Daily Thought Pad

The 11th Commandment

2012-01-29T23:22:00.001-08:00

There’s a whole lot of breaking Ronald Reagan’s 11the commandment going on these days by Messrs. Gingrich and Romney and others.

Reagan’s goal was to prevent a repeat of liberal Republicans attacks on Barry Goldwater which contributed to Goldwater's defeat in the 1964 presidential election.

Reagan’s 11^th commandment went like this, “Thou shall not speak ill of any fellow republicans.”

I had lunch one day with Reagan and heard him break his commandment.

I was chief of staff to U.S. States Senator James Buckley. One day in the 1970s, I had the great pleasure of lunching with Reagan in a restaurant near the White House.

Reagan was with a political aide and I was with my boss the senator, a strong conservative. I was his chief of staff.

Reagan brought up the name Jacob Javits, the senior senator from New York and probably the most liberal in the senate at the time. Javits was elected in the 60s and made the cover of liberal Time Magazine. “He’s bad. What are we going to do with

Javits?” Reagan asked.

I suggested the only person that could beat Javits at the time was Jack Kemp, a very popular Congressman from Buffalo, New York. Every one agreed. I

I talked to Kemp. He said he would think it over. He thought and concluded he had the safest seat in the state and didn’t want to lose it. Had he run and defeated Javits, he easily could have been elected president if he had served one or two term in the senate. He did make it to the White House as a member of George H.W. Bush’s cabinet. Kemp was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009 by President Obama.

by Leonard Saffir is a journalist, author and Chairman of the Florida Hall of Fame and of PR on a Budget.

**The difference between what is going on today and this incident is that Reagan was conferencing with his team working for a solution to what he saw as a problem. What we are now seeing is the GOP candidates ripping each other apart in public. And the candidate who insists that he is one of Reagan’s inside men is perhaps the worst of the offenders.**

Allen West to Obama, Reid, Pelosi: ‘Get the Hell Out of the United States of America’

2012-01-29T22:49:00.001-08:00

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) said Saturday President Barack Obama and other liberals should "get the hell out of the United States of America." (AP)

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) had a strong message Saturday for President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “Get the hell out.”

West made the comments during a speech at a Palm Beach County GOP event in West Palm Beach.

“This is a battlefield that we must stand upon. And we need to let President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and my dear friend, chairman of the Democrat National Committee, we need to let them know that Florida ain’t on the table,” West said.

The audience was booing by the time West got to Pelosi’s name.

“Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else,” he continued. “You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”

As the audience cheered and many rose to their feet, West added, “Yeah I said ‘hell.’”

“This is not about 1 percent or 99 percent. This is about 100 percent. It’s about 100 percent America. And I will not stand back and watch anyone defame, degrade or destroy that which my father fought for, my older brother, my father-in-law, myself, my nephew and all my friend still in uniform,” he said.

“I will not allow President Obama to take the United States of America and destroy it. If that means I’m the No. 1 target for the Democrat Party, all I got to say is one thing: Bring it on, baby.”

Video: Rep. Allen West - "Obama, Reid, Pelosi, get the hell out of the USA" - 28 January 2012

The Blaze

It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.” -Sam Adams

If you want wisdom read one chapter of Proverbs every day and never stop. Greg Badger

Newt Gingrich Re-Writes His Reagan Connections and Video Where He Bad-Mouths Ronald Reagan in 1988

2012-01-28T16:56:00.001-08:00

Video: Newt Gingrich bad-mouths Ronald Reagan in 1988

Newt Rewrites His Reagan Connection

In 1995, when Newt Gingrich first became speaker of the House, Bob Dole was already on the threshold of becoming the longest-serving Senate Republican leader in U.S. history. Relations between the two GOP leaders, which were never chummy, were not helped by Gingrich's openly disparaging Bob Dole as "the tax collector for the welfare state."

Barely two years later, after having been chosen Time magazine's Man of the Year, Gingrich had plummeted in public esteem to where, in a CBS-New York Times poll, just 14 percent of voters had favorable personal feelings toward the speaker.

This prompted an apocryphal Washington exchange between a perplexed Gingrich and Dole. "Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?" asked a perplexed Gingrich, to whom Dole bluntly explained: "Because it saves them time."

Watching the last televised candidates debate before the Jan. 3 Iowa presidential caucuses, and hearing Newt Gingrich once again invoke the name and record of President Ronald Reagan as well as his own close relationship with Reagan, reminded me that Dole wasn't the only one on the receiving end of Gingrich's barbs.

At the Reagan presidential library this fall, Gingrich boasted of how "I helped Reagan create millions of jobs while he was president." And after modestly acknowledging his own less significant role than Reagan's, added, "We helped defeat the Soviet empire." Unmentioned by Gingrich then, or in any of the 2,414 debates during this campaign, was his 1985 criticism of President Reagan's historic meeting with Mikhail Gorbachev as "the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with (British Prime Minister) Chamberlain at Munich in 1938."

In an interview on CNBC, Gingrich recently emphasized his close identification with the nation's 40th president: "I've done a movie on Ronald Reagan called 'Rendezvous With Destiny.' Callista and I did.

We've done a book on Ronald Reagan. You know I campaigned with Reagan. I first met Reagan in '74. I'm very happy to talk about Ronald Reagan."

Just like when Newt went to the House floor during the Gipper's second White House term and declared the president's Soviet policy a "failure." Here is what Gingrich said: "Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire's challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing and without a dramatic, fundamental change in strategy will continue to fail. ... The burden of the failure frankly must be placed first upon President Reagan."

This was after Gingrich, as reported in the Congressional Record, had found Reagan responsible for our national "decay": "Beyond the obvious indicators of decay, the fact is that President Reagan has lost control of the national agenda." Students of Newt-speak will recognize that by "decay," Gingrich was generally referring to factors such as crime, illegitimate births and illiteracy.

These blatant contradictions between what Congressman Gingrich actually said at the time about President Reagan and what Candidate Gingrich now offers as fictitious reminiscences of his unwavering allegiance to Reagan remind me of one of the former speaker's own broadsides against Washington, D.C. "In this cold and ruthless city," he once said, "the center of hypocrisy is Capitol Hill." Newt Gingrich is quite obviously an expert on both subjects.

To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM BY MARK SHIELDS

In the Reagan Diaries, Ronnie mentions Gingrich only once and sparingly…

The one mention of Newt Gingrich in The Reagan Diaries (The Reagan Diaries Unabridged) is in Chapter 3, which covers 1983, on page 123 in the book:

"Newt Gingrich has a proposal for freezing the budget at the 1983 level. It's a tempting idea except that it would cripple our defense programs. And if we make an exception on that every special interest group will be asking for the same."

Tantrum on the Tarmac

2012-01-28T13:21:00.001-08:00

Gov. Jan Brewer gives Obama the wrong finger…

On a beautiful day in sunny Arizona (one of my favorite states), a thin-skinned man-child, who fancies himself king, skipped down the steps of his 747 to meet with Governor Jan Brewer.

Video: Jan Brewer - Obama Very Thin Skinned

Brewer stood toe to toe with Obama and didn’t back down an inch. As I understand it, she gave him a letter welcoming him to the Grand Canyon State, which he disdainfully tossed into his waiting power mobile after barely glancing at it. He let Brewer know just how unhappy he was with her new book “Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America’s Border.” Oh, how appropriate is the title, Jan! Scorpions indeed.

From Hot Air:

Here’s a bit about the Obama passage in Brewer’s book that has The One so exercised. Our Barack, “condescending” and “patronizing”? Again, go figure:

“It was though President Obama thought he could lecture me, and I would learn at his knee,” the governor wrote, calling his tone “patronizing.”

“He thinks he can humor me and then get rid of me,” Brewer wrote.

Questioned about the different description, the governor said she did not lie.

“I mean, we weren’t yelling at one another, screaming at one another,” she said.

“But it was a pretty one-sided conversation,” Brewer said. “He was, I believe, condescending. And he was lecturing me about what we were going to do and how we were going to do it.”

It sounds … so unlike him.

Right… I think our dear leader needs to go nappy-bye or maybe have a time-out. Someone seems a bit cranky.

The petite blond governor stuck her finger in the Marxist-in-Chief’s chest and informed him that the book was simply the truth. Sucks to be you, huh, Obama? Obama was asked if he read the book and admitted he only read excerpts. But darn it! The excerpts were sorely unflattering and Obama wasn’t going to let Brewer get away without knowing how ‘dissed’ he felt. He then cut her off in mid-sentence, turned his back on her and stomped off. How very presidential.

From Drudge:

“He was a little disturbed about my book, Scorpions for Breakfast. I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt. So.”

Asked what aspect of the book disturbed him, Brewer said: “That he didn’t feel that I had treated him cordially. I said I was sorry he felt that way but I didn’t get my sentence finished. Anyway, we’re glad he’s here. I’ll regroup.”…

She said the president brought up the book.

“I thought we probably would’ve talked about the things that were important to him and important to me, helping one another. Our country is upside down. Arizona was upside down. But we have turned it around. I know again that he loves this country and I love this country.”…

He appeared to walk away from her while they were still talking, and she confirmed that by saying she didn’t finish her sentence.

Here’s the letter that Brewer gave him:

Transcript:

Dear Mr. President,

Welcome to Arizona!

You‘ve arrived in a state at the forefront of America’s recovery — and her future. We were at the brink. We were at the bottom of the list in job creation. Today, we have a balanced budget and we’re in the top 10 for job creation.

I’m proud of that hard-won recovery — the result of many tough decisions, courage and perseverance.
My hope is while you are here you will have a chance to see our tremendous results first hand.

We both love the great country, but we fundamentally disagree on how to best make America grow and prosper once again. I‘d love an opportunity to share with you how we’ve been able to turn Arizona around with hard choices that turned out to be the right ones.

And, of course, my offer to visit the border — and buy lunch — still stands!

With respect,

Jan

Well I can certainly see how a wee tyrannical dictator would get his itty bitty feelings hurt. Oh, the cruelty! What a freaking drama queen. Brewer called Obama “patronizing” and “condescending.” I’ll bet – she was way too kind. She left out arrogant, petulant, elitist and a whole list of other adjectives that come to mind. You just know that the book has been eating at him and he planned his attack and timing for maximum effect, thinking he would embarrass the governor. It backfired and Obama came off as a spoiled toddler throwing a tantrum on the tarmac. I’m just thankful his lordship didn’t have Brewer beheaded on the spot. I’m sure he was tempted. Maybe later.

Brewer would make a better president – at least she has a set…

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton – The NoisyRoom

Food Fights and Class Warfare

2012-01-28T12:47:00.001-08:00

There was a time when full tables signified prosperity and thick waistlines were considered attractive. The ability to eat one's fill was what separated the gentry from the peasant making do with a few crusts and salted leftovers. Fat was in because it represented leisure and wealth. Thin meant you were on the road to the poorhouse or to consumption, which meant your body was being consumed, not that you were the one doing the consuming.

Then feudalism went the way of the dodo, agriculture was revolutionized and starvation went extinct in the West. Between the widespread availability of cheap food and social welfare programs covering everything from soup kitchens to food stamps, it became hard to starve. Not only was the availability of food no longer associated with prosperity, but even the poor had begun to eat so well that fat began to carry working class and lower class associations.

Fat was no longer wealth, instead conscientious fitness became a mark of prosperity. The laden table made way for micro portions and exotic but barely edible foods. Thin was in on the plate and the waistline.

In Third World countries where feudalism never ended and the agriculture revolution never mattered, the values often never flipped. Instead of anorexia, teenage girls suffer from being force fed to make them more marriageable. The wealthy are fat and the feasts at the top never end.

In the West, weight stands in for class, at a time when explicit classism has become politically incorrect. When Europeans sneer at how fat Americans are, and American coastal elites sneer at the rest of the country for being fat, it's a class putdown that dressed up longstanding contempt in the colors of the welfare state.

Just because the left and its class warfare worldview, which pretends to be concerned about the plight of the underclass, dominates Western societies does not mean that it is not classist. The left is elitist and its underclass protectionism creates a new wave feudalism with a vast government funded upper and middle class dedicated to caring for the underclass, subsidizing it, caring for it and taxing it to pay for all those services.

The obesity concern trolling is a combination of classism and nanny statism that brings to mind the days when their ideological forebears thought that the way to deal with the poor was to sterilize those who seemed less capable than the rest to improve the breed. There is something equally Darwinian in the sneers aimed at Paula Deen. The breed being culled while the elites try to teach their less evolved cousins to survive by eating their arugula.

The nanny state is built on a technocratic confidence in the ability to create one size fits all solutions, overlaying that on a map of the current medical wisdom leads to the creation of single standards, which often have less to do with health than they do with the status symbols of the leisure class. 19th century popularized medicine created so many of these fads that some of them are still around today. The 20th century created even more.

Death though is not only inevitable, but it cannot be dodged with a one size fits all standard. Fitness guru Jim Fixx who helped kickstart the running craze died in his early fifties of a heart attack. Fixx had quit smoking and lost weight, and still died at an early age. Jackie Gleason who spent his life looking like a walking health attack, smoking and drinking, outlived him by nearly twenty years.

Medicine is individual and the collectivization of medicine is a technocratic solution that leads nowhere except to few doctors and ranks of unionized medical personnel nudging patients into following the script handed down to them by professors who have never actually practiced medicine a day in their life. This is the outcome of a nanny state outlook that sees individuals as dispensable, that is concerned only with group outcomes.

This view requires seeing all people as endowed with certain problems that require broad stroke solutions, like adding calories to menus and other rats in a maze tactics designed to modify human behavior on a national level. The targeting of fast food restaurants, public school meals and food stamps reeks of the same elitist arrogance that drives the nanny state.

The politicization of food by the elites of the left always comes down to class, no matter how it may be disguised in liberal colors. From exotic to locally grown, the trajectory of food politics follows the upselling of food prices The only difference is that the dominance of the left has wrapped the added cost with no added value in their own politics. The more affordable food becomes, the more the left finds ways to add cost to food, without adding value.

But the politicization of food goes beyond the fair trade and locally grown fetishes of the politically correct elites, the more politics ends up on your plate, the more the elites are driven to involve everyone else in their food fights. What begins as a way of raising prices while diminishing value to assert wealth and privilege becomes imposed on everyone in the name of their political morality. Once everyone else is paying more and getting less, then the classist left demands new ways to set its superior moral eating habits apart. Instead of everyone ending up with more food, everyone ends up with less.

The cultural ascendance of the left has meant that instead of conspicuous consumption, the consumption has to be disguised with conspicuous political pieties. The food may cost twice as much, but it's locally grown on a farm run by handicapped union workers who visit Cuba to receive free health care or by the indigenous peoples of Tuba-Tuba with the proceeds going to a complete sonic library of their chants and ceremonies. The entire thing is meaningfully meaningless, but it disguises the consumption in a hairshirt, which is the entire point.

Conspicuous consumption is now for the poor while conspicuous conservation is for liberal elites. Al Gore may live in a mansion but he still has the carbon footprint of a mouse. The problem is the truck driver whose vehicle emissions are killing the planet. Whole Foods is just fine, but we need to do something about McDonald's.

Conspicuous conservationism has made America a poorer country, destroyed millions of jobs and outsourced them overseas. Now it's beginning to make America a hungrier country. In a moment of horrifying tone deafness that makes Marie Antoinette seem enlightened, the left is cheering that fewer Americans are eating meat, without seeming to understand that it's because fewer Americans are able to afford it because of their economic policies.

What the left's food police can't accomplish with nudges and shaming, they can finish off with policies and regulations that end up raising the price of food or by making it too difficult to sell. As the left tries and fails to sell the general public on conservation as a status symbol, it moves in the heavy bureaucratic artillery.

It isn't unusual for elites to use the legal system to enforce their own values on the general public, though it was the kind of thing that the universal franchise was supposed to put a leash on, but there is something grim about their growing preoccupation with the habits and mortality of the population. It's the kind of concern that has a habit of ending in eugenics and the more medicine is universalized, the easier it is to start cutting off access to medical treatment for those who haven't been nudged far enough in the right direction.

Social medicine politicizes food consumption and a globalized economy politicizes food production. And the politicized American plate has less on it and at a higher price. While the left obsessively pursues its mission of destroying fast food in the name of lowering social medicine costs and being fairer to farmers, what they are truly accomplishing is to take affordable and filling food off the shelves, as they have done with countless other products that they have targeted.

By the time the left was done with Russia, it had gone from a wheat producer to a wheat importer and many basic food staples were hard to come by even in a country filled with collective farms. Finding modern day examples of that isn't hard. We only have to look as far south as Venezuela to see empty store shelves under the weight of government food policies. But one day that may be the local grocery store if the left gets its way.

By Daniel Greenfield at Sultan Knish - Cross-Posted at True Health is True Wealth - h/t to TMH of the NoisyRoom

Hillary Leaving as Obama’s Eligibility Trial(s) Move Forward… Coincidence?

2012-01-27T19:03:00.001-08:00

Pantsuits Quitting – Hillary Clinton Announces She’s Leaving Administration…

The story (immediately below) was posted Wednesday (the day after the SOTU… when Obama referenced Clinton in the audience). Today (Thursday) I see that Hillary “is” leaving:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday she does not want to stay in her job if President Obama wins a second term in 2012 and has no plans to mount another White House bid or become vice president or defense secretary. "I'm going to do the best I can at this job for the next two years," she said.

Retiring? Hmmm…

Kind of interesting timing with Obama's eligibility hearing don'tcha think? Raising the question is Hitlery going to be exiting sooner than she says to run in Obama’s place in many minds? When you think about people saying, “Newt Gingrich has too much baggage to win (which essentially he does), doesn’t someone have to say somewhere along the line… what about, them, the Clintons with so many unanswered question and stories… about Bill, Hillary, their past, their associations: Alinsky, Cloward and Piven, George Soros? Wow… who does that sound like? And remember Hillary’s famous quote, “I prefer to think of myself as a Progressive!”

Add to this Hillary friend and mentor George Soros making comments like: “There is not much difference between Obama and Romney.”, making it more and more obvious that Romney is the person they fear running against, whether it is Obama or his old protégé Hillary.

From Obama to Hillary. From the frying pan into the fire. Only difference between Hillary and Obama is that Hillary is not a puppet to the globalists. She IS a globalist.

