Terry LanciottiNovember 21, 2009 1:28 pm

SEIU’s alleged ballot fraud during a union election in Fresno, CA. this week has a video to back the allegations. SEIU’s fraud wasn’t against political opponents or some evil capitalist. No, SEIU’s fraud was against a brother/sister labor union.

SEIU has been engaged in a fire-fight with the National Union of Health Workers. For SEIU, it isn’t enough that workers are unionized, but they must be unionized AND their dues flow into the purple political machine. The video features SEIU official David Regan, who ran the union’s voting campaign. Keep in mind, again, the “opponents” he mentions aren’t Republicans or businesses, but another labor union.


Watching this insane lunatic reminds me of a scene from Godfather III… Calo whispers to Lucchesi, “Power wears out those who do not have it”, then fatally stabs Lucchesi through the throat with his own glasses.


Obama and his thugs should remember… “Power wears out those who do not have it”

Terry LanciottiNovember 20, 2009 12:24 pm

Lindsey Graham Destroys Eric Holder


There was to much common sense in Lindey’s words… I gota go watch some CNN to get myself real again…

Terry LanciottiNovember 16, 2009 2:45 pm

Please… Someone explain this to me!


The in fact this was from Memorial day 2009.

And this…

In what world is this acceptable? Unbelievable!

And this video makes his -Obama- efforts even more deplorable.

Seeing my dog the day I got back from Afghanistan

Even a dog knows how to show appreciation.

An Open Letter to Glen Beck

Dear Glen ~ for the first time in my 69 years I am on a roll in politics! And I know it’s our Lord prodding for me to keep writing to you and talking to anyone I meet about this governments corruption. I did yesterday to the hospital staff while having a two-hour MRI on my spine~ the Holy Spirit inside this lady would NOT just shut up! And I cannot even vote ~ yet! I do believe email to you from the public is being checked for I was having a hard time this past week writing to Fox News.

Glen ~ you need to address why obama does not salute for “Fallen Americans and to the Pride of the American Flag”. Go back to every event he has ever attended as President ~ please check this out. He will bow for Emperors ~ but he had no such respect for the Queen of Great Britain.

Please come on an address obama’s True Faith. One cannot be a Christian/Muslim embracing all religions ~ you are either a Christian or a Muslim. Obama would Never have got into power had he declared this fact: I am of Muslim faith. Obama IS A MUSLIM. That is why NO one in the media wants to talk or check into his background on this topic. And another question: why is his past erased from the internet?

I’d like to see the proof that he is a US citizen with his birth certificate. Also, you could trace back from his passport information on what his status was when he first entered the US. He lived and went to school in a country ~ where you had to be a Muslim to attend.

Where does he go to church now and how often? There seems to be a good deal of unnecessary nervousness on this topic and the media are just too afraid to discuss his “muslim” faith ~ because of political correctness! I’d like to know why Obama is protecting the terrorists from 9/11 and the recent terrorist who shot our troops at Fort Hood.

He does not want to protect Israel and Poland or Europe - he wants to bankrupt the US and then take over the United Nations ~ who have at least 200 dictators who will fall into line. He wants One World Order - One common currency ~ and full control of all peoples.

Many see him as the Messiah - obama is is NOT the Messiah the appointed one! He is anti-christ - could well be the coming anti-christ. Glen ~ you need to act on your faith and bring about the disclosure of his true identity. That is why he is in with Communist countries and these other dictators world wide.

Also, because he is a Muslim ~ this is why he is dithering and has not yet sent any more troops overseas to protect the US and British troops already there. The troops moral is already very low over his lack of action. Please keep harping on this topic ~ he will use “this country cannot afford to send hardly any troops because of our present economy and the Health Care Bill reform” yet it is Obama that has taken this country into debt ~ not Bush.

Our Lord Jesus gave me a clear message this Sunday morning that Glen Back is His warrior for truth and a symbol of courage and defiance during these extraordinary times ~ for this present government is All about power and greed and running this Great Nation bankrupt.

Glen, you are young and possess the strength to jealously guard this once powerful Nation. As President you could use the power of High Office to bring back God into schools and government. Have the banners flying and run for: “One Nation Under God”. Please run for office ~ the White House needs to be free of radicals and their greed.

Glen, you were blessed by God with an open heart and spirit . . . that is why our Lord is using you this way . . . He uses sinners. There is Not one person on this planet who has not sinned against the Living God ~ and that is why he gets you to open up and talk about your past ~ so openly ~ this is why the viewers relate to Glen Beck. So please Just keep on telling the truth as it is.

Jeanie

Sic Transit GloriaNovember 7, 2009 6:41 pm

Reports early today from inside Russia suggest that a link exist between the Obama Administration and the H1N1 Virus.

It has yet to be confirmed, but sources inside several militant Muslim groups throughout the Middle East and as far west as China have been working together in an effort -proposed by the Muslim faction of the Obama adminastration- to bring about this “World Pandemic Scare and Panic”.

“The ends justify the means,” a person close inside the N1H1 Network Scare said yesterday. “We see this as a way for Obama, and all Muslims… to take control of the US government by Executive Order and forgo the whole legislative process,” The source further added, “If you look at the way they (US) handled 9-11, this risk of a Global Pandemic will have legislators hands in cuffs and Obama’s pen running dry,” -With all the Executive Orders he will sign- “By the end of November.”

There is also that little “bone” that they threw Obama for his compliance. HealthCare and the pending legislation. “If you look at it,” -HealthCare Legislation- “He -Obama- could have had a little piece early or right after he was elected, but he -Obama- wanted it all, so we suggested that he use the H1N1 scare we were working on as the hammer, and told him to wrap it all in one nice bundle.”

