Holder's Race-Baiting

Holder's Race-Baiting is about Obama's Re-Election, Not Voting Rights

• 
• Ken Blackwell
  

Dec 31, 2011

Editor's Note: This column was co-authored by Ken Klukowski
Eric Holder’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched an all-out war on voter-ID laws and other measures to safeguard to the electoral process. Although Holder’s actions are purportedly to prevent African-Americans from being disenfranchised, the reality is that they serve the crass political purpose of ensuring that Holder’s boss gets reelected next year.
In the past several years states have increasingly focused on measures to protect the vote. After years of the federal government loosening voting regulations, such as through the Motor Voter Act and HAVA (Help America Vote Act), the pendulum started swinging back at the state level.
The clearest example of this trend is through voter-ID laws. In 2008 the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s landmark law requiring citizens to show that they are the person they claim to be by showing government-issued ID before casting a ballot. But to ensure that those without driver’s licenses or passports are not disenfranchised, Indiana provides free ID’s to everyone who applies for one. The Court upheld this law, with the primary opinion written by no one less than liberal lion Justice John Paul Stevens.
Such laws combat voter fraud that we see on Election Day, especially in certain parts of the nation. In Washington State, King County suddenly “discovered” enough previously “unnoticed” votes for Democrat Christine Gregoire to edge out Republican Dino Rossi for Washington’s governorship in 2004. There are also examples from Wisconsin, Missouri, and other states.
Yet Holder has blocked South Carolina’s voter-ID law. DOJ argues that this law is different from Indiana’s because South Carolina is subject to additional federal oversight under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. (This is especially important because there are several federal cases challenging the constitutionality of Section 5.)
But the reality is that DOJ’s actions are not focused on protecting voting rights. They are instead intended to make sure that Barack Obama wins reelection.
It’s not cynical to say this. The twelve or so battleground states that will decide the 2012 presidential election suggest Obama’s reelection strategy. These states include Virginia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Missouri. All these states have large African-American populations.
The African-American community has a staggeringly-high unemployment rate under President Obama. So Black Americans will not vote for this president because of any prosperity he’s brought to that community. Instead, he has to gin up their votes by painting a picture of racial conflict in which he—and the governmental agency dealsing with such things, DOJ—is their champion.
This is also seen in Holder’s incessant playing of the race card. First he says we’re a nation of cowards about race. Now that he’s on the ropes for DOJ’s scandalous Operation Fast and Furious gun-running scandal into Mexico, he has the audacity to say that he and President Obama are being attacked in part because they’re both African-Americans.
Voting is a fundamental right. It is the means by which “We the People” consent to be governed for a fixed period of time by certain individuals, by electing them as stewards of governmental power. They wield this power to secure our rights as set forth in the U.S. Constitution and (for state officials) the constitutions of the fifty states.
But there is another voting right. It is the right not to have your legal vote diluted by fraudulent votes. As we explain in our Yale Law & Policy Review article “The Other Voting Right,” every invalid vote cancels out one valid vote. Each such cancellation undermines our democratic republic and reduces the legitimacy of election results.
Voting is also unique in that it might be the only right that is also a duty. It’s not too much to ask for citizens to exert a minimal amount of effort to fulfill reasonable regulations to protect the integrity of the electoral process.
Every eligible citizen has a duty to vote. But as we explain in our book Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America, it is a duty to cast an informed vote. Although there are only so many hours in the day, we each need to make an effort to gather enough information to understand the major issues facing our nation, state, and community, and to carefully vote for candidates who offer the best solutions for our long-term safety and prosperity.
Because voting is a duty, and also because every voter has the right to ensure their valid vote is not diluted by fraudulent votes, citizens can be expected to fulfill certain requirements that would not be justified when exercising other rights, such as free speech or the free exercise of religion. Measures such as showing up at the correct place on the correct day to cast a ballot under the watchful eyes of trained precinct personnel are examples of fulfilling our duty, as is showing valid ID to prove that you are the person listed on that precinct’s voter rolls.
These measures are essential to our self-governing republic. As examples the world over show, losing the integrity of the electoral process is a mistake a free people often get to make only once.

 

Ken Blackwell

Ken Blackwell, a contributing editor at Townhall.com, is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council and the American Civil Rights Union and is on the board of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. He is the co-author of the new bestseller The Blueprint: Obama’s Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency, on sale in bookstores everywhere..

TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Ken Blackwell's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.

Laffer Endorses Gingrich

Arthur Laffer, the famous supply-side economist who was the architect of Ronald Reagan’s successful economic plan, endorsed former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for president. Laffer said Gingrich’s “low individual and corporate tax rates, deregulation, and strong dollar monetary policies will create a boom of new investment and economic growth leading to the creation of tens of millions of new jobs.” During the 1990s, Speaker Gingrich pushed through legislation that cut taxes, restrained spending, left the nation with four balanced budgets and helped create 11 million new jobs.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Economist Laffer Endorses Newt Gingrich

Conservative Principles

Don't Abandon Conservative Message, Sell it Better

• 
• Star Parker
  
   Dec 26, 2011

Several new polls come as a jolt as they reflect the dismal state of mind of the American people.

