Archive for the ‘Barack Obama’ Category

Van Jones said that he and environmentalists stayed quiet during the BP oil disaster in 2010 because Barack Obama was president — and admitted he would have “been out there with a sign protesting” had George W. Bush or John McCain been occupying the White House.

Jones, Obama’s former green energy adviser, made the comments during a recent interview on C-SPAN’s Book TV:

“I’m critical of myself, first, and the environmentalists. When the oil spill that happened in the spring of 2010, there was another moment to say, ‘Hold on a second, let’s re-look at energy policy in America. Should we be subsidizing companies that are risking our health immediately and in the long-term?‘ We didn’t do it. You’ve never seen the environmental movement more quiet during an oil spill. I guarantee you, if John McCain had been president, with that oil spill, or George Bush had been president with that oil spill, I’d have been out there with a sign protesting. I didn’t, because of who the president was. Well, that’s a bad, uh, uh…that’s not good for the earth, it’s not good for the cause, it’s probably not good for the president. It’s certainly not the way we should conduct ourselves. And so, I’m very tough on progressive movements and leaders, including myself, who did not stand on principle, based on who we looked across and saw as president.” Source

If we are trying to become independent of foreign oil, then why is the Obama administration allowing the Chinese government to buy up U.S. oil and gas deposits worth billions of dollars? This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The United States desperately needs to maintain control over its own domestic energy resources so that we can end our addiction to foreign oil. As I have written about previously, the United States actually has plenty of oil. If we would simply use the resources that we already have, we would never have to import a single drop of foreign oil. But instead, we continue to be the largest importer of oil on the planet and we are allowing China to rapidly buy up oil and gas deposits inside the United States. This is fundamentally wrong and it is a serious threat to our national security. But apparently everything is for sale in the United States today, and that includes our precious energy resources.

The Chinese government is using two giant corporations to buy up these energy resources.

The first is the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC). According to Wikipedia, this corporation is 100 percent owned by the Chinese government….

CNOOC Group is a state-owned oil company, fully owned by the Government of the People’s Republic of China, and the State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council (SASAC) performs the rights and obligations of shareholder on behalf of the government.

The second is Sinopec Corporation. Sinopec Group is the largest shareholder (about 75% of the shares) in Sinopec Corporation. And as the Sinopec website tells us, Sinopec Group is owned by the Chinese government….

Sinopec Group, the largest shareholder of Sinopec Corp., is a super-large petroleum and petrochemical group incorporated by the State in 1998 based on the former China Petrochemical Corporation. Funded by the State, it is a State authorized investment arm and State-owned controlling company.

So wherever you see CNOOC or Sinopec you can replace those names with the Chinese government. The Chinese government essentially runs both of those companies.

And both companies have been very busy buying up U.S. oil and gas deposits.

For example, CNOOC recently completed a 570 million dollar deal that gives it a one-third interest in huge oil and gas deposits in Colorado and Wyoming. The following is from Wyoming Energy News….

Chinese energy company Cnooc Ltd. has agreed to pay $570 million for a one-third interest in Chesapeake Energy Corp.’s 800,000 leased acres in northeast Colorado and southeast Wyoming. The acreage is in the Denver-Julesburg (DJ) and Powder River basins. Cnooc is China’s biggest offshore oil and natural gas producer.

In fact, according to a recent Business Insider article, this deal gives the Chinese government the right to a third of any new oil discovered by Chesapeake Energy in the entire region….

The Niobrara Shale formation stretches over Colorado and Wyoming, as well as Kansas and Nebraska. Chesapeake Energy’s position is in Wyoming and Colorado. If Chesapeake find any more oil in this region, CNOOC has the rights to 33.3% of what is found.

But this is not the only area of the country where China now owns energy rights. The following is an excerpt from a recent state-by-state breakdown that appeared in the Wall Street Journal….

Louisiana: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 265,000 acres in the Tuscaloosa Marine Shale after a broader $2.5-billion deal with Devon Energy.

Michigan: Sinopec gained a one-third interest in 350,000 acres in a larger $2.5 billion deal with Devon Energy.

Ohio: Sinopec acquired a one-third stake in Devon Energy’s 235,000 Utica Shale acres in a larger $2.5 billion deal.

Oklahoma: Sinopec has a one-third interest in 215,000 acres in a broader $2.5 billion deal with Devon Energy.

Texas: Cnooc acquired a one-third interest in Chesapeake Energy’s 600,000 acres in the Eagle Ford Shale in a $2.16-billion deal.

The Texas deal was particularly noteworthy. The following is how a San Antonio news source described that deal….

State-owned Chinese energy giant CNOOC is buying a multibillion-dollar stake in 600,000 acres of South Texas oil and gas fields, potentially testing the political waters for further expansion into U.S. energy reserves.

With the announcement Monday that it would pay up to $2.2 billion for a one-third stake in Chesapeake Energy assets, CNOOC lays claim to a share of properties that eventually could produce up to half a million barrels a day of oil equivalent.

So why is the Obama administration allowing this to happen?

Are they so desperate to have China continue lending money to the United States that they would allow the Chinese government to pillage our precious energy resources?

Somebody needs to be asking our politicians that question.

But oil and gas are not the only U.S. assets that the Chinese have been buying up.

In a previous article, I detailed how the Chinese have been purchasing huge chunks of real estate all over the country as well.

For example, a recent Forbes article detailed some of the real estate deals that China has been doing in New York….

According to a recent report in the New York Times, investors from China are “snapping up luxury apartments” and are planning to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on commercial and residential projects like Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn. Chinese companies also have signed major leases at the Empire State Building and at 1 World Trade Center, the report said.

In addition, it was recently announced that the Federal Reserve will now allow Chinese banks to buy up American banks.

Where will all of this end?

Should all of us start learning to speak Chinese?

Meanwhile, our trade deficit with China continues to get even larger. Our trade deficit with China last year was $295.5 billion, which was the largest trade deficit that one country has had with another country in the history of the world. This year, we are already on a pace to break that record.

So thousands of businesses, millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars will continue to leave the United States and go to China.

And China will continue to use some of the money they are getting from us to buy up pieces of America.

Does anyone else out there see something very, very wrong with all of this?

President Obama, speaking earlier today at a campaign event in Seattle, Washington:

“It was a house of cards and it collapsed in the most destructive, worst crisis that we’ve seen since the Great Depression,” Obama said. “And sometimes people forget the magnitude of it. You know, you saw some of that in the video that was shown. Sometimes I forget.”

Mitt Romney’s press secretary, Andrea Saul, responds: “It’s not surprising that a president who forgot to create jobs, forgot to cut the debt, and forgot to change Washington has now admitted that he’s forgotten about the recession. In fact, it seems that the President has forgotten that he’s been in office for the last three-and-a-half years. In November, the American people won’t forget.

