A Gangster Government
 

Custom Search

  

  

Not ONE of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal.
 

 


       
help fight the media
  
 
 

 

 

 

opinion

Do you think the Mafia would achieve its goals and ambitions if the Capo di tutti capo's consigliere were somehow elected to the Office of the President of the United States?

Well what do you think the results of placing a Marxist constitutional lawyer in that office will be?  Yup!  The Marxists have a pretty good shot at achieving their goals and ambitions. 

But Obama is not just a Marxist.  He's a unique hybrid.  He's a Marxist for sure, but he's also a professional activist, completely in tune with the American Political Left and the goals of the Socialist International.  He spent years teaching the US Constitution, but he certainly wasn't teaching constitutional law from a strict constructionist point of view. He's a Chicago pol. He's said he's sympathetic to Muslim's goals and ambitions.

Obama's course syllabus show that his expertise was in using the Constitution to change or evade the law and to change the country.  The only lie he never told the American People is that he was all about change.  He's come right out and said it.  The problem is, he never told us what change he had in mind, but he's using fear and his awesome political power within the government and gangster tactics and intimidation on those outside the government to implement his change.

Nixon was an amateur.  His "plumbers" consisted of less than a dozen guys.  Some of them were discovered in a what was described as a "third-rate burglary."  Nixon was impeached.

Obama, now there's an expert.

He's got operators everywhere -- and they play hardball.  You just begin to look like you're gonna rock the boat and they apply the pressure.  If you don't get the hint, they drop the hammer.  Obama is the head of a gangster government.  Everywhere you look, at every level of government, there are examples of the U. S. Constitution being manipulated or just outright ignored.  When that doesn't work -- the hammer.

JB Williams, writing in the Canada Free Press, says that since the most powerful people in America fear the wrath of Obama and his crowd, maybe you should too!  They are indeed a dangerous bunch, after all…

Every member of the Supreme Court, every member of congress, every member of the Joint Chiefs, most members of the DoD, CIA, FBI, Secret Service and state run media, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, PBS, NPR, MSNBC, Fox and print news, knows that Barack Hussein Obama II does NOT meet the Article II, Section I constitutional requirements for the office he holds.  By his own biography, there is NO way he can pass the test.  The hard evidence is so far beyond overwhelming, it is ridiculous.

But not ONE of America’s most powerful people will dare confront Obama and his anti-American cabal on the subject.  The Constitution does NOT stand.  Do you think there is no reason for this?

And it's not just the federal government.  It's ALL government -- all the way down to the municipality.

In Florida, the local cops are being used to intimidate citizens for exercising their free expression rights.

Since when did cops have a city-wide investigation and chase down people that post politically satirical flyers?   Sedition in the Age of Obama -- you can burn the American flag, you can stand on it, or poop on it, but don't post graven images of the Obamamessiah.

Think about it.  The American flag represents the U. S. Constitution.  The Joker posters represents a politician.  Since when does the American government place an individual above the Constitution?  When did it become a crime to satirize a politician.  It certainly wasn't for the last 8 years.  Just Google Bush Hitler or Bush Chimp.

Somebody pressed a button.  This isn't a police action.  This is a political action.  This is intimidation and using the civil authorities to do it.

When the cops can't apply the pressure -- call the unions.  The unions are part of the mob.  The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has organizing resources and experience that ordinary citizens can only dream about.  Their goon squads have heckled, harassed and even assaulted concerned citizens who favor less-costly private options to government-run health care.

Just ask Kenneth Gladney, the victim of an assault outside of a town hall meeting in St. Louis last week by a group of thugs wearing purple t-shirts emblazoned with the SEIU logo.  Similarly clad union operatives also blocked critics of the Obama health care plan from attending other meetings, notably in Florida.  Former Oklahoma Rep. Ernest Istook notes that in January SEIU announced a plan "to hire more than 1,000 activists to work in 35 states on behalf of the Obama agenda, committing 30% of the union's total resources to the effort.  You've seen SEIU's purple-shirted members in videos of town hall altercations."  Obama calls them the "Purpose People Beaters."

SEIU has a long history of partnering to generate angry mobs.  The union helped fund the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) "Muscle for Money" program that was set up to pressure corporations in shakedown campaigns, including demonstrations at the homes of corporate executives.  Labor Department disclosure forms show more than $600,000 has changed hands between SEIU locals and ACORN affiliates under the Muscle for Money initiative.  It is not an exercise in subtlety.  How's that for coordination?

And don't forget how Obama paid of the United Auto Workers by taking General Motors away from the stockholders and giving it to the union.  Obama did that right in front of everybody and there was hardly a whisper.

Obama will use the Justice Department to defend his friends and attack his enemies.  Do you understnd the implications of this stuff?

Attorney General Eric Holder's Justice Department just dismissed the case against two of the baton-wielding Black Panthers and merely sought a restraining order against the third, rather than seeking appropriate penalties, including jail time, for all three.  The three were involved in voter intimidation on Election Day at a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania polling station.  That decision was approved by an Obama appointee, Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perelli.  No satisfactory explanation for the decision has been tendered by anyone in the administration.  The lesson is clear enough.  If you intimidate voters in the service of Obama, your offense can be overlooked.

However, if you're not a supporter, cover your vitals -- The White House just waived its ethics rules to allow two lawyers in the White House Counsel's Office to continue to work on matters relating to former President George W. Bush.

Obama uses spooks too -- illegally of course.  Do you know who John Brennan is?

John Brennan is Obama’s top terrorism and intelligence adviser, and he should be in prison, not in the Executive Office Building.  During the campaign, he headed a firm that was cited for breaching sensitive files in the State Department’s passport office, according to a State Department Inspector General’s report released last July.  The security breach, first reported by the Washington Times and later confirmed by State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, involved a contract employee of Brennan’s firm.

