President Obama’s Communist Advisors and Staff

Obama Surrounds Himself With The Most Extreme Appointees In American History

Much has been written about Obama’s controversial appointments, not only to the federal bench, but to key cabinet positions, as well as to the unaccountable (and probably unconstitutional) “Czar” positions. Much of the criticism has dwelled on the Obama administration’s lack of vetting when filling these rolls—but that’s not the issue.

To the contrary, the Obama team did investigate thoroughly and they choose precisely. When an administration repeatedly nominates hard-left individuals, it’s not a vetting error—it’s a pattern. We should not allow the media to portray these appointments as a series of errors; but rather, we need to realize that Team Obama is simply nominating those who share their goal of radically changing America.

Most Americans have a hard time understanding this because they refuse to believe Obama is this extreme. But he is. For a year prior to his election conservatives warned voters that everything we knew about Obama indicated that his views were far from the mainstream. This was obvious when one analyzed his friends, which groups he funded while a “community activist,” his Illinois State Senate record, his United States Senate record and even what he wrote in his own books.

The reality, of course, is that Obama’s views are far from the mainstream and it is embarrassing so many Americans fell for his leftist candy-coated lies. Indeed, it appears that Obama is the most far left President in American history. His appointees only confirm this. These appointees hail from the crowd who regard their pedigree as the 60’s activists who cheered on the Vietcong, while American boys were slaughtered in the jungles of Vietnam. They hate America, or more precisely, they hate America’s heritage; American institutions, and the American Constitution.

Many of these extremists nominated by Obama hail from academia, where they were shielded from outside scrutiny while they quietly indoctrinated our youth. But don’t let the cloak of academia fool you; they are out to change America in ways most Americans oppose. More importantly, Americans need to realize their views are Obama’s views.

The American media is partly responsible for bringing such extremists to power. There is little doubt the media engaged in a massive propaganda effort to convince Americans that Obama was some kind of hip moderate; a breath of fresh air, a reformer, and someone who would fight the corrupt ways of Washington. Until Americans wake up and stop relying on the mainstream media for their source of news, they will continue to pay a heavy price for their ignorance. Unfortunately, this report covers just a few of Obama’s policy-makers, but there are many more such extremists within his administration.

  Domestic Policy:

The Regulatory Czar – Cass Sunstein

Sunstein was nominated and approved to be Obama’s “Regulatory Czar.” He supports massive gun control and doesn’t believe the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. He has straight out said, “We ought to ban hunting.” While this fruitcake strips Americans of their Constitutional right to own guns, he wants to give rights to animals and has argued that “Animals should be permitted to bring suit…” Naturally, he also supports the “Fairness Doctrine,” the wrongly-named concept which allows the government to regulate the airwaves.

 Climate Czar – Todd Stern

Stern, a veteran of the Clinton administration, was the U.S. negotiator at the Kyoto conference in 1997 (which called for dramatic climate change regulations based on bogus assumptions.) Had the treaty been implemented, it would have plunged the world into economic chaos.

Since then, new evidence has revealed that the major climate models used to justify the Global Warming alarm was, in fact, not accurate. One would think Stern would address this, but chances are he won’t. Climate change seems to be more about giving the government control over our lives, than about phony climate crises. Indeed, Stern has made it clear that he thinks international agencies, such as the United Nations, should take the lead on forcing climate change down the throats of national governments. Stern has even gone as far as to propose that world powers form an “E8” group, who would meet yearly and dictate environmental policy to the rest of the world. What about national sovereignty? Clearly, Stern feels that’s an outdated concept.

Stern is also the nutcase behind the Cap and Trade proposal which, even an analysis by Obama’s own Treasury Department concluded, would cost American taxpayers up to $200 billion dollars—just what we need for today’s economy!
 

Science Czar – John Holdren

In his book, Holdren advocates some of the most bizarre and horrifying policy stances imaginable. In the event of a “over-population crises,” Holdren supports “laws requiring compulsory abortion,” government confiscation of new born babies, the “development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin,” and, incredibly, “adding a sterilant to drinking water or stable foods….” as long a livestock would not be affected (as experimentally implemented in India). Holdren wants the government to dictate family size and advocate a “planetary regime,” run by the United Nations. This real life Dr. Frankenstein will be deciding science policy for the United States of America.

Chief Diversity Officer, Federal Communications Commission – Mark Lloyd

While Obama is playing coy with his plans to shut down conservative talk radio, we know what his real intentions are, due to his appointment of Mark Lloyd. Lloyd’s view of the 1st Amendment is shocking:

 

      “It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of   speech or the press.

       This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references

       to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination

       of other communications policies. “[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect

        global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.”

Like many of Obama’s appointees, Lloyd worked for George Soros, the foreign billionaire who funds anti-America groups. He seems to be enamored with dictators and has even publicly praised Venezuelan Communist dictator Hugo Chavez’s “incredible…democratic revolution.” He also wants to use the Fairness Doctrine to “balance” talk radio and believes there are too many white people in the media. He has written that unless there are “more people of color, gays and other people…we will not change the problem.” One of his solutions to “balance” the media is to fine conservative radio stations up to $250 million and give the proceeds to National Public Radio. Get ready for censorship like America has never seen before.

Attorney General – Eric Holder

Like most of Obama’s appointees, Holder is a member of the American Constitution Society, a ACLU-type group dedicated to destroying much the Constitution in order to make it “relevant” to the modern world. And as with many Obama’s appointees, he is obsessed with race, even to the point of refusing to pursue the prosecution of two Black Panther thugs who intimidated white voters at a polling place. The thugs were screaming things at the voters such as, “You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.” If whites had harassing blacks at a polling place, they would still be sitting in a jail within days. Nevertheless, Holder apparently doesn’t mind undermining the democratic process. He is currently challenging the rights of states to enact citizen verification procedures previously approved by two federal courts. In other words, Holder wants to make it easier for illegal aliens to vote, which also happens to be ACORN’s goal. This comes as no surprise; Holder has been undermining the rule of law for most of his career. While serving as the #2 official in Clinton’s Justice Department, Holder was the driving force behind the effort to pardon members of the notorious Puerto Rican terrorist group, FALN, a group that engaged in over 130 attacks in the USA, killing six people. By refusing to carry out justice against the Black Panthers and the Hispanic FALN terrorists, he was clearly pandering to these two racial groups for political reasons. So this is what Obama’s Justice Department will be all about: racial pandering first and justice last. Speaking at an ACS convention last November, Holder announced that America would soon be “run by progressives.” At least he’s honest. 