A senior Obama administration official defended the efficacy of “class warfare” on his personal blog Monday by quoting the political philosopher and communist theorist Karl Marx.

Rick Bookstaber, who currently serves on the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the federal body established under the Dodd-Frank Act to “ensure the stability of our nation’s financial system,” took issue with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson’s accusations that liberals were engaging in “class warfare” by seeking to blame the nation’s fiscal problems on a small number of wealthy individuals.

“There is little that matches the artfulness of the rich in waving off criticism of the widening income gap as ‘class warfare,’” Bookstaber wrote. “And there is little that matches the gullibility of the rest in following along.”

“I am not picking sides in this war,” he added, “but I believe such a war is justifiable, and indeed ultimately inevitable.”

Bookstaber explained further, citing Marx:

During the industrial revolution class warfare centered on the length of the working day. A tightly defined working day only appeared with the advent of the industrial revolution. Before then laborers worked when they needed money, and then quit for a time once they fulfilled their needs. But regimentation and a dependable workforce became necessary once there was machinery to run and capital invested, and so with industrialization came the an enforced workday. So it is not surprising that Marx stated the central battle of class warfare at the time in terms of the working day:

The capitalist maintains his rights as a purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its consumption by the purchaser, and the laborer maintains his right as seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between equal rights force decides. Hence is it that in the history of capitalist production, the determination of what is a working-day, presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective labour, i.e., the working-class. – Marx, Das Kapital

Marx’s work was widely appropriated throughout the 20th century by countries such as China and the former Soviet Union. Tens of millions of people were slaughtered under those regimes.

Team Obama includes a self-identified “Muslim Palestinian-American” campaign fundraiser who has a history of blasting Israel in highly charged letters and newspaper articles about the Middle East conflict.

Hala Hijazi, a Jordanian native and current San Francisco city employee, has personally secured between $100,000 to $200,000 for Obama’s reelection effort, according to Federal Election Committee filings.

She also has gone on record accusing Israel of war crimes while castigating America for providing the Jewish state critical military aid—a long-term investment that has bolstered U.S. security interests.

Hijazi, who has cultivated pristine left-wing credentials during her government career, is another name on an ever lengthening list of Obama-affiliated donors and bundlers who are either entangled in legal woes or hail from controversial backgrounds.

A prominent Hillary Clinton supporter who has long been entrenched in San Francisco’s left-wing political machine, Hijazi appears to be tapping a list of high profile West Coast liberals in an attempt to replenish the president’s campaign coffers.

Her public writings on Israel—an issue that has plagued Obama since the start of his presidency—reveal a longstanding and deep-seated hostility towards the Jewish state.

“As Americans we cannot allow the humanitarian crisis in Gaza to continue,” Hijazi wrote in a 2009 letter to the New York Times as rockets rained down on Israel from the Gaza Strip, provoking the Israelis to respond in self-defense. “The death of children and mothers and the Gaza blockade lack any moral justification and humanity.”

Hijazi went on to lament the U.S.-Israel military alliance and accuse Israel of destroying Muslim holy places.

“As God-fearing Americans, we cannot sit still and continue being silent when our taxpayer dollars are financing a war that is causing the death of innocent civilians and is destroying places of worship and education,” said Hijazi, who identified herself as “a Muslim Palestinian-American.”

American support for Israel is perverting the country’s collective morality, Hijazi claimed.

“We are citizens of a morally just country who believe in those rights; and once we Americans accept the loss of those rights for anyone, we risk losing them for ourselves,” wrote Hijazi, who currently serves as a project manager in the San Francisco City Attorney’s office. “We cannot allow the world to believe that we do not value life.”

Hijazi also alleged that Israel’s leaders wantonly kill Palestinian children in a 2001 San Francisco Chronicle article.

The election of Israeli military hero Ariel Sharon as prime minister “is a sad day in Palestine and all over the Mideast,” Hijazi told the paper.

“There is no peace,” she claimed, adding that Sharon’s “version of peace is security for Israel, and for him one death of an Israeli solider equals a thousand Palestinian children.”

As former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown’s “Palestinian campaign assistant” in 1999, Hijazi brought the mayor to an Arab cultural center to bolster his support in the minority community.

During the reception, attendees convinced Brown to express interest in having Beirut serve as San Francisco’s official “Sister City.” Hijazi also helped recruit Arab volunteers “from the audience to walk districts of the city in order to increase voter turnout,” according to a dispatch in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

One GOP operative blasted team Obama’s fundraising arm for what he described as its shameless associations with a cast of unsavory characters—among them Hijazi and a Persian-Jewish donor who stands accused of running a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

“This has the potential to make the Obama Super-PAC completely toxic to voters—not just Jews and supporters of Israel, but your everyday swing voter that has no warm and fuzzy feelings about radical Islamists and terrorism,” said the senior GOP communications aide, who closely tracks campaign donations. “Every time you see an Obama Super-PAC ad, you’ll have to think of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Americans blown up in Jerusalem pizza parlors.”

The aide recommended that Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod “disavow this woman as soon as possible.”

Hijazi is closely tied to San Francisco’s vast network of entrenched Democratic political figures.

“She’s clearly part of the machine,” said Stephen Schwartz, an author and former San Francisco Chronicle reporter. “It’s the radical left and she’s at the heart of it.”

Hijazi has positioned herself as “a representative of Arab interests in the San Francisco political machine,” and her views are “representative in the Bay Area of politically correct attitudes about the Middle East,” Schwartz added.

Hijazi’s status as an Obama bundler, Schwartz said, “is definitely a reflection of the support that the San Francisco machine gives to the national leadership group in the Democratic Party.”

Jane asks the President if her 100 year old mother (now 105) would have gotten a pacemaker under his medical plan. Well now that’s a tough one … that costs a lot and maybe we will have to say, just take a pill. Priceless. I wonder if Jane was excited to Obama’s signature Federal healthcare mandate was passed after hearing that?

So now we are forced to play by the Feds rules on healthcare and they get to decide if we can have treatment or not. The free market says everyone gets medical service if they are willing to pay for it. The ObamaCare market says, if it can save us money you don’t get service. There are going to be a lot people being refused medical treatment.

By jeffery Klein

Yesterday we learned that American taxpayers are being robbed, as a result of the Obama IRS having sent $4.2 billion in “refund” checks to an estimated 2 million illegal immigrants who are working in the U.S. illegally, and have illegally claimed additional child tax credits for children, including nieces and nephews, that live back home in Mexico.

Now, in part two of this alarming story, we shall learn about lawmaker’s reaction to this “disturbing” news, and exactly what they intend to do when, in order to correct this situation.

We begin with Congressman Dan Burton (R–IN), who said he was frustrated–very frustrated–after learning the details of Bob Segall’s NBC WTHR TV Channel 13 investigation.

