Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN

Archive for the ‘Barry Soetoro (alias Barak Obama)’ Category

ISRAEL – BEWARE OF OBAMA

By Michael Goodwin

US-POLITICS-OBAMA-FILM
First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet.

He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.
Now he’s coming for Israel.

Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest. He is transforming the whole world before our eyes. Do you see it yet?

Against the backdrop of the tsunami of trouble he has unleashed, Obama’s pledge to “reassess” America’s relationship with Israel cannot be taken lightly. Already paving the way for an Iranian nuke, he is hinting he’ll also let the other anti-Semites at Turtle Bay have their way. That could mean American support for punitive Security Council resolutions or for Palestinian statehood initiatives. It could mean both, or something worse.
Whatever form the punishment takes, it will aim to teach Bibi Netanyahu never again to upstage him. And to teach Israeli voters never again to elect somebody Obama doesn’t like.

Apologists and wishful thinkers, including some Jews, insist Obama real­izes that the special relationship between Israel and the United States must prevail and that allowing too much daylight between friends will encourage enemies.
Those people are slow learners, or, more dangerously, deny-ists.

If Obama’s six years in office teach us anything, it is that he is impervious to appeals to good sense. Quite the contrary. Even respectful suggestions from supporters that he behave in the traditions of American presidents fill him with angry determination to do it his way.

For Israel, the consequences will be intended. Those who make excuses for Obama’s policy failures — naive, bad advice, bad luck — have not come to grips with his dark impulses and deep-seated rage.

His visceral dislike for Netanyahu is genuine, but also serves as a convenient fig leaf for his visceral dislike of Israel. The fact that it’s personal with Netanyahu doesn’t explain six years of trying to bully Israelis into signing a suicide pact with Muslims bent on destroying them. Netanyahu’s only sin is that he puts his nation’s security first and refuses to knuckle ­under to Obama’s endless demands for unilateral concessions.

That refusal is now the excuse to act against Israel. Consider that, for all the upheaval around the world, the president rarely has a cross word for, let alone an open dispute with, any other foreign leader. He calls Great Britain’s David Cameron “bro” and praised Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, who had called Zionists “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

Obama asked Vladimir Putin for patience, promising “more flexibility” after the 2012 election, a genuflection that earned him Russian aggression. His Asian pivot was a head fake, and China is exploiting the vacuum. None of those leaders has gotten the Netanyahu treatment, which included his being forced to use the White House back door on one trip, and the cold shoulder on another.

It is a clear and glaring double standard.
Most troubling is Obama’s bended-knee deference to Iran’s Supreme Leader, which has been repaid with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” demonstrations in Tehran and expanded Iranian military action in other countries.
The courtship reached the height of absurdity last week, when Obama wished Iranians a happy Persian new year by equating Republican critics of his nuclear deal with the resistance of theocratic hard-liners, saying both “oppose a diplomatic solution.” That is a damnable slur given that a top American military official estimates that Iranian weapons, proxies and trainers killed 1,500 US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who in their right mind would trust such an evil regime with a nuke?

Yet Netanyahu, the leader of our only reliable ally in the region, is ­repeatedly singled out for abuse. He alone is the target of an orchestrated attempt to defeat him at the polls, with Obama political operatives, funded in part by American taxpayers, working to elect his opponent.

They failed and Netanyahu prevailed because Israelis see him as their best bet to protect them. Their choice was wise, but they’d better buckle up because it’s Israel’s turn to face the wrath of Obama.
It’s just like old crimes

Reader Stephen Shapiro agrees that the bad old days of “Taxi Driver” are coming back to Gotham. “Only last night, my wife noted the same thing when walking up Broadway from the Theater District,” he writes. “The sidewalks were packed with illegal sellers of cheap trinkets and maybe stolen goods. Like it was decades ago.”
Step right up, NYers

P.T. Barnum is credited with saying, “There’s a sucker born every minute,” but the sentiment applies better to Albany than the circus. After all, who are the greater fools: ticket buyers who believe in sword swallowers and fire-eaters, or taxpayers who believe Gov. Andrew Cuomo and legislators will clean up corruption?
School vow is more blah-blah-blasio

There he goes again. Mayor Bill de Blasio is making promises that make no sense and saying things he can’t possibly believe.

Putzie is so desperate to fend off state changes to his control of city schools that he is promising to apply crime-control techniques to educrats. “We’re going to hold every one of the principals to the same kinds of standards that our precinct commanders are held to via CompStat,” he declared.

That’s crazy talk for two reasons.
First, he and Chancellor Carmen Fariña say repeatedly they don’t like mainstream educational standards, especially a heavy use of standardized tests for evaluating students and teachers. Throw in their cutback of suspensions for disruptive students and their willful expansion of union power, and it’s hard to see on what basis they will measure principals’ performance.

