Political News & Info

On February 23rd, President Obama gave a speech on his energy plan, where he discussed the importance of green energy. In particular, and laughably to many, he discussed the idea of algae based biofuels. As the Washington Examiner reports: “We’re making new investments in the development of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel that’s actually made from a plant-like substance, algae — you’ve got a bunch of algae out here,” Obama said at the University of Miami today. “If we can figure out how to make energy out of that, we’ll be doing alright. Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17 percent of the oil we import for transportation with this fuel that we can grow right here in America.” The Department of Energy (DOE) currently spends about $85 million on 30 research projects “to develop algal biofuels,” according to the White House, which announced that Obama is committing another $14 million to the idea. President Obama’s time in office has been one energy failure after another—all at the expense of the American taxpayer. Solar panel company, Solyndra, of course is a prime example of the failure of green cronyism. The Obama administration extended billions in Department of Energy dollars to one of his bundlers, George Kaiser, only for the company he invested in to fail. General Motors, bailed out by the American taxpayer in 2009 and subsidized still today, is responsible for the fire prone and inefficient electric car—the Chevy Volt. As Governor Sarah Palin rightly noted on Friday , President Obama’s energy solutions “coincide with subsidizing his friends and campaign donors”. Plans for algae-based biofuels will likely be yet another example in green cronyism infused energy policy. In fact, it already has been. In December, I wrote a piece here at Big Government noting that the Department of Defense was investing $500 million in algae based biofuels for the Navy. The company developing this fuel is Solazyme, whose current strategic advisor is T.J.Glauthier . Glauthier was part of President Obama’s transition team and was heavily involved in the energy portion of the stimulus bill in 2009. Solazyme’s Chairman, Jerry Fiddler , has donated over $200,000 to Democrats since 2008, including more than $30,000 to President Obama’s re-election campaign. This Department of Defense “investment” in Solayzyme translates to fuel prices of $16 a gallon —four times the price of oil. Solazyme also received a $21.8 million grant from the stimulus package .  Despite the cash infusion from both the stimulus program and more recently the Department of Defense, Solazyme reported a net loss of $15.6 million in the fourth quarter of 2011. While the Obama administration announces a “mere” $14 million more for research on algae based biofuels, it is important to note that they have given more than half a billion dollars to Obama’s cronies and donors for this newest green venture that is already struggling. Algae based biofuels, just like grain and wood based ethanol and solar panels , have proven to be inefficient both in their production and their consumption. A study at the University of Virginia notes that production of algae based fuels requires more water and more petroleum based energy in the process than other biofuels. In his speech, President Obama noted that algae based fuels can be used as jet fuels, but a study at MIT “found that even under optimal conditions — with dozens of refineries up and running — the price of bio jet fuel would still be twice as high as the cost of the traditionally made stuff. “ The fuel has proven to be both energy and financially inefficient. President Obama’s plan for turning pond scum to energy may be laughable at face value, but the inefficiency of the algae based biofuel coupled with the past and potential future cronyism of the Obama administration is no laughing matter. It has already cost American taxpayers more than half a billion dollars. The only thing truly about the Obama administration is the recycled cronyism.

Follow this link:
Algae-Based Biofuels: More of President Obama’s Green Cronyism

You will recall that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department filed a lawsuit in support of a Muslim public school teacher, Sefoorah Khan. After just 9 months’ employment in a Chicago area school, Ms. Khan chose to take a three week hiatus from her position to attend “The Pilgrimage” or Hajj — a trip to Mecca, Saudi Arabia. She was encouraged, no doubt, by our ever-appeasing President when she demanded the school capitulate to her whim to fulfill this tenet of her religion — during her first year of employment, no less. The U.S. Department of Justice has announced it settled Safoorah Khan’s lawsuit compelling the district to pay $75,000 in back pay, compensatory damages and attorneys’ fees. Even more insulting than this, the district has agreed to develop a policy “accommodating religions [i.e., Islam]” consistent with the Civil Rights Acts to prevent a similar infringement in the future. To be clear, this unusual action on the part of the Justice Department is perfectly congruent with this President’s record of relentlessly protecting political Islam. No reasonable American denies the right of this woman to follow the doctrines of her religion. She also had the “right” and, dare I say, the common sense dignity, to resign her position if she was bent on pursuing the Hajj at that time in her life. But this isn’t about common sense any more than it is about religion. It is all about non-violent Jihad or political Islam. Chalk up one more victory for the bad guys.  This is no less than a successful exploitation of our legal system as Islamists cloak political Islam under the guise of religion abetted by our President’s misguided desire to placate and mainstream Islamism-lite. Two wrongs make a left. The first wrong is the Obama administration’s joining Sefoorah Khan’s suit ( rather than criticizing it ) as a liberal statement of “American tolerance.” The second wrong is that our legal system hasn’t yet adopted the nearly world-wide policy of “loser pays”.  Loser pays is the model whereby plaintiffs’ frivolous law suits are dissuaded by the fact that if unjustifiable suits fail they will be compelled to pay the defendant’s legal fees. In that model, the school system could have fought this unjust suit rather than submit to it (it is apropos that the root definition of Islam is “submission”) under the financial weight of defending itself against the U.S. Department of Justice’s hundreds of lawyers.