Hillary is just as connected to George Soros as is Obama if not more… plus she is more of an equal in status. And Hillary is smarter than Obama! Yet people are still holding their breath waiting for Hillary to run?!?

Photo from campaign 2008 vanishing act. More than one person has pondered how a barely known junior senator could have defeated one of the toughest political machines in U.S. history. Others realize there was a deal struck as part of a plan much larger than most of us want to consider.

If you haven’t, read: The Shadow Party and The Manchurian President… you should!

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she wants to step off the political stage…

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says she wants to step off the “high wire of American politics” after two decades and is again tamping down speculation that she might stay in government if President Barack Obama wins a second term.

Clinton told State Department employees on Thursday that she is ready for a rest and is paying no attention to the Republican presidential candidate debates. She said she wants to find out just how tired she is after working flat out as first lady, senator, aspiring presidential candidate and finally the top U.S. diplomat.

“I have made it clear that I will certainly stay on until the president nominates someone and that transition can occur” if Obama wins re-election, she told a town hall meeting. “But I think after 20 years, and it will be 20 years, of being on the high wire of American politics and all of the challenges that come with that, it would be probably a good idea to just find out how tired I am.”

But, she appeared to leave the door open for a possible eventual return, adding to laughter from the crowd that “everyone always says that when they leave these jobs.”

As secretary of state, Clinton is barred from partisan politics (YGTBKM!!) and she acknowledged that it is unusual not to be participating in this election season. But, she said she is enjoying being away from the fray and hasn’t watched any of the GOP debates.

“It is a little odd for me to be totally out of an election season,” she said. “But, you know, I didn’t watch any of those debates.”

Clinton said she expected the campaign for November’s election to “suck up a lot of the attention” normally devoted to foreign policy issues but she joked that that might actually help the State Department.

“The good news is maybe we can even get more done if they are not paying attention, so just factor that in.” (read more)

Cross-Posted on January 26, 2012by sundancecracker at the Last Refuge

What happened at Obama-no-show trial

Sworn testimony reveals fake Social Security number, other gaps

Georgia citizens today delivered sworn testimony to a court that Barack Obama is slam-dunk disqualified from having his name on the 2012 presidential ballot in the state, because his father never was a U.S. citizen, which prevents him from qualifying as a “natural-born citizen” as the U.S. Constitution requires for a president.

The historic hearing was the first time that a court has accepted arguments on the merits of the controversy over Obama’s status. His critics say he never met the constitutional requirements to occupy the Oval Office, and the states and Congress failed in their obligations to make sure only a qualified president is inaugurated. His supporters, meanwhile, argue he won the 2008 election and therefore was “vetted” by America.

The hearing was before Judge Michael Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

State law also grants the secretary of state and any “elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” in the state the authority to raise a challenge to a candidate’s qualifications, the judge determined.

Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by California attorney Orly Taitz, who has handled numerous cases concerning Obama’s eligibility; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Several of the attorneys introduced passages from Obama’s own writings that Barack Obama Sr. was his father. They then introduced evidence that the man never was a U.S. citizen, that he was a citizen of Kenya at the time of junior’s birth and was therefore a subject of the United Kingdom.

His father’s citizenship, they said, precludes him from serving as president, since the Founders required that officer to be a “natural-born citizen,” not just a “citizen.”

The term is not defined in the Constitution, but evidence introduced included a passage from a 1875 Supreme Court opinion that states:”The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Weldon explained in his presentation that the 14th Amendment granting citizenship did not redefine Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which includes the requirement for a president to be a “natural-born citizen.”

The attorney argued also that another later court case referenced citizenship in the dicta, not the central holding in the case, and thus was not controlling.

Many of Irion’s arguments were echoed by Hatfield, a strategy that at least one constitutional expert, Herb Titus, said was sound.

Titus taught constitutional law, common law, and other subjects for nearly 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. From 1986 to 1993, he served as the founding dean of the College of Law and Government in Regent University in Virginia Beach, Va. Prior to his academic career, he served as a trial attorney and a special assistant United States attorney with the United States Department of Justice in Washington, D.C., and Kansas City, Mo.

He told WND the fact that Obama’s father was a Kenyan citizen should be sufficient.

“That is much stronger than the question of where he was born,” he said. “That alone is evidence. … They don’t need anything additional.”

Taitz argued multiple prongs of the case: that the birth certificate released by the White House is a forgery; that he probably has had several citizenships, such as when he was listed in Indonesia as an Indonesian citizen; and that he’s been known under the names Obama, Soetoro and Soebarkah.

She also had a private investigator, Susan Daniels, testify that it appears Obama is using a fraudulent Social Security number.

Documents and imaging expert Doug Vogt asserted the birth documentation released by the White House was a creation of a software program and not a scan of any original document. That would mean Obama’s documentation, despite what the White House released in April, is still under wraps.

Obama and his attorney boycotted the proceedings, issuing a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp that the judge was letting attorneys “run amok.” The statement came after Malihi refused to quash a subpoena for Obama’s testimony and his records, which effectively was ignored by the White House.

The judge is expected to review the evidence and make a recommendation to the state whether there is reason to be concerned about Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot.

He apparently will have no defense evidence, but Kemp had warned Obama about that.

Kemp said late last night in a response to a demand from Obama’s attorney that he simply order the hearing stopped.

“Anything you and your client place in the record in response to the challenge will be beneficial to my review of the initial decision; however, if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.”

WND reported earlier on the stunning decision from Malihi, who refused to quash the subpoena even after Obama outlined his defense strategy for such state-level challenges, which have erupted in half a dozen or more states already.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued. “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant.”

But the judge thought otherwise.

“Defendant argues that ‘if enforced, [the subpoena] requires him to interrupt duties as president of the United States’ to attend a hearing in Atlanta, Georgia. However, defendant fails to provide any legal authority to support his motion to quash the subpoena to attend,” he wrote in his order.

“Defendant’s motion suggests that no president should be compelled to attend a court hearing. This may be correct. But defendant has failed to enlighten the court with any legal authority,” the judge continued.

“Specifically, defendant has failed to cite to any legal authority evidencing why his attendance is ‘unreasonable or oppressive, or that the testimony … [is] irrelevant, immaterial, or cumulative and unnecessary to a party’s preparation or presentation at the hearing, or that basic fairness dictates that the subpoena should not be enforced,’” the judge said.

Jablonski also had argued that the state should mind its own business.

“The sovereignty of the state of Georgia does not extend beyond the limits of the State. … Since the sovereignty of the state does not extend beyond its territorial limits, an administrative subpoena has no effect,” the filing argued.

The image released by the White House in April:

Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House

Titus said, “‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning. Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

If you “go back and look at what the law of nature would be or would require … that’s precisely what a natural born citizen is …. is one who is born to a father and mother each of whom is a citizen of the U.S. or whatever other country,” he said.

“Now what we’ve learned from the Hawaii birth certificate is that Mr. Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States. His mother was, but he doesn’t qualify as a natural born citizen for the office of president.”

The final official ruling is expected on February 5, 2012.

by Jerome R. Corsi

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers "The Obama Nation", “Where's the Birth Certificate?” and "Unfit For Command."

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Below is a summary list of the physical evidence introduced in yesterday's hearing in GA.

P2. Affidavit of Senior Deportation Officer with the Department of Homeland Security John Sampson, showing that Obama is using Connecticut SSN 042-68-4425

p3. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing Obama's alleged true and correct copy of his birth certificate to be a computer generated forgery

P4. Affidavit of witness Linda Jordan, attesting to the fact, that SSN 042-68-4425, used by Obama, does not pass E-Verify

p6. Selective service certificate showing Obama using SSN 042-68-4425 and official printout from Social Security Number Verification Services, showing that 042-68-4425 was never issued to Barack Obama, attached e-mail from Colonel Gregory Hollister

p7. Affidavit of Adobe Illustrator expert Felicito Papa, showing that Obama is using CT SSN 042-68-4425 on his 2009 tax returns

p9. Hawaiian birth certificate 61-00637 of Susan Nordyke, born a few hours after Obama in Kapiolani Hospital, looks completely different from alleged copy of birth certificate of Obama

p10. Passport records of Stanley Ann Dunham Obama, mother of Barack Obama, showing Obama listed in her passport under the name Barack Obama Soebarkah, attached affidavit by Chris Strunk, recipient of Obama's passport records under FOIA

p11. Barack Obama's Indonesian school registration card #203, date accepted January 1, 1968, released by the Associated Press in Indonesia, showing him using last name Soetoro and listing citizenship -Indonesia....

Amicus Brief. Mr. Leo Donofrio, Esq.

So is Hillary really in need of a rest? Or are the elites getting ready in case the people rise up and Obama gets excluded from the ballots around the country? (The people of several states, seeing the hopeful results in GA, are organizing and soliciting the SOS in their individual states to keep Obama off the ballot. Some are even asking Does Obama Want to Lose in November? And is this somehow the next stage of the and elitist scheme?

Ask Marion~

Video: Obama May Be Left Off of Georgia Ballot

An “Empty Chair” Defense in Atlanta

Georgia Hearing Blow by Blow

Obama Eligibility Hearing Broadcast Live

And on this same day, my Governor and Representative (both Democrats) both announced that they will not run for re-election!

Tense Show Down in Arizona Between AZ Gov Jan Brewer and President Obama

2012-01-27T12:11:00.001-08:00

Makes one proud. Arizona Governor talking to Obama

Obama tangles with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer over immigration book: Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America's Border

Arriving in Arizona on the second stop of his post-State of the Union tour, Obama descended the stairs of Air Force One and was greeted by Gov. Jan Brewer, who was among the local politicians waiting for him in a customary receiving line. Such moments are photo ops designed to burnish the image of the president and the politicians. This time, it quickly turned into a dust-up in the desert. Brewer attempted to hand Obama a letter, which she later told reporters was an invitation to sit down with her to discuss “Arizona’s comeback” and to tour the U.S.-Mexican border with her. “I thought we probably would’ve talked about the things that were important to him and important to me, helping one another,” Brewer said later. “Our country is upside down. Arizona was upside down. But we have turned it around. I know again that he loves this country and I love this country.” That’s when things went sour. Obama and Brewer engaged in what reporters described as an “intense exchange,” with the Republican governor pointing her finger at the president and the two appearing to talk over each other. The exchange ended when Obama abruptly walked away as Brewer appeared to still be speaking, according to a summary provided by reporters in the press pool that shadows the president on his trips.

Asked about the conversation, Brewer told the reporters that Obama was “a little disturbed” about her book, “Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America's Border.’’ The book, which was published two months ago, details her conservative approach to dealing with the state’s illegal immigration challenges. (Washington Post)

Video: Jan Brewer: Obama Is Very Thin Skinned

Video: Describes Unexpected Obama Confrontation

This Is the Handwritten Letter AZ Governor Jan Brewer Presented to Obama

It reads:

Dear Mr. President,

Welcome to Arizona!

You‘ve arrived in a state at the forefront of America’s recovery — and her future. We were at the brink. We were at the bottom of the list in job creation. Today, we have a balanced budget and we’re in the top 10 for job creation.

I’m proud of that hard-won recovery — the result of many tough decisions, courage and perseverance.

My hope is while you are here you will have a chance to see our tremendous results first hand.

We both love the great country, but we fundamentally disagree on how to best make America grow and prosper once again. I‘d love an opportunity to share with you how we’ve been able to turn Arizona around with hard choices that turned out to be the right ones.

And, of course, my offer to visit the border — and buy lunch — still stands!

With respect,
Jan

A scanned image of the letter was provided to The Blaze by Mike Broomhead’s team at 550KFYI. Broomhead interviewed Brewer on the tense exchange she shared with Obama after he landed in Arizona and she presented him with this letter.

The Blaze & h/t to MJ

To Google, Facebook, Twitter…. Or Not? - Perhaps Time to Assess Your Use and Membership? - Updated

2012-01-27T10:58:00.001-08:00

Google

Many of you may have received the email below…

Dear Google user,

We're getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that's a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google.

We believe this stuff matters, so please take a few minutes to read our updated Privacy Policy and Terms of Service at http://www.google.com/policies. These changes will take effect on March 1, 2012.

One policy, one Google experience

Easy to work across Google

Our new policy reflects a single product experience that does what you need, when you want it to. Whether reading an email that reminds you to schedule a family get-together or finding a favorite video that you want to share, we want to ensure you can move across Gmail, Calendar, Search, YouTube, or whatever your life calls for with ease.

Tailored for you

If you're signed into Google, we can do things like suggest search queries – or tailor your search results – based on the interests you've expressed in Google+, Gmail, and YouTube. We'll better understand which version of Pink or Jaguar you're searching for and get you those results faster.

Easy to share and collaborate

When you post or create a document online, you often want others to see and contribute. By remembering the contact information of the people you want to share with, we make it easy for you to share in any Google product or service with minimal clicks and errors.

Protecting your privacy hasn't changed

Our goal is to provide you with as much transparency and choice as possible, through products like Google Dashboard and Ads Preferences Manager, alongside other tools. Our privacy principles remain unchanged. And we'll never sell your personal information or share it without your permission (other than rare circumstances like valid legal requests).

Understand how Google uses your data

If you want to learn more about your data on Google and across the web, including tips and advice for staying safe online, check out http://www.google.com/goodtoknow

Got questions?
We got answers.

Visit our FAQ at http://www.google.com/policies/faq to read more about the changes. (We figured our users might have a question or twenty-two.)

Notice of Change

March 1, 2012 is when the new Privacy Policy and Terms will come into effect. If you choose to keep using Google once the change occurs, you will be doing so under the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Please do not reply to this email. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered. Also, never enter your Google Account password after following a link in an email or chat to an untrusted site. Instead, go directly to the site, such as mail.google.com or www.google.com/accounts. Google will never email you to ask for your password or other sensitive information.

Many people are thinking of leaving Google and its tentacle services because this is just another consolidated grouping of information for Big Brother to monitor us and Google, like facebook, and others turn all their (your) information to the government.

Remaining with them or changing is something everyone should consider!

Here some really helpful links. If you want to close your account, from what I read, they will delete everything… at least that is what they claim… guess we will see if they really do or if if you information ends up in digital space forever:

How to close your Google Account

FAQ: Google’s new privacy policy

Poll: Will you cancel your account?

Google faces backlash over privacy changes

The continuing onslaught against individual freedoms and the intrusion of government into our lives has inspired computer room like this one…

Additional Information:

Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can't opt out

Global Search - Cuil!
http://www.cuil.pt/
Search
Is not powered by google, and not hosted in USA.
Every .com is.
http://www.cuil.pt/
Use Scroogle - very cool.
https://ssl.scroogle.org/
Read about it here:
www.scroogle.org
https://ixquick.com/
USE https://ixquick.com/ FOR PRIVACY
www.startpage.com
I've been using duckduckgo.com recently instead of Google and I like it.
www.duckduckgo.com
and their privacy policy[link to donttrack.us]
http://freenetproject.org/
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29288017

Not sure if this has been mentioned or not...

But I work in a web agency and EVERY single one of the sites we produce uses google hosted code. Its mainly for analytic data for our customers. If you've ever seen google analytic data and understand that 100% of our sites (and I'm sure its almost 100% of any other agency's sites) use this code... that means the scope of this is so huge I can't think straight! Google can very easily track people's web usage through this analytic code.

It doesn't matter if you are on a google made site or not, if the use google hosted code then they know!

Heck even GLP uses it. If you know how to view source look at the bottom of this site.
https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js
http://www.google.com/enterprise/government/

Google announces privacy changes across products; users can’t opt out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html

Google will soon know far more about who you are and what you do on the Web.

The Web giant announced Tuesday it is planning to follow the activities of users across nearly all of its ubiquitous sites, including YouTube, Gmail and its leading search engine.

Google has already been collecting some of this information. But for the first time, it is combining data across its Web sites to stitch together a fuller portrait of users.

Consumers won’t be able to opt out of the changes, which take effect March 1. And experts say the policy shift will invite greater scrutiny from federal regulators of the company’s privacy and competitive practices.

The move will help Google better tailor its ads to people’s tastes. If someone watches an NBA clip online and lives in Washington, the firm could advertise Washington Wizards tickets in that person’s Gmail account.

Consumers could also benefit, the company said. When someone is searching for the word “jaguar,” Google would have a better idea of whether the person was interested in the animal or the car. Or the firm might suggest e-mailing contacts in New York when it learns you are planning a trip there.

But, say consumer advocates, the new policy might upset people who never expected their information would be shared across so many different Web sites.

A user, for instance, may not want Google to use your social network to alert estranged friends — or your boss — that you are around the corner at a bar.

“Google’s new privacy announcement is frustrating and a little frightening,” said Common Sense Media chief executive James Steyer. “Even if the company believes that tracking users across all platforms improves their services, consumers should still have the option to opt out — especially the kids and teens who are avid users of YouTube, Gmail and Google Search.”

Google can collect information about users when they activate an Android mobile phone, sign into their accounts online or enter search terms. It can also store cookies on people’s computers to see which Web sites they visit or use its popular maps program to estimate their location.

The change to its privacy policies come as Google is facing stiff competition for the fickle attention of Web surfers. It recently disappointed investors for the first time in several quarters, failing last week to meet earnings predictions. Apple, in contrast, reported record earnings Tuesday that blew past even the most optimistic expectations.

Some analysts said Google’s move is aimed squarely at Apple and Facebook — which have been successful in building unified ecosystems of products that capture people’s attention. Google, in contrast, has adopted a more scattered approach, but an executive said in interviews that the company wants to create a much more seamless environment across its various offerings.

“If you’re signed in, we may combine information you’ve provided from one service with information from other services,” Alma Whitten, Google’s director of privacy for product and engineering wrote in a blog post.

“In short, we’ll treat you as a single user across all our products which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience,” she said.

Google said it would notify its hundreds of millions of users of the change through an e-mail and a message on its Web sites. It will apply to all of its services except for Google Wallet, Chrome browser and Google Books.

The company said the change would simplify the company’s privacy policy — a move that was encouraged by regulators.

Still, some consumer advocates and lawmakers remained skeptical.

“There is no way anyone expected this,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of privacy advocacy group the Center for Digital Democracy. “There is no way a user can comprehend the implication of Google collecting across platforms for information about your health, political opinions and financial concerns.”

