Hillary Claims the U.S. is Reponsible for Violence in Mexico (Obama’s Plot for Gun Control)
There has been quite a bit of coverage on television lately about Mexican drug violence, and about securing the border. I think that there is a reason why this is gaining so much publicity and it is because of the president and his agenda. I believe that the Mexican drug crime spree that we hear so much on the news about lately is going to be used by the Obama administration to clamp down on the gun laws in the United States.
Now Hillary Clinton has said that America’s insatiable appetite for drugs and inability to stop guns from crossing the border into Mexico is what is responsible for the violence in that country.
Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade,” she said. “Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the deaths of police officers, soldiers and civilians
As an aside I would ask the question “which party in this country is it that supports giving drug addicts free needles?”
Back on topic, evidently we are nothing but a bunch of gun toting drug addicts and we are to blame for all of the criminal activity that is happening in Mexico, not the criminals in Mexico. I can’t even begin to describe how brutally offensive I find this characterization of Americans. This is typical liberal victimization of the criminal. Instead of condemning the drug dealers and violent criminals in Mexico the Secretary of State goes on the record condemning Americans in general. More typical liberal coddling of the criminal at the expense of the true victim.
Naturally Mexico’s foreign minister,Patricia Espinosa, was pleased at the fact that the evil United States is admitting that we are to blame for all of her country’s problems.
President Obama is on record as saying that we have to do more to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Mexico and that can only be read as strict gun control laws on law abiding Americans from a president as radical as Obama when it comes to the second amendment, rather than the punishing of illegal Mexicans who are illegally purchasing the guns.
That is the reason that so much attention is being paid to the problem of illegal Mexicans and the Mexican drug cartel. This is going to be portrayed as another crisis and as Rahm Emanuel’s theory goes, and I paraphrase, never let a good crisis go to waste, and by that I mean they allow you to do things that you wouldn’t otherwise be able to do. Hillary Clinton recently echoed those sentiments.
President Obama is in favor of immigration reform and immigration reform means the same as it did under President Bush and it means the same as it did to John McCain; granting amnesty to illegals. So if the goal of immigration reform is amnesty and is not cracking down on illegal immigration, and it is because of our gun laws that Mexicans can buy guns then there can only be one goal that Obama could have in mind when he talks tough in regards to the Mexican border and it isn’t cracking down on illegals, it is cracking down on American and their gun rights.
Rahm Emanuel And His $320,000 Freddie Mac Stint
Rahm Emanuel has a history with Freddie Mac and it isn’t a pretty one. Before Freddie Mac became infamous for helping to create the mortgage meltdown they were involved in another scandal and Rahm Emanuel was right in the midst of it.
Freddie Mac was involved in a scheme to cook the books, but there was also another scandal that Freddie Mac was involved in during Emanuel’s 14 month stint there that paid him over $320,000, a plan to enhance Freddie Mac’s political clout and Rahm Emanuel benefited from this personally.
During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.
On top of the exorbitant salary that Emanuel made and on top of the fund-raising money that Freddie Mac made for Emanuel he also sold the stocks he was given by Freddie Mac for a little profit.
Financial disclosure statements that are required of U.S. House members show Emanuel made at least $320,000 from his time at Freddie Mac. Two years after leaving the firm, Emanuel reported an additional sale of Freddie Mac stock worth between $100,001 and $250,000. The document did not detail whether he profited from the sale.
There are claims that Rahm Emanuel was directly involved in the strategies hatched by Freddie Mac to gain political clout and when he left the company he was the beneficiary of the strategy that he helped create. President Obama denied a request under the Freedom of Information Act to disclose exactly what Rahm Emanuel’s role with Freddie Mac was. We are left to draw our own conclusions and it seems very suspicious.
AIG Executives Receive Death Threats
The one who would bring us together has driven us apart, and from the way the events unfolded I would say purposely. I am talking about the AIG executives, their bonuses, and the reaction that this administration managed to promote. I am not going to go into all of the ins and outs of how the AIG bonuses were allowed by Obama and Chris Dodd again, I have done that too many times already. This post has a quick summary if you don’t know what I am talking about.
The house, senate, and even the president began screaming at how outrageous it was for AIG to pay these bonuses. They stoked the fires of the populist outcry. It has gotten to the point where people are finding out where the AIG executives live and are protesting outside of these people’s houses. Now many of the AIG executives are receiving death threats.
