The Rights Of Atheists STOP When They Conflict With The Rights Of Believers, PERIOD - Americans Have No Rights In Obama’s Amerika‏ - Obama Advancing Communism - “Natural Family” Prevails In Anchorage - Demand The U.S. Senate OPPOSE And FILIBUSTER Three Bad Judges Nominated By Obama, For Their Anti-Christian, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Homosexual Rulings Which Are Directly Counter To The Common Good - The Internet Taxes That Could Be Coming - Another Episode In “The Days Of The Ongoing Fraud In The White House” - The U.N. Vs. George Zimmerman: Is This What “International Justice” Would Look Like? -Question About Black Panthers Not Allowed At Der Fuhrer’s News Briefing - Unfortunately Named The Affordable Health Care Choices Act Of 2009 With Unelected Bureaucrats, Death Panels, And IRS Enforcers - Redistribution Of The Nation’s Wealth As Obama’s “Fairness” Equals Socialism - Here’s Who Dem Hit-Woman Rosen Visited At The White House, Including At Least 5 POTUS Meetings - TOTUS Breaks Down, As Obama’s Speeches Exactly The Same A Year Apart - Astronauts Blast NASA In “Climate-Change” Rebellion -  Proof Beyond A Shadow Of A Doubt That “Common Sense” Has Been Long Since Extinct With The 2009 Obamunist Occupation


on Marines Defend 'Symbol of Sacrifice' Against Atheists

There is NOTHING in The Constitution about freedom FROM religion.  There IS SOMETHING about freedom OF religion. 

If atheists have a problem with the founding documents of this country recognizing the importance of God, then that's tough!  Their rights STOP when they collide with the rights of believers who are not obliged to kowtow to their demands, PERIOD!

Marines Defend 'Symbol of Sacrifice' Against Atheists

Marines fight to protect crosses planted at Camp Pendleton in memory of those killed in war on terror

VIDEO: Atheists Threaten Lawsuit Over Crosses

The Unity of Metaphysics Stems Atheistic Flashfloods

What Has Atheism Done For Us lately? The Answer Is Misery And Death On An Unimaginable Scale

Stephen Hawking's Junk Science Atheism - In The Dogmatically Blind Worlds Of Liberalism And Environmentalism, The Truth Is Irrelevant - Obama's New Plan To Cut Taxes On All But Those Most Likely To Create Jobs Is A Communist Exercise In Class Warfare - Soros Watch: $45 Million To Sabotage America's Judiciary - The Side Effects Of Obamacare As More Bad News For Those Who Like Their Current Coverage

Oxymoronic Same-Sex Marriage Goes Against Basic Rights Of Children - Study Shows That Claims Of Sexual Orientation To Homosexuality Being Final Are False - A Reply To News Story "Atheist Group Sues Over Prayers At High School Football Games That Include 'Jesus'" - The Brain-Dead At FOX News Give Us Another Ridiculous Poll Question - Worthless Boehner & Co. NULLIFYING THE 2010 ELECTION - Traitor In The White House Gutting The Military - While The Troops Were Away, Their Commander Betrayed Them - Obama's Student Loan Fraud Is A Vote Buying Scam - Paul Ryan's Great Speech Rejecting Fear, Envy And Politics Of Division - Ex-ACORN Operatives At Work With OWS - Obama Denounced For Saddling Taxpayers With $600M In Debt Mortgage Bailout - The Battles On The UN Agenda 21 Front - The Insurgent Incumbent - Justice, Obama Style: Border Patrol Agent Sent To Jail; Illegals Granted Waivers - Obamacare Traced To Soros Group, Marketed By Radicals

Memo To Atheists: The "Freedom Of Religion" Rights Of Christians Are NOT Going To Be Trashed By The Godless - Despite Plea From Diabolic Obama Administration, Conference Committee Restores Military Ban On Sodomy, Bestiality - Romney Now Embraces Sexual Perversion In The Military - Obama Makes LGBT Foreign Policy Priority - Red Cross Talking Like It's About To Declare Baby Killing A Human Right - Catholic Health Care In Jeopardy Due To Obamacare Embracing A Culture-Of-Eternal-Death - Obamacare Does NOT Deserve Credit For Decreasing Young Uninsured Due To Classic Statistical Fallacy Of Confusing Correlation With Causation - Global Warming Hysteria Is Imposing Neo-Paganism By Pushing Rights Of Nature At Durban, Championed By The Likes Of Sen. Boxer Who Never Met A Baby Not Capable Of Being Aborted While Hypocritically Warning Of Thousands Of Deaths By Not Kowtowing To The Morally Bankrupt Green Agenda - Soros' Brave New World Is Part Of Every Major Left-Wing Initiative From Abortion To Drug Legalization - Dept. of Labor: Public School Teachers Are Highest Paid State Workers Whose Compensation Doubles The Average In Private Industry, All This To Brainwash Your Children Into Being Good Little Communists

MEMO To Atheists: WILLFULLY IGNORING The Use Of "Right Reason" Does NOT Meet The Definition Of "Invincible Ignorance" Which You Will Find Out, In No Uncertain Terms, Upon Drawing Your Last Breath Staring At God's Judgment



on Mexican Rights Body Urges Action to Overturn Death Sentences of 58 Mexicans in U.S. Prisons 

Since when do the rights of foreigners who have committed capital crimes take precedence over the justice due them for the murder of Americans? 
Oops, I'm sorry, what a stupid question, as I forgot that we now live in Obama's Amerika where Americans have no rights!

Mexican Rights Body Urges Action to Overturn Death Sentences of 58 Mexicans in U.S. Prisons 






Obama's advancing communism

Exclusive: Erik Rush urges Americans to beat the drum about BHO's 'Marxist agenda'

