Saturday, March 31, 2012

Huckabee: Obamacare Defeat Will Doom Obama's Re-election

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee tells Newsmax that Democratic commentator James Carville is “dreaming” when he says a Supreme Court decision to strike down Obamacare would be beneficial to Democrats and help President Obama win re-election.

The Arkansas Republican, who sought the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, likens Obamacare to a stew with tainted meat — the individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase healthcare insurance — and says the entire stew should be discarded and made over from scratch.
Huckabee also says the contentious GOP primary race has been a disaster for Republicans, warns that a brokered GOP convention would be a “train wreck,” calls potential vice presidential selection Marco Rubio the future of the Republican Party, and asserts that Obama’s overheard comments to Russia’s president are “unforgiveable.”

Huckabee, a best-selling author, currently offers three daily commentaries on more than 500 Cumulus Media Network radio stations and is a host and contributor on Fox News Channel. His new radio program “The Mike Huckabee Show,” a daily three-hour talk show, will begin airing on April 2 on Cumulus, which has more than 4,000 affiliate stations reaching 121 million listeners.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Huckabee was asked how Republicans would react if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare’s individual mandate but allows portions of the healthcare reform bill to stand.

“I think they’re going to want to repeal it all and start over with a clean slate,” Huckabee declares.

“This whole healthcare bill was shoved down the throats of both Congress and the country. The smart thing to do if the Supreme Court strikes down the heart of it, which is the individual mandate, is to say let’s go back, we can take the things from it that we might think are good. Let’s put those on a piece of paper, let’s build around it and let’s put a real healthcare reform bill in place that makes sense. But let’s take it incrementally and don’t try to put everything in there.

“I look at this healthcare bill as a big bowl of stew, and at this point the Supreme Court may say there’s some tainted meat in that stew that we’re going to take out. I don’t know, if you take the tainted meat out, if anybody would still want to eat it.

“Let’s start with a clean pot, some fresh meat, and let’s make this stew all over again. That’s what we need to do with the healthcare bill.”

Referring to Carville’s prediction that a Supreme Court rejection of Obamacare would be the best thing for Democrats and the president, Huckabee says: “James is dreaming. He needs to wake up and face reality. Nobody likes Obamacare for the most part. Nearly 70 percent of the American population believes that it’s unconstitutional and ought to be repealed.

“So it’s not just an issue where Republicans don’t like it and Democrats do. Independents and a lot of Democrats don’t like it either. The best thing Democrats can do is to have it stricken by the Supreme Court and let Congress start over, because if I were a Democrat the last thing I’d want is to have Obamacare hung around my neck going into the autumn elections.”

In an earlier Newsmax interview Huckabee predicted that the GOP primary would be a demolition derby, and he now says that is “definitely” what it has proven to be.

“It’s been vicious,” he says. “It’s one thing for the candidates to contrast with each other on the views and issues, but what’s happened in this primary is these guys have gone after each other on a personal level.

“They’ve attacked each other’s integrity, each other’s honor. Those are the scars that they’re going to have to carry into the fall and it’s not healthy.

“I feel it’s been a real disaster for the Republicans and that whoever emerges as the nominee is going to have a lot of commercials run against him by the Democrats with material that was provided by other Republicans, and that’s simply not a good thing.”

Editor's Note: Huckabee to Newsmax — GOP Nomination Battle a 'Real Disaster'
Asked if he would be happy if Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, Huckabee responds: “I’ll be happy with the GOP nominee whoever it is, including Mitt Romney, and I’m going to campaign for whoever our nominee is. At this point it’s certainly looking like Mitt Romney is going to be that person. It’s not over, but he’s on track to get there.

“I will support him vigorously because my interest is making sure that we don’t have another disastrous four years of Barack Obama.”

Some observers say the GOP primary battle could result in a brokered convention. Would Huckabee accept the nomination if he was called upon? Newsmax asked.

“That would never happen, but even if it were to happen, it would be a disaster. A brokered convention is a broken convention,” he responds.

“It’s a train wreck and no one would celebrate that except Democrats, who then would know that we have in fact re-elected Barack Obama.

“If someone is just picked out of the blue and walks up on stage and becomes the nominee, that is going to be highly offensive not just to the candidates who are not selected but to all those hundreds of thousands of volunteers who have helped these candidates who are now being dismissed. It is a recipe for a complete breakdown.”

As to whether he would join the Republican ticket as the vice presidential candidate, Huckabee says simply: “Nobody’s asked, and until they do I’ve found it’s always better not to buy a corsage to a prom to which you’ve not been invited.”

He adds: “I think there are a lot of people who would be exceptionally qualified” to be vice president. “One of the names I have put forth is Marco Rubio, my campaign chairman in Florida four years ago. I think he’s certainly the future of the party and I would be delighted if he were selected.”

During President Obama’s recent trip to South Korea he was overheard by a hot microphone telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that issues such as missile defense would be best handled after the election when he would “have more flexibility,” implying he is ready to do something the Russians will like but the American people won’t.

Huckabee comments: “It tells me something about his arrogance, the fact that he’s so confident that he’s going to be re-elected. I found that very offensive.

“The fact that he would say something to a Russian that he would not say to the American people is unforgiveable. It’s inexcusable. No president should be making side deals with the Russians without telling us what he’s thinking of doing.

“The idea that he could do something after the election because the pressure is off — I’d like for him to think that every day the pressure is on for him to work for the American people’s benefit, not to work for his own political benefit. If something is right in December it’s right now.

“I highly resent the idea that he’s going to pull something over on us once he gets the election behind him. I think if Americans had no other reason to vote for someone else and get Barack Obama out where he can buy that Chevy Volt he said he’s going to buy when he leaves office, this is it.

“I’m hoping that his purchase of the Volt comes this November, not November four years from now.”

Discussing his new three-hour daily radio show, Huckabee tells Newsmax:

  • “This is a wonderful platform. A long-form program is going to provide a great deal more opportunity to go into depth with issues.
  • “I’m not really interested in raising listeners’ blood pressure. I’m going to raise their information level.
  • “Some people like their soup very hot, some people want it cold, and some want it just right. What we’re going to try to do is deliver it just right.
  • “We’ll have a lot of guests. We’ll have a lot of people I agree with and a lot of people I don’t agree with. I’ve always believed that if you let a liberal talk long enough, he’ll do more to ruin his own position than I could ever do by attacking it.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Huckabee: Obamacare Defeat Will Doom Obama's Re-election
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!


