Here's the interview Bob Woodward gave to Wolf Blitzer on CNN,
earlier today. He said "a very senior person" at the White House had
warned him that he would "regret doing this" regarding his reporting on
Obama's handling of the sequester.
This is absolutely stunning:
“It makes me very uncomfortable for the
White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing
something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.”
He noted that he hoped that this was a
strategy or tactic being used by one of the president's aides, but not
originating from Obama himself.
- See more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.YrBDFgcU.dpuf
ly stunning:
“It makes me very uncomfortable for the
White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing
something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.”
He noted that he hoped that this was a
strategy or tactic being used by one of the president's aides, but not
originating from Obama himself.
- See more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.YrBDFgcU.dpuf
Here's the interview Bob Woodward gave to Wolf Blitzer on CNN,
earlier today. He said "a very senior person" at the White House had
warned him that he would "regret doing this" regarding his reporting on
Obama's handling of the sequester.
This is absolutely stunning:
“It makes me very uncomfortable for the
White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing
something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.”
He noted that he hoped that this was a
strategy or tactic being used by one of the president's aides, but not
originating from Obama himself.
- See more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.YrBDFgcU.dpuf
Whitehouse At War With Bob Woodward
Bob Woodward called a senior White House official last week to tell
him that in a piece in that weekend’s Washington Post, he was going to
question President Barack Obama’s account of how sequestration came
about - and got a major-league brushback. The Obama aide “yelled at me
for about a half hour,” Woodward told us in an hour-long interview
yesterday around the Georgetown dining room table where so many
generations of Washington’s powerful have spilled their secrets.
Digging
into one of his famous folders, Woodward said the tirade was followed
by a page-long email from the aide, one of the four or five
administration officials most closely involved in the fiscal
negotiations with the Hill. “I apologize for raising my voice in our
conversation today,” the official typed. “You’re focusing on a few
specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But
perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here. … I think you will regret
staking out that claim.”
CNN host Wolf Blitzer said that the network invited a White House official to debate Woodward on-air, but the White House declined.
"I think they're confused," Woodward said of the White House's pushback on his reporting.
Earlier today on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Woodward ripped into Obama in what has become an ongoing feud between the veteran Washington Post journalist and the White House. Woodward said Obama was showing a "kind
of madness I haven't seen in a long time" for a decision not to deploy
an aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf because of budget concerns.
The Defense Department said in early February that
it would not deploy the U.S.S. Harry Truman to the Persian Gulf, citing
budget concerns relating to the looming cuts known as the sequester.
"Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying, 'Oh, by the
way, I can't do this because of some budget document?'" Woodward said on
MSNBC.
"Or George W. Bush saying, 'You know, I'm not going to invade Iraq
because I can't get the aircraft carriers I need?'" Or even Bill Clinton
saying, 'You know, I'm not going to attack Saddam Hussein's
intelligence headquarters,' ... because of some budget document?"
White
House Tells Bob Woodward: "You Will Regret Doing This" - The Video - See
more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.23plZvT4.dpuf
White
House Tells Bob Woodward: "You Will Regret Doing This" - The Video - See
more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.23plZvT4.dpuf
Here's
the interview Bob Woodward gave to Wolf Blitzer on CNN, earlier today.
He said "a very senior person" at the White House had warned him that he
would "regret doing this" regarding his reporting on Obama's handling
of the sequester.
This is absolutely stunning:
“It makes me very uncomfortable for the
White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing
something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.”
He noted that he hoped that this was a
strategy or tactic being used by one of the president's aides, but not
originating from Obama himself.
- See more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.YrBDFgcU.dpuf
This is absolutely stunning:
“It makes
me very uncomfortable for the
White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing
something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.” - See
more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.23plZvT4.dpuf
“It makes
me very uncomfortable for the
White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing
something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.” - See
more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.23plZvT4.dpuf
“It makes me very uncomfortable for the
White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing
something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.”
He noted that he hoped that this was a
strategy or tactic being used by one of the president's aides, but not
originating from Obama himself.
- See more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.YrBDFgcU.dpuf
Here's
the interview Bob Woodward gave to Wolf Blitzer on CNN, earlier today.
He said "a very senior person" at the White House had warned him that he
would "regret doing this" regarding his reporting on Obama's handling
of the sequester.
This is absolutely stunning:
“It makes me very uncomfortable for the
White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing
something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.”
He noted that he hoped that this was a
strategy or tactic being used by one of the president's aides, but not
originating from Obama himself.
- See more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.YrBDFgcU.dpuf
Here's the interview Bob Woodward gave to Wolf Blitzer on CNN,
earlier today. He said "a very senior person" at the White House had
warned him that he would "regret doing this" regarding his reporting on
Obama's handling of the sequester.
This is absolutely stunning:
“It makes me very uncomfortable for the
White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing
something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.”
