Wednesday, October 05, 2011
The threat of suspended elections is real
A dangerous new chapter is being written in American history that, if successful, is destined to impact the history of the West. It’s called ‘Re-Election by Suspended Election Revolution’
Warning: The threat of suspended elections is real
 | - Judi McLeod Friday, September 30, 2011 (88) Comments | Print friendly | Email Us |
With absolutely no proof of any kind of who he really is, Barack 
When Nancy Pelosi writes hers she will claim she trumps Mother Teresa, the Calcutta saint, not the one married to John Kerry.
You can claim to be anyone you want in a book, and that’s what Barry Soetoro did.
The point is that Barry Soetoro took the name Barack Hussein Obama, got himself elected and immediately began pushing the country so many look up to, right up to the precipice and nobody—nobody—has been able to stop him.
Now when we have a narcissistic Obama plunging in the polls, a democrat governor in North
But the 2012 election is more than a year away, and the man who made it all the way to the most powerful office on earth sans identity documents has all the booty, and the absolute power it brings, at his command.
This is Obama’s well-stocked position at a time when only suspended elections would guarantee his re-election.
North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue was not joking when she spoke about suspending elections. Nor did she pick the idea out of thin air. Perdue was giving the suspend-congressional-elections idea its first oxygen for her hell-bent-for-leather boss.
It is crucial to not let this day go down without remembering what Perdue said.
Don’t let the state-controlled mainstream media lure you back to sleep by saying if there is no election, then why is Obama so diligently campaigning.
Obama is not campaigning. He is preparing for Stage Two of the Total Transformation of America, using taxpayer money to prepare his Internet-identified “troops” for the coming Marxist Revolution.
He must not be allowed to get away with it. Patriots should now be doing everything legal to stop him in his tracks.
Nothing is impossible when all the control is held by a tyrant.
Obama and his masters already pulled the biggest scam on any country in modern times by making it to the White House without legitimate I.D.
A dangerous new chapter is being written in American history that, if successful, is destined to impact the history of the West. It’s called ‘Re-Election by Suspended Election Revolution’.
Patriots who want their grandchildren to grow up in a Marxist-free America should start the counter revolution called the ‘Revolution for an Obama-free America’ and they should start it “like yesterday”.
Judi McLeod
Most recent columns Copyright © Canada Free Press Judi McLeod is an award-winning journalist with 30 years experience in the print media. A former Toronto Sun columnist, she also worked for the Kingston Whig Standard. Her work has appeared on Rush Limbaugh, Newsmax.com, Drudge Report, Foxnews.com, and Glenn Beck. Judi can be emailed at: judi@canadafreepress.com |
It shall be unlawful for an individual
July 3, 2011
Laws are for the little people, not President Obama
An
ad to raise campaign funds has now made it official: Whatever rule
applies to 300 million Americans does not and will never apply to the
once-in-a-millennia exception to any rule that applies to all living
entities: Barack Obama.
Based on his behavior, it's apparent the president views himself as a man so lofty in vision and skill that he's exempt from the decrees imposed on the little people. Could it be that Obama perceives legalistic edicts as necessary tools to herd lowlifes? If that were not the case, why would he be mentalizing which pair of golf shoes and what cologne to include in his ditty bag for a weekend at Camp David while chiding Congress for daring to take a break in the midst of a budget crisis?
As witnessed in all he does, Obama's attitude of exempting some while imposing on others doesn't only apply to healthcare reform waivers or Fourth of July weekend getaways. When it comes to excusing himself, Barack Obama doesn't let little things like silly legalities affect his decisions to do whatever he damned well pleases. Following the example of America's "Let's Move" creator/healthy-eating first lady who "tucked" into fried fat cakes in Botswana, Obama is relaxed when it comes to personal restrictions.
Recently, the lackadaisical Obama proved that exact point when he flouted a federal law as if it didn't exist. The following description of Title 18, subsection 607 U.S.C. is so straightforward even a layperson could understand.
It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties.
In other words, the law says Barack Obama should not solicit reelection money or donations while in any room or building where official duties are carried out - such as hawking a wheel of raffle tickets on White House premises as if it were a church dance sweepstakes for a cheap door prize.
Lest we forget, the guy so anxious to now have dinner guests left Bibi Netanyahu sitting alone in the White House meeting room while he went and had a private dinner with Michelle.