Added Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass): “It is imperative that users will be able to decide whether they want their information shared across the spectrum of Google’s offerings.”

Google has increasingly been a focus of Washington regulators.

The company recently settled a privacy complaint by the Federal Trade Commission after it allowed users of its now defunct social network Google Buzz to see contacts lists from its e-mail program.

And a previous decision to use its social network data in search results has been included in a broad Federal Trade Commission investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is private.

Federal officials are also looking at whether Google is running afoul of antitrust rules by using its dominance in online search to favor its other business lines.

Claudia Farrell, a spokeswoman at the FTC, declined to comment on any interaction between Google and regulators on its new privacy changes.

More on this story:

How to close your Google Account

FAQ: Google’s new privacy policy

Poll: Will you cancel your account?

Google faces backlash over privacy changes

PHOTOS | What products are impacted by new policy?

Twitter, Facebook, MySpace cry foul on Google search

Google updates social-networking name policy

European privacy proposal includes ‘right to be forgotten’

A couple of comments that I thought were interesting.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29288156

Google has been doing this all along as does Apple, MS and so on. Limit or don't use their services in your first line of defense. If not possible then learn all you can about your device and take FULL control of it, flash it, root it, kernel secure it and spank those apps and daemons who are like little children leaking sensitive info about you to these data collectors without your knowledge.

Don't forget to learn to really disable gps, mic and your cam when necessary cause they are bugged. At this point you will be half way secure and well on your way to freedom. However there is a whole another world of hidden service, exploit and leak potentials within your device that are publically unspoken of and that you will need to discover over time.

Last piece of advice, learn to game the algorithm that is at all times trying to predict who you are and what your next move is.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29289587 (Did you know could block a website this way?)
I just went to my internet options and blocked www.google.com signed out of you tube and tried signing back in, got a notice, you have disabled your cookies please turn them back on..But it is not March 1, yet is it?

Facebook

Look at timing with Google’s announcement—perhaps time to flee them both!

Facebook Timeline Mandatory For All Users - With Just 7 Days To 'Clean Up'

Facebook's Timeline - a new look for people's Profile pages which exposes their entire history on the site - will become mandatory for all users.

The 'new look' has been voluntary up until now.

From now, users will simply be notified that they are being 'updated' via an announcement at the top of their home page, which users click on to activate Timeline.

As with voluntary switches to Timeline, those who are 'updated' will have just seven days to select which photos, posts and life events they want to advertise to the world.

Via the official Facebook blog, the site announced, 'Last year we introduced timeline, a new kind of profile that lets you highlight the photos, posts and life events that help you tell your story.'

'Over the next few weeks, everyone will get timeline. When you get timeline, you'll have 7 days to preview what's there now.

'This gives you a chance to add or hide whatever you want before anyone else sees it.'

Timeline has been criticized for showing off pictures and posts that people might have wanted to forget.

The new look also pairs with 'timeline apps', such as Spotify, which post every time people listen to a song, or eat a recipe or visit somewhere.

'You can learn more about these new features by taking the quick tour available at the top of your timeline,' says Facebook.

'If you want to get timeline now, go to the Introducing Timeline page and click 'Get Timeline.'Or you can wait until you see an announcement at the top of your home page.'

Mark Zuckerberg described timeline as letting you 'tell the whole story of your life on a single page'.

The redesigned pages have a more magazine-like photo-heavy feel, with a large 'cover photo' at the top of the page.

On the right of the page there will be a timeline that breaks down all posts from a person's time on Facebook and allows viewers to jump back to people's earliest posts with a break down month-by-month.

Some were puzzled by the abrupt roll-out of the change, which is one of the biggest changes to Facebook - all the more so when paired with the new Timeline apps, such as Spotify, which posts a continuous stream of all songs listened to to your Timeline.

A user listening to Spotify on a smartphone, for instance, will default to posting every song to their Timeline for all to see. As with all Timeline features, there are various opt-outs, but they can be fiddly to find and use.

Likewise, e-book readers such as Kobo and video services such as Netflix can post every book and film people consume to Timeline.

Many sites published guides to how to 'hide' controversial content. Twitter users had mixed reactions.

Reactions included, 'I don’t want a timeline on my facebook - why do you force me to have one?' and 'I hate Facebook timeline design with a vengeance. More frippery and less function. Why are they forcing it on us?'

Many were shocked by how rapidly timeline had become compulsory.

Tech site Mashable said, 'Facebook must know that putting a ticking clock in front of users is bound to make very few of them happy, yet here it is, stop watch in hand. Here’s my theory.'
'Timeline apps aren't very effective without it. Conducting most of your day-to-day activities, like watching movies, sharing content, reading news, eating out, and more — that’s new. None of this has quite the same impact without Timeline.'

So far, Facebook has announced a few dozen Timeline apps.

Many sites recommend vetting apps carefully to see what they will post, and creating lists of friends to 'share' certain updates with, rather than bombarding your whole friends list.
Tech site CNET warns, 'Once you install an app and authorize it to post stories on your profile and News Feed, it'll never ask for your permission again.'

'If you love to cook, you can add the Foodily app to your timeline and share your latest dishes. If your friends have added the Foodily app, you can discover new recipes with each other, as you'll see their updates in the ticker and their timeline, and possibly News Feed.'
Facebook says that more Timeline apps, covering more interests will launch soon.

'Our vision for Timeline and our vision for the application platform is whatever you love and whatever story you want to tell, you can add that to your Timeline,' said Carl Sjogreen, Facebook's product management director.

Facebook Timeline with Apps and Ticker:
'Our message to developers is 'start your engines',' said Sjogreen.

SIDEBAR

PROTECTING YOUR PROFILE FROM PRYING EYES - WHAT TO DO IN THE SEVEN DAYS FACEBOOK ALLOWS YOU

Once timeline is activated on your profile, you have seven days to 'clean up' - and you will probably want to.

Things from your past that may have been previously hidden deep within your photos or timeline can be much more visible.

If there is anything particularly you don’t want shown, such as your relationship status from five years ago - which will be public by default - you’re best to click on the right hand side to the year it occurred, such as 2006, find the post and choose to either delete or hide it.

It all has to be done manually.

You can now choose directly from the right-hand side of nearly every section on profile who sees what for individual sections (such as photos, posts, likes etc). When you click on the item, you can choose whether it is seen publicly, by friends or by a customized list.

If you enable any timeline apps, be sure to read their privacy policies thoroughly - many will not ask again before posting information to your profile. Spotify, for instance, will default to filling your timeline with what you listen to, unless you tell it not to.

Facebook now has the ‘View profile as’ feature on the main page, rather than in privacy settings. This lets you check how different people can see your profile so you can then customize it as you wish.

For those looking to DELETE their facebook accounts permanently not just deactivate remove the spaces and copy paste this into your browser

If your doing it too replace your existing facebook account make sure your change your email address and password to something else first so you can use your original email. Funny how they hide this form.... HAH found youuuu!

https://ssl.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account

· Twitter to selectively 'censor' tweets by country

Friday, January 27, 2012 2:42:33 AM · by EnglishCon · 4 replies

BBC News ^ | 01/27/12 | BBC News

Twitter has announced that it now has the technology to selectively block tweets on a country by country basis. In its blog, Twitter said it could "reactively withhold content from users in a specific country". But it said the removed content would be available to the rest of the world. Previously when Twitter deleted a tweet, it would disappear worldwide. --- In its blog post, Twitter explained that its international growth meant entering countries "that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression", citing France or Germany which ban pro-Nazi content as examples.

This Should Be an Eye-Opener - Van Jones Group and Unions Putting Up Anti-Romney Billboards… Why? Because They Know They Can Beat Gingrich

2012-01-26T15:54:00.001-08:00

Rebuild The Dream (Van Jones) Putting Up Anti-Romney Billboards!

I just received my email from Rebuild the Dream and it looks like they are going to give Newt Gingrich and all other NON ROMNEY candidates a helping hand. How and Why? Well, take a peak at this newsletter and perhaps you will get as big of a chuckle out of this as I did. I am still laughing! Go put up the billboards RTD and we will thank you for it later! :)

Wow. Just hours before the president called for fairer taxes in the State of the Union address, millionaire Mitt Romney released his tax returns, revealing that he paid a tax rate of just 13.7% on more than $45 million of income.

That is grossly unfair, but these kinds of outrages disappear from the headlines after a few days all the time. We can't let the Romney Loophole become old news, and we need to keep the pressure up on Congress.

Rebuild the Dream is planning to put up billboards in Washington, D.C. with bold headlines proclaiming, "CLOSE THE ROMNEY LOOPHOLE."

The billboards will help keep this tax fairness issue at the center of the debate in Washington. But to get them up, we need to raise $50,000 in the next few days. There are thousands of us reading this email. If we chip in just a few dollars each, we can reach our goal. Can you help?

Hours after we all learned about Mitt's low tax rate (and his Swiss bank account), the president called for fairer taxes including a new minimum tax for millionaires and no higher taxes for 98% of Americans.

That is good, but the tax debate is going to be as tough this year with the Tea Party in Congress as it was last year. We can put the opponents of fairer taxes on defense if we all do our part. Can you chip in?

Thanks,
Natalie, Van [Jones], Billy, Jim, Ian, Somer and the rest of the Rebuild the Dream team

Posted at TPN by Katie Baker on January 26, 2012 at 12:42pm in Tea Party Nation Forum - Send Message View Discussions

Wake-up Peeps… Team Obama is afraid of Romney and are creating this whole Gingrich phenomenon because they know Newt has too much baggage and the the independents won’t vote for him and we are playing right into their hands.

This is another one of of these “the truth doesn’t matter” campaigns on Team Obama’s part. They want to run against Gingrich… not Romney!

The Truth About Romney’s Taxes:

As Dennis Miller explains:

Romney (the wealthy) pay 35% corporate taxes. Then they pay 15% capital gains taxes (again, a second bite of the apple on that same money) if it is invested, plus money given to charity and his church. And then when he dies they hit his family with a huge estate tax.

50% of Americans now pay ‘no’ taxes at all. So who is not paying their fair share. Think about it… don’t let the muckrakers convince you of things that aren’t true… or it will hurt our country and economy in the long run.

--> Video: 'Miller Time' State of the Union & Romney’s Taxes <--

Or at the Dennis Miller Show

Video: O’Reilly on the State of the Union & Taxes

Also see:

Tic… Tic… GOP Toc… or Rather Talk

Romney Releases His Tax Returns

Rubio Stays Neutral But Defends Romney

Also: Gingrich admits ABC claim was false

After nearly a week on the defensive, CNN's John King reports tonight that Newt Gingrich's claim about offering witnesses to ABC News in his defense — to rebut the network's interview with his second wife, Marianne Gingrich — was not true. "Tonight, after persistent questioning by our staff, the Gingrich campaign concedes now Speaker Gingrich was wrong — both in his debate answer, and in our interview yesterday," King said on tonight's edition of John King USA. "Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond says the only people the Gingrich campaign offered to ABC were his two daughters from his first marriage." An important victory for John King in his ongoing effort to justify last Thursday's confrontation. (Politico)

--> DON’T FORGET: DEBATE TONIGHT! <--

On CNN at 8 ET Thursday night. 1.26.12, as the GOP candidates debate the issues from Jacksonville days before Florida's primary. Watch it live on CNN.com/Live and CNN's mobile apps. Lea el artículo en español/Read this article in Spanish.

Latest Poll: Florida GOP Primary: Romney 39%, Gingrich 31%, Santorum 12%, Paul 9% - This Florida survey of 750 Likely Republican Primary Voters was conducted on January 25, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports.

Talking Points About SOTU and Romney’s Taxes

2012-01-26T13:43:00.001-08:00

In a previous interview with O’Reilly (2008), Obama agreed that Capital Gains Taxes needed to be between 15% (what Romney pays) and 20%. Now in the SOTU he said it should be 30%… as O’Reilly explains, nobody will invest!

--> Video: O’Reilly on the State of the Union & Taxes <--

Miller explains his loss of interest in listening to Obama’s speeches, including the State of the Union Address and talks taxes…

As Dennis Miller explains:

Romney (the wealthy) pay 35% corporate taxes. Then they pay 15% capital gains taxes (again, a second bite of the apple on that same money) if it is invested, plus money given to charity and his church. And then when he dies they hit his family with a huge estate tax. 50% of Americans no pay no taxes at all. So who is not paying their fair share. Think about it… don’t let the muckrakers convince you of things that aren’t true… or will hurt our country in the long run.

--> Video: 'Miller Time' State of the Union & Romney’s Taxes <--

Tic… Tic… GOP Toc… or Rather Talk

Romney Releases His Tax Returns

Rush: Obama speech a 'fantasyland' of lies

2012-01-25T22:51:00.001-08:00

SOTU… filled with fantasy or downright lies seems to be the consensus. The kindest thing I heard about the speech was from Peggy Noonan, “If you give a speech and include everything, you end up giving a speech about nothing and it ends up being boring!”

Rush: Obama speech a 'fantasyland' of lies

PALM BEACH, Fla. – Radio giant Rush Limbaugh wasted no time today attacking President Obama’s State of the Union address, calling it a fantasyland packed with untruth.

“It was chock-full of lies. It was fantasyland. No, it didn’t soar. It was boring,” Limbaugh said.

“There was nothing to set it apart, nothing about it that’s going to be memorable in a positive way. General Motors, the No. 1 car company in the world again? It just isn’t true. None of the economic news is true. He did two things. He lied. He tried to paint the economy as back. We are back, except where we’re not back, and that’s Bush’s fault.”

During the president’s speech, Obama focused on what he claimed to be a massive turnaround for American carmakers, saying, “Today, General Motors is back on top as the world’s No. 1 automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.”

“I don’t believe this General Motors number,” Limbaugh said. “What an absolute crock. Anyway, after talking about all the wonderful, great, miraculous things he did with General Motors, then what did he say? ‘It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no cop-outs. An America built to lasts, insists on responsibility from everybody.’ Now, maybe I’m a bitter clinger, but the car companies appear to have received a bailout to me. The UAW got a bailout to me, and the UAW was handed General Motors and Chrysler, if you ask me. Now, I don’t know what that is if it’s not a bailout. So he spends a whole speech talking about, ‘No more bailouts. We’re not gonna do that! No handouts, no cop-outs,’ and then he gives as his greatest example of American prosperity a company he bailed out! Who wrote this? This speech was an embarrassment.”

Limbaugh noted there were numerous facts Obama omitted from his address:

He didn’t talk about the 13.1 million unemployed Americans. He didn’t talk about the 5.6 million unemployed Americans who have been on unemployment longer than 27 weeks. He didn’t talk about 8.1 million involuntary part-time workers. He didn’t talk about the falling civilian labor-force participation rate was 64 percent. The number of jobs, the universe of jobs shrinking, didn’t bring that up. Didn’t talk about the national debt, $15.2 trillion, five trillion of which is his! Do you realize one-third of our entire national debt as a nation over 200 years, one-third of it is his, his alone. Of course he didn’t bring it up. He didn’t talk about the Keystone pipeline.

This speech was so filled with contradictions. He talked about teamwork is what made America great? Teamwork? Do you know, ladies and gentlemen, how wrong that is? Do you know what our founding documents are about? The rights and freedom of the individual versus government. There’s nothing about teamwork. There’s nothing about compromise, getting along and working together. The whole point of this government, the whole point of this country, the whole point of this founding was to champion the power and the rights and the civil rights and the freedoms and the liberty of the individual over government. I’m gonna tell you, if anybody on our side running for office anywhere – Senate, House, president – is on their game, this is an immediate, I mean they have just, Obama unwittingly has tossed a softball with the bases loaded.

This is worth two grand slams, this whole concept of teamwork, when this country was premised on the power, the rights of the individual, on the uniqueness of all of us, that we are different, that we all bring different things. Then there was this, whatever we do, we gotta have fairness. There must be fairness. That’s a code word for class warfare. Fairness is in the liberal dictionary, and it gives them the opportunity, the right, the power to redistribute wealth. That’s what fairness is. …

Actually it wasn’t a State of the Union; it was actually a Class Warfare Rally last night in the House chamber on every network. To put this in perspective. So the magic, the Messiah, the hope and change, all that, it’s gone. The magic, all that stuff, it’s gone. Last night was deadbeat city. It really was.

FACT CHECK: 10 Dubious Claims from Obama’s State of the Union

Lachlan Markay- January 25, 2012 at 2:23 pm

President Obama made a number of questionable statements in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night. Heritage experts took on some of the policy issues he raised, but we at Scribe thought we would address the simple factual accuracy of 10 of the more outlandish statements from the president.

Quotes are drawn from the president’s prepared remarks.

Claim: “On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen … And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.”

Fact: Using the relevant dates, that number is actually between 33,000 and 63,000.

It appears the president is comparing today’s auto industry employment with numbers from November 2009. The industry – vehicle and parts manufacturers, dealers, wholesalers, and repair and maintenance shops – employs 158,900 more people today than it did then, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

But why choose November 2009? When comparing today’s employment with the month the president took office or with the month during which the federal bailout took place, the numbers are not nearly as impressive. Since February 2009, when Obama was inaugurated, the industry has added only 33,700 jobs. Since the following month, when General Motors and Chrysler were bailed out, it has added 63,100 – nearly 100,000 fewer than Obama claimed.

Claim: “It’s not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they’re heavily subsidized.”

Fact: Obama has targeted manufacturers with punitive tax hikes.

According to the National Association of Manufacturers, it is, on average, 20 percent more expensive to do business in the United States than it is abroad. The reasons: “our policies on taxes, energy, tort, and trade.” American policies cause that imbalance, not subsidies by other countries.

And while Obama touted manufacturing on numerous occasions during his speech, he has backed policies that would deal body blows to American manufacturing. His incessant refrain to raise taxes on high-income individuals by allowing the Bush tax rates to expire would also ensnare more than 70 percent of manufacturers, according to NAM. “President Obama’s call for tax increases on small businesses, individuals and investors is a poison pill for our economy,” noted NAM President and CEO Jay Timmons.

Claim: “[M]y administration has put more boots on the border than ever before.”

Fact: The vast majority of that increase was proposed and implemented before Obama took office.