Erik Rush
For 100 years, communists believed that America was the only thing standing in the way of communism truly “succeeding” internationally. That’s a convenient if transparent bit of propaganda, but one which has resulted in leftists remaining dedicated to the objective of bringing America down for decades. American communists, being the pathological narcissists they are, have convinced themselves that they’ll do it the “right way” this time. Having dismantled America, what then could they not accomplish?
Upon his return from a week’s hiatus on the radio, commentator Glenn Beck showcased a piece of audio featuring members of the New Black Panther Party on a conference call. Although the renewed activity of this group was brought on by the Trayvon Martin shooting, millions of Americans are aware that this incident did not merit the hue and cry that came up from black activists, including the NBPP. What follows is why it nevertheless did result in such.
While the pretext of the New Black War Kittens’ conference call was, as usual, that of fighting racial oppression, they were very up front about their desire to destroy capitalism. The common denominator of Marxist objectives across the activist groups rearing their decidedly ugly heads at present is something Beck has been stressing – as well as the fact that the advancing Marxist agenda is being not-so-subtly choreographed from Barack Obama’s White House.
Despite race being a mere pretext regarding the NBPP’s role in recent events, this does not mean they won’t carry things forward until civil unrest breaks out, particularly since it has resulted in an apparent backlash from white extremists, and that law enforcement (including, of course, Eric Holder’s DOJ) has eschewed involvement. Civil unrest is an Obama administration objective, since it will facilitate crises sufficient for the president to justify suspensions of civil rights. Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act, Obama’s recent National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order, as well as others, have certainly paved the way for such action.
Earlier this week, WND’s Mychal Massie detailed aspects of Obama’s star-student status as an acolyte of communist organizer Saul Alinsky. As with Beck, Massie recognizes the importance of citing the orchestration occurring between the Obama administration and radicals, in this case, the direct correlation between what is now transpiring and the teachings of Alinsky.
Also earlier in the week, commentator Rush Limbaugh delved into the intellectual rationale of our president and his comrades. While somewhat more diplomatic than I might be, he effectively conveyed their belief that the entire American experiment has essentially been a criminal venture.
This discussion of Obama’s hardcore communist objectives is an activity in which I have also been engaged, and I heartily agree with the aforementioned gentlemen in the importance of doing so.
Now, given the abject hatred Marxist leaders have for America, they don’t just want Americans to suffer through their fundamental transformation of this nation. They want us to – as one might say in the U.K. – “suffer proper.” Not like the inconveniences people in France, Spain, or Greece are suffering with the implosion of their economies; they want Americans broken.
This is the widespread social sickness to which envy and pride gives rise. It may be difficult to believe that all our travails are the result of a collection of particularly nasty character defects run wild – but it really is that simple. Marxism is little more than a codified political philosophy whereby those possessing avarice, and little else, might succeed. In truth, the radical left is no better than some loser who decides to carjack a guy in a luxury car because he feels he deserves the automobile more than its owner.
We hear the mantra “A corporation is not a person” from those who believe that granting corporations the same rights as individual persons will have an undue effect upon the electoral process. Well, the government is not a person, either, and it never had the power to do what it is doing; that power was relinquished by the people, by us. When NASA (the government) needed a space program, it contracted countless companies to build the equipment for them, because government itself isn’t capable of building anything. Those companies were owned by people, and the work therein was performed by people. Communists believe that government has the right to simply commandeer these companies, run them and even own the workers. This is no different thinking than that of the carjacker.
The question of a fair election in November is also something that deserves our attention. We can take it as given that voter fraud will abound at the hands of ACORN and other like-minded fringe organizations. It’s an even bet that tricks will be played with absentee and military votes. Questions have also been raised concerning the vote-counting technology having marked vulnerabilities that could be exploited by the unscrupulous, as well as who will be overseeing the process.
All of this illustrates the paramount importance of continuing to beat the drum of Obama’s communism in unequivocal terms, regardless of the mincing ridicule we will draw from liberals, the disbelief of many conservatives and the ire of communists themselves.



'Natural family' prevails in Anchorage

Voters in Alaska's largest city have handily defeated a proposed ordinance that would have provided special rights for homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals.

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 4/12/2012

family portrait silhouetteVoters in Anchorage, Alaska, have handily defeated a proposed ordinance that would have provided special rights for homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals.


Liberty Counsel founder Mat Staver says passage of Proposition 5, a measure placed on the ballot and supported by a collection of LGBT groups called "One Anchorage," would have put homosexuality on a par with race. But Anchorage residents turned it down, in spite of the fact that homosexual activists outspent those with traditional views 4-1.

"This was a stunning defeat, because the homosexual agenda organizations thought that they were going to have this as an agenda that would just simply roll through Anchorage, perhaps through Alaska, and then push this across the country," he explains. "They were stopped dead in their tracks."

Matt StaverReligious organizations and churches in the area rallied in opposition to Proposition 5 and were successful in turning out voters.

"This is a great celebration for the family," Staver asserts. "It's a great victory for those of us who believe that we should not elevate sexual behavior to a protected status like race."

Proposition 5, which would have added "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to the city's code, was defeated by a margin of 58-41 percent. The Liberty Counsel founder is proud of Anchorage for proving that Americans "still stand strong to protect the natural family."


Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2012 06:18:02 -0700
Subject: Obama's next Judge: "American courts should be more like France, Italy."

New Petition!  Demand the U.S. Senate OPPOSE and FILIBUSTER three bad judges nominated by President Obama, for their anti-Christian, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual rulings.  Select, sign and we will fax all 100 Senators instantly (saving you time!)

Obama's newest Judge:  "American courts should be more like France, Italy."

Our faxes are working.  The Senate Judiciary Committee delayed, and will hold next week more hearings on President Obama’s worst yet judicial nominee Judge William Kayatta.

William Kayatta Jr. is known for his belief that
judges' pay should be doubled, more than Congressmen or Senators.  He believes judges are the "the best of us, the brightest of us, the most fair and compassionate of us," and raising their pay would make America "more like Europe."  Sadly, if American courts looked more like Europe, we would be ruled by elitists who create their own laws by activist judicial supremacy.  

But a Quick look at some
European legal systems reveals Kayatta’s ideal legal system:

1) Italian courts, according to Transparency International "was 63rd in its league table of integrity in public life, slipping eight places from the year before and coming second last in the Euro Zone and lower than Botswana and Namibia.  According to Reuters "cases of corruption increased by 229 percent from 2008 to 2009," in Italy.

2) French courts, according to The Economist, are "a clique of powerful men up to no good, linked by a potent mix of money, politics and business, and to close to the executive branch."   72% of the French believe French courts are corrupt.  

3) Spain placed just above Botswana on the corruption list but only by one point.

4) Greek courts placed 80th on the list.  

Sadly, Obama's Judge Kayatta who is "better than you" also believes Judges should never be elected, nor have to answer to the American people.  
He's against Democracy.  Most European courts (except the UK) don't allow juries, rather Judges are lords and masters!  

Now the shocker:  Since 2008, when Obama's judges began flooding U.S. courts, "The United States has dropped out of the 'top 20' in a global league table of least corrupt nations."  

Tarnished by financial scandals and the influence of money in politics,
American courts are now ALREADY looking like Europe, falling to historic low scores on integrity vs. corruption.

Why should Obama's Judge Kayatta be allowed to rule any American courtroom?  
Help stop him, by demanding 100 Senators unite to FILIBUSTER Kayatta's nomination.

Please select here to sign urgent petition, and we will fax all 100 Senators (saving you time!) to OPPOSE and FILIBUSTER three bad judges to stop forcing their anti-Jesus, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual views on the American people.

Senate Judiciary hearing today on Obama's pro-homosexual Judge Kayatta

The Senate Judiciary
Committee postponed a hearing, to discuss whether the pro-homosexual Judge William J. Kayatta Jr. should be promoted to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling over Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampsire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico.