As USA Today’s Susan Page sums up the latest USA Today/Gallup poll: the nation is “…more downbeat, more dissatisfied with its political leadership and more concerned about the country’s direction than at almost any point in modern times.”
New Pew Research Center polling shows a whopping 67 percent saying that most members of congress should not be re-elected. This compared to 51 percent saying this in October 2010 before the last congressional election.
President Obama’s current approval rating in the low forties, very low for any president at this point in his term, along with the very sour national mood, should point to shaky re-election prospects for him.
But from what I see, there are serious reasons why Republicans should be worried.
One is lack of excitement Republicans feel toward their own leading candidates.
Gallup now shows a fairly even contest whether it is Romney or Gingrich matched against Obama. But it also shows most of the Obama votes are pro-Obama whereas most of the Romney and Gingrich votes are anti-Obama rather than pro-Romney or pro-Gingrich.
Other new polling data from Pew should deeply concern Republicans.
Seventy seven percent agree that there is “too much power in hands of a few rich people and large corporations.” And only 36 percent say that the country’s economic system “is generally fair to most Americans.”
When the economy is the number one issue of concern to the American people, and when the central issue regarding the economy is the extent to which government should play a role in it, this is not good news for those arguing for less government.
The central economic event of the last decade was the 2008 financial collapse.
Conservatives have made a solid case showing that the cause was government policies pushing lower lending standards to promote home ownership. This case was bolstered this week by a lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission against top executives at government mortgage entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, claiming they concealed the large volumes of sub-prime mortgages they were acquiring.
But the message that government caused the economic collapse does not appear to be reaching the grass roots.
President Obama has not backed off an inch in his pitch that the cause was inadequately regulated business. In his recent speech in Osawatomie, Kansas he went on about how “Banks and investors (were) allowed to keep packaging the risk and selling it off.”
Washington’s answer to the crisis reflects Obama’s take on things. The Dodd Frank Act enacted a major new regulatory regime on banks. Yet Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain standing, untouched, still sucking up taxpayer funds, and backing practically all new mortgages issued today.
It seems that Obama has captured public sentiment on this central and significant issue.
Some conclude this all means that Republicans must water down the conservative message and nominate a moderate.
But Americans crave answers, clarity, leadership. This call will not be answered by ambiguity.
Obama is no moderate. If Democrats can nominate a hard core liberal, why can’t Republicans offer a clear conservative alternative?
They can and must. But let’s remember basic salesmanship. If you’ve got the best product and its not selling, the problem is not the product but how it’s being sold.
The challenge in selling freedom only increases when times are hard and people become fearful.
The best salesperson is one who is totally sold themselves on their product.
We need a conservative leader who unwaveringly believes that a return to freedom and moral clarity is what this nation needs. And one who can convey this conviction and convince worried, struggling Americans that conservative principles are the recipe for national revival and will make their lives better.

 

Star Parker

Star Parker is founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal and Education, a 501c3 think tank which explores and promotes market based public policy to fight poverty, as well as author of the newly revised Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can do About It.

Herman Cain: A Final Word

Herman Cain: A Final Word

Just click the link to read. Amen to the author, Lloyd Marcus. Herman Cain is out of the race, but America is not better off for it and conservatives have to learn to speak louder and stand taller to prevent this kind of media railroading of our candidates.

Class Warfare Rhetoric and Reality

Class Warfare Rhetoric and Reality

Stealing the Votes

We've all heard the stories about voting dead people, illegal immigrants, phony absentee ballots and transporting car loads of dubious characters from precinct to precinct to cast votes for a variety of people on the voter registration lists...  And some of us like me who have had some grass roots experience at the precinct level have actually seen these scams in action.  I am not suggesting that Republicans have never engaged in illegal election activities, but based on my knowledge, Republicans have never had the organizational machine in place to pull off mass voter fraud in comparison with the Democratic Party. It's like comparing Little League Baseball to Professional Baseball -- Republicans can't hold a candle to the Democrats when it comes to voter fraud.  So one solution to at least minimize voter fraud might be to require voters to present a photo ID to vote, but the NAACP has reacted strongly to that idea --- not just a strong objection, but an outrageous recommendation to ask the United Nations to intervene in our US election process. Read the following article for more information.

NAACP Taking Complaints About U.S. Voter Laws to United Nations

By Judson Berger

Published December 06, 2011

| FoxNews.com

•    

• 
  AP
  Shown here is the U.N. headquarters in New York City.

The NAACP is calling on the United Nations to intervene as it claims state governments are colluding to "block the vote" for minority communities ahead of the 2012 election -- a charge those governments vehemently deny.

The nation's biggest civil rights organization this week released a report that claimed a raft of new voting laws at the state level would disenfranchise minority voters. The report said 14 states passed 25 measures "designed to restrict or limit the ballot access of voters of color."

The report catalogued several categories of laws that have been passed largely by Republican-dominated legislatures and which Democrats have decried in recent months as tools of voter suppression. The new laws include requirements to present photo ID at the polls, voting restrictions on felons and limitations on registration and early voting periods.

Supporters of the laws describe them as common-sense measures meant to ensure the integrity of elections. In Tennessee, which is implementing a new photo ID law, elections coordinator Mark Goins dismissed the criticism and questioned why the NAACP would flag the United Nations over its concerns, calling that effort "a bit extreme."