Second, his reference to the Police Department as the gold standard of accountability would be valid — if de Blasio weren’t mayor. He is taking away so many enforcement tools from the NYPD that shootings and murder are soaring and evidence mounts that cops are under orders to ignore many quality-of-life crimes. With cops increasingly reduced to responding to crimes already committed, it is unclear what standards de Blasio is using to measure police commanders.
In truth, the similarity between the mayor’s approach to schools and crime reveals the danger of his incoherent philosophy. He’s a central planner of the Soviet model who doesn’t trust principals, teachers or cops to exercise their professional judgment. Ideological to the core, he’s imposing his political prejudices on their authority despite his lack of experience and training.

His decisions amount to micromanagement, not leadership, and represent the height of arrogance from a man who is late for virtually every public engagement.

Here’s an offer: He starts to show up on time, and we start to take him seriously.

Sheriff Joe plea: Rein in Obama ‘power grab’

by Bob Unruh

border_fence
Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, is asking an appeals court in Washington, D.C., to rein in the massive power that would be granted to President Obama and future presidents if a lower court’s decision stands.

The ruling threw out a legal challenge to Obama’s executive-memo driven amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens, despite the fact that amnesty was rejected by Congress and the plan would contradict state law.

Arpaio, represented by attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to step into the case thrown out earlier by Judge Beryl Howell.

Arpaio contends the administration’s claim that “prosecutorial discretion” allows Obama to promise the benefits of citizenship to millions of illegal aliens is wrong.

“What is to stop a future president from simply directing the Internal Revenue Service to stop collecting taxes on capital gains or stop collecting income taxes above a rate lower than set by Congress?” asked a reply brief and request for oral argument filed Monday.

“Indeed, who would have standing to challenge taxes left uncollected from another person? What is to stop a future president from refusing to enforce environmental laws, labor union protections, securities laws, voting rights laws, or civil rights laws, on a claim of prosecutorial discretion?

“May a future president direct the IRS not to collect the penalty supporting Obamacare’s ‘individual mandate,’ producing actuarial collapse?”

“Appellees ask this court to endorse this power grab. Constitutional government in the United States would end in all but name. Any future president may ignore the law claiming ‘prosecutorial discretion’ wholesale.”

The brief contends that the issue is not a “policy dispute” as the government claims.

“The executive branch seeks to raise its own ‘policies’ above congressional statutes. Executive branch policies are not the ‘supreme law of the land’ as congressional enactments are.”

The brief also notes that in a similar case, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen already has issued a preliminary injunction halting Obama’s executive amnesty, because the administration failed to follow the Administrative Procedures Act.

Hanen now has ordered the Obama administration to be in his courtroom later this week to explain why the administration apparently is not abiding by his preliminary injunction.

Arpaio’s case aims for a ruling that the president’s actions are unconstitutional.

He argues that while the power to execute laws, residing in the executive branch, includes the ability to resolve questions, “it does not include unilateral implementation of legislative policies.”

The president must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and not take executive action to create laws, he points out.

Klayman earlier told the appeals court that, according to the Office of Legal Counsel, Obama didn’t have the authority to order amnesty.

That agency concluded, “The executive cannot, under the guise of exercising enforcement discretion, attempt to effectively rewrite the laws to match its policy preferences.”

“Yet the appellees are doing exactly what OLC warned them not to do. Appellees’ programs are not prosecutorial discretion but rewriting the statutes. Appellees seek to grant amnesty to an estimated 6 million (53 percent) of the estimated 11.3 million illegal aliens that congressional enactments command them to deport,” Klayman has argued.

WND reported earlier when Arpaio said his local government had spent at least $9.2 million extra on detention and other costs because of Obama’s first “deferred action” plan providing some of the benefits of citizenship to illegal aliens.

Arpaio alleges he suffers direct economic harm from the defendants’ executive action amnesty for citizens belonging to a foreign country.

In their case filings, Arpaio and Klayman have argued that some aspects of amnesty already have begun taking effect, and the federal government is preparing to hired thousands of workers to process illegal aliens under amnesty.

The goal of the case at the outset was to obtain a ruling from the Supreme Court on Obama’s strategy to use notes to federal agencies, called executive memoranda, to change the law, rather than going through Congress.

Klayman has contended Obama “cannot end-run Congress based on his own ‘emperor-like’ actions.”

“By his own admission 22 times in the past, Obama lacks the power to take this unconstitutional executive action,” Klayman said. “To allow this to stand would amount to trashing our constitutional republic and set a bad precedent for future presidents.”

He argued the status quo should be maintained until Congress changes the national law.