Kayatta is an elitist who demands federal judges be paid twice as much as U.S. Senators! He stood by while the ABA falsely claimed Elena Kagan was "well-qualified" despite having no judicial experience.  Kayatta helped draft an argument to ban military recruiters from Harvard University because of his radical pro-homosexual views, and has advocated barring all judicial elections because he prefers activism to public accountability.

Kayatta is yet another Obama nominee who is so out of touch with America he believes judges should have the ability to give themselves pay raises when they feel like it.   But the U.S. Constitution forbids this.  Kayatta sees himself above the rest of us, and above the Constitution itself.  Kayatta also
believes judges should never stand for election, because he fears public accountability for his activist views.

bases his ideas upon foreign law.  He is fundamentally opposed to the American system of government.  He wants to rule over life and death, double his own pay, decide for himself when he gets a raise, and never let "we the people" remove any judges from office.

There is a word Kayatta's form of government:  
TYRANNY.  And if he doesn't know how  Americans feel about tyranny, I refer him to the events of 1776.  We can stop him today, by calling BOTH your U.S. Senators and ALL EIGHTEEN members of the Senate Judiciary Committee listed far below.  Don't have time to make 20 phone calls?  Sign our petition and we'll save you much time, but auto-faxing all 100 Senators.

Please select here to sign urgent petition, and we will fax all 100 Senators (saving you time!) to OPPOSE and FILIBUSTER three bad judges to stop forcing their anti-Jesus, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual views on the American people.

Obama promotes pro-homosexual Judge who sought to double his own pay

Judge William J. Kayatta must be stopped.  Please call your 2 Senators at 202-224-3121 to say "Oppose and filibuster 3 judges. Kayatta, Jesse Furman, and Michael Fitzgerald."
JAG warns:  "
Kayatta takes the elitist view that Judges should be paid twice as much as U.S. Senators....Kayatta will not be satisfied with 'just' a: "100% raise from current compensation..." he wants more of our money for himself and his elitist friends. Kayatta...approved and edited the White Paper: “Judicial Compensation:  Our Federal Judges Must Be Fairly Paid," [which] report expresses the elitist view that judges should be paid more than Senators and Members of Congress because judges "are not supposed to be average."...Kayatta also argues that judicial salaries must be doubled...

"Pursuant to Kayatta’s judicial philosophy, Judges may raise their own salaries by legislating from the bench.  Kayatta wrote: "A case can be made that the Constitution requires a raise in judicial compensation to ameliorate the diminution which has occurred over time as the result of inflation."  [But he's wrong, since] the Constitution prohibits judges from raising their own salaries...
"Kayatta was a member of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary when
that committee...rated Elena Kagan as 'Well Qualified.'  Kayatta appeared before the Judiciary Committee to present the Kagan evaluation, and Senator Jeff Sessions took issue with Kayatta over that evaluation."
"Sessions pointed out to Kayatta that...Kagan was grossly unqualified..."I found it difficult to understand how when she did not meet those qualifications that [Kayatta and] the Committee reached the highest rating for the highest court."...
"Kayatta’s ABA Report
Defends Kagan in Baring Military Recruiters from Harvard.  Kayatta helped draft the ABA Report on Kagan that was submitted to the Senate.  The report gratuitously raises and defends the issue of Kagan’s role in barring military recruiters from Harvard Law:
[Kayatta defended why] "Harvard Law School had a long-standing policy
denying placement office services to any firm or organization that refused to hire students for reasons including known sexual orientation.  [Kagan] enforced the policy...In other words...Dean Kagan demonstrated any type of bias that would cause us to question her integrity under our standards."
[Kayatta complained about Christians who fired three activist pro-homosexual Iowa judges:] "In the wake of these developments,
three Supreme Court justices in Iowa were ousted in 2010 after interest groups, most from out of state, spent nearly a million dollars to unseat them owing to the court’s unanimous ruling in a 2009 gay marriage case."
[But JAG says Kayatta's] "Paper does not address the fact that the
Iowa judges’ 'gay marriage' case amounted to brazen judicial usurpation of legislative power.  The voters properly exercised their legal ability to remove these errant judges.  Without such remedies, the radical activism of judges – like the Iowa judges – would surely proliferate."

BOTTOM LINE:  Kayatta is clearly a pro-homosexual, activist judge who not only complains when Christian citizens vote-out activist judges, Kayatta wants to increase the power of
activist judges to double their own salary and enforce pro-homosexual policies by legislating from the bench.  KAYATTA MUST BE FILIBUSTERED!  

Please select here to sign urgent petition, and we will fax all 100 Senators (saving you time!) to OPPOSE and FILIBUSTER three bad judges to stop forcing their anti-Jesus, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual views on the American people.

Stop Obama's 3 Anti-Jesus, Pro-Abortion, Pro-Homosexual Judges.  Take action!

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is now debating
whether to confirm three more left-wing judges nominated by President Obama, each of whom have a history of forcing anti-Christian, pro-abortion, or pro-homosexual views on the American people.

1)  Our friends at the Judicial Action Group  (JAG) warn:  "Kayatta wants judges to have the power to increase their own pay - in fact he thinks the Constitution already gives them that authority....Kayatta was part of the wildly liberal American Bar Association panel who voiced approval for Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan's nomination, even lobbying and testifying on her behalf.  Now Obama is offering Kayatta a judgeship of his own."

2) Activist Judge Jesse Furman once legislated from the bench to change the First Amendment to allow unprecedented erosion to freedom of religion and speech.  Furman tried to
ban a Christian organization from using public property.  The Supreme Court emphatically shot him down, and not even the liberals on the bench supported him.  The high court rebuked Furman's idea that "to extend the school day for elementary school children by offering religious worship, instruction and indoctrination on public school grounds would result in an unprecedented erosion of Establishment Clause values that would reverberate well beyond this particular case."  Furman banned Christian kids!

Please select here to sign urgent petition, and we will fax all 100 Senators (saving you time!) to OPPOSE and FILIBUSTER three bad judges to stop forcing their anti-Jesus, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual views on the American people.

But the Supreme Court ruled kids are free to assemble for worship, firmly rebuking Furman's anti-Jesus views.  Furman had ruled that First Amendment Rights of free speech do not extend to Christians, "because they do not promote cohesion among heterogeneous democratic people."  He wrote in his official brief to the Supreme Court that all forms of traditional Christianity are intolerant because they label children as either unsaved or unsaved. 

3) Nominee Micheal Fitzgerald is the fourth openly homosexual judicial nominee sent by Obama to a federal judgeship, after Ed DuMont, Paul Oetken, and Alison Nathan.   Fitzgerald actively sought  to ban members of military from Harvard University because of his radical support for homosexual military service.  He helped lead the Harvard- Radcliffe Gay-Lesbian Caucus, an activist organization that fought to ban the military from Havard.

Fitzerald made phone calls and knocked on doors to personally help defeat Proposition 8 in 2008, actively trying to overturn the will of the California people who twice voted to define marriage as only valid between one man and one woman.   Fitzgerald is or was also an
active member of several radical leftist homosexual advocacy groups: Stonewall Democratic Club, Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center, and the “No on  Proposition 8” campaign.  He is a Homosexual activist and cannot be trusted to rule without bias on critical social issues,

Let's take action to stop these three radical judges!