"I don't know what the benefit of going to the U.N. would be," he said. "I can't imagine any authority whatsoever that they would have here in Tennessee."

But the NAACP described the new measures as part of a "concerted" effort to drive down minority turnout and is planning a multi-stage campaign to attract international attention.

To start, the group is planning a "Stand 4 Freedom" rally this Saturday across from the U.N. headquarters. Supporters are being asked to sign an online pledge which, among other demands, calls on the United Nations to "investigate and condemn voter suppression tactics in the United States."

Copies of the latest report are being sent to the United Nations, as well as attorneys general across the country and the Department of Justice. According to one newspaper report, the NAACP will follow up in March when it sends a delegation to Geneva, Switzerland, to present its case before the U.N. Human Rights Council -- a group known more for its sustained criticism of Israel than its attention to voting rights.

"We are experiencing an assault on voting rights that is historic, both in terms of its scope and intensity," the NAACP report said. It described the laws as a "direct response" to rising levels of minority voter participation in 2008 and the growth of those communities reflected in the 2010 Census.

The report cited several examples of voting restrictions that were passed or strengthened this year.

In 2011, seven state legislatures passed laws requiring voters to show photo ID before casting their ballots. Another state, Mississippi, approved such a law last month via ballot initiative.

Republican governors in Florida and Iowa also reversed measures meant to end restrictions on the voting rights of felons. About a half-dozen states tightened restrictions on registration periods and on early voting periods. Alabama and Kansas also passed measures to require proof of citizenship to register; Tennessee passed a similar but more narrowly tailored measure.

The NAACP and other critics of the laws claim new eligibility requirements to vote and register disproportionately impact black and Latino voters. The NAACP study said that while 11 percent of U.S. citizens don't have government-issued photo ID, 25 percent of voting-age black citizens fall in the same boat.

But officials in the affected states say they're taking extra steps to ensure voters who are eligible can meet the new requirements without much hassle.

In Tennessee, which has a photo ID law going into effect in January 2012, officials started offering free photo IDs at local DMV offices -- for voting purposes only.

Goins rejected the claim that the change would disenfranchise voters. He noted that his office established the position of "minority coordinator" to reach out to minority communities about the change.

"If you're an eligible voter, you're going to be fine. If you're an ineligible voter ... then you're going to have issues," he told FoxNews.com.

South Carolina voting officials are also offering two kinds of photo ID cards that would be free of charge -- one from the DMV and another special voter registration card.

Not all these laws are taking effect imminently. South Carolina, Alabama and Texas still need to have their laws approved by the Justice Department. In Rhode Island, that state's photo ID requirement doesn't go into effect until the beginning of 2014.

Still, detractors say the proposals taken together could have a devastating effect next year. A report on new voter laws by the Brennan Center for Justice estimated that the laws "could make it significantly harder" for more than 5 million eligible voters to vote in 2012.

"These new restrictions fall most heavily on young, minority and low-income voters, as well as on voters with disabilities," the Brennan Center report said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/06/naacp-taking-complaints-about-us-voter-laws-to-united-nations/#ixzz1foTIa6v7

Larry Sinclair Accuses Obama of Gay Sex and Crack Cocaine

These videos of Larry Sinclair are lengthy and bold. 

Part 1:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ViPLvmy2Bc

Part 2 (Sinclair's statement to press continued):  http://youtu.be/mXOsGQhwpmU

NOTE:  When you click on these 2 links to watch Larry Sinclair's statement to the press, you will see other links to youtube video's with sexual content.  I apologize, but please just choose not to click on the other links and only click on these two links I have provided.  Is Larry Sinclair telling the truth?  I have no idea, so you can decide for yourself.

Defending the 2nd Amendment at the Ballot Box

LAPIERRE: Gun owners to count at the ballot box - Washington Times

 

Click on link.  This article is worth reading.

August 18, 2011

Obama: The Affirmative Action President

By Matt Patterson

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's "spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal:

To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit extreme, he was given a pass.

Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues:

And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said) "non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves.
Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates which follow. Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.
And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.
But hey, at least we got to feel good about ourselves for a little while. And really, isn't that all that matters these days?
See also: The Era of Confronting Obama at Public Events
Update:
Author's Note. A lot of readers have written in asking me how I came to the conclusion that Obama was an unremarkable student and that he benefited from affirmative action. Three reasons:
1) As reported by The New York Sun: "A spokesman for the university, Brian Connolly, confirmed that Mr. Obama spent two years at Columbia College and graduated in 1983 with a major in political science. He did not receive honors..." In spite of not receiving honors as an undergrad, Obama was nevertheless admitted to Harvard Law. Why?

2) Obama himself has written he was a poor student as a young man. As the Baltimore Sun reported, in:
"'Obama's book 'Dreams from My Father,'....the president recalled a time in his life...when he started to drift away from the path of success. 'I had learned not to care,' Obama wrote. '... Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it.' But his mother confronted him about his behavior. 'Don't you think you're being a little casual about your future?" she asked him, according to the book. '... One of your friends was just arrested for drug possession. Your grades are slipping. You haven't even started on your college applications.'"
3) Most damning to me is the president's unwillingness to make his transcripts public. If Obama had really been a stellar student with impeccable grades as an undergrad, is there any doubt they would have been made public by now and trumpeted on the front page of the New York Times as proof of his brilliance? To me it all adds up to affirmative action.



