Sunday, April 29, 2012

Pelosi is a Liar on the war on women

This is from a news story telling where the money is comming from to pay for the loan interest issue.  Not a Women's fund!

Democrats voted solidly earlier this year to take money from the preventive health fund to help keep doctors’ Medicare reimbursements from dropping. Obama’s own budget in February proposed cutting $4 billion from the same fund to pay for some of his priorities.


On Sunday’s “State of the Union” on CNN, Speaker of the House John Boehner spoke about his relationship with Barack Obama, one that he described as “good” despite the president “picking fake fights” to score political points.
“Listen, the president and I have a very good relationship,” Boehner said. “And as a result, you know, I try to avoid personal attacks on the president. But let me say something: The president is getting some very bad advice from his campaign team, because he’s diminishing the presidency by picking fake fights, going after straw men every day.”
Those fights, Boehner said, involve taxes and energy markets.
“You know, we had the Buffett Rule,” he said. “You know, it went on for months. Even the president admitted it was a gimmick. And then we have the Rose Garden ceremony talking about manipulation in the oil markets, without one shred of evidence. And he has an entire administration to go after speculation or manipulation in the oil markets. And then they picked this student loan fight where there is no fight.”
“And the point I’ve been trying to make here in the last couple of weeks is that the president’s bigger than this. The presidency is important. America has big challenges — big fiscal challenges — and we’ve got big challenges for our economy. And the president ought to be working with Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill to address the big issues that affect the American people.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/29/boehner-obama-diminishing-the-presidency-by-picking-fake-fights/#ixzz1tTjfkrNf


Thomas Jefferson is widely credited with coining an adage that makes fools of procrastinators: “Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today.” But where budgets are concerned, Congress has failed to execute the third U.S. president’s advice for three years.
April 29, 2009 was the last time the Senate passed a budget — three years ago today. Articulating a budget for the United States is among senators’ legally required duties.
Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, told The Daily Caller that Senate Democrats’ obfuscation is to blame.
“This is a deliberate plan that the Democratic majority has executed for three years to avoid the responsibility of laying out a financial plan for America,” he said in an interview.
The Democratic majority in the Senate, Sessions said, “cannot lead.”
“When your party cannot coalesce around a plan that your members can support and the American people can support, then you’ve got a very deep, serious problem. And I think that is basically what it is,” he explained.
“So you’ve got to hide that by avoiding any public accountability. So you have secret meetings, the gang of six, and those kind of things — trying to move along without every having to lay out their vision.”
In the three years since the Senate last passed a budget, the federal government has spent $10.4 trillion and accumulated $4.5 trillion in debt, an amount that equals $13,000 in new debt for every individual American and $34,000 per family.
While Republicans lodge thir protests, Senate Democrats claim the blueprint for 2013 was decided upon with the August debt ceiling compromise.
“We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year — it’s done, we don’t need to do it,” Majority Leader Harry Reid said of the 2013 federal budget in February.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad has indicated that he likely will not mark up a budget until after the November election, canceling a planned budget markup and vote last week.
Sessions said such delays are par for the course with this Congress, whose modus operandi in recent years has been last-minute patch-up jobs.
“The only thing that has worked is when we get into a crisis, like when we had to have the debt ceiling raised and the Republicans were able to force $2.1 trillion in spending reductions over ten years,” Sessions said. “It was a step — not enough — a step”
“Already they are trying to undermine that. The president’s budget wipes out half of that $2 trillion in savings. All we’ve done is lurch through deadlines and crises, which is not good for the economy.”
He added that he believes the American people should take this into account when the vote in the fall.
“The message of the 2010 election was not heard by the majority party in the Senate,” Sessions said. “I mean, they demanded more public accountability on their representatives, that you do something about the debt course of America, and you stand up and be accountable.”
“I think it is fair to say it has gotten worse. There is nothing but secret meetings and an effort to avoid public debates and votes.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/29/sessions-marks-three-years-without-budget-deliberate-plan-by-democrats/#ixzz1tTiaXShH

Obama Backs Off Farm Chores Regulation

Associated Press
Under heavy pressure from farm groups, the Obama administration said Thursday it would drop an unpopular plan to prevent children from doing hazardous work on farms owned by anyone other than their parents.

The Labor Department said it is withdrawing proposed rules that would ban children younger than 16 from using most power-driven farm equipment, including tractors. The rules also would prevent those younger than 18 from working in feed lots, grain bins and stockyards.

While labor officials said their goal was to reduce the fatality rate for child farm workers, the proposal had become a popular political target for Republicans who called it an impractical, heavy-handed regulation that ignored the reality of small farms.

"It's good the Labor Department rethought the ridiculous regulations it was going to stick on farmers and their families," said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. "To even propose such regulations defies common sense, and shows a real lack of understanding as to how the family farm works."

The surprise move comes just two months after the Labor Department modified the rule in a bid to satisfy opponents. The agency made it clear it would exempt children who worked on farms owned or operated by their parents, even if the ownership was part of a complex partnership or corporate agreement.

That didn't appease farm groups that complained it would upset traditions in which many children work on farms owned by uncles, grandparents and other relatives to reduce costs and learn how a farm operates. The Labor Department said Thursday it was responding to thousands of comments that expressed concern about the impact of the changes on small family-owned farms.

"The Obama administration is firmly committed to promoting family farmers and respecting the rural way of life, especially the role that parents and other family members play in passing those traditions down through the generations," the agency said in a statement.

Instead, the agency said it would work with rural stakeholders, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union and 4-H to develop an educational program to reduce accidents to young workers.

Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., a grain farmer known to till his fields on weekends away from Washington, had come out strongly against the proposed rule. The Democrat continued to criticize the Obama administration rule even after it was tempered earlier this year, saying the Labor Department "clearly didn't get the whole message" from Montana's farmers and ranchers.

Tester, who is in a tough race for re-election, on Thursday praised the decision to withdraw the rule and said he would fight "any measure that threatens that heritage and our rural way of life."


What 'Gutsy Call'?: CIA Memo Reveals Admiral Controlled bin Laden Mission

Today, Time magazine got hold of a memo written by then-CIA head Leon Panetta after he received orders from Barack Obama’s team to greenlight the bin Laden mission. Here’s the text, which summarized the situation:

Received phone call from Tom Donilon who stated that the President made a decision with regard to AC1 [Abbottabad Compound 1]. The decision is to proceed with the assault.

The timing, operational decision making and control are in Admiral McRaven’s hands. The approval is provided on the risk profile presented to the President. Any additional risks are to be brought back to the President for his consideration. The direction is to go in and get bin Laden and if he is not there, to get out. Those instructions were conveyed to Admiral McRaven at approximately 10:45 am.

This, of course, was the famed “gutsy call.” Here’s what Tom Hanks narrated in Obama’s campaign film, “The Road We’ve Traveled”:

HANKS: Intelligence reports locating Osama Bin Laden were promising, but inconclusive, and there was internal debate as to what the President should do.

VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: We sat down in the Situation Room, the entire national security apparatus was in that room, and the President turns to every principal in the room, every secretary, “What do you recommend I do?” And they say, “Well, forty-nine percent chance he’s there, fifty-one … it’s a close call, Mr. President.” As he walked out the room, it dawned on me, he’s all alone. This is his decision. If he was wrong, his Presidency was done. Over.

Only the memo doesn’t show a gutsy call. It doesn’t show a president willing to take the blame for a mission gone wrong. It shows a CYA maneuver by the White House.

The memo puts all control in the hands of Admiral McRaven – the “timing, operational decision making and control” are all up to McRaven. So the notion that Obama and his team were walking through every stage of the operation is incorrect. The hero here was McRaven, not Obama. And had the mission gone wrong, McRaven surely would have been thrown under the bus.

The memo is crystal clear on that point. It says that the decision has been made based solely on the “risk profile presented to the President.” If any other risks – no matter how minute – arose, they were “to be brought back to the President for his consideration.” This is ludicrous. It is wiggle room. It was Obama’s way of carving out space for himself in case the mission went bad. If it did, he’d say that there were additional risks of which he hadn’t been informed; he’d been kept in the dark by his military leaders.

