Well is this another giveaway by obama to the useless nations?
Is Obama’s federal government getting ready to put a huge red X mark on the Hoover Dam, which supplies most of the American West with its life-sustaining water? Having this scenario play out is quite plausible as Barack Obama’s Executive Order # 13547 in support of the global Law of the Sea Treaty (L.O.S.T.) seeks to take control of our water in any form of precipitation, from sky to ocean! Total water control will give the American president and his global cohorts total control of all U.S. citizens if this initiative is not stopped by still-free citizens. Because the Water World enthusiasts are seeking to protect the earth’s water from contamination, they are jiggering U.S. water laws to conform to Obama’s Council on Interagency Ocean Policy to make sure no contamination happens.
Especially riled up are Americans west of the Mississippi because Chapter 13 of the Global Biodiversity Assessment is demanding that a staggering 50% of all U.S. land mass be blocked from any type of productive usage. This literally would be putting our Western States under United Nations domination by prohibiting any mining, drilling, harvesting of timber, or construction of any buildings made by humans. Not only that; all of our large hoofed, ungulate animals, meaning domestic livestock, are being deemed unsustainable!
Warning: this action is being fast-tracked so that the government can “sustain the health, diversity and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands,” under the definition of the UN Sustainable Development program-Bulletin Release No. 0191.12. This is the odious Agenda 21, pure and simple. Renamed because of its bad press, Agenda 21 wants Americans off their lands, off of their private property, and into government-controlled cluster housing near designated urban areas, controlled by on/off mechanical arms reading your GPS location to determine if you can enter an interstate or not.
Morgan Freeman on obama. Another hollywood lefty speaks.
From Jack Kerwick at American Thinker:
Last Friday, while on Michel Martin’s NPR show, “Tell Me More,” Hollywood titan Morgan Freeman informed his host that, contrary to the prevailing wisdom, Barack Hussein Obama is notAmerica’s first black president.
He is the country’s “first mixed-race president.” The first black president, Freeman continued, has not as yet “arisen.”
So, one wonders, whence stems the popular misconception that Obama is black? Freeman has an answer ready at hand: the president’s opponents.
Obama’s rivals want to fuel the flames of racial bigotry by emphasizing his African ancestry while ignoring his white background. Yet they conveniently “forget that Barack had a mama” who “was white, very white American, Kansas, middle of America.”
Some commentators, particularly those on the right, think that Freeman’s remarks should have been met with more outrage. I personally think that incredulity is a more fitting response.
At the 2009 White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, the black comedian Wanda Sykes quipped that while she was “proud” that she could characterize Obama as “the first black president,” her pride would endure only as long as he didn’t “screw up.” Once that happened, however, then she would be asking: “What’s up with the half-white guy?”
It is difficult indeed not to think that Freeman — a long-time Democrat and supporter of the president — isn’t animated by the same impulse over which Sykes joked.
Obama, after all, long ago fell hard — and fast — from the peaks at which he stood in November of 2008. His unpopularity continues to increase as more and more Americans come to understand the disastrous toll that his policies are taking on the nation. This consideration in and of itself should suffice to legitimize the theory that Freeman is now revising Obama’s racial identity so that “the first black president” isn’t remembered by his contemporaries and history as an abject failure.
But there are other considerations that make this thesis that much more plausible.
First, it stretches credibility to the snapping point to suggest that it is Obama’s opponents who are alone, or even primarily, responsible for accentuating his blackness. If anything, the president’s critics twist themselves into proverbial pretzels doing their best to avoid invoking race to any extent. Their dread over being accused of “racism” dictates this as the safest course of action (or so they think).
Moreover, if they really wanted to play the racial angle, as Freeman claims, then there is an abundant supply of resources in the way of Obama’s own utterances (for one, his own memoir, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance), deeds (his “community organizing,” as well as his intercession in the cases of Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and Trayvon Martin, to say nothing of his massive redistributive schemes within which blacks and non-whites benefit at the expense of whites), and alliances (Jeremiah Wright, Van Jones, and a host of other notorious anti-Americans).
Yet Republicans avoid like the plague touching upon these topics.
There are other reasons not to take Freeman seriously.
If anyone can be said to be ultimately responsible for identifying Obama as black, it is the president himself.
Obama was abandoned at a very young age by his Kenyan father. It is his white family — his mother and his grandparents, and particularly his grandmother — who provided him with the life of privilege that he enjoyed. Obama spent much of his young life in Hawaii surrounded by mostly white friends while attending the top prep school in the state, followed by one prestigious private educational institution after the other.
He lived a life that, as far as safety and material comfort is concerned, would be the envy of most of the world. If the leftist drivel of “white privilege” had any meaning at all, Obama could be said to have enjoyed it.