Read more from the original source:
Two Wrongs Makes a Left: DOJ Handles Muslim Teacher’s Suit with Political Correctness, Not Justice

Graphic images of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s dead, broken body captured on video after rebels overran his headquarters belie an earlier period in history when the Libyan ruler was very much on the offensive against American interests. While public opinion remains sharply divided over the merits of the military campaign President Obama organized in concert with NATO allies to remove Gaddafi from power, there was less debate 30 years ago about the Libyan government’s connection with international terrorism, its belligerent posture toward the U.S., and the need for a forceful response. Gaddafi finally did receive his comeuppance thanks to Lt. Col. Oliver North and other key figures in the Reagan Administration who orchestrated highly successful counter-terrorism campaigns that are instructive to contemporary challenges. A compelling but overlooked resource that highlights some of the actions North and others took to bolster America’s national security standing can be found in the final arguments Brendan Sullivan, a partner in the Washington D.C.-based firm Williams & Connolly, presented on July 5, 1989  in connection with the Iran-Contra affair. Sullivan delivered his statement on behalf of North in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C. The charges against North were ultimately dismissed or vacated on appeal. Sullivan’s court statement is worth reviewing in the post 9/11 era because it demonstrates that key national security figures like North can pay a high personal price even as they advance America’s best interests and close points of vulnerability that can be exploited by dangerous elements. Terrorist incidents were on the rise in the early 1980s, Sullivan told the court. “There were literally hundreds of them,” he said. “One in four involved Americans or American property overseas…There was widespread fear on the part of Americans and government officials that they could not travel abroad without risk.” Gaddafi, who was closely aligned with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, was very much a part of this equation.  The provocations began in the late 1970s when Gaddafi unilaterally extended Libya’s long-recognized 12-mile coastal limit to the point where he claimed control of the Gulf of Sidra located off the North African coast in the Mediterranean where U.S. Sixth Fleet often conducted naval exercises. This was a direct challenge to the United States that President Reagan met head on when he ordered naval exercises to take place just beyond Libya’s internationally recognized 12-mile limit in 1981. Reagan also approved new rules of engagement that made it clear U.S. forces could retaliate immediately if they were attacked; they did. American F-14 Tomcats escorting U.S. ships downed Libyan fighter jets in the Mediterranean after they had targeted the American aircraft.  Gaddafi backed away from any further direct confrontations but continued to pursue covert terror operations and maintained an extensive hit list that included William P. Clark, a deputy Secretary of State. When President Reagan later uncovered “irrefutable evidence” that Gaddafi was behind a terror attack that resulted in the deaths of U.S. servicemen in Germany, he quickly settled on a plan to move aggressively against the Libya regime. Sullivan commented on the instrumental role North played in this effort while serving with the National Security Council (NSC). Charlie Allen, who Sullivan described as a “high ranking CIA official,” is cited as someone who was very familiar with North’s contributions to counter-terrorism. In April 1986, North was a key official in developing options to respond to the Libyan sponsored bombing of the La Belle Disco in West Berlin where two American servicemen were killed. Once the presidential decision had been made to retaliate against Libya, North worked, according to Allen at a herculean pace to assure effective coordination of the plan to strike at Colonel Gaddafi’s terrorist infrastructure. Allen said he worked day to day with North for over 22 months and there was no American official that did more to implement these policies than did Colonel North. He believes major progress was made. For a time, terrorism seemed to abate. There were fewer incidents. In his opinion as an expert on terrorism, Americans felt safer and they were safer. But North himself was suddenly in great danger. “The problem is that Colonel North paid a terrible price for his work in the counter-terrorism area,” Sullivan said. “He was targeted for assassination by the Abu Nidal group known as the ANO (Abu Nidal Organization), which Mr. Allen, the expert, called the most dangerous, most capable terrorist group in the Middle East and one of the most dangerous in the world.” At the time, ANO was one of the most well-coordinated, well-financed, and most lethal terror operations in the world, Allen had informed the court. He also said that ANO was partnered with Gaddafi and had the ability to strike inside the U.S. “And so the man who worked to strike back at terrorists became their target,” Sullivan continued. “The man who developed a plan to hunt the terrorists became the hunted.” Abu Nidal died of gunshots in Baghdad in August 2002. Even so, Sullivan’s statement indicates that North should not expect to ever be free of danger. “Colonel North will remain under threat for the rest of his life,” Sullivan said. “We’re dealing with an Islamic principle known as Quasas, which is very similar to the idea of a vendetta. Danger to Colonel North persisted even after he was out of the NSC. In 1987, he was again notified by the FBI of another serious threat. Libyan agents inside the U.S. including some residing within 20 miles from his home, were collecting intelligence information about his travel and work habits and location. These Libyans were arrested but were released on bond and one of them disappeared and remains at large today.” Sullivan added: “North carries a terrible burden because of his work to fight terrorism. It may be that as Charlie Allen says the world is safer as a result of Colonel North’s efforts but Colonel North lives with the threat and his family lives under the cloud.” Some of the key lessons to be drawn from the Iran-Contra affair that involved the diversion of funds to anti-communist rebels in Central America have been lost within the larger drama of the Cold War. But with Daniel Ortega, the communist leader of Nicaragua from the 1980s, back in power, and with Tehran pursuing nuclear weaponry, the controversy over Iran-Contra is worth re-examining. North’s experience does suggest that when courageous, patriotic men and women take a stand against terrorist activity and hostile foreign powers they do not necessarily earn the support of the political class; quite the opposite may be true. Moreover, the dispute over executive power that flowed out of Iran-Contra is very relevant to today’s politics. Former Vice-President Dick Cheney, then a Republican congressional representative from Wyoming, served as one of the lead authors for the 1987 minority report on Iran-Contra. While there is a legitimate debate about some of the initiatives the Reagan Administration advanced at this time, there is no escaping how effective North’s efforts were to the cause of national security. This much is made evident from an intriguing detail in Sullivan’s court statement that went unnoticed in news media. “We always left out one mysterious segment because we couldn’t talk about it, but there were two letters sent to the court, which I think are important for the court to consider,” Sullivan said. “Even though we can’t know the details, this is one of Ollie North’s significant contributions about which no allegation of wrongdoing is made and unfortunately it cannot be described. But the project, in very briefest form was highly classified and still is today (keep in mind this is 1989). It provided great benefit to the United States. North was responsible for the coordination of this project that began in August 1981.” Allen, the CIA official, told the court that North’s project “eliminated” a significant vulnerability to the U.S. Is this project still classified? If the information that Sullivan was reticent to reveal can now be put into circulation without compromising U.S. interests, it would be worth driving home the point that it is not by accident that terrorists and hostile governments are forced into a position where they must play defense. The successful counter-terrorism efforts advanced under the Reagan Administration should not be lost on contemporary U.S. policymakers charged with protecting the American homeland from additional attacks. Nor should they lost site of the high personal price that courageous, patriotic men and women often pay when the political class sees an opportunity to advance its own interests. That’s a subject for the next post.