Finally, the memo is unclear on just what the mission is. Was it to capture Bin Laden or to kill him? The White House itself was unable to decide what the mission was in the hours after the Bin Laden kill, and actually switched its language. The memo shows why: McRaven was instructed to “get” Bin Laden, whatever that meant.

President Obama made the right call to give the green light to the mission. But he did it in a way that he could shift the blame if things went wrong. Typical Obama. And typical of him to claim full credit for it, when he didn’t do anything but give a vague nod, while putting his top military officials at risk of taking the hit in case of a bad turn.

Obama to Open Situation Room to Tout bin Laden Attack

Note:  How is this going to effect the economy and jobs today??   ITS NOT. Bin Laden is history!Lets see Obama's LASER FOCUS on jobs!

In a first for network television, NBC News has been granted unprecedented access to the most secret and secure part of the White House, the Situation Room. In a “Rock Center with Brian Williams” exclusive airing on Wednesday, May 2 at 9 p.m. Eastern Time, President Barack Obama and his national security and military teams, relive the pivotal moments of the raid targeting Osama bin Laden.

The iconic photograph taken inside the Situation Room offered the world the first glimpse of a national security team at work during the Special Operations mission. Now, we will hear from many of the people in that photograph about what was taking place on that historic night, highlights an NBC press release.

“We want to present the definitive account of what took place leading up to and during the tension-filled hours of the mission targeting Osama bin Laden. The Navy SEALs Special Operations teams executed an ambitious, dangerous mission months in planning. Our viewers will hear details never before revealed and see the nerve center of the White House Situation Room in this special broadcast,” said Steve Capus, president of NBC News.

On “Rock Center with Brian Williams,” Williams interviews Obama in the Situation Room about one of the country’s greatest military missions, which until now, has been shrouded in secrecy.

Williams also interviews Vice President Joe Biden; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007 to 2011; Tom Donilon, national security advisor; Denis McDonough, deputy national security dvisor; and John O. Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism.

As Obama opens the secretive White House Situation Room as an interview stage to hail the one-year anniversary, the broader goal for the president is not to just to remind voters of an enormous victory on his watch, it is to maximize a political narrative that he has the courage to make tough calls that his opponent might not.

"Does anybody doubt that had the mission failed, it would have written the beginning of the end of the president's first term?" Vice President Joe Biden says in laying out Obama's foreign policy campaign message. "We know what President Obama did. We can't say for certain what Governor Romney would have done."

The strategy underscores the fact that the Obama who ordered the raid as commander in chief is now seeking a second term as president. The risk is the political blow-back that can come if he is seen as crossing a line into politicizing national security.

"Sad," said a Romney spokeswoman. "Shameless," said 2008 Obama election foe John McCain.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Obama to Open Situation Room to Tout bin Laden Attack
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Obama Campaign Website Targets Romney Donors

Just a note:   I dont care who is giving to Romney! They can't be any worse than Obama's doners. Is this the first time a sitting President did something stupid like this? Why because he is scared?

The website is called “KeepingGOPHonest” and it touts itself as part of the “Truth Team,” “paid for by Obama for America.” The site features a gloves-off critique of the business morals and backgrounds of some wealthy and prominent contributors to the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. Is this just another campaign tool? Not so, suggests one pundit who sees a disturbing reflection of former President Richard Nixon’s hit lists.

The Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley A. Strassel recently made the comparison in an editorial:

“Richard Nixon's ‘enemies list’ appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice. Save Mr. Obama…”

Despite such criticism, no one has yet pulled the plug on the site, which boldly hammers away at some of the more high profile Romney supporters. Here’s some of the pitch, from the KeepingGOPHonest website, word-for-word:

"As the presumptive GOP nominee, Mitt Romney is relying on a cadre of high-dollar and special-interest donors to fund his campaign. Giving information about his real policy intentions and high-level access for cash, Romney and Republicans are working hard to pull in as much money as they can from wealthy lobbyists, corporations, and PACs. But just who are the people that Romney has called on for campaign cash?

"A closer look at Romney’s donors reveals a group of wealthy individuals with less-than-reputable records. Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law, others have made profits at the expense of many Americans, and still others are donating to help ensure Romney puts beneficial policies in place for them. Here’s a look at just a few of the people Romney has relied on:

"Donors who benefit from betting against America

"Paul 'Chip' Schorr: Paul Schorr has given $112,500 to Romney’s presidential ambitions through Super PAC and direct campaign donations. As a partner at Blackstone, Schorr closed a deal in 2007 to outsource the services of seven U.S. companies to a firm in India, boosting that firm’s profits by $220 million and making millionaires of the Indian management team. In 2006, he arranged a buyout of a Colorado travel reservations company that led to 841 layoffs while Blackstone and its partners recouped the billions of dollars they invested in less than a year.

"Sam and Jeffrey Fox: Sam and Jeffrey Fox serve as co-chairman of Romney’s finance operation in Missouri and, together, have donated $220,000 to Romney’s presidential ambitions. They also control the Harbour Group investment firm which bragged about buying automotive accessories manufacturing company in Kansas in 1997 and moving production to Mexico. In 2002, the Harbour group’s Mexico operation decided to outsource to China because China was 'offering incentives and making it easy to open operations there.' The Chinese government awarded Sam Fox the Marco Polo Award for “his company’s role in China’s economic development and his humanitarian contributions to that country.

"T. Martin Fiorentino: T. Martin Fiorentino is on Romney’s Florida finance team and has bundled over $140,000 for the Romney campaign. He also lobbied on behalf of Lender Processing Services, a 'foreclosure mill' that paid him to lobby on legislation aimed at preventing lenders from 'making loans that borrowers would have difficulty repaying.' The government has reprimanded Lender Processing Services “for unsound practices related to residential mortgage loan serving and foreclosure processing.

"Special-interest donors

"Romney’s stances on social and economic issues, like his long-standing alliance with Big Oil, attracts the contributions of high-dollar donors who are interested in pursuing a specific agenda. Here are just a few of special-interest donors that Romney is taking money from:

"Louis Moore Bacon: An early mega-donor for Romney, Louis Moore Bacon donated $500,000 to the Restore Our Future Super PAC. Bacon makes his profit off of oil, first making a huge profit from successfully betting that gas prices would rise before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1989. Bacon’s firm, Moore Capital, was fined $25 million for attempting to manipulate certain commodity futures markets.

"Thomas O’Malley: Thomas O’Malley is the CEO of PBF Energy, America’s fourth-largest petroleum refining company, and gave $100,000 to Restore Our Future. Not only did PBF energy help drive gas prices up this year by curtailing gas production, but it spilled 6.6 million gallons of oil at a refinery in New Jersey. The release of toxic gas and eventual explosion at another of its refineries in Delaware also directly contributed to a spike in gas prices.

Kent Burton: Kent Burton is one of Romney’s new bundlers who raised more than $25,000 in one month for Romney’s campaign. He is also a registered lobbyist for a wide array of energy clients, including Marathon Oil and Shell Oil.

Frank Vandersloot: Frank Vandersloot is the national finance co-chairman of the Romney campaign and, through his company Melaleuca, has donated $1 million to Restore Our Future. He is also a “litigious, combative, and a bitter foe of the gay rights movement” who “spent big” on ads in an “ultimately unsuccessful effort to force Idaho Public Television to cancel a program that showed gays and lesbians in a favorable light to school children.”

“These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless,” admonishes Strassel. “Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.”