He noted that he hoped that this was a
strategy or tactic being used by one of the president's aides, but not
originating from Obama himself.
- See more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.YrBDFgcU.dpuf
Here's the interview Bob Woodward gave to Wolf Blitzer on CNN,
earlier today. He said "a very senior person" at the White House had
warned him that he would "regret doing this" regarding his reporting on
Obama's handling of the sequester.
This is absolutely stunning:
“It makes me very uncomfortable for the
White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing
something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.”
He noted that he hoped that this was a
strategy or tactic being used by one of the president's aides, but not
originating from Obama himself.
- See more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.YrBDFgcU.dpuf
Here's the interview Bob Woodward gave to Wolf Blitzer on CNN,
earlier today. He said "a very senior person" at the White House had
warned him that he would "regret doing this" regarding his reporting on
Obama's handling of the sequester.
This is absolutely stunning:
“It makes me very uncomfortable for the
White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing
something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.”
He noted that he hoped that this was a
strategy or tactic being used by one of the president's aides, but not
originating from Obama himself.
- See more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.YrBDFgcU.dpuf
Here's the interview Bob Woodward gave to Wolf Blitzer on CNN,
earlier today. He said "a very senior person" at the White House had
warned him that he would "regret doing this" regarding his reporting on
Obama's handling of the sequester.
This is absolutely stunning:
“It makes me very uncomfortable for the
White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing
something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.”
He noted that he hoped that this was a
strategy or tactic being used by one of the president's aides, but not
originating from Obama himself.
- See more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.YrBDFgcU.dpuf
- See more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.23plZvT4.dpuf
“It
makes
me very uncomfortable for the
White House to be telling reporters, you are going to ‘regret’ doing
something that you believe in,” he added. “It’s Mickey Mouse.” - See
more at:
http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.YrBDFgcU.dpuf
He noted that he hoped that this was a strategy or tactic being used by one of the president's aides, but not originating from Obama himself.
Video via Greg Hengler, Townhall Tipsheet.
- See more at: http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/02/27/White-House-Tells-Bob-Woodward-You-Will-Regret-Doing-This-The-Video?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#sthash.23plZvT4.dpuf
The following is in response to the outrageous actions by ICE/DHS. They have released hundreds of criminal illegal aliens under the guise of budget shortages under sequestration....that hasn't even happened yet!
Published on Feb 27, 2013
"The president of the United States
has opened up the jails," Rush Limbaugh remarked on Wednesday.
Questioning why the release of hundreds of undocumented immigrants,
ahead of the sequester, hasn't received more coverage, the talk radio
host asserted the president has committed an "impeachable offense."
"This
is exacting harm on the country, and it's entirely unnecessary," he
said. " Can you imagine any other president doing this in a fit of
pique?"
Arguing that the president has violated his oath of
office, Limbaugh deemed the move "childish" — but one that has very real
consequences. There's a reason those people were in jail, he added:
They broke the law. And what the president is doing is an "impeachable
offense."
He then went on to post:
"The pure cynical view
is that Obama has just let loose 30,000 new Democrat voters. It's
unreal, folks. It's unreal. [...] It was the regime that detained them
in the first place. These are not Bush's prisoners. These are Obama's
prisoners. They were detained and imprisoned by the regime in the first
place."
This, he asserted, is how far Obama is willing to go to "punish" the country.
CALLER: Rush, dittos, to start with. Mega, mega dittos. All the best to
you, my friend. This regime that is elected by the clueless and the
uninformed has come very, very close to -- and, in fact, crossed the
line of -- breaking the law by releasing these people out of prison
illegally like that. Something like this happened in the seventies in
Europe, and this is the reason why I'm so impressed with you that you're
so astute that you can understand details that people who have lived
here all their lives would have no access to.
They're being pounded with false information all this time. The
details are that nobody in their right mind ever tried to enter/cross
illegally and run into a communist country, but everybody try to escape.
What Ceausescu did in the early seventies is he gave the common thieves
and pickpockets and basic criminals that were in prison a choice. They
could take a passport to go to Western Europe or stay in prison. So, of
course, they chose to leave. That was everybody's dream, thieves or not.
RUSH: This would Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania we're talking about, right?
CALLER: That is correct. That is correct. The purpose for --
RUSH: By the way, for those of you low-information, Romania is where
Nadia Comaneci come from. Just wanted them to know where Romania is,
Sarine.
CALLER: Thank you. (chuckling) Yeah, so the real purpose was to
create absolute havoc in the Western world, in Western Europe, for those
who tried to escape -- risking life and limb; crossing at night under
the hail of bullets; leaving family, possessions, memories, childhood
behind -- just escape and be free. They would ask for political asylum
in places like West Germany or France or Italy. The impression given by
these criminals that were allowed emigrate freely was bad.