See original here:
Oliver North’s ’80s Counter-Terrorism Efforts vs. Gaddafi Instructive to Post-9/11 Era

Never underestimate the power of results. People have a way of forgiving and forgetting as long as you can produce the results. The dubious manner in which President Obama ordered military intervention — covertly and overtly and there was a lot of overt stuff going on — in Libya was no doubt legally questionable . However, the facts remain Muammar Qaddafi is dead. Osama bin Laden is dead. Anwar al-Awlaki is dead. We prevented diplomatic catastrophe in the Saudi Ambassador assassination plot. The president’s confidence is growing and he sees momentum going against the status quo regimes in the Arab World. President Barack Obama hailed the lifting of the “dark tyranny” over Libya after the new government confirmed Muammar Gaddafi had been killed, issuing a warning to other dictators in the Middle East – and particularly Syria – that they could be next. Although Obama did not name Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, it was he Obama had in mind when he said the rule of the iron fist in the Middle East is inevitably coming to an end. Those leaders that try to deny the push for democracy will not succeed, he predicted. For those who refuse to acknowledge these things are out of touch with what is actually happening. From a purely historical perspective, especially in light of the age of terror and Middle East despotism, some pretty profound things have come to pass during Obama’s presidency. We should make no mistake about it, President Obama has delivered. Forget about deriding comments about “leading from behind” and “bowing to dictators.” President Obama actually has results to show and one helluva chapter already written in his presidential memoir. Whether any of this translates over into restocking his political capital at home is doubtful. Obama has proven himself to be insanely partisan, divisive, and unprepared to fill the role as leader of the free world. Besides, domestic issues always outweigh foreign affairs and the American people have plenty to contend with here. A majority of Americans feel President Obama is unworthy of a second term. That sentiment is unlikely to change and any bounce he receives will likely subside. But it should not prevent us from tipping our hat in the direction of the President of the United States for some very historical accomplishments. Sic Semper Tyrannis!