Strassel goes on to cite an expert: “We don't tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things,” says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. “When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys' names up on ‘Wanted’ posters in government offices.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Obama Campaign Website Targets Romney Donors
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Saturday, April 28, 2012


President Obama, his immediate aides and his cabinet secretaries have used taxpayer dollars to woo young voters at more than 130 universities and schools between March 2011 and March 2012, according to a survey of news reports and press releases reviewed by The Daily Caller.
Obama won 66 percent of the youth vote in 2008, while Republican Sen. John McCain got only 32 percent. Since then, youth enthusiasm for Obama has declined, partly because of high unemployment: More than 50 percent of recent college graduates are unemployed or underemployed.
Less than 35 percent of the 18- to 29-year-old cohort say they’re likely to vote in 2012, according to an April 26 report by Gallup, which also showed Obama leading Romney in that age group by a 64-29 margin.
Roughly one-third of the visits were to swing states, including Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado and Florida.
The number of swing-state visits was matched by visits to universities and schools in blue states, including California, New York, Maryland and Massachusetts. Still, many students in blue-state universities can vote in other states.
Obama personally visited 27 colleges and high schools while trying to boost support and enthusiasm among younger voters. He used Air Force One to visit three more universities this week, spurring charges that he’s using taxpayer-funded flights to subsidize his 2012 campaign.
The first lady, Vice President Joe Biden and his wife Jill visited another 26 education centers during the year. Top Obama aide Valerie Jarrett visited seven centers, and his cabinet secretaries flew or drove to 73 more.
Department of Education Secretary Arne Duncan visited 27, while Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano visited 11. Kathleen Sebelius, who runs the Department of Health and Human Services, visited seven and Energy Secretary Steven Chu visited eight, according to press releases collected by Generation Opportunity, which is trying to boost political activity and turnout by younger Americans.
Some of the visits involved multiple officials. For example, Biden and Duncan have visited several schools to tout the administration’s funding plans to an audience of students and their parents.
Sub-cabinet officials, including the surgeon general and the NASA administrator, have visited at least another 73 education centers.
“What you have is very sophisticated effort [by the administration] to use every means possible and every appointed official possible,” Generation Opportunity president Paul Conway told The Daily Caller. However, he added, the group’s surveys show that “people will vote on their record in office, not their charisma.” Conway worked as an appointee in the Department of Labor during the previous administration.
The visits were all considered official visits, but they also helped the Obama administration reach out to a critical segment of their base.
But Obama’s progressive policies are unpopular with many youths, said Conway. “Just 31 percent of 18- 29-year-olds approve of Obama’s handling of youth unemployment … [and] 59 percent of overall Millennials agree the economy grows best when individuals are allowed to create businesses without government interference,” according to an April 2011 Generation Opportunity poll.
To boost youth turnout, Obama’s aides and campaign officials have launched a series of initiatives and campaigns. They’re heavily targeted at 8 million young Americans who were too young to vote in 2008 and may be eager to vote in 2012.
Last November, Obama’s campaign team launched the “Greater Together” tour of campuses. The campaign was announced after an October 2011 Gallup poll showed a 30-point drop in support for Obama among students.
The first “Greater Together” event took place at the University of Pennsylvania and was electronically linked to 84 other colleges and universities. Recent events took place April 11 at the University of Iowa and April 14 in Minnesota.
The campaign showcases Obama’s support from younger Hollywood actors, including Kai Penn and Josh Hartnett.
The White House’s Office of Public Engagement has also arranged student outreach events.
For example, in February Arizona State University played host to the first “Young American Series” event organized by the White House.
The event was “the first in a multi-city series that will bring administration and Department of Education officials to 20 university campuses across the country, said a Feb. 21 ASU News report
The White House’s student outreach is managed by Ronnie Cho, an associate director of the Office of Public Engagement, which is Jarrett manages.
In January, Cho arranged a conference call with university activists. “He tried to make the call as nonpartisan as possible, but some of the things he said were partisan,” said Raj Kannappan, a Republican at Cornell University. “He talked about how [the outreach] is a chance for activists to build momentum for the next year. … He really didn’t talk about [student] unemployment,” Kannappan said.
Obama has also promoted policies intended to boost support among students and youth.
In January, the Labor Department announced that it would create 110,000 unpaid and 70,000 paid summer jobs and internships. In February, Obama touted his support for free contraceptives when his regulation of churches’ employment practices was opposed by religious groups.
This week, Obama’s tour on Air Force One took him to three universities where he showcased his support for a one-year, $5.6 billion extension of low-interest student loans.
The tour, however, prompted skeptical comments by several White House reporters — including ABC’s Jake Tapper — and by liberal pressure groups.
“It is clear that these were three swing states … [and] claiming no political activity on their agenda certainly invites some of the criticism that they are receiving,” said Common Cause communications chief Mary Boyle, according to a report in The Huffington Post.
Republicans made sure to highlight the issue. “The president traveled across the country on the taxpayer dime at a cost of $179,000 an hour [for Air Force One] insisting that Congress fix a [student loan] problem that we were already working on,” said Speaker of the House John Boehner.
“For the president to make a campaign issue out of this and then to travel to three battleground states and go to three large college campuses on taxpayers’ money, and to try to make this a political issue is pathetic, and his campaign ought to be reimbursing the treasury for the cost of this trip,” he said.
On April 25, the Republican National Committee asked Congress’ Government Accountability Office to investigate Obama’s travel. “President Obama has been passing off campaign travel as ‘official events,’ thereby allowing taxpayers, rather than his campaign, to pay for his reelection efforts. … Because this behavior shows no sign of changing, action must be taken with haste to protect the taxpayers who are being cheated by their government,” said the request.
White House spokesman Jay Carney defended the trips as a routine part of the president’s job.
Only the president, vice president and a few top cabinet officials can use the government aircraft based at Andrews Air Force base.
Other cabinet officials must buy cheaper — but still taxpayer-funded — tickets on commercial aircraft when traveling with their entourages of aides, press secretaries and experts.
In March, Obama used one of the two upgraded Boeing 747 aircraft to go on a four-state, 5,000-mile tour to talk up his energy policies. Some of the resulting images were used his in campaign ads. The fuel bill for the Air Force One trip was roughly $80,000.
However, the increased pace of presidential travel has prompted the Air Force to add nine cargo aircraft from routine and war-related duties to the aircraft pool at Andrews. The extra cargo aircraft are needed to carry the president’s entourage of bodyguards and vehicles to cities ahead of his campaign stops

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/27/obama-wh-officials-visit-more-than-130-universities-schools-in-massive-campaign-for-young-voters/#ixzz1tNfEuAxZ

Rep. Chaffetz: House Committee Could Cite Holder for Contempt

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said Friday that Congress may have to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for the Justice Department’s slow response to a subpoena relating to the Fast and Furious gun running operation.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has sought 80,000 documents, “of which they have only given us about 7,000,” Chaffetz told Fox News, according to Politico. “We have issued a subpoena. We have bent over backward to be patient and take time.”

Asked if Congress is prepared to hold Holder in contempt, Chaffetz responded, “He is leading us down a path where we have no other choice. That’s what I’m worried about. There are other options on the table. We can end this tonight if the Department of Justice will turn over these documents and hold the senior-most individuals at the Department of Justice accountable for their actions.”

The Los Angeles Times and The Associated Press reported Friday that House Republican leaders put together a proposed contempt of Congress citation against Holder, charging that he and the Justice Department have “obstructed and slowed” the congressional inquiry into Fast and Furious.

An official of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee told the AP that a final decision on citation has not been made. The official, who was not authorized to be quoted by name, said the citation could be avoided if the Justice Department changes its stand and produces documents sought by the committee.

However, CBS News reports that House Republicans have gotten the go-ahead to prepare the contempt citation, which will accuse Holder and the Justice Department of obstructing the congressional probe.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, was given a 48-page draft by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who heads the Oversight committee, CBS News reports.

"While there are very legitimate arguments to be made in favor of such an action, no decision has been made to move forward with one by the speaker or by House Republican leaders," a top Republican aide told CBS News.

Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., another member of the Oversight committee, told Fox News Thursday that if Holder doesn’t fully respond to the subpoena by May 28, contempt of Congress proceedings will begin.

Congressional staffers say the Oversight panel does not need approval to proceed, but the contempt resolution would eventually need a full House vote, CBS News reported. If passed, Congress could seek enforcement through federal courts or passage may be enough to push the Justice Department to comply without a court order.

The Justice Department has told Politico and CBS that it has been complying with the subpoena, and more than 6,400 pages of documents have been made available to Congress.