Here is some of what the AIG executives are subjected to:
Get the bonus, we will get your children
All you motherf***ers should be shot. Thanks for f***ingup our economy then taking our money
Dear Sir: Ya’ll should have the balls and come clean and give back the bonuses. I know you would never do this so the gov’t ought to take you out back and shoot everyone of you crooked sonofb****es…I would be very careful when I went out side. This is just a warning. If I were ya’ll I would be real afraid. Thanks, Bill
I don’t hope that bad things happen to the recipients of those bonuses. I really hope that bad things happen to the children and grandchildren of them! Whatever hurts them the most!!
You f***ing suck. Payingbonuses to the d*****s that made bad bets losing your company billions of dollars. I want to f***ing puke. Publish the list of those yankee scumbags so some good old southern boys can take care of them.
If the bonuses don’t stop, it will be very likely that every CEO @ AIG has a bulls-eye on their backs.
We will hunt you down. Every last penny. We will hunt your children and we will hunt your conscience. We will do whatever we can to get those people getting the bonuses. Give back the money or kill yourselves.
All the executives and their families should be executed with piano wire around their necks — my greatest hope.
You mother-f***ing, c***s***ing, d***l****ers need to be taken out one by one and shot in the head. There’s a special place in hell for you pond scum. Watch your backs because someone will come to get you, you can be sure.
The Revolution is coming. The family members of your executives are not safe. Your blood will run through the streets in the coming months
The president and congress would be well served to remember that their words have meanings and the statements above show what their words have led to. Or is this what the president intended?
The president claims that the American people are frustrated, he claims that he doesn’t blame them. This is not frustration, as the president likes to claim, this is anger and hatred fueled by the class envy that the president kindled in the American people. This is Barack Obama’s America. If his goal was to make as many people as he could feel the way his wife does about America than he has succeeded.
People voted for Obama because he inspired them, he made them feel good. He filled them with hope for the future. He promised change. He has turned Americans against Americans, is this what his inspiration has led to? Is this the change you wanted?
Chris Dodd’s Wife Was a Director for an AIG Owned Company
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.
That quote from Sir Walter Scott is particularly poignant in the case of Chris Dodd and the AIG bonuses. Let me try to recap the link between Chris Dodd and the AIG bonuses that have ignited the populist fires.
- AIG accepts federal bailout money
- Chris Dodd writes the amendment to the stimulus bill that limits executive pay for companies that accept bailout money. This same amendment exempts executive bonuses, allowing AIG to pay their employees the bonuses that they are contractually bound to.
- The House and Senate pass the stimulus without reading it
- The president signs the stimulus without reading it
- AIG pays the bonuses that Chris Dodd’s amendment required to be paid
- The people are outraged
- Obama is outraged, as is the house and senate
- Politicians blame AIG and greed
- It is learned that Chris Dodd wrote the amendment that guaranteed the bonuses
- Chris Dodd denies he wrote the amendment
- Chris Dodd admits he wrote the amendment but that the wording was changed from what he had written and nobody knows who changed it
- Chris Dodd admits that he wrote the amendment that was voted on but someone in the Obama administration told him to
- We learn that Chris Dodd was the largest recipient of campaign donations from AIR
- We learn that Obama is number two on that list
If the chronological events listed above were not enough to make you believe that Dodd and Obama had an interest in making sure that the AIG executives received their bonuses perhaps this story about Chris Dodd’s wife will make you a believer.
In addition to being the politician that AIG contributed the most money to it appears as though Chris Dodd’s wife was on the board of an AIG controlled company.
Isn’t that quite the coincidence? What are the chances that the man who agreed to let AIG pay out the bonuses that have come under fire just happened to be the largest recipient of campaign donations? And what are the chances that the largest recipient of AIG campaign donations just happens to have a wife who worked on the board?
It all must be a big coincidence. Right?
It was revealed after President Obama’s first press conference that the president had the reporters he would call upon to ask questions pre-selected. This was not supposed to be known but it was leaked out.
Tonight he held his second press conference and this time he didn’t even try to hide the fact that he had already decided who would get to ask the image conscience president questions. After his ten minute speech he opened up the question session by admitting that he had a list of reporters who would ask him questions.
