Saturday, March 31, 2012

Police HD Video Appears To Show Wound On Back Of Zimmerman's Head


VIDEO--Obama in James Bond-Themed Ad With Putin,Russians

President Flexible’: Super PAC Mocks President With James Bond-Themed Ad

Obama's image above as a powerful spy is a joke, not even close too the real Obama.
The uber-man Obama looks more like the man-child below. SHAW

Blaze/Adams.  Earlier this week, a “hot mic” caught President Obama asking Russian President Dmitry Medvedev for “space,” adding that he would have more “flexibility” on missile defense after the election.

Naturally, a few folks were less than enthused with the president’s remarks.

“[Russia] is without question our number one geopolitical foe,” , “they fight for every cause for the world’s worst actors,” GOP front-runner Mitt Romney said in an interview with CNN. “The idea that he has more flexibility in mind for Russia is very, very troubling indeed.”
Perhaps hurt to find out that Russia and the U.S. are not, in fact, Best Friends Forever, President Medvedev lashed out at Romney, saying his comments smelled “like Hollywood.”
“We are in 2012 and not the mid-1970s,” the Russian president said.
Picking up on this ‘60/’70s Hollywood-Goes-to-the-Cold-War idea, the conservative super PAC American Crossroads released a James Bond-themed commercial that not only mocks the president’s odd request for “space,” but also takes a few jabs at the “über-macho” Russian Prime Minister Vladmir Putin.

Obama's Politics--Sucks the Energy Out

It’s been more than three years since Barack Obama was elected on a pledge to transform” America. Two of the industries in his sights were health care and energy. Whether he will get to realize his vision of a government-managed health care system depends now on the Supreme Court, which will decide, probably in June, whether Obamacare is constitutional.

That leaves energy on the president’s to-do list. It is no easy thing to pin down his position on energy matters, since he gathers disparate policies under the banner of “all of the above”—not exactly a slogan that reflects a willingness to make tough choices. Add to that his confession (to Russia’s current president) that he will have more “flexibility” after the election, and one must be careful in accepting his election year policy statements.

So this past week we have the president declaring that he would like to leave office with America on the road to sharply reducing its use of fossil fuels—oil, coal, natural gas—and relying more heavily on wind, solar, and other renewable sources of energy, including most recently algae.
This brings roars of approval from his environmental constituency, and from companies producing—or trying to produce—green energy, companies in which Obama campaign contributors often feature and are heavily dependent on taxpayer subsidies.

Obama Doubling Down on his Leftist Radicalism


You can't even casually surf the Internet on any given day without numerous reminders of just how radical President Obama is — and this is during an election year, when it should be in his political interest to mask his radicalism.
Minding my own business, I happened on an article by Jacob Laksin on, titled "Obama's Pick for World Bank Hates Capitalism." I'd heard a bit about this before but hadn't yet studied it. I'm so used to Obama's extremism that such revelations hardly move me, much less surprise me. I know where he stands; I just wish everyone else did.
Obama has nominated Dartmouth College President Jim Yong Kim to head the World Bank. In 2000, Kim edited a collection of studies under the title "Dying for Growth: Global Inequality and the Health of the Poor."
The "book's radical central premise," writes Laksin, is that "capitalism and economic growth (are) bad for the poor across the world." Kim co-wrote the introduction, which includes the claim that the book shows "that the quest for growth in GDP and corporate profits has in fact worsened the lives of millions of women and men."  
It says that even in those instances in which free trade and free markets have led to economic growth, they've done so without benefiting "those living in 'dire poverty,' one-fourth of the world's population." Can't you just hear Obama himself in those words?

One thing that helps the plight of the very poor, according to one chapter, is a socialized health care system, such as the one in Communist Cuba. The chapter's author touts that system because of the Cuban government's "commitment not only to health in the narrow sense but to social equality and social justice."
As we opponents of Obamacare have said repeatedly, Obamacare is hardly just about making health care more affordable or more accessible, neither of which it will do in the end, but is a stealth vehicle to greatly expand governmental control over limitless aspects of our lives to enable the leftist central planners to effectuate "social equality and social justice" under the innocuous guise of providing health care.

Green Obama’s latest: airport biofields


John Deere combines will be landing at the nation’s 15,079 airports soon if President Obama and his green energy team get their way.

.The ideas surfaced today in a release from the Agriculture Department which noted that some airports are already using wasted space as solar and wind farms. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack is already onboard the plan to farm fuel at airports. “Converting airport grasslands to biofuel, solar or wind production not only provides more environmentally-sound alternative energy sources for our country, but may also increase revenue for airports,” he said.

Vilsack touted a USDA study that said one advantage to farming fuel at airports is that nobody really cares what it looks like, thereby avoiding fights with locals opposed to windmills and solar panels. Plus, some airports already lease land to farmers for grain production.

Safety to the main business of airports--jets and planes--is the biggest hang up. Many facilities have sophisticated systems to keep deer and geese away and introducing new fields of grass may reverse those successes. Unfortunately, said the USDA study, “We are aware of no studies that have quantified wildlife response to various vegetation types and associated risks to aviation.”
The animal threat is real. The report said that economic losses from wildlife collisions are estimated to cost $600 million annually. From 1912 to 2008, added the report, bird strikes alone have killed 276 and destroyed 108 civil aircraft.