“Why in the world are we doing this?” he asked.

Yesterday we learned that American taxpayers are being robbed, as a result of the Obama IRS having sent $4.2 billion in “refund” checks to an estimated 2 million illegal immigrants who are working in the U.S. illegally, and have illegally claimed additional child tax credits for children, including nieces and nephews, that live back home in Mexico.

Now, in part two of this alarming story, we shall learn about lawmaker’s reaction to this “disturbing” news, and exactly what they intend to do when, in order to correct this situation.

We begin with Congressman Dan Burton (R–IN), who said he was frustrated–very frustrated–after learning the details of Bob Segall’s NBC WTHR TV Channel 13 investigation.

“Why in the world are we doing this?” he asked.

Advertisement

“Are you kidding me? The cost to the American tax payer is huge!”

According to the whistleblower who brought the story to Segall at WTHR TV, this is commonplace–because the IRS has provided such illegal immigrant workers with an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN), so that they may meet their obligation for tax return filing and payment. However, at the same time, the IRS requires no documentary verification of the citizenship, residency or support of “dependent” children listed on their tax return, which are the statutory IRS qualification necessary for them to be able to claim the additional child care credits.

Consequently, refund checks are processed and mailed without question…even if it is to five different families, claiming 20 children between them, who live in the same small two-bedroom home–for a combined total of nearly $30,000 in IRS refund checks–averaging $6,000 each.

WTHR TV’s Segall interviewed one illegal immigrant who has lived and worked in the U.S. for 14 years, in the kitchen of the home he owns in Indiana, with agreement that his identity not be revealed.

“It’s not taking advantage. I’m very thankful to this country for the help it gives me,”

He pays taxes and is raising three children who are all honor roll students. This year, he received a $9,000 tax refund that includes additional child tax credits, not only for his children–but also for four nieces and nephews who live in Mexico.

He said the IRS refund money helps him care for his young family members in Mexico and, if Congress were to revoke the credits, it could have dire consequences.

“Who’s going to help them if they’re not eligible … to avoid them ending up in the drug mafia, begging in the street, being raped? What happens when they get sick?” he asked. “There’s a lot of things that could happen to them if you don’t help … When you come here [to the United States], to your family down there, you are their hope.”

George Russell, the inspector general, insists refundable tax credits were never intended for illegal immigrants–never mind non-citizens who do not live in the United States. “It’s being abused by people who are not entitled to use it, and that’s problematic,” he told Eyewitness News.

And now, Rep. Burton is ready to move on this issue, by saying, “We’ve got to deal with it. I knew this was a problem, but until hearing what you found, I didn’t know it was this severe.”

“It’s cheating the American taxpayer. We all believe in humanity and humanitarianism, but we’ve got a $15 trillion national debt, [but] [w]e can’t subsidize the whole world.”

Burton, along with scores of House Republicans, had co-sponsored House Resolution 1956, which has languished in the House Ways and Means Committee for almost a year. It provides that only tax filers with a valid Social Security number may claim and receive the additional child tax credit–rendering tax filers using a ITIN ineligible to claim the credit.

To expedite matters, language from the [original] bill has been inserted into a package of proposed budget saving measures House lawmakers will consider in May; however, although the package may have enough support to pass the House, it is expected to die a quick death in the Democratic-controlled Senate, according to Segall’s video segment reporting.

“This should not be a partisan issue because we’re all concerned about saving taxpayer dollars and not wasting them on fraudulent things like this,” said Rep. Burton. “But I don’t think Democrats want to deal with this with right now.”

At least Senator Claire McCaskill (D–MO) sent a letter to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, last September 7, 2011, demanding that the IRS discontinue payment of additional child tax credits to everyone filing using an ITIN, by concluding her letter, “…stopping unauthorized payments can and must happen immediately.”

Obviously, as Barack Obama is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s boss, and Geithner is IRS Commissioner Shulman’s boss–nothing happened.

But it isn’t over yet.

Rep. Sam Johnson (R–TX), who authored HR 1956, weighed in by saying, “This rampant abuse of hardworking taxpayer dollars is just wrong … It’s time we close this tax loophole and put a stop to the child tax credit sham.”

Rep. Burton agreed, stating, “I’m a taxpayer, and the thought of me paying for 24 people who are living in one trailer boggles my mind, especially when you tell me most of them are still living in Mexico. That’s unconscionable.”

Even though few Democrats want to risk alienating illegal aliens in an election year, while Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) controls the flow of legislation and has President Obama’s veto pen in reserve, nothing is likely to happen–until they are all removed in January 2013.

Until then, this should stalemate President Obama’s call for the “Buffet Rule,” as it would raise the exact same amount of taxpayer money they will have paid to illegal immigrants this year.

Author’s request: We must all contact our Congressmen to support this legislation, for recorded proof of Democrats–particularly members in the Senate–who stand in the way of correcting this taxpayer travesty, to result in their reelection defeat in November.

If you like what you have read, please use the free “Subscribe” button to the right of Mr. Klein’s photo in the upper left corner of the page–so that you don’t miss a signal article.

“Stay informed to stay ahead!”

Please visit our facebook page and become a friend at www.facebook.com/flamariner

You can also follow us on Twitter at www.Twitter.com/JeffreyKlein2

No more training future soldiers about who the enemy is and why they want to kill us. Now, West Point cadets visit a NJ city with a large enemy Muslim population to witness the cultural diversity they will encounter overseas. (In other words, to brainwash them into believing that the so-called culture of 7th Century savages is just as good as ours)
Washington Post(H/T Robin H) The men and women in crisp U.S. military uniforms walked in close formation through the bustling, traffic-choked streets, passing women in full Muslim hijab, sari-clad Indian mothers pushing strollers, worshippers heading to an Egyptian Coptic church, and small shops with signs in Arabic, Hindi, Korean and a dozen other languages. (But notice in the photo below, female academy cadets are wearing Muslim headbags, no Indian saris or Korean attire. And in the photos and videos below, they only show the cadets at Islamic centers where the speakers are all Muslims)

The cadets are visiting as part of a class at West Point on peacekeeping and reconstruction called “Winning the Peace.” The class ends in a three-day crash course designed to make the future officers _ and, ultimately, the soldiers under their command _ more sensitive to cultural differences.
Senior Megan Kelty (L) and junior Jordan Reilly (2nd L), wear headbags out of dhimmi submission, as they sit with other cadets from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., during a presentation at the Islamic Center of Jersey City

DHIMMI A BRIEF OVERVIEW
7th-21st century. The notion of Dhimmitude, originating in the 7th century, still applies today to non-Muslims under Islamic rule—whether Jews or Christians, whether in Saudi Arabia or in Sudan. Dhimmitude began in 628 CE when Mohammed and his forces conquered the Jewish oasis at Khaybar. They massacred many of the Jews and forced the rest to accept a pact (“Dhimma”) which rendered them inferiror to their Muslim conquerors. Over the centuries, the ideology of Dhimmitude expanded into a formal system of religious apartheid.