Deputy Attorney General – David Ogden

This appointment must have been a favor for the porn industry; Ogden has probably done more than anyone in America to defend the “rights” of pornographers. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Ogden “is more than just a lawyer who has had a few unsavory clients. He has devoted a substantial part of his career, case after case, for 20 years, in defense of pornography.” For example, he argued in support of the American Library Association when they went to court to challenge mandatory anti-obscenity internet filters in school libraries. Incredibly, the ALA/Ogden position was that libraries should be free-speech zones in which school children should have the right to access anything they want – even pornography – on school computers. This comes as no surprise, when Ogden was an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, he argued on constitutional grounds to strike down the conviction of a defendant who received and possessed child pornography. Ogden believes there is a constitutional right to possess child pornography. The appointment of Ogden is apparently what Obama means when he talks about promoting “family values.” 

Solicitor General – Elena Kagan

Elena Kagan has also been mentioned by the Obama forces as the next nomination to the Supreme Court. This is ironic considering her complete lack of judicial or appellate experience. She has never even been a judge or argued before the Supreme Court! Kagen has served as the Dean of Harvard Law School, but her job was to fundraise and make the students “comfortable.” As the Boston Globe writes, “Some of her initial acts as dean were small-scale improvements, like offering free coffee in classroom buildings and free tampons in women’s bathrooms.” Isn’t that nice! However, the few legal views she holds are certainly far from the mainstream. She described the “don’t ask, don’t tell” homosexual military policy adopted by President Clinton as “a profound wrong – a moral injustice of the first order,” and favors homosexuals being allowed to openly serve in the military. She argued that it was unconstitutional for Congress to withhold funds from colleges that banned military recruiters and she even took it upon herself to ban military recruiters from Harvard because of their policy regarding homosexuals. Clearly, her lesbianism has clearly created a bias that affects her shallow legal views. 

Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel – Dawn Johnson

Johnson is the former legal director for the National Abortion Rights Action League, a group on the extreme left of the abortion debate. They oppose any restrictions on abortion for any reason, at any time of pregnancy—even late term abortions. She has also worked for the ACLU. Johnson has argued that abortion is all about “sexual freedom.”  That’s right: have sex with whoever you want and whenever you want and if you get pregnant, get an abortion. This same mentality has led to skyrocketing sexual disease rates, unwanted pregnancies, and untold sorrow.  In a brief filed while working with NARAL,Johnson cited a source that said forcing women to bear children was “disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the 13th Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest.” In other words, being pregnant is comparable to being a slave.    Secretary, Department of Education – Arne Duncan. Obama appointed Duncan due to his alleged success as CEO of Chicago’s public schools. However, in 2007, only 10% of black 4^thgraders in Chicago reached the proficiency level in reading and for black 8^th graders, only 9% reached reading proficiency. In math, only 8% of black students reached proficiency in 4^th grade and just 6% reached proficiency in 8^th grade.  This was the disappointing outcome, despite spending $13-$14,000 per student and is among the highest of any major city.Even worse, a majority of Chicago public school students drop out or fail to graduate with their class. Needless to say, the Duncan era was a disaster. He did, however, pursue an aggressive agenda to promote the homosexual lifestyle in the schools. So Chicago kids can’t read or write, but they all know how to engage in homosexual sex. If anyone tells you Duncan is an “education reformer,” tell them you’re the tooth fairy.  

Assistant Deputy Secretary, Department of Education – Kevin Jennings

Jennings is the founder of the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), a group dedicated to promoting the homosexual agenda to school children as young as five. They’re sick people and even promote books that feature adult-child sex in a favorable way. Regardless, Obama must have been impressed with Jennings, as he appointed him to carry out his perverted mission nationwide in his new role as head of the Department’s “Office of Safe & Drug Free Schools.”

The reality is that homosexuality is not safe; it takes years off the average lifespan of males. But for Obama, is not really about safety; it’s about keeping the homosexual community happy—after all, they helped elect him. Jennings has been in the press lately due to revelations that he gave encouraging advice to a boy who privately confessed to him he was having sex with an older man. And what was Jennings’s advice? Buy a condom. Parents, start monitoring what your schools are teaching your children. It’s going to get ugly. 

 Foreign Policy  United States Ambassador to United Nations – Susan RiceEven though she served on the National Security Council under President Clinton, Rice seems to have slept through the last two decades. She is fanatically pro-UN and wants the United States to work closely with the United Nations in order to carry out all kinds of humanitarian and military actions, seeming unaware that the UN has never been supportive of US interests.  They don’t stop wars; they don’t sanction terrorist regimes, and their internal corruption is so pervasive they can’t even carry out humanitarian missions. But rather than hold the UN responsible for its obvious failings over the years, Rice blamed Bush for being “unilateral” and for “stiff-arming our partners.” She even sits on the board of the UN Fund for UNICEF, an agency which has been repeatedly caught giving aid to terrorists, and during the Cold War, assisting communist insurgents.More seriously, she is overly cautious in regard to fighting terrorism. The former Ambassador to Sudan implicated Rice as the person who bungled the opportunity to take out Osama bin Laden when Sudanese officials offered him to the USA on a silver platter during the Clinton years.She rejected their offer. There’s a good chance 9/11 could have been avoided if Rice had accepted the Sudanese offer. Apparently, even though she worked for the NSC, she didn’t regard Al-Qaeda as a threat. No wonder we were hit on 9/11. And now she’s our UN Ambassador? I wonder whose interests she will serve…probably the UNs.