On his Friday radio program, conservative talk show host Mark Levin questioned the latest tactic used by National Action Network President Al Sharpton to force Sanford, Fla. law enforcement to press charges against accused Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman.
Levin called into question Sharpton’s conflict of interest: Sharpton is an employee of NBC News’ cable outlet MSNBC and is calling for civil disobedience at the same time, according to a report in Friday’s Orlando Sentinel.
“I don’t understand this MSLSD, a.k.a. MSNBC,” Levin said. “They have a host that they specifically chose, Phil Griffin — the president of MSLSD, part of the NBC News operation, part of Comcast Cable that conglomerate — named Al Sharpton, Al ‘Not-so’ Sharpton.”
Sharpton’s pressure raised a larger issue, according to Levin — the use of political pressure tactics as such to influence a judicial system in which the rule of law should prevail.
“Is this how we handle the rule of law in America?” Levin said. “Is this how we handle justice in America? This jerk, this moron, this rabble-rouser — trying to influence the judicial system, trying to influence potentially a future jury? Who the hell died and named Al Sharpton boss, king, attorney general or anything else for that matter? And how is it that he can put one hat on one day, another hat on another day, a third hat on another day? He’s part of the NBC News operation.”
“So, here we have MSLSD with a guy who is a TV host — MSLSD, part of the NBC News operation, talking about promoting, of course, ‘peaceful’ civil unrest,” Levin said. “Now how’s Sharpton going to ensure that? Maybe an economic boycott if Zimmerman is not arrested. Zimmerman may or may not be arrested, but he shouldn’t be arrested as a result of this kind of pressure.”
Levin posed the question if Americans should be comfortable with a judicial system that caves to pressure
“And Sharpton is — let’s be honest, as I’ve been here from the beginning — more than anything else, a Democrat operative. Sharpton’s been to the White House many, many times. Jesse Jackson, a Democrat operative, Democrat operatives, in Sharpton’s case, who has a TV show and is trying to interfere with the rule of law. Let us put this correctly, Sharpton is trying to create a mob, an angry mob. And Sharpton is trying to force law enforcement, including prosecutors, to take steps based on his pressure, based on mob rule, not based on the facts. Now I ask you this America — is this the kind of country you want? Is this the kind of country that you’re comfortable with?”
*Apr 21 - 00:05*
Best buds??  wow what a pair!
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/31/mark-levin-who-the-hell-died-and-made-al-sharpton-boss-king-or-attorney-general/#ixzz1qkHYIFri

Obama again is looking for fair share..

This shit gets old. Raising taxes on the rich will not help pay any of his debt. He want's to take it and give it to other entitlement programs.
   What ever happened to his Laser sharp focuse everyday on creating jobs? What a line of bullshit!
This guy is an idiot!

The “Buffett rule” is back.
Six months after first proposing raising taxes on America’s rich to force everyone to “pay their fair share,” President Barack Obama is again touting the plan as congressional Democrats aim to bring the measure up for a vote.
The rule contrasts with the Rep. Paul Ryan budget, which House Republicans passed this week largely on party lines. The Ryan budget would, among other things, revamp and simplify the tax code, but the White House alleges that the changes would mean that the wealthy would pay a smaller percentage in taxes than those with mid-range incomes.
“When it comes to paying down the deficit and investing in our future, should we ask middle-class Americans to pay even more at a time when their budgets are already stretched to the breaking point?” Obama asked in his weekly address released Saturday. “Or should we ask some of the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share? That’s the choice.”
In reality, the Buffett rule, named for billionaire Warren Buffett, would do precious little to bring down the deficit, compared with the nation’s enormous debt. A congressional tax analysis obtained by The Associated Press showed that the rule would bring in just $47 billion over the next 11 years. These United States are projected to run $7 trillion in deficits over that time period.
In other words, the Buffett rule would account for .0067 percent of the funds needed to make up the federal deficit in the next 11 years.
But the White House has argued that raising taxes on the rich is the right thing to do, no matter how little it would reduce the deficit. Touting the rule allows Obama to take a poll-tested position that makes him appear serious about deficit reduction.
The push is also the latest in Obama’s campaign against Congress. Over the last two weeks, the president has focused his energy domestically on pushing Congress to end tax breaks for the five big oil companies. Obama worked in coordination with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, to bring such a bill to the Senate floor, but Republicans voted to end debate on the legislation on Thursday, killing the bill.
“Every member of Congress is going to go on record,” Obama said. “And if they vote to keep giving tax breaks to people like me — tax breaks our country can’t afford — then they’re going to have to explain to you where that money comes from. Either it’s going to add to our deficit, or it’s going to come out of your pocket.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/31/obama-back-to-championing-buffett-rule/#ixzz1qkGgC7ZM

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/31/obama-back-to-championing-buffett-rule/#ixzz1qkGacte4

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Obama Blames America for Shooting Tragedy

Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C.— True to form, President Obama has used the tragic shooting of an unarmed black teenager to prejudge the case and blame all Americans.

Referring to the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida, Obama said from the White House Rose Garden, “You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

Obama sent a message that he believes the shooting of Trayvon Martin was racially motivated.
(Getty Images)
By drawing attention to Martin’s race, Obama suggested that the shooting was racially motivated.

“All of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen,” Obama went on, “and that means that we examine the laws and the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incident.”

Now let’s say the shooter had been black and the victim had been white.

Picture President Bush telling the press, “Blacks are more than seven times more likely to commit murder than non-blacks. Blacks need to do some soul-searching to figure out why. You know, if I had a son, he would look like the victim of that shooting.”

As it happens, while Martin expressed fear that Zimmerman was following him, there is no evidence that the shooting was racially motivated. Quite the contrary, George Zimmerman, the neighborhood-watch volunteer who shot Martin, has served with his wife as a mentor to African-American youth.

“He and his wife were mentors to a single mother with two, a 14-year-old son and a 13-year-old daughter,” Craig Sonner, Zimmerman’s lawyer, said on “CBS This Morning.” “They were mentors to them, took them every couple of weeks. What that program included was every other week, going for two or three hours going to the mall, to the science center, going to lunch, playing basketball, doing those types of things.”

“Obama is supposedly a constitutional lawyer but pronounces guilt before indictment and trial,” says John L. Martin, a former FBI agent who headed Justice Department espionage prosecutions for nearly 25 years. As a young agent, Martin was one of the lead investigators of the murders of three civil rights workers in Mississippi in 1964.

“There is no such thing as a presumption of innocence,” Martin says. “Instead, Obama accuses all non-black humanity of what may be the wrongful acts of one individual. There is no such thing as individual responsibility or individual accountability. We are all responsible for pulling the trigger.”

Obama’s comment on the shooting is in line with his claim that police in Cambridge, Mass. “acted stupidly” because they arrested a black Harvard professor who was being obstreperous. And it is consistent with Obama’s dark view of America, a view he shares with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., his minister and mentor for 20 years. Wright said America created the AIDS virus to kill off blacks. Never mind that a supposedly racist country elected Obama president.

As noted in my story “'The Obamas' Confirms Worst Fears About the President," confidantes of the president say he attributes criticism of his policies to prejudice against blacks. In his speeches, Obama routinely refers to children “no matter what they look like” to suggest that opponents of his policies are racists who don’t want blacks to succeed.

In much the same way, Obama has pitted the poor against the rich, undercutting the most basic American ideals. He has even endorsed the Occupy Wall Street movement, which seeks to redistribute Americans’ wealth and encourages envy.

To those of us who have exposed genuine discrimination against blacks, what is heartbreaking about this public emphasis on race is how it has set back race relations. If this were a truly colorblind society, no one would mention race or notice skin color.

But Obama and many Democrats who follow his example by using any excuse to cry racism have turned back the clock to the 1960s, when the first thing we thought about when seeing a black man was the color of his skin.

Besides adding $5 trillion to the national debt since he took office, that is Obama’s shameful legacy.