Link:
I Think Obama Is Starting To Like This; Other Leaders Could Be Killed Next

It was a year and a half ago (May 17, 2010) when we first warned about Greece and hypothesized just how close France and the UK might be to the continental vortex we thought was in the process of spinning out of control. We also warned that we could expect the same result here if we persisted on pursuing the same economic model in the United States. Well, things have not improved.  Not there, and not here. Things have only gotten worse. Greece is in violation of the covenants that were imposed as conditions of the first tranche of the bailout it received just last July. Italy just experienced a severe downgrading of its debt as did two of the three largest banks in France, with France’s largest bank having been placed on a negative watch list by the rating agencies. A major French/Belgian-owned bank is in a state of near collapse over its exposure to Greek debt as we write this. Concurrently, The Fed has embarked on what can be described as “QE 3 light” (…if at first — or second — you don’t succeed…), with Chairman Bernanke warning just last week that the US economy “is close to faltering.” Let’s review the anatomy of the persistent and growing dilemma in Europe as well as the vacuous, if not clueless, approach the White House is pursuing to deal with our own deteriorating situation in the United States. The crisis in Europe is not nearly as complicated as it often seems.  The Europeans made a bet twenty years ago, they bet that if they all joined together in an European Union, created a Euro flag, formed a parliament and issued one currency, that they could become a cohesive economic entity. An entity that would grow, govern, budget, discipline and finance itself in lock step. It was, and is, a losing bet.  Perhaps the first hint of disunity was startlingly apparent when the nations that were to comprise the Euro Zone had so much trouble finding sufficient consensus to ratify the so-called Maastricht Treaty (a sort of constitution for the new European Community). Then some of the major European players such as Great Britain and Switzerland refused (wisely it seems) to give up their own currencies in deference to the new Euro. When we read of Germany’s, Finland’s and a host of other European nations’ frustrations with Greece and Portugal and some of the other Southern European countries, we can’t help thinking of the refrain from My Fair Lady when a frustrated Rex Harrison laments, “Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”  Why can’t Greece be more like Germany (or Finland)?  All they have to do, after all, is conduct themselves responsibly. But alas, there yawns a gap in the fiscal discipline between the Greece’s and the Germany’s of Europe through which one could slide the Alps. For example, one requisite of membership in the EU is that no country’s deficit should exceed 3% of GDP and no member’s debt should exceed 60% of GDP. Greece’s deficit will be approximately three times the allowable limit and its debt is projected to reach 172% of GDP next year. Other Euro Zone countries have varying degrees of the same problem. Italy’s debt is over 120% of its GDP, Belgium is at nearly 110% of GDP, Portugal is approaching 90% of GDP, as is France. We could go on, but you get the picture, even if Washington doesn’t. Given that Greece has spent to the hilt and borrowed far more than it can hope to repay, why not just let them default and exit the Euro Zone?  The healthy and fiscally responsible members of the EU, and their banks, are the holders of most of that Greek debt. Other Euro Zone countries, such as Ireland, also have balance sheets that are on life support.  These countries are facing steep increases in their cost of borrowing at the very time their economies are contracting. This becomes a vicious cycle as money that is desperately needed to fund growth is being consumed by escalating costs of debt service. The risk of contagion if (when) Greece fails is enormous. Some Euro nations have kicked in considerable taxpayer money to bailout the profligates and the European Central Bank has been a buyer of troubled sovereign debt to artificially tamp down the borrowing costs of the troubled nations. European banks, which are large holders of troubled European sovereign debt, are experiencing a growing and well-founded fear of a run on deposits. France, which arguably has been one of the healthier economies in Europe, has seen its most venerable banks downgraded because of their enormous exposure to Greek debt.  