Reports throughout the world continue to tell us of thousands of deaths as the virus spreads like wildfire across the continent of Eurasia. But here in the US, the death rate does not match the scare rate and that has many US citizens puzzled. “If you look at it, he -Obama- has already got his toes wet with a couple Executive Orders that deal with managing the control of the outbreak, imagine what he will be able to do once we get things to fevered pitch.”

An unnamed source close to the Obama administration added today, “There is no doubt that we as Americans have a mindset that we can fix the world, no doubt. And now with all our efforts coming to fruition, the administration can now pull out the rubber stamp and make America a socialist country.”

Marion Valentine added…

It could very well be true, anything to further the progress towards Global Socialist Government. Isn’t it strange that Ft. Rucker whose labs develop countermeasures to Biochemical warfare, and develop vaccines was missing several “vials” of an undisclosed virus and 3 days later 20 polo ponies from Mexico at a match in Florida dropped dead… and then a few days later, even though it was not flu season, H1N1 broke out…..hmmmmmm

Mike TJuly 9, 2009 9:04 pm

Here are more questions, and this time some good questions…..

While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth
issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question:

What passport did he use when he was shuttling between
New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers.

It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
A : Yes, by his own admission.

Q: What passport did he travel under?

A: There are only three possibilities.
1) He traveled with a U.S. Passport,
2) He traveled with a British passport, or
3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

If you don’t care that your President is not a natural born citizen and in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America, then delete this and go back into your “hope and change” cocoon.

Terry LanciottiJune 19, 2009 9:11 am

THIS PAGE WAS UPDATED WITH PICTURE OF DOCUMENT ON 5/12/09

THIS PAGE UPDATED WITH VIDEO 6/18/09

SMOKING GUN FINALLY FOUND? Barrack Illegalibility to be The President of USA!!!! ( must read, pass on)

* Posted by Antoniette D. Walker on May 1, 2009 at 12:36pm
* View Antoniette D. Walker’s blog

APFNObama - Smoking gun finally found?Tue Apr 28, 2009 15:5072.201.43.207

On Tue, 4/28/09, UCT wrote:

Interesting concept Obama opposes :: United States Justice Foundation …
Subject: Smoking gun finally found?

April 1, 2009

AP- WASHINGTON D.C. - In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking.

THE DOCUMENT:

Document via www.hyscience.com

The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Meanwhile, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs scoffed at the report stating that this was obviously another attempt by a right-wing conservative group to discredit the president and undermine the administration’s efforts to move the country in a new direction.

Britain’s Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned”, leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K.

In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

Take a look at this video
Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate and Barry Soetoro:


Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter.

Terry LanciottiJune 18, 2009 8:46 am

Wednesday, June 17, 2009
by John Aravosis (DC)
AMERICAblog

Is Obama giving federal agencies a right they already have?

UPDATE: The answer is “yes.” I just asked OPM Director John Berry, on a White House media conference call, whether in fact federal agencies already have the right to give these benefits to gay employees. The answer, “yes.” So what’s new about tonight? Obama is going to “tell” the agencies to give the benefits - as if any agency in the Obama administration would dare tell a gay employee no to a request for time off to attend their partner’s funeral?
__________

We all now know that President Obama this evening will give some federal agencies the right to give some federal employees some benefits at some time in the future. The problem, as one reader writes, is that federal agencies already have that right, and in fact, are already providing the benefits. So what is President Obama actually giving us?

Regarding your latest post of the WH Fact Sheet — here are some important facts that your readers may care to know.

The para (below) regarding “new” benefits available to domestic partners — these benefits have been available for YEARS !!!!

For civil service employees, domestic partners of federal employees can be added to the long-term care insurance program; supervisors can also be required to allow employees to use their sick leave to take care of domestic partners and non-biological, non-adopted children.

Nothing new here.

1) See the OPM website which permits long term care to be extended “Qualified Relatives” that includes:

QUALIFIED RELATIVE- The term ‘qualified relative’ means each of the following:
The spouse of an individual described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4).
A parent, stepparent, or parent-in-law of an individual described in paragraph (1) or (3).
A child (including an adopted child, a stepchild, or, to the extent the Office of Personnel Management by regulation provides, a foster child) of an individual described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4), if such child is at least 18 years of age.
An individual having such other relationship to an individual described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) as the Office may by regulation prescribe.

2) During the Clinton administration — guidance was requested about whether sick leave could be used to take care of same-sex partners and/children. The answer came back that a federal employee could use their sick leave to take care of, attend doctor appointments, or even attend funerals for anyone who had the “close approximation of family”. This was a guidance memo — not policy — but it has been available since the mid 1990’s. The reason I know this is that I have worked for a DOD Agency for 23 years and even DOD allowed me to take sick leave to care for my partner and my non-bio child.

What a bunch of nothing.

Lisa Polyak
Baltimore, MD

Terry LanciottiJune 16, 2009 1:31 pm

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Collision or Just Political Hype...
Collision or Political Hype…

From the Drudge Report
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special — ‘Prescription for America’ — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

MORE

Late Monday night, Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay fired off a complaint to the head of ABCNEWS:

Dear Mr. Westin:

As the national debate on health care reform intensifies, I am deeply concerned and disappointed with ABC’s astonishing decision to exclude opposing voices on this critical issue on June 24, 2009. Next Wednesday, ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Barack Obama. In addition, according to an ABC News report, GOOD MORNING AMERICA, WORLD NEWS, NIGHTLINE and ABC’s web news “will all feature special programming on the president’s health care agenda.” This does not include the promotion, over the next 9 days, the president’s health care agenda will receive on ABC News programming.

Today, the Republican National Committee requested an opportunity to add our Party’s views to those of the President’s to ensure that all sides of the health care reform debate are presented. Our request was rejected. I believe that the President should have the ability to speak directly to the America people. However, I find it outrageous that ABC would prohibit our Party’s opposing thoughts and ideas from this national debate, which affects millions of ABC viewers.