No legal rights. Jews may not testify in court against a Muslim and have no legal right to dispute or challenge anything done to them by Muslims. There is no such thing as a Muslim raping a Jewish woman; there is no such thing as a Muslim murdering a Jew (at most, it can be manslaughter). In contrast, a Jew who strikes a Muslim is killed.

Humiliation and vulnerability. Jews and Christians had to walk around with badges or veils identifying them as Jews or Christians. The yellow star that Jews had wear in Nazi Germany did not originate in Europe. It was borrowed from the Muslim world where it was part of the apartheid system of Dhimmitude.

It wasn’t a tour of duty overseas, but a field trip to Jersey City, just 60 miles down the Hudson River from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y.

The city of 250,000 is one of the most ethnically and religiously diverse places in America, and the West Point cadets are visiting as part of a class at the academy on peacekeeping and reconstruction called “Winning the Peace.” The class ends in a three-day crash course designed to make the future officers — and, ultimately, the soldiers under their command — more sensitive to cultural differences.

All the speakers appear to have been Muslims
The program has taken on new urgency as the Army deals with the fallout from a string of embarrassing episodes in Afghanistan, including reports of U.S. soldiers posing with the bloody remains of suicide bombers, urinating on Afghan corpses and burning Muslim holy books.

During the visit to Jersey City, the 23 cadets in the class stay overnight at a mosque and attend Islamic prayers. They also go to an Egyptian Coptic Christian church, a synagogue and a Hindu religious service, and sample the foods of the cultures they encounter. (Funny, how all the videos only show the mosque visits)

At the Islamic Center of Jersey City, where the cadets stay, program organizer Ahmed Shedeed said the visit to the city is an eye-opener for some students.

I guess the only ‘Koreans’ (woman in middle) the cadets met were Muslims, too?
“Some of these soldiers have never seen anybody different. Some have never seen a black person or eaten Chinese food, and they come to a place like Jersey City and they understand they’re not the only ones in the world, that there are civilizations and cultures that came before theirs,” he said.

Emad Attaalaa of St. George’s Egyptian Coptic Church, where the cadets spent an afternoon learning about the history of the church and enjoyed a Middle Eastern-style lunch, said the program has mutual benefits, getting young people from his largely Egyptian congregation interested in the military or a career in law enforcement. “Kids in the church come and ask me after meeting the cadets, ‘What do you think about joining the Army?’” he said. (Gee, I bet they didn’t hear that from anyone in the Islamic center?)

At the Islamic Center, congregants explained to the cadets the importance of removing their shoes in prayer areas, and the female cadets were shown the proper way to cover themselves with Muslim headscarves out of respect.

Nothing about cultural difference in this video, all about the Prophet Mohammed:

Jersey City sits across the Hudson River from New York. Nearly 40 percent of the population is foreign-born, and more than half its residents speak a language other than English at home, according to census figures. It has a large Muslim population. Some of the plotters of the deadly 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center attended a mosque there.

Col. Cindy Jebb, a social sciences professor at West Point who has taught course on cultural anthropology as well as terrorism and counterterrorism, said the academy is fortunate to have such a melting pot close by.

“When you start to learn about other cultures, it makes you very self-aware, helps create a more adaptable thinker, and it develops empathy,” she said. (Empathy is the last thing you need for people who are trying to kill you)

But they don’t learn about culture, only religion:

Although this year’s visit focused on the Arab Spring uprisings across the Middle East, she said the controversies that have hurt U.S. efforts to gain the trust of Afghans are also discussed with cadets.

“We always use such incidents as a learning opportunity,” Jebb said. “Looking at it in the larger context of understanding that these actions of a few do not reflect the entire military, we discuss why these actions are so detrimental, and how you go about building a tone within a unit of cultural understanding.”

At dinner with the cadets, Muslim women were segregated from men. Only female cadets in headbags were allowed to dine with the male cadets. Muslims were offended.

by Jim Holt

Barack Obama’s latest campaign slogan “Forward!” also happens to be a Nazi marching tune.
Vorwärts! Vorwärts! was a marching song of the Hitler youth.Of course, Barack Obama’s Forward video immediately looks backward and blames Bush in the first 20 seconds

The Obama campaign apparently didn’t look backwards into history when selecting its new campaign slogan, “Forward” — a word with a long and rich association with European Marxism.

Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name “Forward!” or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called “Forward (generic name of socialist publications).”

“The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications,” the online encyclopedia explains.

The slogan “Forward!” reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

The Obama campaign released its new campaign slogan Monday in a 7-minute video. The title card has simply the word “Forward” with the “O” having the familiar Obama logo from 2008. It will be played at rallies this weekend that mark the Obama re-election campaign’s official beginning.

There have been at least two radical-left publications named “Vorwaerts” (the German word for “Forward”). One was the daily newspaper of the Social Democratic Party of Germany whose writers included Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky. It still publishes as the organ of Germany’s SDP, though that party has changed considerably since World War II. Another was the 1844 biweekly reader of the Communist League. Karl Marx, Engels and Mikhail Bakunin are among the names associated with that publication.

East Germany named its Army soccer club ASK Vorwaerts Berlin (later FC Vorwaerts Frankfort).

Vladimir Lenin founded the publication “Vpered” (the Russian word for “forward”) in 1905. Soviet propaganda film-maker Dziga Vertov made a documentary whose title is sometimes translated as “Forward, Soviet” (though also and more literally as “Stride, Soviet”).

Conservative critics of the Obama administration have noted numerous ties to radicalism and socialists throughout Mr. Obama’s history, from his first political campaign being launched from the living room of two former Weather Underground members, to appointing as green jobs czar Van Jones, a self-described communist.

by Cliff Kincaid

Obama Stimulus Dollars Funded Soros Empire, in Scandal that Dwarfs ACORN and GSA, Says New Report

Newly recently released tax documents, examined and analyzed by Tina Trent of sorosfiles.com, reveal how billionaire “philanthropist” George Soros expanded his U.S.-based empire by using funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the Obama stimulus. Soros and Obama worked hand-in-glove through the stimulus, which has been called the largest single partisan wealth transfer in American history.

The new report has been released by America’s Survival, Inc. (ASI), publisher of the Soros Files website, and posted under the title OBAMA STIMULUS DOLLARS FUNDED SOROS EMPIRE. The release of the report coincides with an Internet advertising campaign on CanadaFreePress.com, a global source of news and information, drawing attention to how the transfers of federal funds to the Soros empire constitute a bigger scandal than ACORN. In that scandal, the House and Senate voted to cut off funds to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) after undercover videos showed ACORN officials giving advice on how to hide financial misdeeds and tax crimes. “The new and currently unfolding scandal of extravagant spending by the General Services Administration, or GSA, is peanuts compared to how Soros tapped the public till,” ASI President Cliff Kincaid said.