Mattpattersonline.com

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/08/obama_the_affirmative_action_president.html at November 15, 2011 - 06:37:58 PM CST

Obama's Press Conference

President Obama just stated that when he came into office 3 years ago, the world was divided and Iran was united, but now the world is united and Iran is isolated and we are in much better shape security wise than we were 3 years ago.  Obama said we will explore every avenue diplomatically to resolve the issue of Iran pursuing a nuclear weapon.  China and Russia have the same aim we do and we will continue to collaborate with them on this issue.  Obama went on to say that we have made steady and firm progress in uniting the world against Iran.  Obama has also established an open and frank relationship with China over the last 3 years and so they stand with us on the issue of Iran.  Obama has also made some progress toward getting China to play by the rules relevant to intellectual property rights and a market driven economy, just not as much progress as we need.  But we are trying to enforce the trade laws that are in place.  We brought aggressive action against China relevant to US tires and we are going to continue to be firm.  I can't listen anymore!  This man is delusional or just an arrogant liar --- I am not sure which, but it seems that every sentence he speaks is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. 

Texas Patriots PAC Debate

Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich on C-Span tonight at 10:30 p.m.  So far, the two men have not disagreed.  What a great ticket these two would be for 2012!  Gingrich/Cain or Cain/Gingrich -- I can support either ticket.  If you missed this program, I strongly recommend that you find it on-line later and listen.  These men are presenting detailed facts, historical perspective and  common sense ideas and solutions, not just sound bytes, so this will not be covered by the main stream media. 

Paul Ryan Speaks

Saving the American Idea: Rejecting Fear, Envy and the Politics of Division | U.S. Congressman Paul Ryan

Political Humor -- Sometimes you just have to laugh!

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=98849

One Nation Under God

"Without God there is no virtue because ther is no prompting of the conscience... without God there is a coarsening of the society; without God democracy will not and cannot long endure ... If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under."

                                                                                President Ronald Reagan
                                                                                August 23, 1984

Media Bias and GOP Candidates

Of course we all know about the liberal media bias that prevails throughout the industry, but why is the media, including Fox News trying to dictate who the top GOP candidates should be?  I have been so disappointed with Fox News for the past several months that I have sent comments to them on their website to ask, "Why are you ignoring some of the Republican candidates and giving almost all the coverage to Romney and Perry?"  All the networks, including Fox News, have been on the same bandwagon to promote Mitt Romney and Rick Perry as the top GOP candidates.  They were telling us that the field had narrowed down to these two candidates before Rick Perry was even in the race.  Well, I am esctatic that Herman Cain won the Florida Straw Poll this weekend.  Hopefully, that will send a strong message to Fox that you cannot tell us who to choose.  I haven't decided which candidate I can fully support yet and I know many conservatives who feel the same way.  Why is the media trying to ram Romney and Perry down our throats?  Why have they been ignoring Gingrich and Santorum and to a lesser degree, Cain? I've watched every debate to date.  Again, Fox News seems to be on the same bandwagon as the other big networks.  Other than Sean Hannity, it seems that no one on Fox is even trying to give us maximum information on all of the GOP contenders.  I have narrowed my decision to Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Herman Cain, but haven't yet decided which one I support.  But I do know that Romney and Perry are two politicians and neither have the conservative values we desperately need on the most important issues.  We cannot afford to select a moderate with the belief that a moderate can win while a conservative cannot win.  Why? --- Because our country is on the fast track toward economic and social collapse and more of the same will not keep us from disaster.  A moderate Republican who is experienced at compromising with the liberal democrats, will only provide the liberals with a scapegoat when the economy collapses.  A moderate, compromising approach will be too little, too late to save our country from collapse.  A strong conservative may not be able to win, but only a strong conservative can have a chance to turn the tide.  America is headed toward self-destruction.  Though Obama is a nightmare in American history, please remember that the real difference between Obama and every other President we've had since Ronald Reagan is only a matter of to what degree they chose to tax and spend and expand the federal government.  Obama significantly accelerated our race toward Socialism, but we've been heading in that direction at a steady pace for many years through Republican and Democrat Administrations.  Our only hope is to elect a true conservative leader who believes in the principles of our founding fathers and will fight to change our direction to restore freedom and respect for the Constitution.  It is not more important to win!  It is more important to elect the right President.  If we cannot elect a conservative, we will not win anything worthwhile by electing a moderate; we will have only compromised our values and our future. 

A Jobs Bill --- Really?

The Tax Foundation - President Unveils Jobs Bill Language; Tax Increases Total $400 Billion

 

 

Visit this link to read the full text and/or read a summary of Obama's so called jobs bill and please write your senators and congressmen and tell them, "Don't pass that bill!"