It isn’t too much of a stretch to assume that if he picked the reporters beforehand who would ask the questions that he also knew the questions that would be asked. If so than the fact that he still stuttered his way through thirteen non-answers is baffling. The man stuttered more than President Bush ever did during a press conference and this is supposed to be such an articulate man. When the teleprompter is off it doesn’t matter whether he knows the questions beforehand he still stutters through the questions in an attempt to filibuster.
Tonight the president didn’t answer one tough question, he filibustered. There were a couple of reporters who pressed Obama on his answers and he still didn’t give a straight answer.
The man is all style and no substance and his mask comes off when he doesn’t have prepared answers, to try to curb this problem he pre-selects the reporters that he believes are friendly to ask him the questions.
Tonight not only did the mask came off, Obama took it off himself.
Obama Doesn’t Support Bill to Tax AIG Bonuses
In the rush to gain political points the House passed a bill to tax the bonuses the executives from AIG received at 90%. They feigned outrage over the fact that these bonuses were handed out even though it was Chris Dodd, under direction from the Obama administration, who made these bonuses possible with an amendment to the stimulus bill. Maybe next time they will read a bill before they pass it.
This notion of taxing ANYBODY or ANYTHING at 90% is outrageous. Chuck Shumer going on television and warning the executives that they better give the money back because the government wasn’t going to let them keep it was outrageous.
Now even President Obama might feel that this idea is outrageous. When first told that the house passed this bill of attainment he stated “I look forward to receiving a final product that will serve as a strong signal to the executives who run these firms that such compensation will not be tolerated.” But he seems to be backing away from that statement now.
The president would be concerned that this bill may have some problems in going too far – the House bill – may go too far in terms of some legal issues, constitutional validity, using the tax code to surgically punish a small group of people,” Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden’s chief economic adviser, told George Stephanopoulos, host of on ABC News’ “This Week.”
That is what my concern is with this bill. I don’t like the fact that these executives were given bonuses with my money. I also believe that once a company takes federal money the government should have some control over them, at least until the money is paid back– then it’s hands off. But AIGwas given this money with no restrictions, as stupid as that was, and now the government is trying to cover up its own mistake by punishing the people who AIG was contractually obligated to pay. These executives did nothing wrong by taking the money. The government erred by making it possible for these people to get the money. Passing a bill to punish a small group of people with retro-active taxes is setting a dangerous precedent, it looks especially nefarious when you take into account that the billions of dollars in bonuses that Merrill Lynch paid out just two weeks before the end of last year will not be subject to the scrutiny of the new 90% tax bill. This is a targeted killing.
Once the precedent is set the application of it will expand in the future. We are beginning to see it already with regards to executive pay as the president is now talking about limiting executive pay on all companies. Whether they received bailout money or not. The fact that the president thinks he can have any say in how much a person earns is more that a little scary.
Somebody in the administration sees the bill of attainder proposed by the House as constitutionally suspect and now the president is backing down from his original stance, but the door is still open.
“That may be a dangerous way to go. That said, let’s see what comes out of the Senate. He has not said he won’t sign this bill. Let’s see what comes out of the Senate. Let’s see what gets to his desk.”
While it is good news that the president has backed away from the confiscatory tax act of 2009, we see that there is still being work done to get something to his desk. With 15 of the 20 AIG executives already bullied into giving back the bonuses it is my belief that the administration is keeping plans in the works to punish the AIG executives to apply pressure on the rest of the AIG executives to return the money thereby avoiding the constitutional battle that may have ensued.
The sooner this embarrassment is forgotten the better for the administration, the best that Obama can hope for is that the AIG executives to appear to willingly give back their bonuses even while Washington is putting pressure on them to do so. Then the episode can be put in the past and the president won’t have to worry about whether what the congress tried to do is constitutional.
Perhaps the most frightening part of this whole debacle was when the president said “and so they were making a legal calculation, and their legal judgment was not necessarily wrong. But there’s a moral and an ethical aspect to this, as well.”
He was implying that while what AIG did was legal, it doesn’t matter because he feels it was unethical and immoral. To think that we have a president who is willing to bypass the law to impose his morals and ethics on the rest of us is disturbing. When the law of the land takes a backseat to what a leader says is moral and ethical, and more important, when the law of the land is secondary to the will and whims of the leader, you do not have the law of the land other than what the leader says you have.
There is a name for that.