According to election law experts, in flagrant disregard for federal law President Obama filmed a fundraising video offering dinner with himself and Vice President Biden as the grand prize for having a $5 raffle ticket plucked out of a giant spinning drum.
What's next, a car wash on the South Lawn? How about $100 for 10-minute spin on Marine One? And why stop there? A White House yard sale featuring Michelle's old clothes could raise enough gas money to fill up the "Hope and Change 2012" campaign bus for its entire tour.
Just as French fries are regularly enjoyed by a lady insistently force-feeding the nation rhetoric about organic kale, Obama released himself from the rules pertaining to the solicitation of money on federal property, which in his mind probably apply exclusively to the lesser 43 men who led prior to his using the Resolute Desk as a footstool.
As for the Dinner Date with Joe and Barry ad, "The White House contends that the video is legal." A White House spokesperson noted that the "Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memo in 1979 explaining that the president can solicit funds in the White House, so long as he does it in the residential portion of the of the mansion, not in a room used for official business." The White House must have been pretty darn desperate if it went back to the time when a barrel of oil was $24 to dig up that memo.
Regardless of how the White House parses and spins, according to legal election law experts, "If the video was filmed in the Map Room, as it appears to be, then there is no question it violates the law."
Nevertheless, similar to the way the administration defended bypassing congressional authorization under the War Powers Act before taking action in Libya, the White House is now justifying campaign ads being filmed in the Map Room. To pacify critics, sleight-of-hand could be used to switch out the placard hanging on the door that says, "For Official Activities Only" for one that reads "Home Sweet Home."
Experts contend that by soliciting funds in the White House to finance a bid for reelection, the President is definitely bending if not outright breaking the federal law. Cleta Mitchell, member of the American Bar Association's election law committee, spoke more plainly when addressing the fact that Barack Obama filmed his $5 "Come On-A My House" ad in the White House -- she said his doing so is a blatant "criminal offense."
What Ms. Mitchell doesn't seem to grasp is that whatever criterion causes Obama's actions to be defined as "criminal" is not a problem for the present occupant of the White House. The President is well aware that people may gripe, but he will never be called into account for the unlawful act of selling "Reelect Me" raffle tickets from the same room where an official visit was held with the Dalai Lama, who after being welcomed into what is now being considered the President's 'private residence,' was escorted out past a pile of garbage.
It could be that President Obama has convinced himself that but once in a nation's history comes a leader so superior to all others that placing legal boundaries upon such an individual constitutes an injustice that could result in global ramifications. Moreover, Obama could also feel that the urgent need to finish the vital work he started is so pressing that excusing himself from rules surrounding the solicitation of campaign funds on the premises of the White House is supported by that old adage: "By any means necessary."
In other words, the "ends" of raising money to keep Obama in office justify the "means" of raising the funds illegally. Thus, if it's necessary for Barack Obama, a man greater than the rules, to acquire reelection money by making an illegal "really big announcement" in order to "get everything done" over the next 5½ years, then so be it.
Author's content: www.jeannie-ology.com
Based on his behavior, it's apparent the president views himself as a man so lofty in vision and skill that he's exempt from the decrees imposed on the little people. Could it be that Obama perceives legalistic edicts as necessary tools to herd lowlifes? If that were not the case, why would he be mentalizing which pair of golf shoes and what cologne to include in his ditty bag for a weekend at Camp David while chiding Congress for daring to take a break in the midst of a budget crisis?
As witnessed in all he does, Obama's attitude of exempting some while imposing on others doesn't only apply to healthcare reform waivers or Fourth of July weekend getaways. When it comes to excusing himself, Barack Obama doesn't let little things like silly legalities affect his decisions to do whatever he damned well pleases. Following the example of America's "Let's Move" creator/healthy-eating first lady who "tucked" into fried fat cakes in Botswana, Obama is relaxed when it comes to personal restrictions.
Recently, the lackadaisical Obama proved that exact point when he flouted a federal law as if it didn't exist. The following description of Title 18, subsection 607 U.S.C. is so straightforward even a layperson could understand.
It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties.
In other words, the law says Barack Obama should not solicit reelection money or donations while in any room or building where official duties are carried out - such as hawking a wheel of raffle tickets on White House premises as if it were a church dance sweepstakes for a cheap door prize.
Lest we forget, the guy so anxious to now have dinner guests left Bibi Netanyahu sitting alone in the White House meeting room while he went and had a private dinner with Michelle.