Of course, once they hit the streets and saw the naivete of the rich
world, which is what everybody looked at it as being, they started
pillaging there. The setup was such that the governments over there,
being faced with this kind of crime, would refuse the acceptance of the
people who risked their lives just to escape the moral crime that
communism is. So the fact that you mentioned the Marielitos and the
intent of creating havoc by releasing these people, it is so close in
reality and to the truth.
RUSH: I tell you, I'm finding myself in a difficult situation here,
because I know that certain words and phrases happen to turn people off
in this country. For example -- it's been this way a long time -- in
this country and in the media today, if you say to somebody, "That
person over there's a communist," you lose 'em. That doesn't work. So
you say, "Okay, socialist." Well, okay, that may make more impact. Call
'em a totalitarian or a statist, they still don't want to hear it.
But it's challenging because that's exactly what's happening. Barack Obama is employing tactics
that have been used by people like Nicolae Ceausescu, Saddam Hussein,
and Fidel Castro. Fidel Castro released hundreds of thousands of just
the most horrible characters from his prisons and they infested south
Florida in the Mariel Boatlift -- and the same thing with Ceausescu and
releasing his prisoners. Not all of them are political. Some of them
were hardened criminals.
I mean, Ceausescu was trying to pollute Western Europe. He wasn't
sending a bunch of freedom fighters to Western Europe. He was polluting
it. Castro was trying to pollute south Florida. He was trying to corrupt
it, and the United States in general. Saddam Hussein was trying to
corrupt Iraq and Baghdad by letting his most hardened criminals go. It
was a punishment, a punishment to the citizens of Iraq for not
supporting him, for being complicit in the forthcoming US invasion.
So what happens is, Ceausescu... Well, use the Mariel Boatlift. What
happened in this country was the Mariel Boatlift -- and, of course, the
nice, compassionate people of America welcomed them in at first.
"They're escaping the dungeons of Fidel Castro! These are people seeking
freedom, and we are people of freedom." The same with Ceausescu's
release, and the same thing with Castro's and Saddam's. They end up
corrupting the places that they go, and that's the purpose of it.
Now, when you say that Obama is
imitating the behavior of people like that, my guess is that any
low-information voters in the audience who hear me say this are gonna
pooh-pooh it and they're gonna start calling me names: "Reactionary,
controversial statements," whatever, "extremist racist, sexist, bigot,
homophobe," what have you. Because the low-information voter looks at
Obama as a prisoner himself of the Republican Party. "Obama's doing
everything he can to make life better! He's trying to create jobs. He's
trying to prevent the deficit from growing. He said that no policy of
his was gonna grow the deficit by a dime and if it did, he wouldn't do
it."
Well, the deficit's growing. It must be the Republicans. Obama's got
his jobs councils. He's trying to create jobs, but the unemployment
number is static or getting worse. It must be the Republicans. It was
Bush. I saw the exit polls from the 2012 election. Something like 56
or 57% of the people that voted still blame Bush for the economy. I've
told you when I saw that, my heart fell. I knew it was over, but I
wasn't able to explain to myself why. I was still bamboozled by it.
I've never in my life have known a president who has escaped any
accountability for four years of his presidency until this guy came
along.
The media is only part of it. It's a big part of it, but it's not
the entire explanation. We've reached a point in our cultural evolution
where the clueless dominate, where low-information, uneducated, who
think they know everything, by the way, dominate. I appreciate the
call. END TRANSCRIPT
Pinal County, Ariz – Sheriff Paul Babeu blasted the Washington gridlock regarding the “Sequester Budget Battle” and
says it is already harming public safety in Arizona by ICE’s mass
release of hundreds of illegals and plans for the release of nearly
10,000 more criminal illegals from prison.
Many of these ICE detainees
are held at private facilities, which are contracted to house criminal
illegals. ICE reportedly plans to reduce their available beds to 25,700
from their current 34,000. Sheriff Babeu said, “Clearly,
serious criminals are being released to the streets of our local
communities by this mass budget pardon. These are illegals that even
President Obama wants to deport. This is insane that public safety is
sacrificed when it should be the budget priority that’s safeguarded.”
ICE agents were paid overtime
Saturday and Sunday to release over 500 detainees in Pinal County
alone. These criminal illegals were scheduled for deportation, yet now
they receive a pardon and once again become the problem of local law
enforcement and a burden to the state of Arizona. The President predicts
a doomsday scenario and his plans are already being implemented.
Sheriff Babeu concluded, “President
Obama would never release 500 criminal illegals to the streets of his
home town, yet he has no problem with releasing them in Arizona. The safety of the public is threatened and the rule of law discarded as a political tactic in this Sequester Battle.”
RUSH: I tell you, I’m finding myself in a difficult
situation here, because I know that certain words and phrases happen to
turn people off in this country. For example — it’s been this way a long
time — in this country and in the media today, if you say to somebody,
“That person over there’s a communist,” you lose ‘em. That doesn’t work.
So you say, “Okay, socialist.” Well, okay, that may make more impact.