Please select here to sign urgent petition, and we will fax all 100 Senators (saving you time!) to OPPOSE and FILIBUSTER three bad judges to stop forcing their anti-Jesus, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual views on the American people.

Please call these 18 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, at 202-224-3121.  

Don't have time to make 18 phone calls?  Sign our petition, and we will save you time by instantly faxing all 100 Senators.


Senator Charles E. Grassley R- IA
Senator Jeff Sessions R- AL

Senator John Cornyn R- TX
Senator Jon Kyl R- AZ
Senator Lindsey Graham R- SC
Senator Michael S. Lee R- UT
Senator Orrin G. Hatch R- UT
Senator Tom Coburn R- OK
Senator Patrick J. Leahy D- VT
Senator Al Franken D-MN
Senator Amy Klobuchar D- MN
Senator Charles Schumer D- NY
Senator Chris Coons D- DE
Senator Dianne Feinstein D- CA
Senator Herb Kohl D- WI
Senator Richard Blumenthal D- CT
Senator Richard J. Durbin D- IL
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse D- RI

Please select here to sign urgent petition, and we will fax all 100 Senators (saving you time!) to OPPOSE and FILIBUSTER three bad judges to stop forcing their anti-Jesus, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual views on the American people.

God Bless you, in Jesus' name,
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt
For media interviews, select here.

Prefer to donate by mail?  Please write:  The Pray In Jesus Name Project, PO Box 77077, Colorado Springs, CO  80970.  




Morning Bell: The Internet Taxes that Could Be Coming Posted By Mike Brownfield On April 12, 2012 @ 9:02 am In Enterprise and Free Markets |

If you’ve ever bought anything on the Internet, over the phone, or from a catalog, you might have noticed that when you buy from some stores, you don’t pay any state sales tax, but if you buy from other stores, you do. That’s because a Supreme Court decision protected out-of-state businesses from revenue-hungry states. But a new bill working its way through Congress would change all that, turning every online retailer into a sales tax collector. And that’s legislation Congress should reject.
Back in 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in 
Quill Corporation v. North Dakota that a state cannot force a retailer who doesn’t have any physical presence in that state to collect sales taxes from Internet, phone or catalog sales. So if you ordered a book online from and there’s a Barnes and Noble store right down the street from your house, you’d have to pay sales tax. But if you ordered that book online from a mom and pop bookstore with one location halfway across the country, they wouldn’t have to collect sales tax from you.
In the
Quill case, North Dakota tried to force out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes and remit them to North Dakota, even if they didn’t have a physical presence in the state. Quill Corporation, which sells office supplies and is based in Delaware, had offices and warehouses in Illinois, California and Georgia, but didn’t have any bricks, mortar, employees, or sales representatives in North Dakota. It did, however, have 3,000 customers there and $1 million in annual sales, so North Dakota wanted Quill to collect tax on those sales.
The Court decided that North Dakota’s law was not permissible because the Constitution’s Commerce Clause protects against a state’s unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, unless Congress otherwise writes a law changing the rules. Since that decision, consumers, businesses and the free market have been protected from laws like the one North Dakota tried to impose, but now Congress is considering a law (S. 1832) that would overturn the Court’s decision and allow states to flip the switch on Internet taxation.
In a new paper [1], David S. Addington, Heritage’s Vice President for Domestic and Economic Policy, explains [1] why Congress should not change the rules on Internet and mail-order sales:

In the long run, the national economy as a whole benefits from allowing consumers to choose freely what they wish to buy, of whatever quality they wish, at whatever prices they choose to pay, and from whatever seller they wish, whether in the same state as the consumer or not.
Intervention by the federal government and the states in the consumers’ choices by enactment and implementation of S. 1832 would increase the revenues of states, but hobbling out-of-state businesses that sell through the Internet or mail order catalogs does not help the national economy.

Addington writes that it’s not surprising that states want a new source of revenue. After all, they’re struggling with their bloated budgets in this weak economy. But overriding the Quill decision would only give states an incentive to increase taxes instead of cutting the size, scope, and cost of government. And it would be consumers and businesses that pay the price.

There are business groups, too, who are lobbying for the law, arguing that it would protect “Main Street” retailers and “bricks and mortar” stores that are supposedly at a disadvantage. But, as Addington writes, “They seek enactment of S. 1832 so that states can prefer in-state businesses over out-of-state businesses in the kind of anti-competitive economic discrimination the U.S. Constitution was in part adopted to prevent.” What’s more, every sale of goods involves at least one physical facility located in one state or another, which means that those businesses already can be taxed by at least one state. In short, no one is “untaxable.”
At a time when the U.S. economy is struggling to get back on its feet, Congress should not enact a law that interferes with the independent decisions of millions of consumers in the free marketplace and overturns the settled expectations of businesses that have made market decisions under the current rules for two decades. And it shouldn’t give state governments a reason to take more money from taxpayers instead of getting their spending under control.
Quick Hits:

·         North Korea, which is poised to launch a long-range rocket, says that it should not be penalized for its action [2] and does not believe that the launch violates an agreement with the United States to put a moratorium on its weapons and nuclear tests.

·         The AFL-CIO’s super-PAC is preparing for election-year operations and plans to unveil a new tool that uses email and social media to organize voters [3]. So far, the super-PAC has raised $3.7 million.

·         Attorney General Eric Holder may say voter fraud isn’t a problem, but some in the city of Vernon, Calif., would disagree. The city’s Chamber of Commerce says nearly 30% of the registered voters in the city don’t actually live there [4], and charges of widespread voter fraud are plaguing the city’s recent election.

·         The fragile U.N.-backed ceasefire in Syria will face a major test tomorrow [5] as the Syrian people will gather for weekly prayers, a traditional rallying point for protesters in their uprising against the Assad government.

·         President Obama has proposed and enacted some seriously bad energy policies, but what are his worst offenses? We’ve compiled a list of Obama’s Ten Worst Energy Policies on The Foundry. [6]


Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation:
URL to article:
URLs in this post:


[1] In a new paper:

[2] says that it should not be penalized for its action:

[3] plans to unveil a new tool that uses email and social media to organize voters:

[4] nearly 30% of the registered voters in the city don’t actually live there:

[5] The fragile U.N.-backed ceasefire in Syria will face a major test tomorrow:

[6] We’ve compiled a list of Obama’s Ten Worst Energy Policies on The Foundry.:

on Obama: 'That Wild-Eyed, Socialist, Tax-Hiking Class Warrior Was Ronald Reagan' 

Another episode in the ongoing serial, which is going to summarily end in January of 2013, entitled "The Days of the Delusional Fraud in the White House."