According to election law experts, in flagrant disregard for federal law President Obama filmed a fundraising video offering dinner with himself and Vice President Biden as the grand prize for having a $5 raffle ticket plucked out of a giant spinning drum.
What's next, a car wash on the South Lawn? How about $100 for 10-minute spin on Marine One? And why stop there? A White House yard sale featuring Michelle's old clothes could raise enough gas money to fill up the "Hope and Change 2012" campaign bus for its entire tour.
Just as French fries are regularly enjoyed by a lady insistently force-feeding the nation rhetoric about organic kale, Obama released himself from the rules pertaining to the solicitation of money on federal property, which in his mind probably apply exclusively to the lesser 43 men who led prior to his using the Resolute Desk as a footstool.
As for the Dinner Date with Joe and Barry ad, "The White House contends that the video is legal." A White House spokesperson noted that the "Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memo in 1979 explaining that the president can solicit funds in the White House, so long as he does it in the residential portion of the of the mansion, not in a room used for official business." The White House must have been pretty darn desperate if it went back to the time when a barrel of oil was $24 to dig up that memo.
Regardless of how the White House parses and spins, according to legal election law experts, "If the video was filmed in the Map Room, as it appears to be, then there is no question it violates the law."
Nevertheless, similar to the way the administration defended bypassing congressional authorization under the War Powers Act before taking action in Libya, the White House is now justifying campaign ads being filmed in the Map Room. To pacify critics, sleight-of-hand could be used to switch out the placard hanging on the door that says, "For Official Activities Only" for one that reads "Home Sweet Home."
Experts contend that by soliciting funds in the White House to finance a bid for reelection, the President is definitely bending if not outright breaking the federal law. Cleta Mitchell, member of the American Bar Association's election law committee, spoke more plainly when addressing the fact that Barack Obama filmed his $5 "Come On-A My House" ad in the White House -- she said his doing so is a blatant "criminal offense."
What Ms. Mitchell doesn't seem to grasp is that whatever criterion causes Obama's actions to be defined as "criminal" is not a problem for the present occupant of the White House. The President is well aware that people may gripe, but he will never be called into account for the unlawful act of selling "Reelect Me" raffle tickets from the same room where an official visit was held with the Dalai Lama, who after being welcomed into what is now being considered the President's 'private residence,' was escorted out past a pile of garbage.
It could be that President Obama has convinced himself that but once in a nation's history comes a leader so superior to all others that placing legal boundaries upon such an individual constitutes an injustice that could result in global ramifications. Moreover, Obama could also feel that the urgent need to finish the vital work he started is so pressing that excusing himself from rules surrounding the solicitation of campaign funds on the premises of the White House is supported by that old adage: "By any means necessary."
In other words, the "ends" of raising money to keep Obama in office justify the "means" of raising the funds illegally. Thus, if it's necessary for Barack Obama, a man greater than the rules, to acquire reelection money by making an illegal "really big announcement" in order to "get everything done" over the next 5½ years, then so be it.
Author's content: www.jeannie-ology.com
Share
COMMENTS ON AMERICANTHINKER
Precedent is a powerful thing. As a student and adherent of
Saul Alinsky, Obama understands that. These are calculated, deliberate
acts. And, each time our legislative and judicial branches stand mute in
the face of lawlessness on the part of Obama's Executive, we are
relinquishing the argument, and we are facilitating repetition of
lawlessness. We are represented by cowards in Congress, and judged by
cowards in the Judiciary. We The People must take the actions necessary
to restore a government of laws.
Thursday, September 29, 2011
the ACLU has terrified many school boards
The ACLU -- a change of heart ... or cowardice?
Dr. Michael Youssef - Guest Columnist - 9/28/2011 2:00:00 PM
The ANC (American News Commentary) reported in its September 21, 2011 issue that the ACLU is defending the right of Muslims to exercise prayer in public schools in San Diego… Really?
Is that a change of heart or the expression of a cowardly and terrified heart? It is most likely the latter. Let me explain.
Over the last 40 years or so, the ACLU has terrified many school boards, school administrators, and school children by threatening to drag them into court if they pray in public.
A few years ago, they terrified many coaches and sporting event coordinators by warning them that if they dare pray in public, the ACLU would bring about the full weight of their false interpretation of the Establishment Clause.