Friday, March 30, 2012

VIDEO--Scott Walker Will Officially Face a Recall Election

BLAZE.   Embattled first-term Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker will face a recall this spring after an election was ordered Friday following the collection of more than 900,000 signatures in the wake of his push against union bargaining rights.
The Government Accountability Board voted 5-0 to order the recall, a move that has been expected for weeks given the large number of signatures gathered between November and January.
It took 540,208 signatures to trigger a recall.
According to Green Bay Fox affiliate WLUK-TV, the elections board threw out about 30,000 signatures, including 4,000 that were duplicates and others that signed fake names.
(Related: Wis. Election Board: Mickey Mouse, Hitler Won’t Automatically Be Struck From Recall Petitions)
Assuming a Democratic primary is necessary, it will be in just 39 days on May 8.
The actual recall vote then will be June 5, just 67 days away.

Three Democrats already have announced they are running and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, whom Walker defeated in 2010, has said he would announce his intentions before Tuesday. A spokesman for Barrett did not return messages seeking comment Friday.

Keith Olbermann Fired From Current TV, Replaced By Eliot Spitzer


Keith Olbermann has been fired from Current TV, the network announced Friday.
“We created Current to give voice to those Americans who refuse to rely on corporate-controlled media and are seeking an authentic progressive outlet. We are more committed to those goals today than ever before,” network co-founders Al Gore and Joel Hyatt wrote in a letter to viewers. “Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.”Olberman’s dismissal comes less than a year after he was hired by the network, following his firing from MSNBC.
His primetime show will be replaced starting Friday night by former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer, whose CNN show was canceled last summer. Spitzer resigned from office in 2008 after he was implicated in a prostitution scandal. His show will be titled “Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer.”

VIDEO--Dinesh D'Souza Explains What Drives Obama and Why

Dinesh D'Souza (Konkani: दिनेश डिसूज़ा: born April 25, 1961) is an author and public speaker and a former Robert and Karen Rishwain Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.[1] He is currently the President of The King's College in New York City. HT frontlines

Film 2016 on what America will be like after another Obama term seems like a MUST SEE movie this summer. SHAW

VIDEO--Biden to Crowd: ‘We Want…a Global Minimum Tax’

Watch the Vice President’s comments via CSPAN
Blaze/Adams.  Vice President Joe Biden has been in and out of the news lately for several comments he has made while on the campaign trail. And it appears a little something may have slipped under the radar.

While speaking to a crowd in Davenport, Iowa, on Wednesday, Vice President Biden said the Obama administration wants to create a “global minimum tax.”
“So, folks…don‘t tell me that America can’t make things anymore; can’t compete in the world market anymore; can’t lead the world again any more. We will lead the world again in every aspect of the economy,” the Vice President said.
He continued [emphasis added]:
And, folks, we’ve already begun. You’ve begun — not me — you’ve begun, and we’re not done. For years, American manufacturers have faced one of the highest tax rates in the world. We want to reduce that by over 20 percent.

We want to drop the rate particularly for high-tech manufacturers like you, Mr. President, even further than the 20 percent. We want to create what’s called a global minimum tax, because American taxpayers shouldn’t be providing a larger subsidy for investing abroad than investing at home.

Bin Laden lived 9 years undetected in Pakistan, fathered 4 children, wife says


Former Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden entered Pakistan across the Afghan border during the early months of U.S. attacks on Afghanistan, then spent nine years on the run in Pakistan living in several safe houses and fathering four children.

Testimony from bin Laden's youngest wife -- the 29-year-old Yemenite Amal Ahmed Abdulfattah -- before a joint investigation team in Pakistan reveals the Al Qaeda kingpin fled over the border into Pakistan early in 2002, just after the U.S. launched attacks on Tora Bora in eastern Afghanistan.
In the testimony -- first cited Thursday by the Pakistani newspaper Dawn -- Abdulfattah told investigators that she married bin Laden in 2000 because she wanted to marry a mujahid, or holy warrior.
Her account of bin Laden's movements in the nine years leading up to his death in May 2011 raises further questions about what exactly Pakistani authorities knew.
It also threatens to further strain relations between Pakistan and the U.S., just days after U.S. military commanders held high-level meetings with their Pakistani counterparts in an attempt to repair ruptured relations between the two nations.

Abdulfattah said the family separated and fled from its base in Kandahar following the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks. She traveled to Karachi, and was eventually reunited with bin Laden in Peshawar in 2002.
During her testimony, Adbdulfattah said the family's movements and accommodation in Pakistan were organized by "some Pakistani families" and Saad, one of bin Laden's sons.
After the family was reunited in Peshawar they traveled to the Swat Valley, close to the Afghan-Pakistani border, where they lived for eight or nine months.
After that the family moved to Haripur for two years, and later to Abbottabad.
They stayed in Abbottabad for almost six years, until U.S. Navy SEALS raided in May 2011.

Abdulfattah was shot in the leg during the successful unilateral U.S. operation, but survived. Bin Laden's son Khalil, 20, was among four people killed in the raid.
Abdulfattah gave birth to four children by bin Laden while in Pakistan -- two in a government hospital in Haripur and two further children in Abbottabad.
She is now being held by Pakistani authorities in a house in Islamabad alongside two of bin Laden's other wives.