In the absence of opposition, I am concerned this event will become a glorified infomercial to promote the Democrat agenda. If that is the case, this primetime infomercial should be paid for out of the DNC coffers. President Obama does not hold a monopoly on health care reform ideas or on free airtime. The President has stated time and time again that he wants a bipartisan debate. Therefore, the Republican Party should be included in this primetime event, or the DNC should pay for your airtime.

Respectfully,
Ken McKay
Republican National Committee
Chief of Staff


MORE

ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained ‘false premises’:

ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers — of all political persuasions — even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.”

Developing…

In a totally unrelated story…

Solar system could go haywire before the Sun dies

K.T.KnightcrawlMay 20, 2009 8:59 am

Concerning Nancy Pelosi

Facts:

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s home House District includes San Francisco.
Star-Kist Tuna’s headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi’s home district.
Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi.
Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.

Paul Pelosi, Nancy’s husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock.

In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make Del Monte products less expensive than their competition’s.

When the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an “economic development credit in American Samoa”.

Pelosi has called the Bush Administration “corrupt”.


Concerning Barry Soetoro

- missing items for background check

• Your Occidental College records
• Your Columbia College records
• Your Columbia Thesis paper
• Your Harvard College records
• Your Selective Service Registration
• Your medical records
• Your Illinois State Senate records
• Your Illinois State Senate schedule
• Your Law practice client list
• A Certified Copy of your original Birth certificate
• Your embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth
• Your Harvard Law Review articles that were published
• Your University of Chicago scholarly articles
• Your Record of baptism

aka - Barack Obama Denied National Security Clearance

Barack Obama cannot be Trusted with Classified Information

How can the President of the United States be denied a basic security clearance? How can the Commander and Chief of the most powerful military be denied access to classified information? Barack Obama would be denied the necessary security clearance for President if he was held to the same standard as everyone else. If you can’t pass a Secret level background investigation, which is required for many soldiers, you should not be eligible for the Presidency.

What is a Security Clearance?

Having served in the U.S. military, law enforcement, and as a civilian government contractor, I’ve had my fair share of background investigations. The United States government employs a multitier security clearance paradigm.

Confidential – Unauthorized disclosure could cause “damage to national security.”
Secret – Unauthorized disclosure could cause “serious damage to national security.”
Top Secret – Unauthorized disclosure could cause “exceptionally grave damage to national security.”

Each level of access requires a progressively more in-depth background investigation before the clearance is obtained. The President of the United States should be able to flawlessly pass the most extensive investigation and a polygraph test. Both are required for workers in some Special Access Programs classified Top Secret.

The purpose of the clearance is to determine an individual’s honesty, trustworthiness, reliability, financial responsibility, criminal activity, emotional stability, foreign influences, family associations, drug use, mental health, judicial proceedings, employment history, traits of character, and loyalty to the United States. This collective data is used to evaluate your ability and willingness to safeguard national secrets. Based on the facts about Barack Obama, he fails to satisfy the minimum requirements for even a basic secret clearance. His background investigation would have “Red Flags” shooting up in so many places; the issuing panel would deny him a clearance outright.

Obama’s Answers on the Security Clearance Application

Instead of going through all the Security Clearance Application questions, I’ll examine the questions that would deny Barack Obama a Secret Clearance.

List foreign national relatives whom you or your spouse are bound by affection, obligation, or close and continuing contact.

Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. of Kenya, and Lolo Soetoro, the Indonesian oil manager his mother married. These two foreign relatives would probably initiate a Defensive Security Services or Department of Defense investigation that would take roughly a year to explore. I’m not sure how many degrees of separation are involved, but Obama Sr. and Soetoro’s associations are not friendly to the United States. However, they are not the primary concern.

Barack Obama’s brother, his kin Abongo Obama, is a militant Muslim who has been quoted saying, “A black man must liberate himself from the poisons of European cultures and western values.” Obama’s paternal cousin, Raila Odinga is also a Muslim extremist who recently lost the Kenyan Presidential election to a Christian. How can such relations exist between the President of the United States and radical Muslims?

Have you ever been an officer or a member or made a contribution to an organization dedicated to the violent overthrow of the United States Government and which engages in illegal activities to that end, knowing that the organization engages in such activities with the specific intent to further such activities?

Have you ever knowingly engaged in any acts or activities designed to overthrow the United States Government by force?

These two questions go hand and hand. Having gone through the interview phase of the clearance process a number of times, I can’t image the look on the face of the investigator nor the sheer amount of time it would take to explain Barack Obama’s anti American ties.

Sen. Barack Obama served as a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist and granted funding to a controversial Arab group that dubbed the creation of Israel as a “catastrophe.” The founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti western terrorism.

Barack Obama also served on the Wood’s Fund board with William Ayers, a member of the Weathermen terrorist group which sought to overthrow of the U.S. government and took responsibility for the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. Bill Ayers has killed hundreds of civilians, police officers, and was recently quoted saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs, I feel we didn’t do enough.”

I would deny a security clearance for anybody that even shook these men’s hands, never mind launching a campaign from Ayer’s living room.

Have you illegally used any controlled substance, for example, marijuana, cocaine, crack cocaine, hashish, narcotics (opium, morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.), amphetamines, depressants (barbiturates, methaqualone, tranquilizers, etc.), hallucinogenics (LSD, PCP, etc.), or prescription drugs?

Barack Obama has specifically admitted to using marijuana and cocaine in his book “Dreams From My Father.” He even confesses pursuing heroin, but was scared of the drug dealer. A clearance question such as this is used to test someone’s ethical fortitude to stand up for what is right, legally forbidden, and ultimately make correct decisions. Obama fails this test with his weakness to deny temptation.

Would anyone question your honesty?