The name of the game here is that when you don't have a record to run on, you must demonize all who dare to oppose you, and the good reasons why they do via your next litany of pathological lies, the generation of which is unbounded for the Obamunists!


Obama: 'That Wild-Eyed, Socialist, Tax-Hiking Class Warrior Was Ronald Reagan' 





Mr. Obama Is Claiming Reagan, Again Posted By Leslie Grimard On April 12, 2012 @ 1:00 pm In Entitlements |


Yesterday [1] President Obama tried to sell the “Buffett Rule” under a new moniker:

What Ronald Reagan was calling for then is the same thing that we’re calling for now: a return to basic fairness and responsibility; everybody doing their part. And if it will help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan Rule instead of the Buffett Rule.

Securing Ronald Reagan’s economic blessing is a new trend [2] among liberals. And no wonder: Ronald Reagan is one of the most popular presidents in modern times.
But what did Reagan really say about the tax rates of the millionaire and the bus driver? Reagan proposed: “We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that have allowed some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share, the loopholes” that “sometimes make it possible for millionaires to pay nothing.”
Reagan closed tax loopholes; President Obama wants to raise taxes.
President Obama does not acknowledge the profound difference between the “fair-share” solution Reagan sought in 1986 and the redistributionist tax hike he is proposing today. The 1986 law revolutionized the tax code by eliminating dozens of loopholes to make
all incomes taxable (Like the Paul Ryan [3] [R­–WI] tax reform plan). Reagan aimed to close tax loopholes, including the infamous three-martini lunch, but he never intended to take money from the small business owners who create the vast majority of American jobs.
It was Ronald Reagan who proposed the Economic Reform Tax Act [ERTA] of 1981, which
cut marginal tax cuts by 25 percent across the board and reduced the highest marginal tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent. Two years after ERTA was signed into law, America began almost two decades of robust economic growth.
Ronald Reagan knew from personal experience that if you raise taxes, you erect barriers to innovation and job creation. As a film star in the late ’40s and ’50s, Reagan was taxed at 91 percent, which caused him to remark: “Why should I have done [another] picture, even if it was
Gone with the Wind?…What good would it have done me?” Reagan would’ve made only 9 cents on the dollar.
His rationale for cutting taxes across the board was based on more than just personal experience. Reagan believed—and was proven correct—that, “taken together, tax cuts and budget cuts…will put us back on the road to a sound economy, with lower inflation, more growth, and a government that lives within its means. Our goal is a very simple one: to rebuild this Nation so that individual Americans can once again be the masters of their own destiny.”
Obama is not honoring Reagan’s economic legacy. The President [4] may see the same “Buffett” problem that Reagan saw, but he is proposing a radically different solution—one that will not work. Obama may not like it, but the real Reagan rule is that when you close loopholes and cut taxes for everyone—from the top to the bottom—everyone benefits.

Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation:
URL to article:
URLs in this post:


[1] Yesterday:

[2] new trend:

[3] Paul Ryan:

[4] President:,16641,20110207,00.html





The U.N. vs. George Zimmerman: Is this What “International Justice” Would Look Like? Posted By Steven Groves On April 12, 2012 @ 12:30 pm In American Leadership |[1]
One would think that Harvard Law School-educated NavanethemNaviPillay [2], a South African jurist and current United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights would have better things to do than get involved in the affairs of a democracy like the United States. Yet Pillay, who has served as a judge on the International Criminal Court and as the president of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, has made the same mistake many others have made: she has weighed in on the tragedy surrounding the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida.
The public, including Ms. Pillay, does not have the facts on the Martin case.  Sadly, that has not stopped many pundits and activists from commenting, likely to the detriment of the investigation.
But Pillay should know better. On a recent three-day swing through Barbados—not exactly known as a hotbed of human rights violations—Pillay took time to condemn the shooting [3] of Martin and demand action:

“As High Commissioner for Human Rights, I call for an immediate investigation.”

Perhaps Barbados does not carry U.S. news or have Internet access, because Pillay must not have heard that local authorities, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, and the Department of Justice are all conducting investigations into the shooting.
No matter, since Pillay seems content to skip the investigation and trial, and go straight to the punishment phase [4] of the proceeding:

“The law should operate equally in respect of all violations. So, like every other situation such as this, we will be urging an investigation, and prosecution and trial – and of course reparation for the victims concerned.”

The problem is that there can be no “reparation for the victims” unless and until a conviction has been attained against Zimmerman. While the shooter, George Zimmerman, was charged with second-degree murder last night [5], in the United States a defendant continues to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
The United States is a democracy where the rule of law is respected, not a backward nation run by despots. Doesn’t the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights have actual violations of human rights around the world to address? Maybe in Cuba, laughably a member of the U.N.’s Human Rights Council? From Barbados she wouldn’t have needed to look very far. Perhaps it was a slow news day in Barbados.
Pillay’s rash intervention into a controversial and volatile issue such as this speaks volumes about the careless attitude often displayed by U.N. officials. More troubling is Pillay’s seeming lack of knowledge (or perhaps respect for) such basic concepts as due process and the presumption of innocence. Is this the type of justice that Pillay was accustomed to at the international level when she served as a judge on the International Criminal Court?
Pillay’s irresponsible and uninformed outburst provides additional evidence, as if any were needed, why the United States should not expose itself to criminal proceedings at the International Criminal Court [6]. After all, with jurists like Pillay in charge, would American service personnel and military leaders stand much of a chance of receiving a fair trial?

Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation:
URL to article:
URLs in this post:


[1] Image:

[2] NavanethemNaviPillay:

[3] took time to condemn the shooting:

[4] skip the investigation and trial, and go straight to the punishment phase:

[5] charged with second-degree murder last night:

[6] the United States should not expose itself to criminal proceedings at the International Criminal Court:






Wonder what Obama thinks about Black Panthers?

Question not even allowed at daily news briefing


Ever wonder what Barack Obama and his Justice Department think of the New Black Panthers? You know, those folks who put a bounty on the “dead or alive” head of George Zimmerman, whose involvement in the shooting of Trayvon Martin has prompted calls for his prosecution.

It appears an answer is not forthcoming, after White House press secretary Jay Carney today declined to even allow the question to be asked.

It happened when Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House, attended the briefing and was prepared to ask two questions.

He wanted to know, “Does the president believe it is legal for the New Black Panthers to offer $10,000 ‘dead or alive’ for George Zimmerman, who they called a ‘child killer’ and warned Zimmerman ‘should be fearful for his life.’”

He also was prepared to ask, “Has the president any regret about his intervention in the case, when he said, ‘If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon?”

But Kinsolving was among the dozens of reporters at today’s briefings who were not allowed by Carney to participate by asking questions. AP and CNN were allowed four each and NBC, Bloomberg and American Urban Radio were allowed three each.

The issue was, however, raised in the Washington Times.


In an editorial there, the newspaper asked just “What is it about the Justice Department and the Black Panthers?”