Obama’s Media War Against Israel


The Obama administration is waging a highly coordinated media campaign to thwart a potential Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, according to one of Israel’s top defense reporters.
In a new report, Ron Ben-Yishai, one of Israel’s most respected defense voices, writes that the Obama administration is exploiting American and British media outlets to pressure the Israelis and complicate efforts to deal with the Iranian threat.
Ben-Yishai writes:
Indeed, in recent weeks the Administration shifted from persuasion efforts vis-à-vis decision-makers and Israel’s public opinion to a practical, targeted assassination of potential Israeli operations in Iran.
 This “surgical strike” is undertaken via reports in the American and British media, but the campaign’s aims are fully operational: To make it more difficult for Israeli decision-makers to order the IDF to carry out a strike, and what’s even graver, to erode the IDF’s capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties
The first and most important American objective is to eliminate potential operational options available to the IDF and the State of Israel.  
I have no intention of detailing or even hinting to the options which the US government aims to eliminate by exposing them in the media. A large part of the reports stem from false information or disinformation, and there is no reason to reveal to the Iranians what’s real and what isn’t. However, it is blatantly clear that reports in the past week alone have caused Israel substantive diplomatic damage, and possibly even military and operational damage.
Another Administration objective is to convince the Israeli public that an Iran strike (including a US attack) will not achieve even the minimum required to justify it; that is, a delay of at least 3-5 years in Iran’s nuclear program. A lengthy postponement would of course justify the suffering on Israel’s home front, while a six-month delay – as argued by a US Congress report – does not justify the risks.

Obama:The Affirmative Action President by Matt Patterson WAPO

OBAMA: The Affirmative Action President
by Matt Patterson (columnist - Washington Post, N Y Post, San Fran Examiner)
August 18, 2011  

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 the 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 a 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.

READ MORE                                                                     HT/KV


Stocks, Bonds, Mutual Funds
Gold, Annuities, Retirement Plans
401k Reviews, 401K Rollovers
Portfolio Reviews

Christopher S. McNeil, MBALPL Branch Manager
LPL Financial Advisor
405- 509-2383 office, 405-215-5013 cell


H.W. Bush, Rubio, Demint, Ryan Back Romeny, Want Unity

WExam.Contorno  Citing a need to end the infighting and focus on defeating President Obama, a growing number of top Republicans are getting off the sidelines and coalescing around GOP presidential front-runner Mitt Romney, helping reinforce the candidate's aura of inevitability.
The former Massachusetts governor picked up the endorsement Thursday of former President George H.W. Bush, the latest senior party leader to press the rest of the field to bow out of the race. Bush's wife, Barbara, is already campaigning for Romney, and their son Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida, threw his support behind Romney last week.

Romney also added an endorsement Wednesday night from popular conservative Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who previously balked at the opportunity to endorse a candidate before the Florida primaries. But while Rubio's reluctant support adds significant star power, particularly among a growing bloc of Hispanic voters, it only fueled doubts about Romney's ability to energize the party's base.
Rubio acknowledged Thursday his support of Romney was primarily an attempt to avoid a bombastic showdown at the party's national convention this summer rather than a vote of confidence in Romney's conservative credentials.

Romney's remaining rivals, former Sen. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, insist they can still block Romney from getting the 1,144 convention delegates he needs to lock up the nomination, and force the convention to pick a nominee.
"Do I think it's a good idea for the party to have a floor fight in August in Tampa? And the answer is I do not," Rubio told reporters. "I think Mitt Romney has won this primary. I think he's going to be a fine president. I think he's going to do an excellent job as president."

For the same reason, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has called for Santorum and Gingrich to stop throwing daggers at Romney and for the Republican Party to start looking ahead to the race against Obama. While he insisted Romney "excited" him, DeMint stopped well short of endorsing the front-runner.
Recent conversations with Romney eased DeMint's concerns that Romney would fight congressional efforts to scale back government, DeMint said. He's more confident the former Massachusetts governor has come to embrace conservative ideals, though that too came with an admission that Romney lacks authenticity, a charge that has helped keep Santorum's conservative candidacy alive.
"Romney is instinctively not necessarily a political conservative, he's instinctively a problem solver,"
DeMint told The Washington Examiner. "His well-developed second language now is conservative."
More important for the Republican Party, DeMint said, is capturing a Senate majority, particularly a conservative majority more likely to push for a "culture change" in the chamber. Having a Republican president would matter far less if that president didn't have a Republican Senate majority on his side, he said.
"It's the Senate, stupid," DeMint said. "If we don't have the Senate, we're going to lose every battle."

Thursday, March 29, 2012

VIDEO--EXCLUSIVE: Robert Zimmerman-Father of Shooter of Trayvon Martin Interview

EXCLUSIVE: Robert Zimmerman interview:

EXCLUSIVE: Robert Zimmerman interview

By Valerie Boey
FOX 35 News

LAKE MARY, Fla. (WOFL FOX 35) - For the first time since that fateful night on February 26, the father of a neighborhood watch volunteer who shot and killed an unarmed teenager sat down for a television interview.

Robert Zimmerman, father of George Zimmerman, said he decided it was time to speak out for his son, against the advice of others. He shared with us what George said happened on the night that 17-year-old Trayvon Martin died.

Complete coverage of Trayvon Martin shooting

"It's my understanding that Trayvon Martin got on top of him and just started beating him," the 64-year-old Robert Zimmerman said.