Congress passed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act in 2004, which called for adding at least 2,000 border patrol agents per year. President Bush followed up by sending another 6,000 agents to the border. When that mandate was fulfilled, there were 20,119 active border patrol agents. As of last summer, there were 20,700.

Claim: “We’re also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements we signed into law, we’re on track to meet that goal ahead of schedule.”

Fact: Obama chose to delay seeking congressional approval of those agreements for more than two years.

Congress waited for the president to send the free-trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. He “call[ed] on Congress to pass them without delay,” but it was his administration that was delaying consideration of the measures while it worked to shore up political support and tie stimulus-like spending programs to the agreements.

Claim: “American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years.”

Fact: No thanks to Obama.

The president made a similar claim while informing Americans that he would forego the economic windfalls of the Keystone XL pipeline. He did not mention, of course, that the vast majority of that production has occurred on private lands.

On federal land, over which the president has control, oil and gas production is down by 40% under Obama. He has actively pursued policies that limit oil and gas exploration on federal land. There were fewer onshore leases in 2010 than in any year since 1984. The Obama administration held only a single offshore lease sale in 2011.

Claim: “[W]ith only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, oil isn’t enough.”

Fact: The United States has more recoverable oil than the rest of the non-North American world combined.

The 2 percent statistic is a frequent canard of this administration, but is woefully misleading when used to suggest, as Obama clearly did, that the country only has 2 percent of the world’s oil. In fact, the 2 percent figure refers to the amount of oil that is recoverable at current prices and under lands currently available for development.

According to recent study by the Institute for Energy Research, the United States has more than 1.4 trillion barrels of recoverable oil, more than the rest of the world (excluding North America) combined. That’s enough to fuel every passenger car in the country for 430 years. As IER explains, in what could be a direct response to the president’s claim, “It is merely semantics—not a scientific assessment of what America has the capacity to produce—that allows critics to claim repeatedly that America is running out of energy.”

Furthermore, Obama’s Energy Information Administration, noted Heritage’s David Kreutzer, predicts a steady rise in U.S. reserves even on land currently available for exploration. “It projects that improvements in technology and the economics of extraction, production, and sales actually will lead to a 23.7 percent increase in U.S. reserves,” Kreutzer wrote, “even after extracting billions of barrels of oil in the interim.”

Claim: “[I]t was public research dollars, over the course of 30 years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock – reminding us that government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.”

Fact: Government funding only marginally contributed to the development of hydraulic fracturing.

The federal government began spending money on natural gas extraction research during the oil crisis in the late 1970s, noted CNN in its own “fact check.” The methods they tested – which included setting off nuclear weapons underground – were expensive and ineffective. Federal support declined as gas prices went back down. Private companies, not the federal government, developed hydraulic fracturing technology that has allowed gas to be extracted inexpensively and en masse.

Claim: “[W]e don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy.”

Fact: Obama just rejected both.

The president killed TransCanada’s application for the Keystone XL pipeline due, he claimed, to insufficient information on its environmental impact. But Obama’s own State Department had already concluded that the pipeline posed “limited adverse environmental impacts during both construction and operation.”

The Keystone XL pipeline would have been an economic windfall, and an environmentally sound project. So the president is correct that we don’t have to choose between a strong economy and environmental stewardship. He seems intent on choosing neither.

Claim: “I ask the Senate to pass a simple rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.”

Fact: The president has already demonstrated his complete lack of respect for the separation of powers.

After making his four illegal recess appointments to federal office, the president now wants to impose a timeline on the Senate’s advice and consent duties. And while it’s heartening that he will at least pay lip service to those duties, Obama’s insistence that he will pursue his agenda “with or without this Congress” suggests he is ready and willing to yet again spurn the Constitution he is sworn to uphold.

Claim: “Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else – like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t do both.”

Fact: Entitlements drive our national debt, not discretionary spending or tax rates.

Beck: The Real State of the Union

This false dichotomy underscores one of the largest omissions of the State of the Union speech. It is not tax cuts that threaten the “investments” the president describes; it is entitlement spending, especially Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. In less than 10 years, as Heritage’s Patrick Louis Knudsen noted last night, total entitlement spending will cost almost as much as the entire federal budget today, crowding out other programs (such as national defense).

Reforming entitlements would eliminate the need for either cuts to Obama’s favorite federal programs or ruinous tax hikes. But the president neglected to discuss entitlement reform in the State of the Union.

And hey – what about all those promises about no new taxes and lower healthcare costs? And new jobs? Glenn explains how much taxes have really gone up: HERE

And how about those promises to end our involvement in conflicts overseas? Yeah, that’s not going so well either – and conflict is only getting more intense at home: HERE

Glenn wasn’t the only one to talk about what’s going on with the State of the Union! Here are some contributors to “Real News from The Blaze” with their versions of the address.

Also… at the THE DAILY BLADE: Listening to what she fervently hopes is the last State of the Union address by President Barack Hussein Obama, The Stiletto was reminded that there is a reason familiarity breeds contempt. This SOTU was recycled from salvaged material; no new ideas were used in the making of this speech.

According to The Washington Post, “[t]he swagger which Obama rode into office with was back in his address.” And so Obama reprised his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in July 2004 (“There is not a liberal America and a conservative America - there is the United States of America.”) when he said, “What’s at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values.”

But it’s not the first time Obama has repeated this particular flourish. As The New Yorker’s John Cassidy points out, when Obama said he wanted to “reclaim” these “American values,” the verbiage was “was pretty much a straight lift” from a speech he delivered in Osawatomie, KS, last month (“Those aren’t Democratic or Republican values; 1% values or 99% values. They’re American values, and we have to reclaim them.”).
Ditto the part about wanting an economy where “everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules” – except that this time around Obama ditched the Occupy Wall Street lingo, seeing as how members of the group lobbed a smoke bomb over the White House fence last week to protest his crony capitalism and a man linked to the group shot up the joint in what federal prosecutors describe as an assassination attempt.

Similarly, The Associated Press points out that when he called for an end to oil company subsidies it was “at least Obama's third run at stripping subsidies from the oil industry”:

Back when fellow Democrats formed the House and Senate majorities, he sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request. He called again to end such tax breaks in last year's State of the Union speech. And he's now doing it again, despite facing a wall of opposition from Republicans who want to spur domestic oil and gas production and oppose tax increases generally.

Obama’s justification for the so-called “Buffet rule” that anyone who earns $1 million a year – from any source, including interest and investment income – should pay 30 percent or more in taxes (“you can call this class warfare all you want. … Most Americans would call that common sense”) also had a familiar ring, because it was an iteration of a line in a deficit reduction speech Obama gave last September (“This is not class warfare. It's math.”).

The Republican National Committee also pulled together these rhetorical retreads (video link):

2010: "It's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs.

2012: "Colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down."

2010: "And we should continue the work by fixing our broken immigration system."

2011: "I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration."

2012: "I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration."

2010: "We face a deficit of trust."

2012: "I've talked tonight about the deficit of trust . . ."

2010: "We can't wage a perpetual campaign."

2012: "We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign."

When Obama wasn’t repeating himself, he was contradicting himself:

† Obama first said, “As long as I’m President, I will work with anyone in this chamber,” but towards the end of his speech he threatened to act “[w]ith or without this Congress.”

† About his job creation record he said “[W]e lost four million before our policies were in full effect. … In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs.” The WaPo did the math:

[I]it took a full nine months to run up 4 million in job losses, some eight months after the stimulus was passed into law … Trying to change the focus from his overall job-creation record, the president focuses on private-sector jobs created since the recession ended.

So let’s see … 4 million jobs lost + 3 million jobs created = a deficit of 1 million jobs since Obama took office.

† In one breath, Obama claimed his administration is “making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world,” and in the next breath he announced the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that “will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China” – the opening salvo in a global trade war with the world’s second largest economy.

† After promising to support “the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country … every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs,” Obama promises to “return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility” he vilified people who risked their savings to invest in fledgling companies that become the next Apple, as well as those who inherit stock in such companies as heirs to the founders (“because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households).”

† Oh, and Obama first claimed that “Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary” and a few minutes later that it’s common sense to ask “a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes” – meaning that Obama doesn’t know the difference between the rate of tax a person pays and the amount. Leaving aside the fact that Buffet’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, is so well compensated that she is in the top 1 percent of income earners in the U.S., she couldn’t possibly pay as much as her boss does in taxes. Even at the lower tax rate he pays on his investment income (17.4 percent to her 35.8 percent), Buffet paid nearly $7 million to the I.R.S. last year, which is 14 years of income for Bosanek.

† Finally, Obama proposed that “the money we’re no longer spending at war” should be used to “pay down our debt” and “do some nation-building right here at home” – by which he means “clean energy tax credits”; “[h]elp manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings”; and “repair America’s infrastructure ... crumbling roads and bridges, [the] power grid, [a] high-speed broadband network.” As The WaPo explains:

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were funded with borrowed money, so what Obama is really asking for is an increase in domestic spending relative to the Pentagon. The United States is still running huge deficits, so none of this imagined savings would “pay down the debt” until the United States once again began running surpluses. Instead, his proposal would continue to add to the debt.

And when Obama wasn’t busy repeating or contradicting himself, he was making all sorts of factual errors.

For instance, just as Obama has deliberately misquoted the bible to suit his purposes, he inverted Abraham Lincoln’s thoughts on the role of government. Obama claimed Lincoln said: “Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more.” What Lincoln actually said: “The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities.”

That’s not a justification for an overweening Federal government, but an explanation of the limits of Federalism. On the other hand, it only took 3.75 years, but Obama finally got the number of states in the union right (“Each time I look at that flag, I’m reminded that our destiny is stitched together like those fifty stars and those thirteen stripes.”). Yes, it’s been a steep learning curve.

2012 State of the Union and Rebuttal – Updated

Sorry State of the Union

Eleven ‘Stunning Revelations’ from a Confidential Economics Memo to Obama

Presidential Historian: Obama State of the Union Bears ‘Uncanny’ Resemblance to Teddy Roosevelt’s 1906 Address

This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations

2012-01-25T08:40:00.001-08:00

Translator - Get Your Own Free Translator

Watcher’s Council Nominations: State Of Obama Edition

JoshuaPundit on Jan 25 2012 | Filed under: Nominations.

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday.

Council News:

This week, Liberty’s Spirit, The Independent Sentinel, Ask Marion and Capitalist Preservation took advantage of my generous offer of link whorage and earned honorable mention status.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

Simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address ( which won’t be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category, and return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week.

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members. while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let’s see what we have this week….

Council Submissions

The Colossus of Rhodey – What the Gingrich South Carolina victory could mean
The Political Commentator – Doing away with the Electoral College! One man, one vote and majority wins!
The Noisy Room – Revolution Moves Into The Overton Window
Simply Jews – Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey vs FUKUS
GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD – Going All The Way
Bookworm Room – War is not, and should not be, sporting
Right Truth – Making Sausage
The Right Planet – Are We a Democracy?
The Razor – A Tale of Two Disasters: The Titanic and the Costa Concordia
VA Right - Will Newt Survive His Ex-Wives With Knives?
The Mellow Jihadi – Lance Corporal Donald Hogan, Marine Hero
Rhymes With Right – Am I Wrong To Be Troubled Here?
The Glittering Eye -You Be the Judge
Joshuapundit-Obama’s State Of The Union – The Hollow Man
New Zeal – Kyrsten Sinema: Communist Connected Arizona State Senator to Run For Congress

Honorable Mentions

Liberty’s Spirit – Abbott and Costello Discuss Unemployment
The Independent Sentinel – Obama Reduced Our Dependence on Foreign Oil & I’m the Easter Bunny
Ask Marion – Tic… Tic… GOP Toc… or Rather Talk
Capitalist Preservation – The Fallacy Of The Minimum Wage Part Four

Non-Council Submissions

The Foundry – 1,000 Days Without a Budget: Facts on the Senate’s Failure submitted by The Colossus of Rhodey
Family Security Matters -Muslim Children in America are Being Taught to Hate submitted by The Political Commentator
Sultan Knish –So You Want a Revolution… submitted by The Noisy Room
Yourish.Com – TANSTAAFL submitted by Simply Jews
The Compass – An Iran Attack Would Succeed, Then What? submitted by GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD
The Anchoress-Pro-Lifers and the Truth-Phobic Press submitted by Bookworm Room
Gay Patriot -SOTU: Obama’s last chance to change tone submitted by Right Truth
Chicago Reader – What Makes Obama Run? submitted by The Right Planet
Zero Hedge –Obama Puppetmaster Warren Buffett Biggest Winner From Keystone Pipeline Rejection submitted by The Razor
Creeping Sharia – Colorado Muslim arrested on terrorism charges submitted by VA Right
Right Wing News –The Worst People In Politics Aren’t Racists submitted by The Mellow Jihadi
Polipundit – Why Newt should not be the nominee submitted by Rhymes with Right
James Taranto/Best of the Web – The Genetic Fallacy submitted by The Glittering Eye
Mark Steyn – The Sinking Of The West submitted by Joshuapundit
Accuracy In Media – The FOX News Feminists submitted by New Zeal
The New Atlantis – The Global War Against Baby Girls submitted by The Watcher
Cabinet – The Behavioral Sink submitted by The Watcher

Enjoy! And don’t forget to follow us on Facebook and Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that!

2012 State of the Union and Rebuttal – Updated

2012-01-24T22:55:00.001-08:00

Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery
"An America Built to Last"

Mr Speaker, Mr Vice President, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:

Last month, I went to Andrews Air Force Base and welcomed home some of our last troops to serve in Iraq. Together, we offered a final, proud salute to the colors under which more than a million of our fellow citizens fought – and several thousand gave their lives.

We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world. For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda's top lieutenants have been defeated. The Taliban's momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.

These achievements are a testament to the courage, selflessness, and teamwork of America's Armed Forces. At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They're not consumed with personal ambition. They don't obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.

Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example. Think about the America within our reach: A country that leads the world in educating its people. An America that attracts a new generation of high-tech manufacturing and high-paying jobs. A future where we're in control of our own energy, and our security and prosperity aren't so tied to unstable parts of the world. An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.

We can do this. I know we can, because we've done it before. At the end of World War II, when another generation of heroes returned home from combat, they built the strongest economy and middle class the world has ever known. My grandfather, a veteran of Patton's Army, got the chance to go to college on the GI Bill. My grandmother, who worked on a bomber assembly line, was part of a workforce that turned out the best products on Earth.

The two of them shared the optimism of a Nation that had triumphed over a depression and fascism. They understood they were part of something larger; that they were contributing to a story of success that every American had a chance to share – the basic American promise that if you worked hard, you could do well enough to raise a family, own a home, send your kids to college, and put a little away for retirement.

The defining issue of our time is how to keep that promise alive. No challenge is more urgent. No debate is more important. We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.

Let's remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that weren't, and personal debt that kept piling up.

In 2008, the house of cards collapsed. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldn't afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other people's money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didn't have the authority to stop the bad behavior.

It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt, and left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect.

Those are the facts. But so are these. In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s.
Together, we've agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we've put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again.

The state of our Union is getting stronger. And we've come too far to turn back now. As long as I'm President, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.

No, we will not go back to an economy weakened by outsourcing, bad debt, and phony financial profits. Tonight, I want to speak about how we move forward, and lay out a blueprint for an economy that's built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.

This blueprint begins with American manufacturing.

On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. In exchange for help, we demanded responsibility. We got workers and automakers to settle their differences. We got the industry to retool and restructure. Today, General Motors is back on top as the world's number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. Ford is investing billions in U.S. plants and factories. And together, the entire industry added nearly 160,000 jobs.

We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back.

What's happening in Detroit can happen in other industries. It can happen in Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Raleigh. We can't bring back every job that's left our shores. But right now, it's getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive. A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. Today, for the first time in fifteen years, Master Lock's unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.

So we have a huge opportunity, at this moment, to bring manufacturing back. But we have to seize it. Tonight, my message to business leaders is simple: Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country, and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.

We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it.

So let's change it. First, if you're a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn't get a tax deduction for doing it. That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies likeMaster Lock that decide to bring jobs home.

Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here.

Third, if you're an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you're a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers.

My message is simple. It's time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I'll sign them right away.

We're also making it easier for American businesses to sell products all over the world. Two years ago, I set a goal of doubling U.S. exports over five years. With the bipartisan trade agreements I signed into law, we are on track to meet that goal – ahead of schedule. Soon, there will be millions of new customers for American goods in Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. Soon, there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul imported from Detroit, and Toledo, and Chicago.

I will go anywhere in the world to open new markets for American products. And I will not stand by when our competitors don't play by the rules. We've brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration – and it's made a difference. Over a thousand Americans are working today because we stopped a surge in Chinese tires. But we need to do more. It's not right when another country lets our movies, music, and software be pirated. It's not fair when foreign manufacturers have a leg up on ours only because they're heavily subsidized.

Tonight, I'm announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you – America will always win.

I also hear from many business leaders who want to hire in the United States but can't find workers with the right skills. Growing industries in science and technology have twice as many openings as we have workers who can do the job. Think about that – openings at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work.

That's inexcusable. And we know how to fix it.

Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie's tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.

I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job. My Administration has already lined up more companies that want to help. Model partnerships between businesses like Siemens and community colleges in places like Charlotte, Orlando, and Louisville are up and running. Now you need to give more community colleges the resources they need to become community career centers – places that teach people skills that local businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing.

And I want to cut through the maze of confusing training programs, so that from now on, people like Jackie have one program, one website, and one place to go for all the information and help they need. It's time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.

These reforms will help people get jobs that are open today. But to prepare for the jobs of tomorrow, our commitment to skills and education has to start earlier.

For less than one percent of what our Nation spends on education each year, we've convinced nearly every State in the country to raise their standards for teaching and learning – the first time that's happened in a generation.

But challenges remain. And we know how to solve them.

At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance. Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies – just to make a difference.

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let's offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren't helping kids learn.

We also know that when students aren't allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.

When kids do graduate, the most daunting challenge can be the cost of college. At a time when Americans owe more in tuition debt than credit card debt, this Congress needs to stop the interest rates on student loans from doubling in July. Extend the tuition tax credit we started that saves middle-class families thousands of dollars. And give more young people the chance to earn their way through college by doubling the number of work-study jobs in the next five years.