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com. Read more reports from Ronald Kessler — Click Here Now.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Obama Blames America for Shooting Tragedy
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Another Green Tech scandal

GOP leaders are investigating Ecotality Inc., yet another troubled green-tech company that has received taxpayer funds and public support from the White House.
The firm has received roughly $126 million from the the Department of Energy to install roughly 14,000 electric car chargers, has donated thousands of dollars to Democratic politicians, and was showcased by President Barack Obama in his 2010 State of the Union speech.
But the company has installed less than 7,000 of the chargers, its subsidiary is being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for insider trading, and it has only created 144 jobs, according to the federal Recovery.gov website.
The Heritage Foundation’s investigative unit reported that the company’s financial document showed the company got a SEC subpoena in Oct. 2010.
“It is the same story, different day, with the administration’s green-energy agenda,” said a source. “They’re rewarding friends at the expense of taxpayers.”
Several other taxpayer-funded green-tech companies have gone bankrupt or laid off employees.
Famously, California-based Solyndra went bankrupt in 2010 after getting more than $500 million in federal loans, and General Motors recently stopped production of the Chevy Volt because of low sales. Battery-maker A-123 laid off a third of its workforce in 2011, despite getting $249 million in taxpayer funds. (RELATED: Obama proposes bumping Chevy Volt subsidy up to $10K)
Private sector funding for green-tech companies is also drying up as investors worry about declining federal subsidies.
The numerous problems have delayed pending loans by the Energy Department, even though Obama again touted the green-tech push in his 2012 State of the Union speech.
So far, the administration has spent at least $13 billion on green-tech subsidies, which are derided by GOP advocates as “crony capitalism.”
On Monday House Republicans asked the Department of Energy for more information about the troubled green-tech program and the Ecotality company.
The information is needed to weigh the merits of Obama’s 2013 budget-request for $1 billion “National Community Deployment Challenge” program that would subsidize local governments’ support for green-tech vehicles.
“Details of the President’s initiative are severely lacking… it is imperative that Congress receive further details on this proposal,” said a March 26 letter from Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, the Republican chairman of the House science committee’s panel on energy and environment.
Harris’ letter to the Energy Department Secretary Steven Chu also demanded more information about Ecotality, whose charging stations for electric autos — such as the stalled Volt — might be funded by the proposed $1 billion NCDC program.
“Was DoE aware Ecotoality received a subpoena from the SEC in October 2010? Why did DoE award Ecotality and additional $26 million contract nearly a year after SEC issues the company a subpoena in October 2010?” asked Harris’ letter.
Follow Neil on Twitter

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/house-gop-eyes-another-possible-green-tech-scandal/#ixzz1qMmgM4LF

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Just a note on the health law

Thes Liberal Hacks that are now saying this law is great, people are getting things they could not get before. Well you know what....that is not the number one issue! The main issue to the average American is this country cannot AFFORD it and I don't want to be forced to pay for something as it is requiring!

Old birther issue still looming?


Email suggests Corzine ordered transfer of $200M as MF Global failed

  A former MF Global executive is contradicting testimony from Jon Corzine, saying the former senator ordered the transfer of $200 million last fall out of a customer account days before the firm collapsed, according to an email obtained by congressional investigators.
Edith O'Brien, the former assistant treasurer, says Corzine ordered the money shifted to one of the firm's bank accounts overseas on Oct. 28 to cover an overdraft, according to a memo that cited the e-mail.
The email noted that the transfer was made "per JC's direct instructions."
MF Global filed for bankruptcy protection on Oct. 31. The firm failed because of a disastrous bet on European debt. About $1.6 billion of customers' money hasn't been recovered.
A House Financial Services subcommittee released the memo Friday in advance of a hearing Wednesday. O'Brien has been subpoenaed to testify. The Associated Press could not reach her for comment.
In December, Corzine told the panel: "I did not instruct anyone to lend customer funds to MF Global or any of its affiliates." Corzine also told the subcommittee he didn't know about "the use of customer funds on any loan or transfer."
And Corzine told a Senate panel two days earlier: "I never gave any instruction to anyone at MF Global to misuse customer funds."
A representative for Corzine didn't immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.
Client money is required by law to be held separately from a brokerage firm's cash to protect investors in case a firm fails. If MF Global misused client money, it would violate a fundamental investor protection for people who trade options and futures.
Many lawmakers have heard from farmers, ranchers and small business owners in their states who are missing money that was deposited with the firm. Agricultural businesses use brokerage firms like MF Global to help reduce their risks in an industry vulnerable to swings in oil, corn and other commodity prices.
Corzine, a former New Jersey governor and U.S. senator from the state, led MF Global until early November. He testified before three congressional panels in December. He said he didn't become aware of the shortfall in customer money until hours before MF Global's bankruptcy filing.
No one has been charged in the MF Global case. In addition to Congress, federal regulators and a federal grand jury in Chicago are investigating

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/23/email-suggests-corzine-ordered-transfer-200m-as-mf-global-failed/#ixzz1qB1LbBfG

‘This Is Such a Crock’: Limbaugh Calls Out President for ‘Approving’ the Keystone Deal

During a segment of the Rush Limbaugh show on Thursday, the host took on President Obama for claiming he “approved” the construction of the new Keystone XL pipeline from Cushing, Okla., to the Gulf.
“Obama could not have stopped this leg of the Keystone pipeline if he’d wanted to,” Limbaugh said. “He’s simply there…There’s no other way to say it. He’s just glomming onto it. It‘s like trying to be present when the Ten Commandments are given at the burning bush and claiming you wrote ’em.”
Well, that’s not exactly how that story goes, but you get the idea.
Limbaugh was amazed that the president would try to position himself as a proponent of oil drilling.
“The guy who steadfastly opposes drilling for oil and has not issued any permits to speak of, particularly since Gulf oil drilling moratorium — the guy who has made his name opposing the Keystone pipeline — is now out taking credit for it!” Limbaugh said
“The only thing that a president can stop, again, is an international pipeline. In fact, the Keystone XL Pipeline is the first international pipeline that has ever been denied by a president. Keystone is the first international pipeline ever denied!” he added.
“And he was denying it as recently as Monday. And he was criticizing it as recently as Tuesday. And he was telling people that there was no silver bullet or magic bullet to any new oil in this country however we got it, via drilling or via pipeline. And in a space of less than 48 hours, we have had the equivalent of an atheist become the pope on oil and on energy. The Keystone XL Pipeline is the first time in history a presidential permit for a cross-border pipeline has ever been denied.”
Every bit of this is irritating,” Limbaugh said.
Watch Limbaugh take on the president’s claims (via Fox Nation):

“In his speech this morning, Obama said, ‘Producing more oil and gas here at home will continue to be a critical part of our energy strategy.’” Limbaugh said.
“Will continue to be! This is the guy standing in the way of oil and gas production. This is the guy throwing money away on wind and solar and electric cars…Obama is ‘producing more oil and gas here at home’?” Limbaugh asked.
He continued:
This is what the Democrats do, folks. This is what the left does. There is no moral core. There‘s no concern for truth and there’s no concern for being caught lying, because Obama knows that his number one support group’s not gonna call him on it. The only people who are gonna call him on it are people like me, and they’re not worried about that. They’ve got the AP on their side. They’ve got the Washington Post, the New York Times. They don’t care. But what it indicates is the good news about this: They know how deep the trouble Obama is in. They know how deep it is. They know the problems he’s got.
We have this: 78 percent of the people following this want the Keystone pipeline, and Obama’s in the 22 percent opposing it. And his 22 percent counts for a hundred percent because he can stop it, and he has stopped it. So now he’s out trying to make this little connection between Oklahoma and Texas appear to be the whole thing having been authorized. They’re in deep trouble. They have the support, when you boil it all down, of no more than 30 percent of people in this country. When you boil it all down, Obama and the Democrats have no more than 30 percent. Why do they get more votes than that? Well, once again: How many people do you think are going to hear this stuff today and think it’s true?
To put it simply: “This is such a crock.”


"I want the leftists at MSNBC, CNN, and the other so-called news outlets who are dressed up as journalists but are nothing of the sort, I want you to understand something. You don...’t get to decide who the rest of us listen to. You don’t get to decide who the rest of us admire. You’re not going to succeed in driving Rush Limbaugh from the airwaves. I don’t care how many cowardly Republicans you speak to. I don’t care how many inside-the-beltway pseudo-conservatives you speak to and so forth.