“On March 24, Mikhail Muhammad, leader of the New Black Panther Party, offered a $10,000 bounty for the ‘capture’ of George Zimmerman, who shot and killed Trayvon Martin. The Panthers distributed wanted posters, calling him a ‘child killer’ and offering the bounty ‘dead or alive.’ Muhammad warned that Mr. Zimmerman ‘should be fearful for his life.’”

Continued the editorial, “These acts were almost certainly criminal. Florida Code 787.01 makes it a felony to threaten someone or abduct them with the intent to terrorize. Florida Code 777.04 further criminalizes solicitation which ‘commands, encourages, hires or requests another person’ to engage in criminal activity such as kidnapping.”

The issue reflects some of the fundamental beliefs of Obama, the commentary said.

“This scandal offers an opportunity for the Obama administration to show it can act impartially and calm racial tensions. So far, the White House has failed to lead on the issue. President Obama’s high-profile public statement – ‘If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon’ – was bizarre and seemed to show undue bias. Taking swift action against those who seek to incite racial violence would demonstrate that the federal government enforces the law without prejudice.”

The commentary noted Zimmerman’s family has asked Attorney General Eric Holder why has his office not arrested the New Black Panther Party members for hate crimes.

“Since when can a group of people put a bounty on someone’s head, circulate Wanted posters publicly, and still be walking the streets?” the newspaper asked.

It was reported that Michelle Williams, of the party, drew back from her earlier comments that, “My prize right now this evening … is gonna be the bounty, the arrest, dead or alive, or George Zimmerman. You feel me?”


An earlier Obama DOJ statement on the same party came shortly after the 2008 election.

See the video:

Then, WND reported, in Philadelphia, a case was brought against the organization and several individuals who witnesses say derided voters with catcalls of “white devil” and “cracker” and told them they should prepare to be “ruled by the black man.”


One poll watcher called police after he reportedly saw one of the men brandishing a nightstick to threaten voters.

“As I walked up, they closed ranks, next to each other,” the witness told Fox News at the time. “So I walked directly in between them, went inside and found the poll watchers. They said they’d been here for about an hour. And they told us not to come outside because a black man is going to win this election no matter what.”

He said the man with a nightstick told him, “‘We’re tired of white supremacy,’ and he starts tapping the nightstick in his hand. At which point I said, ‘OK, we’re not going to get in a fistfight right here,’ and I called the police.”

Subsequently, former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that the Voting Section of Holder’s organization is dominated by a “culture of hostility” toward bringing cases against blacks and other minorities who violate voting-rights laws.

Further, two other former U.S. Department of Justice attorneys later corroborated key elements of the explosive allegations by Adams.

One of Adams’ DOJ colleagues, former Voting Section trial attorney Hans A. von Spakovsky, told WND he saw Adams was being attacked in the media for lack of corroboration. He said he knew Adams was telling the truth, so he decided on his own to step forward.

Adams had been ordered by his superiors to drop the case prosecutors already had won against the New Black Panthers. When they were ordered to stop prosecution, Adams and the team of DOJ lawyers had already won the case by default because the New Black Panthers declined to defend themselves in court. At that point in the proceedings, the DOJ team was simply waiting for the judge to assign penalties against the New Black Panthers.




Unfortunately Named the Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009
 Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Full Story


Unelected Bureaucrats, Death Panels, IRS

Unfortunately Named the Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009



- Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh  

Chance brought across my path an old friend, Dr. March, whom I had not seen in four years. During the last conversation, he was trying to convince me that electing President Obama would be a positive turn in the history of our country, particularly after the “dreadful Republican Bush.”

I do not see people so much as belonging to the Republican or Democrat Party, but as promoters and believers of a particular social and fiscal ideology. Occasionally, Congress members of either party share identical beliefs and vote the same way, regardless of the D or R after their names. They no longer represent the will of the people who elected them, but the will of the corporate interests and the lobby groups.

Many uninformed and ordinary Americans vote on their perceived understanding of the issues after watching biased commercials and presentations. Some Americans vote on family traditions. Other Americans vote for the most telegenic of the candidates, or whoever promises most welfare.

As a medical doctor and an academician, Dr. March argued at the time that Obamacare could not possibly destroy our medical system and make it any worse because it was already in a mess with so many insurance companies, in dire need of tort reform, with so much bureaucracy and daunting paperwork, requiring full time staff to deal with insurance plans.

No to worry, this week we found out that 4,000 new IRS agents will be hired to handle Obamacare. A nagging question kept swirling in my head, what does health care have to do with tax collectors? Is health care a tax? Why would tax collectors be part of the decision to treat people medically or perform surgery on patients?

According to The Hill, “the Obama administration is quietly diverting roughly $500 million to the IRS to help implement the president’s healthcare law. The money is only part of the IRS’s total implementation spending and it is being provided outside the normal appropriations process. The tax agency is responsible for several key provisions of the new law, including the unpopular individual mandate.” (The Hill, April 9, 2012)

Dr. March told me what a hard time his medical students were having finding jobs after spending $50,000 each year for a degree and how we are not going to have many primary care providers left – nobody will be willing to go to medical school if jobs are hard to find and salaries are capped by The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. He was bemoaning the fact that a lot of our healthcare will be provided by nurses and will thus be inadequate and lacking.

His solution was rather perplexing – find a president who is fiscally conservative and socially progressive. The pronouncement struck me as illogical and impossible, as I see those two as polar opposites. You cannot be fiscally conservative and spend money on social programs lavishly without going bankrupt at some point.

I did not dare ask him what his presidential choice would be in November. It is impolite to ask such questions unless a person volunteers the information. He did mention that his wife voted for Ron Paul in the primaries. Both had voted cheerfully and eagerly for Obama in 2008.

When I told him how corrupt the socialized medical care system was in Romania, 23 years after the fall of communism, he agreed that most good doctors in the former iron curtain nations left for other places where they were paid based on merit and not on a central government salary decree. Only doctors who accepted bribes to supplement their salaries stayed behind to deliver care to the population.

There are not enough doctors and nurses left behind, and people do not have enough money for bribes in countries where medical care is free but care and drugs must be rationed. At some point there is not enough “free everything” to go around.

Socialized medical care in Western Europe’s nations fares slightly better. Doctors are still paid a government capped salary, there is rationing of care, long waiting lists for procedures, and gross negligence in hospitals. When patients have sniffles, everyone is treated, no problem. That is when free medical care works best. When more expensive procedures and long-term care become an issue, rationing ensues, depending on the patient’s age.

Dr. March was not aware that Muslims are exempt from the requirements of The Affordable Health Care Choice Act but will be full beneficiaries of free health care paid by the rest of us, a blatant form of dhimmitude.

Because health care has become so expensive in Germany and birth rates are going down, Chancellor Angela Merkel is considering an extra tax on young people in order to support the pensions and health care costs of the burgeoning older population. Could that become a future issue in the U.S.?