Obama’s lies regarding his recollection of policies supported and the reality of what he actually did endorse are too numerous to count. However, these lies are unfortunately common in today’s politics. An article written in a conservative blog has outlined 26 more personal deceptions Obama has made to the American people. How can anyone trust this guy with confidence?

Barack Obama’s Patriotism and National Security

Obama during National Anthem

Although not a question on the Security Clearance application, “Are you a Patriotic American” should be.

The National Anthem is playing and Barack Obama is the only person on the stage not inclined to put their hand over their heart. The hand over the heart is symbolic of your respect and love for your country. Of all people, the President of the United States must be the most devote patriot in the nation. If you are not a patriot, how are you to provide unconditional national security? Three other instances come to mind that have me question how loyal he is to the U.S. and if he even loves this country.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright
I bet most of us have heard about Reverend Jeremaiah Wright’s radical anti American preaching and Barack Obama’s consistent attendance of this man’s sermons, but did you know Reverend Wright officiated Barack and Michelle’s wedding and even baptized their kids? It appears to me that Wright is a significantly influential person in the Obama family’s life. Do we want a President who has been barraged and apparently supports their religious leader’s lectures containing anti American propaganda, such as…

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye.”

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost.”

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 911. White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

“Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!…We [in the U.S.] believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.”

“Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people. Hillary would never know that. Hillary ain’t never been called a nigger. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.”

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.”

“The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for over 40 years now. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community and wake up Americans concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism.”

“God Damn America”

- Reverend Jeremiah Wright

I don’t care that Obama now condemns Wright’s remarks. He never denounced the man before, and continued to attend Wright’s church for over 20 years.

Michelle Obama

Michelle ObamaThe person you marry is your closest confidant and Barack Obama has recently said that Michelle is one of the people he listens to and respects the most. Michelle has been quoted saying, “Our souls are broken in this nation”; “For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country”; and “…as a member of the black community, I am obligated to this community and will utilize all of my present and future resources to benefit the black community first and foremost” to name a few. As a President’s closest adviser and the country’s first lady, take pride in how far this nation has come, and work toward the benefit of all not just your ethnicity. Can this woman, with such animosity toward ancestral shortcomings, come into the present and forget about skin color? Isn’t that what Martin Luther King Jr. meant by, “…all men are created equal” and “…not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character?” Michelle’s narrow vision, obvious unwillingness to conform to unity and equality, and her desire to benefit the black community instead of the community at large is not first lady material.

Not visiting the troops
As a former enlisted soldier having been deployed twice and a current government contractor, Obama’s recent neglect to visit our country’s courageous troops is insulting. He had time to woo German citizens and play basketball, but opt out on supporting wounded soldiers. Retired Lt. Col. Joe Reypya had me nodding in approval when commenting on Obama’s decision, “”The most solemn duty of a commander in chief is to fulfill his responsibility to the men and women who serve this country in uniform. Barack Obama … broke that commitment, instead flitting from one European capital to the next…For a young man so apt at playing President, Barack Obama badly misjudged the important demands of the office he seeks. Visits with world leaders and speeches to cheering Europeans shouldn’t be a substitute for comforting injured American heroes.”

I could go on and on about how this man is not fit for office, but my point in this post is to express my opinion that the potential Commander and Chief of the United States could not receive a Nation Security Clearance to even hold a low level intelligence position within the government. How can he be President? Better yet, how is he even a Senator?

Could Barack Obama Get a Security Clearance?

Obama has been in the middle of two international communist networks – one in Hawaii and one in Chicago.

The Hawaii network included communists Frank Marshall Davis, who was Obama’s personal mentor; actor/singer Paul Robeson; and labor leader Harry Bridges. The network was judged a security threat to the United States and the subject of a congressional hearing on the “Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States.”

Obama covered up the true identity of Frank Marshall Davis in his book, Dreams From My Father.

The Hawaii communist network was organized directly by and from Moscow.

The Chicago network included identified communists and socialists, was committed to a communist victory in the Vietnam War, and took instructions from the communist Castro regime in Cuba.

In addition to communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, who were members of the communist terrorist Weather Underground, the Chicago network includes many veterans of the communist Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) who now proclaim themselves “Progressives for Obama.”

Bill Ayers, who helped launch Obama’s political career, has traveled to Venezuela on several occasions and is an enthusiastic backer of the brand of communism being practiced and promoted by Hugo Chavez.

It appears that Obama actually worked for Ayers in a Chicago educational reform program that dispensed millions of dollars of grants.

One of the leaders of “Progressives for Obama” is former SDS leader Tom Hayden, who wrote a letter to a communist Vietnamese official during the Vietnam War hoping for a “victory” over the U.S.

The SDS openly promoted communism, the regimes in Hanoi and Havana, and condemned alleged U.S. “imperialism.”

The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a group that included a convicted espionage agent for communist East Germany, backed and promoted Obama’s political career.
Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer, who picked Obama as her successor, has a record of involvement in communist front activities.

Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod, as well as Obama himself, have not explained why Ayers, Dohrn, then-State Senator Alice Palmer, and Dr. Quentin Young came together at the Ayers/Dohrn home to launch Obama’s political career.
Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, a client of Axelrod, issued a controversial and misleading statement defending Obama’s relationship with communist terrorist Bill Ayers.

Terry LanciottiMay 18, 2009 12:11 pm

43% Say CIA May Have Misled Pelosi, 41% Disagree

Monday, May 18, 2009

Forty-three percent (43%) of voters nationwide say that it’s at least somewhat likely that the Central Intelligence Agency misled Nancy Pelosi about the use of waterboarding when interrogating prisoners.

But the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey also found that 41% say it’s not likely the CIA did so.

In typical partisan fashion, 62% of Democrats give Pelosi the benefit of the doubt while 62% of Republicans hold the opposite view. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 38% say the CIA may have misled the current House speaker, but 48% say it’s not likely.

