Video:Flashback- Obama Criticized Hiding Behind Executive Privilege
Barack Obama in 2007 told CNN that Executive Privilege was not a good reason to withhold information from Congress.
Photo Credit: Donkey-Hotey
Barack Obama in 2007 told CNN that Executive Privilege was not a good reason to withhold information from Congress.
Photo Credit: Donkey-Hotey
Allen West appeared on Laura Ingraham’s radio show yesterday and responded to Obama’s new immigration policy again.
Photo Credit: Donkey-Hotey
Via AAPSOnline and John Stossel’s Fox News program:
Orthopedic Surgeon and AAPS President Lee Hieb, MD explains to John Stossel why restoring a free market in U.S. medical care will increase access to care, lower costs and improve quality. Government involvement in health care hurts patients.
(CNSNews.com) – “If I were the president of the United States, I would find a way for Eric Holder to step down, and it would be characterized as a firing,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) told Fox News on Thursday.
King suggested it would be better for President Obama to fire Attorney General Holder rather than let the “Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal blow up in Obama’s face right before the election:
“And as more of this unfolds – and I think there is substantially more – you remember that September 19 is kind of the date that bad things happen before elections,” King said.
“I don’t think that (Rep.) Darrell Issa is planning a date like that…but as this moves forward, and I’m the president of the United States, I’d be very worried that this comes to a crescendo sometime before September 19 of this year.
“For those reasons, if I were the president, I would remove Eric Holder from the target zone here – put somebody else in who’s determined to clean this up. I would dump all this information out in the public and just come clean and put it behind me,” King said. “That’s what any responsible public official would do.”
Read More at CNS News. By Susan Jones.
The 9-11 attacks were carried out because of a lack of “empathy” for others’ suffering on the part of al-Qaida, whose terrorist ideology “grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair,” President Obama once explained in largely unreported comments eight days after the mega-terror attacks that rocked the nation.
Obama went on to imply the September 11th attacks were in part a result of U.S. policy, lecturing the American military to minimize civilian casualties in the Middle East and urging action opposing “bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle-Eastern descent.”
“Even as I hope for some measure of peace and comfort to the bereaved families, I must also hope that we, as a nation, draw some measure of wisdom from this tragedy,” Obama wrote in a piece about 9-11 published on Sept. 19, 2001, in Chicago’s Hyde Park Herald.
The politician continued: “Certain immediate lessons are clear, and we must act upon those lessons decisively. We need to step up security at our airports. We must re-examine the effectiveness of our intelligence networks and we must be resolute in identifying the perpetrators of these heinous acts and dismantling their organizations of destruction,” wrote Obama.
“We must also engage, however, in the more difficult task of understanding the sources of such madness. The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity or suffering of others. Such a failure of empathy, such numbness to the pain of a child or the desperation of a parent is not innate; nor, history tells us, is it unique to a particular culture, religion or ethnicity. It may find expression in a particular brand of violence, it may be channeled by particular demagogues or fanatics.
For those who have paid attention, President Obama has a knack for saying one thing and doing another altogether: a knack for claiming one position while actually occupying another. We first saw this when this when he was campaigning for president in 2008 and the Supreme Court struck down DC’s gun ban via the Heller decision. At the time, he claimed to mutually support the gun ban and the 2nd Amendment. (Proving this wasn’t a fluke, when Chicago’s gun ban was struck down 2 years later via the McDonald decision, he again claimed he supported both the gun ban and the 2nd Amendment.)
Perhaps his position on a mandate by which government forces citizens to buy healthcare is an even clearer example. When campaigning for the Democrat nomination for president in 2008, he differentiated between himself and fellow candidate Hillary Clinton by criticizing her plan to use a mandate as an “enforcement mechanism” to “charge people who…don’t have healthcare.” He claimed the use of a mandate for those purposes was something he couldn’t go along with, something that demonstrated a “genuine difference” between himself and Clinton.
However, on April 4, 2012, Obama urged the Supreme Court not to rule against the mandate in ObamaCare because his healthcare reforms cannot survive “in the absence of an individual mandate.”
It’s arguable that there isn’t anything that demonstrates Saul Alinsky’s impact on Obama better than these flip flops and duplicitous positions. For it was Alinsky who spent his life teaching would-be radicals (like Obama) that you can say what you have to say to get over the hump, but once you’re over the hump, you do whatever you want to do. In other words, it’s okay to present yourself as something moderate, even centrist, for the purposes of securing power, and once you’ve secured that power it is perfectly acceptable to revert to who (and what) you really are.
In Rules for Radicals, Alinsky demonstrates this with a look at how Vladimir Lenin was able to overthrow the government in pre-communist Russia:
[Lenin said, “The government has] the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns it will be through the bullet.” And so it was.
Read More at Breitbart. By AWR Hawkins
Today was the final day for arguments at the Supreme Court for Obamacare, laughably officially known as the “Affordable Care Act”. But it is the signature strike of Obama and the left at the Constitution, which will literally be a historical document with little contemporary influence if Obamacare is ruled Constitutional.