Counsel, State Department – Harold Koh

The man Obama has named as the State Department’s legal advisor is Harold Koh. Koh believes America should defer to the International Court of Justice to determine legal precedents; a totally unconstitutional endeavor. He is a member of the “trans-nationalism” school of legal thought that believes all distinctions between American Constitutional law and international law should vanish. Incredibly, he even believes Muslim law –Sharia law– should be applied to some disputes in US courts. Clearly, his views are in contradiction to the Constitution he swore to uphold, but no matter, he is now in charge of all legal issues for the U.S. State Department.

  
National Security Council – Samantha Power

Power is an anti-Israel pseudo intellectual, a strange position given that Israel is our top ally in the Middle East. She holds the view that until Israel allows Palestine to set up a separate state, all the other problems in the Middle East will remain. This, of course, ignores the 1,300 year old war of conquest waged by Islam against the West, most of it occurring long before the modern day Israel/Palestine conflict. She also holds to the conspiratorial view that everything America does in the Middle East – like the Iraq war – is due to Israeli influence.Finally, she pooh-poohs the idea that Iran is developing nuclear weapons, a thoroughly discredited view in light of recent events. While she opposed sending troops to Iraq – she called it an “occupation”—she favored sending US troops to Israel to forcibly impose a Palestinian state. Power’s writing grossly exaggerates “war crimes” committed by Israel and never condemns terrorist activity by the Palestinians. The last thing we need in the midst of war between the West and Islamic terrorism is a nut on the NSC giving the President advice favoring our enemies. 

 Advisor, Under-Secretary of Defense for Policy – Rosa Brooks

This genius wrote that Al-Qaeda was just an “obscure group” until America began the war on terrorism, ignoring all the documentation that Al-Qaeda was making plans for rapid growth long before 9/11. Apparently, it’s America’s fault that terrorist groups exist today! She called President Bush “our torturer in chief” and compared Bush’s anti-terrorist policies to Hitler’s policies. Clearly, she ignored the fact that Bush’s policies were responsible for stopping over 17 different terrorist plots against the United States. She also called the successful surge in Iraq a “feckless plan” and seems completely blind to the successes we have had in the war on terrorism. But we shouldn’t be surprised; she used to work for a foundation funded by the foreign America-hater George Soros. It’s hard to believe Brooks is now deciding defense policy.  

White House Staff
Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Public Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs – Valerie Jarrett.  Jarrett is involved with vetting all the extremists Obama has appointed and thus, has to be an extremist as well. For example, she was aware that former Green Czar Van Jones (who withdrew) had a long history of involvement in Communist Party causes, but still said she was “delighted to be able to recruit him into the White House.” She had to have known, because she married into a family with a pedigree of Communist Party involvement. Her father-in-law, Vernon Jarrett, worked closely with Obama mentor and Communist Party leader Frank Marshall Davis in a number of Communist Party front groups during the Cold War years. Valerie married Vernon’s son in 1983 and later became chief of staff for Mayor Richard Daley, where she was a key player in perhaps America’s most corrupt big city political machine. Obama does not go forward with anything without her counsel.

Political advisor – David Axelrod

For those who think Axelrod is just a good campaign consultant, you couldn’t be more wrong.  Axelrod has a long history of working for obscure socialist candidates and Obama was no different, politically, from his other clients. In fact, promoting socialist causes was a family tradition. His mother wrote for a New York City tabloid called PM Magazine, which often promoted the Communist Party line. Indeed, author IF Stone, later revealed to be working for the KGB, was PM’s DC correspondent. Much of the tabloid’s funding came from Marshall Field, a hard left millionaire who also funded Saul Alinsky’s training school. Axelrod has spent his entire life promoting extremist candidates, but no one bothered to look into his background.  Today, he advises Obama on all things political.

Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change – Carol Browner

Browner previously served as head of the EPA during the Clinton regime where she advocated incredibly stupid environmental regulations that destroyed entire industries. At a time when America is losing jobs in record numbers, she is precisely the right person for the Obama job-killing machine. Browner is a socialist and was picked by Socialist International to be one of 14 leaders of a group it created called the Commission for a Sustainable World Society. SI believes in massive wealth redistribution from the West to the Third World, choosing to ignore the evidence that Third World countries are poor due to their socialist policies.

Moreover, SI constantly attacks the free market in general and the United States in particular.  The fact that Obama has chosen both Browner and Todd Stern (Climate Czar) does not bode well for the American economy. The recent disclosure that the climate models used by Browner and Stern to justify draconian new regulations – such as Cap and Trade – are based on inaccurate data, has not fazed the Obama administration one bit. For Obama, environmentalism is a tool for increasing government control and nothing else.

General Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Management & Budget  – Preeta Bansal

Bansal is very close to Obama; she acts behind the scenes advising him regarding the selection of federal judges. She is on the far left side of the judicial spectrum and is a leader of the misnamed American Constitutional Society, a group that believes in a “living Constitution” and works to “debunk” the “original intent” concept.  Indeed, ACS’s view that the Constitution should constantly change undermines the very purpose for having a constitution.   Needless to say, the ACS is obsessed with criminal rights, illegal alien rights, terrorist rights, and other phony rights. ACS is America’s main networking group for far-left attorneys and is where Bansal is recruiting many of Obama’s judicial nominees.

Bansal is also a member of the “critical race theory (CRT)” school of legal thought that boils all legal concepts down to racist conspiracies and that racism permeates all aspects of American society. Indeed, she even co-authored a paper claiming that republicanism is based upon racist consensus. In other words, she believes the entire concept of representative democracy is based upon racist assumptions. Indeed, CRT advocates even believe the founding of America was primarily due to racial motivations.

Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals called CRT supporters the “lunatic core” of “radical legal egalitarianism.” Bansal is a lunatic and her appointment will ensure that Obama’s judicial appointments will be far more about “diversity” than they will be about competence.