The ideological divide is similar: 70% of liberals take Pelosi’s side, but just 24% of conservatives agree.

Overall, just 20% of voters say it’s Very Likely Pelosi was misled while 22% say it’s Not at All Likely. Most voters are somewhere in between and may be waiting for additional information.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls.) Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter.

The CIA is viewed favorably by 63% and unfavorably by 24%. For Pelosi, the comparable numbers are 35% favorable and 55% unfavorable.

The agency earns positive reviews from 78% of Republicans, 62% of unaffiliateds and 51% of Democrats.

Fifty-nine percent (59%) of all voters believe it’s at least somewhat likely that harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding helped secure valuable intelligence information. Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans hold that view along with 60% of unaffiliateds. Democrats are evenly divided.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of voters say they’re following news about Pelosi and the CIA at least somewhat closely. Democrats are less interested in the story than Republicans and unaffiliateds.

Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters said in late April that the Obama administration’s release of CIA memos about the harsh interrogation methods used on terrorism suspects endangered America’s national security.

While Pelosi and other senior congressional Democrats want to investigate further how the Bush administration treated terrorism suspects, 58% of voters oppose any such probes.

Terry LanciottiMay 16, 2009 7:39 am

CIA director says Pelosi received the truth

By Sam Youngman
Posted: 05/15/09

CIA Director Leon Panetta challenged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s accusations that the agency lied to her, writing a memo to his agents saying she received nothing but the truth.

Panetta said that “ultimately, it is up to Congress to evaluate all the evidence and reach its own conclusions about what happened.”

Pelosi (D-Calif.) infuriated Republicans this week when she said in a news conference that she was “misled” by CIA officials during a briefing in 2002 about whether the U.S. was waterboarding alleged terrorist detainees.

Panetta, President Obama’s pick to run the clandestine agency and President Clinton’s former chief of staff, wrote in a memo to CIA employees Friday that “CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed,’” according to CIA records.

“We are an agency of high integrity, professionalism and dedication,” Panetta said in the memo. “Our task is to tell it like it is — even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.”

In the pep talk-style memo titled “Turning Down the Volume,” Panetta encourages CIA employees to return to their normal business and not to be distracted by the shout-fest Pelosi’s remarks created.

“My advice — indeed, my direction — to you is straightforward: Ignore the noise and stay focused on your mission,” Panetta wrote. “We have too much work to do to be distracted from our job of protecting this country.”

In what may be the most critical moment of her speakership, Pelosi is under fire about what she knew of the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the Bush administration and when she knew it.

At the same news conference where she accused the CIA of misleading her on the topic, Pelosi acknowledged for the first time that she knew in 2003 that terrorism suspects were waterboarded. She said she learned that from an aide who sat in on a briefing in February 2003.

For weeks, Pelosi had dodged questions about what she knew about waterboarding and when she knew it. Republicans have called her a hypocrite for criticizing techniques as “torture” when she tacitly agreed to the practices after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. At least one lawmaker — Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) — called on Pelosi Friday to step down as Speaker.

At the same time, liberal groups could question why she didn’t push back harder against the Bush administration. Pelosi defended herself for not speaking out at the time about information disclosed in a classified briefing. Asked why she didn’t co-sign a formal objection by Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), who attended the briefing with Pelosi aide Mike Sheehy, Pelosi said any objection would have done little good.

“No letter could change the policy,” she said on May 14 at a news conference. “It was clear we had to change the leadership in Congress and in the White House. That was my job, the Congress part.”

Terry LanciottiMay 14, 2009 11:51 am

Tincture of Lawlessness
Obama’s Overreaching Economic Policies

By George F. Will
Thursday, May 14, 2009

Anyone, said T.S. Eliot, could carve a goose, were it not for the bones. And anyone could govern as boldly as his whims decreed, were it not for the skeletal structure that keeps civil society civil — the rule of law. The Obama administration is bold. It also is careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.

In February, California’s Democratic-controlled Legislature, faced with a $42 billion budget deficit, trimmed $74 million (1.4 percent) from one of the state’s fastest-growing programs, which provides care for low-income and incapacitated elderly people and which cost the state $5.42 billion last year. The Los Angeles Times reports that “loose oversight and bureaucratic inertia have allowed fraud to fester.”

But the Service Employees International Union collects nearly $5 million a month from 223,000 caregivers who are members. And the Obama administration has told California that unless the $74 million in cuts are rescinded, it will deny the state $6.8 billion in stimulus money.

Such a federal ukase (the word derives from czarist Russia; how appropriate) to a state legislature is a sign of the administration’s dependency agenda — maximizing the number of people and institutions dependent on the federal government. For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is.

The SEIU says the cuts violate contracts negotiated with counties. California officials say the state required the contracts to contain clauses allowing pay to be reduced if state funding is.

Anyway, the Obama administration, judging by its cavalier disregard of contracts between Chrysler and some of the lenders it sought money from, thinks contracts are written on water. The administration proposes that Chrysler’s secured creditors get 28 cents per dollar on the $7 billion owed to them but that the United Auto Workers union get 43 cents per dollar on its $11 billion in claims — and 55 percent of the company. This, even though the secured creditors’ contracts supposedly guaranteed them better standing than the union.

Among Chrysler’s lenders, some servile banks that are now dependent on the administration for capital infusions tugged their forelocks and agreed. Some hedge funds among Chrysler’s lenders that are not dependent were vilified by the president because they dared to resist his demand that they violate their fiduciary duties to their investors, who include individuals and institutional pension funds.

The Economist says the administration has “ridden roughshod over [creditors’] legitimate claims over the [automobile companies’] assets. . . . Bankruptcies involve dividing a shrunken pie. But not all claims are equal: some lenders provide cheaper funds to firms in return for a more secure claim over the assets should things go wrong. They rank above other stakeholders, including shareholders and employees. This principle is now being trashed.” Tom Lauria, a lawyer representing hedge fund people trashed by the president as the cause of Chrysler’s bankruptcy, asked that his clients’ names not be published for fear of violence threatened in e-mails to them.