In Fast and Furious, U.S. agents allowed thousands of guns to flow from gun shops in Arizona into Mexico, allowing Mexican criminals to purchase the weapons guns illegally, in hopes of tracking the weapons to drug kingpins. The operation went awry and some of the guns were used in the 2010 shooting of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Rep. Chaffetz: House Committee Could Cite Holder for Contempt
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!


Note:If you hear anything about gOP cutting funding to pay for this they are not telling you that Obama has aleardy cut $4 Billion from this fund already to pay for some of his spending crap already, and the fund is NOT for a womens health issue! It describes down further where the cut is.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans defied a veto threat and the House voted Friday to prevent federal loan costs from doubling for millions of college students. The vote gave the GOP a momentary election-year triumph on a bill that has become enmeshed in partisan battles over the economy, women’s issues and President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
The measure’s 215-195 passage was largely symbolic because the package is going nowhere in the Democratic-dominated Senate. Both parties agree students’ interest costs should not rise, but they are clashing along a familiar fault line over how to cover the $5.9 billion tab: Republicans want spending cuts and Democrats want higher revenues.
Friday’s vote underscored how with Election Day just over six months away, much of Congress’ work and passion can be aimed as much at political positioning as it is at writing law. Both parties want to show they are trying to help college students and their families cope in today’s unforgiving economy and, when possible, force their opponents to cast votes that might create fodder for TV attack ads.
The GOP bill would keep interest rates for subsidized Stafford loans at 3.4 percent for another year, rather than automatically growing to 6.8 percent on July 1 as they would under a law enacted five years ago by a Democratic Congress. The increase would affect 7.4 million students and, the Obama administration says, cost each an average $1,000 over the life of their loans.
Democrats trained their fire on the Republican plan to pay for the bill by abolishing a preventive health fund created by Obama’s 2010 revamping of the health care system. Democrats said that program especially helped women by allocating money for cancer screening and other initiatives and that eliminating it was only the latest GOP blow against women — a charge Republicans hotly contested.
“Give me a break,” roared House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to rousing cheers from Republican lawmakers. “This is the latest plank in the so-called war on women, entirely created by my colleagues across the aisle for political gain.”
Democrats voted solidly earlier this year to take money from the preventive health fund to help keep doctors’ Medicare reimbursements from dropping. Obama’s own budget in February proposed cutting $4 billion from the same fund to pay for some of his priorities.
Since the early days of this year’s GOP presidential contest, Democrats have been accusing Republicans of targeting women by advocating curbs on contraceptives and other policies. Polls show women leaning heavily toward Obama and Democrats would like to stoke that margin.
In its veto message, the White House argued that “women in particular” would be helped by the prevention fund and added, “This is a politically motivated proposal and not the serious response that the problem facing America’s college students deserves.”
House GOP leaders abruptly scheduled Friday’s vote after Obama barnstormed around the country in recent days to accuse them of ignoring students’ needs. Presumptive GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney began the week by saying he, too, wanted current interest rates extended temporarily, heaping further pressure on congressional Republicans to act.
Democrats said Republicans only staged Friday’s vote to remove it as an issue on which they would be vulnerable. They noted this months’ lock-step GOP vote for a 2013 federal budget that would have let Stafford interest rates double in July, and said Republicans had done little in Congress on the issue until this week.
“They’re just looking for a way to cover their rear ends,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif.
Republicans said they were working methodically on the problem and accused Democrats of inventing a controversy to stir up their voters.
“People want to politicize this because it is an election year. But my God, do we have to fight about everything?” said Boehner.
Democrats broke 165-13 against the bill, with some of their members reluctant to vote against keeping students’ costs down, despite the accompanying health care cuts.
Democrats wrote a version of the bill, paid for by ending subsidies for oil and gas companies. It never had a chance of moving through the GOP-led House.
Senate Democrats plan a vote next month on their own legislation extending today’s interest rates for a year and paid for by making it harder for high-earning owners of many privately owned corporations to shield some of their income from Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. That vote will also be little more than political posturing because Senate Republicans are certain to derail the measure.
House Republicans prevailed Friday only after staunching a brewing rebellion among their own conservatives, many of whom are skeptical about whether the government should subsidize student loans at all.
A lobbying campaign by outside conservative groups like Club for Growth and Heritage Action for America pressured GOP lawmakers to vote “no.” But an 11th-hour effort by GOP leaders to keep their rank-and-file onboard prevailed and Republicans ended up backing the legislation 202-30 — with half the opposition coming from the feisty, largely conservative GOP class of freshmen.
“The government doesn’t belong in that business,” said Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/27/house-gop-passes-bill-to-curb-college-student-loan-costs/#ixzz1tNcWNZXS

Liberals (Libtards) so called war on women

It all started when this Liberal scumbag Hack George Stephanopoulos asked Romney if states would ban contraception. Romney had no clue what the hell he was talking about. Now I hear today Obama is speaking at a womens rally about the gop's war on women. I have been an independent and and I see this crap that this Idiot is doing it just disgust me. I can's stand these liberal Hacks! He can't go on his own record so he dows this dividing crap to try to get the kids vote and the womens vote. I hope they see what a screwball he and the libtards are by going this far. I think they are total idiots and have no respect for them anymore just like  I have no respect for NBC for editing the 911 tape to make the Martin case look Racial!

Wednesday, April 25, 2012


WASHINGTON (AP) — Social Security is rushing even faster toward insolvency, driven by retiring baby boomers, a weak economy and politicians’ reluctance to take painful action to fix the huge retirement and disability program.
The trust funds that support Social Security will run dry in 2033 — three years earlier than previously projected — the government said Monday.
There was no change in the year that Medicare’s hospital insurance fund is projected to run out of money. It’s still 2024. The program’s trustees, however, said the pace of Medicare spending continues to accelerate. Congress enacted a 2 percent cut for Medicare last year, and that is the main reason the trust fund exhaustion date did not advance.
The trustees who oversee both programs say high energy prices are suppressing workers’ wages, a trend they see continuing. They also expect people to work fewer hours than previously projected, even after the economy recovers. Both trends would lead to lower payroll tax receipts, which support both programs.
Unless Congress acts — and forcefully — payments to millions of Americans could be cut.
If the Social Security and Medicare funds ever become exhausted, the nation’s two biggest benefit programs would collect only enough money in payroll taxes to pay partial benefits. Social Security could cover about 75 percent of benefits, the trustees said in their annual report. Medicare’s giant hospital fund could pay 87 percent of costs.
“Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare,” the trustees wrote. “If they take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/23/aging-workforce-strains-social-security-medicare/#ixzz1t6HaY9Cd

Monday, April 23, 2012


On Friday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer took aim at President Barack Obama’s central economic policy push for 2012: his desire to enact the Buffett rule as a part of the U.S. tax code.
The Buffett rule, named after billionaire Warren Buffett, would essentially levy a minimum tax rate of 30 percent on individuals making more than a million dollars a year. But as Krauthammer explained, the amount of revenue it would bring in isn’t a large enough amount to solve the country’s fiscal woes.
“It’s literally incredible,” Krauthammer said. “It’s almost an embarrassment. It’s so shameless. If you were to collect the Buffett tax for the next 250 years, that’s longer than the life of this republic, you will not have covered the deficit — Obama’s deficit — for 2011. You collect it for another 250 years, so we’re now in the year 2612, and you’ve covered 2011 and 2012, and you need to cover only 498 other years of deficits.”
The underlying policy goal of putting the Buffett rule in place, he explained, is to raise the capital gains tax, Krauthammer said, and Obama has been less than up-front about that.
“This is a preposterous statement and he knows it is,” he continued. “Also on growth, it is equally deceptive. What the tax is, it’s a doubling of the capital gains tax. It’s disguised, but that’s the reason why the Buffett rates are lower, it’s the capital gains rate and it’s lower than the rate for normal income. So he doubles it.”
“The reason that’s not a good idea is because when you double the rate, you actually decrease the amount that the Treasury receives. And you decrease the growth because you are shrinking the pool of capital that is out there that people can invest and hire other people. The reason that we had an economic boom after the Kennedy tax cuts and the Reagan cuts, 20 years later, it’s precisely that they cut rates and particularly that they cut capital gains rates.”
But it’s not even about raising revenues, as the Washington Post columnist pointed out. Krauthammer reminded viewers that in 2008 Obama said he wanted to raise capital gains rate for the purposes of fairness.
“[T]hat’s the famous line where he basically says, ‘I am going to raise the rate, even if it decreases the amount of revenue,’” Krauthammer said. “This is insane. The purpose of taxation is to raise revenue and to pay for stuff the government has to do. That’s the only reason the government swipes your money.”
“And he is saying, I will raise the rates even if it decreases the amount simply because of this abstraction I have, which means I want to take the money from the rich and distribute it elsewhere and think that somehow it’s going to help the general economy. It makes no sense.”
According to Krauthammer, the gesture from Obama was less about policy and more about politics.
“And look, what’s the reason he is doing all of this?” he added. “It’s a misdirection play. It’s a way to have the shiny object. He doesn’t want to talk about what he has done. He has said — the longest over-9-percent unemployment since the Great Depression.”
“He has had the great, the slowest and most anemic recovery of any recession since the Second World War and he’s accumulated in one term, the greatest amount of debt — $5 trillion — in galactic history. So, he can’t run on that. So, instead he’s going to hold a ball over there. A shiny ball. And he’ll say, ‘look over here,’ so he doesn’t have to speak about his record, which has been an economic disaster.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/21/krauthammer-obama-buffett-rule-push-an-embarrassment-so-shameless-and-deceptive/#ixzz1sul58dm0