 

Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, Executive office of the President  — Cecilia Munoz

Munoz is a hard-core open borders advocate who served recently as the Vice President for the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), where she supervised all legislative activities.  La Raza is the nation’s foremost supporter of “rights” for illegal aliens and the granting of amnesty to the millions of illegals here in America. She does not care that illegal aliens are costing America billions of dollars; she believes they should enjoy the same rights as citizens. Not surprisingly, she served on the U.S. Programs board of the

Open Society Institute, a George Soros-funded group. You can expect Munoz to quietly push for a massive transfer of benefits and welfare to illegal aliens and for legislation granting amnesty to all those here illegally.

Director, Domestic Policy Council – Melody Barnes

Barnes is a certified wacko. She was previously Vice President of the far-left Center for American Progress and also served as Chief Counsel for Senator Ted Kennedy on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Her view on abortion is so extreme, she served on the boards of both Emily’s List and the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. She favors unrestricted abortions for any reason at any time of pregnancy.

Incredibly, some naïve pro-life leaders supported Obama, believing he was pro-life because he supposedly wanted to find ways to reduce abortions. Barnes has put that myth to rest. In a meeting with key pro-family leaders, Barnes made it clear that “It is not our goal to reduce the number of abortions.” As reported, the room went silent.  
Barnes glorifies abortion as being a “concept of liberty that includes women as equal.” She has written that “reproductive rights are human rights.” My guess is that the baby being aborted doesn’t quite feel the same way. Needless to say, there will NOT be any pro-life measures supported by this administration. The Nation magazine praised Barnes as a “dyed-in-the-wool progressive,” a nice term for a socialist. She is also a former staff member for the American Constitutional Society, the far-left legal group mentioned elsewhere.

 http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/obama-surrounds-himself-with-the-most-extreme-appointees-in-american-history/

Hat tip to Glenn Beck  (GBTV) and The Western Center for Journalism,

a Steve Baldwin Exclusive for this report

ANY QUESTIONS?

 

The Hope and Change Scare and Blame President

Has there ever been a time in American History where we have seen a sitting President use Fear Mongering, Lies and Hate Speech in 99.9% of their Talking Points?

I didn’t think so…

Related articles

• Napolitano: ‘President Obama’s Enlisted His Friends in Labor Unions to Scare the Daylights Out of the Public’ (foxnewsinsider.com)
• Obama Choses’ Deceit Not Truth – Fear Mongering Not Optimism-I Win Not We Win (orach24463.wordpress.com)
• Bloomberg: ‘Spare me’ fear-mongering on sequestration (politico.com)
• Sequester Scare! Two Thirds of News Stories Devoted to Hyping Budget Hysteria (newsbusters.org)

 

The Obama Gun Control Effect: Smith and Wesson Sales and Revenues Skyrocket

Hat tip to The Blaze for this Report

Smith & Wesson Posts Insane Earnings, Revenues Skyrocket

The past couple of years have been alright for famed gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson but 2012 has been exceptionally kind.

“Gross profit for the first quarter was $51.3 million, or 37.7% of net sales, compared with gross profit of $26.5 million, or 28.9% of net sales, for the comparable quarter last year [emphasis added],” the company said in its press release.

And it doesn’t end there.

“The company earned 27 cents vs. expectations of 18 cents,” Business Insider’s Joe Weisenthal writes. “Revenue was $136 million vs. estimates of just over $128.7 million.”

The company also expects earnings of 19 to 21 cents in the next quarter, which, as Weisenthal notes, is way above earlier estimates of 13 cents.

But let’s try to visualize this information:

“When the final bubble does pop (and here we make the wild assumption that no intelligent extraterrestrial life will be found to bail out the central banks in time), at least everyone will be locked and loaded,”  Zero Hedge notes.

Here are some key takeaways from the company’s most recent investor presentation [via Zero Hedge]:

• Record-level quarterly sales growth from continuing ops of $136.0M, +48.3% Y/Y
• Record-level quarterly income from continuing ops of $18.9M, or $0.28 per diluted share
• Raised Full Year Fiscal 2013 Financial Guidance
• Exceeded high end of upwardly revised sales guidance
• Backlog of $392.4M versus $148.8 one year ago

Simply put, and as the above chart clearly demonstrates, demand for the company’s products has grown exponentially over the past two years and it doesn’t look like it will slow down any time soon.

“Smith & Wesson rose $1.07, or 12 percent, to $10.07 on surging gun sales and a raised profit forecast,” the Associated Press reported Friday. “The gun company said it expects earnings for the quarter ending October to climb to as much as twice what analysts had expected.”

Check out the investor presentation here:

Swhc Sept 2012 Ir Pres

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/ready-smith-wesson-posts-insane-earnings-revenues-skyrocket/

Democrats Continue to Believe Every Lie Coming Out of Obama’s Mouth: Here is the Video Proof!

Amateur Compilation Reel Pits Obama Against Himself

Hat tip once again to The Blaze for this story

Political commercials using a candidate’s own words to show that someone has changed positions, flip-flopped or lied, is nothing new. However, TheBlaze has discovered a new video that seems to take the idea a few steps further, expanding the :30 second commercial into a short, un-narrated documentary.

The compilation attached here is first product posted online by an amateur video editor. TheBlaze interviewed the project’s creator. The man (who wishes to remain anonymous) told us that he wanted to show his undecided friends (as well as those considering voting for Obama) the stark contrast between what the president has said in the past and what he has said and done in office.

He used clips from previous appearances by President Obama as well as excerpts from various ads and news programs and built something he calls “Words Matter.”

The YouTube description reads:

A short un-narrated documentary that looks at Obama’s first term with regards to transparency, healthcare, taxes, fairness, energy and the national debt – guaranteed to contain information of interest.

The heretofore apolitical unnamed editor describes himself “just a guy in his living room. ”  He said that his goal was to get the viewer’s attention for less than fifteen minutes. Mission accomplished — the video runs just 13:27 (including a short promo for “2016” that was tacked onto the end.

For your consideration — “Words Matter”:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/words-matter-amateur-compilation-reel-pits-obama-against-himself/

NEED MORE PROOF?

Is Comrade Hillary Clinton Surrendering Our Second Amendment Rights to the United Nations?