Of course, it's not enough for us to increase student aid. We can't just keep subsidizing skyrocketing tuition; we'll run out of money. States also need to do their part, by making higher education a higher priority in their budgets. And colleges and universities have to do their part by working to keep costs down. Recently, I spoke with a group of college presidents who've done just that. Some schools re-design courses to help students finish more quickly. Some use better technology. The point is, it's possible. So let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can't stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down. Higher education can't be a luxury – it's an economic imperative that every family in America should be able to afford.

Let's also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: The fact that they aren't yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.

That doesn't make sense.

I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That's why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That's why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.

The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let's at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.

You see, an economy built to last is one where we encourage the talent and ingenuity of every person in this country. That means women should earn equal pay for equal work. It means we should support everyone who's willing to work; and every risk-taker and entrepreneur who aspires to become the next Steve Jobs.

After all, innovation is what America has always been about. Most new jobs are created in start-ups and small businesses. So let's pass an agenda that helps them succeed. Tear down regulations that prevent aspiring entrepreneurs from getting the financing to grow. Expand tax relief to small businesses that are raising wages and creating good jobs. Both parties agree on these ideas. So put them in a bill, and get it on my desk this year.

Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally-financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched. New lightweight vests for cops and soldiers that can stop any bullet. Don't gut these investments in our budget. Don't let other countries win the race for the future. Support the same kind of research and innovation that led to the computer chip and the Internet; to new American jobs and new American industries.

Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I'm directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it's been in eight years. That's right – eight years. Not only that – last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.

But with only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves, oil isn't enough. This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – a strategy that's cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my Administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I'm requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don't have to choose between our environment and our economy. And by the way, it was public research dollars, over the course of thirty years, that helped develop the technologies to extract all this natural gas out of shale rock – reminding us that Government support is critical in helping businesses get new energy ideas off the ground.

What's true for natural gas is true for clean energy. In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world's leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled. And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it.

When Bryan Ritterby was laid off from his job making furniture, he said he worried that at 55, no one would give him a second chance. But he found work at Energetx, a wind turbine manufacturer in Michigan. Before the recession, the factory only made luxury yachts. Today, it's hiring workers like Bryan, who said, "I'm proud to be working in the industry of the future."

Our experience with shale gas shows us that the payoffs on these public investments don't always come right away. Some technologies don't pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That's long enough. It's time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that's rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that's never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.

We can also spur energy innovation with new incentives. The differences in this chamber may be too deep right now to pass a comprehensive plan to fight climate change. But there's no reason why Congress shouldn't at least set a clean energy standard that creates a market for innovation. So far, you haven't acted. Well tonight, I will. I'm directing my Administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes. And I'm proud to announce that the Department of Defense, the world's largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history – with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.

Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy. So here's another proposal: Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings. Their energy bills will be $100 billion lower over the next decade, and America will have less pollution, more manufacturing, and more jobs for construction workers who need them. Send me a bill that creates these jobs.

Building this new energy future should be just one part of a broader agenda to repair America's infrastructure. So much of America needs to be rebuilt. We've got crumbling roads and bridges. A power grid that wastes too much energy. An incomplete high-speed broadband network that prevents a small business owner in rural America from selling her products all over the world.

During the Great Depression, America built the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge. After World War II, we connected our States with a system of highways. Democratic and Republican administrations invested in great projects that benefited everybody, from the workers who built them to the businesses that still use them today.

In the next few weeks, I will sign an Executive Order clearing away the red tape that slows down too many construction projects. But you need to fund these projects. Take the money we're no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.

There's never been a better time to build, especially since the construction industry was one of the hardest-hit when the housing bubble burst. Of course, construction workers weren't the only ones hurt. So were millions of innocent Americans who've seen their home values decline. And while Government can't fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn't have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief.

That's why I'm sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks. A small fee on the largest financial institutions will ensure that it won't add to the deficit, and will give banks that were rescued by taxpayers a chance to repay a deficit of trust.

Let's never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a Government and a financial system that do the same. It's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.

We've all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn't afford them. That's why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. Rules to prevent financial fraud, or toxic dumping, or faulty medical devices, don't destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.

There is no question that some regulations are outdated, unnecessary, or too costly. In fact, I've approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his. I've ordered every federal agency to eliminate rules that don't make sense. We've already announced over 500 reforms, and just a fraction of them will save business and citizens more than $10 billion over the next five years. We got rid of one rule from 40 years ago that could have forced some dairy farmers to spend $10,000 a year proving that they could contain a spill – because milk was somehow classified as an oil. With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk.

I'm confident a farmer can contain a milk spill without a federal agency looking over his shoulder. But I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago. I will not back down from protecting our kids from mercury pollution, or making sure that our food is safe and our water is clean. I will not go back to the days when health insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men.

And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules. The new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system's core purpose: Getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home, start a business, or send a kid to college.

So if you're a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers' deposits. You're required to write out a "living will" that details exactly how you'll pay the bills if you fail – because the rest of us aren't bailing you
out ever again. And if you're a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can't afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices are over. Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them.

We will also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people's investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there's no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That's bad for consumers, and it's bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count.

And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.

A return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help us protect our people and our economy. But it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.

Right now, our most immediate priority is stopping a tax hike on 160 million working Americans while the recovery is still fragile. People cannot afford losing $40 out of each paycheck this year. There are plenty of ways to get this done. So let's agree right here, right now: No side issues. No drama. Pass the payroll tax cut without delay.

When it comes to the deficit, we've already agreed to more than $2 trillion in cuts and savings. But we need to do more, and that means making choices. Right now, we're poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

Do we want to keep these tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Or do we want to keep our investments in everything else – like education and medical research; a strong military and care for our veterans? Because if we're serious about paying down our debt, we can't do both.

The American people know what the right choice is. So do I. As I told the Speaker this summer, I'm prepared to make more reforms that rein in the long term costs of Medicare and Medicaid, and strengthen Social Security, so long as those programs remain a guarantee of security for seniors.

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you're earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn't get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn't go up. You're the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You're the ones who need relief.

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

We don't begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it's not because they envy the rich. It's because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don't need and the country can't afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That's not right. Americans know it's not right. They know that this generation's success is only possible because past generations felt a responsibility to each other, and to their country's future, and they know our way of life will only endure if we feel that same sense of shared responsibility. That's how we'll reduce our deficit. That's
an America built to last.

I recognize that people watching tonight have differing views about taxes and debt; energy and health care. But no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right now: Nothing will get done this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.

Can you blame them for feeling a little cynical?

The greatest blow to confidence in our economy last year didn't come from events beyond our control. It came from a debate in Washington over whether the United States would pay its bills or not. Who benefited from that fiasco?

I've talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad – and it seems to get worse every year.

Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let's take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow. Let's limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let's make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can't lobby Congress, and vice versa – an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.

Some of what's broken has to do with the way Congress does its business these days. A simple majority is no longer enough to get anything – even routine business – passed through the Senate. Neither party has been blameless in these tactics. Now both parties should put an end to it. For starters, I ask the Senate to pass a rule that all judicial and public service nominations receive a simple up or down vote within 90 days.

The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it's inefficient, outdated and remote. That's why I've asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.

Finally, none of these reforms can happen unless we also lower the temperature in this town. We need to end the notion that the two parties must be locked in a perpetual campaign of mutual destruction; that politics is about clinging to rigid ideologies instead of building consensus around common sense ideas.

When big government Progressive President Obama said: I'm a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed: That Government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more, you knew he was willing to say anything to get re-elected… and that even requiring even a smidgen of the truth in his statements was not a requirement or an obstacle to consider.. That's why my education reform offers more competition, and more control for schools and States. That's why we're getting rid of regulations that don't work. That's why our health care law relies on a reformed private market, not a Government program.

Read the full transcript of the State of the Union address by President Obama can be found here.

The Republican Rebuttal was Delivered by Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana

Republican Governor of Indiana Counters State of the Union

The following is a transcript of prepared remarks delivered by Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana, in response to President Obama’s State of the Union speech on Tuesday, January 25 ,2012.

Below follows an advance copy of Gov. Mitch Daniels’ rebuttal. It is a complete transcript but was released in advance via Republican leadership, so may differ slightly from the live broadcast delivered Tuesday night:

The status of ‘loyal opposition’ imposes on those out of power some serious responsibilities: to show respect for the Presidency and its occupant, to express agreement where it exists. Republicans tonight salute our President, for instance, for his aggressive pursuit of the murderers of 9/11, and for bravely backing long overdue changes in public education. I personally would add to that list admiration for the strong family commitment that he and the First Lady have displayed to a nation sorely needing such examples.

On these evenings, Presidents naturally seek to find the sunny side of our national condition. But when President Obama claims that the state of our union is anything but grave, he must know in his heart that this is not true.

The President did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in America tonight. But he was elected on a promise to fix them, and he cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse: the percentage of Americans with a job is at the lowest in decades. One in five men of prime working age, and nearly half of all persons under 30, did not go to work today.

In three short years, an unprecedented explosion of spending, with borrowed money, has added trillions to an already unaffordable national debt. And yet, the President has put us on a course to make it radically worse in the years ahead. The federal government now spends one of every four dollars in the entire economy; it borrows one of every three dollars it spends. No nation, no entity, large or small, public or private, can thrive, or survive intact, with debts as huge as ours.

The President’s grand experiment in trickle-down government has held back rather than sped economic recovery. He seems to sincerely believe we can build a middle class out of government jobs paid for with borrowed dollars. In fact, it works the other way: a government as big and bossy as this one is maintained on the backs of the middle class, and those who hope to join it.

Those punished most by the wrong turns of the last three years are those unemployed or underemployed tonight, and those so discouraged that they have abandoned the search for work altogether. And no one has been more tragically harmed than the young people of this country, the first generation in memory to face a future less promising than their parents did.

As Republicans our first concern is for those waiting tonight to begin or resume the climb up life’s ladder. We do not accept that ours will ever be a nation of haves and have nots; we must always be a nation of haves and soon to haves.

In our economic stagnation and indebtedness, we are only a short distance behind Greece, Spain, and other European countries now facing economic catastrophe. But ours is a fortunate land. Because the world uses our dollar for trade, we have a short grace period to deal with our dangers. But time is running out, if we are to avoid the fate of Europe, and those once-great nations of history that fell from the position of world leadership.

So 2012 is a year of true opportunity, maybe our last, to restore an America of hope and upward mobility, and greater equality. The challenges aren’t matters of ideology, or party preference; the problems are simply mathematical, and the answers are purely practical.

An opposition that would earn its way back to leadership must offer not just criticism of failures that anyone can see, but a positive and credible plan to make life better, particularly for those aspiring to make a better life for themselves. Republicans accept this duty, gratefully.

The routes back to an America of promise, and to a solvent America that can pay its bills and protect its vulnerable, start in the same place. The only way up for those suffering tonight, and the only way out of the dead end of debt into which we have driven, is a private economy that begins to grow and create jobs, real jobs, at a much faster rate than today.

Contrary to the President’s constant disparagement of people in business, it’s one of the noblest of human pursuits. The late Steve Jobs – what a fitting name he had – created more of them than all those stimulus dollars the President borrowed and blew. Out here in Indiana, when a businessperson asks me what he can do for our state, I say ‘First, make money. Be successful. If you make a profit, you’ll have something left to hire someone else, and some to donate to the good causes we love.’

The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands, or jacks up consumer utility bills for no improvement in either human health or world temperature, is a pro-poverty policy. It must be replaced by a passionate pro-growth approach that breaks all ties and calls all close ones in favor of private sector jobs that restore opportunity for all and generate the public revenues to pay our bills.

That means a dramatically simpler tax system of fewer loopholes and lower rates. A pause in the mindless piling on of expensive new regulations that devour dollars that otherwise could be used to hire somebody. It means maximizing on the new domestic energy technologies that are the best break our economy has gotten in years.

There is a second item on our national must-do list: we must unite to save the safety net. Medicare and Social Security have served us well, and that must continue. But after half and three quarters of a century respectively, it’s not surprising that they need some repairs. We can preserve them unchanged and untouched for those now in or near retirement, but we must fashion a new, affordable safety net so future Americans are protected, too.

Decades ago, for instance, we could afford to send millionaires pension checks and pay medical bills for even the wealthiest among us. Now, we can’t, so the dollars we have should be devoted to those who need them most.

The mortal enemies of Social Security and Medicare are those who, in contempt of the plain arithmetic, continue to mislead Americans that we should change nothing. Listening to them much longer will mean that these proud programs implode, and take the American economy with them. It will mean that coming generations are denied the jobs they need in their youth and the protection they deserve in their later years.

It’s absolutely so that everyone should contribute to our national recovery, including of course the most affluent among us. There are smart ways and dumb ways to do this: the dumb way is to raise rates in a broken, grossly complex tax system, choking off growth without bringing in the revenues we need to meet our debts. The better course is to stop sending the wealthy benefits they do not need, and stop providing them so many tax preferences that distort our economy and do little or nothing to foster growth.

It’s not fair and it’s not true for the President to attack Republicans in Congress as obstacles on these questions. They and they alone have passed bills to reduce borrowing, reform entitlements, and encourage new job creation, only to be shot down time and time again by the President and his Democratic Senate allies.

This year, it falls to Republicans to level with our fellow citizens about this reality: if we fail to act to grow the private sector and save the safety net, nothing else will matter much. But to make such action happen, we also must work, in ways we Republicans have not always practiced, to bring Americans together.

No feature of the Obama Presidency has been sadder than its constant efforts to divide us, to curry favor with some Americans by castigating others. As in previous moments of national danger, we Americans are all in the same boat. If we drift, quarreling and paralyzed, over a Niagara of debt, we will all suffer, regardless of income, race, gender, or other category. If we fail to shift to a pro-jobs, pro-growth economic policy, there will never be enough public revenue to pay for our safety net, national security, or whatever size government we decide to have.

As a loyal opposition, who put patriotism and national success ahead of party or ideology or any self-interest, we say that anyone who will join us in the cause of growth and solvency is our ally, and our friend. We will speak the language of unity. Let us rebuild our finances, and the safety net, and reopen the door to the stairway upward; any other disagreements we may have can wait.

You know, the most troubling contention in our national life these days isn’t about economics, or policy at all. It’s about us, as a free people. In two alarming ways, that contention is that we Americans just can’t cut it anymore.

In word and deed, the President and his allies tell us that we just cannot handle ourselves in this complex, perilous world without their benevolent protection. Left to ourselves, we might pick the wrong health insurance, the wrong mortgage, the wrong school for our kids; why, unless they stop us, we might pick the wrong light bulb!

A second view, which I admit some Republicans also seem to hold, is that we Americans are no longer up to the job of self-government. We can’t do the simple math that proves the unaffordability of today’s safety net programs, or all the government we now have. We will fall for the con job that says we can just plow ahead and someone else will pick up the tab. We will allow ourselves to be pitted one against the other, blaming our neighbor for troubles worldwide trends or our own government has caused.

2012 must be the year we prove the doubters wrong. The year we strike out boldly not merely to avert national bankruptcy but to say to a new generation that America is still the world’s premier land of opportunity. Republicans will speak for those who believe in the dignity and capacity of the individual citizen; who believe that government is meant to serve the people rather than supervise them; who trust Americans enough to tell them the plain truth about the fix we are in, and to lay before them a specific, credible program of change big enough to meet the emergency we are facing.

We will advance our positive suggestions with confidence, because we know that Americans are still a people born to liberty. There is nothing wrong with the state of our Union that the American people, addressed as free-born, mature citizens, cannot set right. Republicans in 2012 welcome all our countrymen to a program of renewal that rebuilds the dream for all, and makes our ‘city on a hill’ shine once again.

I’ve got to think Monday night’s debate further swelled the groundswell of support for Mitch Daniels. The liveliest part of the debate was at the beginning, when Mitt went after Newt—and Republicans all over America watched with fascinated horror at the thought that these are the two GOP frontrunners. The only spectacle in American politics more off-putting than Newt Gingrich in self-righteous defense mode is Mitt Romney in self-righteous attack mode. I thought Mitt’s attacks were somewhat more dishonest than Newt’s defenses were disingenuous, but it was good to move on to the rest of the debate, where little further damage was done.

My conclusion: If Mitch Daniels’s effective tax rate is 30 percent rather than 15 percent, and if he was never paid $1.6 million by Freddie Mac, he can be the next president. …Bill Krystal - The Daily Standard - Mitch Daniels is author of Keeping the Republic

Romney’s Pre-State of the Union Speech

Speaker Boehner: Obama’s State of the Union Proposals Sound Pathetic

To sum up the SOTU: "I went ... I know ... My ... My ... I took office ... I'm president ... I will work ... I intend ... I will oppose ... I want to speak ... I took office ... I refused ... told me ... My message ... Send me ... I'll sign ... I set ... I signed ... I will go ... I will not stand ... It's not fair ... I'm announcing ... I promise you ... I also hear ... I want ... Join me ... My administration ... I want to cut ... I call on ... I spoke ... let me put ... I believe ... my administration ... I took office ... I will sign ... I'm directing ... my administration ... I'm requiring ... I will not walk away ... I will not walk away ... I will not cede ... I will ... I'm directing ... I'm proud ... Send me ... I will sign ... I'm sending ... I've approved ... my presidency ... I've ordered ... I guess ... I'm confident ... I will not back down ... I will not back down ... I will not go back ... I will not go back ... I'm asking ... fair play ... So do I ... I told ... I'm prepared ... fair share ... my fair share ... I get tax breaks I don't need ... I recognize ... I bet ... I've talked ... Send me a bill ... I will sign ... I ask the Senate ... I've asked ... I'm a Democrat ... I believe ... my education reform ... I will keep taking ... I can do ... I have no doubt ... I will take ... I'm president ... I intend ... I have proposed ... I have already ... I'm proposing ... brings me ... my proudest ... I sat ... I look at ... I'm reminded." --BO

The speech also sounded a lot like last year's.