Call ‘em a totalitarian or a statist, they still don’t want to hear it.
But it’s challenging because that’s exactly what’s happening. Barack Obama is employing tactics that have been used by people like Nicolae Ceausescu, Saddam Hussein, and Fidel Castro.
Fidel Castro released hundreds of thousands of just the most horrible
characters from his prisons and they infested south Florida in the
Mariel Boatlift — and the same thing with Ceausescu and releasing his
prisoners. Not all of them are political. Some of them were hardened
criminals.
I mean, Ceausescu was trying to pollute Western
Europe. He wasn’t sending a bunch of freedom fighters to Western
Europe. He was polluting it. Castro was trying to pollute south Florida.
He was trying to corrupt it, and the United States in general. Saddam
Hussein was trying to corrupt Iraq and Baghdad by letting his most
hardened criminals go. It was a punishment, a punishment to the citizens
of Iraq for not supporting him, for being complicit in the forthcoming
US invasion.
So what happens is, Ceausescu… Well, use the
Mariel Boatlift. What happened in this country was the Mariel Boatlift —
and, of course, the nice, compassionate people of America welcomed them
in at first. “They’re escaping the dungeons of Fidel Castro! These are
people seeking freedom, and we are people of freedom.” The same with
Ceausescu’s release, and the same thing with Castro’s and Saddam’s. They
end up corrupting the places that they go, and that’s the purpose of
it.
- See more at:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/epic-rush-limbaugh-why-totalitarians-release-prisoners-audio/#sthash.tiNrTa3N.dpuf
Rush Limbaugh slammed Barack Obama today for “opening up the jails” and releasing the criminals like fellow totalitarians.
RUSH: I tell you, I’m finding myself in a difficult
situation here, because I know that certain words and phrases happen to
turn people off in this country. For example — it’s been this way a long
time — in this country and in the media today, if you say to somebody,
“That person over there’s a communist,” you lose ‘em. That doesn’t work.
So you say, “Okay, socialist.” Well, okay, that may make more impact.
Call ‘em a totalitarian or a statist, they still don’t want to hear it.
But it’s challenging because that’s exactly what’s happening. Barack Obama is employing tactics that have been used by people like Nicolae Ceausescu, Saddam Hussein, and Fidel Castro.
Fidel Castro released hundreds of thousands of just the most horrible
characters from his prisons and they infested south Florida in the
Mariel Boatlift — and the same thing with Ceausescu and releasing his
prisoners. Not all of them are political. Some of them were hardened
criminals.
I mean, Ceausescu was trying to pollute Western
Europe. He wasn’t sending a bunch of freedom fighters to Western
Europe. He was polluting it. Castro was trying to pollute south Florida.
He was trying to corrupt it, and the United States in general. Saddam
Hussein was trying to corrupt Iraq and Baghdad by letting his most
hardened criminals go. It was a punishment, a punishment to the citizens
of Iraq for not supporting him, for being complicit in the forthcoming
US invasion.
So what happens is, Ceausescu… Well, use the
Mariel Boatlift. What happened in this country was the Mariel Boatlift —
and, of course, the nice, compassionate people of America welcomed them
in at first. “They’re escaping the dungeons of Fidel Castro! These are
people seeking freedom, and we are people of freedom.” The same with
Ceausescu’s release, and the same thing with Castro’s and Saddam’s. They
end up corrupting the places that they go, and that’s the purpose of
it.
- See more at:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/02/epic-rush-limbaugh-why-totalitarians-release-prisoners-audio/#sthash.tiNrTa3N.dpuf
National Black Chamber of Commerce president and CEO Harry C. Alford
told The Daily Caller that he ”ignored” President Obama’s “spread the
wealth” comment in 2008 and “had hopes” for him “because he was black.”
“I don’t really support him too well and he knows it and that’s a
badge of honor. He’s bad. He’s bad and I supported him. I voted for him
the first time around. I had hopes because he was black. Shame on me,”
Alford told TheDC at the National Press Club after an anti-gun control
news conference.
“Then when he started doing all these executive orders, banning
right-to-work and other things, hurting my members, my constituents. I
had to back off. I had to represent my people.”
While running for president in 2008, Obama said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
When reminded Obama’s comment, Alford said, “I kind of ignored it. I
said, ‘well, maybe he’s just talking.’ He was serious. He was real
serious and it is truly — if you read the Communist Manifesto — that’s
that philosophy. He is not Adam Smith. He does not believe in capitalism
the way American, our Founding Fathers did. He is very social and it’s
getting borderline communist.”
The National Black Chamber of Commerce is “dedicated to economically
empowering and sustaining African American communities through
entrepreneurship and capitalistic activity within the United States.”
The John Birch Society interviewed
Dr. Alieta Eck, former president of the Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons, on solutions to healthcare.
