, Obama so wants to protect the middle class and we really need to pay down the national debt that he’s done so much to grow by 60% to $16.6 trillion in just the 1,511 days he’s been spending.

“America succeeds when everyone does their fair share,” Obama asserted in more than one speech, “when everyone plays by the same rules.” Uh-huh.

40 Obama White House Aides Owe the IRS $333,000 in Back Taxes :: Minute Men News.

11 Years Later, Senate Wakes Up to War on Terror’s ‘Battlefield America’

via Wired.com

Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster on Wednesday started out to block John Brennan’s CIA directorship. It became a rare Senate indictment of the war on terrorism.

Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster on Wednesday started out to block John Brennan’s CIA directorship. It became a rare Senate indictment of the war on terrorism.

Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster will inevitably fail at its immediate objective: derailing John Brennan’s nomination to run the CIA. But as it stretches into its sixth hour, it’s already accomplished something far more significant: raising political alarm over the extraordinary breadth of the legal claims that undergird the boundless, 11-plus-year “war on terrorism.”

The Kentucky Republican’s delaying tactic started over one rather narrow slice of that war: the Obama administration’s equivocation on whether it believes it has the legal authority to order a drone strike on an American citizen, in the United States. Paul recognized outright that he would ultimately lose his fight to block Brennan, the White House counterterrorism chief and architect of much of the administration’s targeted-killing efforts.

But as his time on the Senate floor went on, Paul went much further. He called into question aspects of the war on terrorism that a typically bellicose Congress rarely questions, and most often defends, often demagogically so. More astonishingly, Paul’s filibuster became such a spectacle that he got hawkish senators to join him.

“When people talk about a ‘battlefield America’,” Paul said, around hour four, Americans should “realize they’re telling you your Bill of Rights don’t apply.” That is a consequence of the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force that did not bound a war against al-Qaida to specific areas of the planet. “We can’t have perpetual war. We can’t have a war with no temporal limits,” Paul said.

This is actually something of a radical proposition. When House Republicans attempted to revisit the far-reaching authorization in 2011, chief Pentagon attorney Jeh Johnson conveyed the Obama administration’s objections. Of course, many, many Republicans have been content with what the Bush administration used to call a “Long War” with no foreseeable or obvious end. And shortly before leaving office in December, Johnson himself objected to a perpetual war, but did so gingerly, and only after arguing that the government had the power to hold detainees from that war even after that war someday ends.

MORE . . . .

Charles Krauthammer: Obama’s sequester idea backfires

Charles Krauthammer: Obama’s sequester idea backfires..

WASHINGTON – For the first time since Election Day, President Barack Obama is on the defensive. That’s because March 1, automatic spending cuts (“sequestration”) go into effect – $1.2 trillion over 10 years, half from domestic (discretionary) programs, half from defense.

The idea had been proposed and promoted by the White House during the July 2011 debt-ceiling negotiations. The political calculation was that such draconian defense cuts would drive the GOP to offer concessions.

It backfired. The Republicans have offered no concessions. Obama’s bluff is being called and he’s the desperate party. He abhors the domestic cuts. And as commander in chief he must worry about indiscriminate Pentagon cuts that his own defense secretary calls catastrophic.

So Tuesday, Obama urgently called on Congress to head off the sequester with a short-term fix. But instead of offering an alternative $1.2 trillion in cuts, Obama demanded a “balanced approach,” coupling any cuts with new tax increases.

What should the Republicans do? Nothing.

Republicans should explain – message No. 1 – that in the fiscal-cliff deal the president already got major tax hikes with no corresponding spending cuts. Now it is time for a nation $16 trillion in debt to cut spending. That’s balance.

The Republicans finally have leverage. They should use it. Obama capitalized on the automaticity of the expiring Bush tax cuts to get what he wanted at the fiscal cliff – higher tax rates. Republicans now have automaticity on their side.

If they do nothing, the $1.2 trillion in cuts go into effect. This is the one time Republicans can get cuts under an administration that has no intent of cutting anything. Get them while you can.

Of course, the sequester is terrible policy. The domestic cuts will be crude and the Pentagon cuts damaging. This is why the Republican House has twice passed bills offering more rationally allocated cuts. (They curb, for example, entitlement spending as well.)

Naturally, the Democratic Senate, which hasn’t passed a budget since before the iPad, has done nothing. Nor has the president – until his Tuesday plea.

The GOP should reject it out of hand and plainly explain (message No. 2): We are quite prepared to cut elsewhere. But we already raised taxes last month. If the president wants to avoid the sequester – as we do – he must offer a substitute set of cuts.

Otherwise, Mr. President, there is nothing to discuss. Your sequester – Republicans need to reiterate that the sequester was the president’s idea in the first place – will go ahead.