Bailouts are awesome: "On the day I took office, our auto industry was on the verge of collapse. Some even said we should let it die. With a million jobs at stake, I refused to let that happen. ... Today, General Motors is back on top as the world's number one automaker. Chrysler has grown faster in the U.S. than any major car company. ... We bet on American workers. We bet on American ingenuity. And tonight, the American auto industry is back." --Barack Obama

Bailouts are terrible: "It's time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody." --Barack Obama, later in the same SOTU

Policy based on envy: "We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules." --Barack Obama

Conciliatory blame throwing: "The state of our union is getting stronger. And we've come too far to turn back now. As long as I'm president, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place." --Barack Obama

Deciding how much money you can make: "[W]e need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. ... On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn't go up." --Barack Obama

Share your thoughts on last night's SOTU address.

Elsewhere, in race bait land: "The point I was making is that black people hold the president in such high esteem, that they would not dare march on the White House even though unemployment is at 15 percent and higher and if there was a white president we would do that because we've had white presidents since George Washington." --Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO)

Belly laugh of the week: "[T]his president has reached out as seriously and sincerely as any president with whom I've served over the last 30 years, to work together in a bipartisan fashion. No president with whom I've served over those last 30 years has spent as much time working with Republicans and Democrats in the room, exchanging ideas, evidencing a willingness to compromise as President Obama has." --House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

Secrets: "[Newt Gingrich is] not going to be president of the United States. That's not going to happen. Let me just make my prediction and stand by it, it isn't going to happen. There is something I know. The Republicans, if they choose to nominate him that's their prerogative. I don't even think that's going to happen." --House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

A Note on the SOTU From Mark Alexander

There was not ONE SINGLE free-market economic remedy mentioned in Obama's entire teleprompted rhetoric last night -- every "solution" was government engineering by way of intervention, regulation or redistribution. Obama ended his recitation asserting, "We should all want a smarter more effective government." Indeed, on this we should all agree, and to that end, work tirelessly to defeat Obama and his socialist regime.

Read a full analysis from Alexander in tomorrow's "The State of Disunion."

Editorial Exegesis

"President Obama delivered a State of the Union address Tuesday night that by the account of his own advisers is more campaign document than a plan for governing. ... Normally a President at the start of his fourth year would be running on his record, accentuating the legislation he's passed. Mr. Obama can't do that with any specificity because the economic recovery has been so weak and the legislation he has passed is so unpopular. So last night he took credit for the shale gas revolution he had nothing to do with and proposed new policies to 'spread the wealth around'... Once the Reagan recovery got cooking, in 1983, growth stayed above 5% for 18 months and never fell below 3.3% for 13 consecutive quarters. In the Obama recovery, growth has never exceeded 4% in any quarter and fell off markedly in mid-2010 through the third quarter of 2011. ... As he runs for re-election, Mr. Obama is trying to campaign as an incumbent who is striving to help the economy but has been stymied at every turn by Congress. ... For two years he had the largest Democratic majorities in Congress since the 1970s and achieved nearly everything he wanted. ... Mr. Obama clearly has a spring in his step these days, figuring that the public hates Congress and thinks Republicans run it, that the GOP will field a weak presidential candidate, and that he can fool the public into believing only Mitt Romney's taxes will rise if Mr. Obama wins a second term. He has only one big obstacle: his record." --The Wall Street Journal

Upright

"If you want a good distillation of this president's wrongheaded view of the United States of America, look no further than this rhetorical bit from the end of tonight's State of the Union address: 'No one built this country on their own. This Nation is great because we built it together. This Nation is great because we worked as a team. This Nation is great because we get each other's backs.' Unity is central to American identity, but not the way Obama envisions it. E pluribus unum is not Latin for, 'Hey, bro, let's invest in some infrastructure together.' The notion that this nation is one big team that acts collectively toward shared goals set by the state would be completely foreign to the men who founded it. But that is Obama's concept of America." --columnist Andrew Cline

"Has Barack Obama learned nothing in three years? Last night, during his State of the Union address, he promised 'a blueprint for an economy.' But economies are crushed by blueprints. An economy is really nothing more than people participating in an unfathomably complex spontaneous network of exchanges aimed at improving their material circumstances. It can't even be diagrammed, much less planned. And any attempt at it will come to grief. Politicians like Obama believe they are the best judges of how we should conduct our lives. Of course a word like 'blueprint' would occur to the president. He, like most who want his job, aspires to be the architect of a new society. But we who love our lives and our freedom say: No, thanks. We need no social architect. We need liberty under law. That's it." --columnist John Stossel

"If you wonder why unemployment is so high in the U.S., check out the brain-dead economics in the SOTU address. People with high incomes pay lower taxes because an optimal tax policy taxes consumption not income. While our code is not optimal, it tilts in that direction. I doubt that Warren Buffett understands that the 'Buffett Rule' is economically illiterate, and marks him for all of history, after posterity forgets his billions, as an ignorant rube who pushed the U.S. toward inefficient tax policy. I doubt that President Obama understands that the academic community that previously embraced him will have a hard time maintaining the fiction that he is a significant intellectual when he decides to jettison decades of academic literature in favor of a populist Hail Mary pass that is indefensible." --American Enterprise Institute's Kevin Hassett

"By many measures, Barack Obama has left the State of the Union in tatters, but the liberal media, led by the highly rated Big Three network (ABC, CBS, NBC) news shows, have attempted to cover up those holes in the Union by mostly ignoring the Obama administration's greatest failings. From record numbers of people on food stamps, to the administration's support of failed energy companies while rejecting an oil pipeline that would result in thousands of jobs, the Big Three networks haven't told their viewers the full story of Obama's pathetic track record." --Media Research Center's Geoffrey Dickens

Insight

"Politicians never accuse you of 'greed' for wanting other people's money -- only for wanting to keep your own money." --columnist Joseph Sobran (1946-2010)

"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that, too." --English playwright and author W. Somerset Maugham (1874-1965)

Dezinformatsia

Missing the point: "There's a tremendous amount of cynicism in Gingrich's use of food stamps because of what he actually knows that his Republican debate audiences do not know. His Republican audiences do not know that most people on food stamps are white." --MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell

The BIG Lie: "George W. Bush had more people on food stamps, not this president." --MSNBC's Martin Bashir

Twisted question: "Do you really believe, in every case, it should be totally wrong, in the sense that -- I know that you believe, even in cases of rape and incest -- and you've got two daughters. You know, if you have a daughter that came to you who had been raped and was pregnant and was begging you to let her have an abortion -- would you really be able to look her in the eye and say, no, as her father?" --CNN host Piers Morgan to GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum

Gun Grabbers: "[I]t would be a disservice to [Rep. Gabrielle Gifford's] life and that of the others directly affected by [the Tucson tragedy], and tragedies like it, to ignore the factors that precipitated the violence: the easy access to guns; the availability of accessories such as extended clips that make deadly weapons all the more lethal; and a porous and shoddy regulatory system that too often fails to keep these weapons out of the hands of dangerous or dangerously unstable individuals. Mr. Obama last year delivered his State of the Union just weeks after the Tucson massacre and in the presence of victims' family members. Yet he, like so many politicians intimidated by the gun lobby's muscle, could not muster a single word about the need for reasonable gun control measures to ward off such violence in the future. Perhaps he will find the courage to speak up this year, as Ms. Giffords looks on during her last State of the Union as a member of Congress." --Washington Post editorial

Newspulper Headlines:

It Had to Happen Eventually: "The End of 'Inevitability'" --the American Spectator website

We Blame George W. Bush: "Obama on Keystone XL: Blame Hillary!" --WeeklyStandard.com

Questions Nobody Is Asking: "Voters Know Gingrich Talks a Good Game, but Can He Dance?" --Washington Times website

Breaking News From 2009, 2010, 2011: "Obama Hurting With Swing Voters, Poll Shows" --Politico.com

Bottom Story of the Day: "Obama Plans Three-Day Campaign Trip After State of the Union Speech" --DailyCaller.com

(Thanks to The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto)

Village Idiots

Energy = crime: "Our children and grandchildren will judge those who have misled the public, allowing fossil fuel emissions to continue almost unfettered, as guilty of crimes against humanity and nature. But the eventual conviction of these people in the court of public opinion will do little to ease the burdens that will have been created for today's young people and future generations." --James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Dodge City: "[T]he president's background as a community organizer is well documented in the president's own books, so his experience in that field obviously contributed to who he is today. But his experience is a broad-based one that includes a lot of other areas in his life." --White House spokesman Jay Carney

Embellishment: "[T]he president's commitment to job creation has been amply demonstrated by the policies that he has pursued, that he has signed into law, that have contributed considerably to the creation of 3.2 million private sector jobs." --Jay Carney

"We're just going to support what we like to call 'universal values' -- not American values, not Western values, universal values." --Michael McFaul, Obama's new U.S. ambassador to Russia, when asked about democracy in Russia

Short Cuts

"Pittsburgh medical researchers discovered Tuesday that a person's adult stem cells could possibly be used to make them grow younger. Many doctors have been tinkering with it. Ron Paul has used it on his supporters for years and now they all look twenty-five." --comedian Argus Hamilton

"Warren Buffett now says that his offer to help pay down the national debt was merely 'symbolic.' Ah ... sorta like an Obama 'stimulus' program." --Fred Thompson

"[E]very President's SOTU speeches follows a very predictable pattern: 1. The State of the Union is strong. 2. Applause. 3. It's stronger because I'm up here and you're not. 4. Applause. 5. Attack the Supreme Court [Obama only]. 6. Here's why my political party is awesome. 7. Applause from one side of room. 8. Here's why the other party is a bunch of doody-heads. 9. Applause from the same side of the room. 10. Here's a program I want you to pass. 11. Applause. 12. Here's an Ordinary Average Guy whose story should convince you to pass my program. 13. Television shot of Ordinary Average Guy. 14. Applause. 15. Repeat steps 6-14 about 874 times. 16. Here's a couple more reasons why I'm awesome. 17. Applause." --blogger Ed Morrissey

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team - h/t to Kim Aiken-Peters

Overall reaction to the SOTU…. blah, blah, blah, blah, more of the same, a bunch of promises he can’t keep, a bunch of promises until he is re-elected and then it will all change, little steps instead of broad programs, why hasn’t he done any of the before, I guess the campaign is on….

Will Obama Show up at Eligibility Hearing?

2012-01-24T22:40:00.001-08:00

Obama Ordered to Appear at Hearing: Attorney Taitz Says It Will Be 100 Times Bigger than Watergate’

Columbus Ledger-Enquirer ^ | 1-21-12 | Chuck Williams

A Georgia judge, Judge Michael Malihi, has ordered President Barack Obama to appear in court in Atlanta Thursday for a hearing on a complaint that says Obama isn't a natural-born citizen and can't be president. Orly Taitz, the California attorney who brought the legal challenge to Obama's name on the March Georgia presidential primary ballot, says this is what she has been working for over the last three years. "This will be 100 times bigger than Watergate," she said Saturday morning, referring to the scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon in 1974. "There are high ranking judges and federal officials who are involved in this cover up. The ramifications of this trial will be enormous."

Taitz said she expects the president's legal team to fight his appearance in the Georgia court.

"But he's in a catch-22," she said. "If he is appealing this decision, then he looks guilty. The whole nation understands this man is a fraud."

Taitz has led the "Birther" movement that insists Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen. She is also familiar to Georgia courts.

Taitz represented two soldiers in U.S. District Court in Columbus who sought to avoid deployment by arguing Obama wasn’t the commander-in-chief because he wasn’t eligible to be president. Federal Judge Clay Land warned Taitz against filing a frivolous suit, then fined her $20,000 after he denied the second claim.

The one of many such lawsuits that have been filed across the country, so far without success. A Georgia resident made the complaint, which is intended to keep Obama's name off the state's ballot in the March presidential primary.

An Obama campaign aide says any attempt to involve the president personally will fail and such complaints around the country have no merit.

The hearing is set for Thursday before an administrative judge. Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi on Friday denied a motion by the president's lawyer to quash a subpoena that requires Obama to show up.

The Office of State Administrative Hearings handles disputes between the public and state agencies. For example, if the state Department of Revenue wants to revoke a business owner’s alcohol license, the owner could appeal to the Office of State Administrative Hearings. It also handles ballot disputes.

Georgia Ballot Challenge - Quash Subpoena

Judge whacks Obama in eligibility case

Will Obama Show up at Eligibility Hearing?

There’s a subpoena from a Georgia administrative court with Barack Obama’s name on it for him to be in Atlanta on Thursday, along with the documentation about his birth, to answer to challenges from residents of the state objecting to the presence of his name on the 2012 ballot.

They believe he’s simply not eligible under the Constitution’s requirement that a president be a “natural born citizen.” They say the Founders thought of that status as the offspring of two citizen parents, and Obama’s father was Kenyan. Or they say he wasn’t born in the U.S. They are legitimately allowed to raise those challenges under a state law.

But several observers say no one really should expect Obama to arrive.

For one thing, his important presidential trip to Denver, Detroit and Las Vegas, three key regions where he wants to build his support before the November 2012 election, is on tap.

Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”

Besides that, Eric Segall of Georgia State University told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that this is just like all the other lawsuits over Obama’s eligibility: worthless.

“There have been many, many lawsuits trying to litigate the issue of the president’s nationality,” the law professor opined. “They have all been dismissed and this one should be too. In light of the frivolousness of the case, the judge has no valid authority to require the president to appear in court.”

The administrative court itself probably would not pursue any sort of procedure against the president should he fail to appear, but Marietta, Ga., attorney Melvin Goldstein said the logical sequence of events would be, presuming Obama’s failure to appear, for the court to refer the matter to a superior court judge in the county, who could determine whether a contempt citation against Obama would be supported.

It was White House Press Secretary Jay Carney who told reporters Obama would be delivering the State of the Union Tuesday, then traveling for three days, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.

“He will be speaking specifically about … American manufacturing, American energy, and skill for American workers,” Carney said.

WND reported Friday on the stunning decision from Judge Michael M. Malihi, who refused a demand from Obama’s lawyer to quash the subpoena for Thursday.

WND had reported earlier when Obama outlined a defense strategy for a number of state-level challenges to his candidacy in 2012 which argue that states have nothing to do with the eligibility of presidential candidates. Such challenges have been raised in New Hampshire, Arizona, Illinois and several other states.

“Presidential electors and Congress, not the state of Georgia, hold the constitutional responsibility for determining the qualifications of presidential candidates,” Obama’s lawyer argued in a motion to quash a subpoena for him to appear at the hearings in Atlanta Jan. 26.

“The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant,” the lawyer said.

Malihi, however, took a different view.

Hearings have been scheduled for three separate complaints raised against Obama’s candidacy. They all are raised by Georgia residents who are challenging Obama’s name on the 2012 ballot for various reasons, which they are allowed to do under state law.

It is states, usually through the office of secretary of state, that run elections, not the federal government. The national election is simply a compilation of the results of the individual elections within states.

The schedule for the hearings was set by Malihi of the Georgia state Office of State Administrative Hearings. In Georgia, a state law requires “every candidate for federal” office who is certified by the state executive committees of a political party or who files a notice of candidacy “shall meet the constitutional and statutory qualifications for holding the office being sought.”

Three different plaintiffs’ groups are lined up for separate hearings, including one represented by California attorney Orly Taitz. She had the judge sign a subpoena for Obama’s testimony, and Michael Jablonski, Obama’s attorney for the cases, argued that he should be exempted.

“Make no mistake about it. This is the beginning of Watergate Two or ObamaForgeryGate. I believe this is the second time in the U.S. history a sitting president is ordered to comply with a subpoena, and produce documents, which might eventually bring criminal charges to the president and a number of high-ranking individuals,” Taitz said.

Separately, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona told WND he also had gotten a subpoena to be at the hearings in Georgia. He said the goal apparently is to ask him about his Cold Case Posse investigation of Obama’s eligibility, but he said since the investigation remains open, he wouldn’t be able to say much about it.

Citizens bringing the complaints include David Farrar, Leah Lax, Thomas Malaren and Laurie Roth, represented by Taitz; David Weldon represented by attorney Van R. Irion of Liberty Legal Foundation; and Carl Swensson and Kevin Richard Powell, represented by J. Mark Hatfield. Cody Judy is raising a challenge because he also wants to be on the ballot.

Hatfield also had filed with the court a “Notice to Produce” asking for Obama’s documents and records.

He wants one of the two original certified copies of Obama’s long-form birth certificate.

Obama’s attorney, Jablonski, also had argued that the state should mind its own business.

Taitz’s supporters joined a discussion on her website, where she also solicits support for the expenses of the battles she’s confronting, judging that Obama is on the defensive.

“What a joke. He claims to be too busy performing the duties of the president of the United States. How many days of vacation has he taken? How many rounds of golf? If he is too busy to provide the documents that provide the basis for meeting the requirements of the office, then perhaps he better sit out the next four years,” said one.

Wrote another, “The election of President Obama by the presidential electors, confirmed by Congress, makes the documents and testimony sought by plaintiff irrelevant. … This is complete utter nonsense!”

In fact, a presidential elector in California brought a lawsuit challenging Obama’s eligibility at the time of the 2008 election and was told the dispute was not yet ripe because the inauguration hadn’t taken place. The courts later ruled that the elector lost his “standing” to bring the lawsuit after the inauguration.

Barack Obama

Irion said his argument is that the Founders clearly considered a “natural born citizen,” as the Constitution requires of a president and no one else, to be the offspring of two citizen parents. Since Obama himself has written in his books that his father, Barack Obama Sr. was a Kenyan, and thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, Irion argues that Obama is disqualified under any circumstances based on his own testimony.

Those who argue against his birth in the United States note that numerous experts have given testimony and sworn statements that they believe Obama’s Hawaiian birth documentation to be fraudulent.

It is that concern that also has prompted Arpaio to turn over an investigation of that issue to his Cold Case Posse. Its investigative report is expected to be released in the next few weeks.

The Georgia hearing apparently will be the first time among dozens of so-far unsuccessful lawsuits brought over Obama’s eligibility issue that evidence will be heard in a court. Other cases all have been dismissed over issues such as standing, without a presentation of the evidence.

There are similar challenges to Obama’s 2012 candidacy being raised before state election or other commissions in Tennessee, Arizona, Illinois, New Hampshire and other states.