Just this past week, a major French and Belgian financial institution was rumored to be on the verge of breaking up over its exposure to Greek debt.  Dexia had, in 2008, already received bailouts of over 6 billion Euros from Belgium, France, and Luxembourg as well as a short-term loan of $26.5 billion from the U.S. Federal Reserve’s discount window. The courts and parliaments of the healthier countries have begun to weigh in, and Germany’s highest court has now required the parliament’s Budget Committee to approve any further bailout funding of other sovereigns. This is politically dicey given the anger brewing among German voters. To make matters worse, no sooner had Germany, approved a 440 billion Euro fund for further bailouts, then the EU acknowledged that Europe’s ailing nations will need at least 800 billion Euros. It’s a mess. Slovakia is, as of this writing, refusing to go along with the bailout, which would torpedo the entire Greek rescue effort.  The EU governing model, with its amalgam of independent large and small states (anyone of which can block a major initiative such as funding the bailout), is akin to the thirteen original American colonies under the Articles of Confederation – unwieldy and unworkable given the complexities the EU faces.  Anyone who thinks the Euro, which is the currency of 17 of the EU countries, isn’t in jeopardy is terribly naïve. Naïveté, however, doesn’t account for the course being set by the Obama administration in Washington (political crassness would be more like it). Fed Chairman Bernanke tells the country what it has known for two years, “the economy is close to faltering.” The President’s response is to call for a millionaire’s tax (actually what he was calling for was his old stand-by tax on any family earning over $250,000 a year) in order to fund more of what has failed to nudge the economy for the last two years, notwithstanding the $1 trillion+ that has already been poured down that drain to nowhere. Senate Majority Leader Reid has scrapped the President’s proposal and actually used the draconian nuclear option to keep it from being offered by the Republicans who knew it would fail for lack of Democratic votes. The Democrats will rue the day they pushed through this rule-corrupting maneuver should the majority shift in 2012 or whenever Democrats find themselves in the minority.  Reid plans to replace Obama’s bill with one that would apply an additional 5.6% tax on any taxpayer with income over $1.0 million. It has little to do with stimulating the economy.  In fact, it is the antithesis of economic stimulation. It does, however, have everything to do with 2012 campaign television ads, banners, bumper stickers and scripts for liberal writers and talking heads.  Few voters object to increased taxes on millionaires, so the President’s strategy is to make taxing millionaires the issue and to distract the electorate from focusing on the nation’s diminishing economic growth and the President’s failed economic policies. What the President is proposing is the opposite of what his own Debt and Deficit Commission proposed. They understood that there is, and has been, a desperate need to jolt the economy. They understood that the certainty of more money in the pockets of all the people would be the best possible tonic for an ailing economy.  But the President, like many on the left, are far more interested in providing for the coffers of government than for the pockets of the people. When President Obama first launched his tax-to-prosperity program a couple of weeks ago he proclaimed, “It’s not class warfare, it’s simple math.” Then, thanks to a rapid fact check by the Associated Press, it was clear that simple math proved exactly the opposite. So this week he changed what Washington pundits like to call “the narrative.” Now he proclaims, “It’s not class warfare, it’s simple choices.” While we do believe the President’s focus is class warfare and only class warfare, we do agree that what the country faces are simple choices. What the country desperately needs is renewed economic growth. The choices are not that complicated.  We can lower tax rates for our nation’s corporations and wage earners (as the President’s own Debit and Deficit Commission recommended) and let the people truly stimulate the economy, or the government can raise taxes on some so that it can try to stimulate the economy. Well, we’ve had three consecutive years of $1.0 trillion+ deficits, and we have little, if anything, to show for it.  We favor letting the people stimulate the economy since they have the capacity to do it quite efficiently.  The government doesn’t.