Our nation is teetering. Everything we believe in is being undermined. The future for our children and grandchildren is perilous. And you in the media do the bidding of the very politicians who have brought us to this dire state. You don’t get to dictate to us. You don’t even get to influence us, try as you might.

Rush isn’t going anywhere because there’s tens of millions of us standing by his side. And we’re not going anywhere either.

You say nothing about the unconstitutional acts of this president. You say nothing of the policies that are bankrupting our nation. You do nothing to expose the lies and deceit of this administration. In fact, if you’re not covering it up, you’re cheering it on. This is why we have no respect for you, why your audience and readership are plummeting and will continue to.

No, we will not let you take down Rush or anyone else. In fact, I think I speak for tens of millions of Americans when I say YOU CAN GO TO HELL!!!"

Click "Like" if you agree with Mark Levin and want more Americans to hear the truth about what the Liberal Media is doing to destroy America.

Go to www.facebook.com/nomorefakemedia to Share this pic with friends and family!!
See More

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Obama touts energy policy then lies

President Barack Obama’s struggled to defend his price-boosting energy policies during a speech in Cushing, Okla., today, even as rapidly spreading criticism and rising gas prices damage his poll ratings.
“He was incredibly defensive because little of what he says is true — that’s his dilemma,” said Dan Kish, a vice president at the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Energy Research.
Speaking off-the-cuff, Obama mistakenly said that “we only produce 2 percent of the world’s oil.”
According to the federal government’s energy administration, the United States produces 10 percent of the world’s production, making it the third-largest oil producing nation. (SEE ALSO: Poll finding 80 percent of Americans not better off ‘so meaningless,’ says Harry Reid [VIDEO])
“He doesn’t know what he’s talking about. … This is the most incompetent administration I’ve ever seen — and I started under [President] Jimmy Carter,” Kish said.
Obama’s error was likely a misstatement of his frequent claim that the nation posses only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves.
And even that repeated contention was again denounced today by The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” column, which declared that Obama’s claim “is just simply wrong.”
“New sources of oil kept getting found, more-difficult-to-obtain oil suddenly became more economically viable, new oil-extraction techniques gained favor. … We hope he finally drops this specious logic from his talking points,” said the columnist, who rated Obama’s claim misleading enough to deserve “two pinocchios” out of a possible “four pinocchios.”
“Nobody is buying it… [and] if he can’t even convince The Washington Post, you can see why he’s extremely defensive,” said Kish. (RELATED: Full coverage of the Obama presidency)
Obama’s error came just a week after he was widely derided for mistakenly claiming Pres. Rutherford B. Hayes opposed the telephone. He made that claim, and used it to disparage GOP opponents of his energy policy, during an energy speech in Maryland, where he also repeated the mistaken claim that the nation has only two percent of the world’s oil reserves.
During today’s Oklahoma speech, Obama defended his policies and blamed gasoline price increases on oil shortages caused by political turbulence in the Middle East.
But his critics argue that Obama’s policies have cut U.S. oil output, exacerbating shortages and boosting prices. “There never has been an administration that has done more against affordable energy as this one,” said Kish.
A Washington Post poll released Mar. 21 showed that 53 percent of independent voters believe the administration has reasonable options for reducing gas prices. That number likely understates the expectations among true swing voters, because the poll’s bloc of self-described independents likely includes many Democratic leaners who are far more indulgent of Obama’s policies than they were of President George Bush’s.
Today, Obama grudgingly announced a new policy to ease construction of oil pipelines, and endorsed oil drilling — last week, he called it the “energy of the past” — but also called for continued federal spending on alternative energy, including solar, wind power and biofuels.
“So, yes, we’re going to keep on drilling. … Yes, we’re going to make sure that we can get oil to where it’s needed [but] what we’re also going to be doing as part of an all-of-the-above strategy,” he said defensively.
Critics say those novel sources cost far more than gasoline, and that his steady opposition to the cross-border Keystone XL oil pipeline shows his opposition to fossil fuels.
NEXT: Obama urges supporters to come to his defense

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/22/obama-touts-energy-policy-flubs-fuel-fact-video/#ixzz1ptViDPwf

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/22/obama-touts-energy-policy-flubs-fuel-fact-video/#ixzz1ptVaivzH

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Energy industry accuses Obama of misleading public about extent of untapped oil resources

In almost every energy speech, President Obama makes this statement: "We've got 2 percent of the world oil reserves. We use 20 percent."
But there's more to those numbers than meet the eye.
"It's accurate but extremely misleading," says Dan Kish of Institute for Energy Research, which is supported by the industry. "What he is talking about is oil we already have found."
Misleading, he argues, because the president is pointing to "proven" reserves, which is some 21 billion barrels, but the U.S. is sitting on vast reserves of untapped energy that are far greater.
One federal agency says there's 10 times more -- 219 billion barrels more --, in what is called "technically recoverable" energy.
Another agency in the Energy Department says there's 20 times that much, or 400 billion barrels more, and some in the industry claim there's 60 times that amount, meaning some 1.4 trillion barrels in untapped resources.
That's energy the government knows we have but that has not yet been drilled for. Industry experts argue it's there for the taking.
"The trillion-plus barrels of oil in this country, more oil than in Saudi Arabia, is not counted by the president, and I think that's misleading the American people," John Hofmeister, the former president of Shell Oil, said.
With those kinds of resources, the U.S. could continue at its current consumption rate for 200 years without any imports, Kish of IER said. "And add Canada and Mexico? The numbers go off the chart."
But not everyone thinks we should be drilling more.
"We are addicted right now -- there's no question about that. But there's a question about how do we get off of that addiction," Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, said.
The president prefers to emphasize weaning ourselves off of oil, which reduces the urgency to drill. And Pica and many other environmentalists agree.
"I don't think that it is a good decision for this country or for the globe, realistically, to push for maximum drilling," Pica said. "The atmosphere just can't hold that much carbon dioxide anymore."
Obama refers to the more limited number of proven reserves as a way to argue it would be futile to drill for more oil -- because it could never be enough to meet our needs.
"As much as we're doing to increase oil production," Obama says, "we're not going to be able to just drill our way out of the problem of high gas prices."
"Some of us believe that the president is trying to suggest that we don't have adequate resource here in the United States, which is just not true," says Jack Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, another industry group.
Analysts point out that proven reserves were 20 billion barrels back in 1944. But we've produced some 170 billion barrels since then, and proven reserves are still just over 20 billion.
In fact, one industry analyst says by tapping American oil along with Canadian resources and renewable energy, the U.S. could be self sufficient in just 12 years.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/21/energy-industry-accuses-obama-misleading-public-about-extent-untapped-oil/#ixzz1pnqIv1EU

Obama is wasting time on his energy tour!!

He cannot tell me that high gas prices won't hurt people at all. He is an idiot. They don't have solar powered cars, they don't have windmill cars, we dont have algae(pondscum) fuel. It may take 10 to 20 years to come up with new technology. But meanwhile people will be paying high prices at the pump (as per Obama)! He wants all of us to buy electric cars and get the taxpayer taxbreaks. People cannot afford these cars, so were screwed with this goofball in office!
   He and the Libtards are saying we need to get away from our dependency of foreign oil. Well thats great, drill our own then we can get away from foreign oil!