During a State Department briefing on March 21, 2008, McCormack confirmed that the contractor had accessed the passport files of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and John McCain, and that the inspector general had launched an investigation.  Sources who tracked the investigation say that the main target of the breach was the Obama passport file, and that the contractor accessed the file in order to "cauterize" the records of potentially embarrassing information.  "They looked at the McCain and Clinton files as well to create confusion," one knowledgeable source said.  "But this was basically an attempt to cauterize the Obama file."

What's the difference between what Nixon's spooks did and what Obama's spooks did?  Nothing!  Nixon's spooks worked for the government and broke into a campaign office.  Obama's spooks were civilians and they broke into a federal office building and did something(?) to confidential government files.  Nixon was impeached.  Obama was elected.  It just boggles.

Hell, Obama's going to spy on your Internet use.  He's not hiding the fact.  Remember how the left howled when Bush wanted to intercept communications coming into the U. S. from al-Qaeda.  The Left screamed in protest and demanded that Bush be impeached.  Now, not a whisper.

Now, the Obama administration has announced plans to lift a government ban on tracking visitors to government websites, and potentially, collect their personal data through the use of "cookies" –- an effort some suspect may already be in place on White House sites.

A ban on such tracking by the federal government on Internet users has been in place since 2000, however, the White House Office of Management and Budget now wants to lift the ban citing a "compelling need."

In fact, according to the Electronic Privacy and Information Center (EPIC), federal agencies have already negotiated agreements and contracts with social networking sites like Google, YouTube, SlideShare, Facebook, AddThis, Blist, Flickr and VIMEO to collect information on visitors for federal web sites.  All of these private companies are known to have agreements with federal agencies, but the public has never seen them.

In public comments submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, EPIC notes it has obtained documents that show federal agencies have negotiated these contracts with the private sector in violation of "existing statutory privacy rights."  Those agencies include: Department of Defense, Department of the Treasury, and the National Security Agency.

Now, throw in the pressure and influence that is applied on our society from the Obots in the media, from the felons in ACORN and the thousands of active and millions of passive Movement members on a daily basis.

Defending the Constitution is not always a peaceful event and these people who want to destroy the United States to implement Obama's agenda have just as much at stake as those who want to save her.  They have worked a very long time to push the USA to the brink of collapse.  They intend to finish the job, one way or another.

Can't you figure out why no member of congress or the courts will be the first to challenge this evil cabal?  This enormous, Hydra-headed monster would apply enormous pressure and use any means to crush opposition to its agenda.

Think!

If Americans won’t let leftists have their country, the left will burn it and leave it in ruins.  There is no peaceful way out of the corner leftists have placed Americans in.  Congress, the courts, even the military brass and law enforcement, will do nothing to save this country.  The state run media complex is running interference.  The American People are on their own here, and they better start paying attention.

The only thing that can stop this guy is for constitutionalists to win back control of Congress.  Short of that, we're in deep sneakers.
Obama's Thugocracy
Andrea Tantaros reports that this past Sunday, in one of the most aggressive and offensive intimidation tactics to date, hundreds of members of the largest union -- the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) -- accompanied by D. C. police --  stormed the front yard of Bank of America deputy general counsel Greg Baer’s home -- in Maryland!  The angry mob had bullhorns, signs and even broke the law by trespassing to bully Baer’s teenage son, the only one home at the time, who locked himself in the bathroom out of fear (video).

This is what SEIU does.  They pressure politicians into spending too much.  They push government into bad policy decisions.  They sacrifice the private sector for the public sector.  And now, they trespass and break the law only to scare the children of private citizens to get their way.

If you think the unions are working along, think again.

These protests, the ones storming Wall Street bank lobbies and now the private homes of bankers, are likely being carefully coordinated with the White House to increase their profile against the financial fat cats and help pass disgraced Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd’s financial regulatory bill.

Remember, when the White House visitor records were finally made public, it was SEIU boss Andy Stern who was the most frequent guest.

There are also no coincidences in politics. The bill passed the Senate last night.

From the G.M. bondholders, to the Black Panthers at polling stations, to ACORN to these assaults on private citizens, Obama is running a Hugo Chavez-style thugocracy.  Like Chavez, he gets non-official "allies" to act as his henchemen and do the intimidation work.  Obama provides the narrative and tells the story of "greed" while the SEIU provides the muscle.  This is about power, not prosperity.

This time it’s gone too far.

Unions see the writing on the wall.  The goose that laid the golden egg is bleeding on the operating table -- and they’re the ones who killed it.  They are bankrupting local and state governments, and putting a strain on the federal budget.  Unions have also put us at a major trade imbalance.  The stimulus has gone to create more public sector union jobs.  These jobs cost on average, 30K more than their private sector equivalents.

Take New York State, for example, once upon a time there was manufacturing, a robust Wall Street engine of growth, Fortune 500 companies aplenty.  That "Empire State" is no more.  The unions lobbied to ensure that these companies were taxed to death and made it extremely challenging to do business -- so much that it became easier to do business in communist China.

Let’s be clear, I’m not defending Bank of America.  I'm defending the American tax payer from organized labor who has bled them dry and the politicians who have been too weak to stand up to their gangster ways.

Unsurprisingly, the SEIU has made no apology for their behavior toward Baer’s family.  Their spokespeople argue that the protest was over home foreclosures under Bank of America’s watch, but that still doesn’t give them the right to break the law.  It also doesn’t allow them a carve out like they demanded in the health care bill for their costly Cadillac insurance plans.  It’s absurd that in a recession, the unions feel they deserve special treatment because they are connected to the party in power.  If that’s what they’re arguing they need to stand up and say it.