For many years, they have sent their emissaries across the land, “Gestapo-like,” checking out every small city council, lest they open their meeting with prayer.
But now they are coming out of their closets and are supporting Muslim students praying in public schools.
If you think that this defies every aspect of human logic, you would be right.
Fear is a powerful factor – fear devastates logical thinking, fear decimates consistency and their support for Islamic prayer in public schools in San Diego is a clear indication of that fear. They know all too well what will happen to them if they exercise their clever maneuvers on Muslims. They will not see the love and forgiveness they have received from Christians. Rather, they will see the end of the sword.
Surprise, surprise when Kevin Keenan, the spokesperson for the ACLU in San Diego, explained his enthusiastic support for Muslims praying in public schools, he said: “Performing these prayers is widely recognized as one of the five essential pillars of Islam.” Really?
Have they not heard, do they not know that Christians and Jews are also exhorted to pray?
Have they not heard, do they not know that for Christians, prayer is a life-line to their Savior, the God of the universe?
Have they not heard, do they not know that the prophet Daniel was thrown into the den of lions because he would not stop praying to the God of Heaven?
Have they not heard, do they not know that for Christians prayer is the foremost expression of their desire to commit themselves, their schools, their sporting events, and their public meetings to the Lord God Almighty?
Can one hope that appealing to the ACLU to be fair and just and not single out Christians, who are loving and forgiving, will make a difference? Meanwhile, they cower when it comes to Muslims, who may talk with the sword.
Can one appeal to them to see the light before it is too late for them as “infidels”—the first in line to face the sword under the Sharia?
Can one appeal to them to exercise even the most basic of human logic, let alone review history and truth?
One can hope.
hospitals to close emergency departments
Health insurers call on hospitals to close emergency departments
Wednesday 28 September 2011Health insurance companies are calling for a sharp reduction in the number of hospital accident and emergency departments because of rising healthcare costs, according to media reports on Wednesday.
'Most hospitals have such a department. But is it right in these times that The Hague should have six accident and emergency departments and Amsterdam seven?, Pieter Hasekamp, head of the health insurers association, is quoted as saying in Trouw.
Hasekamp stressed the decision which A&E departments should close would be taken carefully, and that spread, availability and quality would be taken into account. 'It is a complex process, because A&E is the hospital's front door,' he said.
Cost
The association has set aside €100m to cover the cost of the closures.
A spokeswoman for the Dutch hospital association told Trouw the closures would have 'enormous consquences' for patients, and that the €100m on offer from the insurers was no more than 'a nice gesture'.
In addition, the closures would make it difficult to realise health ministry plans of keeping healthcare 'close to the people', she said.
Specialisation
In June, hospitals, insurers and the health ministry agreed to introduce more specialisation, so that not all hospitals offer all treatment. The closure of A&E departments is part of that agreement, Trouw says.
Meanwhile, health minister Edith Schippers told health insurers on Tuesday they should be more selective about which services they buy in and at what price.
The minister is currently working on a new policy document which aims to make the rising cost of healthcare the subject of widespread discussion - not only by politicians but 'in every sitting room', the Telegraaf said.
© DutchNews.nl
Our White House bully problem
Our White House bully problem
Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist - 9/28/2011 12:55:00 PM
Spin,
baby, spin. Throughout his frenetic jobs tour across the West this
week, President Obama tried to seize the narrative. Republicans, he told
champagne-sipping, tea party-trashing Hollywood moguls and tech titans,
are intolerant bigots, know-nothings and thugs. They've made his hair
"grayer" and left him "all dinged up."But who's battering whom? Since Day One, Obama has been the Chicago bully in victim's clothing. The mask is wearing thin.
On Tuesday, Detroit News reporter Daniel Howes reported that White House officials leaned on Ford Motor Company to yank a popular TV and Internet ad critical of competitors who took federal bailout money. According to Howes, "Ford pulled the ad after individuals inside the White House" questioned the firm's CEO Alan Mulally (who had earlier supported the bailout despite his company's refusal to participate). Howes concluded: "You're not allowed, in Obama's America, to disparage the Auto bailout, or -- indirectly -- Obama. Especially during the election cycle."
Both Ford and the White House officially deny any political pressure received or applied. But White House press flack Dan Pfeiffer refused to answer when I asked him whether anyone at the White House had ever contacted anyone at Ford to complain about the bailout ad. Ford's social media director told me he personally "had no knowledge" of any contacts. While he disputed the gist of Howes' report, the Ford official would not call for a correction or retraction.