The cost of Obamacare has been purposefully misrepresented. A recent and more accurate report doubles the cost. This does not take into account the 1,500 plus exemptions offered to many crony capitalists for a year.

Dr. March was not incensed by the fact that faith-based hospitals will be forced to provide abortion on demand or that contraceptives are considered health rights.

Obamacare is not about providing affordable healthcare choices, it is about government control by unelected bureaucrats

Obamacare is not about providing affordable healthcare choices, it is about government control by unelected bureaucrats with no medical degrees or training over hospital admissions, payments to doctors, medical devices, and forcing private insurance companies out of business. It is about the most massive transfer of power to the executive branch of the government.

The law rations care to seniors and other classes of citizens and gives free health care to illegal immigrants.  Free abortion services under Obamacare forces participation in abortions by members of the medical profession who find the procedure highly objectionable.

Dr. March concluded with an interesting observation, that, in the D.C. area, Republicans who live in Virginia and Democrats who live in Maryland are two distinct groups at odds in the fight over Obamacare while the rest of the country supports Obamacare. Perhaps a biased poll gave credence to his belief, but the polls I read show the majority of the U.S. legal population against Obamacare.

It is a moot point if you are for or against Obamacare. It is already the law, the bureaucracy is already in place to completely overhaul and destroy the best care in the world, and we are waiting on the Supreme Court to weigh in with their opinion in June, which is likely to determine that the law is constitutional. We, the “units,” will see each other in line at the IRS office begging for healthcare, surgery, and pain pills or petitioning the 15-member non-medical “death panel” for mercy.




Obama’s “Fairness” Equals Socialism
J.D. Longstreet Full Story

Redistribution of the Nation's Wealth

Obama’s “Fairness” Equals Socialism



- J.D. Longstreet  

On the tenth of April, 2012, at the Florida Atlantic University, President Obama stated:  “This is not some socialist dream ... ”  I would beg to disagree.  That is exactly what it is.  And it is HIS dream, not mine, and it is not a dream the majority of Americans share.

It doesn’t take a college degree in politics and/or government to know socialism when you see it, especially for my generation.  We grew up fighting it. I mean, we literally took up arms against socialism.

Today in America, socialism has a death grip on the Oval Office of the President of the United States.  Far from fighting socialism, as a President of a free country ought to do, Obama has embraced it and is now proselytizing for socialism.  He sounds more like a missionary sent from the old Soviet Union to bring America the gospel of socialism than he does the president of a capitalist, democratic country.  Sad to say, Obama resembles Hugo Chavez more every day.

President Obama, who has been calling for tax increases on the wealthy in America to “spread the wealth around,” is vehemently denying that his tax increases on the rich are an attempt to “redistribute wealth.” 

The President of the United States is telling us a lie. And it is a malicious lie, because he KNOWS he is lying!

Let me state this as clearly and concisely as I can:  The President of the United States is telling us a lie. And it is a malicious lie, because he KNOWS he is lying!

Redistribution of a nation’s wealth IS socialism, period. 

Look.  Those of us who went to private and parochial schools (and even to public schools before the federal government moved in and “dumbed-down” the curriculum) can read, write, and reason.  We KNOW what socialism is—and we know he is lying!

However, we make a mistake by thinking that Obama is talking to us.  He is not.  He is talking to his base, the voters who put him in office in 2008.  Governor Chris Christie, of New Jersey, nailed it just a few day ago.  Paraphrasing, he said, we have become a people sitting on the couch waiting for the government check to arrive.  And THAT is Obama’s base.

What do they care what kind of government the United States has?  Just keep those checks rolling in, babe! 

Obama wants to take money from the “Makers” and give it to the “Takers.”  When a government takes money from the job creators, it means fewer jobs will be created.  That is just basic economics.  I learned in high school.

Here’s a truism for you: Any time you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can count on the support of Paul!  Obama is counting on that support.

Remember back in 2008 when Obama was running for his first term as President and he told “Joe the Plumber” the following:  “I’m gonna cut taxes a little bit more for the folks who are most in need and for the 5 percent of the folks who are doing very well – even though they’ve been working hard and I appreciate that – I just want to make sure they’re paying a little bit more in order to pay for those other tax cuts.”  He was speaking to Samuel Wurzelbacher (aka Joe the Plumber).  By the way, Samuel, or “Joe,” is now running for Congress—as a republican.  Joe got the message.  He saw the threat in what Obama said.

Obama is STILL preaching his message of socialism for America

Nothing has changed since 2008.  Obama is STILL preaching his message of socialism for America, only he is being very careful not to use the words “socialism” or “socialist”— except— when denying he is one—which he most assuredly is.

Obama is spoon-feeding socialism to his base and they are lapping it up!

“I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”  Obama said that back in 2008 and it made cold chills race up and down my spine.

America has seven months, only seven months, to decide if she wants to live free or die in slavery.  The choice could not be clearer. 

Now that the GOP candidate has been chosen, not officially, but chosen, nevertheless, it is time to turn all republican political guns on Obama and spread the word that the man is an out and out socialist and his agenda for America is to trash capitalism, which he believes has failed, and institute socialism. 

Conservative voters must convince America that we are in a fight for freedom

Conservative voters must convince America that we are in a fight for freedom.  What was once a fight to restore America has now become a fight for the very life, the very existence, of a free America.

The fight would be more energized if the GOP had a candidate that could light a fire in the hearts of conservatives.  It is conservatives who provide the energy in republican campaigns.  But, sadly,  we don’t.  As some wizen head one said: “We go to war with the army we have.”  And we have Romney—who does not inspire conservatives one iota.

If conservatives are to make a difference in the coming election, we have to forget about Romney and concentrate on voting against Obama.  THAT should be the battle cry. 

As much as I personally dislike Mr. Romney, I just don’t believe he would knowingly do anything that would threaten freedom and democracy in America.  I cannot say that about Obama.

At this moment in history, voters must concentrate, not so much on restoring America,  but on SAVING America.  To do that, Obama MUST be defeated in November.