In this economy, you can't punch someone without feeling it yourself.  Punch the bank, they stop making loans, thus hurting the private sector.  Punch the private sector, you hurt the markets.  Hurt the Street and you hurt the pensions funds, in fact, the very same ones unions are going gangster to protect.

We now know, there is nothing they won't do, nobody the unions won't intimidate.  And Obama, who promised to preside over an administration free from special interest influence, should be held accountable.  As long as we continue to feed the unions, the country will continue to decline.  It’s time to stand up to this behavior with the same muscle they’ve used to bully our country all these years and send a message loud and clear: we will not be intimidated.

Related:  What did Obama know and when did he know it?

Related: After getting paid $10 billion from Obama, unions will spend $100 million this year to keep Democrats in power.
White House Can't Get Its Sestak Story Straight
The Washington Examiner asks, did you hear the one about how Obama got Slick Willie Clinton to offer second-term Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak an unpaid appointment to an obscure White House advisory panel in return for dropping his primary challenge to incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter?  Obama and his Chicago boys are still guffawing over how all the chumps in the media reported that one with a straight face.  Hey, it's a just another reason why running a gangster government is nothing but laughs for the Obama crew in the White House.

The reality is that nobody outside the White House gang and its congressional confederates is laughing about this one.  It is simply illegal to offer a job to anybody in return for doing something designed to influence a congressional election, so the White House story fails both the legal and the giggle test.  In the first place, nobody can seriously believe that a wizened con man like Bill Clinton would agree to offer such rotten bait to a deep-water fish like Sestak, a former three-star admiral.  When the job offer was originally made to Sestak in February, it was done because he clearly represented a serious threat to Specter's bid for the Pennsylvania Democratic senatorial primary less than a year after turncoat Arlen bolted the Republican Party.  It is ludicrous to believe that the prospect of a presidential appointment to an unpaid federal advisory panel of little stature and less consequence would persuade Sestak to give up his dream of moving up from the House to the Senate.  Clinton must have known this beforehand.

Second, White House counsel Bob Bauer apparently was not consulted about this hastily stitched together cover-up because otherwise the participants in the Oval Office would likely have been told a key fact: As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was barred from serving on such a federal panel and thus would have been required not only to give up his Specter challenge but also his House seat in order to agree to the White House offer.  Whatever else he may be, Sestak is not stupid and would not have agreed to such a bargain.

Third, when are Washington's business-as-usual politicians going to learn that the cover-up is always worse than the original crime?  As California Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking minority member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said, "Has there been stalling?  Yes.  Is there a possibility that what we're being told now is not true because it's not so plausible?  Yes.  Should there be independent investigation so we can move on?  Yes."  So there is a real possibility of obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct in addition to the original violation.  This is the gang that can't come up with a plausible story, much less shoot straight.
Obama's "Chicago Way" Plunders The Private Sector
Michael Barone says an interesting thing about Barack Obama is that he chose, on two occasions, to live in Chicago -- even though he didn't grow up there, had no family ties there, never went to school there.

It was a curious choice.  Chicago has a civic culture all its own and one that is particularly insular.  Family ties and personal connections are hugely important.  Professionals who have lived and worked there for a quarter-century are brusquely reminded, "You're not from here."

Nonetheless Obama moved upward in the Chicago civic firmament with apparent ease.  The community organizer joined the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church in search of street credibility in the heavily black South Side.  The adjunct law teacher made friends around the University of Chicago from libertarian academics to domestic terrorist William Ayers.  The young state senator designed a new district that included the Loop and the rich folk on the Near North Side.

Obama could not have risen so far so fast without a profound understanding of the Chicago Way.  And he has brought the Chicago Way to the White House.

One prime assumption of the Chicago Way is that there will always be a bounteous private sector that politicians can plunder endlessly.  Chicago was America's boom town from 1860 to 1900, growing from nothing to the center of the nation's railroad network, the key nexus between farm and factory, the headquarters of great retailers and national trade associations.

The Mayors Daley have maintained Chicago's centrality in commerce by building and expanding O'Hare International Airport and by fostering a culture of crony capitalism with the city's big employers and labor unions.  Chicago survived the Depression and recessions to thrive once again.  Sure, small businesses and some outfits lacking political connections fell by the wayside.  But the system seems to go on forever.

So it's natural for a Chicago Way politician to assume that higher taxes and a hugely expensive health care regime will not make a perceptible dent in the nation's private sector economy.  There will always be plenty to plunder.

Crony capitalism also comes naturally to a Chicago Way politician.  Use some sweeteners to get the drug companies and the doctors to sign on to the health care plan.  If the health insurers start bellyaching, whack them a few times in public to make them go along.  Design a financial reform that Goldman Sachs and JPMorganChase can live with even while you assail "Wall Street fat cats."

The big guys will understand that you have to provide the voters with some political theater while you give them what they want.  As for the little guys, well, hey, in Chicago we don't back no losers.

If in the process you've written legislation full of glitches and boondoggles, well, they can be fixed later.  The typical vote in the Chicago City Council is 50-0.  Republicans don't count for nothing.  Down in Springfield they're outnumbered 37-22 and 70-48.

Anyone who has spent much time in Chicago knows the city has impressive civic and business leaders, talented and cultured people who creatively support charities and the arts.  But they also play team ball.

One measure of that is the $25.6 million that the 2008 Obama campaign raised from metro Chicago.  An even more meaningful measure is the $5 million that Hillary Clinton's campaign raised there -- a virtual shutout in a city where the Clintons once raised huge sums.  The word obviously went out:  You back Barack and you don't back Hillary.