Obama is trying to sell his “balanced” approach with a linguistic sleight-of-hand. He insists on calling his proposed tax hikes – through eliminating deductions and exemptions – “tax reform.”

It’s not. Tax reform, as defined even by the White House’s own webpage on the subject, begins with lowering tax rates. It then makes up the lost revenue by closing loopholes.

Real tax reform is revenue neutral. It’s a way to clean the tax code by eliminating unfair, inefficient and market-distorting loopholes on the one hand while lowering rates to stimulate economic growth on the other.

Obama has zero interest in lowering tax rates. He just got through raising them at the fiscal cliff and has made perfectly clear ever since that he fully intends to keep raising taxes. His only interest in eliminating loopholes is to raise more cash for the Treasury – not to use them to lower rates.

That’s not tax reform. That’s a naked, old-fashioned tax increase.

Hence Republican message No. 3: The sequester is one thing, real tax reform quite another. The sequester is for cutting. The only question is whether it will be done automatically and indiscriminately – or whether the president will offer an alternative set of cuts.

Then we can take up real tax reform. Reprise the landmark Reagan-Tip O’Neill-Bill Bradley tax reform of 1986, a revenue-neutral spur to economic growth and efficiency, and to fairness for those not powerful enough to manipulate the tax code.

The country needs tax reform. But first it needs to rein in out-of-control spending. To succeed in doing that, Republicans must remain united under one demand: cuts with no taxes – or we will let the sequester go into effect.

The morning after, they should sit down with Obama for negotiations on real tax reform as recommended by the president’s own Simpson-Bowles commission: broaden the base, lower the rates.

Any time, any place. Geneva, perhaps? The skiing is good. Skeet shooting, too.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/tax-495103-cuts-obama.html

White House defends drone-war killing of Americans

Via Yahoo! News

The Drone Ranger strikes again!

The Drone Ranger strikes again!

The White House on Tuesday defended targeted assassinations of Americans thought to consort overseas with terrorists as “necessary,” “ethical” and “wise,” as the Obama administration faced fresh questions about its sharply expanded drone war.

“We conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats—to stop plots, prevent future attacks and, again, save American lives,” White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters. “These strikes are legal, they are ethical, and they are wise.”

Carney’s comments came after NBC News published a Justice Department memo that lays out a broad rationale for targeting individual Americans anywhere outside the U.S. for assassination—without oversight from Congress or the courts, and even if the U.S. citizen in question is not actively plotting a specific terrorist attack.

[...]

“Targeting a member of an enemy force who poses an imminent threat of violent attack to the United States is not unlawful. It is a lawful act of self-defense,” the document asserts.

“Imminent threat”? That seems reasonable and is a traditional standard for military action. Except, as NBC investigative reporter Michael Isikoff notes, the memo adds that “the condition that an operational leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.”

Instead, that previously mentioned “high-level official” can determine that the potential target was “recently” involved in “activities” posing a threat of an attack and that “there is no evidence suggesting that he has renounced or abandoned such activities.”

Isikoff notes the memo does not define “activities” or “recently,” leaving that up to the administration to determine on a case-by-case basis.

READ MORE . . .

Photo of Obama Shooting Skeet Complete Fraud, like his Presidency

A Complete Fraud, like his Presidency 

The recently released photograph of President Obama reportedly “Taken at Camp David – the Maryland presidential retreat – on August 4, 2012, his 51st birthday,” is a complete fake.

As a lifelong shotgunner, I immediately smelled a rat.  Nothing in the photo looks right and upon closer examination, it is a complete fraud.

03skeet_image2-articleLarge

One need go no further than examining the ports on the shotgun.  Ports are tiny holes sometimes drilled near the muzzle (the business end of the gun) to release energy and reduce recoil.  They serve as a pressure release valve of sorts.  One will immediately notice that there is smoke coming from the right side of the gun in the photo as well as out the front.  The only problem is that there is no smoke coming from the ports on the left side of the gun, clearly seen in the photo suggesting that the smoke was doctored into the photo.  Furthermore, the smoke exiting on the right side of the gun does not match the port pattern on the left.  If this gun was being fired as suggested by the White House, then the smoke would be coming out the ports on the gun clearly seen in the picture and evenly on both sides.

To add insult to injury, the smoke pictured is not clearly defined and appears to be moved by wind.  At this stage in the firing process, this phenomenon would be nearly impossible.  The smoke should look like it is being rapidly forced out small holes instead of something wafting from a chimney.