WND also reported when a federal judge in Pennsylvania declared the amnesty unconstitutional.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional,” said U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.

The judge noted Obama “contended that although legislation is the most appropriate course of action to solve the immigration debate, his executive action was necessary because of Congress’ failure to pass legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard.”

“This proposition is arbitrary and does not negate the requirement that the November 20, 2014, executive action be lawfully within the president’s executive authority,” the judge wrote. “It is not.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/sheriff-joe-plea-rein-in-obama-power-grab/#haK5gy8Dtpdu7eXv.99

Republicans Confront Health Chief on Secret ObamaCare Plan

A Republican House subcommittee chairman is accusing the Obama administration of secretly preparing a fallback strategy if the Supreme Court strikes down a major piece of its healthcare reform law later this year, even as officials publicly maintain that no plan exists.

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, says federal officials are hiding a roughly 100-page document on the looming court case. The case, King v. Burwell, could cut off ObamaCare subsidies in three-quarters of states and potentially collapse the national marketplace.

Pitts confronted the head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) about the plan, which he says is being circulated among senior officials, for the first time on Wednesday.

HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said she does not know of a planning document.


“This is a document I’m not aware of,” she said in response to Pitts’s questions, before moving on to outlining the negative affects of a ruling against the law. 

”We believe we do not have any administrative actions,” she reiterated.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) pressed Burwell further.

“I take you at your word that you haven’t seen the plan, but don’t you think it’s prudent that there should be a plan?” he said. “I hope I don’t have a primary opponent, I hope I don’t have a general election opponent, but I have a plan in case I do.”

Burwell held her line.

“We don’t have an administrative action that we could take so the question of having a plan, we don’t have any administrative action that we believe could undo the damage,” Burwell replied.

“The administration is just going to hold up your hands and say we surrender?” Barton added.

“We believe the law as it stands is how it should be implemented,” Burwell replied.

Rep. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.) repeatedly also pressed Burwell on whether she knew of the planning document. Burwell did not categorically deny its existence, saying only that she does not know of it.

“If there is this document, and you know it, I would certainly like to know about a document, because I don’t have knowledge of a 100-page document,” Burwell said.

When Burwell again dove into the negative affects of a Supreme Court ruling against the law, Lance interrupted, “That’s filibustering.”

“I’m not familiar with the document you’re referring to,” Burwell replied.

Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) came to Burwell’s defense, noting that Republicans are supporting the high court challenge.

“It’s somewhat ironic that my Republican friends are demanding that the administration fix problems that they themselves created,” Engel said.

“As the Secretary said at the hearing, we have no plans that would undo the massive damage to our health care system that would be caused by an adverse decision, and we are not aware of a document that meets Chairman Pitts’ description,” an HHS spokesperson said in an email.

A White House spokesperson declined to comment and deferred to HHS.

Burwell this week wrote a letter sent to several GOP offices, including Pitts’s, warning that the administration has no plan to “undo the massive damage to our health care system that would be caused by an adverse decision” in the high court case.

If the Obama administration loses, roughly 7 million people could immediately lose their healthcare coverage. Nearly $30 billion in subsidies could be lost in 2016 alone.

With such high stakes, Republicans say the administration is surely preparing some way to avert disaster.

“It’s hard to fathom that the administration would bury its head in the sand and fail to engage in any contingency planning,” Pitts wrote in a statement Wednesday ahead of the hearing.

“No credible person would believe that,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) told The Hill on Wednesday.

“It would be executive malpractice not to have a plan, a contingency plan, for what happens when that court ruling comes down, and I’m going to assume that this government doesn’t practice executive malpractice,” he said.

The administration has already faced strong pressure from Republicans to show its hand ahead of the Supreme Court case.

Burwell’s appearance before the Senate Finance Committee earlier this month erupted into a contentious back-and-forth in which she refused to answer any questions about the court challenge. By the end of the two-hour exchange, Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) had accused Burwell of acting in contempt of Congress.

Republicans have seized on the administration’s refusal to discuss the case as further evidence against ObamaCare.

“By admitting they have no contingency plan to assist the millions that may lose subsidies, the administration confirms how the misguided law is unworkable for the American people,” Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) wrote in a recent statement.

The administration’s silence is likely part of its strategy to influence the court ahead of the March 4 arguments.

Two former HHS officials have previously said they are confident the administration is preparing a backup plan.

“Of course they have one, they should all resign if they don’t,” said Tom Scully, an HHS official under former President George W. Bush. “And they certainly should not discuss it either.”

But the former officials said the administration could appear in a weak position if it admitted that it was making plans. And if the administration insists there is no “plan B,” it tells the justices that the country cannot afford a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs.