Now the Clintons are part of the Chicago Way team.  As witnessed by Bill Clinton's willingness to dangle some sort of job to Joe Sestak to get him out of the Pennsylvania Senate race.

To some it may seem anomalous that Obama, who began his Chicago career as a Saul Alinsky-type community organizer, should have taken to the Chicago Way.  But Alinsky's brand of community organizing is very Chicagocentric.

It assumes that there will always be a Machine that you can complain about and that if you make a big enough fuss it will have to respond.  And that the Machine can always get more plunder from the private sector.

The problem with Obama's Chicago Way is that Chicago isn't America.  The Chicago Way works locally because there is an America out there that ultimately pays for it.  But who will pay for an America run the Chicago Way?
Obama's Thuggery
Michael Barone says thuggery is unattractive.  Ineffective thuggery even more so.  Which may be one reason so many Americans have been reacting negatively to the response of Barack Obama and his administration to BP's Gulf oil spill.

Take Interior Secretary Ken Salazar's remark that he would keep his "boot on the neck" of BP, which brings to mind George Orwell's definition of totalitarianism as "a boot stamping on a human face -- forever."  Except that Salazar's boot hasn't gotten much in the way of results yet.

Or consider Obama's undoubtedly carefully considered statement to Matt Lauer that he was consulting with experts "so I know whose ass to kick."  Attacking others is a standard campaign tactic when you're in political trouble, and certainly BP, which appears to have taken unwise shortcuts in the Gulf, is an attractive target.

But you don't always win arguments that way.  The Obama White House gleefully took on Dick Cheney on the issue of terrorist interrogations.  It turned out that more Americans agreed with Cheney's stand than Obama's.

Then there is Obama's decision to impose a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf.  This penalizes companies with better safety records than BP's and will result in many advanced drilling rigs being sent to offshore oil fields abroad.

The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly "peer reviewed" by "experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering."  But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn't include any recommendation for a moratorium.  Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and "counterproductive" to safety.

This was blatant dishonesty by the administration, on an Orwellian scale.  In defense of a policy that has all the earmarks of mindless panic, that penalizes firms and individuals guilty of no wrongdoing and that will worsen rather than improve our energy situation.  Ineffective thuggery.

And what about the decision not to waive the Jones Act, which bars foreign-flag vessels from coming to the aid of the Gulf cleanup?  The Bush administration promptly waived it after Katrina in 2005.  The Obama administration hasn't and claims unconvincingly that, gee, there aren't really any foreign vessels that could help.

The more plausible explanation is that this is a sop to the maritime unions, part of the union movement that gave Obama and other Democrats $400 million in the 2008 campaign cycle.  It's the Chicago way: Dance with the girl that brung ya.

Or the decision to deny Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's proposal to deploy barges to skim oil from the Gulf's surface.  Can't do that until we see if they've got enough life preservers and fire equipment.  That inspired blogger Rand Simberg to write a blog post he dated June 1, 1940: "The evacuation of British and French troops from the besieged French city of Dunkirk was halted today, over concerns that many of the private vessels that had been deployed for the task were unsafe for troop transport."

Finally, the $20 billion escrow fund that Obama pried out of the BP treasury at the White House when he talked for the first time, 57 days after the rig exploded, with BP Chairman Tony Hayward.  It's pleasing to think that those injured by BP will be paid off speedily, but House Republican Joe Barton had a point, though an impolitic one, when he called this a "shakedown."

For there already are laws in place that insure that BP will be held responsible for damages and the company has said it will comply.  So what we have is government transferring property from one party, an admittedly unattractive one, to others, not based on pre-existing laws but on decisions by one man, pay czar Kenneth Feinberg.

Feinberg gets good reviews from everyone.  But the Constitution does not command "no person . . . shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law except by the decision of a person as wise and capable as Kenneth Feinberg."  The Framers stopped at "due process of law."

Obama doesn't.  "If he sees any impropriety in politicians ordering executives about, upstaging the courts and threatening confiscation, he has not said so," write the editors of the Economist, who then suggest that markets see Obama as "an American version of Vladimir Putin."  Except that Putin is an effective thug.
Obama's Chicago Network


The hottest, most drama-filled Chicago-style political intrigue (00:57)
    
25 Impeachable Crimes And Counting
Fred Dardick identifies what he says are 25 ObamaCrimes that Congress should investigate in 2011.

Last week Rep. Michelle Bachmann was asked what Republicans had in mind should they retake the House of Representatives this November, she replied "I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another and expose all the nonsense that is going on."

Considering the sheer volume of illegal and impeachable offences committed by Obama and his cohorts over the past couple of years, the House will be very busy indeed.

Putting aside Obama’s inept leadership, weakening of our national defenses and transparent attempt to socialize our great nation, there are a number of more practical crimes that once investigated could lead to Obama’s impeachment and perhaps even his well deserved imprisonment.

Here's his list . . .
Obama's "Covert, Criminal Activity"
Jerome Corsi is reporting that Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, issued a scathing staff report today charging that the White House has "used the machinery of the Obama campaign to tout the president's agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives."

An advance pre-publication copy of the report accuses the White House of nothing short of criminal activity.  It charges the Obama administration with violating federal laws to advance what the Government Accounting Office has characterized as an unlawful "covert campaign," using federal resources "to activate a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign."

Pulling no punches, the Oversight Republican Report accuses the Obama White House of "violating federal law prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes."