Read more:
The Administration Refuses to Learn the Economic Lessons from Greece and the EU

The following is a transcript of audio recorded in the secret underground lair of Sec. of State Hillary Clinton. Due to the seditious nature of the conversation between Ms. Clinton and several top Democratic strategists, many Bothans died to give us this information. HILLARY :  I announce next week. What’s my rationale for opposing Obama while hedging my bets and remaining Secretary of Stasis? HOWARD WOLFSON :  No rationale is necessary, Excellency. This is about a woman’s right to choose. HILLARY :  Correct. The decision to contend is between me and my spin doctor. PAUL BEGALA :  You’ll alienate the black vote if you attack Obama, Mistress. HILLARY :  How do I campaign without criticizing him? ANN LEWIS :  Go positive, your Majesty. Commend his Muslim roots, his readiness to nuke Pakistan if he’s disrespected, his “Buy American” initiative encouraging drug cartels to shop here for their arms needs.  You’ll appear generous while planting doubts. HILLARY :  Wonderful!  He rejects my “compliments,” he looks petty. Serpenthead? JAMES CARVILLE :  Exalted One, reach out to our loyal media familiars to push this meme — under Obama, the poor may be obese and own iPads and SUVs, but their children are still going to bed hungry. HILLARY : Works for me. Debbie? WASSERMAN SCHULTZ :  Announce that on Day One of your administration, you’ll pardon Obama for any malfeasance he committed as President, Highness.  Waive the standard contribution to your library. HILLARY :  How magnanimous of me! Oh, everyone, Reverend Al has had enough of The One and is joining our team. SHARPTON :  As the inimical Popeye might say, resist we musk, or the foul ordure of the Obama regime will Kaiser Permeate the very fabric of our national travesty the Geek Fakes are weaving as we speak. [stunned silence] HILLARY :  Jesse Jackson couldn’t have expressed the thought any more plainly, Al. For the time being, you can help us most by remaining publicly committed to the President’s reelection. Uh, Ann? LEWIS :  Invite Reverend Wright to offer the benediction at your fundraiser in Scranton next month, M’Lady. Then blast him and his venomous anti-Americanism. Show voters that Obama may be unwilling to stand up to Wright, but you’re not. HILLARY :  Hijacking his Sister Souljah moment. I like it! Now, everyone, as you know, George has switched sides, and I’m sure you’re wondering why.  I’ll let him tell you. SOROS :  Obama iss veak horse, Eminence. You, you are strong horse, haf big haunches, hams like– HILLARY :  We get it, George. You have suggestions? SOROS :  For Pennsylvahnee primary, I fund new pro-Obama 527–“Citizens for Confiscation uff Guns.” HILLARY :  Perfect! Here’s the group’s tag line:  ”Obama.  Our only hope to repeal the Second Amendment.” SOROS :  Und I offer gas coupons to Democrats in primary states you vin. Ve make billion bumper stickers: “Hillary rule, free tank of fuel.” HILLARY :  Marvelous! Axelrod will scream bloody murder, but as Putin said when the Ukraine complained about Russian intimidation, “Crimea River.” Moving on, how do we neutralize Oprah? Mr. Clean? CARVILLE :  My grandma would cut off the ends, sprinkle salt over the slices, put ‘em in a pan with possum innards, then– HILLARY :  Oprah, not okra. Debbie? WASSERMAN SCHULTZ :  Ask Research and Destruction to supply the Enquirer with Photoshopped  images of Perry and Oprah hunting together at his Texas camp. HILLARY :  Good idea. But forget the Enquirer ; they have standards. The Washington Post will run them without asking questions. ANN LEWIS :  Exalted One, you must propose something substantive about what you’ll actually do as President. HILLARY :  Hmm. I’ll promise to rid the planet of war, disease, and famine, but I won’t tell how. . . until I’m elected.  Advise the media I want a 30 second spot depicting a Road Warrior world if I lose. BILL CLINTON :  Honey, we got to make you look like ordinary people, not some ice queen who– HILLARY :  Shaddup, Bill. BILL CLINTON :  Yes’m. HILLARY :  He’s right, though.  What can I do to seem like… like one of them? WASSERMAN SCHULTZ :  Appear on a trash TV talk show, Sensei. Discuss your marriage frankly, and disclose affairs with unnamed males in your Secret Service detail. The Agency can’t comment. In one stroke you’ll squash some ugly rumors and thrill millions of women who’ve waited for tit for tat since Monica. HILLARY : Inspired! Wolfson, book me, Bill, Lewinsky, and Paula Jones on Springer for a throwdown. Make sure the set has plenty of lamps near at hand for hurling. Now, how about exhibiting my soft side? ANN LEWIS :  Pledge to adopt infants representing every ethnic and racial group in the world, your Grace. HILLARY : Oh, the humanity!  We’ll house them in the renamed ”Eisenhower Executive Orphanage Building.” I’ll be the model for working mothers everywhere who want it all. BEGALA :  Out of the box, you’ll need some encouraging poll numbers, my Queen. I’ll task Gallup to run one with this question: “Given President Obama’s incompetence, narcissism, and arrogance, will you be more likely or less likely to vote for him?” HILLARY :  Good. Any other ideas?? SANDY BERGER :  I’ll sneak into Obama reelection headquarters and stuff a copy of his campaign plan down my jockeys, your Magnitude. If his people catch me and ask what’s in my pants, I’ll just say I’m glad to see them. BILL : Good ‘un, San— HILLARY : Shaddup, Bill.  Who let Berger in here?

View post:
Inside The Hillary War Room: ‘It’s My Party!’