Links of Interest





Saturday, April 21, 2012

Gov’t-Subsidized Company Goes Through Another Round of Layoffs: Plant Is ‘Absolutely Empty’

Govt Subsidized Company Goes Through Another Round of Layoffs: Plant Is Absolutely EmptyAn electric car manufacturer that was awarded more than half a billion dollars in loan guarantees from the Department of Energy has gone through a second round of layoffs.
“On Friday, Delaware Online reports, 12 more workers — including engineers and maintenance technicians — were laid off at [Fisker’s Delaware plant], leaving ‘only a small maintenance team’ left there,” Sebastian Blanco writes for AOL autoblog.
“One of those let go was Jeff Garland, who had been working on community affairs and business development efforts in Delaware. He said the plant is currently ‘absolutely empty.’ This is because Fisker has taken out the old GM equipment but has not yet installed the machines it would need to build the Atlantic,” Blanco adds.
Fisker has already fired 26 employees. What’s the reason for another round of layoffs?
“I think what happened was the budget numbers are so tight right now and they’re working so hard to preserve as much cash as they can that something had to give. We’re not making a car in Wilmington right now, so given that situation it was an obvious place to make a cut,” Garland told Delaware Online.
Analysts blame the lousy state of Fisker’s finances on the fact that the DOE has denied the company the second round of its loan.
Here, as reported earlier on The Blaze, this is Fisker’s situation:
  1. Fisker Automotive is given $193 million of a $529 million DOE loan to produce two lines of plug-in hybrid cars and, presumably, create jobs.
  2. The company is unable to find a contract manufacturer in the United States, so it outsources manufacturing jobs to Finland (the company vehemently denies charges that it has used any part of the federal loan to fund manufacturing operations in Finland).
  3. The automaker falls behind its production schedule and experiences “delays” in its sales (i.e. poor sales), depleting its capital.
  4. But to qualify for the rest of the $529 million loan guarantee, the company has to maintain a certain amount of capital.
  5. Therefore, in order to meet this DOE benchmark, Fisker Automotive decides it will save money by laying off an “undisclosed number” of employees.
The company maintains that this is only a momentary setback and that it will be back on its feet in no time.
“We have always had a flexible business model that allows us to scale up and down as work demands. As we ramp up the project again we will add new headcount,” said Fisker spokeman Russell Datz.
Govt Subsidized Company Goes Through Another Round of Layoffs: Plant Is Absolutely Empty“We’ve accomplished a lot at the plant, using more than 40 local contract firms to recycle old material and equipment. The plant is now ready for the next phase of installing new production equipment,” he added.
Of course, as many Blaze readers know, this isn’t the first time Fisker has been in the news.
First, as mentioned in the above, the Al Gore-connected auto company outsourced manufacturing duties to foreign plants. Next, there were the mass layoffs. Lastly, there was the story about A123 Systems, the company that developed batteries for Fisker cars, firing 125 employees.

Media Matters Fights War on Christians

Note:    These scumbag liberal hacks are tied in with the Whithouse and NBC. This stinks!

CBN News has uncovered Media Matters for America’s foundational IRS documents – and they show that Media Matters was constructed as a weapon against Christians. According to its application for non-profit status, it was created in order to counter pro-Christian “bias in news reporting and analysis by the American media”:

It is common for news and commentary by the press to present viewpoints that tend to overly promote … a conservative, Christian-influenced ideology.

Yet, as Vince Coglianese of the Daily Caller points out, the public mission of MMFA somehow leaves out that little tidbit of information.

That’s typical. The real agenda of MMFA is to cover for the ultra-left, which despises both Israel and a Christian America which supports it. As we’ve been exposing all week, Media Matters is filled to the gills with anti-Israel extremists – and all of those anti-Israel extremists despise Christians just as much.

Reid: Save the Postal Service, seniors depend on junk mail

Note:   What a Hack!

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is making a top-to-bottom case for prompt passage of a Postal Service reform bill that if defeated, he says, would deny seniors their beloved junk mail.
“I’ll come home tonight here to my home in Washington and there’ll be some mail there,” the Nevada Democrat said Wednesday on the Senate floor. “A lot of it is what some people refer to as junk mail, but for the people who are sending that mail, it’s very important.
“And when talking about seniors, seniors love getting junk mail. It’s sometimes their only way of communicating or feeling like they’re part of the real world.”
The bipartisan bill includes restructuring pension plans for Postal Service employees, and introduces new technology and other efforts meant to help the agency stop losing money.
Reid said 30,000 post offices across the country will close if the legislation fails, many in rural regions without Internet service and where many seniors still rely on the mail service to deliver their medicine. He is expected to attempt to get a vote on the issue within the next couple of weeks.
“Elderly Americans, more than anyone in America, rely on the United States Postal Service, but unless we act quickly, thousands of post offices ... will close.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/19/reid-save-postal-service-seniors-depend-on-junk-mail/?test=latestnews#ixzz1siwCj5dU

'Fast and Furious' Exposes White House Anti-Gun Agenda, Coverup


Katie Pavlich’s new book, “Fast and Furious,” assembles the devastating evidence that implicates the Obama administration for its botched gun-walking operation and ensuing coverup to mislead Congress and the American people.

Few journalists have devoted as much time reporting on Fast and Furious as Pavlich. As the news editor of Townhall, she has asked questions the mainstream media ignored. Now her book pieces the story together for a complete picture of how a government-run operation turned deadly.
She’ll speak on Tuesday at noon ET at The Bloggers Briefing. Breitbart TV, in partnership with The Heritage Foundation, will air it live.
Operation Fast and Furious began in 2009 as an effort to eliminate high-level arms trafficking networks. Guns were allowed to “walk,” and rather than arresting straw purchasers and cartel buyers, hundreds were used to commit crimes in the United States and Mexico. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed with one in 2010, and an estimated 1,400 guns remain missing.
As previously documented by Breitbart News Network, Pavlich’s book contains new information questioning Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s testimony to Congressas well as the media’s efforts to shield the Obama administration from criticism.
The book details President Obama’s lifelong mission to subvert the Second Amendment, long before he was seeking federal office. Pavlich also documents how Fast and Furious plays into his administration’s anti-gun agenda. She cites a Washington Post story from Dec. 15, 2010, before details of Fast and Furious had emerged, in which federal authorities attempt to blame the rise in gun violence on U.S. gun shops.
The Post story referred to Project Gunrunner as an operation to inspect, interdict, and seize guns from straw purchasers. It did not mention an ATF operation to allow straw purchasers to buy guns for the Mexican drug cartels. Some of the very same ATF and Justice Department officials who blamed American gun shops for the spike in Mexican gun crime had in fact been helping the drug cartels to help themselves for over a year.
The book provides information from sources and whistleblowers who offer a behind-the-scenes perspective about the botched operation. One of them, ATF agent John Dodson, was punished for his decision to question why arrests weren’t made before the guns fell into the hands of ruthless criminals in Mexico.