"The White house has failed to transition from campaign mode to leadership mode and is now inappropriately leveraging those campaign-trail relationships to unlawfully generate support for the president's agenda," the report concludes.

Read in its entirety, the Oversight Republican Report charges the Obama administration with the type of callous, unethical and possibly criminal manipulation of public opinion that is reminiscent of Watergate and the illegal campaign activities engineered by Donald Segretti on behalf of the Committee to Re-Elect the President during Richard Nixon's presidential election campaign of 1972.

In 1964, Donald Segretti pleaded guilty to three misdemeanor counts of distributing illegal campaign materials, for which he served in federal prison four months of a six-month term.

The Obama administration's abuses alleged in the Oversight Republican Report can be summed up under the term "astro-turfing," a fraudulent public relations activity in which "the White House and the agency whose resources it is co-opting attempt to create the impression that grassroots support for a particular policy exists when in fact it has been fabricated using taxpayer dollars."

The report points to several instances of alleged, unlawful abuse, detailed here . . .
Another Episode Of Gangster Government
Scott Johnson says the adoption of ObamaCare and related nationalization of health insurance represents the abandonment of limited government in many respects.  HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius put an exclamation point on this observation last week as she warned health insurers not to pipe up regarding the consequences of ObamaCare if they knew what was good for them.

When I read the news account of Seblius's letter letter to the national association of health insurers, I thought immediately of Michael Barone's frank description of the delivered by the Obama administration.

Barone first diagnosed the Obama administration's exercise of Gangster Government in a May 2009 column on the Chrysler bankruptcy.  "We have just seen an episode of Gangster Government," Barone wrote.  He added: "It is likely to be part of a continuing series."

He got that right.  Who better than Barone to address the Seblius letter?  He turns to it today in "Gangster government stifles criticism of ObamaCare."  ObamaCare needs to be repealed and Obama needs to be defeated.

Abraham Lincoln decried the Know Nothings in his famous letter to Joshua Speed.  The Sebelius letter puts me in mind of Lincoln's lament: "When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy [sic]."  We're not going anywhere, but the point stands.
Obama Use Of Foe's Tax Records Reviewed

The Washington Times is reporting that a federal inspector general is looking into whether the Obama administration used confidential taxpayer information in an effort to attack a political opponent, Koch Industries.
 
The review was revealed Tuesday by Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, two weeks after he and a handful of other top Senate Republicans called for the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax issues to look into the matter, saying either administration officials had illegal access to taxpayer information or were inappropriately speculating in public about the company's tax status.
 
Charles and David Koch, brothers who control the Kansas-based company, are libertarians who have used some of their wealth to fund conservative groups and causes that oppose much of Obama's agenda. Obama has singled out the company for criticism in speeches.
 
In an Aug. 27 briefing with some reporters on calls to restructure the corporate tax code, an unidentified administration official cited Koch Industries, a major privately held energy company, by name, and then seemed to indicate that the company didn't pay any corporate income tax, according to the Wall Street Journal.
 
"In this country, we have partnerships, we have [S corporations], we have [limited-liability companies], we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax," said the senior administration official, according to press reports. "Some of which are really giant firms -- you know, Koch Industries is a multibillion-dollar business."
 
The Weekly Standard, which first questioned whether the comments crossed a legal line, has reported that the unidentified administration official "appears to have been" Austan Goolsbee, named last month as chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
 
A White House official said Tuesday that the administration will not use the Koch example in the future, but that the comment was "not based on any review of tax filings." Other White House officials have told reporters that the information was publicly available, including in testimony to Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board and on Koch's website.
 
But an attorney for Koch said in a statement last month that the company does pay corporate income taxes and that information about its structure and tax liability are not publicly available.
 
Mr. Grassley and his fellow Republicans pointed to that statement in their request for an investigation.
      

"The statement that Koch is a [nontaxable] pass-through entity implies direct knowledge of Koch's legal and tax status, which would appear to be a violation of Section 6103" of the Internal Revenue Code, the senators wrote.  "Alternatively, if the statement was based on speculation, it raises the question of whether the administration speculating about any specific taxpayer's liability is appropriate."

      

Continue reading here . . .

No Longer Within The Constitution
Tyler Durden is reporting that a majority of Americans believe the US Government no longer operates within the Constitution.

A rather indicative poll released by Rasmussen earlier this week finds that a majority of Americans (44%) now believe that the government operates outside the confines of the Constitution, compared to just 39% who believe government does not take liberties with the precepts laid out by the founding fathers (and 17% were busy watching dancing with the stars to have an opinion either way).  Some other unflattering findings on US democracy: "Earlier surveys have shown that just one-in-five voters believe that the government today has the consent of the governed.  Forty-eight percent (48%) see the government as a threat to individual rights.  According to the Declaration of Independence, governments are formed to protect certain inalienable rights."  Not surprisingly, politicians are shown to not only be usurping and incompetent despots but biased as well: "As is often the case, there’s a wide gap between the perceptions of the Political Class and those of Mainstream voters when it comes to the federal government.  Eighty-three percent (83%) of Political Class voters say the government now operates within constitutional limits, but 62% of those in the Mainstream don’t share that view."  Most worryingly, "nearly two-out-of-three voters (65%) are at least somewhat angry at the current policies of the federal government, including 40% who are Very Angry."  That's 65% with not even a whiff of austerity on the horizon...

      

While we uge readers to read  the full surveyfor all queries, the following financial-related disclosure is important as it shows that the path the government is on will continue to make the vast majority of the American population increasingly angrier.

      

•  Despite continuing gun control efforts by federal, state and local governments, Americans overwhelmingly believe the Constitution guarantees the right of the average citizen to own a gun.