During the hearing March 8th of this year Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey brazenly admitted that their authority comes not from the U.S. Constitution, but that the United States is subservient to and takes its marching orders from the United Nations and NATO, international bodies over which the American people have no democratic influence.

 

Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”

Despite Sessions’ repeated efforts to get Panetta to acknowledge that the United States Congress is supreme to the likes of NATO and the UN, Panetta exalted the power of international bodies over the US legislative branch.

“I’m really baffled by the idea that somehow an international assembly provides a legal basis for the United States military to be deployed in combat,” Sessions said. “I don’t believe it’s close to being correct. They provide no legal authority. The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the United States military is of the Congress and the president and the law and the Constitution.”

 Panetta’s assertion that he would seek “international permission” before ‘informing’ Congress about the actions of the US military provoked a firestorm of controversy, prompting the Pentagon to engage in damage control by claiming Panetta’s comments were misinterpreted.

 “He was re-emphasizing the need for an international mandate. We are not ceding U.S. decision-making authority to some foreign body,” a defense official told CNN.

 However, this is not the first time that the authority of international bodies has been framed as being superior to the US Congress and the Constitution.

 In June last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, “I don’t even have to get to the Constitutional question.”

 Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was “authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.”

 Panetta’s testimony that the US looks to obtain “international permission” before it acts, allied with Obama citing the UN as the supreme authority while trashing the power of Congress, prove that the United States has ceded control over its own affairs to unelected international bureaucrats, just as the countries of the European Union have done likewise.

Chairman Hillary Clinton at United Nations on Gun Control

Coming to America:

A United Nations Mandated

Gun Control

No Compromise:

NRA Takes On United Nations

NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris W. Cox attended a meeting at United Nations headquarters in July to send a simple, unequivocal message to the international bureaucrats who want to eliminate your Right to Keep and Bear Arms: An international Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that in any way, shape or form affects the constitutional rights of American gun owners is completely unacceptable.

In his address to conference participants from around the world, LaPierre made it clear that NRA will accept no compromise on this critical issue.

“The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of self, family and country is ultimately self-evident and is part of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution,” he said. “Reduced to its core, it is about fundamental individual freedom, human worth and self-destiny. We reject the notion that American gun owners must accept any lesser amount of freedom in order to be accepted among the international community.”

In 2009, at the behest of the Obama administration, the United States joined 152 other countries in endorsing a U.N.  Arms Trade Treaty Resolution. The resolution establishes an international conference to be held next year, at which leaders from countries around the world—many of which have deplorable human rights records—will draw up an international treaty designed to severely restrict or even outright ban your right to sell, purchase, carry or own a firearm.

In reversing President George W. Bush’s opposition to U.N. mandated global gun control, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared, “The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standard. …”

NRA has alerted American gun owners to be on guard against this ticking time bomb for years. NRA-ILA was the first group to be officially recognized by the U.N. as a “non-governmental organization” determined to protect the freedoms of American gun owners, hunters and shooters. The threat to those freedoms posed by an international Arms Trade Treaty has gained steam under the current administration.

President Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the U.N. claim that the only purpose of the ATT is to fight terrorism and international crime syndicates. Americans should not be fooled.

In speaking out for the nation’s gun owners, LaPierre warned that, “Those working on this treaty have asked us to trust them. … but they’ve proven to be unworthy of that trust.”

Dissecting the U.N. blueprint, LaPierre concluded that:

• “We are told, ‘Trust us, an ATT will only affect the illegal trade in firearms. ’But then we’re told that in order to control the illegal trade, all states must control the legal firearms trade;

• “We are told, ‘Trust us, an ATT will not require registration of civilian firearms.’ Yet, there are numerous calls for record-keeping and firearm tracking from production to eventual destruction. That’s nothing more than gun registration by a different name;

• “We are told, ‘Trust us, an ATT will not interfere with the lawful international commerce in civilian firearms.’ But a manufacturer of civilian shotguns would have to comply with the same regulatory process as a manufacturer of military attack helicopters.”

LaPierre demanded that proposals affecting civilian firearm ownership that are woven throughout the ATT must be completely removed from the scope of any international agreement, saying, “On this there can be no compromise, as American gun owners will never surrender their Second Amendment freedoms.”

There can be no question that what is taking shape at the U.N. is an all-out attack on the constitutional freedom of American gun owners. U.N. bureaucrats have focused intensely on record-keeping, oversight, inspections, supervision, tracking, tracing, surveillance, marking, documentation, verification, paper trails and data banks, new global agencies and data centers regarding firearms and ammunition. Nowhere are there provisions about respecting citizens’ rights of self-defense, privacy, property, due process or observing personal freedoms of any kind.

International gun-ban activists have demanded ATT provisions that would force America to license firearm owners, severely restrict all firearm purchases, destroy firearms deemed “unauthorized,” ban commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and join an international gun registry.

While a treaty can’t override the Second Amendment, it can become the law of the land either directly—equal to any law passed by Congress—or through implementing legislation. Even if a treaty isn’t ratified by a two-thirds majority of the U.S. Senate, it never dies, and can still affect your rights. The U.S. Senate could take a signed treaty off the shelf and vote to ratify it 10, 20 or 50 years from now—as we know from experience. Just two years ago, NRA fought a push to consider a 1997 Organization of American States (OAS) gun control treaty in the Senate. Although the U.S. never ratified that treaty, the Clinton administration used it as an excuse to restrict exports of gun parts and accessories to Canada.

In a 2010 speech to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Hillary Clinton’s Under Secretary for Arms Control told the audience: “We will work between now and the U.N. Conference in 2012 to negotiate a legally binding Arms Trade Treaty, and we’ll need your help in achieving it. We have made that a fundamental policy commitment.”

So you can bet that if President Obama wins a second term he’ll move full-speed ahead for Senate ratification and implementation of the ATT’s mandates.

Obama and Clinton have spent their entire careers demonizing American gun owners and doing everything in their power to make firearm ownership more expensive, more difficult and, in many cases, illegal. Now they want to unleash the U.N. gun-ban axis on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

It’s time for all Americans to sound the alarm on this treacherous assault on U.S. sovereignty and join the NRA in this all-out fight to oppose any ATT that includes civilian firearms within its scope.