Nancy Pelosi Wants to Change First Amendment to Allow Regulation of Corporate Speech

Note:   What an idiot

The Democratic party’s temper tantrum over Citizens United v. FEC has ratcheted up to a new level – now, instead of arguing that the ruling is wrong and the constitution doesn’t protect corporate speech, they’re arguing that the first amendment does protect corporate speech, so they’re going to change it! At least this time, they’re following the process prescribed by the Founders. The problem is, if you listen to Pelosi‘s explanation for why they’re doing it, it’s a bit…strange:
The bill in question is called the “Peoples’ Rights Amendment,” and its goal is to explicitly allow Congress to regulate corporate speech however it wants:
Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.
Section 2. People, person, or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected state and federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.
Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, and such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.
Here are some of the bill’s sponsors trying their best to explain the rationale behind the bill:
“I‘ve introduced a People’s Rights Amendment, which is very simple and straightforward,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.) said at the forum. “It would make clear that all corporate entities, for-profit and non-profit alike, are not people with constitutional rights.
“It treats all corporations, including incorporated unions and nonprofits, in the same way, as artificial creatures of the state that we, the people, govern, not the other way around,” said McGovern.
Rep. Donna Edwards (D.-Md.) explained the basic principle this move to amend the Constitution is advancing.
“In Citizens United, what the court said is that Congress has no authority to regulate this kind of political speech,” said Edwards. “And so all of these constitutional amendments go to this question of giving Congress the authority that the Supreme Court, I think wrongly, decided isn‘t within Congress’s constitutional–our constitutional purview.”
Apparently this bill is Phase I of an attempt to resurrect the defunct DISCLOSE Act.

Democratic Budget Chairman: 'No Need for a Budget for Next Year'

On Thursday, Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) gave MSNBC's Chuck Todd a bumbling interview chock full of misleading and inaccurate statements as he attempted to explain why Senate Democrats reversed their decision to move forward with a budget mark-up.
"There was no reversal at all. What I have said consistently is that we have a budget for this year and next. Our friends have said repeatedly there's been no budget resolution for 1,000 days. What they aren't telling you is the whole story... There's no need to do a budget for next year right now."
Sen. Conrad claimed that passage of the so-called Budget Control Act set the budget for two years. That's wrong. The Budget Control Act was merely a placeholder that implemented discretionary spending caps, which account for just 40 percent of total spending.
During his MSNBC interview, Sen. Conrad also claimed that the Budget Control Act was preferred over a traditional budget resolution because it is "far more extensive." Again, not true. When the Budget Control Act was railroaded through the Senate, it stripped away important procedural rules that allow for robust debate on spending and oversight.
The Republican Ranking Member on the Senate Budget Committee Jeff Sessions (R-AL) blasted Democrats' budgetary backpedal:
“Chairman Conrad’s stunning announcement, forced on him by his party, is a defining moment in 2012 and a national embarrassment for a Senate majority that is unable to meet the great challenge of our time.”
The last time the U.S. Senate passed a budget was April 29, 2009.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Obama's Buffet Rule voted down!!

I love it. His Bufet rule was voted down 51 to 45 in his Liberal Demacrat controlled Senate


Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz canceled a U.S. Virgin Islands fundraiser she planned to attend with a high-dollar bundler for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign amid revelations the bundler helped convicted and alleged financial criminals get tax breaks.
Marjorie Rawls Roberts, who has pledged to raise between $100,000 and $200,000 for Obama’s 2012 campaign, helps her wealthy clients navigate offshore tax loopholes in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Last Thursday, The Daily Caller revealed that Roberts’ clients include recently convicted $7 billion Ponzi schemer R. Allen Stanford and alleged financial criminals from the National Rural Utilities Cooperative Finance Corporation.
Wasserman Schultz was scheduled to appear with Roberts at 8 a.m. on Monday morning at an “Obama Victory Fund 2012” event — advertised as “Breakfast with DNC Chair, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz” at “Walker’s by the Sea” in Lindberg Bay on St. Thomas.
In an April 7 Facebook posting, Roberts touted the upcoming event. “This is the first visit to the territory by a DNC Chair in a number of years and presents a real opportunity for Virgin Islanders to hear Chair Wasserman Schultz talk about the President’s positions on a number of issues and also permits her to learn about the U.S. Virgin Islands and the issues we face,” Roberts said in her post.
Two days after TheDC published its report on Roberts’ work helping Stanford and other alleged financial criminals get tax breaks, though, Roberts announced Wasserman Schultz canceled the event.
“Alas Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to postpone her trip to the USVI due to Congressional business but will be coming soon — and hopefully for a day or two — and I will post the exact date once I know it,” Roberts said in a Facebook post on Saturday.
As Roberts’ Saturday Facebook post is the only announcement of the cancellation publicly available, it’s unclear exactly when Wasserman Schultz canceled the event. Her congressional office claims the event was canceled long before TheDC’s report on Roberts’ clients but has not provided any evidence to back up the claim.
“It is inaccurate to say it was canceled Saturday, as it was canceled at least a week ago,” Jonathan Beeton, Wasserman Schultz’s congressional communications director told TheDC. “Given flight schedules and timing, we were concerned that the Congresswoman would be unable to get from VI to DC in time for votes today.”
When asked for proof that the event was canceled “at least a week ago,” Beeton did not provide any.
As of Monday morning, the event still appears on Obama’s campaign website.
Beeton also wouldn’t answer when asked if Wasserman Schultz would have still appeared with Roberts if it weren’t for what he claims were scheduling conflicts.
DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse did not respond to requests for comment

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/16/wasserman-schultz-bails-on-fundraiser-with-bundler-who-helps-criminals-get-tax-breaks/#ixzz1sRQvTSRB

I have no respect for these scumbags that want life handed to them for free!

NYC Occupy Smashes Starbucks, Shouts 'All Pigs Must Die'

We’ve told you in previous reports to expect the increasingly broke, desperate and nomadic Occupy movement to continue to make police the enemy and to make more flailing ‘direct actions’ in an attempt to stir up headlines. In New York City this weekend, they did not disappoint.