The Troubled Assets Relief Program, which has not yet been used for its supposed purpose (to purchase such assets from banks), has been the instrument of the administration’s adventure in the automobile industry. TARP’s $700 billion, like much of the supposed “stimulus” money, is a slush fund the executive branch can use as it pleases. This is as lawless as it would be for Congress to say to the IRS: We need $3.5 trillion to run the government next year, so raise it however you wish — from whomever, at whatever rates you think suitable. Don’t bother us with details.

This is not gross, unambiguous lawlessness of the Nixonian sort — burglaries, abuse of the IRS and FBI, etc. — but it is uncomfortably close to an abuse of power that perhaps gave Nixon ideas: When in 1962 the steel industry raised prices, President John F. Kennedy had a tantrum and his administration leaked rumors that the IRS would conduct audits of steel executives, and sent FBI agents on predawn visits to the homes of journalists who covered the steel industry, ostensibly to further a legitimate investigation.

The Obama administration’s agenda of maximizing dependency involves political favoritism cloaked in the raiment of “economic planning” and “social justice” that somehow produce results superior to what markets produce when freedom allows merit to manifest itself, and incompetence to fail. The administration’s central activity — the political allocation of wealth and opportunity — is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption.

Thanks 2 George F. Will and The Washington Post

Terry LanciottiMay 10, 2009 9:06 am

EDITORIAL: Pelosi’s amnesia

Either that or she slept through CIA briefings

May. 09, 2009
Las Vegas Review-Journal

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been a leading critic of the Bush administration for authorizing the “torture” (waterboarding) of three captured al-Qaida leaders, despite the fact that former Vice President Dick Cheney says the interrogation methods yielded valuable information from men who had not previously been forthcoming, leading the terrorists to spill the beans on planned attacks that could have killed thousands more Americans.

Now it appears Ms. Pelosi knew all about the methods being used, and raised not a peep of objection. Unless she wants to argue she was dozing during CIA briefings.

Congressional leaders were briefed dozens of times on the CIA’s use of severe interrogation methods on al-Qaida suspects, according to new information released by the Obama administration Thursday.

A chart compiled by the CIA shows that Ms. Pelosi, D-Calif., was briefed on Sept. 4, 2002, on the agency’s interrogation of alleged al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah, and that the session covered “the particular (enhanced interrogation techniques) that had been employed.”

As recently as a week ago, Ms. Pelosi contended, “We were not — I repeat were not — told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used.”

Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi, said Thursday that “the briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not been used.”

So … they described tactics they claimed they weren’t using? Why would they do that?

Overall, the chart describes 40 briefings over a seven-year period at which CIA and other U.S. intelligence officials described the agency’s interrogation program to senior lawmakers.

The records were requested by congressional Republicans, who have accused Democrats on Capitol Hill of hypocrisy as majority partisans express outrage over the CIA’s use of the interrogation methods.

Former House Republican and CIA Director Porter J. Goss — who attended the 2002 briefing of Ms. Pelosi — wrote last month in an opinion piece that he was “slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as ‘waterboarding’ were never mentioned.” Mr. Goss described the lawmakers’ claims as “a disturbing epidemic of amnesia.”

Here’s resounding evidence that Democrats’ haughty accusations that only Republicans knew about or condoned waterboarding of the three captured al-Qaida leaders amount to political posturing, and little more.

Thanks 2 Las Vegas Review-Journal

Terry LanciottiMay 9, 2009 9:52 pm

A lot of the difference, the change if you will, between Obama and Bush has much to do with the word humility.

George Bush is and was a humble man. Obama thinks the world counts on him and him alone to lead us. Bush went to church and prayed often. Obama puts out press releases about his supposed piety. The left sold a great bill of goods to the American people claiming that Bush, et al. were arrogant while insisting that Obama was a “man of the people.”

The 65th Anniversary of D-Day is fast approaching. Barack Obama will attend the events on June 6th as George Bush did in 2004 for the sixtieth memorial service. Here is the rub, as of now Obama’s State Department has asked (read demanded) the French government not allow tour guide services to operate that day. It is a big day for Normandy tourism. Yet, the king will not allow those not connected with government to enjoy the day. Obama is very important you know. This is an unprecedented request. I hope the French come to their senses and deny it.

Compare that with 2004. Security was tight as President Bush and other world leaders were in attendance, but the event was still open to all. A friend relayed the story of waiting in line to use a port-a-potty (a French port-a-potty no doubt, yuck, believe me.) She looks to her left and who he is in the next line waiting patiently? President Bush. Sure he had Secret Service nearby, but he waited like everyone else.

Contrast that with Team Obama not even allowing regular people near Colleville-Sur-Mer that day. A shame indeed. Especially as the last of our WW II vets are expiring.

As the Bamsters unemployment rate pushes 10% (double the Bush average) and his 3.5 trillion dollar budget breaks the USA (the press of course focuses on his 17 billion in “savings.” Way to go 4th Estate.), Obama has more to worry about then denying people the right to attend a memorial service on June 6th.

It’s as if Obama has to let it be known that he is more important than honoring the events and the 9,387 mostly young Americans who died invading Normandy 65 years ago. Will Obama apologize for American actions during WW II at the event?

I think the following quote from Obama himself sums it all up: “a light will shine down from somewhere…. You will experience an epiphany. And you will say to yourself, ‘I have to vote for Barack.’” Watch for yourself:


The guy can’t even bring himself to say “shine down from heaven.” Do you really expect him to line up to use the can with the commoners at a Normandy celebration? Americans may start to miss the guy with the humility.