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Obama Lied During Debt Ceiling Debate

RUSH: A massive, long story at the top of the fold on the front page of the Washington Post yesterday on last summer's very feisty debt limit battle. It is a story. It's very long. No way would I even recommend you read the whole thing. Well, I might recommend you read the whole thing. I wouldn't read it to you; I couldn't. It prints out to ten pages. Front page Washington Post. And what this story points out is that Obama purposely, intentionally lied to the American people when he told us that the Republicans were not interested in raising taxes, that they wanted a cuts-only solution to the debt crisis. It turns out that John Boehner and Eric Cantor had indeed offered $808 billion in tax increases. Obama lied. He just flat-out lied to the American people about the Republicans and their position in the debt negotiations. He flat-out lied.
That's on the front page of the Washington Post. You have to read awhile to get to that in the story. There are a couple-three other things that were momentous about it as well. So that's yesterday, front page Washington Post. This story paints Harry Reid and Pelosi as practically irrelevant. Where everybody thinks they're part of the problem, part of the obstacles problem, this story makes it clear that they're just up there to do Obama's bidding but that Obama doesn't know how to negotiate. This story points out that Obama's incompetent when he negotiates because he lies. He told Boehner and he told the country that the Republicans were not willing to compromise in an area, and they were all along.
Boehner said, "I don't know what to do about this." By the way, I had a meeting with Boehner not long before that. This was last summer sometime, and I had a meeting with Boehner here at the EIB Southern Command some months before that. I just casually asked him what it was like working with Harry Reid. And he said, "You know, it'd surprise you. If it were just Reid and me we could get a deal done." Of course I thought he was off. "Oh, gosh. Don't tell me he really believes this." He did. He said, "If it was just Reid and me we'd get a deal." He said, "Harry gets it." I said, "Oh my. (groan)" This story says that. Or pretty close to it.
This story in the front page of the Washington Post pretty much says that Boehner and Reid could and did work together, and that Obama is the whole problem. Obama was campaigning. Obama had to give his base something. Obama, the whole debt limit thing was a phony baloney, plastic banana, good-time rock 'n' roller diversion. Yeah, he wanted the debt sealing raised but he could not afford for his base, lunatic fringe base, to see him as compromising at all. This is the bunch that talks about "compromise." This is the bunch (along with the Republican establishment, too,) heralding the beauties and the wonders of compromise.
And here was Obama making it look like he was willing to compromise. He was the stone wall, and he lied in a national address to the nation! He lied in a prime-time address to the nation. And don't take my word for it if you don't want to. It's the Washington Post.
RUSH: Now, this debt deal. I'm gonna spend a little bit more time on this. I'm not gonna get into the whole nine-page story. But don't forget: Obama wanted to be able to run against a do-nothing Congress. There was never -- and I remember telling everybody in this audience back then -- a time that I thought this. Let me take a break, and I'll come back and tell you what I believe. The Republicans held all the cards. It was Obama that needed the deal. It was Obama that wants to spend the money beyond the debt limit. They held all the cards. But they believe they gotta compromise. "The American people," their consultants told them, "think we gotta compromise." So they tried to compromise and Obama still stuck it to 'em, all because he had to be able to run against a do-nothing Congress. There was no way he was gonna ever agree to a deal. That was the point.
RUSH: Now, this debt deal. Folks, it is profound what the Washington Post reported. And the fact is, I don't think MSNBC has talked about it. The Politico has a little bit of a piece on it, but I remember Mark Halperin, TIME Magazine, got suspended from MSNBC for couple days because he said that Obama had acted like a male body part. On this debt deal. He said, yeah, "Obama acted like a d---." Male body part. Halperin's point was that Obama didn't want any grand bargain. It was all just posturing. Halperin has been vindicated now. Obama was acting that way.
And this is what I said. It was June 30th, after playing the clip from MSNBC, Halperin's remark. I said, "Now, after they stopped giggling on the Scarborough show, Halperin made a good point. Obama does not want a deal. He really doesn't want a deal. He wants the chaos. He wants all this to continue and that's what generates happiness for him." He cannot permit a deal with Congress when he's setting up a campaign this year to run against a do-nothing Congress. There was never any way he was gonna deal. And what happened was Boehner said, "Okay, I'll give you some tax increases," and Obama panicked. "Oh, my God! Okay," then he went out and lied to the country. That's all he knew to do.
RUSH: Now, folks, I want to add another interesting ingredient to this debt deal. Now that I'm not so compressed for time, let's start at the beginning. Washington Post, huge front-page story. It's by Peter Wallsten and two other Drive-By reporters. This Wallsten guy apparently has a very solid reputation. That might be at risk now since I've praised him, but that's the breaks of the game. It can happen to Drive-By journalists. If I praise them they lose favor with all of their friends. But so be it. Wallsten and two others write this huge piece on the front page of the Washington Post.
Which, if you slog through it (and you don't have to because I did), you learn that Obama intentionally lied to the American people in a prime-time address announcing the failure of the negotiations to expand the debt limit last summer. What this story points out that is that the Obama lie was telling the American people that the Republicans were demanding cuts to the budget only as a means of expanding the debt limit. "We'll give you the debt limit increase, but you have to have some budget cuts." Obama lied to the American people and said that was the intractable Republican position. When, in fact, Boehner and Eric Cantor had offered tax increases in the $800 billion range.
Now, to take you back nine months ago, I thought it was Obama who needed the deal. I thought the Republicans held all the cards. I thought that Boehner and the boys could hold out and demand anything. It's Obama whose job is spending money. It's Obama who needs the debt limit increased so he can continue to buy votes, expand government, whatever his plan is. What Boehner and the boys decided to do was essentially call his bluff. He was setting up to run against a do-nothing Congress. They said, "Okay, here you go." Obama rejected it and then addressed the nation and lied. He told the American people that the Republicans were intractable, inflexible.
It was their way or the highway. They wouldn't give an inch. When in fact they had given Obama -- this is the key -- everything he wanted. And that's what he couldn't afford. The trick that they played on Obama was giving him what he wanted. They forced Obama to reject that, then go do a national address -- a prime-time address to the nation -- and lie about it. Mark Halperin goes on MSNBC and calls Obama a male body part and gets suspended for a couple days for this, but ends up being vindicated. This story also, if you slog through it, illustrates that Obama is incompetent as a negotiator. What this story says is that he's profoundly arrogant and afraid at the same time.
And also the story says that he doesn't know nearly what he thinks he knows. He's... I'll use the word "ignorant." Arrogant and ignorant. Arrogant condescension is the way Obama's portrayed in this story in dealing with the Republicans. Also it points out that Reid and Pelosi were nonfactors. They took the heat but they had to follow Obama's lead. So not only is he incompetent, he's dishonest. Once he got what he asked for he moved the goalposts and did it in a prime-time address to the nation. But the story didn't end there. From the New York Times, this is a story in July, July 23rd.
"Debt Ceiling Costs Collapse as Boehner Walks Out." Then in August is when the country debt ceiling had its credit rating downgraded, August of 2011. We lost our AAA credit rating because the debt ceiling fell through, and we now know (thanks to the Washington Post) that it fell through because Obama refused to accept it. It had everything in it he wanted and that was the problem. His bluff was called. I think toward the end of the negotiations, Boehner and the Republicans just decided, "Okay, let's see what happens," because it was proving impossible to negotiate with him. Every day that they negotiated, Boehner and Cantor would hear things that had not been agreed to.
They would listen to Obama recount things that had not been discussed, basically making it up every day as a negotiating tactic to keep them off balance. Nobody would know this to this day. We'd only have speculation. Well, Boehner and the guys know it but had they made a big deal out of it, they would have just been accused of being crybabies and whiners. So, I don't know the purpose of the story. I don't know why the Washington Post ran this thing yesterday, and I don't know why they spent so much time on it.
I don't know why the Washington Post basically lets anybody who reads this story know that Obama was the single problem here; that he's incompetent, arrogant and he lied to the nation in a prime-time address. I don't know why they're running this story. But, folks, I'm just gonna tell you here that there's abject panic in the White House. And again, things can turn on a dime in the business of politics. Republicans could screw up tomorrow (that's quite easy) and Obama would be back on a wave that nobody could stop him.
But as of right now, the polling data continues to just be devastating, including this piece at TheHill.com today which I shared with you in the previous half hour of the program.
RUSH: Okay, that's why. That's why. I'm sitting here trying to figure out why the Washington Post would run such a story. Folks, it's profound. I'm overusing that word. It's remarkable because of its length. It's a front-page story on Sunday, the most read issue of the week. Front page, top of the fold, right in the center of the page. Well, it turns out that the New York Times is going to do a story on the same subject. Now, I don't know why. I don't know why all of a sudden the debt deal from last summer has become such a matter of great interest. Bob Woodward is going to write a book on these debt negotiations. I don't know why this has become such a big deal.
You know, we could hope. It was really a debacle. It's a disaster. There's a debt limit for a reason. Limit! The way Obama's playing along (hell, all of Washington plays along) is the limit exists to be broken, the limit exists to be exceeded. Why even have a debt limit? But with this, this was... I don't know how often presidents have intentionally lied, like this, in prime-time addresses to the American people. This was brazen. Because, again, Boehner and Cantor had given Obama everything he wanted, and he panicked. He rejected it because he didn't want a deal. He wanted the Republicans as the ongoing enemy, the Republicans as the obstacles to good government, the Republicans as obstacles to welfare checks going out.
Remember Social Security checks? Remember all that? Obama said the government was going to shut down. The Republicans were shutting it down. That's what he wanted was everybody thinking the Republicans gonna shut down the government. They gave him everything he wanted. So you've got the New York Times coming out with a story and Woodward writing a book about it. But Obama didn't just lie. He referred to the Republicans as "hostage-takers." Joe Biden, I think (my memory, I'm blessed with a good one) even said the Republicans were acting like "terrorists" during all of this. But it was Obama that called the congressional negotiators "hostage-takers" in the Bush tax cut debate December 2010 in the lame duck session.
That's what he called them "hostage-takers." But Biden did call them "terrorists" last August during the debt ceiling negotiations. Biden said the Republicans were "acting like terrorists" when they gave Obama everything he wanted. The New York Times story is gonna be in their magazine. They're waiting eight months to do this? I'm gonna find a reason. I'm gonna find out what the answer to this question is. I'm fascinated. Why now? They could forget this. Nobody would ever go back to this. Maybe that's it. Maybe somebody's planning on it.