Rep Eric Burlison takes a gun
control bill to a gun range to ask citizens what they think about the
bill and to use the bill for a little target practice. HR 545 makes it a
class C felony to manufacture, import, possess, purchase, sell, or
transfer any assault weapon or large capacity magazine. Full bill - http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/...
Before Obamacare passed, Paul Krugman and many of his peers mocked
anyone who suggested death panels and middle class tax hikes were coming
if Obamacare passed. Death panels were even called lie of the year by
fact checeking site Politisham. Now that it’s passed, the tune seems to
have changed by about 180 degrees.
Watch the shocking admission by Krugman below:
Published on Feb 10, 2013
This is a chilling admission by one
of the biggest Liberals around - Paul Krugman. He spoke at a church
earlier in the week and admitted that death panels and a value added tax
will be needed to pay for rising health care costs, Obamacare and the
Entitlement State. Transcript below since it is hard to hear even though
I upped the audio as much as possible in Premiere.
Eventually
we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care
costs are rising... there is this question of how we're going to pay for
the programs. The year 2025, the year 2030, something is going to have
to give... We're going to need more revenue... Surely it will require
some sort of middle class taxes as well.. We won't be able to pay for
the kind of government the society we want without some increase in
taxes... on the middle class, maybe a value added tax... And we're also
going to have to make decisions about health care, doc pay for health
care that has no demonstrated medical benefits. So the snarky version...
which I shouldn't even say because it will get me in trouble, is death
panels and sales taxes is how we do this.
Love this sign. It was in response to Obama's call for a 'UNiversal Registration' of guns of law abiding citizens.We all know this is being pushed by the corrupt UN in order to confiscate our guns. We will not comply!
H/T Carl R Gottstein, Jr
Ask Obama's Experts
Published on Feb 12, 2013
Even Obama's experts say his gun control policies won't work. According to an internal Department of Justice memorandum, a gun ban, like the one being debated right now in Congress, will not work without a mandatory gun buyback, and "universal" background checks will not work without requiring gun registration. Call Congress at 202-224-3121 and tell them to reject President Obama's gun control agenda -- and to get serious about prosecuting criminals and fixing our broken mental health system.
http://www.nraila.org/media/10883516/...
“Offensive” cut-outs depicting pregnant women, gun owners in residential settings removed from website Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com
February 22, 2013
A company which received $2 million dollars from the DHS
has apologized and taken offline “no more hesitation” shooting targets
which depicted pregnant women, children, and elderly gun owners in
residential settings as “non-traditional threats,” following an online
uproar.
As we first reported on
Tuesday, Law Enforcement Targets Inc. (LET), a Minneapolis based
company that has received almost $2 million dollars in contracts from
the Department of Homeland Security over the last three years, recently
began selling cardboard cut-out targets designed to desensitize police
to “non-traditional threats,” including pregnant women, mothers in
school playgrounds, and little boys, as well as elderly gun owners in
their homes..
The company’s relationship with the DHS, along with
thousands of law enforcement agencies, led to fears that the targets
could be connected with Homeland Security’s purchase of roughly 2 billion rounds of ammunition over the last year, which many fear is linked to preparations for mass social unrest. As we documented, the LET’s contracts with the DHS were for “training aids” and “paperboard”.
In its apology, posted on the company’s website as well as Facebook, LET acknowledged that the targets were requested by law enforcement agencies.
We apologize for the offensive nature of our “No More
Hesitation” products. These products have been taken offline due to the
opinions expressed by so many, including members of the law enforcement
community.
This product line was originally requested and designed
by the law enforcement community to train police officers for unusually
complex situations where split-second decisions could lead to
unnecessary loss of life.
Consistent with our company mission as a training
supplier (not a training methods company), we will continue to seek
input from law enforcement professionals to better serve their training
objectives and qualification needs. We sincerely appreciate law
enforcement professionals for the risks they take in providing safety
and defending freedom.
The company’s excuse that the targets were designed to
help police prevent “unnecessary loss of life” is highly dubious given
that the images were all of armed individuals termed “non-traditional
threats,” designed to ensure “no more hesitation” from police officers
encountering them.
As you can hear in the YouTube clip above, Blaine Cooper
enquired about the company’s “no hesitation” targets, which also
feature children, elderly gun owners and mothers in playgrounds, and was
told that the target showing a pregnant woman was a “requested law
enforcement target for training.”
The representative refused to answer why police would be
interested in training to shoot pregnant women, but went on to explain,
“unfortunately our world is made up of people, pregnant or otherwise,
that are gun owners not for the right reasons,” adding that the targets
were to “train police officers”.
The woman refused to give her name, accusing Cooper of
being “angry.” “Could you understand why I’m upset if the government is
trying to make targets to kill citizens – I don’t feel that’s right,” he
responded.
Cooper also makes reference to the DHS’ purchase of 2 billion bullets, “enough rounds to kill every citizen of the United States five times over.”