The cornerstone of our freedom is the Second Amendment. Neither the United Nations, nor any other foreign influence, has the authority to meddle with the freedoms guaranteed by our Bill of Rights, endowed by our Creator and due to all humankind.

In all of this, as the full measure of the Obama administration’s sell-out of our nation unfolds, NRA members must stand united to prevent and reverse the damage the administration’s “change” is inflicting on American freedom and our sovereignty.

To read the full text of Wayne’s speech before the U.N. and get the latest news on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, go to: www.nraila.org/unArmsTradeTreaty.

http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/11466/no-compromise-nra-takes-on-united-nations/

What Will You Do America?

Related articles

• US Will Sign Gun Control Treaty on July 27 (worldordernews.com)
• Time To Roll America! NOW! (ladyravensaspirincabinet.wordpress.com)
• George Soros Promotes Un Control Over Gun Ownership (itmakessenseblog.com)

UPDATED: One has to wonder who the Real Racists are in America?

 

Hat tip to The Blaze for this story

New Black Panther Declares:

We Will Hunt ‘Pink A**es’ Down, ‘Kill ’Em, Dig ‘Em Up & Kill ‘Em Again & Again & Again!’

“That’s our brother, brother General Taco!” the New Black Panther radio host announced.

General T.A.C.O. (Taking All Capitalists Out) of the New Black Panther Party had some less than encouraging words for white people this week.  Mr. Taco, speaking on NBPP Radio on Sunday, decided to let white America know that the NBPP will “hunt” their “pink asses down.”  Hunting white people down will serve to accomplish General Taco’s other stated goal of “destroying white supremacy and capitalism.”

Gen. Taco also justifies his killing of white people because of their “history” of pushing “crack, AIDS and unemployment“ on black men and women in order to ”exterminate” them.

But simply hunting and killing the white person does not satisfy Mr. Taco:

“Once [white people] die, we should dig ‘em up, and kill ‘em again, bury ‘em, dig ‘em up, and kill ‘em again, and again, and again!”

The must-hear audio on the Link  below [content warning for language]

Broadcast includes other threats:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-black-panther-declares-we-will-hunt-pink-aes-down-kill-em-dig-em-up-kill-em-again-again-again/

After Dismissing the Voter Intimidation Case against the New Black Panthers in 2009 one has to wonder if perhaps Eric Holder himself is a Racist

UPDATED JULY 30 2012

Federal Court: Obama Appointees Interfered With Prosecution in New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case

A federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled last week that a number of President Obama’s political appointees within the U.S. Department of Justice did in fact interfere with the prosecution of two New Black Panther party members who were videotaped holding a night stick and intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia voting station back in 2008.

Thus far, both Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department have denied the involvement of political leadership in the case, something that is now being called into question.

The conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch previously sued the DOJ in federal court regarding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests pertaining to information surrounding the New Black Panthers case. As a result of the lawsuit, the group was able to obtain a number of withheld documents and are now suing the DOJ for attorney’s fees, the Washington Examiner reports. More importantly, as a result of their motion, a federal judge ruled against the DOJ.

The Washington Examiner has more:

Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:

“The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.”
…
“In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.”

“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.”

Following a brief investigation into the 2008 New Black Panthers Case, the Department of Justice filed charges. However, the Panthers didn’t respond and a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the defendants.

Enter Obama.

Shortly after he became president, the DOJ quickly backpedaled and the charges against three of the New Black Panther party members were dropped and a fourth was let off with a restraining order.

Watch the video of the New Black Panther party members holding a billy club and intimidating voters outside Philadelphia polling station here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/federal-court-obama-appointees-interfered-with-prosecution-in-new-black-panther-voter-intimidation-case/

Where are you Eric Holder on these ongoing Threats against the

White Race?

Congressional Black Caucus Walks out on Eric Holder Contempt Vote

What is it with these Democrats?  Walking out on a Congressional Vote because of Politics  Race? 

If Eric Holder were White they would have stayed and Voted him in Contempt of Congress

What ever happened to their Oath of Office not to mention where is the ethics they were elected to uphold?

The Plain and Simple Fact is they walked out because Eric Holder is Black

These Elected Officials have violated their Oath of Office and need to be doing the job they were elected to do.

Just having a Congressional Black Caucus is Racist in and of itself. Could you imagine what would happen if a proposal was made to have a Congressional “White” Caucus? 

I think the fact that there are over 70 Congressional Democrats listed as members of the Socialist Party U.S.A. should be enough to have each of them Impeached for Violating their Oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

Just imagine the outcry if White People or Groups were taking these kinds of actions or making these kinds of Public Speeches?

ANY QUESTIONS AMERICA?

Related articles

• New Black Panther Death Threats against Whites: So Where is Eric Holder on this? (ireporters.wordpress.com)
• New Black Panther Declares: We Will Hunt ‘Pink Asses’ Down, ‘Kill ‘Em Dig ‘Em Up & Kill ‘Em Again & Again & Again!’ (themadjewess.com)
• New Black Panther Death Threats against Whites: So Where is Eric Holder on this? (genomega1.wordpress.com)
• New Black Panther Leader Shabazz: Be Thankful We’re “Not Hanging Crackers By Nooses…Yet” (thegatewaypundit.com)
• Obama ‘Delivered’ to Office by Black Panthers, Holder ‘Owes Them Some Favors’ (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• New Black Panther Declares: We Will Hunt ‘Pink A**es’ Down (gunnyg.wordpress.com)

 

UPDATED: New Black Panther Death Threats against Whites: So Where is Eric Holder on this?

Hat tip to The Blaze for this story

New Black Panther Declares:

We Will Hunt ‘Pink A**es’ Down, ‘Kill ’Em, Dig ‘Em Up & Kill ‘Em Again & Again & Again!’

“That’s our brother, brother General Taco!” the New Black Panther radio host announced.