When the news of Fast and Furious first broke months ago, President Obama and Attorney General Holder remained almost completely mute on the subject. When they finally addressed it, it was to say they hadn’t heard of Fast and Furious until May 2011 (eighteen months after it started).  Slowly, however, as this ceased to satisfy questioners, they incorporated the simple assertion that neither of them had authorized walking guns into Mexico nor had they possessed detailed knowledge of the stateside inner-workings of the operation. It’s ironic that their answer went from being one thing to being another thing to being yet another thing. And I point this because the weapons tied to Fast and Furious have gone from being assault rifles to sniper rifles to grenade components to (allegedly) a rocket launcher? Yes – a rocket launcher. And I add the word “allegedly” not because there’s any doubt over whether a rocket launcher has been found near the Mexico/Texas border , but because its origin in the Fast and Furious operation has yet to be established beyond a doubt. The jury’s still out because the launcher could be associated with another gun-smuggling operation the administration seems to be involved with in El Paso, TX and Columbus, NM. For example, On July 27 th I had a post on Big Government which highlighted reports in the El Paso Times detailing “an alleged gun smuggling operation in which Obama administration officials were selling military grade weapons to drug cartel members in Mexico.” Supported by at least one former DEA official and one “CIA contract pilot,” the allegations were that weapons had been regularly transported from the Dallas/Fort Worth area to El Paso, TX, and/or Columbus, NM. From either of those locations they then crossed into Mexico. Now it appears some of those “military grade weapons” didn’t make it all the way to Mexico, because along with the rocket launcher, U.S. Border Patrol Agents found “ a grenade launcher , and three packages of what appeared to be C-4 explosives” by the Rio Grande on September 13 th . What is going on here folks? I almost forgot – along with the two launchers and the C4 there were also six assault rifles (and the assault rifles smell like Fast and Furious to me). Let’s review: When we first learned about Fast and Furious, the news was that a number of assault rifles had been sold to straw purchasers. Soon, we learned that the number was approximately 2,500 and that some of those were .50 caliber sniper rifles. Then we learned that somewhere between 1,200 and 1,300 of the weapons were unaccounted for, and that the ATF had allowed another upstanding gentleman to walk grenade components into Mexico (I guess he ended up in Mexico: no one knows because the ATF lost him). And finally, we’re learning that just a few days ago, on our side of the border, U.S. Border Patrol Agents found rocket and grenade launchers, assault rifles, and C4 explosives. We’ve got to get to the bottom of this mess. But until we do, everyone who’s interested ought to head down to their local Fast and Furious dealer and get a rocket launcher while supplies last.

See the article here:
Today’s Special: Rocket Launchers (from a Fast and Furious Dealer Near You)

Obamacare Flow Chart/Heritage Foundation They passed it, and now we are finding out what is in it.  For over a year now experts have been painstakingly poring through the 2500+ pages of legislation and mandates created in The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR 3590) and The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (HR 4872) and the debate continues on whether to repeal or fix it.  As the timeline rolls out for compliance over the next few years it will become increasingly clear that there are quite a few mandates thrown in that our representatives will deny having any knowledge of, since they did not read it! What we have seen so far from this disastrous monstrosity of legislation is that we and our physicians will be so tied up in bureaucracy; from mountains of paperwork, to bureaucrats getting in between our doctors and ourselves, to employers providing insurance that contains “minimum essential coverage” which has yet to be fully disclosed for their employees, to the policing of our coverage by the IRS to make sure we have purchased what the government deems to be acceptable health insurance coverage.  Physicians will also be subject to fines for not providing care to their patients as dictated by a panel of bureaucrats. The individual mandate in this bill is unprecedented in our history.  The Cato Institute’s Michael D. Tanner has published a comprehensive analysis of this heath care reform bill in his much more readable 61 page Bad Medicine: A Guide to the Real Costs and Consequences of the New Health Care Law .  He states that “what we are finding increasingly looks like it will leave Americans less healthy, less prosperous and less free.” In his analysis he breaks down the timeline of what provisions will go into effect and when.  Already implemented: A ten percent tax imposed on tanning salons. Seniors with prescription drug costs of at least $2700.00 will receive a check for $250.00 $5 billion temporary insurance program for employers who provide health insurance for retirees over age 55 who are not yet eligible for Medicare. The program ends in 2014. Insurers are required to provide coverage for children regardless of preexisting conditions. The prohibition on excluding preexisting conditions does not apply to adults until 2014. High risk pools established to cover adults with pre-existing conditions, but will be eliminated after the ban on excluding preexisting conditions goes into effect in 2014. Parents may keep their children on their insurance plan until the child reaches age 26. Lifetime caps on insurance benefits are prohibited. Restaurants and vending machines are required to post calorie counts. This week we discovered that, effective August 1, 2011, according to the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services “Under the Affordable Care Act, women’s preventive health care – such as mammograms, screenings for cervical cancer, prenatal care, and other services – is covered with no cost sharing for new health plans.”  The list of services that are to be covered with no co-pay are; well-woman visits, screening for gestational diabetes, human papillomavirus testing, counseling for sexually transmitted infections, screening and counseling for human immune-deficiency virus, contraceptive methods and counseling, breastfeeding support, supplies and counseling, and screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence.  This will surely drive up the cost of health insurance premiums and cause more employers to opt out of providing coverage for their employees and pay the fines instead.  The administration will vilify these corporations, calling them greedy, corporate jet-flying, profit-making millionaires and billionaires.  It has structured the laws in such a way that in the long run it will be cheaper and involve less bureaucracy for corporations to opt out.  Nationalized health care was the goal of this president and despite all of the opposition it is what we now have.  Most Americans do not realize this yet, because of the extended timeline for the rollout of the various aspects of this bill. The individual mandate takes effect in 2014.  Failure to comply will result in a fine equal to 1% of income.  Penalties increase to 2% in 2015, and 2.5% in 2016.  The IRS will be able to withhold any tax refunds to pay these fines if you have not provided proof of acceptable insurance. Michael D. Tanner states that “the combination of taxes and subsidies in this law results in a substantial redistribution of income” and “it is a tax and regulatory nightmare.”  He also states “More than 2/3 of companies could be forced to change their current coverage.” The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has already granted over 1400 waivers to corporations.  The first waiver should have invalidated the entire bill.