The president may have backed down on this issue, but only because he sees an end in sight that does not require his signature on a bill that was sure to have it’s constitutionallity challenged in the courts.
It is becoming clear what the strategy for this administration is going to be to begin the implementation of strict gun control laws. This administration is going to use Mexico as the excuse to lay the groundwork for the most stringent gun control laws this country has ever seen.
Here we can see the groundwork being laid as the Senate Judiciary Committee begins to debate whether the United States’ lack of gun control laws is leading to violence in Mexico.
Two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week clashed over whether the lack of gun-control laws in the United States is responsible for violence in Mexico.
The theory is that the lack of gun control laws in the United States is leading to Mexicans drug dealers smuggling guns into Mexico. Evidently Dick Durbin, Democrat senator from Illinois, (how appropriate is the fact that he is from Illinois?), believes that these Mexican drug dealers are illegally sneaking into the country and illegally selling drugs but they are legally buying the guns that they illegally smuggle back over the border. That makes sense, doesn’t it?
This [right to bear arms] does not allow us to aid and abed criminal conspiracies in neighboring countries by shipping thousands of firearms everyday with impunity to ignore our laws and policies that is making life dangerous for people living south of the border
“(F)or the record I would like to say guns are a problem; guns are a serious problem.’ ”
First he claims that we are aiding and abetting criminals with our gun laws but then he states that these criminals are ignoring our laws. No shit Dick, these people ignore the law, they are criminals.
Instead of punishing the people of this country and attacking the second amendment by passing harsher gun laws perhaps the government would be better served by enforcing the immigration laws. But this president is not interested in enforcing the immigration laws. That is not what this is about, this is about gun control.
This president is going to pass strict gun control laws, it is inevitable. He is the most anti-second amendment person to ever occupy the White House. Mexico will be the conduit he uses to win over public opinion. This is just the beginning. If the president really cared about the Mexican drug lords he would enforce our immigration laws but the truth is he doesn’t have a problem with the drug smugglers, he has a problem with the law abiding citizens of this country practicing their second amendment rights.
Steve Kroft to Obama: “Are You Punch Drunk?”
It seems as though people are starting to tire of the president’s arrogant, condescending, I-know-better-than-you attitude.
Since his majesty ascended to the throne he has been using the politics of fear to tell us how we are in the worst economic crisis of our lifetime, he constantly says that this is the worst economy since the great depression.
So what does he do when we are in what he himself said was the worst economy since the great depression? He decides to go on Jay Leno and tell jokes. While people are losing their jobs President Obama decided to go on a late night show and make a joke comparing himself to special needs children in an unflattering manner.
I am not going to sit here and pretend that I was offended by the president’s joke about the special Olympics, because I wasn’t, other than to say it is a damn good thing that he is a liberal or we would have already heard the cries for impeachment over this joke. What IS offending is the double standard.
But the fact is that it is beneath the office of the president to have gone on a late night show in the first place. Especially with so many Americans hurting. Does he remeber that he is the president? He is not campaigning, well maybe he is, but it isn’t time for a PR stunt (which backfired) it is time for leadership.
This whole idea of going on Leno has hurt his precious image in my opinion. He comes of as uncaring towards the plight of the average American and he is too damn arrogant to even understand that.
As if appearing on Leno wasn’t bad enough he then does an interview for “60 Minutes” in which he is laughing and joking while Steve Kroft , who is not so amused, is trying to conduct a serious interview about the economy. Much to the chagrin of Steve Kroft.
You’re sitting here. And you’re— you are laughing. You are laughing about some of these problems. Are people going to look at this and say, ‘I mean, he’s sitting there just making jokes about money—’ How do you deal with— I mean: explain. . .” Kroft asks at one point.
“Are you punch-drunk?” Kroft says.
Obama laughs this comment off as well. This is just another example of the president’s arrogance. He thinks that is is perfectly acceptable to make jokes and laugh during the greatest crisis of our time, but this man is supposed to be the president. There is supposed to be some professionalism here. Is he so far over his head that when he is asked about the economy he bursts into nervous laughter and tries to make a wry little joke to distract us from the fact that he is clueless?