Watch this Video of the new Black Panther President

Gird Your Loins, This Is War Against Capitalist Bloodsucker America: New Black Panther President Shabazz Tells Harlem Audience To Fight War Here At Home | Video | TheBlaze.com

More Obama Cronyism

Newsmax

GOP's Poe: Solyndra Stimulus Payout 'Old-Fashioned Chicago Cronyism'

Wednesday, September 14, 2011 05:25 PM

By: Martin Gould and Kathleen Walter
The Obama administration’s half-billion dollar financing of collapsed solar panel firm Solyndra “doesn’t pass the smell test,” according to Texas Republican Rep. Ted Poe, a member of the House Judiciary Committee that soon may be probing the deal.

George Kaiser, one of the California-based company’s primary investors, donated $53,000 to the president’s 2008 campaign war-chest and others connected to the company gave thousands more.

And that sounds like “old-fashioned Chicago cronyism,” Poe told Newsmax exclusively.

“It’s wrong to come across any politician paying your friends’ businesses and all of a sudden you get campaign contributions from them,” said Poe.

“They are still under investigation by the FBI, but to the casual observer, it doesn’t pass the smell test. It looks like what it looks like, that this so-called green energy company that’s now defunct got a loan and then the person that runs this green energy company is out raising money for the administration.”

Just two years after securing the $535 million loan guarantee Solyndra declared bankruptcy, putting 1,100 employees out of work without severance. The firm’s headquarters in Fremont, Calif. was raided by the FBI on Thursday last week as part of an investigation by the Department of Energy.

The House’s Energy and Commerce Committee is currently holding hearings into the loan guarantee. “It’s a special deal that the taxpayers are on the hook for” said Poe.

Republicans claim that the guarantee was rushed through without proper oversight so it could be announced by Vice President Joe Biden at a company event in 2009.

Poe, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, said that committee is unlikely to take action until the Energy Committee has finished its investigation.

On Wednesday, House Republicans questioned whether the White House rushed approval of a government loan guarantee for Solyndra before a review was complete. The company has since filed for bankruptcy, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the multi-million loan.

Solyndra Inc. was a major presence in Washington and spent millions lobbying the federal government, particularly about the Energy Department's loan guarantee program. Its executives raised tens of thousands of dollars for Democrats. Obama visited its Fremont, Calif., headquarters to highlight the kind of renewable energy companies worthy of economic stimulus money.

The congressional panel examining the loan disclosed emails that appeared to show senior staff at the Office of Management and Budget chafing about having to conduct "rushed approvals" of federal loan guarantees designed to help jumpstart the nation's renewable energy industry.

GOP lawmakers said a groundbreaking for Solyndra featuring Vice President Joe Biden was scheduled for September 2009, even before the Energy Department had submitted its final paperwork on the terms of the OMB loan.

"We would prefer to have sufficient time to do our due diligence reviews and have the approval set the date for the announcement rather than the other way around," said one of the emails from an unnamed OMB aide to Biden's office.

Obama cited Solyndra as an example of how the economic stimulus bill would create jobs. But the company has since filed for bankruptcy and laid off 1,100 workers, saying it couldn't compete with foreign manufacturers of solar panels.

Shortly after the filing, FBI officials raided the company's headquarters. The company said the FBI was seeking records on the loans.

Documents reviewed by The Associated Press show Solyndra spent nearly $2 million lobbying the federal government during the last four years, including on provisions of the Energy Department's loan program just months before White House officials urged that the funds be approved.

In the first quarter of 2009, Solyndra paid McBee Strategic Consulting $20,000 to lobby on issues related to the Energy Department's loan guarantee program, records show, and it paid $30,000 in early 2008 to Dutko Worldwide to handle Solyndra's loan application.

Republican lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee's investigations panel questioned why there was a rush to approve the loan and whether the entire loan guarantee program was warranted.

"Our investigation raises several questions about whether the administration did everything it could to protect taxpayer dollars," said the committee's chairman, Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the emails don't suggest that the White House was pushing for the loan to be made.

"What the emails make clear is there was urgency to make a decision on a scheduling matter. It is a big proposition to move the president or to put on an event and that sort of thing so people were simply looking for answers about whether or not people could move forward," Carney told reporters at the White House.

"It had nothing to — and there is no evidence to the contrary — nothing to do with anything besides the need to get an answer to make a scheduling decision," he said.

The Obama administration and Democratic lawmakers have aggressively sought to invest in renewable energy projects as a way to create jobs and to reduce the nation's reliance on oil. They note that other countries are investing heavily in solar and that the race for solar manufacturing jobs is worth winning because the global market is going to be worth trillions of dollars.

The Energy Department has continued to announce loan guarantees for renewable energy projects even after the Solyndra bankruptcy. On Tuesday, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the department had completed a $1.2 billion loan guarantee to Mojave Solar LLC to develop a 250 megawatt solar generation project in San Bernardino County, Calif.

The loan guarantee was at least the fourth, totaling $1.8 billion, announced by DOE in the two weeks since Solyndra shut its doors on Aug 31.

The loan program, approved under the 2009 stimulus law, expires on Sept. 30. DOE officials say several more loan awards are likely to be announced in coming weeks

The Solyndra fallout comes at an embarrassing time for the White House, while Obama is traveling the country promoting his jobs plan, which includes more investments in renewable energy.