Washington Post: Obama’s Evolution: Behind the Failed ‘Grand Bargain’ On the Debt

Unemployment Rises; AP Spins for Regime

RUSH: According to Gallup, the unemployment rate in February: 9.1%. We're gonna get the federal unemployment number here pretty soon, and we will hear what the Obama regime is claiming the new unemployment number is. Now, unemployment compensation requests or applications went up by about 8,000. Jobless claims jumped 8,000 to a seasonally adjusted 362,000 in the week ending March the 3rd. This is according to the Labor Department. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones Newswires had forecast that claims would rise by 2,000. So this was unexpected. Claims rose by 8,000. That's the government. Gallup says that their unemployment rate is 9.1%.

Now, bear in mind, Gallup does exactly what the Bureau of Labor Statistics does to get their monthly employment rate. That is, they take a survey. They do a poll. For their survey, Gallup interviewed 27,275 people. The government claims that they survey 110,000 adults. The only real difference between the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Gallup is that Gallup does not make any so-called seasonal adjustments like the government does. The seasonal adjustment seems to be the government's secret sauce. Maybe that's the government's pink slime.
But isn't it magical how, without using any seasonal adjustments, Gallup's monthly unemployment rate's always a good bit higher than the regime's? Now, the AP, their version of this story... I rarely have seen, other than this Washington Post story by Alexandra Petri, which is an out-and-out lie, this AP story on unemployment applications is perhaps one of the most intentionally misleading headlines and lead paragraphs that I have ever seen.
After reading this, I'm wondering: Why doesn't the Associated Press have to register with the Federal Election Commission as an Obama super PAC? Because that's what they are. The AP, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, they're all part of the Obama super PAC. They give advertising away to Obama. They give it away. It's free media. He doesn't have to buy anything from these networks or these publications. Headline: "US Unemployment Applications Hover Near Low Levels -- Slightly more Americans applied for unemployment benefits last week but the overall level stayed low enough to suggest the job market is strengthening." Eight thousand new unemployment applications and AP says: That's okay! That's such a low number that that means that the expansion is continuing. The job market is strengthening.
This is an out-and-out lie again. It's intentionally misleading, the headline and the lead paragraph. Tell me, in what significant way are they any different from the rest of the advertisers on the Obama reelection campaign? You have 8,000 new, according to government, jobless applications. And this is gonna be seasonally adjusted again and revised, probably up. You have 8,000 new applicants over last week, "slightly more Americans applied for unemployment benefits but the overall level stayed low enough to suggest the job market's strengthening." Headline: "US Unemployment Applications Hover Near Low Levels." This is shameless. Absolutely shameless.
Andrew Breitbart was laid to rest this week. Andrew Breitbart, as I mentioned, grew up in West Los Angeles. He was surrounded by West LA liberalism. He grew up as one. He goes to Tulane University, graduates, and comes out of there a liberal. It wasn't until later (the Clarence Thomas hearings is what he said) that this entire symbiotic relationship, this incestuous relationship between the media and the Democrat Party jarred him awake. It's what alerted Andrew Breitbart to how the scales are weighted vastly in favor of the Democrat Party and the American left, because of the media. And Andrew Breitbart's objective was to bust up "the Democrat-media complex," as he called it, a takeoff on the military-industrial complex.
And that's what his heirs at Big Journalism and Breitbart.com are going to continue to do, and it's flat-out necessary.
Every day on this program for 23-plus years, there's example after example after example of not just media bias, but journalistic malpractice: an entire industry lying and misleading and misrepresenting things to the American people. They hide behind the First Amendment and the freedom of the press, they hide behind the cloak of objectivity, but they're not objective. They are advocates. They are surrogates. They are part of the agenda. They advance it, and it is the primary reason that so many things in this country are out of whack, because one political party gets a pass. One segment of the American population gets a total pass.
And this AP unemployment story is just the latest in countless daily, multiple-times-a-day examples of the irresponsibility that exists in what is called the mainstream media in this country.
Gallup: US Unemployment Up in February
  • AP: US Unemployment Applications Hover Near Low Levels

  • Rushlimbaugh.com-What Recovery? Where Is It?
  • $3.50 Gas – Bad When the GOP Is in Charge…a Good Thing Under Obama…or Just a Political Football?