General T.A.C.O. (Taking All Capitalists Out) of the New Black Panther Party had some less than encouraging words for white people this week.  Mr. Taco, speaking on NBPP Radio on Sunday, decided to let white America know that the NBPP will “hunt” their “pink asses down.”  Hunting white people down will serve to accomplish General Taco’s other stated goal of “destroying white supremacy and capitalism.”

Gen. Taco also justifies his killing of white people because of their “history” of pushing “crack, AIDS and unemployment“ on black men and women in order to ”exterminate” them.

But simply hunting and killing the white person does not satisfy Mr. Taco:

“Once [white people] die, we should dig ‘em up, and kill ‘em again, bury ‘em, dig ‘em up, and kill ‘em again, and again, and again!”

The must-hear audio on the Link  below [content warning for language]

Broadcast includes other threats:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-black-panther-declares-we-will-hunt-pink-aes-down-kill-em-dig-em-up-kill-em-again-again-again/

After Dismissing the Voter Intimidation Case against the New Black Panthers in 2009 one has to wonder if perhaps Eric Holder himself is a Racist

UPDATE JULY 30, 2012

Federal Court: Obama Appointees Interfered With Prosecution in New Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case

A federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled last week that a number of President Obama’s political appointees within the U.S. Department of Justice did in fact interfere with the prosecution of two New Black Panther party members who were videotaped holding a night stick and intimidating voters outside a Philadelphia voting station back in 2008.

Thus far, both Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department have denied the involvement of political leadership in the case, something that is now being called into question.

The conservative legal watchdog group Judicial Watch previously sued the DOJ in federal court regarding Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests pertaining to information surrounding the New Black Panthers case. As a result of the lawsuit, the group was able to obtain a number of withheld documents and are now suing the DOJ for attorney’s fees, the Washington Examiner reports. More importantly, as a result of their motion, a federal judge ruled against the DOJ.

The Washington Examiner has more:

Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:

“The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.”
…
“In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.”

“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.”

Following a brief investigation into the 2008 New Black Panthers Case, the Department of Justice filed charges. However, the Panthers didn’t respond and a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the defendants.

Enter Obama.

Shortly after he became president, the DOJ quickly backpedaled and the charges against three of the New Black Panther party members were dropped and a fourth was let off with a restraining order.

Watch the video of the New Black Panther party members holding a billy club and intimidating voters outside Philadelphia polling station here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/federal-court-obama-appointees-interfered-with-prosecution-in-new-black-panther-voter-intimidation-case/

Where are you Eric Holder on these ongoing Threats against the White Race?

ANY QUESTIONS AMERICA?

Related articles

• One has to wonder who the Real Racists are in America? (ireporters.wordpress.com)
• New Black Panther Death Threats against Whites: So Where is Eric Holder on this? (genomega1.wordpress.com)
• Looking Forward to RNC, New Black Panthers Call for Bloodshed (moonbattery.com)
• Obama ‘Delivered’ to Office by Black Panthers, Holder ‘Owes Them Some Favors’ (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• New Black Panther Leader Shabazz: Be Thankful We’re “Not Hanging Crackers By Nooses…Yet” (thegatewaypundit.com)

OBAMAGATE: The Question of Executive Privilege or Obstructing Justice?

Hat tip to Fox News for this story

President Obama’s decision to assert executive privilege over Operation Fast and Furious documents not only failed to delay contempt proceedings against Attorney General Eric Holder — it raised a whole new line of constitutional questions and challenges about the power of the presidency.

Republicans already are seeking more than 70,000 additional documents to answer their existing questions on Fast and Furious. The executive privilege claim opened up a new avenue of probing.

The immediate question was whether the documents contained information so damaging that the president was willing to risk the bad PR by moving to lock them down. GOP lawmakers also questioned whether Obama’s assertion was legitimate, later voting in committee that it was not appropriate in this case. And Republicans repeatedly suggested that the White House had tipped its hand, and acknowledged being involved in Fast and Furious discussions by asserting privilege over the documents in question.

“He’s either part of it or he’s not,” Rep. Trey Gowdy, a feisty Republican lawmaker from South Carolina, challenged during Wednesday’s committee meeting on Holder. “If (Obama’s) part of it, then we’ve had a series of witnesses that have misled this committee. And if he’s not part of it, then he’s got no business asserting executive privilege.”

House Speaker John Boehner‘s spokesman also said the move “implies” the White House was involved in the operation itself or the coverup.

Following up, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, sent a letter to Obama Wednesday asking for a “more precise description” of the executive privilege claim. He asked whether Obama was extending the claim to documents pertaining to “communications with you,” or to Justice Department communications separate from the White House.

The White House and Justice Department, though, downplayed the potential implications of the executive privilege claim.

Justice Department officials noted that the assertion does not have to pertain to communications involving the president or White House staff. Any “deliberative communications” among officials in the Executive Branch, they said, could be covered.

In other words, they argued that just because Obama is locking down the documents doesn’t mean he had anything to do with the Fast and Furious discussions.

Executive privilege has been invoked 24 times since the presidency of Ronald Reagan. This was Obama’s first time asserting it.

Republican lawmakers, who so far have been given 7,600 documents, are looking specifically for information from February 2011 and beyond that follow a Justice Department letter which erroneously claimed the department did not allow guns to “walk” across the Mexico border.

The department later retracted that claim.

After the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted Wednesday to hold Holder in contempt of Congress, committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., told Fox News there’s still time to avert a floor vote on the contempt resolution. Republicans could abandon the vote if they receive documents which they feel satisfy the subpoena.

Holder is not considered held in contempt unless and until the full House votes.

Both the White House and Justice Department slammed the committee vote Wednesday as political.