The subcommittee has been investigating Solyndra for nearly six months as it began to have financial troubles.

An AP review of Federal Election Commission records shows Solyndra executives have given to both Obama and Democratic-aligned groups. Ben Bierman, Solyndra's executive vice president, and Karen Alter, the firm's marketing vice president, contributed more than $3,500 to Obama's campaign. One of the company's investors, George Kaiser, was a "bundler" for Obama's 2008 campaign, raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the president, records show.

Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee had questioned the basis of the Solyndra investigation and in July had voted against issuing subpoenas for documents from OMB. But on Wednesday, Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., described the loan as a "debacle."

Democrats argued that it's not clear whether the company's financial woes were just a result of unforeseen market conditions or sloppy vetting or corporate malfeasance. They also said that failure to invest in the U.S. solar industry would amount to an economic death sentence that would allow other nations to dominate a growing business.

"If you live in reality, you know the world cannot continue its dependence on fossil fuels and that we are in danger of losing this industry to our competitors, especially China," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.

Federal officials told lawmakers that Solyndra went through three years of review, beginning with the Bush administration, before any taxpayer money was put at risk. Jonathan Silver, executive director of the Energy Department's loan program office, said that the company was well positioned to succeed in 2009.

But Chinese companies have flooded the market with inexpensive panels, and Europe's economy weakened demand from customers. The result has been an unprecedented drop in solar cell prices this year.

Silver said the loan guarantee program is about giving U.S. companies the tools they need to succeed in the world marketplace, and one of those tools, as other countries have learned, is low-cost financing.

"This isn't picking winners and losers. It is helping ensure that we have winners here at all," Silver said.

GOP officials disputed that the Bush administration was willing to go along with a loan guarantee for Solyndra, noting that am Energy Department committee voted against offering a conditional commitment to Solyndra in January 2009. The committee said the deal was premature and questioned its underlying financial support, said Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., chairman of the House energy panel.

Two Solyndra executives asked to testify Wednesday are now expected to appear next week.

Solyndra borrowed the money from the Federal Financing Bank. The government guaranteed up to $535 million in loans, and Solyndra's bankruptcy filings showed that it has received almost $528 million.

Republican lawmakers were also critical of a decision by the administration earlier this year to restructure the terms of the loan. The restructuring gave Solyndra's investors priority for the first $75 million recovered after a default, making it more difficult for the government to get at least some of its money back.

Silver said the restructuring gave Solyndra a fighting chance to succeed and kept about 1,000 people employed.






© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Recovery or Crash

In 2007 the US GDP totalled $14 trillion.  In 2010, the GDP was $14.6 trillion, a net increase of $600 billion.  In 2007, the US borrowed and spent $163 billion.  In 2010, the government borrowed and spent approximately $1.4 trillion, a net increase of over $1.2 trillion.  The facts obviously demonstrate that the economy is being temporarily propped up by government borrowing and spending.  This is not a real recovery; this is unsustainable government borrowing and spending as if there is no tomorrow.  Robert Wiedemer, author of Aftershock, stated, "The stimulus is unfortunately not stimulating anything. Rather, it's simply propping up a bubble economy.  This is of limited value in the short term, but it will come at great long-term costs when the government is eventually forced to stop massive money printing and borrowing due to very high inflation, the latter a result from the flood of money in the system."  As the cliche goes, pay me now or pay me later.  We can choose the approach advocated by the conservatives and tea party members in particular that involves  planned spending cuts and an approach that calls for living within our means and we will all feel the pain now and for several years before the economy fully recovers.  Or we can choose the liberal democrats' approach of a continued spending binge and eventually, we will experience run away inflation and eventual economic collapse.  So the choice is a responsible, pragmatic approach now that will be painful or a devastating collapse later that will be much more intense and painful than anything we've ever seen.  All the rhetoric and demagoguery of the liberal democrats will not change the ultimate outcome of their policies.  But their political propaganda war may accomplish an ultimate victory whereby conservatives are elected and begin the painful process of repairing the damaged economy and the liberals then scream, "See, we told you so!"  The impatient public with little understanding of economic issues and little tolerance for delayed gratification will then turn on the conservative leaders, chaos and violence will prevail, and a socialist leader like an Obama will rise to rule the new Socialist America.  And with the economic collapse will also come a collapse of our freedom.  It is because of the possibility that this bleak scenario could become our reality that we all have an obligation to stand up and speak out and convince as many people as possible of the truth.  The time for truth and courage has never been closer than now.

Joe vs. Jose

A friend sent this to me via e-mail.  I don't know who the original author was, but it's food for thought.
I think many of the same arguments can be made for anyone on government assistance programs compared with working people making between $40,000 and $70,000 a year. 

Is this a problem? You decide...

JOE vs. JOSE

You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California.

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

Ready? Now pay attention...

Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.0 0 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,20 0.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631 .00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

Do you get it, now?

We need to keep this going -- we need to make changes ASAP! It's way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!

If you don't think that this is a problem, or if you vote for or support any politician that supports illegal aliens...... THEN YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!!!