    The rising cost of fuel wreaks havoc on the economy and touches the wallet of almost every American, putting energy prices and America’s energy strategy front and center in the 2012 Presidential campaign.
    In just the past year oil prices have spiked to new seasonal highs:
    Gas Prices Rising   A good thing for Obama or the GOP?
    From gasbuddy.com
    But this is really nothing new, as fuel prices have been part of the election debates for years.
    When Nancy Pelosi led the Democrats in their takeover of the House in 2006, the price of a gallon of gasoline was around $2.30. With Democrats in charge on the hill gas prices continued to climb, whereby spring 2007 Speaker Pelosi was crowing about the cost of gas as it hit $3.00/gallon. In this clip she cites $3.05/gallon as “price gouging” and places blame squarely on the Bush Administration:

    Just a year after the Speaker promised a “common sense” solution, gas was still on the rise and North Carolina Rep Virginia Fox went to the floor of the House and wondered what was the plan that Pelosi talked about? Fox examined “The Pelosi Premium:”

    By the summer of 2008, gas prices had spike to over $3.50/gallon and the gas prices became a campaign issue for both Democrats and Republicans, as seen in an Obama ad from that summer:

    In that ad, candidate Obama made three campaign promises concerning our nation’s energy. He promised to:
    1. Make oil companies pay a penalty on windfall profits.
    2. Invest $150 billion dollars (of your money) in alternative energy
    3. Create 5 million jobs (and free ourselves from foreign oil)
    Let’s review those promises and their success or failure:

    1. Windfall profits penalties are red meat at campaign stops, but rarely show any serious effect when considered in the real world.
    2. Alternative energy funding? Solyndra, National Renewable Energy, Ener1 and a host of other failures highlight the folly of this plan.
    3. Five million news jobs? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, America has a net loss of more than 1.1 MILLION seasonally-adjusted, private sector jobs since Obama took office.
    John McCain also saw the high cost of gas as a campaign issue and ran this ad:

    While McCain was pushing the “Drill Baby, Drill” mantra, Obama was on the 2008 campaign trail in Wisconsin, where he slammed America’s “raggety” mass transit system while promoting his agenda for a high-speed rail system connecting Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit and all the cities along the way. (There was no mention of any study showing considerable demand for a network that would connect those cities, just a promise to spend a lot of money to build it.)

    Also from 2008, candidate Obama addressed the high price of gasoline while speaking on CNBC, seeming to support the concept of higher energy prices as a good thing… He would have preferred that the cost elevation would have been managed better and not been such a shock to the consumer:

    Last April as oil prices spiked again, the President lectured a man in the audience about his low-milage SUV, suggesting that the father of 10 get “a hybrid van.” At the end of the clip, President Obama tells the man to “get a trade in.”
    When it comes to fuel efficiency, Obama’s Presidential limo (The Beast) is the subject of much speculation. The green-centric folks at Treehugger.org seem to think that the massive, armored limo gets single-digit gas mileage and they wondered why it was not a hybrid?
    Gas Prices Rising   A good thing for Obama or the GOP?
    The Beast (it is not a hybrid)

    In a shift from his 2008 campaign promises, Mr. Obama seems to have stopped demonizing the oil companies. In this video from last April, the President presents a three-pronged plan to lower energy costs and it all starts with INCREASING oil production.
    About the time Obama was pushing hybrid SUVs and electric cars, Romney was campaigning and talking about slowing down specualtors by increasing production.

    Newt Gingrich sees lower energy costs as an issue that would help his flagging campaign and this week he appeared on Fox News telling Greta Van Sustern the details of his plan to drive oil prices back down under $3.00 and closer to the $2.00 mark not seen since April of 2008.

    We expect politicians to try and spin the rising cost of fuel to fit their various agendas, but the most surprising interpretation of the spike in the cost of fuel came to us courtesy of CBS News from back in 2008 when the Early Show aired a segment explaining why high gas prices can sometimes be “a good thing.”

    Based on that report, high gas prices in America are a panacea for so many problems;
    • Solving the obesity problem
    • Saving billions in healthcare costs
    • Preventing the deaths of 1000 people a month
    You have to wonder if and when one of the candidates will offer any of that “logic” as a potential upside to the spiking cost of energy?

    Saturday, March 17, 2012

    Eric Holder’s Travesty of Justice (What a Hack)

    Ronald Kessler reporting from Washington, D.C. — By now, we are used to Attorney General Eric Holder Jr.’s nonsensical testimony to Congress.

    Holder testified that he opposed Arizona’s illegal immigration legislation but had not read the new law.

    Holder gives testimony to Congress on the ill-fated Fast and Furious operation.
    (Getty Images)
    Holder testified that he believes the CIA’s enhanced interrogation methods such as waterboarding constitute “torture,” but he said he had not read the classified reports detailing what those techniques entail.

    After reopening Justice Department investigations into the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation, Holder said that he had not read the memos of his own department’s lawyers explaining why no criminal laws had been violated.

    Holder then gave misleading testimony on when he knew about problems with the “Fast and Furious” operation.

    Last week, Holder testified that he found newspaper reports of the New York City Police Department’s surveillance of Muslims in New Jersey “disturbing,” and he launched a review by the Justice Department.

    Now he is challenging a Texas law requiring those who vote to show photo identification. Thirty-four states already have such laws or are considering them, and the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of one such law passed by the state of Indiana.

    Anyone who has needed a photo I.D. to buy beer, enter a public building, rent a movie, board a plane, open a bank account, or check into a motel knows how absurd it is to object to showing identification to vote. The government has an obligation to prevent voter fraud by making sure those who vote are who they say they are.

    If George W. Bush’s attorney general Alberto Gonzales had carried out his job in such a cavalier fashion, the press would have run him out of town. But Holder and President Obama are darlings of the media and will never be held to the same standards as Bush and his appointees.

    Holder’s criticism of the New York City police based on newspaper reports is particularly troubling. As he could have learned by picking up the phone and asking FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, the FBI is fully aware of New York City’s practices. Through Joint Terrorism Task Forces, the FBI and police work closely together and share information and techniques.

    If the New York City police were indeed conducting indiscriminate surveillance of Muslims, the FBI would have known about it. Instead, as New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has said, the police look for and follow specific leads that might pinpoint possible terrorists and plots.

    The FBI engages in the same practices. As described in my book “The Secrets of the FBI,” undercover FBI agents enter mosques, which are prime gathering places for terrorists, to gather leads. Yet before 9/11, because of political correctness, FBI agents were barred from entering mosques, even though they are open to the public.

    Under the guidelines in place before 9/11, FBI agents could not even look at online chat rooms to develop leads on people who might be recruiting terrorists or distributing information on making explosives.

    “We were told before 9/11 that we were not allowed to conduct investigative activity on the Internet, even though it’s public,” Art Cummings, who headed FBI counterterrorism investigations until last year, told me for the book.

    “Same thing with a mosque. It’s a gathering open to the public, but we were absolutely precluded from going into a mosque as an FBI agent. And precluded from having a source in a mosque report on anything in the mosque, or look at anything in the mosque, unless we had a specific target within the mosque.”

    Those shackles helped to make the FBI blind when it came to uncovering the 9/11 plot.

    As my friend Asra Nomani, a Muslim journalist who was a friend of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl, told Fox News, “We’re [Muslims] saying that you can’t go into our mosques, you can’t look at our Muslim organizations, you can’t even look at Muslims because that’s to target us. But the truth is, we do have a problem in our Muslim community.”

    Ray Kelly and the New York Police Department “have been targeted in this larger campaign to try to show that people are picking on Muslims,” she courageously said.

    Thus, Holder’s comment was not only baseless, it gave Muslims who oppose legitimate surveillance an excuse to stir up fear of law enforcement, undercutting the war on terror. And it provided ammunition to those on the extreme left and the extreme right who oppose measures that are needed to uncover plots and protect us.

    Clearly, Holder is more interested in appealing to Obama’s liberal base than he is in honestly addressing the issues. In the same way, Holder subjected former CIA officers to the chilling prospect of going to jail even though Justice Department lawyers had previously cleared them.