He said he felt his son has been portrayed in the wrong way. He also said he and his family have received death threats and asked that we not show his face on camera.

Because there has been a lot of break-ins in the area, Robert said George thought it suspicious that someone would not be walking on the street or the sidewalk on a rainy night -- that Martin would be walking between the town homes. He said after making those observations, his son decided to call the police.

"He called the non-emergency number first, and they asked him where he was, because he was at the rear of the town houses and there was no street sign," said Robert.

Even though a dispatcher told George Zimmerman not to follow Martin, his father said his son continued his pursuit to locate an address to give to police.

"He lost sight of the individual, he continued to walk down the same sidewalk to the next street, so he could get an address for the police," he said.

"He went to the next street, realized where he was and was walking to his vehicle. It's my understanding, at that point, Trayvon Martin walked up to him and asked him, 'Do you have a [expletive] problem?' George said, 'No, I don't have a problem,' and started to reach for his cell phone... at that point, he (Martin) was punching him in the nose, his nose was broken and he was knocked to the concrete."

Robert said Trayvon, "continued to beat George, and at some point, George pulled his pistol and did what he did."

When asked about the screams for help which were heard on a 911 call, Robert replied, "All of our family, everyone who knows George, knows absolutely that is George screaming. There's no doubt in anyone's mind."

As for accounts from Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, who claimed she was on the phone with Martin right before the altercation, he said, "I don't believe that happened. I don't believe she was on the phone with him, and I find it very strange with the publicity involved... that all of a sudden, after three weeks, someone would remember that they were on the phone."

Zimmerman said he had faith in the FBI and others investigating the case and that the truth will come out.

Robert Zimmerman, a former magistrate judge and Vietnam War veteran, said he has never had to deal with anything of this magnitude.

"Unimaginable," he said. "Tough was being in Vietnam and other things. This is way beyond anything I can imagine."

He believes his son will be cleared of any wrongdoing, but has a message to all the critics out there.

"I'm sorry for the hate going around from the attorneys, from everyone involved. They're just making up things no true about George."

Read more:

VIDEO--Chris Matthews: I Was 'Totally Unprepared' for 'Prospect' of Obamacare Being 'Ripped Down'

Nwesbusters/Whitlock. How detached is Chris Matthews from the rest of the country? The Hardball host on Thursday appeared bewildered as he conceded to being "totally unprepared" for the prospect that Obamacare might be "ripped off the books." Talking to Chuck Todd, Matthews asked his fellow MSNBC colleague if he would be "surprised" to see the Supreme Court strike down the health care law.

Matthews then confessed, "I was totally unprepared because of the way people talked." The anchor insisted that "intellectually," he knew it could be a problem, but "I never heard it discussed politically as a prospect, that they actually might get his major achievement just ripped off the books." He ever heard it discussed?

It was left to another guest, Major Garrett, formally of Fox News, to state the obvious: "I always thought that health care and the push was a huge risk. It feels like the biggest risk ever taken since I started covering Washington in 1990."

Matthews groaned, "Oh, God. This is an easy one for the Republicans if they get a beating on this."

Writing in the Weekly Standard, Jay Cost explained why liberals are so often surprised by conservative victories (or the potential for victory):
The problem for the left is that they do not have a lot of interaction with conservatives, whose intellects are often disparaged, ideas are openly mocked, and intentions regularly questioned. Conservative ideas rarely make it onto the pages of most middle- and high-brow publications of news and opinion the left frequents. So, liberals regularly find themselves surprised when their ideas face pushback.

I think that is exactly what happened with Obamacare. The attitude of President Obama,, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid was very much that they are doing big, important things to help the American people, why wouldn’t that be constitutional? No less an important Democratic leader as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee cited the (nonexistent) “good and welfare clause” to justify the mandate.

CHART-ELECTION NEWS-Debt ceiling breached (if not before then). September 2012.

FromTheo Spark

You won't see this on FTV or in the MSM, but it looks like tax-challenged, outgoing, and serial pathological liar Timmy has some bad news for Berry.
- Debt ceiling breached (if not before then). September 2012.

November 2012 is what?

Obama, the Democrats and the Society for the Preservation of Racism

                                             The Society for the Preservation of Racism

PJMEDIA/Simon. When Barack Obama asserted – in advance of a jury trial or grand jury investigation, let alone a completed police investigation – that he identified with young Trayvon Martin, the black teenager shot and killed in Florida, it was an extraordinarily reactionary moment with possible ramifications of interference with the justice system.
But it was not surprising.

Since obtaining the presidency, Barack Obama has led a Democratic Party that would be better called The Society for the Preservation of Racism.

The reason is evident. Increasingly, racism – and more generally the division of our country into racial and ethnic interest groups — is all the Democrats have. The rest of liberal/leftist ideology is disintegrating all around them, as fragile and illusory as the welfare state itself.
Without racism – or more exactly the putative existence of racism – the Democratic Party would be an association of overpaid trade union executives, unemployed Occupy movement sympathizers and trial lawyers. In other words – mighty small.
So no wonder Barack Obama rushes to judgment in a case for which none of us know the true details, a case, moreover, in which those details are so obscure and debatable that they may be ultimately unknowable, our opinions mere projections of our prejudices and beliefs.

