Barack Obama denies trying to intimidate the San Fransisco Chronicle; the Chronicle fires back
The media may finally be starting to push back against Barack Obama’s strong-arm bullying tactics.
Earlier last week we heard an indignant president scold a reporter for daring to ask a follow up question during an interview. Barack Obama is not used to this kind of push back in the media and so he did not know how to react when a reporter didn’t take what he had to say at face value. Now we are learning about a second kerfuffle this week between the media and the Obama regime; this one occurring at a recent fundraiser.
At a fundraiser in San Fransisco several people stood up and began to sing a song of protest which demanded the release of the traitor Private Bradley Manning. A reporter for the Chronicle recorded the protest and therein lies the problem–video recording was not allowed at this event (strange that the man who promised transparency holds his fundraisers in such a secretive manner, isn’t it?). Of course the narcissistic president would prefer that no video evidence of people disagreeing with him should ever see the light of day and so began the Chicago style thuggery and intimidation–of which it is alleged that the Obama regime would disallow the San Fransisco Chronicle from covering further presidential events. (They have a certain image to uphold in this highly propagandized presidency, and that means only selected videos and pictures–first approved by the president–will the American people be allowed to see.)
Three people convicted for terror-related crimes were granted citizenship by the Obama administration
Three people who were CONVICTED in trials relating to terrorism were granted United States citizenship after their convictions by Barack Obama. While these trials were terror-related, these criminals were convicted of non-terror related crimes.
The March 2011 audit (released on April 21, 2011) by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), entitled Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests and Costs, shows that three individuals were among “defendants where the investigation involved an identified link to international terrorism but they were charged with violating other statutes [not directly related to terrorism], including fraud, immigration, drugs, false statements, and general conspiracy charges,” referred by DOJ as Category II terrorism-related cases.
How can something like this happen?
When a person applies for naturalization his or her background over the last five years is looked at and as long as they are determined to be in “good moral character” they can be granted citizenship. These people were convicted of their crimes more than five years ago. But the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service can and does look beyond the five previous years if it is deemed necessary to establish the “good moral character” of the individual applying for citizenship. Apparently that did not happen in these cases.
Here is what these individuals were convicted of:
Two were convicted of unlawful production of an identity document and one was convicted of transferring funds out of the country in violation of U.S. sanctions
Two were convicted of creating false documents so that either they or whoever they were creating the documents for (possibly terrorists) could enter this country illegally, while the other was illegally transferring money out of the United States (in order to sponsor terrorism?) And yet these people are allowed to become citizens of the United States of America?
If the USCIS routinely goes beyond the five year mark while investigating the past of certain individuals it certainly seems as if these individuals deserved the tougher scrutiny. People who create false documents so that somebody can break into the country, and people who funnel money to states which may sponsor terrorism should lose any right they may have of becoming an American citizen and yet these people were allowed to slip through the cracks. If the story I linked to is incorrect and the USCIS is not allowed to look further back than the last five years than it is time to change the law, for this is inexcusable.
These people–and people like them–should be permanently ineligible for citizenship and if the USCIS cannot be trusted to use proper discretion when investigating the history of the people who apply for citizenship than it is obvious to me that it is time to toughen up these rules and take the decision out of their hands altogether before it is too late.
It is beyond time for somebody in the Obama regime to start taking this issue seriously.
A growing number of Democrats are now claiming that they will oppose raising the debt ceiling unless it is coupled with more spending cuts. This article states that this is just the latest example of how the Tea Party is influencing federal spending in Washington, and it may be true but I have my doubts about the true intent of these Democrats for we have seen this before.
While I would love to believe that the Tea Party is responsible for this turn of events, I can’t help but think there is something else at play here. During the healthcare reform debate we read many stories about Democrats who were either on the fence or planned to vote against Obamacare only to see them acquiesce to the president after gaining kickbacks for their states, and I have a feeling that this is what we are seeing here also.
With the Republicans firmly opposed to the healthcare reform law, Democrats realized that they held a certain power over the president and they asserted it. They knew that the president needed all Democrats to vote in favor of Obamacare so some of them threatened to cast a vote which would kill the healthcare reform bill. But their true intent was never to vote against the bill, but rather to cash in on the bill by gaining earmarks for their respective states. And it worked; these Democrats were paid millions of dollars for their votes and the rest is history.
And I think that we could possibly see this once again. With some Republicans appearing ready to vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling there is only one thing standing in the way; if some Democrats hold out there is the chance that the debt ceiling will not be raised. There are some Democrats who might see this as a chance to once again gain a little federal money in order to secure their vote, so they threaten to vote against rasing the debt ceiling until they can be “convinced”–or better yet, bribed–to vote in favor of raising the debt ceiling.
This pushback from some Democrats is coming from those that face tough re-election campaigns so there is the chance that I am being a little paranoid here, but as I said, we have seen this before and I can’t help but think that they have an ulterior motive. I hope that I am wrong and I hope that they have seen the light–even if they are only doing this to save their own asses–and do in fact intend to push for spending cuts as a condition to raising the debt ceiling and will settle for nothing less, but please forgive me for being so cynical, I just do not trust them anymore.
Well, well, well, isn’t this interesting?! Democrats in the Massachusetts State House (I know, Massachusetts and Democrats is redundant as they are for all intents and purposes a one party state) have voted to strip some collective bargaining rights from certain public sector unions.
House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.