Breitbart.tv » NBC News’ Chris Jansing Flat-Out Lies About Rick Perry

Breitbart.tv » NBC News’ Chris Jansing Flat-Out Lies About Rick Perry

Patronizing Progressives of Pallor - Michelle Malkin - National Review Online

Patronizing Progressives of Pallor - Michelle Malkin - National Review Online

Really? Another move toward centralized government control by the Obama Administration!

Copied from the Patriot Action site:

Now Obama Wants to Force Farmers to Get Commerical Drivers Licenses..UPDATED INFO

• Posted by Admin II-Rev. Larry Wallenmeyer on August 12, 2011 at 12:04pm in Patriot Action Alerts

Now Obama Wants to Force Farmers to Get Commercial Drivers Licenses

Posted by Jim Hoft on Friday, August 12, 2011, 5:55 AM

 

Unreal.
Now Obama wants to force farmers to get commercial drivers licenses.
The Gazette Virginian reported, via Free Republic:

A new rule being proposed by the federal Department of Transportation would require farmers to get commercial drivers licenses. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, which is a part of DOT, wants to adopt standards that would reclassify all farm vehicles and implements as Commercial Motor Vehicles, officials said. Likewise, the proposal, if adopted, would require all farmers and everyone on the farm who operates any of the equipment to obtain a CDL, they added.
The proposed rule change would mean that anyone who drives a tractor or operates any piece of motorized farming equipment would be required to pass the same tests and complete the same detailed forms and logs required of semi-tractor trailer drivers. Drivers would keep logs of information including hours worked and miles traveled. Vehicles would be required to display DOT numbers. A CDL in Virginia costs $64 for eight years, or $8 per year, not including the cost of an instructional class and the written test.
If the DOT reclassifies farm vehicles and implements as commercial vehicles, the federal government will have regulatory control over the nation’s farm workers, estimated at over 800,000, by requiring them to have commercial drivers licenses.
That possibility worries county farmers and others in Halifax County interested in agriculture.
“I have a CDL, but very few farmers have one,” said Nathalie farmer Ronnie Waller. “This is just another bureaucratic hurdle for the farmer...“It’s hard enough fighting Mother Nature, insects and all…now we have to fight the federal government,” he added. “We’re getting more rammed down our throats, and I could see repercussions across the nation. This move is another inane gesture in my opinion,” Waller concluded.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Freedom Isn't Free

If I could be perfect and never say an unkind word, never hate, never fear, never covet, never gossip, never judge, never lash out in anger, never squander, never lie ..... If I could be perfect, the media and the progressives would crucify me. We're all sinners, but the politically correct progressives are waging an aggressive war of propaganda against Christians, against conservatives, against freedom and against all the fundamental principles this country was founded upon. George Washington said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports." John Adams said, "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand." And remember, the quote from St. John Bosco, "The power of evil men lives upon the cowardice of the good." It's time for all good men and women to stand up and speak out. Wake up!

I recently engaged in a political argument on a friend's facebook page.  She is very liberal and I knew that, but I was trying to use facts and logic to dispute political propaganda she had posted and some of her liberal friends had commented on.  Two of her liberal male friends responded by calling me every ugly name they could think of.  The hate and rage I heard in their words took me aback.  One of them went on a rant, bragging about how he had helped the fight against the Governor and the recall efforts against Republican Senators in Wisconsin and how we nutcase conservatives haven't seen anything yet.  I am deeply concerned and saddened when I see good people still burying their heads in the sand pretending that America will stand as it always has.  It won't.  And we are running out of time.  Good people have to take a stand now.  Will it get ugly?  Absolutely!  Will you be subjecting yourself to unpleasant name-calling and possibly much worse?  Absolutely!  That is why it takes courage to STAND UP.

The Battle of the Deficit Bulge | The Weekly Standard

The Battle of the Deficit Bulge The Weekly Standard

Well, it happened.  S&P downgraded our rating to AA+ from AAA.  And somehow, the Obama Administration and the media are successfully blaming the tea party.  Rational people need to stand up and speak out.  The days of lying down are over.  Conservatives, please find the courage to stand up and fight for our country before it's too late. 

US Debt

It's official --- we raised the US debt ceiling.  Moody's allows us to retain our triple-A bond rating, but put a "negative" outlook on the rating.  Moody's warns that out debt to GDP ratio must improve.  Fitch warns that the country's debt level will not allow the US to retain its AAA rating.  Standard and Poors had no comment today, but warned in mid-July of a 50-50 chance they would downgrade our rating.  S&P called for a $4 trillion dollar reduction as  a starting point to show that the government is serious about getting our debt and run-away spending under control.  So, is anyone listening other than the tea party?  This "compromise" deal signed by President Obama today doesn't make a dent.  If we are continuing to borrow more than we take in everyday, there will be a crash and burn.  When conservatives speak the truth about this impending economic doom, the leftist now call them "terrorists."  That's right -- no longer just "extremists", they are now calling conservatives, who want the government to stop spending money they don't have, "terrorists."  Unfortunately, the far left liberals, or progressives if you prefer, are winning the propaganda war because they do still control most of the media in this country.  And while the economy continues to decline, Eric Holder decides to sue Alabama over their new immigration law.   Holder claims the law might lead to discrimination against those suspected of being illegal immigrants and might also deter some from enrolling in schools.  So while Obama and Holder have made it clear they will not allow current laws to be enforced, they have also made it clear they will not allow States to do anything about the problem.  And, Obama and Holder also want to make sure our economy is burdened with the extra expense of providing an education to the illegal immigrants --- and health care, and on and on ....  But of course we cannot cut spending, because that would make us terrorists.