In 2010, tax records show that Soros, a convicted inside trader with extensive knowledge of the American financial system and government policies under Obama, deployed grantees from his Open Society Foundations to lobby for and acquire federal contracts for job training, green energy, and community redevelopment programs. By gaining control over those resources, Soros advanced his agenda for “green economics,” open borders, and increased government handouts. In short, he grew his empire, which includes much of the “progressive” movement in the U.S., as the federal government itself grew.

In the report, Tina Trent analyzes George Soros’s grants to organizations in 2010. Four powerful organizations and coalitions—The STAR Coalition, The Gamaliel Foundation, the Apollo Alliance, and Green for All – are given detailed scrutiny in this regard, with the involvement of Van Jones getting special mention. Jones is the former Obama “Green Jobs Czar” fired after information about his communist past surfaced through the work of anti-communist blogger Trevor Loudon and then-Fox News personality Glenn Beck.

Obama Singles Out Private Citizens By Name For Donating To Romney, Accuses Them Of “Betting Against America”

This should send a chill down everyone’s spine. Imagine having the most powerful man on Earth singling you out by name then slandering you for donating to his opponent’s campaign?

Via WSJ:

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers – to jail, to fine, to bankrupt – are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having “outsourced” jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a “lobbyist”) and Thomas O’Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a “bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”
These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

“We don’t tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things,” says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. “When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys’ names up on ‘Wanted’ posters in government offices.” Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He’s been ignored.

The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.

He’s targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama’s real aim.

The White House has couched its attacks in the language of “disclosure” and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, “he’s doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies.” Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

It’s getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House’s new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.

The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to “hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable,” but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn’t going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn’t deserve to be one.

APRIL 24, 2012 BY GEORGE SPELVIN
Years of living dangerously off of the U.S. taxpayers’ dime have certainly served the Obama-Dunham family well, according to investigative journalist Wayne Madsen. Nevertheless, the downside for America is the Islamazation of Africa and Asia in a remarkable example of unintended consequences of foreign entanglements gone bad- very bad, indeed.
A Wayne Madsen 32 page pdf file is opening up a Pandora’s Box of American foreign aid money dispensed wildly and broadly overseas. The reporter cites American dollars intended to buy starving villagers rice actually going to finance foreign military weapons purchases for various wars, conflicts, and insurgencies. Our tax dollars earned through the hard work and sweat equity have not been used to our benefit but rather to further the Islamazation of these continents which is now almost complete.
The very aims and actions of politicians, faceless bureaucrats, and foreign service operatives (both covertly and not covertly) have come back to bite America at a time when our own citizens are suffering through economic trouble. The investigative reporter’s dogged pursuit of the Obama-Dunham family odyssey in places from Jakarta to Jalalabad, and from the Ford Foundation to the Oval Office, makes for fascinating reading: But how to verify it?
Rumors abound that Madsen has grown so fearful for his life that he has broken up with a long time companion and left the country. A noted author and syndicated columnist, Madsen’s reports have been widely circulated. He is the author of “Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa” and “Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops & Brass Plates.”
A picture of Stanley Ann Dunham “visiting a Balinese duck farm officially as part of her work to secure bank loans for small businesses” is included in the five-part report of international intrigue and American dollars. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s father Peter Geithner acted as the Ford Foundation’s grant selector for projects in Indonesia, and President Obama’s mother worked for or with him as Madsen reports.
The report’s dizzying array of abbreviations, acronyms, NGO’s, and many other groups obfuscate duties, dollars, and destinies.
What a labyrinth to wade through! Lost in all of this overseas stewpot are the unsuspecting U.S. citizens who pay for everything. But where is Madsen now? Is all of what he says true? He filed communiqués from the Obama Korean summit recently, that much we know, but is he safe?
What really is apropriate here is the admonishment of George Washington who warned America in his Farewell Address delivered to our new nation on 17 September 1796. Washington said, “Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence the jealousy of free people ought to be constantly awake since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of a republican government.”
Could any of our politicians look into the eyes of America’s founder and say they have followed his advice when it comes to foreign aid? Mightily served by our founding fathers, America has been miserably served by her politicians!

By - Doug Hagmann Monday, April 23, 2012

America and the world today is in chaos. Wars, rumors of wars, high gasoline prices, increasing food prices, growing divisions among races and between classes, current and impending financial collapses dominate the headlines. Critics and detractors of Barack Hussein Obama claim that it is a result of his failed policies that our house and much of the world is in such disarray. Investigation into the man known as Barack Hussein Obama II and the people behind him suggests otherwise.

The chaos that presently exists domestically and across the globe is destined to get worse, but it’s not due to Obama’s inexperience or failed policies. Rather, it is the direct result of the implementation of his successful policies. The chaos in which we find ourselves is exactly what has been planned for decades. Chaos is the tactic, the means to an end, and not the result of failure of policy by the man known as Barack Hussein Obama II.

We have seen only the tip of the full frontal assault of the chaos planned for this country. Actually, we haven’t seen anything yet.

Connect the dots
Investigative findings suggest that our present state of disorder was crafted long ago, compliments of a shadowy cabal of government leaders and their often unwitting lackeys, complicit media moguls and their eye-candy mouthpieces, and ideologues intent on changing the United States and thus the world. While this might sound like a bad fictional plot from the film noir genre, a good bit of investigation indicates otherwise.

Before dismissing such musings as delusional fodder, carefully consider the current state of our country – and the world – and start to connect the dots, stepping backwards chronologically. As you do, understand that the traditional right-left political paradigm with which we’ve been indoctrinated no longer exists, except as a distraction to the viewers and listeners of political talk shows hosted by highly paid ornaments who dutifully adhere to narrow scripts of approved show content.

The “necessity” Obama-Soetoro narrative
Our founding fathers had the vision to understand that the biggest threat to our Republic is from within. That’s the reason that the founders placed a natural born restriction clause for President at the time the U.S. Constitution was drafted. They understood that there was a contemporaneous threat from a Trojan Horse president, as well as a future threat, despite the other checks and balances constructed within our government. Over time, however, communist influence in our schools and media continued to dilute the literal interpretation of the Constitution. Such revision changed or ignored history altering events, such as the infiltration of Communists into our federal government in the post World War II era. History has been revised. As the famous novelist George Orwell once stated, “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.” That has never been so true as today.