Did the six-foot-two Martin sufficiently injure or threaten to injure George Zimmerman to justify a mortal response? Frankly, I don’t know and suspect I never will know to any degree of certainty. I also will probably never know to what degree race had to do with it, if anything.
Nevertheless – tragic as it is and was for Trayvon Martin, his family and friends – the teenager’s death is an ultimately marginal event in a gigantic country, a one in 311 million shot, the furthest thing imaginable from an epidemic of any sort.
READ MORE                                                                                         HT/Fronlines

Obama’s 'Trust Fund' Donor

FreeBeacon.  About 150 wealthy, politically active liberals gathered at the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in Washington, D.C. In November 2011 to discuss the 2012 elections. The main topic: how to spend their money to ensure a Democratic victory. Guests included AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka and Vice President Joe Biden.
The conference was hosted by the Democracy Alliance, a network of deep-pocketed liberal philanthropists funding a variety of progressive organizations, the wealthy backers of which are also helping fund the president’s reelection campaign.

One member is Rob McKay, the Democracy Alliance’s chairman and heir to a Taco Bell fortune, who helped found liberal get-out-the-vote group Americans Coming Together and was also one of the earliest big donors to and supporters of the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action.
Although he is not listed as a bundler for the Obama campaign, McKay is on the board of the Priorities USA Action super PAC and in January helped organize a $35,800-a-head January fundraiser for Obama.
McKay and his wife Anna have given more than $305,500 to Democratic candidates and groups since the 1990 cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, including $100,000 to the America’s Families First Action Fund, the biggest Democratic-aligned super PAC of the 2010 election cycle.
McKay’s donations, though large, are not unusual.
It’s his largesse to “independent” liberal organizations, such as the Democracy Alliance, that puts him in a class with other mega-philanthropists such as George Soros.

VIDEO--Tom Hanks’ claims about 2004 ‘blackface’ skit ‘blindside’ contradicted by new footage


Limbaugh sees Heat over comments turn down to a Simmer

Wapo/Farhi.  The dark clouds hanging over Rush Limbaugh appear to be lifting.
Exactly one month after the conservative radio host sparked outrage by calling Georgetown law-school student Sandra Fluke “a slut” and “a prostitute” in a three-day diatribe, stations are standing by him, advertisers are trickling back to his program and the news media have moved on.

Liberal groups that organized petitions and boycotts against Limbaugh say that they intend to keep up the pressure and that they’ve had a lasting impact on the most popular radio host in America.
“The objective has been to show that there are real consequences when someone like Mr. Limbaugh or his company shows no accountability for his actions,” says Angelo Carusone, who has been leading the anti-Limbaugh efforts for Media Matters for America, a Washington organization. “That is continuing.”
At the same time, however, Carusone acknowledged that outrage is hard to sustain. “I think certainly the pressure has been reduced,” he said. “To a certain extent, that’s okay and acceptable. . . . Obviously, the intensity is gone, but the engagement remains high.”

On Monday, the 600 or so radio stations that air Limbaugh’s program were told by his syndicator, Premiere Radio Networks, to resume running “barter” ads during his program.

Stations are required to run these ads in exchange for paying discounted fees to Premiere to air Limbaugh’s show. Premiere, which is owned by radio giant Clear Channel Communications, had suspended the “barter” requirement for two weeks in a move widely seen as a way to give advertisers a chance to lie low while Limbaugh was in the news.

Obama budget fails 414-0 as Democrats bail

WExam/Gehrke. In a rare show of unanimous bipartisanship, House Democrats and Republicans united in their opposition to President Obama's 2013 budget, which failed tonight with 414 votes against and zero in favor of the budget.
Such opposites as Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Rep. Michelle Bachmann joined each other in voting against the bill, but the White House preemptively dismissed the tally.
"But let’s be very clear: A vote on Congressman Mulvaney’s resolution is not a vote on the president’s budget," said White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage in a statement today.
 "This is just a gimmick the Republicans are putting forward to distract from what the Ryan budget does: protects massive tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires while making the middle class and seniors pay." Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C., introduced the president's budget in order to draw a vote.
Last year, the Senate voted 97-0 against President Obama's 2012 budget.

Small-Town Oil boom creates Blue-Collar Capitalist

WExam/Carney.   The pumpjacks, like giant hammers slowly swinging against the big sky, start peppering the roadside 80 miles out from Williston.
Closer in, the pumps, rigs and large oil tanks steadily replace barns and grain silos. About 50 miles out on US 2, the telltales appear of North Dakota's oil boom: modular homes for sale, "Drivers Wanted" billboards, and oil tanker after oil tanker. Just outside of Williston appear the "mancamps."
Mancamps are sprawling, low barracks -- typically warrens of well-furnished trailers -- each housing hundreds of men who have left home for this tiny town 19 miles from Montana and 60 miles from Canada.

What brought them here was at least 3 billion barrels of oil in the shale buried deep under the ground and the technology needed to extract it -- known as fracking.
Fracking involves pumping water and chemical additives into the ground that force the oil out of the rock, making it accessible. With oil companies' mastery of fracking in 2008, Williston became a boomtown and an intriguing lesson in capitalism.

"Being out here, it's like the American dream," Chris Duell tells me at D.K.'s bar and casino.
He bought a failing drinking-water company here in 2006, before the boom. Now his company, C&D Water Services, bottles and delivers water to many of the 200 rigs pumping oil around Williston, plus dozens of peripheral businesses. Every day more companies come in with more workers, meaning more business for C&D. Last year, C&D's sales doubled to a million dollars, Duell told me.
"I got lucky in life," he says. Duell, from Michigan, has seen both sides of capitalism's fickle nature. "All my friends who have college degrees from Michigan, Michigan State. They're all laid off."