As Bob Thompson writes at The American Thinker,
this case will determine whether there are any meaningful limitations on Congress’ power to mandate an individual’s life choices.
This should give all of us pause for concern, as states’ power will be forever subsumed under the “statist” power that the federal government will wield if Obamacare is ruled Constitutional. More from Thompson:
When Congress’ power under Article I, Section 8 — power to “regulate commerce … among the several states” (Clause 3) — has been paired with Congress’ power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into executing the foregoing powers” (Clause 18), the result has been the virtually unlimited power of Congress to dominate the everyday behavior of the American people, in direct conflict with the plain language of the Tenth Amendment reserving such powers to the state and to the people.
A linchpin of the government’s case is a 1942 ruling where interstate commerce was somehow invoked for a farmer who grew wheat for his family and livestock, yet the wheat never left the state:
the government relies heavily on the properly ridiculed 1942 Supreme Court case of Wickard v. Filburn, which upheld a bureaucratic decision dictating the amount of wheat that a farmer grew for his family and his livestock, even though the wheat never traveled in or had any connection to interstate commerce.
In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court re-examined the “prevailing wisdom” that the Second Amendment protected only a “collective right” which protected state Guards, and not a right that individuals enjoyed. After an extensive textual and contextual analysis, the Court reached a decision consistent with the Founders, even if inconsistent with prior Court decisions. In the Antoine Jonescase in January 2012, the Supreme Court re-examined over 40 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence that transformed the Fourth Amendment’s “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects” into a judicially invented right to privacy, and returned the Fourth Amendment to its property foundation. These were brave, principled decisions.
Thompson’s entire article is worth your time
Newt Gingrich explains in this short video why what Obama promised is so dangerous.
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) – President Barack Obama told Russia’s leader Monday that he would have more flexibility after the November election to deal with the contentious issue of missile defense, a candid assessment of political reality that was picked up by a microphone without either leader apparently knowing.
Outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said he would pass on Obama’s message to his successor, Vladimir Putin, according to an audio recording of comments the two leaders made during a meeting in Seoul, South Korea. Obama and Medvedev did not intend for their comments to be made public.
Once they were, the White House said Obama’s words reflected the reality that domestic political concerns in the both the U.S. and Russia this year would make it difficult to fully address their long-standing differences over the contentious issue of missile defense.
Obama, should he win re-election, would not have to face voters again.
“Since 2012 is an election year in both countries, with an election and leadership transition in Russia and an election in the United States, it is clearly not a year in which we are going to achieve a breakthrough,” White House deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said.
Read More at cnsnews.com By Anne Gearan, cnsnews.com
Obamacare heads to the Supreme Court next week, for an unprecedented five+ hours beginning on Monday and finishing on Wednesday. This is a defining moment in our nation. Keep in mind that we are not at a fork in the road – we’ve long gone past the fork down the road to Big Government. Make no mistake, it’s not about “bending the cost curve”, or “insuring the uninsured”, or even helping women. It’s all about power, and it always has been.
The net effect of this abomination of a bill will be to reduce the quality and availability of health care in the US while increasing the costs – everything they said it would not do. Margaret Thatcher said that she could never do what her counterpart Ronald Reagan did in the US, all because of the albatross of socialized health care in the UK.
Most likely the justices have already made up their mind, but it’s important to hear what the lawyers have to say. Should the court overturn the individual mandate, Obamacare is essentially dead, though they will no doubt keep it on life support until either it dies or Obama finishes his first and only term.
The individual mandate, if upheld, will open a flood-gate of “mandates” that will continue to erode your liberties, and it will take us so far down the road of Big Government that it might be difficult or impossible to turn back. But turn back we must.
The Republican Study Committee provides 5 graphs to show how bad this law is – and will be, if upheld.
Obamacare in pictures paints a distressing future, mostly with the spotlight on the negative effects, along with the blatant lies promulgated by the President and his minions in government and the press. You should review the others at the above link.
As John Sparks says at The Center for Vision & Values,
If the Court upholds the individual mandate, it would effectively mark an end to constitutional restraint on Congress and usher in a new era of uncertainty, one whereby the federal government would be controlled only by the self-restraint of elected legislators. The Court, as it were, will have let the constitutional reins fall loose and the federal stallion will gallop forward at an ever faster and more frightening pace.
We all need health care, and we all need affordable health care, at all stages of life. Like most things, our health is our own responsibility. But when unexpected circumstances happen as they always do, then a robust health-care system will have the resources to help those who find themselves with a medical emergency. Our nation has the greatest health-care system on earth – let’s not forget that. I pray that the Supreme Court will strike down this individual mandate, and that the next Congress releases to the deep sea this ball of chain that’s been attached to the US health care system.
Also, hear what Star Parker has to say about Obamacare.