The representative also claims that the targets could be
used for “don’t shoot” training, which is somewhat dubious given that
they are called “no hesitation” targets and every single one of them is
described as a “threat” target in the product description.
The shooting targets, intended to “help the transition
for officers who are faced with these highly unusual targets for the
first time,” include “pregnant woman threat,” “older man with shotgun,”
“older man in home with shotgun,” “older woman with gun,” “young school
aged girl,” “young mother on playground,” and “little boy with real
gun.”
LET Inc brags on its website that
it is a full service provider of training targets for the DHS, the
Justice Department and thousands of law enforcement agencies throughout
the country. The company has has racked up $5.5 million worth of contracts with the federal government, with almost $2 million dollars coming from Homeland Security.
Another customer who called the company claims he was
told that the targets were, “strictly for Department of Homeland
Security and other law enforcement agencies.”
Asked by Mike Riggs at Reason about
the targets, the company responded, “The subjects in NMH targets were
chosen in order to give officers the experience of dealing with deadly
force shooting scenarios with subjects that are not the norm during
training. I found while speaking with officers and trainers in the law
enforcement community that there is a hesitation on the part of cops
when deadly force is required on subjects with atypical age, frailty or
condition (one officer explaining that he enlarged photos of his own
kids to use as targets so that he would not be caught off guard with
such a drastically new experience while on duty). This hesitation time
may be only seconds but that is not acceptable when officers are losing
their lives in these same situations. The goal of NMH is to break that
stereotype on the range, regardless of how slim the chances are of
encountering a real life scenario that involves a child, pregnant woman,
etc. If that initial hesitation time can be cut down due to range
experience, the officer and community are better served.”
The targets are still available for sale on the company’s website via this link (screenshot here).
Law Enforcement Targets, Inc., a
provider of shooting targets to the Department of Homeland Security, has
admitted that targets depicting pregnant women were "requested" by law
enforcement agencies.
DHS Target Maker Providing Pregnant Women and Children Targets to Law Enforcement
This is one of those stories that is almost too sick to believe, but
unfortunately like most of the news lately this one is very real.
Law Enforcement Targets, Inc., the company that supplies the
Department of Homeland Security, TSA, and the Department of Defense with
Shooting Targets, has a sick new product for law enforcement agencies.
The product replaces traditional shooting targets with images of
pregnant women and schoolchildren.
Law Enforcement Targets newest line of targets, called “no
hesitation” targets, depict images of pregnant women, elderly men &
women, and school yard children holding guns. The targets are said to
help law enforcement officials pull the trigger on unusual targets. The
company explains it by saying; the shooting targets are intended to
“help the transition for officers who are faced with these highly
unusual targets for the first time.”
The series of targets contains targets, titled Pregnant Woman, Older
Man 1, Older Man 2, Older Woman, Young Mother, Young Girl, and Little
Brother.
Are these targets really meant to help officers, or are they part of a program to desensitize police and government officials? H/T Unlawful News
A group of coal miners that has become
the focus of an anti-Romney attack by the Obama camp has struck back in a
new ad accusing the president of “lies.”
The ad is in response to an
oft-repeated characterization (and Obama ad) that workers from the
Century Mine were forced to attend a Romney rally. That was debunked in September
and the Obama ad was supposed to have been altered to pull the footage
alleging such a thing. The miners, however, are still upset enough about
it to have released an ad of there own, which was partnered with a letter to the president:
Dear President Obama:
We are writing as the employees of
American Energy Century Mine in Beallsville, Ohio. You have approved in a
running television campaign ads about the Mitt Romney event that was
held at our Century coal mine. These ads state that we were forced to
attend this rally and that is blatantly false. There are numerous false
statements and absolute lies concerning our participation in this event,
we, the employees, mostly started by a local shock jock host. Since
your approval is attached to these ads, you may not wish to support
these mistruths. Why would you lie about the 500 working miners who have
signed this letter? We, the employees of Century Mine, would request
you immediately stop these false ads. Thank you. Century Mine employees.
“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity price would necessarily skyrocket.
. . . Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, natural
gas—you name it—whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was,
they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.”
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.
Speaking on cap and trade, Rep. Rangel said, “Whether you call it a tax, everyone agrees that it’s going to increase the cost to the consumer.”
— Charlie Rangel, Chairman, House Ways and Means Committee, quoted in May 14, 2009
Congress Daily
“Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not
ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances but instead would
pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices.
Such price increases would stem from the restriction on emissions and
would occur regardless of whether the government sold emission
allowances or gave them away. Indeed, the price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program
because they would be the most important mechanism through which
businesses and households would be encouraged to make investments and
behavioral changes that reduced CO2 emissions.”
— Peter R. Orszag, Former CBO Director, current White House OMB Director, April 24, 2008,
“The government could either raise $100 by selling
allowances and then give that amount in cash to particular businesses
and individuals, or it could simply give $100 worth of allowances to
those businesses and individuals, who could immediately and easily
transform the allowances into cash through the secondary market.”