    

•  At the same time, most voters (65%) say they prefer a smaller government with lower taxes rather than one with more services and higher taxes.

    

•  Most Americans say the government already has too much influence over the economy and is involved in too many things that would be better left to the private sector.

      

•  Seventy percent (70%) of voters think big government and big business generally work together against the interests of investors and consumers.

    

If the readers find these results disappointing now, we suggest waiting until austerity is adopted and 5 year interest-free installment plans are no longer offered on those 10 LCD TVs you just must have.

 

And while the topic of the Federal Reserve was not breached this time, the last time around Ben Bernanke's despotic institution was discussed, nearly 90% of Americans (those who actually knew what it is) expressed a very unfavorable opinion.  The other 10% were probably all Wall Street executives.

Obama's Police State
Jeffrey Kuhner says Obama is engaging in a relentless assault on our freedoms and constitutional government.  The growing backlash against the new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) airport screening procedures signifies that Americans finally may have had enough.

There is a grass-roots revolt against state-sanctioned sexual harassment.  And who can blame the protesters?  Children are stripped of their shirts, and their private parts are touched.  Nuns and old ladies are groped by intrusive TSA agents.  Breasts have been fondled.  Men's crotches have been patted down.  Full-body scanners show images of people naked -- a clear violation of privacy and civil liberties.

The administration insists that the enhanced procedures are vital for national security.  The rationale: Last year's underwear bomber nearly blew up a plane flying over Detroit.  Hence, everyone's private parts are now the property of the federal government -- at least when flying.

This is wrong and dangerous.  Airport screening procedures have been a huge experiment in mass political correctness.  For fear of insulting Muslims, the U.S. government has insisted that all Americans take off their shoes, pull out their belts and walk through metal detectors at airports.  Americans have patiently put up with these inconveniences.  But now, for many, enough is enough.  "Don't touch my junk" has become a national rallying cry.

The central problem with modern airport security is that it falsely assumes that every person -- each of the 7 billion people who inhabit the planet -- is an equal terrorist threat.  The 80-year-old Irish Catholic nun, the 3-year-old toddler, the 61-year-old bladder cancer survivor whose urine bag was punctured by TSA apparatchiks -- all of them, according to Obama, are potential suicide bombers.  They're not.  To pretend they are is to engage in leftist multicultural fantasy.  It embodies the triumph of ideology over reality -- the deranged belief that anyone at any time is a lurking jihadist.

Islamic terrorism is not an open-ended, universal characteristic.  Rather, it is a specific, narrowly defined phenomenon.  It is fueled by Muslim extremists bent on waging a holy war against the West.  Its perpetrators tend to be young adults from the Middle East, North Africa, the Arab world and the Muslim ghettos of Europe.  Most jihadists fit this profile.  What is needed is not more groping, crotch-grabbing or nude screening, but better intelligence-gathering, random checking and targeted profiling.

Washington insists on perpetrating the illusion that a Christian grandmother in Iowa poses the same possible national security threat as a 19-year-old Yemenite exchange student majoring in Islamic studies.  Hence, America is squandering precious resources and manpower, as well as abrogating basic civil liberties and humiliating its population, in order to appease the sensitivities of the Muslim lobby.

Moreover, the new TSA procedures mark another major step in Obama's drive to impose state socialism.  If anyone else did what TSA agents do regularly, they rightly would be charged with sexual assault.  Obama has done the unthinkable: He has extended the federal government's reach into our most private, intimate body parts.  Big Brother not only watches us in the nude, he can routinely molest us at will.

The administration is not restricting its unprecedented power grab to airports.  Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano recently said that trains, boats and subways also may implement the same screening procedures.  If the White House has its way, Americans will be getting felt up on the Metro and Amtrak every day -- morning, afternoon and night.

Continue reading here . . .

The very same people, who defend all this insanity, would go bonkers over the requirement to show an ID at the polling station and would scream "violation of privacy."

These same people would screech at the requirement for illegal aliens to have to show an ID when stopped by the police for a criminal violation.

This entire program is crazy.  Psychological profiling is the answer.
Crony Car Capitalism
Gary Jason of Real Clear Politics draws our attention to the cesspool of crony capitalism that the American auto industry has become.  The United Auto Workers Union is leading the pack and is well and truly in bed with the Obama Administration.  Below are three very key excerpts from his article,

"First is the news that the "new" GM walked away from the crony bankruptcy proceedings with a huge tax break -- one worth up to $45 billion.  It was revealed in the paperwork filed for its IPO that Obama gave the new GM a sweetheart deal: it will be allowed to carry forward huge losses incurred by the "old" GM prior to its bankruptcy.  Of course, the IRS doesn't allow the new companies that emerge from bankruptcy to write off their old losses.  But the feds decided to waive that rule for companies bailed out by TARP.  Thus, the new GM will save about $45.4 billion in taxes on future earnings, which may allow it to escape taxes for the next twenty years..."

Second, "...The UAW was given a big chunk of new GM in the crooked bankruptcy settlement.  To be precise, the very monster that drove GM off the cliff -- the UAW -- received 35% of the stock in the new company.  With the sale of the stock in the new GM, the UAW earned an immediate $3.4 billion in selling about one third of its shares.  Moreover, if the UAW can get $36 per share for the other two-thirds of its shares, it will walk away breaking even -- meaning it will walk away with its outrageously bloated pension and health care fund fully intact.  The taxpayer, on the other hand, hasn't fared well at all..."

And then as if that isn't enough, the U.S. Government is pumping even more tax-payer dollars into the UAW via GM and Ford by purchasing almost 15,000 "unsaleable" hybrids in the last two years.