A photo taken at this stage of the firing process would also reveal the forces of recoil upon the shooter.  There would be a wave of energy passing through the firearm into the shooter’s body and evidence would exist somewhere in this photo that this phenomenon was happening.  This would appear like a slow motion picture of a boxer receiving a knockout blow.  The shooter’s body would give some evidence of reacting to the recoil, especially someone not wearing heavy clothing as in the picture.

One need go no further than the port evidence to prove fraud, but further evidence shows that the President was not shooting “Skeet.”  Skeet is a specific shooting game involving a skeet field with distinct shooting houses.  If he were shooting skeet, there would be a skeet house over the shooter’ shoulder from this camera angle.  There is none.  Additionally, his barrel is almost horizontal and that would not be consistent with someone shooting skeet.  At a minimum, it would be elevated at around a forty-five degree angle to almost vertical.  One could give the President a break and acknowledge that he probably doesn’t know the difference between skeet, trap, and sporting clays, but someone who recently stated, “Up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time,” should then know the difference.

Further evidence would suggest that the smoke in the photo is somewhat heavy and is more consistent with the kind of smoke coming from a blackpowder gun, not a modern shotgun. Without a doubt, this photo has been doctored for whatever nefarious reason.  It appears as though the shooter was merely holding a gun with the smoke being added in later.

This begs a simple question.  Why would the President of the United States go to such efforts to lie to the American people about something as simple as shooting a shotgun?  Makes one wonder what other lies he has been telling us. President Obama you’re a complete fraud and this picture proves it.   

 

 

 

Obama Makes Appeal to Law Enforcement to Support Push for Gun Control

by S.H. Blannelberry via Guns.com

gun_250pxOn Monday, in a morning meeting at the White House, President Obama spoke with law enforcement officials from across the country on the issue of gun-related violence.

While the gathering had the look of a free form and open discussion, it was quite clear that Obama was sending a message to those in attendance: I need you to support my push for gun control reform.

[...]

Yet, in order for Congress to pass those measures, both chambers need to be convinced or swayed that doing so is the “right” thing to do.  This is where law enforcement comes into play, as Obama pointed out.

[...]

There’s little doubt that because of its role law enforcement has a key voice in the debate over gun control.  In short, Obama’s correct, Congress will be paying close attention to what the law enforcement community has to say on the matter.

But unfortunately for Obama, thus far, over 120 sheriffs from around the country have come out against his plan to curb gun-related violence, particularly those measures that are deemed to be unconstitutional as well as those that threaten to ban certain firearms and accessories.

MORE . . . (VIDEO)

Obama Could Not Pass a Background Check

President Barack Obama could not pass a background check if he was applying for a gun permit or a job. Why has this man been allowed to remain in office or take the oath for a second time?

obama+FORGED

During the 2008 campaign, it was known that:

The birth certificate that the White House released is reputed by document experts to be false.

Guns and Piers Morgan

By Larry Elder via townhall.com

Guns and Piers Morgan

CNN’s Piers Morgan writes that the pro-gun crowd’s anger toward him stems from anti-British bias: “This gun debate is an ongoing war of verbal attrition in America — and I’m just the latest target, the advantage to the gun lobbyists being that I’m British, a breed of human being who burned down the White House in 1814 and had to be forcefully deported en masse, as no American will ever be allowed to forget.”

Scads of “in-sourced” Brits appear on our telly without us Yanks calling for their deportation. Hell, we just let a Brit play Abe Lincoln. Fox’s Stuart Varney seems to escape this anti-mother country xenophobia.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s the way Morgan — as well as much of the guns-kill-people-crowd — holds “debates” on the matter.

Take the treatment of Larry Pratt. Respected in circles that Piers “I-have- fired-guns-only-once-in-my-life” Morgan chooses not to hang out with, Pratt heads a pro-Second Amendment group called the Gun Owners of America. Pratt, on Morgan’s show, attempted to explain that the “gun control” big picture requires understanding something: Hundreds of thousand of Americans, every year, use firearms for self-defense.

Morgan’s response? He called Pratt “an incredibly stupid man” and denounced “idiots like you.” Then came this: “You don’t give a damn,” Morgan said, “do you, about the gun murder rate in America? You don’t actually care.”

Morgan offered no study, expert, number — nothing whatsoever — to counter the claim. That anyone with a moderately functioning brain could find an upside in owning, let alone using, a gun simply astonishes Morgan. Defies common sense!

Is it true, as claimed by Florida criminalist Gary Kleck, that 2.5 million Americans each year use a firearm for self-defense? Is it true that, of that number, 400,000 people believe that, were it not for the gun they used, they would have been killed? These are questions and answers the anti-gun crowd ignores, chooses not to think about or considers irrelevant.

“How many Americans are alive,” I once asked a pro-gun control police chief, “because they used a firearm in self defense?”

MORE . . .

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 167 other followers