— Peter R. Orzag, Former CBO Director, current White House OMB Director, November 1, 2007
“If you didn’t auction the [CO2] permits, it would
represent the largest corporate welfare program that has ever been
enacted in the history of the United States. All of the evidence is that
what would occur is that corporate profits would increase by
approximately the value of the permits.”
Although the direct economic effects of a
cap-and-trade program described in the previous section would fall
disproportionately on some industries, on some regions of the country,
and on low-income households, the program’s ultimate economic
effect would depend on policymakers’ decisions about how to allocate the
revenues from the emission allowances.
. . . Some of the effects of a CO2 cap would be similar to those of raising such taxes:
The higher prices caused by the cap would reduce real wages and real
returns on capital, which would be like raising marginal tax rates on
those sources of income.
— Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office, Testimony on The
Distribution of Revenues from a Cap-and-Trade Program for CO2 Emissions
before the Committee on Finance United States Senate, May 7, 2009.
George Soros: Definitely. I think this is a great
opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence.
The US needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for
emissions rights. I would use the revenues from these auctions to launch
a new, environmentally friendly energy policy. That would be yet another federal program that could help us to overcome the current stagnation. SPIEGEL: Your proposal would be dismissed on Wall Street as “big
government.” Republicans might call it European-style “socialism.” George Soros: That is exactly what we need now. I am
against market fundamentalism. I think this propaganda that government
involvement is always bad has been very successful—but also very harmful
to our society.
“We need more expensive gasoline to change consumer
behavior,” Mr. Jackson said. Otherwise, Americans will continue to favor
big vehicles, not matter what kind of fuel-economy standards the
government imposes on auto makers. Four dollars a gallon, he added, “is a
good start.”
“A cap and trade bill will likely increase the costs of electricity. . . . These costs will be passed on to the consumers.
But the issue is, how does it actually…how do we interact in terms with
the rest of the world? If other countries don’t impose a cost on
carbon, then we would be at a disadvantage. . . . We should look at considering duties that would offset that cost.”
“You can revisit and ratchet down later,” Chu said,
adding that he would “rather have a bill this year” — even a relatively
weak one — than no climate legislation at all.
— Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, speaking at Harvard University, quoted in Inside Energy, August 10, 2009
Markey, who introduced Chu at the Harvard speech and took
questions with him after, said even if the relatively weak House bill
becomes law, Congress will revisit its emission-reduction targets in the
coming years.
“This won’t be the last time we will visit this between now and 2020, 2030, 2050,” Markey said.
— Rep. Edward Markey, speaking at Harvard University, quoted in Inside Energy, August 10, 2009
“The biggest priority is softening the blow on our trade sensitive industries and our consumers. I just want you to know that, that’s the goal.”
— Sen. Boxer, July 17, 2009, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing
“We need to be a leader in the world but we don’t want to
be a sucker. . . . And if we go too far with this, all we’re going to
do is chase more jobs to China and India, where they’ve been putting up
coal-fired plants every 10 minutes.”
— Sen. McCaskill talking to talk radio host Mike Ferguson, July 2009
“We are calling upon Congress to vote against this bill
[Waxman-Markey] . . . Despite President Obama’s assurance that he would
enact strong, science-based legislation, we are now watching him put his
full support behind a bill that chooses politics over science…”
“I can’t give you a specific number today, in large part
because the analysis upon which we would make that determination has not
been completed. . . . I think it is fair to say there may be additional costs associated with a farming operation, but it is very difficult to quantify.”
— Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, June 11, 2009, House Committee on Agriculture Hearing
“I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”
“It’s important that those who consume the products being
made all around the world to the benefit of America — and it’s our own
consumption activity that’s causing the emission of greenhouse gases,
then quite frankly Americans need to pay for [Chinese greenhouse gas
emissions].”
When asked about cap and trade Warren Buffet said, “In
the utility business, it’s going to be borne by customers. And it’s a
tax like anything else.” He added that the “tax is probably going to be
pretty regressive.”
“…my rates will stay pretty steady in the early going.
They’ll begin to go up when I begin to react in a costly cap-and-trade
market or deploy carbon-capture and storage technology. Rates could go
up as much as 30% to 50% to pay for all of that.”
The danger if Murkowski were to become law is [if EPA's
endangerment finding is not overturned] that there isn’t the immediate
incentive to put a price on carbon,” said
— Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), quoted in Environment and Energy Daily, June 8, 2010.