Layoffs have brought many men to Williston. One burly transplant in his late 40s, with hands so huge they were difficult to shake, told me he was a Teamster near Sacramento when he was canned in 2008. After two years of taking unemployment checks, he happened to call some friends who had moved from California to Williston.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Video--CNN's Toobin: 'Hard To Imagine How Things Could Get Worse For Obama Admin'


VIDEO--Detroit's Financial problems bring BlackPanther Threat of Buring down the City

What will another 4 years of a terrible economy under Obama bring to America?

VIDEO--James Carville on Overturning ObamaCare--'It's the Best thing for Democrats'

Totally Out Of Touch-Bernanke calls gas prices a ‘moderate’ risk to the economy

Ben Bernanke is almost as out of touch with reality as James Clapper.-SHAW

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said rising gasoline prices are a “moderate” risk to the economy that may slightly hinder growth rates, but nonetheless predicted they will not stall the recovery.
His comments in an ABC News interview Tuesday come amid surging gasoline prices that, according to AAA, now average about $3.90-per-gallon nationwide.
“From the economy’s point of view they are a moderate risk,” Bernanke told Diane Sawyer, moments after calling the prices a “major problem” and a “hardship” for drivers facing increased commuting costs.

Asked directly if pump prices are threatening the recovery, he replied:
“At this point I would say [the risk is] still moderate. We'll see a little bit higher inflation the next few months because of the higher gas prices. And we'll see consumers with a little less income to spend.”

The Fed chairman said there will be a “bit of a hit” on growth, but not enough to outweigh other positive trends. “[A]t this level we don't think yet that, particularly given the other good news we've seen in labor markets and so on, we don't think it's going to be anything that's going to stall the recovery,” Bernanke said.

Bernanke, noting that gasoline prices frequently follow a seasonal pattern, predicted prices over the next couple of months or so will rise “somewhat further.”
“After that, if oil prices stay where they are or come down as some people think they will, we should see some relief,” he said. “But that's a guess.”

Cap and Trade Via EPA-EPA Regulates Coal Power Plants Out of Existence-

 Unable to get cap and trade through Congress, President Obama has settled for just the
cap via regulation by the EPA. Today, his EPA will issue new limits on the amount of CO2 which can be produced by newpower plants -- and they may shut down coal plants altogether:
The proposed rule - years in the making and approved by the White House after months of review - will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits 800 to 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.
One industry lawyer notes that by taking coal off the table via regulation, Obama has undercut his "all of the above" rhetoric on energy:
"This standard effectively bans new coal plants," said Joseph Stanko, who heads government relations at the law firm Hunton and Williams and represents several utility companies. "So I don't see how that is an 'all of the above' energy policy."
In January 2008, candidate Obama told reporters he would take this path if elected President. He was speaking of a cap and trade system at the time, but today's move by the EPA is effectively a cap without the trade portion of the system:
If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's going to be emitted... The point is, if we set rigorous standards for the allowable emissions, then we can allow the market to determine and technology and entrepreneurs to pursue what's the best approach to take.

State Department Refuses to Say Jerusalem Is in Israel

FrBeacon/Kredo. UPDATE: The State Department has altered an official communication to erase the fact that it had referred to Israel and Jerusalem as separate entities.
The release now states: “Acting Under Secretary Kathleen Stephens Travels to Algiers, Doha, Amman, Jerusalem, and Tel Aviv.” In a previous iteration of the release, the State Department separated Jerusalem from Israel.

An official State Department communication has labeled Jerusalem and Israel as separate entities.
In an official press release yesterday, the State Department announced that “Acting Under Secretary Kathleen Stephens Travels to Algeria, Qatar, Jordan, Jerusalem, and Israel.”
Keeping up with its longstanding policy, the State Department refuses to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s official capital—despite a U.S. law stating otherwise. Obama faced criticism on the issue last year, when it was revealed that the White House had scrubbed all references to Jerusalem being part of the Jewish state from a collection of photos on its website.
Obama has also been lambasted by pro-Israel leaders and some on Capitol Hill for capitulating to pressure from the State Department, which has long opposed U.S. law on the matter.
A senior GOP aide condemned the State Department’s recent press release as unsound foreign policy.
“Once again, President Obama’s administration reminds Jewish voters why he cannot be trusted when it comes to Israel’s security,” said the source. “He doesn’t think Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Is it its own sovereign nation?”
The GOP source also chided Obama for continuing to buck U.S. law on the issue.
“Under U.S. law, Jerusalem is recognized as the undivided capital of Israel—period,” said the adviser. “Unlike the U.S. embassy’s move, that fact is not subject to any waiver or exception. So the question really is, why is Barack Obama ignoring U.S. law and refusing to recognize Israel’s capital?”