Chris McDaniel, the real-life Ford customer who starred in the offending ad, told BigGovernment.com editor Larry O'Connor that he was exasperated when he heard about the Ford fiasco: "Now we have the federal government butting their nose into this TV ad. Another example of them getting involved in things they have no business getting involved in. Where is the free speech of American citizens?"
He better watch out for the Obama campaign's official snitch brigade at AttackWatch.com. After a curious hiatus, the online speech monitors are up and running again. Coincidentally enough, the site (run by several George Soros-trained operatives) targeted conservative auto bailout critics just two weeks ago.
A left-wing Washington Post writer immediately scoffed at concerns about the administration's heavy hand because the Ford fiasco "is being denied by the parties on both sides." Must be nice to mainline White House talking points for a living. For the rest of us, reality intrudes.
This is the administration that threatened health insurers for candidly tying ObamaCare mandates to rising premiums.
This is the administration that pummeled companies such as Deere, Caterpillar, Verizon and AT&T for speaking out about the cost implications and financial burdens of ObamaCare -- and then cheered from the sidelines while Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman attempted to haul the firms up for a congressional witch-hunt inquisition.
This is the administration that has seized Gibson Guitars' instruments and has threatened whistleblowers who exposed bloody corruption and incompetence behind the Operation Fast and Furious gun-walking racket.
And lest they need a reminder, this is an administration that has clamped down on mainstream media reporters, too.
The Pleasanton (CA) Weekly was bullied by the White House press shop over a benign article that irked the administration because it made Michelle Obama look snooty.
The San Francisco Chronicle was punished by the White House because a print pool reporter used a cellphone to record video of protesters at an Obama Bay Area fundraiser.
A WFAA-TV Texas reporter was dressed down by the president for having the audacity to interrupt.
The Boston Herald was spanked by the White House for running a front-page op-ed by GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
The White House denied any pressure in all those cases, too.
Before his campaign finance-grubbing swing ended, Obama met the pop singer Lady Gaga. She lobbied him to combat bullying across America. It was a little like Red Riding Hood lobbying the Big Bad Wolf to promote vegetarianism.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
Democrat allies in Congress are destroying America
Dear Fellow Conservative:
I happen to be a black man, but the only thing I have in common with Barack Obama is a good tan! If you share my belief that Obama's socialist policies and his Democrat allies in Congress are destroying America, please read every word below.
Obama and I have traveled distinctly different paths. When Obama was consorting with Communist mentors like Frank Marshall Davis, I was earning my Eagle Scout rank.
When Obama was smoking various controlled substances, I was defending our country as an Air Force Officer and Air Force Academy graduate.
When
Obama was palling around with terrorist Bill Ayers and attending
Jeremiah Wright's "G..D... America" church, I was raising a family.
I
am running for Congress in North Carolina's newly redrawn 8th District
because we cannot shrink big government and grow the economy unless we
replace the Democrats in Washington with stalwart constitutional
conservatives
As
you may know, Republicans are expected to lose TEN congressional seats
in California and Illinois alone as a result of the Democrats'
extraordinary gerrymandering of those states' congressional district
maps. In order to prevent Nancy Pelosi from becoming Speaker again,
Republicans must pick up four Democrat seats in North Carolina. Because
North Carolina Republicans controlled the redistricting pencil for the
first time since the 19th century, four incumbent Democrat Congressmen
now find themselves drawn into Republican districts.
To
appreciate how conservative my district has become, consider this. In
the old 8th District, Obama won with 52% of the vote. In the new 8th
District, Obama lost with 42% of the vote. That ten point improvement
(i.e., Obama losing by fifteen points instead of winning by five points)
is especially good news for me because my opponent -- Democrat Larry
Kissell has been a rubber stamp for Obama's socialist agenda.
For
example, job-killing Kissell voted FOR higher taxes, the $825 billion
stimulus, raising the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion, taxpayer financed
abortion on demand, and special rights for homosexuals. He co-sponsored
Card-Check And he voted AGAINST Cut, Cap and Balance, the bill to repeal
Obamacare, the bill to allow us to buy light bulbs of our choosing,
school choice vouchers for inner-city children, and the bills to defund
ACORN, Planned Parenthood, and National Public Radio.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Showing 5 comments