Obama Birth Certificate 100% Forged; Hawaii Officials Forged It

Cairo Time: new romantic blockbuster from the White House

The People’s Cube

From the same people who brought you Stimulus, WTF, Sputnik Moment, and Eat Your Broccoli… a heart-wrenching international blockbuster of our times: Cairo Time… starring Hosni Mubarak, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

Sometimes you need to forget about national interests and remember your heart…

Source:

Advertisement

Barack Obama’s Egypt Failure: He’s Becoming Carter Faster Than Carter Became Carter

Red State

Barack Obama’s failure in Egypt has nothing to do with Egypt itself descending to chaos. No American administration has been willing to call Hosni Mubarak a dictator, which he is. And no administration has sought to strong arm Mubarak into a succession plan devoid of kleptocratic relatives.

We cannot blame Barack Obama for Egypt collapsing in on itself.

We can however blame Barack Obama for failing to mitigate and control the impact of the collapse.

GE ( Government Electric)

A Question of Eligibility Part 1

Was Judge John Roll the Real Target is Tucson?

Obama recently signed an executive order allowing the feds to confiscate all 401ks and retirement accounts. Our media forget to inform us of this fact. A single judge adjudicated that Obama did not have that authority and stopped the confiscation.

Federal Judge John Roll … The judge, USDC court of Arizona Presiding Judge Roll, was shot and died on Saturday by a “crazed gunman.” The historical connotations are similar to Kennedy/Oswald in several ways.

If I had a 401k and/or a retirement account I would convert such to an investment in a tangible asset made of metal. Either you get rid of it, or Obama will get rid of it for you. Either way I do not believe retirement accounts will exist in the near future.

TWO … DID … I’d like to know why another question isn’t being asked re the Tucson massacre.

Federal Judge John Roll –for Arizona–was killed. And yet he’s only mentioned anywhere as just another victim.

Here’s the question: Why is there possibly no connection being made that about 72 hours before he was killed, on Friday, he issued a critical “preliminary ruling” against the Obama administration to prevent them from acting on an FDR Executive Order (6102), which allowed the government to seize personal savings when no proof of a crime was committed?

(“USA v. $333,520.00 in US Currency et al”, Case number: 4:2010cv00703 Filed Nov 30, 2010).

My first question was: Who was the actual target, Giffords or Roll? or both (conveniently at the same place)?

While the possibility that Loughner was under mind control has been disparaged in the press, the knowledge of the existence of such a program, and known past CIA/FBI involvement in such incidents, why would there not be the possible question of a connection?

Too hot a potato..?

The word’s out “don’t dare?”

Why does a deeper search for truth–even with the possibility of the above being it or not–never seem to occur?

And then hours of repetitious blathering and speculation and opinionating by ignorant anchors.

We deserve better. We deserve the truth, “the whole truth,” like it or not; government, Obama’s included, has become far too cloaked in secrecy, and woe to those who disagree.

I long for the day when journalism once again shines the light, rather than supporting the cloak of darkness.

(holding breath….holding….holding….)
Thank you.

Source:

Every Picture Tells a Story

Dec. 8, 2009

Thanks J.C.

See the white guy in the white suit…see the blond with the white dress…see the guy in the middle? This picture was taken a few years ago.  It seems Obama has known these two phonies for awhile, at least when he was a senator.  They are getting all this press now as party crashers and the secret service is taking heat.  Funny how this has not come out in the press. I wonder where Michelle was ???

All the President’s Regulators

Dec. 8, 2009

The American Spectator

During the first year of the Obama administration, conservatives have directed much of their fire on the major legislation the president is pushing through Congress. This concern is justifiable, as Democrats are moving bills aimed at taking over the nation’s health care system, creating a national energy tax to limit carbon emissions, and enabling unions to rapidly add members by denying workers a secret ballot on unionization.

But as critical as it is for the right to expose the damaging consequences of such major legislation, conservatives must not lose sight of the fact that there is more than one way for the president to impose his vision on the country. Each day, throughout the executive branch, presidentially appointed bureaucrats who remain unknown to most Americans make decisions that have consequences for the entire nation. And in President Obama’s case, his appointments serve as a plan B, allowing him to realize the parts of his agenda that he is unable to enact through the legislative process. In some instances, Obama’s more radical appointees have withdrawn or resigned once their extreme views have come to light. One prominent example is Van Jones, who was forced to resign as the White House “green jobs czar” after the revelations that he once described himself as a communist and that he signed a petition of a group that raised questions about whether the Sept. 11 attacks were an inside job. Yet many other troubling Obama appointees have escaped major scrutiny. Some have had their nominations stalled in the Senate, while others are already hard at work implementing liberal policies.

“This administration is moving very quickly on the appointment side of things to put people in place that, because of the regulation state that has built up over the past 40 years, will have within their realm the power to affect every area of this country without our elected representatives having so much of a say in it,” Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government, told TAS. Wilson, whose group has been closely tracking Obama’s appointments, specifically highlighted labor and environmental policy as among the most worrisome areas.

Obama gave the first indication that he planned on handsomely rewarding unions for the role they played in getting him elected when he named California Rep. Hilda Solis to be secretary of labor. Solis was first elected to Congress in 2000 as a union candidate, and as a member of the House of Representatives from 2001 until her appointment this year, she racked up perfect or near perfect vote ratings from every major union. She also served as treasurer of American Rights at Work, a pro-labor group that maintained the “Shame on Elaine” attack website aimed at her predecessor, Elaine Chao. And shortly after being confirmed, she went to work reversing many of Chao’s policies to the benefit of her union allies.