VIDEO--Inside Obama’s Individual Mandate Memo and Why He Changed His Mind

Blaze/Santarelli. As the constitutionality of Obamacare is examined this week by the highest court in the land, increased scrutiny has come under President Obama’s support of the most controversial provision of the healthcare reform bill: the “individual mandate” that requires individuals to have health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.
And now, an internal Obama administration memo sheds light on how Obama went from trashing the mandate during the campaign to embracing it as a cornerstone of the controversial legislation.
As we mentioned on Monday, the group American Crossroads released a web video illuminating Obama’s on-and-off support for the mandate. During the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign, strong support of the individual mandate was one of the few issues separating Hillary Clinton from Barack Obama. Obama pounded Clinton for her mandate proposal in ads leading up to the pivotal Pennsylvania Democratic primary, telling voters ”It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don’t.”
Buzzfeed’s Andrew Kaczynski assembled a highlight reel in January revealing the extent of Obama’s criticisms of the mandate during the 2008 campaign:
But when Obama entered the oval office and saw resistance towards his health care plan from Democrats in both the House and Senate the president began to change his tune. In search of where the flip-flop first occurred, The New Yorker published yesterday a seven-page April 2009 memo to President Obama from his top healthcare adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle:
The entire memo is worth reading—it reveals, among other things, that the Administration’s early estimate for its plan was $1.4 trillion and that it debated partially paying for health care with “a 10-cent excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages”—but of particular interest are passages that include one of the earliest discussions with the President about how he would have to reverse the position he took during the campaign
DeParle begins by summarizing for Obama the status of legislation in Congress. She notes that Democrats in both chambers are pro-mandate, meaning that Obama’s campaign position now makes him an outlier in the debate. Perhaps to nudge him in the mandate direction, she also reminds him that late in the campaign he started to make some pro-mandate noises.
Later in the document, there are two more notable items. One is that DeParle does not frame the case for the mandate strictly on the merits of the idea. Instead, she points out—somewhat grudgingly—that Obama would almost have to reverse his campaign position because of the way the Congressional Budget Office would treat a health-care bill without an individual mandate. [Emphasis added]

Examiner Editorial: On Foreign Affairs, Obama plays Politics with Policy

WExam/Oped. This week, Americans were given a window into the way world leaders speak to one another in private. A conversation between President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was caught on a microphone that neither man realized was live.
"On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved," Obama said. "But it's important for [incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin] to give me space ... This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."
"I understand," Medvedev responded. "I will transmit this information to Vladimir." The exchange comes two-and-a-half years after Obama scrapped Bush-era missile defense plans in Eastern Europe, bowing to pressure from the Russians.

This unfortunate hot-mic exchange will have security implications, and it will surely sour our relations with allies in that part of the world. But as much as America's allies might be angered by Obama's words, Americans should be even more so. Their president -- the man charged with conducting America's foreign policy and overseeing its defense -- told another world leader that he is willing to make concessions on an important issue once he has finally and permanently escaped accountability to them. At that point, Obama said, he will have "more flexibility," presumably to do something they might disapprove of in an election year or view as not in the nation's best interests.
Set aside the important question of missile defense -- Obama was a skeptic on that long before he ran for president.

This magic microphone moment calls into question Obama's concept of government service.
If he is acting in Americans' interests, why must he hide his intentions until his second term?
The incident also suggests a rather dim view of American citizens -- as rabble unable to grasp the pros and cons of issues like missile defense.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012


VIDEO--Frustrated Senator Olympia Snowe Gives Obama an ‘F’
VIDEO--CNN: 'Train Wreck' For Obamacare

VIDEO--NSA Building Huge Spy Center

Justice Kennedy 'To forceCitizens buy a product Changes relationship of federal govt to individual in fundamental way”

Santorum Video: Obamaville’s House of Horrors

AUDIO-Obana Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court

Sarkozy Bans Imams from Entering France

To Obama--What Flexibility With Russia?-- Rep.Turner/Strategic Forces Subcommittee-- ?

VIDEO--Santorum Pronounces Zimmerman Guilty Before Trial, or Charge

VIDEO--Limbaugh Advertiser Accuses Boycotters of ‘Terrorism’ for Targeting His Company

VIDEO Left Wing,Union Thug Video-- Intimidation of Employees and Families v

Santorum Plans to Block Romney, then Woo Delegates

VIDEO--Obama Wants to Disarm America--Here it Begins...

BARACK OBAMA (US ) Paid $50,000 to families of EACH Afgan shooting Victim Families told Money from BARACK OBAMA

Obama: US has 'MORAL OBLIGATION' to lead in Reducing Nuclear Stockpiles

VIDEO--Frustrated Senator Olympia Snowe Gives Obama an ‘F’

Spinners and Winners

Yahoo/Karl. If there were ever a Republican for President Obama to work with, it was Maine Senator Olympia Snowe. She was one of just three Republicans in the entire Congress to vote for his economic stimulus plan in 2009 and even tried to work with him on health care, but in an interview with ABC's Senior Political Correspondent Jonathan Karl, Snowe makes a remarkable revelation: She hasn't had a face-to-face meeting with President Obama in nearly two years.

Snowe said that if she had to grade the President on his willingness to work with Republicans, he would "be close to failing on that point." In fact, Snowe, who was first elected to Congress in 1978, claims that her meetings with President Obama have been less frequent than with any other President.

When she announced suddenly in February that she was not going to run for reelection - after three terms in the US Senate and a previous 14 years in the House of Representatives - colleagues and commentators alike were stunned.

"I think a lot of the frustration frankly in our party, in the Tea Party challenges or even Occupy Wall Street is really a reflection of our failure to solve the major problems in our country," said Snowe. "It's become all about the politics, and not the policy. It's not about governing, it's about the next election."