Since 2008, coherent discussion of the bona fides of Barack Hussein Obama II as they relate to his constitutional eligibility has been declared off limits, except to mock and marginalize those who bring up the issue. His association with communists, socialists and other “radicals” has been deliberately downplayed, revised and in some cases, rewritten. This, thanks to the incestuous corporate ownership of big media, which has collectively ensured that legitimate discussion into the legend that is Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro has been effectively nullified. Unfortunately and in many cases, it’s paychecks over patriotism.

Who is Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro?
To fully understand what is taking place today, and more importantly, what is being planned for tomorrow, we must identify the actors involved in fomenting chaos. Let’s first consider the meteoric rise of the virtually unknown community organizer Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro.

People who have questioned his constitutional eligibility to hold office, known by the pejorative term “birthers,” are a troublesome lot among for the Progressives and the establishment Republicans. The issue, however, extends well beyond the Constitutional formality of where Obama was born, as the formal admission that his parental lineage, as questionable as it still is, officially denies him eligibility of the office.

This is not about the Certification of Live Birth, however, as much regarding this has already been written, except for this: any seasoned investigator experienced in conducting background investigations knows that there is no valid substitute for the actual authenticated paper document. When there is an outright refusal to allow for a legitimate inspection of an actual document, combined with an overt redirection of investigators’ attention away from the hardcopy form, there is always something being hidden. Always.

Based on extensive research and investigation, this investigator has identified at least 135 legal actions brought against Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro by plaintiffs demanding authenticated evidence of his eligibility to hold the office of President of the United States. These actions span various venues, from hearings in various courts and before administrative law judges, to the more recent state ballot challenges. In each instance, “team Obama” prevailed.

In many cases, legal giant Perkins Coie defended Obama against these lawsuits. Perkins Coie made headlines in 2006 when they represented Salim Ahmed Hamdan, the alleged driver and bodyguard of Osama Bin Laden.

According to legal financial documents, Obama paid Perkins Coie over $2.5 million in fees to defend him on a variety of issues from October 2008 through the end of 2010. It is unclear exactly how much of that $2.5 million was earmarked for defending Obama against eligibility challenges.

So, from this investigator’s perspective, along with Mike Zullo, lead investigator of the Maricopa County, Arizona Cold Case Posse tasked with conducting a law enforcement sanctioned background investigation of Barack Hussein Obama II, it can be concluded that we do not know the legal name or legal status of the individual holding the highest elected office in the United States.

If an American citizen lies to a federal official, they can be charged with a felony. What happens when a federal official lies to the American people? Nothing, it would appear.

Therefore the question still remains: Who is Barack Hussein Obama II, a/k/a Barry Soetoro?

Beyond the birth issue
Some will continue to deride those who adhere to the importance of the Certification of Live Birth. Supporters of “Obama the American” are a prolific and vocal bunch, yet become silent or full of excuses as questions are naturally extended to his refusal to release other records of relevance that would provide valuable and necessary insight into the man currently at the helm of our nation.

Obama-Soetoro has repeatedly refused to produce documentation that former presidents have traditionally provided. In the case of Obama-Soetoro, his passport records, school records from kindergarten forward, Punahou School records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, University of Chicago scholarly articles, Illinois State Bar Association records, Illinois State Senate records and schedules (reportedly “lost”), medical records, important family records including the Obama/Dunham marriage license and divorce documents, and any adoption records remain off limits.

From the perspective of an investigator, there are compelling reasons for Obama-Soetoro to keep these records private, and none are likely to bode well for the putative president. In total, releasing authenticated documents of all of the above would create an accurate historical profile of the man in the Oval Office, which we do not have. Instead, we have the Obama-Soetoro legend, manufactured by… whom? And why?

I pledge allegiance to…
Consider that Obama is, in part, an artifact of the intentional “Balkanization” of America. Look at the historical immigration policies, the intentional lack of enforcement of illegal immigration, and other related issues and question why. Globalists have been constantly attacking our national identity and culture well beyond what was intended and engraved on the Statue of Liberty.

The legend of Barack Hussein Obama II involves much more than a Certification of Live Birth. It’s about the very issue our cautioned by our founders. It’s allegiance to the United States of Americaand the survival of our nation as a free, Representative Republic.

The founders believed that a natural born citizen would be more inclined to have a “natural” allegiance to the country in which they were born and the principles on which our country was founded. they would protect our freedoms, the rights of citizens, and side with America in international disputes. Are we seeing this in the narrative of Barack Hussein Obama II?

No.

Another question involves the unprecedented contributions made to Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. The amount is somewhere between $650 to $750 million, depending on the source, and a lot of that money reportedly originated from outside of this country. Is this what the founders intended? What strings came with such contributions?

On the morning of Obama’s first day in office of January 21, 2009, one of the first, if not the first phone call he made as American leader was to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Less than five months later, on June 4, 2009, Obama kicked off his American apology tour in a speech at Cairo University in Egypt, co-hosted by Al-Azhar University. Obama “honored” a promise made during his presidential campaign to give a major address to Muslims from a Muslim capital during his first few months as president. To date, Obama has not yet stepped foot in Israel, our only democratic ally in the Middle East.

The list could continue ad nauseum and include the recent statement of collusion made in front of a “hot” microphone to the Russians about missile defense. There are numerous other examples that can be used to question the true allegiance of the man known as Barack Hussein Obama II.

Perhaps most troubling, however, is what we are seeing played out on our domestic front. Recall that history has been revised to downplay Obama’s associations with Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Jeff Jones, and many other communist, socialists, Leninists and Marxists revolutionaries. Recall their objectives, and put them in perspective to current events.

Peering into the Obama-Soetoro domestic playbook
“Our primary task is to build a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary movement. The American system is racist, capitalist and imperialist. We must arm ourselves. I believe we are going to have a revolutionary change in society. -Michael Klonsky 1969 SDS Center, Washington, DC (with Bernadine Dohrn and Allen Young)

Revolutionaries thrive on chaos. Protests offer opportunity to spread chaos and in nearly every protest, trained agitators of the Progressives appear on site to inflame passions, foment disorder and violence.

This putative president and the powers behind him knew the consequences of fueling the Arab Spring, from our role in Tunisia to Egypt and the chaos that would result. Equally important, he knew the ramifications that would result from his polarizing statements pertaining to the Trayvon Martin case, and the racial divide that would be exacerbated.

He knows the results of our oppressive domestic energy policy, which are exacerbating the economic divide within the U.S. and the societal upheaval that will result.

He knows the results of our unlimited monetary printing presses that will bring our economy to its knees. So emboldened is Obama, that he continues to work with Jon Corzine of MF Global, the man behind the missing $1.6 billion of American’s money. He knows that the economic collapse of America is coming. He knows that there will be riots in the streets.

Is he preparing for it? Yes, but not in the manner that a truly American president should.