While liberals look at the agency as an entity that only regulates businesses, under the leadership of Secretary Chao from 2001 through January 2009, the Labor Department also took its responsibility of regulating unions seriously. Chao beefed up the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS), which polices unions, and during this time, the division’s actions led to 929 convictions of corrupt union officials and to the recovery of more than $93 million on behalf of union members. Yet shortly after Solis was sworn in as the new secretary of labor, the Obama administration announced its intention to slash the OLMS budget by more than 9 percent, while at the same time boosting the budgets of the divisions tasked with regulating businesses. As a result, corrupt union bosses will have a much freer hand with which to bilk their members.

BUT THIS IS JUST a small part of Obama’s efforts to use the Department of Labor to pay back unions. He also tapped two women with close ties to unions — Patricia Smith and Lorelei Boylan — for other top positions within the department. While working for the New York State Department of Labor, Smith and Boylan spearheaded a controversial program in which the state partners with unions and other liberal community groups to police workplaces.

“Just as no one wants to live in an area riddled with crime, nobody wants to live in a neighborhood where workers are paid sweatshop wages,” Smith said when announcing the program in January 2009. “New York Wage Watch will increase labor law compliance by giving regular people a formal role in creating lawful workplaces statewide, and thereby improving the quality of life in their communities. It will also help law-abiding employers, who struggle to compete with businesses that undercut them by violating the law.”

But in practice empowering “regular people” actually means that the government is deputizing unions to help police workplaces.

“New York Wage Watch is labor law enforcement at the purest, most grassroots level,” boasted Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, in the press release announcing the program.

Boylan, who runs the initiative, was nominated by Obama to head the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour division, but her nomination was withdrawn in October. Smith, who actually devised the Wage Watch program in New York, was appointed by Obama to be solicitor of labor. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) placed her nomination on hold, meaning that Democrats will need 60 votes to move it forward. Her status was still in limbo as of this writing.

Even more worrisome for the American business community is President Obama’s attempt to pack the National Labor Relations Board with union lawyers who would make rulings that would achieve many of the same results as labor-friendly legislation. The most obvious example of such legislation is the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). The bill’s two major provisions would deny workers a secret ballot in voting on whether to unionize, and force employers into binding arbitration proceedings when negotiating contracts with unions. To this date, Republicans have succeeded in preventing EFCA from becoming law, but the bill’s legislative fate may not even matter if Obama gets several controversial nominees to the labor panel confirmed.

Currently, there are only two members on the five-member NRLB — one is a Republican and the other a Democrat. To tilt the balance of the board, Obama tapped two union lawyers (Craig Becker and Mark Pearce). He also appointed a Republican Senate staffer, Brian E. Hayes, in hopes it would dissuade Republican senators from blocking the other two.

Becker, a longtime labor activist, is the associate general counsel of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The left-wing magazine In These Times wrote that he “helped lay the intellectual foundation for the Employee Free Choice Act.” More relevantly, he wrote a law review article arguing that the major aims of EFCA could be achieved through rulings by the regulatory body to which Obama has appointed him.

“This is somebody who has announced ahead of time that he thinks he can do much of the left’s agenda through the regulatory process,” Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said in an interview with TAS. “It’s one thing for him to say he intends to do something, but when you look at it, where are the guardrails? Who says he can’t? Who slaps him down?”

Norquist said that if Becker were confirmed, all that would need to happen would be for somebody to file a complaint arguing that the unionization process at a particular business was unfair, and the union-friendly board could decide in the person’s favor and set rules for unionization and collective bargaining along the lines of what is prescribed by EFCA.

Obama only acknowledges inheriting Bush mistakes, never his successes

American Thinker

Neil Braithwaite
In case you’ve been on another planet for the last ten months, you know that President Obama’s standard answer for the economic meltdown, and his anemic prescription to fix it, has been that the blame rests wholly on his predecessor. “I inherited this” has been Obama’s mantra from day one of his Presidency with regard to any problem he encounters.

In a revealing testament to President Obama’s true character, last week when he and his administration touted the success of the TARP program and how banks were paying back their bailout money — with interest — he never once gave credit to the President responsible for the TARP program.

Likewise, when it was proposed in November by the Obama administration to use TARP funds to help with housing and cut the deficit, the President responsible for the TARP program was somehow never mentioned.

And more recently, in last week’s economic summit, when it was proposed that “unused” TARP money be used for unemployment and job creation, once again, President Obama never mentioned the President responsible for that program.

During a policy speech regarding “his” new surge strategy in Afghanistan, President Obama also failed to give credit to that same President, who just happened to be responsible for that same successful “surge” strategy used in Iraq.

Just who is this former President that the smartest President ever elected looks to for his first opportunity to actually succeed in anything?

Let’s wait and see if President Obama holds a prime-time news conference anytime soon to announce the name of that remarkable President — and maybe even thank him.

A Cool Trillion Later– Obama Tells Us Government Spending Is Not the Answer

Gateway Pundit

Jim Hoft

Now he tells us.
The biggest public spender in world history now says…
“True economic recovery will only come from the private sector”

And that is why his next jobs plan will only cost $300 billion.

Obama and Democrats tripled the national deficit in less than one year.

They’ve increased the national debt to $12 Trillion.
And they’ve nearly doubled the unemployment rate since the Bush years.
It only took a trillion plus dollars for Obama to see that they were wrong.

More… Jennifer Rubin added, via Pundit and Pundette:

At his “jobs summit,” Obama discovered: “Ultimately, true economic recovery is only going to come from the private sector.” Mon dieu! You mean lambasting business, hiking taxes, imposing a flurry of mandates, and regulating carbon emissions aren’t the way to go? No, no. The Obami still want to do all that. They just expect the private sector to grow and hire workers in spite of all that. I guess.