And yet he insists upon identifying himself as black.
Shortly before his election, Obama said: “I identify as African-American — that’s how I am treated and that’s how I’m viewed. I’m proud of it.” As recently as 2010, while filling out the census, the president identified himself as “Black, African Am., or Negro” — in spite of the fact that he had other options.
Finally, and most decisively, Morgan Freeman had regarded Obama as the first black president up until this most recent discussion on NPR.
From Roger L. Simon at PJ Media:
As someone who was a sixties civil rights worker, wrote movies for Richard Pryor (successfully) and Whoopi Goldberg (unsuccessfully), and has had the pleasure of working with many talented African Americans at PJ Media for nearly seven years now, I think I have earned the right to write what should be painfully obvious to everyone — most of the racism in America today is from blacks (aided and abetted by white liberals) toward whites.
In fact, it’s getting to be outrageously so. The rude treatment of Mitt Romney at the NAACP convention is yet another data point in what has become an all-too-predictable scenario.
Much of the reason for this stems from the extreme dependency of the Democratic Party on race politics. With union membership dwindling, the party would literally disintegrate without the overwhelming support of African Americans and Hispanic Americans. Without at least the perception of racism, the Democratic Party has only marginal support. The party is forced to encourage it for its survival.
A whole network of connections, careers, and lifetyles has evolved from that, many of them largely counter-productive. Indeed, the argument can be made that the Democratic Party has destroyed the lives of minorities in order to save itself. Their programs, from the Great Society onwards, have done nothing substantial to improve minority lives, only to encourage dependency. The proof of this failure we see before us today in the dreadful statistics on black and Hispanic unemployment, far worse than the already horrendous national numbers. The more minorities are “helped,” the worse their lives become, the less equal we are.
The Democratic Party is then the true racist party, trapped in nostalgia for a time when genuine racism — Jim Crow, etc. — stalked the land. They have to assume significant white racism still exists because not to do so threatens the fabric of their being. A Tea Partier has to be a racist so you can dismiss his ideas without having to confront them or even think about them. Mitt Romney is just another rich white man so you don’t have to deal with what he is saying, you don’t have to evaluate whether he has a solution to a mutual problem.
It’s all racist as I understood the word in the sixties — making assumptions about other people so you don’t have to consider their humanity — only it’s now in reverse. This isn’t to say that whites undergo severe oppression. They don’t. But the racial climate of our society is increasingly polarized and the survival of the Democratic Party, as presently constituted, is the cause. Everyone’s life suffers as a consequence, with the exception perhaps of those who make a living off race-baiting. That the minorities being exploited suffer most of all is almost a cliche. Unfortunately, it also happens to be true.
Seven Democratic senators have introduced legislation calling for the U.S. Olympic team’s uniforms to be made in the U.S.
From the New York Times: How a simple cut led to a missed infection that killed a 12-year-old boy.
Just when the Naked Cowboy (Robert Burck) thought he had Times Square tourists all to himself, a competitor who bills himself as the Naked Indian (real name: Adam David) has launched a game of Cowboys & Indians IRL.
David has been beating his drum (seriously, he has a drum) across the street from Burck for a couple weeks now, and now Burck is threatening to sue for breach of his “naked” rights:
I’ve been here… 365 days, everyday for 13 years and change. He’s only been here 16 days and missed two already.
From : animalny
Another common objection to the workability of free-market defense wonders: May not one or more of the defense agencies turn its coercive power to criminal uses? In short, may not a private police agency use its force to aggress against others, or may not a private court collude to make fraudulent decisions and thus aggress against its subscribers and victims? It is very generally assumed that those who postulate a stateless society are also naive enough to believe that, in such a society, all men would be “good,” and no one would wish to aggress against his neighbor. There is no need to assume any such magical or miraculous change in human nature. Of course, some of the private defense agencies will become criminal, just as some people become criminal now. But the point is that in a stateless society there would be no regular, legalized channel for crime and aggression, no government apparatus the control of which provides a secure monopoly for invasion of person and property. When a State exists, there does exist such a built-in channel, namely, the coercive taxation power, and the compulsory monopoly of forcible protection. In the purely free-market society, a would-be criminal police or judiciary would find it very difficult to take power, since there would be no organized State apparatus to seize and use as the instrumentality of command. To create such an instrumentality de novo is very difficult, and, indeed, almost impossible; historically, it took State rulers centuries to establish a functioning State apparatus. Furthermore, the purely free-market, stateless society would contain within itself a system of built-in “checks and balances” that would make it almost impossible for such organized crime to succeed. There has been much talk about “checks and balances” in the American system, but these can scarcely be considered checks at all, since every one of these institutions is an agency of the central government and eventually of the ruling party of that government. The checks and balances in the stateless society consist precisely in the free market, i.e., the existence of freely competitive police and judicial agencies that could quickly be mobilized to put down any outlaw agency.