Obama, the Emperor
Consider recent executive orders and other executive actions as “big dots” in our dot connecting exercise. The importance or relevance of these executive orders in our normal existence have either been downplayed or ignored by the media, and are subject to ridicule when brought up in political discussions. After all, they’ve been standard procedure since 1789.

DOT: On Friday, April 13, 2012, Obama signed an executive order titled ” Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources.” This order is a stepping stone for the takeover of the natural gas (and related) industry. Moreover, it creates an oversight group headed by Ceclia Munoz, chairman of the White House Domestic Policy Council who connected to globalist George Soros and a number of other socialist groups antagonistic to private U.S. energy production.

DOT: On Friday, March 16, 2012, Obama signed the order on National Defense Resources Preparedness, which dramatically expanded the Defense Production Act of 1950, and essentially gives Obama the power to take over our national resources and infrastructure for reasons that are no longer limited to times of war or declared states of national emergency.

DOT: On February 9, 2012, Obama signed Executive Order 13600, “Establishing the President’s Global Development Council,” which is an enhancement of the 2010 National Security Strategy and the Presidential Policy Directive on Global Development. In short, it is internal subjugation to a global agenda, or global governance.

DOT: Consider that the Department of Homeland Security recently acquisitioned 450 million rounds of .40 caliber ammunition (an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity, one year contract with 4 option years). Hollow points, as well, which are not used for target practice. Also consider that the Department of agriculture has ordered 326,000 rounds of mixed caliber ammunition this month as well.

DOT: Consider that the executive branch has the unfettered authority to execute American Citizens deemed “a threat.”

DOT: Several unconfirmed reports indicate that the Department of Homeland Security have ordered Mine Resistant Anti-personnel Carriers (MRAPs) for deployment in the United States.

DOT: During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in March, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey openly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but they take their orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.

DOT: Consider other reports of FEMA quarters being readied here in the U.S., ostensibly for disaster relief and protection of its citizens. In consideration of everything else taking place, can we afford to take their word for this “preparation?”

Readers can fill in numerous other “dots” unaddressed here. The point is that it would appear that final preparations are being made not necessarily for the protection of our citizens, but against them. By a man in the Oval Office whose legal name we do not know, and whose allegiance is suspect at best.

Get ready, Americans. Understand the playbook.

Michele Bachmann- Obama “Waiving a Tar Baby in the Air”

by Javier Manjarres

During our sit-down interview with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, Bachmann skewered President Obama’s energy policy and his farcical view of energy “independence.”

Bachmann said that Obama doesn’t know “zilch about the economy and what to do in the business world,” and added that he didn’t have “any background when he came in and has proved it over and over in spades.”

Bachmann also said the Obama’s recent Keystone XL pipeline proposal was a joke and that it was hypocritical of him to blame oil speculators. Bachmann explained that the President has every tool at his disposal to deal with speculators and “if there is a problem (with oil speculators) then President Obama is the problem for failing to utilize these tools that he has.”

This is just about waiving a tar baby in the air and saying that something else is a problem. I have never seen a more irresponsible President who is infantile in the way that he continually blames everyone else for his failure to first diagnose the problem and second to address the problem. – Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann

President Obama must believe he can’t close the deal with Latinos, because during his Friday interview on Univision he resorted to lying about Mitt Romney’s stance on racial profiling. Obama implied that Romney’s approval of the Arizona illegal immigrant was an indication that he approved of racial profiling. What a way to deflect attention away from how bad his administration has been for the Hispanic community.

Host Enrique Acevedo asked Obama if he would make immigration reform a priority during the first year of a second term:
“I can promise that I will try to do it in the first year of my second term. I want to try this year. The challenge we’ve got on immigration reform is very simple. I’ve got a majority of Democrats who are prepared to vote for it, and I’ve got no Republicans who are prepared to vote for it. It’s worse than that. We now have a Republican nominee who said that the Arizona laws are a model for the country; and these are laws that potentially would allow someone to be stopped and picked up and asked where their citizenship papers are based on an assumption.”
“Racial profiling,”asked Acevedo.

“Very troublesome — and this is something that the Republican nominee has said should be a model for the country,” replied Obama.

“What we need is a change either of Congress or we need Republicans to change their mind, and I think this has to be an important debate during — throughout the country. What I’ve said to Latinos across the United States is that my passion for this issue is undiminished; that when it comes to, for example, the Dream Kids who have been raised as Americans and see themselves as Americans and want to serve their country or are willing to work hard in school and start businesses or work in our laboratories and in our businesses, it is shameful that we cannot get that done. And so I’m just going to keep on pushing as hard as I can, and what I’m going to be encouraging is the Latino community continue to ask every member of Congress where they stand on these issues, but the one thing that I think everybody needs to understand is that this is something I care deeply about. It’s personal to me, and I will do everything that I can to try to get it done. But ultimately I’m going to need Congress to help me.”
Makes you wonder why Acevedo didn’t ask if immigration reform was such a big personal issue to the President why didn’t he try and push it through during the first two years of this administration when his party dominated both houses of Congress

Obama has made no attempt to control the borders. Republicans have always contended they will work on immigration reform once the President seals our borders. To date there has been no action by Obama or his fellow Democrats to gaining control of our northern and southern borders.The part of the Arizona law liberals point to as “profiling” says that immigration status can be checked at
“any lawful stop, detention or arrest made where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.”
The law says a person is presumed to be in this country legally if he presents a valid Arizona driver’s license, tribal identification or a form of federal ID such as a resident alien card.

In English the law says if you have been stopped or arrested police can ask you for an ID. And how do you belong? With a valid Arizona driver’s license, tribal identification or a form of federal ID such as a resident alien card. Mull that over for a second. You can’t get on an airplane in the US without one of those. Does that mean the TSA racial profiles?

If Obama were being honest, he would concede that per the law police couldn’t stop some innocent person on the street and ask them for papers they would first have to be arrested or accused of some crime. He would also concede that Mitt Romney has never said he supports racial profiling…Never! Obama’s contention that Romney is a supporter is nothing but political spin (a nice way of saying he lied).

If the liberal Univision host Enrique Acevedo cared about America’s Latinos he would’ve asked why the Latino Community has fared so badly under Obama’s tenure. Why they have been hit by the recession more than other communities.