Holder, in Denmark, reportedly called the move “unwarranted, unnecessary and unprecedented.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/21/executive-privilege-claim-opens-new-questions-for-lawmakers-probing-fast-and/#ixzz1yRrVMRGl

Related articles

• OBAMAGATE: President Issues Executive Order releasing Eric Holder from Congressional Contempt Charges (votingamerican.wordpress.com)
• EDITORIAL: Holder’s contempt and Obama’s privilege – Washington Times (gds44.wordpress.com)
• Video: Obama not a big fan of executive privilege in 2007 (hotair.com)

Democrats Distancing themselves from President Obama’s Campaign Agenda

Hat tip to The Blaze for this story

Democrats Take Notice of Obama Campaign’s Recent Struggles

Quiet rumblings among Democrats concerned with the reelection of Barack Obama began when his campaign started attacks against Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s work in the private sector. Disapproving comments were made by Steve Rattner, former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. and culminated with the remarks by Newark Mayor Cory Booker on Meet the Press. After the Booker comments and backtrack became a public ordeal, fretting Democrats had been keeping their concerns close to the chest. Following a strong few weeks by the Romney campaign and several setbacks for the president, high profile figures in the president’s party are once again making noise.

James Carville, Democratic consultant and former top campaign advisor for President Bill Clinton, appeared on Good Morning America Wednesday where he said he is “worried” that President Obama’s economic message has been ineffective if not a detriment for the president among voters.

“I’m worried that when the White House or the campaign talks about the progress that’s being made, people take that as a signal that they think that things are fine” said Carville. “And people don’t feel that or believe that.”

Rather than constantly remind voters of the economic situation he inherited, Carville believes that the president should give a more substantive and optimistic idea of what he plans to accomplish if granted a second term.

“They want to be reassured he understands the depth of the problem and that he has a plan to deal with the deterioration of the middle-class.”

POLITICO notes that Carville’s remarks on GMA echo the sentiments he expressed in a research document also authored by pollsters Stan Greenberg and Erica Seifert, concluding that the Democratic Party’s current frame for the 2012 race is not effective:

We will face an impossible headwind in November if we do not move to a new narrative, one that contextualizes the recovery but, more importantly, focuses on what we will do to make a better future for the middle class.

It is elites who are creating a conventional wisdom that an incumbent president must run on his economic performance – and therefore must convince voters that things are moving in the right direction.  They are wrong, and that will fail.  The voters are very sophisticated about the character of the economy; they know who is mainly responsible for what went wrong and they are hungry to hear the President talk about the future.  They know we are in a new normal where life is a struggle – and convincing them that things are good enough for those who have found jobs is a fool’s errand.  They want to know the plans for making things better in a serious way – not just focused on finishing up the work of the recovery.

The growing concern about the president‘s ability to present a clear and attractive economic message comes as much media coverage over the last few days has focused on Obama’s remarks at a press event last friday where he said “the private sector is doing fine.”

The Washington Post covered the campaign’s rough patch and worry among fellow Democrats in a piece Monday. The post reports that while Senior Campaign Advisor David Pluoffe says the election will not be about “contretemps of the moment” like bad economic news, press gaffes by the president and a strengthening Republican challenger, several veteran Democrats are not so sure.

“The bad thing is, there is no new thinking in that circle,” said one longtime operative in Democratic presidential campaigns who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid.

Eight other prominent Democratic strategists interviewed shared that view, describing Obama’s team as resistant to advice and assistance from those who are not part of its core. All of them spoke on the condition of anonymity as well.

Much contempt from the dissenters who spoke with the post goes to the president’s campaign harking too much on the situation he stepped into, pointing voters in the direction of a first term that has not exactly been anything to brag about on economic terms. The media has begun to ponder what, and more supporters are nudging the president to present, a policy message for term two.

President Obama is set to deliver a major campaign speech Thursday in Cleveland where he may accomplish this, as campaign officials tell the post he will frame the election as a choice between two economic visions. One that protects the middle class, another that takes the country back to the failed policies of the past.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/democrats-take-notice-of-obama-campaigns-recent-struggles/

ANY QUESTIONS ?

Related articles

• Dems beginning to panic at Team Obama incompetence? (hotair.com)
• James Carville’s polling firm to Obama: Nobody believes that the economy’s recovering anymore (hotair.com)
• Dems call for fresh message, warn of ‘impossible headwind’ (politico.com)
• The president who over promised and under delivered on the economy (worldviewtonight.com)
• James Carville Adds More Bad News To President Obama’s Rough Month (mediaite.com)
• Carville, other Democratic pros feel Obama is unfocused, out-of-touch with voters (capitolhillblue.com)
• James Carville and Stan Greenberg Have A Message For Obama: Talk More About The Next Four Years (abcnews.go.com)

The Most Unwanted President: Barack Obama….. ‘Ceptin of course for Treason

The Outlaw President and his Legacy of Shame

• First President to refuse to show a valid birth certificate.
• First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
• First President to preside over a cut to the credit rating of the United States .
• First President to violate the War Powers Act.
• First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .
• First President to defy a Federal Judges court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
• First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
• First President to spend a trillion dollars on shovel-ready jobs and later admit there was no such thing as shovel-ready jobs.
• First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
• First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
• First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
• First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
• First President to terminate Americas ability to put a man in space.
• First President to encourage racial discrimination and intimidation at polling places.
• First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
• First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
• First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly speak-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
• First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state they are allowed to locate a factory.
• First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN)
• First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
• First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
• First President to appoint 45 Czars to replace elected officials in his office.
• First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office.
• First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
• First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
• First President to coddle American enemies while alienating Americas allies.
• First President to publicly bow to Americas enemies while refusing to salute the U.S. Flag.
• First President to go on multiple global apology tours.
• First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends, paid for by the taxpayer.
• First President to refuse to wear the U.S. Flag lapel pin.
• First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
• First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000.00 a year at taxpayer expense.
• First President to repeat ‘the Holy Qur’an tells us’, and openly admit the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

Related articles

• President Obama’s Shocking Three Year Report Card: = F- (votingamerican.wordpress.com)
• BANKRUPTING AMERICA: The Obama Tax Payer Funded White House Extravaganza Continues… (votingamerican.wordpress.com)
• Citizen Journalists doing the Job the Elite Media Refuses to do…..Vetting the President (twighlightslastgleaming.wordpress.com)
• Media Blackout on Impeachment Proceedings of Barack Obama (pumabydesign001.com)
• President Obama’s Falling Pol Numbers Explained (villageofthebanned.wordpress.com)