Murray Rothbard, Power & Market (via laliberty)
Health Reform: President Obama and his media toadies scoffed at House Republicans’ vote to repeal ObamaCare, demanding, “Where’s their plan?” It’s already written into legislation.
As a matter of fact, Republicans have introduced several bills that address all the problems with the health system — including covering the uninsured and those with preexisting conditions — at far less cost to taxpayers and with far less bureaucracy than ObamaCare.
Yet former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid blocked them all. And Obama refused to even meet with their authors.
One of them is Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas. A former obstetrician, he chairs the Congressional Health Care Caucus. In 2009, he tried to meet with the president and his staff to discuss his ideas. He even sent a formal request to the White House for a meeting.
“Several days later I received an indirect message that ‘Dr. Burgess will not be coming to the White House,’” he said in his 2011 book, “Doctor in the House.”
Here are some of the GOP health bills that have been killed:
• HR 4019: Limiting Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions in All Health Insurance Markets.
The legislation provides grants to states to create risk pools and reinsurance that would have a shared federal, state and private sector contribution for patients who required coverage for pre-existing conditions. Price tag: $25 billion, which is nowhere near the $2 trillion cost of ObamaCare.
• HR 3218: Improving Health Care for All Americans Act.
The bill offers refundable tax credits for individuals equal to the amount they paid toward health insurance premiums and any out-of-pocket medical care costs for the entire year (with a cap of $2,500 if filing individually or $5,000 if filing jointly).
The bill, authored by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., also lets self-employed individuals enjoy the benefits of group health policies offered through their churches, charities or other organizations.
Shadegg’s bill, which runs a mere 24 pages versus the 2,572-page ObamaCare law, also proposes the federal government match 50 cents for every dollar that individual states lay out to create and fund high-risk insurance pools. The risk pools can be customized for a variety of chronic illnesses and provide benefits specific to them.
• HR 896: The Medical Justice Act.
Authored by Burgess, the bill would bring Texas-style tort reform to the entire medical system.
From the Patriot Post:
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic.” –Joseph Story
The United Nations is now considering its Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), a document that threatens Second Amendment rights of American citizens. The treaty must clear many hurdles before that threat comes to fruition, but we must remain aware and active in opposing it.
In 2009, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to hold a conference to draft the ATT. That conference began July 2 — ironically, just as we celebrated our Independence from tyranny. Details will be crafted throughout July, but the push is well underway to regulate the trade of weapons around the globe. Some nations say the treaty shouldn’t regulate domestic arms sales, but others — notably, Mexico — say that not even individual rights should excuse “products traded without controls.” Mexico has long blamed American guns for its own drug war, a con in which the Obama administration has been complicit.
The White House backs the treaty in concept and will likely sign it — all the better if it restricts individual gun rights. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promises that the ATT deals only with international trade, and that it specifically seeks to limit trafficking to criminals, gangs and other violent groups. Yet research by the UN’s Coordinating Action on Small Arms holds that arms have been “misused by lawful owners” and recommends that “arms trade therefore be regulated in ways that would … minimize the misuse of legally owned weapons.” Britain, France and Germanysupport that goal, but it sounds conspicuously like an excuse for restricting Liberty.
Former UN Ambassador John Bolton is skeptical, as well. “After the treaty is approved and comes into force,” he warned, “you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and that it requires Congress to adopt legislation to restrict the ownership of firearms.” Indeed, knowing that a legislative approach will gain nothing, Barack Obama appears to be focused on gunrunning scandals and international treaties to achieve his anti-gun objectives.
Meanwhile, Investor’s Business Daily notes a typical UN irony: “Just as the world’s worst human rights violators sat on and often chaired the U.N. Human Rights Council, Iran, arms supplier extraordinaire to America’s enemies, was elected … to a top position [at the conference]. This came right after the same U.N. found Iran guilty of illegally transferring guns and bombs to the murderous Syrian regime of Bashar Assad.”
The UN arguably was never a good idea, but, particularly in recent decades, it has devolved into an international club for anti-American dictators, thugs and socialists. To add insult to injury, we provide the lion’s share of the UN’s funding.
The mainstream media has been repeating–without any criticism, context, or opposing view–Sen. Harry Reid’s claim that Mitt Romney could not be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve in the Cabinet–or even to serve as “dog catcher“–because he has only released his most recent tax returns, not his entire tax history. The story currently leads major news websites, including National Public Radio’s hourly news update. So it seems appropriate to do what the media will not: apply Reid’s “dog catcher” standard to Barack Obama.