Here’s who Democrat hitwoman Hilary Rosen visited at the White House, including at least 5 POTUS meetings



By Michelle Malkin  •  April 12, 2012 10:57 AM
White House visitor logs show that Hilary Rosen, the DC lobbyist/Anita Dunn colleague who attacked Ann Romney’s stay-at-home-mom status on CNN last night, visited 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. at least 35 times.
(Remember: White House logs are an inaccurate measure of ACTUAL White House visits, as liberal media outlets/watchdogs themselves have reported and as I’ve reminded you many times.)
White House Visitor Records Requests

Powered by Socrata
More illuminating than the number of visits is the info about who Hilary Rosen visited.
The records are a mess, so let me break it down for you:
3/11/09 Meeting with White House consigliere Valerie Jarrett.
3/13/09 Meeting with David Axelrod.
3/30/09 Meeting with top Big Labor operative and political director Patrick Gaspard.
9/21/09 Meeting w/Natalie Bookey, East Wing aide, and unidentified visitee.
10/8/09 Meeting with WH senior press lead, Jesse Lewin.
10/13/09 Meeting with POTUS — President Barack Obama.
10/22/09 Meeting with Anita Dunn, former WH communications director.
10/28/09 Meeting with POTUS in the East Room.
11/25/09 Unidentified East Wing (First Lady Michelle Obama’s office) meeting.
1/26/10 Rosen visited Dagoberta Vega, White House broadcasting media official and director of surrogate booking.
2/1/10 Rosen visited top White House official Jim Messina, now Obama’s 2012 campaign manager.
2/24/10 Rosen visited White House consigliere Valerie Jarrett.
3/24/10 Rosen visited White House consigliere Valerie Jarrett.
7/7/10 Meeting w/Jocelyn Frye, East Wing aide.
12/10/10 Rosen visited Ellie Schafer, White House Visitors Office director, in the East Wing.
12/10/10 Meeting with POTUS.
9/8/11 Meeting with Kristina Schake, East Wing aide.
12/7/11 Meeting w/POTUS and Marie Aberger, White House press assistant.
12/7/11 Meeting with Ellie Schafer, White House Visitors Office director.
1/6/11 Meeting w/Dagoberta Vega, White House broadcasting media official and director of surrogate booking.
1/21/11 Meeting w/Meredith Carden, an aide to First Lady Michelle Obama, Old Executive Office Building.
1/24/11 Meeting w/Samuel Wilson, deputy director of broadcast media for the White House office of communications.
1/28/11 Meeting w/Jason Dempsey, White House fellow.
2/2/11 Meeting w/Obama bundler and top aide to both POTUS and FLOTUS, Tina Tchen.
2/24/11 Meeting w/POTUS.
2/24/11 Meeting at WH Visitors Office.
2/14/11 Meeting w/Samuel Wilson, deputy director of broadcast media for the White House office of communications.
3/19/11 Meeting w/Alexader Lasry,strategic engagement aide.
3/18/11 Two meetings listed with Jeremy Bernard, White House social secretary.
6/15/11 Meeting w/Dag Vega, WH surrogate booking director.
8/5/11 Meeting w/Ellie Schafer, WH Visitors Office director.
Plus: 12/15/09 – 12/15/10 – 12/15/11 — Incomplete entries, no visitee identified.
Bottom line: For the last three years, Hilary Rosen has met nearly three dozen times with top Obama communications and political strategists from Valerie Jarrett to David Axelrod to Anita Dunn to Jim Messina to the president himself.
Any notion that her frontal assault on GOP women was an accident or lone wolf move is contradicted by the long paper trail of her intimate working relationship with the White House campaign/media team. The data also puts the disavowals of Messina/Axelrod last night into much-needed perspective.
They can’t disassociate themselves from one of their most frequent visitors and associates.
They just never expected the fierce online/social media pushback they got from conservative women, who are beating them at their own medium.
Naturally, Hilary Rosen is out with a new piece on CNN deriding GOP moms again and calling their outrage fake.

A non-apology apology from Hilary Rosen

April 12, 2012 02:21 PM by Michelle Malkin


She apologizes if she “offended” anyone with her attack on Ann Romney and women who stay at home to raise their children.
Spoken like a true good ol’ Beltway boy schooled in blame-avoiding politics as usual.
I especially love how her apology continues her attack on conservative women by accusing them of “faux” outrage…even as First Lady Michelle Obama herself chimed in this morning to make clear she supports all mothers and create cover for herself.
Keep digging, Ms. Rosen. Keep digging.




Obama speeches 'exactly same' a year apart


Obama speeches 'exactly same' a year apart

Side-by-side comparison shows extremely similar wording


author-imageby Joe Kovacs

When it comes to politicians, they often say the same thing over and over.

That statement is taken to a new level when comparing budget speeches from President Obama, one from 2011 and one from 2012.

The Republican National Committee has produced a video showing separate speeches a year apart from Obama talking about financial issues.

The strange thing is that the sentences uttered by the president are virtually identical.

 “During moments of great challenge and change like the one that we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper and it gets more vigorous,” Obama said in a speech on the House budget in 2011.

On April 3, 2012, Obama parroted himself, saying, “During moments of great challenge and great change like the ones that we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper, it gets more vigorous.”

As the speech continues, there are only very minor variations in the precise wording.

“The speech is exactly the same,” wrote blogger Eric Odom at LibertyNews.

“I watch a LOT of videos throughout each week. Many of them are outright damning of Obama, his administration and his campaign. But I don’t think any make it more obvious that Obama is a man without ideas or a plan than this one.”

He added: “Why is it the RNC is catching this and the media isn’t? Nevermind. That’s something we all already know.”

Earlier this year, the RNC produced another video highlighting repeated phrases and sentences from Obama’s State of the Union addresses from 2010, 2011 and 2012:

The president’s overuse of the same terminology has even caught the eye of Thomas Buch-Andersen, host of the Danish TV show “Detektor,” who mocked Obama’s political rhetoric in a recent episode. As seen from White House video, the president has a special liking for the boxing analogy “punching above its weight”:

If you’d like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WND Poll.






radio microphone


Astronauts blast NASA in 'climate-change' rebellion

Apollo 7's Cunningham among dozens condemning agency for 'politicizing science'

In recent years, NASA officials have spoken up frequently in defense of the theory that human activity is adding too much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and is dangerously elevating the Earth’s temperatures.
But that belief is not universal in the nation or even within NASA.  That’s why a large group of former astronauts and Johnson Space Center officials are pleading with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden to stop presenting an unproven contention as settled science.
“The global-warming hypothesis has never been proved … look at the data,” Apollo 7 astronaut Walt Cunningham told WND.
Cunningham says the space agency has no business wading into a politically charged debate and believes the prestige of NASA is being used to achieve political goals that are not good for America.
“We’re concerned by the politicizing of science. NASA is ruining the reputation that we all helped to established over the last 40 or 50 years because they’re taking a position that’s not substantiated by scientific data.”
Cunningham also offers his thoughts on the end of manned space flights here in the U.S. and what the priorities of our space program ought to be.
“The cancellation of the space shuttle is probably the single biggest mistake NASA has made in their 50-year history. It is the safest and most capable vehicle ever developed and now we’re going back to try to reinvent the wheel.
“We’re not pushing ahead to be the best in the world anymore.”

on Shovel Ready: Gov’t Spent $205,075 to ‘Translocate’ One Shrub from Path of San Fran Stimulus Project  

What this story proves beyond a shadow of a doubt is that "common sense" has been long since extinct in this country since 2009 with Obama's stimuli to nowhere other than his private stash which the terminally dumbed-down are on record as believing that Obama will share with them!

Shovel Ready: Gov’t Spent $205,075 to ‘Translocate’ One Shrub from Path of San Fran Stimulus Project  

(Photo: Michael Chasse/National Park Service)