And at 111-42, the vote wasn’t even close. By this time we have all seen the reaction to Scott Walker and the Republicans in Wisconsin for their vote to do the same. The unions have bused in thousands of “protesters” and doctors have abused their power in order to write fake sick notes to the teachers who have foregone their duties to educate their students in order to attend these protests while still being paid. Hell, even Barack Obama weighed in on what should be a state issue when he said that this seemed like “an attack on unions.”
The media and the president were quick to jump on Wisconsin Republicans for being union busters, so the obvious question is; Will they be so quick to criticize Massachusetts Democrats for following Scott Walker’s lead, or will the Massachusetts House get a free pass with Barack Obama and in the media because it was Democrats who passed this “union busting” bill?
Why do I get the feeling that instead of being labeled “union busters” the Massachusetts House will be called fiscally responsible?
Barack Obama finally releases his birth certificate
I had no intention of writing about this topic but seeing as this seems to be the “big” issue of the day I feel obligated to write about it. Let me say up front that by no means am I a “birther,” as a matter of fact with the exception of writing about states which may pass legislation which would require candidates to prove their credentials to be president I have written exactly one post on the birth certificate issue, and that post was written in June of 2008 when this was a fairly new issue.
My position on this issue has been as follows: I believe there are two possible reasons for why Barack Obama has failed to release his birth certificate until now, the first being the fact that he may have something to hide. But even if this is the case I did not feel as if this were an issue that should consume the American public because the man is already the president and as such there is virtually no chance that he would be removed from office because of anything that might appear on his birth certificate. I would much rather focus on the issues and convince as many people as possible that another person would be better suited to lead the American people based on the issues at hand.
I have always been of the opinion that the true reason that Barack Obama refused to release his birth certificate was the second reason which I will state here: He has nothing to hide but felt as if by not releasing the birth certificate it could provide a distraction and take the focus off the issues at hand.
Video: University teaches class on violent union tactics
We all know that the school system has become little more than indoctrination centers, but a video that I found at Bunkerville showing us a college which is teaching a class on violent union tactics, and how and when to use them, while espousing communist/Marxist ideals really drive the point home.
There is really nothing else that I need to say, check out the video:
Was Elena Kagan involved in the healthcare reform law defense before she bacame a Supreme Court jusitce?
The push is already on by the left to pressure Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from the healthcare reform case once it makes its way to the Supreme Court and I do believe that there is the very real chance that he may in fact recuse himself from the case. Justice Thomas’s wife–Virginia–began a lobbying group which opposed the healthcare reform law and may have profited from this group. This means that Clarence Thomas also would have profited from his wife’s activities and if this is indeed the case than he is bound by ethical and moral standards to recuse himself from the healthcare reform case.
But while the left remains adamant that Justice Thomas must recuse himself from this case because of the actions of his spouse–not his own–they remain silent on another possible conflict of interest with a Supreme Court justice who may have in fact counseled Barack Obama on the healthcare reform law, and actually helped to set up his defense team for the healthcare reform law challenge–and that justice is Elena Kagan.
Video: A sobering look at the national debt
Below is a sobering look at our national debt that I think everyone needs to watch. Thanks are in order for Matt at Conservative Hideout for finding and sharing this video.
The White House is preparing an Executive Order which would over-rule the Supreme Court’s Citizens United case
From this article:
In what the White House calls a push for transparency, a pending executive order would require companies doing business with the federal government to disclose political contributions to independent groups, but would not place the same requirement on public employee unions or federal grant recipients that typically donate to Democrats.
This all stems from the infamous Citizens United Supreme Court decision which rendered parts of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform law unconstitutional. Shortly after this decision Barack Obama used his State of the Union speech to publicly berate the Supreme Court, and the Democrats swiftly moved to circumvent this decision by introducing the DISCLOSE Act.
The DISCLOSE Act eventually failed in the Congress so now Barack Obama is looking to circumvent the system by imposing his will on the American people despite the Congress’ failure to implement policy using constitutional means by using an Executive Order to stifle corporations political donations, yet the unions would be exempted from the Executive Order. The left condemned the Supreme Court decision because it treated large corporations as if they were people, yet they had no problem with big unions speaking as individuals and if this Executive Order is signed big corporations will have their voices stifled while big unions will have free range of speech. And we are to believe that this is not politically motivated?
The Supreme Court has already ruled that corporations are protected under the first amendment but the president does not agree with this ruling and that is fine. But if he disagrees with that ruling the constitution sets up a procedure which must be followed in order to change it, and that procedure is called amending the constitution.
Barack Obama wants no part the lengthy amendment process so he is simply going to issue an Executive Order which nullifies the Supreme Court ruling and I do not care which side of the Citizens United case you fall on, you have to be concerned when a president of the United States feels he can so easily and arrogantly sidestep the Supreme Court.
EPA bans Shell Oil from drilling offshore in Alaska
The price of a barrel of oil continues to rise, which means the price of gasoline continues to rise and when Barack Obama has even bothered to comment on this burden on the American people he has used this “crisis” in order to promote his regressive leftist ideals of building more windmills and choo-choo trains.
He claims–like many other Washington leftists–that we cannot drill our way out of this crisis while at the same time claiming that we must end our dependence on foreign oil, yet he told Brazil that America looks forward to being a major customer of Brazilian oil. The last time that I checked–while Brazil is not a Middle Eastern country–Brazil is a foreign nation.
I have told her that the United States wants to be a major customer, which can be a win-win for both our countries
The theory which Barack Obama is espousing here is that because America would be buying more oil from Brazil we would be buying less oil from Middle Eastern countries–and this would be a win for the United States of America.
America's Watchtower 