For example:
Bureau of Labor Statistics results for the month of March was that the unemployment rate for the US population was 8.2%. The jobless rate in the Hispanic community was 26% higher at 10.3%
According to the Census Department Between 2006 and 2010, the poverty rate among Hispanics increased nearly six percentage points from 20.6% to 26.6%– an increase higher than any other group. To put it in perspective, the same report showed poverty rates among whites increased from 8.2% to 9.9%.
A poll released earlier this month by The Libre Initiative of U.S. Hispanics and Latinos reveals that many Hispanics may not be buying the Presidential subterfuge.
Alarmingly, a majority (51 percent) say it is harder to open a business in America today compared to 4 years ago, and the data also shows that a majority (52 percent) now fear that the next generation will not be able to achieve the American dream. Similarly, a majority of respondents (51 percent) believe the country is headed in the wrong direction.
Furthermore, a full 85 percent of Hispanics say they are “very” or “somewhat” concerned about Washington’s current levels of spending and debt, according to the survey (the poll has accuracy rate of plus or minus 4.5 percent). Despite President Obama’s overtures for increased spending, a 54 percent majority of Hispanics say the higher priority of the federal government right now should be a reduction in spending to shrink the deficit while just 36 percent say more spending is the answer.
President Obama’s emphasis on immigration (supported by the liberal media) gives the impression Latinos are somehow less American– that they only care about one issue: immigration. That in itself is racist, it reflects the progressive desire to lump folks into hyphenated whose political positions are ruled by common stereotypes.

Immigration is not their top issue. A recent Pew Research study of American Latinos registered to vote reported their top issues were not vastly different than the general population. The poll defined priority Determined by saying the issue was extremely important their top issues were; Jobs 50%, Education 49%, Healthcare 45%, Taxes 34%, Federal Budget deficit 34%, and Immigration 33%. The Libre Initiative survey had similar results.

Just as he did with “the war against women,” and “class warfare, Barack Obama is resorting to lies as a way to deflect attention from his record.

The President and the progressive establishment may believe that Latinos are not quite American, that all they care about is allowing illegal immigrants into the country, but that is far from the truth. Just like their compatriots from other ethnic groups, Latinos have been suffering under the the Obama administration. And just like other Americans they want the country they love to once again become the land of opportunity.

Those are real facts, something the President is very reluctant to use.

Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)
Friday, April 13th at 4:46AM EDT

Hilary Rosen’s specific point was that Ann Romney, not having been in the workforce outside the home, cannot really relate to women in the workforce. I disagree. Here’s why.

In my experience, with both a stay at home mom raising me, my wife a stay at home mom, and many of my friends married to stay at home moms, the stay at home mother typically raises the kids, cooks the meals, cleans the house, oversees homework, and on top of that the stay at home mom pays the bills, buys the groceries, handles the insurance hassles, knows the co-pay, haggles with the bank, etc. etc. etc.

The stay at home mom deals with many of the same issues the working woman deals with in addition to a host of other matters. It is not that the working woman has it more or less difficult. It is that working women and stay at home moms have it differently difficult in different areas with some days better and some days worse. And single parents, mothers and fathers, have it most difficult. But none are homogenous automatons of one singular thought or view on all topics.

Move past Hilary Rosen’s remarks if you can. The amazing speed at which Democrats sought to distance themselves from her remarks suggests they know that in all the talk about Romney’s problem with women, they have their own.

After Hilary Rosen’s remarks, a number of leftwing pundits came out seemingly upset that Hilary did not go as far as they would have wanted her to. In so doing, these pundits, activists, and politicos have raised up the raw stench of elitism. Luckily, few smelled it because it was drifting in from MSNBC.

Nonetheless, there were people like Joan Walsh of the far left rag Salon. She thought it perfectly okay to pronounce on Hardball yesterday that of course working women have it harder than stay at home moms. Of course they do you women battling breast cancer and suffering from MS while raising five boys without nannies and cooks and maids contrary to what the left has been claiming is, was, and forever more shall be the case with Ann Romney. Never mind that Mitt and Ann Romney gave away their inherited fortune to build their own lives and fortune.

There there is Chris Hayes, also of MSNBC and the even further left than Salon The Nation. He said if Republicans really think that stay at home moms are workers, then they should be paid a wage. Seriously.

It went down hill from there. The most striking thing is the overwhelming presumption from so many on the left who waded into the waters who think only the wealthy can be stay at home moms. As a matter of fact, I know scores of stay at home moms and not a single one’s husband gets them into the 1%, let alone the top 10% for most.

The myopic view of not just stay at home mothers as rich socialites with nannies, but of women in general too, highlights the problem for the Democrats. They talk about the GOP as the party of the rich when they are increasingly a party of the elite. Many of them look on stay at home moms as inferior or second class. Consider Christy Hayes of MSNBC and the Nation who openly wonders if it can really be considered work if they are not getting a salary.

The Democrats seem to believe that all women believe what they believe and are the same. Instead of unique individuals, they are a stereotyped class of women who care only about birth control, abortion, and government benefits. Stay at home moms who fall outside this view are viewed as second class citizens who really can’t be related to and who cannot relate to women in the workforce. Liberal women who prided themselves on feminist advances into society and think of themselves as unique individuals go on twitter and television and radio to proclaim all women same thinking, same liking, same knowing, and . . . well . . . same.

Like black Republicans such as Condelezza Rice, Michael Steel, and Herman Cain who are ridiculed by the left as oreos, Uncle Toms, or worse, women who think differently are treated as second class citizens, inferior, or somehow “other.”

As former Bush Press Secretary Ari Fleischer noted last night, in the 2008 exit polls only 30% of women classified themselves as “working women,” a category of woman the left seems to think is all that matters or counts as legitimate through their rhetoric.

This is precisely why the Democrats have their own problems with women. In thinking women only care about X, Y, or Z, they forget that in 2004 women were mostly concerned with who would keep them safe and this year will be mostly concerned with who will get them, their husbands, their children, their relatives, and their neighbors back into jobs that make ends meet. This is the one area Barack Obama prefers not to talk about.

I compared Rick Santorum a few weeks ago to Dug the dog in the movie Up!. The dog would be engaged in conversation (you have to see the movie to get it) with a person then yell “Squirrel” on the sight of a squirrel, changing his entire focus and attention. Barack Obama now hopes the American voter is like Dug the Dog and can be distracted from an economy that seems more and more like Schrodinger’s cat — alive as long as we pay no attention to it. Dead if we do.

byTad Cronn

After weeks of boohooing over their manufactured “war on women,” Democrats continue to prove that they are the party that hates women.

You’re not supposed to notice that fact, of course.

All the public faces pushing the “war on women” meme have been female, from Sandra Fluke to Nancy Pelosi, so you’re supposed to assume that they have women’s best interests at heart.

That hasn’t stopped them from attacking Ann Romney, who has defended her husband against the Left’s made-up charges that he can’t relate to women.

Lobbyist and CNN contributor Hilary Rosen, being “interviewed” on CNN (I remember when lobbyists weren’t contributors to “news” programs), slammed Mrs. Romney, saying she “had never worked a day in her life” because she had chosen to stay home and raise the kids.

Columnist Michelle Malkin has unearthed records that suggest Rosen’s attack is coordinated directly by the White House. According to that information, Rosen visited the White House at least 35 times since 2009, visiting with top-level communications and political strategists including the likes of Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod and the president himself.