Let us first take the question of whether Barack Obama would have been confirmed by the Senate for any position, Cabinet or otherwise. If his lack of experience was not a sufficient obstacle, his past history of serious drug use–which is even worse than the admissions in his memoir, Dreams from My Father–would have barred his nomination. So, too, would his radical past, including his associations with Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Derrick Bell, and a host of extremists with whom he made common cause.
On the tax issue, it is worth reminding Sen. Reid (and the media) that several of President Obama’s nominees for the Cabinet did, in fact, have very serious tax problems–and were confirmed anyway (though at least one, with a sense of humility lacking in her colleagues, withdrew). The most notorious is “TurboTax” Tim Geithner, who outrageously blamed a computer program for his failure to pay self-employment taxes while he was working for the International Monetary Fund. He was confirmed anyway, under considerable pressure from the mainstream media (and after an inexcusable capitulation by Senate Republicans), which painted Geithner as the only person who could possibly be qualified to run the U.S. Treasury in crisis.
It is also worth noting that Sen. Reid’s best hope for maintaining his job is to see Elizabeth Warren unseat Republican Sen. Scott Brown in Massachusetts. But Warren’s candidacy is only possible because she could not receive confirmation from the U.S. Senate for the leadership of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to which Obama desperately wanted to appoint her–not just because Republicans oppose the agency’s powers, but because of her own radicalism. Now that she has been revealed to have lied, apparently about her Native American heritage, there is no possible way she could be confirmed for a Cabinet position, or any other requiring the approval of Congress. Yet Reid and Obama are counting on her.
So the “dog catcher” standard that Sen. Harry Reid has sought to apply to Romney–and which he has, with the mainstream media’s help, succeeded in applying to Romney–would have prevented Obama and his own nominees from taking office. But the media has not applied Reid’s standard to Obama, because the media almost always applies a double standard to Democrats and Republicans–especially so with Barack Obama. (Update: And would a man who confessed to eating dog meat be made dog catcher? I think not.)
To take only one of hundreds of examples of that double standard, in the 2000 campaign, Republican Sen. John McCain released thousands of pages of his medical records; he did so again (albeit only for a few hours) in 2008. But then-Senator Obama released a single page–the equivalent of an elementary school “doctor’s note”–and the media meekly accepted his release gratefully.
Case closed–and a man who had never held any position of serious responsibility in the public or private sector–neither dog catcher nor anything else–went on to win.
This is a pure case of freaking liberals who want to destroy a man at all costs! Holder, the DOJ, and obama actually are part of the destruction of this man! This shows what is wrong with our judicial system to have judges like this sit on the bench!
SANFORD — George Zimmerman’s attorneys want to disqualify the judge who is presiding over his second-degree murder trial.
The motion filed Friday says Zimmerman “has a reasonable fear that he cannot get a fair trial or a fair stand your ground hearing by this court.”
The motion specifically mentions the new bail Judge Kenneth Lester set for George Zimmerman earlier this month. The motion says Lester made disparaging remarks about Zimmerman’s character, says he should be “prosecuted for additional crimes,” and is holding the threat of future contempt proceedings over Zimmerman’s head.
The judge revoked Zimmerman’s first $150,000 bond, and had him rearrested after he allegedly misled the court as to how much money he had available in a fund for his defense.
The motion also says the court is not weighing any evidence of Zimmerman’s innocence in the case when determining bond, other than to say “the only issue is the viability of the defendant’s self-defense/Stand Your Ground claim” but they also accuse the judge of not discussing that issue either.
The motion also says:
“The court departed from its role as an impartial, objective minister of justice when it stated on two occasions in its order that in the court’s personal opinion there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed a violation of Florida Statute 903.035(3), a third degree felony punishable by five years in prison. This is tantamount to instructing the state that Mr. Zimmerman should be prosecuted for this offense.”
George Zimmerman is on trial for second-degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin last February.
What a flip flopping nutcase of a president!
President Obama, one day after reversing the Bill Clinton-era welfare reform by severing the connection between work and welfare assistance, warned a Virginia crowd that “Americans can’t be looking for handouts.”
“Americans can’t be looking for handouts,” Obama said during a campaign stop in Virginia. “There are some folks you can’t help if they’re not willing to help themselves.” Moments later, he invoked former President Clinton as a model for economic leadership: “Bill Clinton did it, and we ended up having 23 million new jobs,” Obama added.
But he was referring to Clinton’s tax policy, not the welfare reform bill undermined by his Department of Health and Human Services yesterday.