"...It turns out that the administration itself has purchased a huge, unprecedented chunk of American-made hybrid cars assembled since it took over two of the loser companies.  This has propped up the sales of hybrid cars in the face of widespread consumer indifference.  The U.S. General Services Administration (which handles the federal fleet of cars) bought nearly 15,000 hybrid cars over the last two years, or about 10% of the government cars purchased.  This compares to only 1% of the fleet being hybrids just two years ago.  Even more striking, more than 20% of the hybrids the GSA purchased were bought using "stimulus money" (yes, the GSA got "stimulus money" -- $300 million in total!).  Furthermore, it is interesting to note that of the 15,000 hybrids that the GSA bought, only 22 were from Toyota and Honda.  All the rest were purchased from GM and Ford..."

I can't help but think that the Obama Administration's approach to dealing with businesses is something along the lines of "If it's profitable, tax it to death.  If it fails, bail it out."  ...Especially if it was destroyed by an Administration-friendly union, and heck, bail out the union as well.

Read the whole thing here . . .
Looking At Obama’s "Change"
Walter Williams reports Dr. Thomas Sowell, in "Dismantling America," said in reference to Obama, "That such an administration could be elected in the first place, headed by a man whose only qualifications to be president of the United States at a dangerous time in the history of the world were rhetoric, style and symbolism -- and whose animus against the values and institutions of America had been demonstrated repeatedly over a period of decades beforehand -- speaks volumes about the inadequacies of our educational system and the degeneration of our culture."  Obama is by no means unique; his characteristics are shared by other Americans, but what is unique is that no other time in our history would such a person been elected president.  That says a lot about the degeneration of our culture, values, thinking abilities and acceptance of what’s no less than tyranny.  As Sowell says, "Barack Obama is unlike any other President of the United States in having come from a background of decades of associations and alliances with people who resent this country and its people."  In 2008, Americans voted for Obama’s change.  Let’s look at some of it.

Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius threatened that there would be "zero tolerance" for "misinformation" in response to an insurance company executive who said that ObamaCare would create costs that force up health insurance premiums.  That’s not only an attack on our constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights, but an official threat against people who express views damaging to the administration.

Not to be outdone by his HHS secretary’s attack on free speech, Obama wants full disclosure of the names of people who were backers of campaign commercials critical of his administration, saying that there has been a "flood of deceptive attack ads sponsored by special interests, using front groups with misleading names."  Disclosure would leave administration critics open to government and mob retaliation.

Obama and his congressional and union allies have lectured us that socialized medicine is the cure for the nation’s ills, but I have a question.

If socialized medicine, ObamaCare, is so great for the nation, why permit anyone to be exempted from it?  It turns out that as of the end of November, Obama’s Health and Human Services secretary has issued over 200 waivers to major labor unions such as the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union and Transport Workers Union of America and major companies such as McDonald’s and Darden Restaurants, which operates Red Lobster and Olive Garden.  Keep in mind that the power to grant waivers is also the power not to grant waivers.  Such power can be used to reward administration friends and punish administration critics by saddling them with millions of dollars of health care costs.

Obama’s heath care legislation contains deviousness that has become all too common in Washington.  What was sold to the American people as health care reform legislation includes a provision that would more heavily regulate and tax gold coin and bullion transactions.  Whether gold and bullion transactions should or should not be more heavily regulated and taxed is not the issue.  The administration’s devious inclusion of it as a part of health care reform is.

Fighting government intrusion into our lives is becoming increasingly difficult for at least two reasons.  The first reason is that educators at the primary, secondary and university levels have been successful in teaching our youngsters to despise the values of our Constitution and the founders of our nation -- "those dead, old, racist white men."  Their success in that arena might explain why educators have been unable to get our youngsters to read, write and compute on a level comparable with other developed nations; they are too busy proselytizing students.

The second reason is we’ve become a nation of thieves, accustomed to living at the expense of one another and to accommodate that we’re obliged to support tyrannical and overreaching government.

Adolf Hitler had it right when he said, "How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think."
Obama Makes "Most Corrupt" List

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2010 list of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians."  The list, in alphabetical order, includes: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rahm Emanuel, Former Obama White House Chief of Staff, Senator John Ensign (R-NV), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), President Barack Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA).

 

Remember the promise Obama made just after his inauguration in 2009? "Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

 

Instead, Americans have suffered through lies, stonewalling, cover-ups, corruption, secrecy, scandal and blatant disregard for the rule of law…this has been the Obama legacy in its first two years.

 

In 2010, Obama was caught in a lie over what he knew about Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s scheme to sell Obama’s vacated Senate seat.  Blagojevich’s former Chief of Staff John Harris testified that Obama had personal knowledge of Blago’s plot to obtain a presidential cabinet position in exchange for appointing a candidate handpicked by Obama.  In fact, according to Harris’s court testimony, Obama sent Blagojevich a list of "acceptable" Senate candidates to fill his old seat.  Obama was interviewed by the FBI even before he was sworn into office.  He claimed he and his staff had no contact with Blagojevich’s office.  Unfortunately federal prosecutors never called Obama or his staff to testify under oath.

 

Obama also broke his famous pledge to televise healthcare negotiations.  And in 2010, we learned why he broke his pledge.  In what is now known as the "Cornhusker Kickback" scheme, Obama and the Democrats in the Senate "purchased" the vote of one of the last Democrat hold-outs, Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, who opposed ObamaCare over the issue of covering abortions with taxpayer funds.  Nelson abandoned his opposition to ObamaCare after receiving millions of dollars in federal aid for his home-state, helping to give the Democrats the 60 votes they needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.  Same goes for Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu, who received a $100 million payoff in what has been called "The Louisiana Purchase."  (The Kickback was so corrupt that Democrats stripped it out at the last minute.)