Universal Healthcare, unchecked unions, government run banks, government run autos, cap and trade, turning the 20 million undocumented Democrats into voters: That isn’t America and it surely isn’t what those young boys died at Normandy for.

We elected a fairy tale. We can start the road back to reality in 2010 with the mid-term elections.

Thanks 2 John Romano and bighollywood.breitbart.com

Marion Valentine 8:32 pm

Rumblings of Outrage: DHS Continues to Tick Off Combat Veterans

The recently disclosed Department of Homeland Security report on “rightwing extremism ” that taints veterans returning from Afghanistan and Iraq as potential terrorists is really ticking off both active duty and veterans. Go here to read a Veterans Today article about it, and here to read the American Legion’s letter in response.

And that outrage has not subsided. Below are more videos that have been posted on youtube by veterans responding to the DHS smear.

First up, is the active duty combat arms soldier who sounded off, amazed and outraged that he is considered a threat, and reminding the DHS personnel that they took the same oath that he did, to defend the Constitution. We have posted this before, but it sets up the responses by the veterans, who were responding specifically to this active duty soldier’s video:


In response to that, the following Army veteran builds on the above soldier’s statement by pointing out that DHS and the elites it serves consider veterans a threat precisely because all veterans swore an oath to defend the Constitution:


And below is a former Army Staff Sergeant, a paratrooper and combat veteran who served in both Afghanistan and Iraq until just last year, adding his well considered, but rather colorfull thoughts. Note, his video contains some VERY strong language:


And here is an Army Ranger, Apachegrunt, who just got out of the Army three days before making this video, adding his thoughts. Once again, some very strong language here and this Ranger does not mince words:


“Surrender is not a Ranger word”

Among some other choice and colorful words for the DHS, he points out the fact that his oath is to the Constitution, not to anyone or anything else, and just because his service is ended that doesn’t mean his oath is canceled. Toward the end of the video, the Ranger holds up his Soldiers Code card:

SOLDIERS CODE

I. I AM AN AMERICAN SOLDIER – A PROTECTOR OF THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH – SWORN TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

II. I WILL TREAT OTHERS WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT AND EXPECT OTHERS TO DO THE SAME.

III. I WILL HONOR MY COUNTRY, THE ARMY, MY UNIT AND MY FELLOW SOLDIERS BY LIVING THE ARMY VALUES.

IV. NO MATTER WHAT SITUATION I AM IN, I WILL NEVER DO ANYTHING FOR PLEASURE, PROFIT, OR PERSONAL SAFETY WHICH WILL DISGRACE MY UNIFORM, MY UNIT, OR MY COUNTRY.

V. LASTLY, I AM PROUD OF MY COUNTRY AND IT’S FLAG. I WANT TO LOOK BACK AND SAY THAT I AM PROUD TO HAVE SERVED MY COUNTRY AS A SOLDIER.

Notice what comes first in the Soldiers Code.

And here is another veteran, of the 1st Cavalry Division, who lays out the many different types of people now put on the government’s “list” as potential terrorists (he discusses veterans being added to the list at 7:20 of part I):

Part I:

Part II:

We commend these men for standing up and speaking out - speaking truth to power as the left used to like to say.

Note that none of them are part of some “extremist organization” (whatever that means). They are individuals, speaking their own minds, and they are offended and angry and they see that what is really going on is that the DHS considers them a threat simply because they know how to fight and because they swore an oath to defend the Constitution.

With the latest DHS smear document, the Domestic Extremism Lexicon, labelling “constitutionalists” and “patriots” as extremists (which means the same thing as “terrorists”), it is clear that if you dare to support the Constitution, and dare to quote the founding fathers of this nation, and take the Constitution seriously, then you will be considered an “extremist” and a threat to the powers that be among the political elite.

This is the tactic used by all governments that turn oppressive: use vague, broad brushed labeling of people as “enemies of the state” to marginalize them and increase the artificial divide between the people and the police and military, and then use that labeling and marginalization to make people afraid to speak up, to chill their speech, and silence them out of fear of being singled out for persecution. The DHS reports are such broad smears that they basically boil down to “anyone who doesn’t agree with us is a potential terrorist.” The final stage of persecution is to actually apply all the powers of the state against anyone who does dare to speak out, arresting them on trumped up charges of terrorism, for example. We are still in the smear and marginalization stage, and are also begining the chilling of speach stage, but we can see where this is headed.

But as these veterans point out, the DHS smears of veterans, constitutionalists and patriots is backfiring just as badly as Obama’s suggestion that disabled and injured veterans pay for their own medical care. Nothing is waking up the people, and especially the veterans, like these leaked government “reports.” This is not Germany, the USSR, or communist China. This is America, and attempts to chill our speech and marginalize us only make us stronger and more resolved to speak out.

JOIN US ON THE WASHINGTON D.C. MALL ON JUNE 13, 2009 FOR A HUGE SUPPORT THE TROOPS RALLY AND OATH KEEPERS “MUSTER ON THE MALL”

Speak out is exactly what we will do on the DC Mall on June 13, 2009 as Oath Keepers holds our muster on the mall, at the invitation of Gathering of Eagles and Pro Troop Events. Go to www.protroopevents.org for more details on that rally.

We still have a relatively strong First Amendment to protect our right to assemby and free speech, and we need to use that powerful tool of peaceful revolution and restoration while we still can. It’s time to turn the tide. It’s time to stand on the mall in DC and “shout our oaths in the tyrant’s face.”

It’s time for all of us to stand up and speak out. See you on the mall on June 13!

Stewart Rhodes

And this from Jerry:

I would think that should the DHS continue with these accusatorial allegations, they just might come to be real. Our returned military would make a great base of manpower for militia groups bent on taking back our country from “One Worlders” who would surrender our sovereignty to the corrupt United Nations.

The DHS may cause multiplication by trying to enforce subtraction.