As The New York Times East Village Local reported...
Last night’s riotous atmosphere resulted in a sergeant and lieutenant suffering minor injuries while scuffling with anarchist protesters at the Astor Place Starbucks, the police said.
According to police, around 25 people tried smashing the windows of the cafe with eight-foot long steel pipes at around 8:45 p.m. after attending the Anarchist book fair earlier in the day. “Patrons fearing that they would be hit by flying glass hid under tables,” the police said in a statement. “Several” officers were assaulted with pipes and bottles, the police added.
As the news reports, the clash started after the Anarchist Book Fair. Lest you think this is mere coincidence, let’s take a quick look at the some of the workshop offerings presented at the Fair -- which advertises that they welcome children, by the way. So what was being taught at the Anarchist Book Fair prior to Saturday’s attack on a Starbucks and subsequent march calling the police pigs? Here’s a couple of the courses offered:
Occupy Anarchism; Commons Not Capitalism - Saturday, 12:45-2:15pm Think Coffee Basement
Cindy Milstein
As the do-it-ourselves occupations that have swept across the globe from Egypt to United States are proving, direct democracy and cooperation are becoming powerful everyday experiences for millions, with people self-organizing everything from civic defense and trash collection to tent encampments and general assemblies. This compelling and quirky, beautiful and at times messy experimentation has cracked open a window on history, affording us a rare chance to grow these uprisings into the new landscape of a caring, ecological, and egalitarian society--a world of our own collective making and doing. This talk will draw out some of the promise as well as dilemmas of the occupy moment, focusing specifically on the anticapitalst/antistatist opening of notions and lived practices of "the commons," and then facilitate a conversation, in hopes of better strategizing toward increasingly expansive forms of freedom.
Food Justice for Anarchists, Come One, Come All! - Saturday 11-12:30pm Judson Garden Room
Alice, Ashley, David, J."g."J., and Lana
New York City is alive with projects and people working toward a more sustainable, accessible, responsible, and delicious food system. However, many groups operate within state, corporate, or non-profit frameworks.
As anarchists, we must ask: what does it mean to work toward food justice in a way that is non-hierarchical and anti- oppression? How do we build a better food system while nurturing community and fighting the state and capitalism? How can food be relevant in a successful fight against gentrification?
You’ll also not that J.”g”J., listed as one of the panelists at Food Justice was also scheduled to teach the following course on Sunday.
Self-defense and street combat for anarchists... - Sunday, 4:15-5:45pm Judson Assembly Room
J. "G." J.
will provide a basic overview of offense and defense when dealing with recalcitrant fascists and / or pig police. We will deal with holds, strikes, traps and disarming techniques. No prior martial arts experience is necessary. The techniques are simple and effective, derived from the Yip family Wing Chun lineage (invented by a womyn, for wimmin and slight-bodied people). Anyone with experience, ideas and techniques of their own are welcome and encouraged to share! Come prepared to move, and preferably with someone you trust to work with. I try to make this as fun and non-triggering as possible! *appropriate for teens.
It's good to know that it's appropriate for teens. It's hard to find good leisure activities for today's youth.
The NYT Village Local also reports what else happened on Saturday night.
According to police, part of the rowdy group — some of them masked — marched near Washington Square Park, chanting “cops are murderers” and “all pigs must die.” The crowd eventually grew to around 150, with some tipping garbage cans and spray painting anarchist symbols on buildings, the police said.
Remember that Andrew Breitbart was derided by the mainstream media for shouting “Behave yourself!” at the Occupy shock troops who were assaulting CPAC 2012 and Andrew was castigated for calling them ‘filthy animals’. Those cams critics will, of course, be silent on the Black Block masked anarchists shouting “all pigs must die!”, breaking windows and spray painting New York City.
The Occupy movement is a nihilist attack on Western civilization, including the warm fuzzy organic white bread NPR eco-leftism of a modern American company like Starbucks. The radicals of Occupy see right through the mix of fair trade good intentions, acoustic guitar soul patch hipster design and affluence aspiring capitalism and their answer was an eight foot long steel pipe The gave-at-the-office latte drinking liberals aren’t able to donate their way out of the path of broken glass because at their core, they romanticize these thugs the same way the J-School Occupy fetishists do.

At least he is speaking up!

American singer Ted Nugent, known for his strong conservative political views, voiced his extreme dislike for the Obama administration this weekend at a National Rifle Association convention, where he told attendees to vote for Mitt Romney.
“If you don’t know that our government is wiping its ass with the Constitution,” he said, “you’re living under a rock someplace.”
Nugent added that there are men dying and getting their limbs blown off in Afghanistan and “we have a president and an attorney general who doesn’t even like the Constitution.”
Calling for the crowd to each go home and get 100 or 1,000 people to vote for Romney, Nugent said Barack Obama cannot be president again or “we’re done.”
He used the words “vile,” “evil,” and “America-hating” to describe the administration, while also saying the president, Vice President Joe Biden, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are “criminals.”
To conclude his endorsement, he said in order to ensure Romney is president, “We need to ride into that battlefield and chop [the Obama administration's] heads off in November.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/17/ted-nugent-obama-administration-evil-and-america-hating-video/#ixzz1sRMyrmnc

Another FAILED Obama supported company

FILE - In this July 9, 2007 file photo an employee works in a solar plant of the US company First Solar in Frankfurt/Oder, eastern Germany. First Solar Inc. says it's shuttering its manufacturing operations at Frankfurt an der Oder in Germany due to deteriorating market conditions in Europe and to reduce costs. The Tempe, Arizona-based company said Tuesday, April 17, 2012 it will also indefinitely idle four production lines in Malaysia. (AP Photo/dapd, Michael Urban, File)
NEW YORK (AP) — First Solar Inc. will lay off 2,000 workers and close its factory in Germany following a collapse in solar panel prices that has erased the industry’s profits and forced some smaller companies into bankruptcy.
America’s biggest solar manufacturer said the layoffs amount to 30 percent of its global workforce. It’s an about-face for a company that doubled the number of employees at the Frankfurt, Germany, plant to more than 1,200 just last year. First Solar will also shutter some production in Malaysia. It plans additional job cuts in Europe and the U.S.
“The solar market has changed, and so must we,” Mark Widmar, First Solar’s chief financial officer, told analysts in a conference call.
The price of solar panels, which generate electricity from sunlight, has plummeted recently. An influx of Chinese competitors has led to a rapid buildup in supply. At the same time governments in Europe, the biggest market for solar power, are reducing generous subsidy programs that had fueled demand. From March to December last year, solar panel prices dropped 50 percent, said Aaron Chew, an analyst with the Maxim Group.
Cheaper solar is good news for consumers, but manufacturers are struggling to stay afloat. Last year, Solyndra LLC of Fremont, Calif., Evergreen Solar Inc. of Marlboro, Mass., and Spectrawatt Inc. of Hopewell Junction, N.Y. all declared bankruptcy.
“Nobody’s making money in this business right now,” Chew said.
Analysts said job cuts, factory closures and even mergers are to be expected in a relatively young industry that still welcomes new players every year. They see the industry following in the footsteps of television and computer makers by locating factories in Asia, where labor costs are low and governments provide few regulatory obstacles.
“It’s a very healthy thing,” Jefferies & Co. analyst Jesse Pichel said. “This is a shakeout period for solar in which uncompetitive technologies are getting kicked out.”
First Solar specializes in “thin film” solar modules that are cheaper than those made by competitors. But the decline in global panel prices has eroded its status as the industry’s low-cost leader. First Solar’s modules are also less efficient than others, limiting their use. For instance, they’re ideal for large-scale projects that deliver power to the electrical grid, but they less effective for smaller systems used on rooftops.
The company lost $39.5 million in 2011 after earning $664.2 million in 2010. Its shares have dropped nearly 85 percent in the past 12 months. They rose about 10.3 percent Tuesday to $22.96 after the company announced the cuts.
“It is essential that we reduce production and decrease expenses,” First Solar Chairman and CEO Mike Ahearn in a statement. “These actions will enable us to focus our resources on developing the markets where we expect to generate significant growth in coming years,” such as the U.S. and China.
First Solar expects the restructuring to reduce its manufacturing costs by $30-$60 million this year and another $100-$120 million a year afterward. It will book a charge of $245 to $370 million, mostly in its first-quarter results.
Analysts said First Solar needs to cut costs even more and demonstrate that its panels are as durable as its competitors. Pichel said that
as prices continue to fall, consumers will likely favor more efficient, polysilicon panels made by other solar companies. Goldman Sachs analyst Brian Lee downgraded First Solar to “Neutral” from “Buy” and cut 2014 earnings expectations to $4 from $5.75 per share.
Meanwhile, sales of solar panels and related equipment should keep rising, but nowhere near the blistering pace of the past several years. Solar installations are expected to increase by 3.7 percent this year, compared with a 49.7 percent increase from 2010 to 2011, according to energy research group GTM Research.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/17/first-solar-lays-off-2000-workers/#ixzz1sRMYmPB7

This goofball is blaming everyone but the real problem!

President Barack Obama is trying to portray himself as the hard-nosed protector of gasoline-buying consumers, and to frame the GOP’s free market policies as one cause of rising gasoline prices.
“We should strengthen protections for American consumers, not gut them,” Obama said in a morning Rose Garden statement.
“Imagine if the NFL quadrupled the number of teams but didn’t increase the number of referees, he said. “You’d end up having havoc on the field, and you’d diminish the game. It wouldn’t be be fair [and] that’s part of what’s going on in a lot of these markets,” he said, while calling on Congress to give regulators an extra $52 million.
The pitch prompted immediate push-back from skeptical mainstream reporters on a 9:00 a.m phone call, and taunts from GOP activists prior to Obama’s mid-morning statement in the Rose Garden.
“Today’s Rose Garden event is just another gimmick – a shiny object to distract from the fact that Obama doesn’t have a solution for gas prices,” said a statement from Kirsten Kukowski, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.
The administration is increasingly using the GOP’s budget plans, authored by House budget chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, to portray GOP politicians — especially presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney — as heartless and a threat to middle-class families.
Obama inserted the anti-GOP message throughout his pro-regulatory statement. “Anyone who is pledging to roll back Wall Street reform, Dodd-Frank, would also roll back this vital consumer protection with it,” he declared.