So has this Congress failed the country on those critical questions?

"Absolutely," Snowe asserted. "You have to sit down and talk to people with whom you disagree," said Snowe. " And that is not what is transpiring at a time when we desperately need that type of leadership."

Sen. Snowe admitted that her party has changed since she entered politics, and that she is a rare moderate in the Republican caucus. That said, she is adamant that her core beliefs are as Republican now as they ever were.

"I haven't changed," she said. "I represent what I think is a traditional Republican… a limited government, fiscal responsibility, strong national defense, individual freedom and liberty."

VIDEO--CNN: 'Train Wreck' For Obamacare


"This was a train wreck for the Obama administration... This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong."

VIDEO--NSA Building Huge Spy Center

Skeptical Justice Kennedy:.To force Citizens buy a product, “Changes relationship of federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way,”

Hill/Baker.  Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court’s traditional swing vote, appeared skeptical Tuesday that President Obama’s healthcare mandate is constitutional.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. faced aggressive questions from Kennedy, as well as the court’s other conservative justices, in the second of three days of oral arguments in the landmark case.

Tuesday’s arguments on the mandate are the pivotal point in this week’s debate, and the questions focused on the government’s argument that requiring consumers to purchase health insurance or face a fine is constitutional.

Liberal justices on the court appeared to be more favorable to the government’s argument on the mandate, and if they unite behind the law, the Justice Department would need to just peel Kennedy away to secure a majority.

 But Kennedy didn’t sound like he was in the administration’s camp on Tuesday.
The Reagan appointee argued the court has a “very heavy burden of justification” for requiring that people purchase insurance. He also identified the insurance mandate as the first time the government has used its regulatory powers to force citizens to buy a product.
“That changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way,” Kennedy said.
Verrilli argued that the mandate does not force people to participate in commerce, because everyone will eventually use the healthcare services that insurance covers.
But the court’s conservative bloc, including Justice Antonin Scalia, challenged that framework.
“The federal government is not supposed to be a government that has all the power,” Scalia said while questioning Verrilli.

Santorum Video: Obamaville’s House of Horrors

In a new video from Rick Santorum, it is hardly morning in America. It is more like apocalypse in America.

From the opening sequence of a large raven to subsequent images of boarded-up buildings, a 1950s-style fallout shelter and alternating views of President Obama with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this is one bleak future.

The video is meant to show the consequences of re-electing Mr. Obama. It never switches to a happier alternate universe in which Mr. Santorum is in command, nor does he break in at the end, as required in television ads, to say he approves this message.

AUDIO-Obana Lawyer Laughed at In Supreme Court

Fox/Nation.  On the first day of health care reform arguments before the Supreme Court, two justices needled a top Obama lawyer for simultaneously calling the fine that will be paid under the law for not purchasing insurance a “penalty” and a “tax.”

The confusion arises because of the administration’s argument that the power to enforce the individual mandate is rooted in Congress’ taxing powerbut that the mechanism itself is designed to be a penalty, not a revenue-generating policy.

The narrow but important distinction created a communication challenge for the lawyer representing the Obama administration.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli used the phrase “tax penalty” multiple times to describe the individual mandate’s backstop. He portrayed the fee as a penalty by design, but one that functions as a tax because it’s collected through the tax code.

“General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax,” said Justice Samuel Alito, in one of the few laugh lines throughout the 90 minutes of argument Monday.

The remark underscores the fine line the White House is walking in its argument. On one hand, it says the backstop is not a tax, because that could subject it to the Anti-Injunction Act — the focal point of Monday’s arguments — and delay a ruling to at least 2015.
On the other, they claim that the power to impose a penalty derives from Congress’ broad taxing power. That’s in part because calling it a tax makes defending the mandate easier — Congress’ power to levy taxes is less in question than its power to require people to do things.

Justice Elena Kagan asked whether refusing to buy insurance would constitute breaking the law, to which Verrilli responded that if people “pay the tax, then they are in compliance with the law.” That caught the attention of Justice Stephen Breyer.

“Why do you keep saying tax?” Breyer interjected, to more laughs.

The justices, particularly the four Democratic-appointees, and Justice Antonin Scalia, appeared skeptical that the fine constitutes a tax.

The distinction is nuanced, but key to one of the administration’s arguments.

Sarkozy Bans Imams from Entering France

DailyMail/Straus  France is to ban radical Muslim preachers from entering the country as part of a crackdown after shootings by an al Qaeda-inspired gunman in Toulouse, President Nicolas Sarkozy said today.

The President said he would block the entry of some imams invited to an Islamic conference next month, organised by the Union of French Islamic Organisations (UOIF).

The UOIF, one of three Muslim federations in France, is regarded as close to Egypt's Islamist Muslim Brotherhood.

'I have clearly indicated that there certain people who have been invited to this congress who are not welcome on French soil,' Mr Sarkozy told France Info radio.
The crackdown follows the murder of seven people in Toulouse by Islamic extremist Mohammed Merah, 23.  The gunman shot down a Rabbi, three children and three soldiers in three separate attacks before being shot dead at the end of 32-hour police siege.
Following the shootings last week, Mr Sarkozy has announced plans to punish those viewing websites advocating Islamic extremism and going abroad for indoctrination or terrorist training.