Average Americans, as well as the press, are starting to wake up to this president and his arrogance and condescension. For him to go on Leno and make jokes and for him to go on 60 Minutes and laugh about the economy is tasteless and classless. Maybe the reason that he is so giddy is because he wants the economy to fail. After all he and Rahm Emanuel have both said that you should never waste a good crisis. In this case Obama is using the crisis to push a far left, government dependant welfare state agenda. No wonder he is laughing.
Janet Napolitano Refuses to Use the Term “Terrorist”
During an interview that Janet Napolitano, Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary, did last week she was asked why she did not use the word “terrorism” while addressing congress for the first time. This was her answer:
In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.
Terrorism is just such a dirty word, it makes those who commit man-caused disasters seem like such bad people. When you call someone a terrorist you are using the politics of fear, the term man caused disaster doesn’t make the terrorists, or the acts they commit, sound as bad. It diminishes the act of the terrorist. And besides calling someone a terrorist might make them mad and we need to fight a kinder, gentler war on man caused disasters. This is life under President Obama, we have people in the Homeland Security Department that can’t even call the enemy what and who they really are. Besides the president has some friends that have ties to man caused disasters in their past, and we wouldn’t want to offend the president’s friends.
But this brings up another issue that I have on this issue. When I hear reporters and politicians on television refer to September 11th as a tragedy or a disaster it aggravates the hell out of me. September 11th was neither of those terms, it was an ATTACK! We do not call the attack on Pearl Harbor the “tragedy” or the “disaster” of Pearl Harbor and September 11th was no different.
The term disaster that Janet Napolitano wants to use isn’t even the right term.
We have people in our own government, in Homeland Security, who don’t want to call the terrorists what they are because that would be using the politics of fear. By using the term man caused disasters we are shifting the focus away from the person who committed the act and more towards the end result. We are dehumanizing the act of terrorism by making it sound like it is just another disaster.
Janet Napolitano may think that the shift from the term “terrorism” to the term “man caused disaster” is just nuance but it goes much deeper than that. It shows a weakness and an unwillingness to confront the enemy. If people in Homeland Security are too afraid to accurately describe the enemy because it sounds too bad how can we trust them?
Obama to Propose Limiting Executive Pay of ALL Companies
” So this is how democracy ends. To thunderous applause.”
That quote comes from Star Wars, Revenge of the Sith and many people took it to be a shot at president Bush when the movie came out. How appropriatedoes that quote seem now with President Obama about to make sweeping changes to our economic system? What am I talking about?
President Obama, now emboldened by the outrage and hatred that he deliberatelystoked in the American people towards executive bonuses and pay with the AIG fiasco is now ready to propose limiting how much a PRIVATE company can pay their executives, even if they do not accept federal money.
The Obama administration will call for increased oversight of executive pay at all banks, Wall Street firms and possibly other companies
He will decide how much the executives at ALL banks, at ALL Wall Street firms, and at whatever other companies he sees fit to monitor can be paid. This is an idea that I saw coming and in fact I wrote about it here on February 4th, now it is about to come true.
It is the ole slippery slope argument that so many people roll their eyes over when you mention it, but now it sure seems fitting. If a company whores themselves out and goes to bed with the federal government and takes federal funds then whatever restrictions the government puts on them is part of the deal. But now the president has decided that he needs to go beyond regulating the pay of the companies that take bailout money. Now he want to regulate how much a company can par an executive even if said company does not take bailout money.
The new rules will cover all financial institutions, including those not now covered by any pay rules because they are not receiving federal bailout money
As bad as it seems that our dear leader is going to delve into the payroll of PRIVATE companies it gets worse.
Under the proposal, the Treasury secretary would have the authority to seize and wind down a struggling institution after consulting with the president and upon the recommendation of two-thirds of the Federal Reserve board.
Tax cheat Timothy Geithner will be able to seize any company that Adolph Obama decides to take over with a 2/3 vote of the federal reserve. This is absolutely unbelievable, this is un-American.
Obama has deliberately created angst in the lower classes of the American people and he is using this angst to take over private companies. This man needs to be stopped and he needs to be stopped NOW!
He is purposely trying to pit one class of Americans against the others. He knew about the AIG bonuses and I am beginning to think that he agreed to let these bonuses be paid so that he could Judas the executives for his own communist political goals.
Our dear leader is about to embark on a power grab of epic proportions. And for the last eight years we were told that it was President Bush who was Hitler, remember:
It is pretty offensive, isn’t it?