White House spokesman Jay Carney pushed the theme during his early afternoon press conference. “I think most Americans will support [extra regulations and] those who do not support it would probably have to explain it,” Carney said.
“Why are you against putting more cops on the beat? Why are you opposed to ensuring the agencies… have the tools they need and the manpower they need to make sure the American consumers are not getting ripped off?” Carney said.
That message — that the GOP’s policies would boost gas prices — may be used throughout the campaign to blunt criticism of Obama’s policies.
Oil industry experts say prices are rising because Obama has reduced the supply of U.S. oil.
Obama has used his regulatory powers to reduce oil deliveries from federal lands, even as deliveries from state and private lands increased. The policy has boosted gas prices and the green-tech industry, which tends to support Democratic Party politicians.
However, even if approved by Congress, the new spending and legal penalties won’t be available for months — perhaps after the November election.
Also, White House officials said they could not assess the impact of the new penalties on oil prices. “Providing additional resources to ensure there are more cops on the beat… we think those are just sensible steps,” one White House official said.
White House officials also were unable describe any accomplishments of a multi-agency oil trading oversight panel that was established last April by Attorney General Eric Holder. That panel was touted by Obama as protection against price gouging. “I direct you to the Department of Justice … [but] we’re not suggesting there isn’t evidence of manipulation,” said the official.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/17/obama-blames-gas-prices-on-speculators-not-administration-policy/#ixzz1sRLY2TKR

The Ted Nugent comments

What he said in his comments about Obama is no different than what the Liberal scumbags talk like on the different newsmedia's and especially  Msnbc! When they talk like that you hear NOTHING from the news media. So I think if they can't take it like conservative's do, then they can shut the hell up!

Monday, April 16, 2012

Eric Holder Silent on New Black Panthers' Racial Discord

Americans must ask themselves whether Eric Holder and black leaders indeed fear the New Black Panther Party, as they all refuse to condemn their rhetoric and tactics in the last few weeks.

The Trayvon Martin Case is the latest in a long list of incidents into which the New Black Panther Party has injected itself, but nothing has measured up to its latest tactics, which include placing a bounty on George Zimmerman’s head with the qualifier "dead or alive."
It would seems to the most independent of observers that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in his refusal to condemn this murder of hire scandal, approves the placement of bounties by private citizens on other private citizens. One would not have to wonder, if this had been a group of Americans connected with the Tea Party Movement offering up a bounty on a private citizen, what the reaction of the Justice Department would be.
From the very start of the Obama Administration, it has seemed that Mr. Holder believes and believes in giving a great deal of latitude to the New Black Panther Party, as his department refused to entertain the very thought of prosecuting two members of the Party on charges of voter intimidation after they were video-taped by independent observers standing outside a Philadelphia polling place with billy clubs in hand. One would not need to wonder what Mr. Holder actions would be if a black voter called the Department of Justice and reported an empty police car sitting alongside the road leading to a polling place in Florida; there would be calls for him to launch investigations into voter intimidation from political and media figures.
I also notice that none of the self-appointed black leaders such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton publicly condemned the hate-filled rhetoric and murder-for-hire tactics of the New Black Panther Party, yet they boasted in the past to be the Keepers of the Legacy of Martin Luther King, who actively preached against the very violence that the New Black Panther Party called for in the wake of the Trayvon Martin Shooting and the investigation that lead to the arrest of George Zimmerman. Al Sharpton even boasted about a possible increase in civil disobedience if Mr. Zimmerman was not arrested before the Special Prosecutor had a chance to investigation the case and file charges against him. It would seem that President Obama’s calls for civility in the wake of the Gabby Gifford shooting seemed to be lost on his number one ally in the black community in this case.
Americans of all creeds should be concerned about the rhetoric and tactics coming from fringe groups like the New Black Panther Party, who claim it’s their main objective to use whatever resulting outcome in their tragic trial to foster racial discord. The question that most Americans need to be asking is, “Does the Attorney General of our nation fear the New Black Panther Party, or does his silence along with those of the self-appointed black leaders indicate they approve of the group's rhetoric and tactics?”

Exclusive: How The MSM Covered Up Fast and Furious

In Katie Pavlich’s devastating new expose of the Eric Holder Justice Department-approved Fast and Furious operation, Pavlich doesn’t just expose the Obama administration. She exposes the mainstream media for what they are: tools of the Democratic Party, and of the White House.

As Pavlich recounts, the first mainstream media outlet to report on Fast and Furious was CBS Evening News, which aired a report by Sharyl Attkinson. She stated that the scandal itself was so awful that “some insiders say it surpasses the shoot-out at Ruby Ridge and the deadly siege at Waco.” She pointed out that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had been pushing through the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels, and that gun shops had even tried “to stop the questionable sales, but ATF encouraged them to continue.”

When the Obama administration saw Attkinson’s report, they reacted with utter fury. Officials from the administration screamed at her; as Pavlich reports, Justice Department communications director Tracy Schmaler called her up to yell at her. White House spokesman Eric Schultz “reportedly directed a barrage of expletives toward her.” Attkinson said that the White House and Justice Department labeled her “not reasonable” – as opposed to other press outlets.

From their perspective, that was correct – Attkinson wasn’t reasonable because she wasn’t parroting the party line. The rest of the media, however, was only too happy to do so. As Pavlich writes, “The New York Times and Washington Post weren’t just ‘reasonable,’ they seemed to act as press officers for the Obama administration.”

Times reported Charlie Savage penned a column in which he depicted Republicans as narrow-minded thugs out to get innocent babe-in-the-woods Attorney General Holder. The name of the piece: “Under Partisan Fire Eric Holder Soldiers On.” Meanwhile, in June 2011, the Washington Post printed an editorial decrying the “paranoia” of the National Rifle Associations and the “gun rights lobby,” even railing against them for fighting “against virtually every proposal to empower the bureau to better track and crack down on illegal firearms.”

Shockingly, the media covered for the Obama administration even when they unwittingly reported the truth. On December 15, 2010, the same day that Officer Brian Terry was murdered using a weapon sold via Fast and Furious, the Washington Post wrote a piece blasting border gun shops for dealing guns to sources south of the border. “What is different now, authorities say, is the number of high-powered rifles heading south … and the savagery of the violence,” the Post reported, neglecting to mention the fact that these gun dealers were working with the ATF to supply the guns. In fact, these gun dealers were stabbed in the back by ATF, which quietly funneled information about them to the Post, showing disproportionate selling of guns south of the border without telling the Post that the dealers were hand-in-glove with the government the entire time.

Then, of course, there was the backlash from the extreme left once Fast and Furious broke. Mother Jones called it “one of the right’s latest conspiracy theories”; Talking Points Memo mocked the claim that the Obama administration had designed Fast and Furious as a gambit to outflank Second Amendment advocates “outlandish.” Jon Stewart said such theories were “f------ crazy.” Rachel Maddow stated that it was all “the insane paranoid message from the NRA.” Her MSNBC colleague Chris Matthews said the theories sprang from a “strain of the crazy far right.” And, of course, David Brock’s Media Matters, which was coordinating regularly with the Obama administration, said it was all “hysterical rhetoric.”

As it turned out, they were all deliberately obfuscating the truth. As Pavlich reports in Fast and Furious, there can be no doubt that this scandal began and ended with the Obama administration’s willful attempt to ram its anti-gun agenda down American throats. And if Americans had to die – and if the media had to cover up for the administration – that didn’t matter one whit to Obama and his cronies. All that mattered was the scam.