    As seven former CIA directors who served under Republicans and Democrats said publicly, the probe sent a message to CIA officers that if they take risks in defense of their country, they may suffer consequences. Ultimately, Holder decided that the career lawyers were right all along, and no charges were brought.

    Eric Holder may head the Department of Justice, but the fact is he represents a travesty of justice.

    Read more on Newsmax.com: Eric Holder’s Travesty of Justice
    Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

    Friday, March 16, 2012

    A Week of Shameless Obama Lies

    RUSH: Let's review the important things of this week. The first two days of the week we had the polling data from the New York Times and the Washington Post, polls which were devastating to the regime, devastating to Obama. The New York Times poll has his approval at 41%, an all-time low in that poll. These polls were so bad that pollsters and Democrats and media people are now insulting the respondents by calling them "stupid" and questioning themselves as to whether or not their own polls are broken. But these polls had a devastating impact on the White House, because last week was supposed to produce Obama in the upper fifties.
    This mythical, nonexistent Republican "war on women" was supposed to work. There's a reason it didn't. There are many reasons, actually. But I think the primary reason why this so-called Republican war on women doesn't work, isn't working and won't work is: For three years there has been an unmitigated, nonstop Democrat war on Sarah Palin alone. And then you throw in Michele Bachmann or any other prominent conservative woman, and there's a war on all of them by the Democrat Party with their comedians, with their elected officials. I don't care who it is, there were no boundaries on this one. There has been an unmitigated war on Sarah Palin.
    And even people who pay scant attention to politics during the course of a week, as opposed to people like you who are immersed in it, couldn't help but notice it. So here the people who are literally trying to destroy Sarah Palin for three years (make it four because let's count the year of 2008), now all of a sudden they come out and say there's a Republican war on women? It just doesn't fly. It's sort of like the Democrats fail to dynamically score economic proposals, budgets. They use a static analysis. And by that I mean they'll propose a tax increase, and they'll just assume (this is the static analysis) that everybody will just sit there and pay it and that the amount of money they raise in tax is what they're gonna get flowing into the Treasury.
    Well, dynamically that doesn't happen. Dynamically people take action to avoid paying the taxes. So raising taxes never raises the revenue that they project. Well, just as in this case they have a static circumstance. They go out, create this mythical Republican war on women, and they just expect everybody to believe it, and then for there to be appropriate fallout. "No more Limbaugh. No more Republican nominee having a chance," blah, blah, blah. And then when Obama's own polls plummet and nobody buys into the so-called war on women mounted by the Republicans, the Democrats scratch their heads. "What happened?" Just like they scratched their heads when they raised taxes and no money flows into the treasury, "Wh -- wh -- what happened?"
    Because they don't account for the dynamics. And the dynamics of the Republican war on women are that they're the guys that have been waging war on Republican conservative women for three-and-a-half, four years (primarily Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann). So dynamically people say, "Wait a minute! You guys claim that somebody's running a war against you?" These are average Americans that assess this. So the left never factors the dynamics into anything, be it economic proposals or other things. You have the two sets of polling numbers, and they were devastating.
    We also had the gas price going up with Obama making speech after speech about it. We had the confusion yesterday over whether or not there was going to be a release of oil from the US Strategic Reserves. Other big news this week was we learned that Obamacare is going to cost twice as much as we were promised just two years ago. Two years ago, they told us Obamacare was going to cost $940 billion over ten years. The CBO this week revised the number to $1.4 trillion over nine years. And when they factor a full ten years of spending in Obamacare, then the total cost will be over $2 trillion. So that's a brief review of what's happened this week.
    Now, here's the latest within this timeline: "President Obama's 2013 budget would add $3.5 trillion to annual deficits through 2022, according to a new estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It also would raise the deficit next year by $365 billion, according to the" CBO, which is said here to be nonpartisan. "The CBO estimate is in sharp contrast to White House claims last month that the Obama budget would reduce deficits by $3.2 trillion over the next decade." Sharp contrast? Sharp contrast? The CBO says Obama's budget will add $3.5 trillion and the Obama White House said that it would reduce deficits by $3.2 trillion? That's a swing of $6.7 trillion, and they call that "sharp contrast"?
    This is a lie!
    So we have the Obama administration lying about the costs of health care and now lying about the costs of Obama's budget -- not to mention the president lying about oil and green energy and all of that. It's stunning. Phony numbers! "The CBO estimate is in sharp contrast to White House claims last month that the Obama budget would reduce deficits by $3.2 trillion" and instead they're gonna raise the deficits by $3.5 trillion. Now, this is from TheHill.com. Let me read another paragraph: "The differences between the estimates from CBO and the White House budget office are attributable to different baselines and economic assumptions, and a big reason CBO expects the deficit to spike sharply under Obama's budget is that CBO's baseline assumes all the Bush-era tax rates will expire at the end of 2012."
    Well, you have to assume the Bush tax cuts are going to be expire. That's what the law says as of today, and Obama has made it clear he wants them to end. Obama wants higher taxes. He said so! He is campaigning on repealing the Bush tax cuts. That's what his base wants to hear. So the CBO has got no choice in the matter. "Obama wants to continue the middle-class tax cuts, something reflected in his budget." So the bottom line is that virtually every set of numbers that we get from the Obama administration simply is not true, and that's why I would like to posit an idea. Here's a question for, perhaps, Republicans in the House of Representatives: Why not investigate the unemployment numbers?
    I mean, if they're lying to us dramatically about the cost of health care, and if they are lying to us dramatically about budget deficits coming down, isn't it likely that they are lying to us about their unemployment numbers every week? If those numbers are as phony as the original CBO Obamacare reports on cost and coverage -- if the unemployment numbers are as phony as the promises of what the stimulus bill would do for jobs, if the unemployment numbers are as phony as recent poll numbers showing Obama with a 50% approval number, if the unemployment numbers are as phony as Obama's budget deficit numbers are -- then the unemployment numbers have to be a lot worse.
    And I might add, ladies and gentlemen, the CBO -- the sacred, nonpartisan CBO. (Oh, what magic words those are!) The nonpartisan CBO just reported yesterday that up to 20 million Americans may lose coverage under Obamacare.
    RUSH: Folks, are you getting all of this? I run through this stuff pretty quickly. It's easy for me because I've got it right here in front of me. I have been blessed with a nice, good memory. All of this will be up at RushLimbaugh.com. You'll be able to see all of this. I will tweet some of this stuff out, too, but are you getting this? This week has been incredible. It's been profound. All-time low Obama approval in the New York Times. You people are "stupid," John Harris at Politico said. "Stupid!" The polls are "broken." The poll respondents are stupid. Obama is making it up about energy and oil, bombing out in every area of green energy. Wind, solar are bombing out.
    He's steadfastly opposed to progress, steadfastly committed to this silly notion that oil is somehow a poison when it's as natural as sugar. It's as natural as anything else that comes from the earth. Why is oil so bad? Why is oil such a filthy thing? There are a lot of things that are much worse -- and oil has been, like me, a godsend. (interruption) Well, that's what the feminazis said this week at their convention, that I was a "godsend." I'm not saying that. They are. They said I was a godsend. That makes me God's gift to women. Really, why does anybody even accept the notion that oil is a poison? What, oil spills now and then convince everybody it's rotten to the core? Who dies? It's just silly.
    So we're gonna look into alternatives that don't exist? For what purpose?

    Washington Times: CBO: Obama Budget Deepens Debt by $3.5 Trillion
  • CBS: CBO: Obama Budget Produces 2013 Deficit of $977B

  • The Hill: CBO: Obama Budget Adds $3.5 Trillion in Deficits Through 2022