Think about it: Who would you rather follow, the wimpy concessionist liberal socialists or the Constitutionally strong defenders of America justice and principles?

Jerry

And lets Not forget What Manning Has to Say about DHS:

A Message For Homeland Security:


Mike T 8:13 pm

“If you consider that there has been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the past 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.

The firearm death rate in Washington, DC is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period.

That means you are about 25 per cent more likely to be shot and killed in the US capital, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: The US should pull out of Washington D.C.”

Terry LanciottiMay 6, 2009 12:02 pm

EXCLUSIVE: Secret U.S.-Israel nuclear accord in jeopardy

EXCLUSIVE:

President Obama’s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel’s nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.

The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

“Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, … remains a fundamental objective of the United States,” Ms. Gottemoeller told the meeting, according to Reuters.

The Pyro Opinion:

Barack better to learn how to play in the sand box like a good ‘boy’ or what is left of Americas military presence and strength around the world is going to be lost.

Thanks 2 Eli Lake and The Washington Times

Terry Lanciotti 9:38 am

OBAMA’S TAX DODGERS

Here’s a tip for President Obama: Next time you excoriate tax cheats, try to keep Rep. Charles Rangel’s name out of the discussion.

Somehow, it doesn’t further your case.

Yet that’s precisely what Obama did Monday, singling out the powerful Harlem congressman for praise as he announced legislation meant to close what he calls tax “loopholes” for corporations that expand their operations abroad.

Rangel, of course, knows a thing or two about offshore tax shelters: He’d been operating one for years.

The congressman had to fork over nearly $11,000 in back taxes last year after The Post reported that he failed to disclose more than $75,000 in rental income on his Dominican Republic villa.

Plus, he’s under investigation by a House committee for allegedly helping a company preserve its offshore tax loophole — in exchange for a million-dollar gift to a school named in his honor.

Though perhaps that’s not exactly what Obama meant when he gushed that the problems with tax havens “have been highlighted” by Rangel, among others.

Rangel wasn’t the only tax dodger lauded by Obama. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, too, won praise for “taking far-reaching steps to catch overseas tax cheats.”

Takes one to know one, we guess.

Geithner, after all, was confirmed despite failing to pay, until nominated, some $43,000 in self-employment taxes.

Obama would be wise to tuck those two safely out of sight when he starts talking, as he did Monday, about paying taxes as “an obligation of citizenship.”

Still, one problem lingers: Rangel, despite multiple ongoing ethics probes, is chairman of the House committee charged with writing tax law.

And Geithner oversees the IRS.

Maybe the hypocrisy isn’t so easy to ignore.

Thanks 2 nypost.com

Marion ValentineApril 23, 2009 1:31 pm

Phil Valentine’s Bullet Points

* Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age. From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.
* The National Academy of Sciences report reaffirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period from about 900 AD to 1300 AD and the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1850. Both of these periods occurred long before the invention of the SUV or human industrial activity could have possibly impacted the Earth’s climate. In fact, scientists believe the Earth was warmer than today during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland.
* What the climate alarmists and their advocates in the media have continued to ignore is the fact that the Little Ice Age, which resulted in harsh winters which froze New York Harbor and caused untold deaths, ended about 1850. So trying to prove man-made global warming by comparing the well-known fact that today’s temperatures are warmer than during the Little Ice Age is akin to comparing summer to winter to show a catastrophic temperature trend.
* Something that the media almost never addresses are the holes in the theory that C02 has been the driving force in global warming. Alarmists fail to adequately explain why temperatures began warming at the end of the Little Ice Age in about 1850, long before man-made CO2 emissions could have impacted the climate. Then about 1940, just as man-made CO2 emissions rose sharply, the temperatures began a decline that lasted until the 1970’s, prompting the media and many scientists to fear a coming ice age.
* A letter sent to the Canadian Prime Minister on April 6, 2006 by 60 prominent scientists who question the basis for climate alarmism, clearly explains the current state of scientific knowledge on global warming. The 60 scientists wrote: “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” The letter also noted: “‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.”
* In 2006, the director of the International Arctic Research Center in Fairbanks Alaska, testified to Congress that highly publicized climate models showing a disappearing Arctic were nothing more than “science fiction.”
* “Geologists Think the World May be Frozen Up Again.” That sentence appeared over 100 years ago in the February 24, 1895 edition of the New York Times.
* A front page article in the October 7, 1912 New York Times, just a few months after the Titanic struck an iceberg and sank, declared that a prominent professor “Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age.” The very same day in 1912, the Los Angeles Times ran an article warning that the “Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold.” An August 10, 1923 Washington Post article declared: “Ice Age Coming Here.”
* By the 1930’s, the media took a break from reporting on the coming ice age and instead switched gears to promoting global warming: “America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-year Rise” stated an article in the New York Times on March 27, 1933.
* The media of yesteryear was also not above injecting large amounts of fear and alarmism into their climate articles. An August 9, 1923 front page article in the Chicago Tribune declared: “Scientist Says Arctic Ice Will Wipe Out Canada.” The article quoted a Yale University professor who predicted that large parts of Europe and Asia would be “wiped out” and Switzerland would be “entirely obliterated.”
* A December 29, 1974 New York Times article on global cooling reported that climatologists believed “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.” The article also warned that unless government officials reacted to the coming catastrophe, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” would result. In 1975, the New York Times reported that “A major cooling [was] widely considered to be inevitable.”
* On February 19, 2006, CBS News’s “60 Minutes” produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water. “60 Minutes” failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930’s than today.
* According to data released on July 14, 2006 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the January through June Alaska statewide average temperature was “0.55F (0.30C) cooler than the 1971-2000 average.”
* In August 2006, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun’s output.

Read the full report by clicking here.

Terry LanciottiApril 18, 2009 4:00 pm

To Bow or Not to Bow:


I almost pissed my pants!