“The expensing of IDCs, like other oil
and gas preferences the Administration proposes to repeal, distorts
markets by encouraging more investment in the oil and gas industry than
would occur under a neutral system. To the extent expensing encourages
overproduction of oil and gas, it is detrimental to long-term energy
security and is also inconsistent with the Administration’s policy of
reducing carbon emissions and encouraging the use of renewable energy
sources through a cap-and-trade program. “
– U.S. Department of the Treasury’s 2010 “Green Book” Budget Proposal
Addressing the questioner, Obama
conceded, “None of that is going to help you this week, though. So, like
I said, if you’re getting eight miles a gallon you may want to think
about a trade-in. You can get a great deal. I promise you, GM or Ford
or Chrysler, they’re going to be happy to give you a deal on something
that gets you better gas mileage.” When he mentioned the need to boost
fuel efficiency for cars and truck, Obama singled out some in the
audience for applauding: Now, I notice some folks clapped, but I know
some of these big guys, they’re all still driving their big SUVs. You
know, they got their big monster trucks and everything. You’re one of
them? Well, now, here’s my point. If you’re complaining about the
price of gas and you’re only getting eight miles a gallon — you may
have a big family, but it’s probably not that big. How many you have?
Ten kids, you say? Ten kids? Well, you definitely need a hybrid van
then.
“By some estimates, the oil you recently
discovered off the shores of Brazil could amount to twice the reserves
we have in the United States. We want to work with you. We want to help
with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and
when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best
customers.”
Obama has launched his war on coal. He's already on record saying, under his policies our electricity will "necessarily skyrocket":
Obama: I’ll make energy prices “skyrocket”
posted at 1:30 pm on November 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey In another clip from the same January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in which Barack Obama promised to bankrupt anyone
foolish enough to build coal-burning power plants, he also made an
interesting admission about his entire energy plan. Obama told the
editors that his policies would make energy prices “skyrocket” as the
energy industry passed along the exorbitant costs of his cap-and-trade
policy:
"The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not
mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is,
uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,”
and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires
mobilizing a citizenry.
That requires them understanding what is at
stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.
You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad.
Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know,
natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the
industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That
will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during
the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these
folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us
eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t
persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some
increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long
term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing
lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving
how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.
If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh,
can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not
going to get that done."
It is no secret that President Obama’s and green energy supporters’
(from both parties) foray into venture capitalism has not gone well. But
the extent of its failure has been largely ignored by the press. Sure,
single instances garner attention as they happen, but they ignore past
failures in order to make it seem like a rare case.
The truth is that the problem is widespread. The government’s picking
winners and losers in the energy market has cost taxpayers billions of
dollars, and the rate of failure, cronyism, and corruption at the
companies receiving the subsidies is substantial. The fact that some
companies are not under financial duress does not make the policy a
success. It simply means that our taxpayer dollars subsidized companies
that would’ve found the financial support in the private market.
So far, 34 companies that were offered federal support from taxpayers
are faltering — either having gone bankrupt or laying off workers or
heading for bankruptcy. This list includes only those companies that
received federal money from the Obama Administration’s Department of
Energy and other agencies. The amount of money indicated does not
reflect how much was actually received or spent but how much was
offered. The amount also does not include other state, local, and
federal tax credits and subsidies, which push the amount of money these
companies have received from taxpayers even higher. The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.
The problem begins with the issue of government picking winners and
losers in the first place. Venture capitalist firms exist for this very
reason, and they choose what to invest in by looking at companies’
business models and deciding if they are worthy. When the government
plays venture capitalist, it tends to reward companies that are
connected to the policymakers themselves or because it sounds nice to
“invest” in green energy.
The 2009 stimulus set aside $80 billion to subsidize politically preferred energy projects. Since that time, 1,900 investigations have been opened
to look into stimulus waste, fraud, and abuse (although not all are
linked to the green-energy funds), and nearly 600 convictions have been
made. Of that $80 billion in clean energy loans, grants, and tax
credits, at least 10 percent has gone to companies that have since
either gone bankrupt or are circling the drain. CORRECTION: Figures for four companies have been updated: Beacon Power received $43 million from the U.S. government, not $69 million as originally reported. Azure Dynamics received $5.4 million from the federal government, not $120 million as originally reported. Compact Power Inc. received $151 million as part of the stimulus, not $150 million as originally reported. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group received $700,981 in government funding, not $6 million as originally reported.
The following companies have been removed from the original list:
AES’s subsidiary Eastern Energy, LSP Energy, Schneider Electric, and
Uni-Solar did not receive government-backed loans, based on additional
research. The National Renewable Energy Lab did receive $200 million in
stimulus funding, but it is a government laboratory. Additional research provided by Michael Sandoval SOURCE: The Heritage Foundation
The Slave Shelia Jackson Lee, We
Shall Over Come, She Said "I stand here as a freed slave because this
Congress came together, What an idiot, Lee wants hurricanes named after
black people, You are not a slave idiot, she does not know the
differences between Mars and the Moon
"This blog or any content... on my facebook site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit. This blog does not always agree with certain personal views of the published authors, but I will overlook such views many times in order to gain knowledge from the more important subject matter of the article/op-ed."
H/T 