The image released by the White House in April:

Obama long-form birth certificate released April 27 by the White House

Top constitutional expert Herb Titus contends that a “natural born citizen” is born of parents who are citizens. That argument also is supported by a 19th-century U.S. Supreme Court decision, Minor v. Happersett in 1875. The case includes one of very few references in the nation’s archives that addresses the definition of “natural-born citizen.”

That case states: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

An extensive analysis of the issue was conducted by Titus, who has taught constitutional law, common law and other subjects for 30 years at five different American Bar Association-approved law schools. He also was the founding dean of the College of Law at Regent University, a trial attorney and special assistant U.S. attorney in the Department of Justice.

“‘Natural born citizen’ in relation to the office of president, and whether someone is eligible, was in the Constitution from the very beginning,” he said. “Another way of putting it; there is a law of the nature of citizenship. If you are a natural born citizen, you are a citizen according to the law of nature, not according to any positive statement in a Constitution or in a statute, but because of the very nature of your birth and the very nature of nations.”

by Bob Unruh – who joined WND in 2006 after spending nearly three decades writing on a wide range of issues for several Upper Midwest newspapers and the Associated - WND

Tic… Tic… GOP Toc… or Rather Talk

2012-01-24T19:17:00.001-08:00

Does anyone else just want to scream: STOP!!!

What the GOP candidates should be focusing on is righting the economy; creating an environment to enable the creation of jobs; promoting freedom here and abroad without continuing to be the baby-sitter of the world; defeating the growing threat posed by Iran and other evil regimes and making Barack Hussein Obama a one-term president based on his abysmal record, anti-American and anti-free-market philosophies, lack of vetting in the 2007-2008 campaign, and his questionable decisions on policies, associations and connections.

Instead, what we have let happen is let the media and Team Obama manipulate us, the voters as well as the GOP candidates themselves into creating a soap opera of issues which has moved the discussion and the candidates themselves into a ‘mudfest’ slinging it in all directions instead of taking the high road by focusing on the real issues.

On the list(s) of most beloved American Presidents, ranging from one of the poorest to the richest, are: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton in varying order and depending who you are polling. (Although, President Obama in a recent speech has said he is the 4th greatest president of all time… no modesty issues there!) Another interesting observation is that Teddy Roosevelt whose head is one of the four at Mt. Rushmore, thanks to his cousin FDR, is never on the most beloved or most influential U.S. Presidents lists. On the Five last week, both the libs and conservatives on the panel agreed that if Newt and Obama end up being our 2012 Election candidates, by the time the election is over they will have parleyed themselves up on the same level as God?!?)

An interesting side note: in today’s money… George Washington was the richest American President we have ever had and Mitt Romney, although very wealthy, would not be the richest. Thomas Jefferson, FDR and JFK were also extremely wealthy; JFK lived off his trust fund almost exclusively. And John Kerry, had he have been elected would have been one of the richest. The Bushes are no pikers either! Even our “redistribute the wealth President, Obama, is a multi-millionaire”. So why so much focus on Mitt Romney’s wealth and taxes?

Before the South Carolina primary nationwide 63% of people polled (across the board) believe that Mitt Romney is the most electable in comparison to only 9% for Newt Gingrich… but the ads and a couple of good days of debates managed to convince Carolinians that Newt was the most electable… to the tune of 68% according to the exit polls. This could end up being the election cycle that breaks South Carolina’s record of picking the GOP nominee that has held since Reagan. Of course in every other election that candidate also either won Iowa or New Hampshire… where Newt came in 4th and 5th and with Santorum winning Iowa (in a virtual tie with Romney) and Ron Paul coming in 3rd and then Romney winning in New Hampshire decisively where Ron Paul came in second. This seems to be the year that nothing will follow previous norms.

John Fund of the American Spectator appeared on Fox the day after the South Carolina primary saying part of what catapulted Gingrich into his strong win in SC is the fact that the only entity that Americans hate more right now than Congress, President Obama or politicians in general is the mainstream media (MSM) and Newt, being handed two opportunities during the week before the SC Primary to lash out against the media, gave the voters an opportunity to vote against the MSM by voting for him. (Santorum commented jokingly on an interview on Sunday following the SC primary, “Whatever Newt paid those reporters to throw him those questions at the debates last week wasn’t enough!” and Karl Rove kiddingly suggested to Chris Wallace that perhaps Mitt needs to twist a few reporters’ arms to do the same, earlier that morning.

Gingrich was the big hero this past week because he took on the MSM after questions that look more like gifts... and right now the media polls lower than anyone in Washington... Congress, Obama or any of the GOP candidates, so many undecideds voted against the media instead of for Gingrich. Also many people mistook Palin's comment about voting for Gingrich to keep the contest going as an endorsement. (Palin also encourage Santorum to stay in the race.)

Greg Gutfeld, co-host of The Five and host of Redeye made one of the most interesting observations of Romney’s debate performance last week that I have heard:

Mitt Romney is an alpha-male in a religion that prizes humility… Newt is an alpha male that prizes the sound of his own voice… which often gets him in trouble.

Although Romney seems to be coming out swinging now:

A newly aggressive Mitt Romney charged in the campaign debate Monday night that Newt Gingrich "resigned in disgrace" from Congress after four years as speaker and then spent the next 15 years "working as an influence peddler" in Washington.

Gingrich shot back that Romney's attacks were riddled with falsehoods, and he referred to statements by two men who ran against Romney in 2008 in contending the former Massachusetts governor "can't tell the truth."

The clash occurred in the opening moments of the first of this week's two debates before the Jan. 31 Florida primary.

I believe it was Eric Bowling of The Five who said that Newt Gingrich has never had an un-uttered thought and Rick Santorum intimated the same. That is not necessarily a good trait for a president.

Team Obama and their Progressive army, which includes the mainstream media (MSM) plan on Stealing Election 2012 by whatever means necessary including voter fraud, keeping the GOP fighting amongst themselves and trying to create a 3^rd party candidate run to divide the anti-Obama electorate. They know Obama cannot win on his record!

Other than the Progressive far left, more and more Americans are realizing that the hope and change they voted for was an illusion created by Obama and the elites, including puppet master George Soros, that were behind his election. Those that really listened to what he was saying or not saying and did their homework in 2007 and 2008 already knew it was a lie. Now it is Team Obama’s job to re-build that false hope and demonize the GOP field. If you haven’t read The Obama Nation, you should!

Obama has been in full campaign mode since summer 2011, rather than governing, and his Team has been in full attack mode behind the scenes, going after each GOP candidate as they rose to the top of the field. Unfortunately from my vantage point the American people have allowed them to get away with that starting waaay back with Sarah Palin, in the last election. And like with Sarah, the tea party and other conservatives did not vehemently back the candidates, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, who most reflected their views with the steadfast and financial support they needed… so that ship has sailed.

Conservatives talk a lot about their values, but often don’t support the candidates with those values with financial contributions. And when you look at the fact that married women in a socially conservative state like South Carolina voted in droves for philanderer Newt Gingrich right after his wife released in an interview that he had asked her for an open marriage… you have to wonder how strong their convictions are…

“What we would have considered taboo and a fatal nominee flaw a few years ago, is suddenly okay evidently. Sex in the White House? Not a problem… Cheated on your wife and divorced? Not a problem… Buddy around with known radicals and Marxists? Definitely not a problem… And the Overton Window slides inexorably to the left. What has happened to us? We were once the greatest nation on the planet. We had a robust economy, a strong military, a Christian ethic, strong morals, a rich history and leaders of whom we were proud. Now? Well, we have an economy that is close to a Weimar moment. Our leaders have gutted our military. Christianity is being systematically destroyed and vilified. Morals seemed to have been replaced by an entitlement mentality. Our history is being rewritten and erased. Our leaders are corrupt, gutless, spineless, knee scrapers, who only care about themselves and their personal pocketbooks.” …TMH of the NoisyRoom from her recent piece Revolution Moves into the Overton Window

We are now left with a field of 4 (alphabetically): Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum who stand between us and the United ‘Socialist’ States of America… so perhaps it is time to start focusing on the issues, the candidates’ plans and attacking Obama’s record instead of excoriating each other. It is time that we, as voters, do our own homework as to the real facts and on stage and in public have the candidates focus on the big issues that will matter in the general election.

Newt Gingrich - A Nation Like No Other

Gingrich is not the great conservative savior... He is as much of a flip flopper as he likes to accuse Mitt Romney of and has personally been anything but a social conservative. (Newt has a long history of philandering and although he seems to have had a recent religious conversion and has now embraced Catholicism, Santorum, Romney and Paul have all been married to the same women for their entire adult lives, were great and present fathers and I don't know about Ron Paul, but Santorum and Romney are and always have been very involved in their faith.) Newt has been involved in lobbyist type of activities and is definitely a Washington Insider that was almost removed as Speaker by his own party after being brought up on ethics charges. He is really more of a Rockefeller type Republican than the Reagan-style Republican he likes to make himself out to be. After all, Reagan’s 11th commandment was thou shalt never speak badly of a fellow Republican, yet if you honestly look back over the past two months, Newt has been the biggest mud-slinger of all.

Also check out: Unbelievable?! Newt Love FDR, Models Himself After Woodrow Wilson and Admires SEIU’s Andy Stern…

There is no question that Newt is the best debater and is brilliant, but many who have worked with him, including fellow GOP candidate and former Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, have claimed that Newt’s ideas are non-ending and grandiose, but never get completed. He would be great in the debates against Obama, but debating and leading a country are two different skills! Plus, let us all remember that no matter what Gingrich would like, there will only be two to three 1 to 2-hour debates between the GOP nominee and Obama in the general election, not seven or eight - 3-hour Lincoln-Douglas style debates, where Newt’s debating skill would be at a premium. And if Monday’s NBC debate is a warning, the audience for those debates will no-doubt be kept from applauding, let alone giving a standing ovation.

Overnight we are hearing that Gingrich is the the electable candidate but Ann Coulter, Dana Parino, Glenn Beck, Pat O’Brien, Greg Gutfeld, Bob Beckel, Kirsten Powers, and a long varied list of others from both parties have in the past 24-hours said that choosing Gingrich as the GOP nominee will not only guarantee that Obama is re-elected but that the GOP loses the Congress. Chris Christy, a Romney supporter, says Gingrich has often embarrassed the Republican party.

His character flaws—his impulsiveness, his grandiosity, his weakness for half-baked (and not especially conservative) ideas—made him a poor Speaker of the House. Again and again he combined incendiary rhetoric with irresolute action, bringing Republicans all the political costs of a hardline position without actually taking one. Again and again he put his own interests above those of the causes he championed in public. …National Review

Gingrich has also just released his company’s 2006 consulting contract for services to Fannie and Freddie and has already raised new questions. It appears that his function in that matter might not technically qualify as lobbying, but that it definitely qualifies as influence peddling… not work as a historian, which is how Gingrich explained his services.

Ron Paul - The Revolution

Ron Paul would love to be president but when you really listen to what he says in his speeches, in my opinion he is appears more focused on getting out his message and collecting delegates to affect the outcome of this election and have influence over the next administration than really believing he can win. Many believe that getting a position for himself, like overseeing the Federal Reserve or getting his son Rand a V.P. slot and/or then continuing his organization for a future Rand Paul (who was today detained by the TSA) for President may be his goal.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian and an expert on the Constitution and his economic policy and fight against the Fed is right on, believe most people. Some of this other ideas scare some people. But his followers are loyal to a fault and he has not only the largest following of all the candidates of young people but also the strongest military following, which is interesting because his ideas on foreign policy is what scares a lot of people off.

Paul has pledged to cut 1 Trillion dollars in the first year if he is elected, while the other 3 candidates plan to make cuts but in a much more timid fashion, at least from what we have heard so far. We should note that Ron Paul is one of the founders of the tea party, yet he does not necessarily get the tea party vote because of some of his foreign policy opinions and his stand on legalizing things like drugs and prostitution.

However some suggest that if Ron Paul’s Libertarian handlers and his more radical supporters could soften their ideology a bit he might even have a chance to win the nomination.

Mitt Romney - The Real Romney

Romney, now that Cain is out of the race is ‘the’ only businessman, saved and led the Olympics and has been a Republican Governor in a Democratic state where he had to compromise to get things done. At a time where we need jobs, need to open new trade markets and must rebuild our economy, that is experience we need in a president.

The attack on Romney’s wealth… which he did not inherit but made on his own; the type of business he was in which is totally legal and taught as part of MBA programs throughout the U.S.; the percentage and amount of taxes he pays (which is higher than what 97% of Americans pay plus his additional tithe of 10% back to his church) and his account in the Cayman Islands which is totally legal, and the on-going attacks on his faith and even his eligibility… are an afront to free-market economics, freedom of religion and the American Dream. The fact that there is even a question about eligibility or the religion of any of these candidates while Obama is still not being vetted is amazing! Although at least at this moment, Obama is to Appear at an eligibility Hearing: Attorney Taitz Says It Will Be ‘100 Times Bigger than Watergate’. If he really does, things might just start getting interesting.

I really think Mitt is getting an unfair wrap from a so-called free-market Capitalistic country and society. Everything he appears to have done is within the law, it makes him a good capitalist, not a crook, and the loopholes are the government’s fault. Maybe America will be richer again if he is in-charge and he manages our money like he has managed his own. So far Newt hasn’t even proven he can even manage his own campaign. He allowed his advisors to steal all his funds at the beginning of this campaign?!?

Mitt has donated millions to the Mormon Church (his 10% based on his religion)… as we all should be doing to our respective churches if we are Christians based on our income, and whether he is a Mormon, a Catholic or a Protestant he should be praised not punished for his tithing. And he did release his taxes earlier than anyone other than Gingrich’s 1 return, but many including Lou Dobbs and Mike Huckabee suggested he should have told everyone to stick it or that he will release them when he is ready. See Hedgecock’s: Obama is a Culture Socialist

And as far as Mitt’s flip flops… he has answered everyone of these questions, including in his book No Apology He, like Newt, at one time favored global warming legislation, but after learning more about it, has changed his mind. He has always been personally pro life, but thought he could follow the pro choice mandates of Massachusetts, where he was governor, (just like Santorum explains he is a pro work candidate, but voted to follow is state’s union leanings while in the Senate as their representative), but then Romney could not sign a bill that came before him on stem cells that were to be created and then destroyed, so then governed as a pro life governor. He has also explained in some detail about his reasoning behind RomneyCare and that it is a state issue, about the differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare and the changes that have been made since he left office. And he has vowed to do what it takes to get rid of ObamaCare as soon as he gets into office as President, like all four candidates have. And if you do your homework, you will see that it is Newt Gingrich who has supported an individual mandate up until just one year ago… and it was Gingrich who helped blow out Paul Ryan’s popular economic plan and appeared in an ad with Nancy Pelosi to promote global warming legislation.

Rick Santorum - Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum is the last true social conservative in the field and if that is your priority then he is your candidate. He also has experience in the U.S. Senate in a blue collar Democrat state where he had to compromise, but he is not a pure conservative in other areas based on his Senatorial voting record.

Rick Santorum is brash and blunt, and proudly so. But it's a trait that will make it easy for Democrats to use his own words against him if he were to become the Republican presidential nominee. He wrote a book: It Takes a Family in response to Hillary Clinton’s book: It Takes a Village. The Democrats went after Santorum during his 2006 re-election bid for statements in his book claiming he was insensitive to the struggles of two-income families.

He is a great family man and true to his faith and God. And he is the son of an immigrant so brings with him that special love of America that comes from growing up in a family of legal immigrants from that era. Santorum is a specialist on Iran and speaks of it with passion.

He also showed us amazing tenacity as he campaigned in every county in Iowa with little money or support and eventually went on to win that Caucus.

Santorum may still surprise and turn out to be the conservative alternative choice to Romney over Newt. Santorum is relatively baggage free and Newt is baggage laden, which is why the Dems are salivating at the thought of his nomination.

“I look at the current crop of conservative candidates from which we have to choose and I can’t help but think, is this the best we can do? Really?? The most conservative of the lot that also believes in our military and protecting the US is Rick Santorum. He’s still my candidate and I pray fervently that he will prevail and win the nomination. But the odds are against him.” TMH of the NoisyRoom from her recent piece Revolution Moves into the Overton Window

Many have described the Republican race – in a year when President Obama is totally beatable with the question: Has it come to this: Newt Gingrich, serial philanderer, liar, hypocrite, secret Rockefeller Republican, back-stabber and megalomaniac versus Mitt Romney, the Supreme Panderer, the man-with-no-principles, an utter phony who will say anything and flip-flop at any time – and someone who was not a Reaganite until he ran for president in 2007 sandwiched between Rick Santorum an extreme social conservative in some people’s eyes, but not a true conservative by his Senatorial voting record and Ron Paul everyone’s crazy constitution reciting uncle, who has been talking about his Libertarian ideals for years but no one ever thought would make it this far… and now the country has changed and are coming around to his thinking. In reality, none of these 4 fall into the true conservative ‘right-wing’ confines of the GOP as measured by social, fiscal and ideological standards and both Mitt and Newt are considered RINO’s by the right wing of the party.

But I have chosen to take a more positive outlook. I say, “Is Progressive free-market-hating and America-hating Barack Obama the best the Democrats can do for a candidate? While the GOP actually has a clear choice of four uniquely individual candidates, all of which are better than Obama. And any one of them might not be ‘exactly’ what any of us want, but all of them will be better than what we now have and will put us back on the road in the right direction to continue the fight toward re-establishing the nation and Constitution that the Founding Fathers gave us. One of the best things all Americans can do is to work as hard as you can and vote for your choice of these 4-men in the primaries and then come together and vote for the GOP nominee to defeat Obama while making sure you elect a solid Republican House and Senate.

I really think that some of what we are hearing about all the candidates is just propaganda… from both sides, and much is exaggerated, skewed or unimportant. But the more I read about both Mitt and Newt, if I have to choose between them, at least at this point, I would vote for Mitt. Neither were my first choice. Sarah was my first choice, and then Cain and Bachmann, and I’m still routing for Santorum but the main goal is making Obama a one-term President. So I will vote for the GOP nominee; any of the 4 remaining candidates would be better for America than Obama. But from what I’m hearing through some inside connections… the WH is cheering over Newt’s present lead and SC win. And that SC win makes Florida’s winner-take-all primary more critical than ever, where Ron Paul is only participating in a limited way! Although he and all the candidates will participate in both Florida debates.