Ryan-Rubio | The Weekly Standard

Ryan-Rubio The Weekly Standard

The Real S&P Warning: A $4 Trillion Deal or a Downgrade - By Veronique de Rugy - The Corner - National Review Online

The Real S&P Warning: A $4 Trillion Deal or a Downgrade - By Veronique de Rugy - The Corner - National Review Online

Why Is the President So Adamant on Raising Taxes? - By Veronique de Rugy - The Corner - National Review Online

Why Is the President So Adamant on Raising Taxes? - By Veronique de Rugy - The Corner - National Review Online

President Obama's Speech Tonight

It was a well delivered, eloquent speech for the naive and blind.  But the reality is that Obama's speech was just rhetoric with more class warfare and more lies from Obama!  He blamed Bush; he blamed Republicans; he blamed corporate jets and millionaires and billionaires.  He accepted no blame or responsibility for his massive spending increases.  He used scare tactics, threatening that social security checks may not be paid.  He lied about the proposals that conservatives have actually presented.  He lied about his role in the ongoing controversy about the debt ceiling.  Obama wants the House and Senate to sign a deal with only his promise that spending cuts will occur without specifying any cuts and he has the audacity to accuse Republicans for being unwilling to compromise if they don't agree to his non-plan approach.  Obama's speech in a nutshell was predictable propaganda.  Hopefully, the truth will prevail and the American people will realize that the real threat and the ongoing threat to our credit rating is ongoing excessive spending.  We cannot continue to spend more than we take in and increasing taxs on 1 or 2% of the wealthiest Americans won't make a dent on the massive deficit built up under the Obama Administration. 

Congressman Allen West

Congressman West is a patriot and should not apologize for his remarks to Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz.  Congresswoman Shultz is vile.  She is a left-wing extremist who has publicly denigrated Congressman West and other conservatives.  Congressman West wrote a private e-mail without using any vile language, yet expressing his legitimate righteous indignation for Shultz and her vile mouth.  She chose to make the e-mail public and to try to play the sexist discrimination card, which was absurd.  Congressman West is a gentleman.

Compromise

Here's what I wrote to Bill O'Reilly based on his comments tonight:

"O'Reilly, you are wrong! Compromise is not always the right thing to do. Sometimes, standing firm is the right thing to do. Now is the time to stand firm, not compromise. Republicans have been compromising our freedom, our money and our country with the liberal democrats for decades. Even my favorite President, President Reagan allowed Bob Dole and Howard Baker to push him into a compromise with the tax and spend democrats to raise taxes. Let's stop compromising when we are right. You are singing the same song that the liberal democrats are selling to the sheep and you are wrong."

O'Reilly was even referring to the conservatives who want to stand firm as "extremist,"  It's time to stand up and stand firm and speak out, not compromise America's future anymore.  Obama's agenda is clearly not in the interest of American's futue and the liberals will continue to win their propaganda war if we continue to whimp out for fear of being called an extemist. 

Brewer to Obama: Warning Signs Are Not Enough

Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue

Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue

Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue

Hillsdale College - Imprimis Issue

Shariah Law

Mr. Obama has nominated David Heyman as Assistant Secretary for Policy at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and at the same agency, Secretary Janet Napolitano has appointed Arif Alikhan as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development. Both men are devout, Shariah Law Muslims, and in her announcement Napolitano made that very clear. This administration continues to pander to Islam and supposed "political correctness."
Alikan is associated with the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) "a public service agency working for the civil rights of American Muslims." BOTH men will have top security clearances. Several Muslims at the DHS who have top security clearances are associated with groups that claim Hamas and Hezbollah are "humanitarian" organizations.

Meanwhile, Secretary Napolitano has ordered an investigation of the Border Agents who work for her, because they are allegedly "profiling" Muslims crossing into the United States at the Canadian border.

These additional top security clearance Assistant Secretaries who uphold Shariah Law have a problem. You see, Shariah Law supports the establishment of a global Islamic state whose objectives are not compatible with the United States Constitution, the civil rights the Constitution guarantees and the representative, accountable government it authorizes. Already, Shariah Law has crept into the laws of several cities in the United States of America.

Source:  Newsmax.com

What Obama gaffes have been ignored? Just to name a few….
1) “I have been in 57 states,” Obama has said.
2) You give a “breathalyzer” to treat asthma?
3) “First time I saw tenth mountain division, you guys were in southern Iraq. When I went back to visit Afghanistan, you guys were the first ones there. I had the great honor of seeing some of you because a comrade of yours, Jared Monti, who was the person I was able to award the medal of honor to who actually came back and wasn’t receiving it posthumously,” President Obama. Monti’s medal WAS granted posthumously.
4) Called Navy Corp members “Corpse Men”
Now, were some of these gaffes honest mistakes? Probably. But where is the same benefit of the doubt and understanding when Michele Bachmann makes a misstatement?

Source:  Glen Beck.com