 

Obama lied about his White House’s involvement in this legislative bribery that helped lead to the passage of the signature policy achievement of his presidency.

 

Related:  The Historically Corrupt, Traitorous, 111th US Congress

Bachmann Sticks With "Gangster Government"
Politico is reporting that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) refused to walk back her comment comparing the Obama administration to a "gangster government."

"I don’t take back my statement on gangster government," said Bachmann, who is weighing a 2012 run for president, on NBC's "Meet the Press."  "I think there are actions taken by this government that are corrupt."

After the midterm elections, Bachmann had blogged that the debt ceiling would be "one of the most significant challenges to the start of the 112th Congress" and that "Congress simply cannot continue to operate under the pretense of 'gangster government,' raising the limit upon our whim."

The Obama File has been referring to Obama's administration as a "gangster government" for two years.
Obama's Gangster Politics
Kimerly Strassel says Obama has officially kicked off his 2012 re-election campaign, and don't Republicans know it.  Obama is expected any day now to sign an executive order that routs 70 years of efforts to get politics out of official federal business.

Under the order, all companies (and their officers) would be required to list their political donations as a condition to bidding for government contracts.  Companies can bid and lose out for the sin of donating to Republicans.  Or they can protect their livelihoods by halting donations to the GOP altogether -- which is the White House's real aim.  Think of it as "not-pay to play."

Whatever you call it, the order amounts to the White House brazenly directing the power of government against its political opponents -- and at a time when Obama claims to want cooperation on the budget and other issues.  Senate Republicans from Mitch McConnell to Susan Collins are fuming, warning this is one political sucker punch too far, an unabashedly partisan move that will damage Senate work.

Minority Leader McConnell in an interview calls the order the "crassest" political move he's ever seen.  "This is almost gangster politics, to shut down people who oppose them. . . . I assure you that this going to create problems for them in many ways -- seen and unseen -- if they go forward."

That might not matter to a White House that's already monomaniacally focused on 2012. Democrats are obsessed with the money game, in particular rubbing out any GOP opportunities that came with the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision to restore some corporate free-speech rights.  Democrats last year tried to ram through the Disclose Act, designed to muzzle those new corporate rights, while allowing unions to continue spending at will.

When the party failed to get the bill through even an overwhelmingly Democratic Senate, the White House stepped up.  The draft order, which came out last month, would require federal bidders to supply a complete list of all political contributions made by the company, its political action committee, and its senior executives -- going back two full years.  (Richard Nixon would be impressed.)  More astounding, the order requires the list to include donations made to third-party political groups -- disclosure that is not currently required by law, and that is, as a result, surely unconstitutional.

Ever audacious, the White House is spinning this as "reform," claiming taxpayers deserve to know how federal dollars being paid to contractors are being spent in campaigns.  This might hold (a drop of) water if the executive order also required all the (liberal) entities that get billions in taxpayer dollars via federal grants and funding -- unions, environmental groups, Planned Parenthood -- to disclose also.  It doesn't.

The whole reform language is "Orwellian," says Ms. Collins.  It's a measure of the order's naked political nature that she's leading the pushback -- spearheading a GOP letter to Obama and briefing Republican senators at a policy lunch this week.  This is the same Susan Collins who has bucked her party in the past on campaign-finance issues, voting for McCain-Feingold.

The administration's argument that this is about disclosure is "a fraud," she declares.  The very notion "offends me deeply," she says, since the order undermines decades of work by her and others to ensure federal business is free of corruption of political influence.

Continue reading here . . .
Orrin Hatch Sums Up The Democrats
John Hinderaker says Hatch was talking about Obama's attempt to use unconstitutional means to bully companies into supporting him and his party.  But really, Hatch's comments sum up the last four years of Reid/Pelosi and Obama/Reid/Pelosi government:
    

"They want to intimidate all of the corporations in this country and other businesses from giving money that might help Republicans.  And they know it's unconstitutional what they're doing, they know it's wrong, but they're going to go do it anyway, because it's political time to them.  And frankly, it's been political time from Day One with this president.  They play politics very, very tough, they play it well, and they don't give a damn about what's right and what's wrong."

    
Orrin Hatch is a fine Senator and a solid conservative.  There have been rumblings about a primary challenge to him; in my opinion, that would be dumb.  The conservative movement has limited resources and we are operating in a target-rich environment.  Let's not eat our own.
Obama Solicitor General Tells Americans To Earn Less Money
Philip Klein is reporting that Obama's solicitor general, defending the national health care law on Wednesday, told a federal appeals court that Americans who didn't like the individual mandate could always avoid it by choosing to earn less money.

Neal Kumar Katyal, the acting solicitor general, made the argument, "...someone doesn’t need to earn that much income," under questioning before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati, which was considering an appeal by the Thomas More Law Center.  The three-judge panel, which was comprised of two Republican-appointed judges and a Democratic-appointed judge, expressed more skepticism about the government's defense of the health care law than the Fourth Circuit panel that heard the Virginia-based ObamaCare challenge last month in Richmond.  The Fourth Circuit panel was made up entirely of Democrats, and two of the judges were appointed by Obama himself.

During the Sixth Circuit arguments, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, who was nominated by President George W. Bush, asked Kaytal if he could name one Supreme Court case which considered the same question as the one posed by the mandate, in which Congress used the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution as a tool to compel action.

Kaytal conceded that the Supreme Court had "never been confronted directly" with the question.

Continue reading here . . .
Comments . . .
***  
 

©  Copyright  Beckwith  2009 - 2011
All right reserved