Tic Toc, Tic Toc, Tic Talk… Time to focus and talk about the big issues!

The Final Four

By Ask Marion

Romney’s Rebuttal to Obama’s State of the Union

Romney Releases His Tax Returns

Beck Reacts to Gingrich Calling His Criticism ‘Bologna’: ‘The Audio Speaks for Itself’

PEJ’s Election Report – Campaign 2012 in Media – Romney Has Received the Most Negative Coverage

Colbert Super PAC Goes Negative on Romney in First South Carolina Ad - Why do ideological idiots like Stephen Colbert have Super PACs?

Newt Commits Felony in CNN Interview?

Will Ignorance Lead to a Second Obama Term??

Tax Returns: Romney Made $20.9 Million Last Year, $21.7 Million in 2010 - Updated

2012-01-24T10:25:00.001-08:00

I say… enough! Here are Romney’s taxes and everything he did is within in the law. Making money and managing it well in a free-market capitalistic society should be considered a good thing to be emulated, not a bad thing. Romney did not inherit his money… he earned it. And he pays the required taxes on it (more taxes than 97% of America) and he tithes more than 10% back to his church, as the Bible calls on all Christians to do, plus gives a lot to charity! Don’t like the law… lobby to have it changed or let’s move to a flat or fair tax. But remember… Romney did not inherit his money and the great thing about America is that anyone can become a millionaire. Maybe he can manage our county’s finances as well as he has his own and can turn our nation around?!? (Gingrich was not even able to manage the money for his presidential campaign effectively and ended up having his advisors and staff mis-use and steal it… Is that really what we need in the financial mess we find ourselves in as a country? That is why Gingrich was not able to participate in the Iowa Straw Poll.)

On the list(s) of most beloved American Presidents, ranging from one of the poorest to the richest, are: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton in varying order and depending who you are polling. (Although President Obama, in a recent speech has said he is the 4th greatest president of all time… no modesty issues there!) Another interesting observation is that Teddy Roosevelt whose head is one of the four at Mt. Rushmore, thanks to his cousin FDR, is never on the most beloved or most influential U.S. Presidents lists. On the Five last week, both the libs and conservatives on the panel agreed that if Newt and Obama end up being our 2012 Election candidates, by the time the election is over they will have parleyed themselves up on the same level as God?!?)

An interesting side note: in today’s money… George Washington was the richest American President we have ever had and Mitt Romney, although very wealthy, would not be the richest. Thomas Jefferson, FDR and JFK were also extremely wealthy; JFK lived off his expense account almost exclusively. And John Heinz, had he have been elected would have been one of the richest. The Bushes are no pikers either! Even our “redistribute the wealth President, Obama, is a multi-millionaire”.

Tuesday, 24 Jan 2012 12:28 AM

Tax Returns: Romney Made $20.9 Million Last Year, $21.7 Million in 2010

By Newsmax Wires

Mitt Romney made $21.7 million in 2010 and $20.9 million last year — virtually all profits, dividends or interest from investments, according to an early release of his tax returns.

The partial snapshot of the Republican presidential hopeful's vast personal fortune came early Tuesday after the Romney campaign provided a preview Monday night to the media. A full release is expected today.

None of the income came from wages, the primary source for most Americans. Instead, Romney and his wife, Ann, collected millions in capital gains from a profusion of investments, as well as stock dividends and interest payments, the Post reported, citing the tax returns.

The Romneys gave away $7 million in charitable contributions over the past two years, including at least $4.1 million to the Mormon Church.

They paid an estimated $6.2 million in federal income taxes. According to Romney's 2010 tax return, he paid about $3 million to the IRS, for an effective tax rate of 13.9 percent, the Post reported. For 2011, Romney estimates that he will pay about $3.2 million, for an effective rate of 15.4 percent, which is in line with his earlier estimates.

He said previously that he estimates his net worth at $190 million to $250 million.

Romney, who earned most of his wealth after co-founding private equity firm Bain Capital, bowed to weeks of public pressure by disclosing his 2010 federal tax return and a tax estimate for 2011.

His surging rival for the Republican presidential nomination, Newt Gingrich, released a form 1040 — the standard income-reporting form for American taxpayers — with attachments last week, showing his income for the year was about $3.1 million and his effective tax rate more than 31 percent. Some sources of Gingrich's income were unclear because he earns most of his wealth through a holding company for enterprises such as his consulting and production companies.

Romney did not release tax returns from his time at Bain Capital. Romney co-founded the firm in 1984 and worked there until 1999. Tax returns from those years might show how Romney built the bulk of his fortune and would provide a more comprehensive picture of his wealth but the campaign said it would not be releasing them.

Romney's campaign lawyer Ben Ginsberg told reporters late on Monday: "Frankly we're not going to get into the game of once you give them something, you demand more. This is a fulsome release and we are very proud of it."

Even at more than 500 pages, the returns offer a narrow look into a working life of high income, and questions may persist over fairness in taxation. "The tax returns are very complicated compared to those of many Americans," said Brad Malt, director of Romney's trusts.

The effective tax rate is the actual tax rate paid after accounting for deductions, credits and the like. An individual might make enough to place among the richest Americans taxed at 35 percent but with deductions and alternative types of income, the actual rate paid can be much lower.

Like many of the wealthiest Americans, Romney gets most of his income through investments, so his rate trends lower in large part because of the 15 percent tax rate on capital gains. Romney had total capital gains income of $12.5 million for 2010 and an estimated $10.7 million for 2011.

Much of Romney's fortune likely qualifies as what is known as "carried interest," a share of profits earned by private equity managers taxed at the 15 percent capital gains tax rate rather than the maximum 35 percent wage rate. Private equity managers, some hedge fund executives and venture capitalists benefit from carried interest.

Campaign officials said Romney had carried interest of $7.4 million in 2010 and $5.5 million in 2011.

Critics say the 15 percent rate for carried interest is an unfair tax break because investment managers, as Romney was, are providing a service that should be taxed at the higher rate paid by wage earners.

Democrats in Congress have come close to raising the rate to have it equal the rate paid on "ordinary" or wage income but fierce lobbying has paid off so far for the private equity, venture capital and hedge fund industries.

The release shows Romney has a $100 million trust set up for his five sons. The campaign said the Romneys paid no gift taxes on the trust because they were able to use credits related to estate tax.

Romney's investment funds run through Bain are in offshore tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, a practice the campaign insists is legal and common but that has come under some criticism during the campaign.

The Romney campaign's answer to questions on this front has been that he does not control the makeup of the funds because they are run as blind trusts.

Some of these investments also are held through two Individual Retirement Accounts and investing IRAs offshore can eliminate all taxes until withdrawals are made.

Malt said that at one point money had been placed in a Swiss bank account and that this had been meant to diversify the portfolio but, aware that some such accounts are used to evade taxes, Malt decided to close it in early 2010 to remove a potential source of embarrassment. He said the account was never meant to evade taxes, and no taxes went unpaid.

As a devout Mormon, Romney gives away at least 10 percent of his income to the Mormon church, a practice known as tithing.

The documents showed he and his wife, Ann, contributed more than $7 million in charity over the two years, averaging over 16 percent of his income.

Editor’s Note: Romney’s Secret to Skirting the IRS Despite raking in $21.7 million, Romney likely paid a lower tax rate than you did by exploiting these obscure tax secrets (Click here to see them)

Read more on Newsmax.com: Romney's Tax Returns: Mitt Paid Less than 15% taxes on almost 22 million.
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

*Romney has now released his taxes for 2010 and 2011. Gingrich has released his for 2010. Santorum says he does his own and won’t be able to release them until he gets back home at some time because they are on his computer. And Paul says he won’t be releasing his because he makes so little compared to everyone else, it would be embarrassing, plus it is not required!! Yes folks… it is not required. All Candidates fill our volumes of documents when they run including extensive financial disclosure forms, but tax returns are not required.

*In a special interview with Mitt Romney on Hannity it was pointed out that the taxes on this money is a second bite of the apple. Romney is paying 15% on the bulk of the funds in these returns because he is now living on investments so is paying a capital gains tax. Corporate taxes were already paid on these funds and now the Romneys are paying an additional 15% on these funds. So when you add the corporate taxes, the capital gains taxes on the re-invested money and his charitable contributions, Romney pays somewhere between 34% and 42%.

Revolution Moves Into The Overton Window

2012-01-23T22:50:00.001-08:00

The Overton Window:

The Overton Window, in political theory, describes a “window” in the range of public reactions to ideas in public discourse, in a spectrum of all possible options on a particular issue. It is named after its originator, Joseph P. Overton, former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

At any given moment, the “window” includes a range of policies considered to be politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too “extreme” or outside the mainstream to gain or keep public office. Overton arranged the spectrum on a vertical axis of “more free” and “less free” in regard to government intervention. When the window moves or expands, ideas can accordingly become more or less politically acceptable. The degrees of acceptance of public ideas can be described roughly as:

· Unthinkable

· Radical

· Acceptable

· Sensible

· Popular

· Policy

The Overton Window is a means of visualizing which ideas define that range of acceptance by where they fall in it. Proponents of policies outside the window seek to persuade or educate the public so that the window either “moves” or expands to encompass them. Opponents of current policies, or similar ones currently within the window, likewise seek to convince people that these should be considered unacceptable.

Other formulations of the process created after Overton’s death add the concept of moving the window, such as deliberately promoting ideas even less acceptable than the previous “outer fringe” ideas, with the intention of making the current fringe ideas acceptable by comparison.

I look at the current crop of conservative candidates from which we have to choose and I can’t help but think, is this the best we can do? Really?? The most conservative of the lot that also believes in our military and protecting the US is Rick Santorum. He’s still my candidate and I pray fervently that he will prevail and win the nomination. But the odds are against him. The two front runners are both Progressives and it just makes my stomach ache to think of pulling the lever for one of them, all in the name of saving what is left of America from full-blown Marxism. It’s depressing.

What we would have considered taboo and a fatal nominee flaw a few years ago, is suddenly okay evidently. Sex in the White House? Not a problem… Cheated on your wife and divorced? Not a problem… Buddy around with known radicals and Marxists? Definitely not a problem… And the Overton Window slides inexorably to the left. What has happened to us? We were once the greatest nation on the planet. We had a robust economy, a strong military, a Christian ethic, strong morals, a rich history and leaders of whom we were proud. Now? Well, we have an economy that is close to a Weimar moment. Our leaders have gutted our military. Christianity is being systematically destroyed and vilified. Morals seemed to have been replaced by an entitlement mentality. Our history is being rewritten and erased. Our leaders are corrupt, gutless, spineless, knee scrapers, who only care about themselves and their personal pocketbooks.

And now comes the 2012 election circus and you can already hear the politicians crying that ‘he won’t stop touching me!‘ In a political tantrum, exhibiting brain damage, that is an unfunny parody of a Bill Cosby skit, replete with numerous and vociferous claims of ‘I don’t know!‘

The stupid and the lame give way to the ridiculous and extreme during this dance of the Progressives. And Americans sit there confused, apathetic and depressed while the elites do a jig on the Constitution and rob us blind during intermission between emergencies and elections. As our elected mob haggles over how best to control us, while enslaving us and getting us to behave, the anger among the majority of Americans (who by the way are conservative) is building and building…

Words that you didn’t hear a decade ago are being bandied about, such as treason and revolution. The whispers of unrest are getting stronger and the American boiling pot is about to explode. We all feel it if we are honest with ourselves. Many believe we won’t even make it to the next election, especially since there is an excellent chance the Marxist in Chief won’t be reelected. Any emergency will do and the Progressives have a whole list of possibilities to choose from. None of them good for you or me.

All the while, the establishment RINOs keep telling us that no matter what crappy candidate they choose, we have to vote for them or the world will end. The RINOs are Progressives on the right and gee, they just don’t sound that much different than the left. And I’ve just about had enough of that crap sandwich. But the third party guys aren’t much better and would almost certainly get Obama reelected. A death sentence for the Republic – no doubt about it. But as I said before, I may not like the choices, but I’ll vote for an old shoe before I vote to get Obama reelected. Whatever it takes.

It is in times such as these that revolutions are born. Don’t be fooled by the Occupy movement. They are meant to create strife and chaos to help the current administration. Most of what the left says, they mean the exact opposite.

But as a friend said tonight, you can only push Conservative America so far before they’ve had enough. And baby, we are just about there. America, she’s a-cookin’ and if things don’t change – and soon – there will be a hot time across the land and this is one party we could really do without.

If there is to be a conservative revolution in this country, we need a leader who not only knows how to balance a budget and cut spending, but one who has a spine and is willing to stand toe to toe against our enemies – foreign and domestic. Someone who is not politically correct. Someone who is moral and will do the right thing no matter the cost. America’s waiting – I hope he shows up soon.

From Sultan Knish:

Revolutions begin with an open contempt for and anger at the existing order. The left knows that. It is why it fears talk radio and populism more than it fears the latest set of dapper gatekeepers we send to the Senate. The contempt and anger are here, the more they go public, the more the power of the left is shaken. And the next step is to expand the cultural war to a specific disrespect and hostility for the values and sacred cows of the left. Then to challenge their institutions and regulations. And then real political change can begin with candidates who are revolutionaries because they believe it, or because they are operating under a new paradigm that is outside the left’s manufactured consensus.

Most of the elements are already in place. The consensus establishment is making its last stand, but it is fading. It is now a race between shaping public anger into a vehicle for political change and the speed at which the left is transforming and fragmenting the country to prevent a political revolution of the right from ever coming about. May we be swift for if the left wins the race then it is the end of America.

One way or the other, from the left or the right, we are moving towards revolution. The concept of revolution is now clearly inside the Overton Window. We’ve already gone down the crazy road and now we are heading for the cliffs. May Conservative America fight with all their might to win this struggle for the heart and soul of the Republic.

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton - The NoisyRoom

The Overton Window by Glenn Beck

Obama is a ‘vulture socialist’

2012-01-23T09:43:00.001-08:00

Food for thought…

Exclusive: Roger Hedgecock asks, 'Is Mitt Romney the bad guy?'

Bernie Madoff is in jail for life for using other people’s money under false pretenses in a Ponzi scheme that fooled some of America’s most sophisticated investors. This is an example of fraud, not capitalism.

Raj Rajaratnam is in jail for 11 years for insider trading of securities of Galleon Group, the hedge fund he founded. This is an example of violating a law passed by Congress restricting capitalism. If Raj had been a member of Congress, which exempted itself from that insider trading law, he would not be in jail today.

Steve Jobs will be remembered forever as the American who envisioned products that didn’t exist and the world later found indispensable. His was American capitalism in the Edison, Bell, and Ford tradition. American innovative capitalism has changed the world. Jobs made Apple Inc., which he famously started at home, into a worldwide giant with a net worth greater than the country of Greece.

Mitt Romney and the investors in his private equity firm made a boatload of money buying risky failing companies and turning them around to profitability. Many companies failed anyway. Others became household names. Many employees lost jobs they were going to lose anyway; many more Americans found jobs in Staples, Domino’s Pizza, Brookstone, Sports Authority, etc.

What Mitt did goes by many fancy names today in MBA courses and in the business media, but it is still old-fashioned capitalism. Private investors risking their own money to make a profit.

To critics, it’s called “vulture capitalism.” This losing leftist rant has been validated by its adoption by Romney’s rival Republican, Newt Gingrich. (Perhaps something that the party as well as the country based on free market economics should seriously think about.)

If you are one of those critics (Republican or Democrat), what do you call what Barack Hussein Obama is doing?

Obama took money from Americans by force (did you think the IRS was voluntary?) and borrowed money from the Chinese when taxation did not yield enough money. Obama then applied the money to create/subsidize companies to make products he knew people didn’t want at prices they could not afford.

Bought a Volt yet? Not only more expensive (at $42,000) to the consumer than comparable hybrid cars from both domestic and foreign companies, the Volt’s real cost is estimated at $250,000 each when all the costs/subsidies are counted. Do you think the $56 billion “invested” by Obama in the Volt’s maker, General Motors, was really worth it?

Unless you are the United Auto Workers union, which received 17 percent of GM for nothing, the answer is no.

The irony here is that the total CO2 emissions from the manufacturing of the Volt, including the fire prone battery setup, are about the same as any other vehicle. Mother Gaia is not amused.

Then there were the green energy start-up companies.

Obama has been on a spending spree with you as the forced partner. Solyndra, Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, Spectrawatt and Eastern Energy are just a few of the dozens of companies that have received more than $6.5 billion in grants and loans to create the green energy of Obama’s fantasy future. Every one of these companies has either failed or is on the verge of failing, taking your money with it. Thousands of “good-paying, middle-class jobs” promised by Obama are evaporating.

Obama was hell bent on creating a brave, new, green world. By choking off the use of America’s natural bounty of coal, oil and natural gas, and by promising an even greater bounty from a world of “alternative energy” supposedly more pleasing to the planet, Obama embarked on the same government-knows-best program that has impoverished countries from Zimbabwe to Cuba to North Korea.

Afraid that Americans are catching on to his “vulture socialism,” Obama is already running TV ads for his re-election touting the creation of “2.7 million jobs” from “America’s clean energy industry.” Many of those jobs were already in place before Obama took office, and many more are now endangered by the fact that the market is not buying what Obama is selling. As happened in Spain, for every green job created, 2.5 jobs in existing manufacturing have been lost.

In a final irony, the same TV ad also brags that America’s foreign oil dependence has declined to below 50 percent of our daily need. That is true and has nothing to do with Obama’s force-fed green-energy program. The recession made worse by Obama’s policies has reduced consumer gasoline demand. The U.S. still uses twice the oil it produces and still tolerates a federal government that spends nearly twice what it takes in.

Using government force, Obama spends $10 billion per day (and borrows more than $4 billion of that per day) to keep the federal Leviathan on course to “utterly transform” our economy and erode American freedoms.

And Mitt Romney, the guy who specializes in turning around failing enterprises and would apply that expertise to the failing federal government, is the bad guy?

by Roger Hedgecock - a nationally syndicated talk-show host. Prior to his broadcasting career, he worked as an attorney and political leader. Hedgecock is a strong supporter of the military and founded Homefront. – Posted at WND