Read the original:
ObamaCare: ‘We Have to Pass the Bill So that You Can Find Out What Is in It’

Recently it was concluded that the era of recovery under Obama is dead . In fact, it was never really born. President Obama chose more regulation and more spending as means to reverse our declining economy. Businesses are loath to hire, invest, and expand it an unfriendly, insecure environment. To show this is more than just election time rhetoric consider this point. “About 6.2 million Americans, 45.1 percent of all unemployed workers in this country, have been jobless for more than six months – a higher percentage than during the Great Depression .” There has been no recovery; in fact, things have gotten worse since Obama has held office. As a result, he has lost the bin Laden “ bounce “. An accomplishment that he should have been able to hang his hat on. However, perspective and priorities are what a president must contend. A bad economy his foremost in people’s mind. After all, the daily lives of millions hinge on opportunity and financial security. The awesome action in taking out bin Laden was a blip on the radar when it comes to what really matters. It doesn’t put people back to work, raise wages, or keep people in their homes. Obama owns this economic mess and now he and his fellow Democrats are prepared to trademark it . House Democrats this week have amplified their calls for new spending on infrastructure and other federal projects in the face of May’s discouraging job-creation figures. Even as Republicans are insisting on “trillions” of dollars in spending cuts, Democrats maintain that a targeted injection of additional federal dollars in the near-term would go a long way toward reversing the hiring slump. Friday’s disappointing job report, they say, only bolsters their case. They are making the case better than the Republicans can themselves that a vastly different direction needs to be taken. In what should be a smooth reelection for a still, likable president, is turning into a sure sign of defeat . Romney appears formidable: In a general-election trial heat in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll he runs evenly with Barack Obama among all Americans, and numerically outpoints him, 49-46 percent, among registered voters — not a statistically significant lead, given sampling error, but a clear reflection of Obama’s vulnerability to a well-positioned challenger. [snip] “A vast 89 percent of Americans say the economy’s in bad shape. It’s ranged from 87 to94 percent steadily since spring 2008. This gets old; people want relief. But 57 percent say that in terms of their own experience, the economy has not yet even begun to recover from the recession.” President Obama will roll out the failed Bush policies meme unimpeded. He will talk about how he inherited a near economic collapse. It worked for a while as most Americans practiced patience. However, this presidential election the response will be, “and what have you done except make things worse”?

Read the original:
Obama Sinks With Economy

New from the Accuracy in Media A/V Room: Last week, the English took a cue from our TSA and gave President Obama an intimate political pat down. Understanding that the POTUS has a well-known thirst for attention and acceptance that rivals any 13-year-old girl, the UK bestowed a plethora of monarchical appeasement practices upon him.  In the joint session of Parliament, the President takes the proverbial cake in this useless aggrandizing. The entire event was merely an altar of self-praise for Obama and a practice in stale teleprompter platitudes for Parliament. The President needlessly drenched the speech with WWII wistfulness, once obtusely commenting “gone are the days when Churchill and Roosevelt could solve the world’s problems over a glass of Brandy.” There are so many factual and farcical errors in this speech it is almost mind numbing.  The trite nod to Adam Smith; the claiming of victory for wars The POTUS voted to defund; and classless jokes about the Revolutionary war could all be found in this address.  In a borderline desperate attempt to connect with his audience, Obama cites that he is a “grandson of a cook in the British Army.”  The “President of the World” has struck again. Mixed with the other humiliating blunders of the President abroad, it is perplexing as to why he is not burned in effigy by the media.  As is protocol, Obama gets a free pass on the international stage when others (remember Bush trying to open the door in Beijing?) get scoured mercilessly. Even though the President and his administration has violated the sanctity of the ‘Special Relationship’ time and time again, it seems that the all-forgiving English still have a place in their hearts for a man who insultingly speaks over their national anthem. AIM on Facebook | Twitter

Read the rest here:
Churchill Never Used a Teleprompter [Video]