Republicans have tried to gain points by preparing their own backup plans for the billions of dollars in subsidies that could be lost. This week, Hatch and Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) became the latest Republicans to say they are crafting fallbacks.

The GOP largely agrees that Congress should not simply rewrite the text to make the subsidies legal. But the party lacks a consensus about how to deal with the fallout, both in the short term and long term, and which area of government should be responsible for those fixes.

“Unless those of us who oppose ObamaCare unite behind an approach that offers Americans a better alternative, we could lose the whole war,” Sasse wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published late Wednesday.

–Peter Sullivan contributed to this report, which was updated at 12:23 p.m.

I won a Kenyan lottery.

Talk about luck! According to a recent email from a Nigerian prince I won a Kenyan lottery.

He is holding the sum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS in my name, and he wants to send it to me FREE!
ATT00001

All I have to do is give him my bank account numbers and send him $500.00 US dollars in cash, to show my good faith, and he will transfer the money to my bank!

And then I got ANOTHER email. It’s from another Kenyan prince who wants to give me FREE healthcare for life!

ATT00002
All I have to do is give him:

MY BANK ACCOUNT NUMBERS,
MY SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER,
MY CONFIDENTIAL HEALTH INFORMATION
MY NUMBER OF DEPENDENTS
DEPENDENTS AGES AND ANY MEDICINES THEY USE
MY ESTIMATED INCOME FOR 2015
NAME OF MY FIRST GRADE TEACHER
MY USERNAME
MY PIN NUMBER
NAMES OF ALL MEDICINES I’M TAKING
MY INCOME FROM MY IRA
MY SPOUSE’S INCOME FROM HIS IRA
ALL MY TRADING ACCOUNTS
ALL MY OTHER PROPERTIES IF ANY
MY SPOUSE’S SOCIAL SECURITY
And then, if I pay $700 per month for a health insurance policy plan with only a $10,000 deductible, HE CAN MAKE IT HAPPEN!

​Am I lucky or what!

Obama’s new tax proposals flunk his own distribution test.

Obama298
President Obama is disguising his latest tax increase as “middle-class economics,” no doubt because it sounds better than calling it income redistribution. So it’s instructive that this false political front has already been exposed by no less than the President’s political allies at the Tax Policy Center.

This week the liberal think tank analyzed the tax proposals in Mr. Obama’s State of the Union with one of those familiar distributional tables that attempts to estimate the after-tax results across the U.S. income scale. Surprise, surprise, the middle 20% of earners—people making between $49,000 and $84,000—would see their taxes rise by $7 on average in 2016.

In selling his proposals in Kansas the other day, Mr. Obama said that middle-class economics is about “lowering the taxes for working families by thousands of dollars, putting money back into their pockets so that they can have a little bit of cushion in their lives.” Paying $7 more isn’t much of a cushion.

The same goes for the second and fourth income quintiles. According to the think tank, the taxes of those groups would rise by 0.1% on average. The tax changes of note would come at the bottom and top of the income scale, with a 0.7% average rise in tax liability for the top 20% of earners, and a 1.2% boost in after-tax benefits (largely from tax credits) for the bottom 20%. Mr. Obama’s middle-class economics, in short, applies to everyone but the middle class.

We dislike these distributional analyses, which are typically the weapons liberals use to defeat pro-growth tax reform. The main point of cutting taxes is to help the economy, and to let all taxpayers keep more of their hard-earned money. It is not to redistribute income. But there is justice in Mr. Obama being hoist on his own distributional gambit because in 2012 he used the Tax Policy Center to attack Mitt Romney ’s tax reform and manipulated the numbers to claim it raised taxes by $2,000 for the average family.

No modern Presidency has been worse for average American incomes than Mr. Obama’s, and his new tax proposals are more of the same.

OBAMA SPENT SUNDAY WATCHING FOOTBALL INSTEAD OF TRAVELING TO PARIS FOR THE MARCH

President Barack Obama and other top members of his administration have snubbed a historic rally in Paris today that brought together more than 40 world leaders from Europe, Africa, the Middle East and even Russia.

‘France is our oldest ally,’ Obama said during a speech Friday in Tennessee. ‘I want the people of France to know that the United States stands with you today, stands with you tomorrow.’

But he wasn’t standing in Paris as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas put aside their differences and linked arms.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Lavrov made the same unifying gesture in the march down the Place de la Concorde in defiance of the Islamist terror attacks that rocked the city last week.

According to an administration official, President Obama spent part of his Sunday afternoon watching a National Football League game on television. Both games were broadcast hours after the march. […]

The White House press office also did not respond to a question seeking confirmation that the president was engrossed in the NFL playoffs on Sunday afternoon.

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN