Limbaugh:Obama’s Misstatements on the Union
David Limbaugh
Only a president long shielded from criticism and accountability could make the kind of State of the Union speech President Obama did Tuesday night. It’s hard to know where to begin, given his repetition of tired ideas from his previous SOTUs, his taking credit for successful policies he resisted and omitting failed ones he promoted, his numerous misrepresentations on issues big and small, and his glaring refusal to address the main issues that threaten the nation.
Let me touch on just a few highlights in this brief space.
Jacksonville Debate: Two Winners, One Loser
Guy Benson
JACKSONVILLE, FL – We had two winners tonight: From a ‘micro’ perspective, Rick Santorum was terrific and narrowly won the evening. On a macro level, Mitt Romney came awfully close to winning the debate outright, and just owned Newt Gingrich during three dramatic exchanges. Because Newt didn’t have a particularly strong showing, the political inertia stays in Romney’s favor heading into Tuesday. Here’s my instant review of each candidate’s debate performance:
RUSH:Drudge Screwed Up ABC’s Plans for the Marianne Gingrich Interview
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, folks. I just saw the Marianne Gingrich video, and I think — I’ll be honest with you — I think the Democrats may have to give Newt a second look here. Well, follow me on this. Newt Gingrich, aside from the budget deal in ’95 and being made to ride in the back of Air Force One, Newt got along with Clinton pretty well, if you recall, and Newt treated Hillary with respect, even sat on the couch with Nancy Pelosi. Now, there’s an accusation out there that Newt wanted an open marriage, just like Bill and Hillary. And, in fact, Newt even had the politeness to ask permission for it. Do you think Bill ever did that?
MUTINY! Handpicked CEOs on Obama’s Jobs Council Blindside O at WH Meeting
Matt Spetalnick, Reuters
President Barack Obama’s jobs council called on Tuesday for a corporate tax overhaul, expanded domestic drilling and new regulatory reforms….
Obama pledged to “push as hard as possible” on their recommendations but also sought to temper expectations. “Obviously this year is an election year, and so getting Congress focused on some of these issues may be difficult,” he cautioned his Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.
Rush Limbaugh predicts 2012 outcome
by Joe Kovacs
PALM BEACH, Fla. – While polls across America show Barack Obama in a tight race for president with potential Republican nominees, top-rated radio host Rush Limbaugh doesn’t think the outcome of the race will even be close.
“If the election were today, it would be a landslide loss,” Limbaugh said this afternoon. “Let me define landslide: five to seven points. It’d be big. It would be huge.”
“Make no mistake about it,” he continued. “Of this I am as confident as anything. I know it’s not reflected anywhere else in the media and it’s not reflected too many other places in conservative media. But I’m telling you, he’s toast. Just as Jimmy Carter was toast, and nobody knew it until election night [in 1980].
How about Tim Tebow for president? Get the hottest bumper sticker in America celebrating the quarterback promoting John 3:16!
Limbaugh cited Gallup polling about Obama’s personal approval ratings among voters, and he says the forecast is not bright for the president.
“Forty-two percent approve, 49 disapprove. Among white people, Obama is down to 35 percent approval. In 2008, he had 43 percent of the white vote. Among Hispanic people, Obama is at 46 percent, down from 67 percent. By age group, Obama is at 47 percent approval among voters under 30. In 2008, he got 66 percent of their vote. … I mean he’s plummeting, folks. He has been in a downward spiral for two years and it continues.”
Limbaugh put little faith in professional pollsters who continue to show an even matchup with whomever the Republican nominee is going to be.
“These people that are doing the polling have no idea of the voter enthusiasm in the anti-Obama ranks out there. No idea whatsoever. They think that you are getting dispirited. They think that the Republican fight is boring you and depressing you, and they think a lot of you can be inspired to sit home and not vote because you don’t have a prayer. They think they can create that mindset in you. That’s what they’re banking on. I happen to know that isn’t going to work. [There are] way too many people who love this country way too much. That isn’t going to happen.”
Read the original article WND
RUSH:An Infantryman on Defense Budget Cuts
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Tyler in Fort Benning, Georgia, I’m glad you waited, sir. Welcome to the program.
CALLER: Well, thank you, Rush. I just want to thank you. It’s an honor to speak with you. I’m a longtime listener probably about eight years.
RUSH: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate that. I really do.
CALLER: I just want to thank you for all your continued support of the military. It’s really reassuring. I’m an infantryman, US Army, and you’ve just been there by our side the entire time, so thank you.
RUSH: You are more than welcome. We here love the US military and we are very upset at what’s happening to it right now with all of these budget cuts and all these fingers of blame being pointed. Are you still gonna have a job by the time Obama gets through, Tyler?
NY Post:King Barack’s power grab
President Obama yesterday played a violent game of kickball with the US Constitution, making a number of high-level “recess” appointments — even though the Senate isn’t actually in recess.
He named former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Board, a nomination Republicans have been fighting.
And then he named three new members of the pro-union activist National Labor Relations Board.
Presidents have the right to make temporary appointments when Congress is away from Washington, of course, and both parties have used that power.
But Obama is the first president to declare that he, and he alone, can decide whether the Senate — which must confirm his appointments — is actually meeting.
In order to block recess appointments, the Senate intentionally has been holding pro forma sessions every few days, each of which lasts only a few seconds.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — with then-Sen. Obama’s support — did the same thing in 2007 to block any recess appointments by President George W. Bush.
But now Obama, with Reid’s concurrence, contends that such sessions are actually “gimmicks” — and that the Senate actually is in recess.
So much for the separation of powers and the carefully calibrated system of checks and balances that are hallmarks of the US constitutional system.
Obama, of course, plans to run for re-election against Congress, painting it as Wall Street’s puppet.
But what he did yesterday was no shot across the bow; it was, rather, a direct hit — with the Constitution taking the brunt of the blow.
Moreover, as the Cato Institute’s Mark Calabria notes, the Dodd-Frank bill, which calls for the creation of the CFPB, explicitly requires that its director be “confirmed by the Senate.”
That means that Obama’s nonrecess “recess” appointment may well violate the law, in addition to coming as part of a blatantly unconstitutional overreach.
Then again, this is not the first time Team Obama has sidestepped Congress; just consider some of its aggressive regulatory measures done with no legislative authorization whatsoever.
Democrats like to criticize anything that smacks of an “imperial” presidency — but now it seems they’ve got one.
Read the original article New York Post
AT:By His Fruits Ye Shall Know Him: Obama’s Subversive Appointments
Jesse Weed
When President Obama made his initial cabinet appointments upon assuming the presidency, it looked as if the president had been, despite his history and associations with Wright, Ayers, Davis, et al., a moderate, left-leaning Democrat. His appointments were practically all ex-Clintonites.
In a 2008 Human Events article, “Obama’s Cabinet So Far,” Ross Kaminsky wrote that Obama’s cabinet looked “like the third Clinton Administration.” That soon began to change with Executive Office appointments, Regulatory Agency appointments, and appointments of czars and czarinas.
Thus began Obama’s rule by judicial intimidation through the DOJ and by behavioral modification through the myriad of government agencies, from the EPA to the DoE. Behavioral modification by red tape has especially become the imprimatur of the Obama administration — i.e., bypass congress and rule by regulatory edicts.
It has become increasingly evident that the original Clintonista appointments were just a smokescreen regarding what was to be Obama’s stealth agenda. Subsequent appointments have revealed two persistent themes that that would be a hard sell outside the Beltway. To wit:
Transnationalism and Postconstitutionalism
Transnationalism is, in part, the theory/doctrine that the U.S. should subordinate its sovereignty to the U.N. in the interest of world comity. Policies which weaken national sovereignty such as open borders, rights of illegals, and the promotion of challenges to dominant religious and cultural institutions are consonant with transnationalist objectives.
Postconstitutionalsim (or, more commonly, non-originalism) is the theory/doctrine that the Constitution should be a “living” document adaptable to modern realities. Indeed, the Constitution should not be locked into the 18th-century mindset of the original framers.
The two doctrines dovetail nicely, and many of Obama’s most influential appointees openly advocate the agenda of the twin sisters. They include:
Harold Koh – Chief Counsel, State Department
Koh believes that America should defer to the International Court of Justice to determine legal precedents. He believes that all distinctions between American Constitutional law and international law should vanish. He further believes that sharia law should be applied to some disputes in U.S. courts. Koh is also a prominent member of the American Constitution Society. The mission statement reads:
The American Constitution Society (ACS) believes that law should be a force to improve the lives of all people. ACS works for positive change by shaping debate on vitally important legal and constitutional issues through development and promotion of high-impact ideas to opinion leaders and the media; by building networks of lawyers, law students, judges and policymakers dedicated to those ideas; and by countering the activist conservative legal movement that has sought to erode our enduring constitutional values. By bringing together powerful, relevant ideas and passionate, talented people, ACS makes a difference in the constitutional, legal and public policy debates that shape our democracy.
Todd Stern – Climate Czar
Stern thinks that international agencies, such as the United Nations, should take the lead on forcing climate change solutions down the throats of national governments. Stern has proposed that world powers form an “E8″ group, which would meet yearly and dictate environmental policy to the rest of the world.
John Holdren – Science Czar
Holdren wants the government to dictate family size and advocate a “planetary regime” run by the United Nations
Eric Holder – Attorney General
Can there be a better example of undermining national sovereignty than Holder (who is also a member of the ACS) joining with a foreign country (Mexico) to sue Arizona over its immigration laws? “It’s almost like they are competing with each other to see who will be the plaintiff,” says Kris Kobach, the law professor and former Bush Justice Department official who helped write the law.
Holder also uses the DOJ to mainstream Islam. Under his guidance, training manuals for the FBI and other security agencies have been bowdlerized to ensure that Islam and violence are made to appear antithetical. Speaking for Holder, Dwight Holten (U.S. attorney) said, “I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated.”
Samantha Power – National Security Council
Ed Lasky, news editor for American Thinker, writes in his article The Power of Samantha Power that “the Soros-linked Samantha Power continues to work with Barack Obama to weaken the concept of American sovereignty and empower the international community at the expense of American independence. He [Stanley Kurtz of NRO] also notes that Obama has always been clever about hiding his motives behind a façade of pragmatism.”
Preeta Bansal – General Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Management & Budget
Bansal is a leader of the American Constitutional Society. Like the ACS, Bansal is a strong supporter of illegal alien rights, terrorist rights, and other rights not enshrined in the Constitution. ACS is America’s main networking group for far-left attorneys and is where Bansal is recruiting many of Obama’s judicial nominees.
Bansal is also a member of the “critical race theory” (CRT) school of legal thought that boils all legal concepts down to racist conspiracies and alleges that racism permeates all aspects of American society. Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court of Appeals called CRT supporters the “lunatic core” of “radical legal egalitarianism.”
Cecilia Munoz – Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, Executive Office of the President
Munoz is an open-borders advocate who served recently as the vice president for the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), where she supervised all legislative activities. La Raza is the nation’s foremost supporter of “rights” for illegal aliens and the granting of amnesty to the millions of illegals here in America. She believes that they should enjoy the same rights as citizens. She also served on the U.S. Programs board of the Open Society Institute, a George Soros-funded group.
Cass Sunstein – Regulatory Czar
Sunstein openly advocates behavioral modification by “nudging” people into the proper mindset for the 21st century. The masses are too stupid to be convinced by argumentation and evidence. Naturally, he supports the “Fairness Doctrine,” the wrongly named concept which allows the government to regulate the airwaves.
Mark Lloyd – FCC Chief Diversity Officer
While Obama is playing coy with his plans to shut down conservative talk radio, we know what his real intentions are due to his appointment of Mark Lloyd. Lloyd’s view of the 1st Amendment is…well, refreshingly novel:
It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies. … [T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance.
Like many of Obama’s appointees, Lloyd worked for George Soros, the foreign billionaire who funds anti-America groups. He seems to be enamored of dictators, even publicly praising Venezuelan Communist dictator Hugo Chávez’s “incredible … democratic revolution.” He also wants to use the Fairness Doctrine to “balance” talk radio and believes that there are too many white people in the media — unless there are “more people of color, gays and other people … we will not change the problem.” One of Lloyd’s solutions to “balance” the media is to fine conservative radio stations up to $250 million and give the proceeds to National Public Radio. Get ready for censorship like America has never seen before.
Forget the soaring rhetoric, and forget the imbroglios with Congress. Forget the blaming, the admonishing, the extolling, the visionary promises of a greater future for America under Obama’s guidance. In fact, forget Obama’s mouth — it’s his feet that count. The talk he talks is not the walk he walks.
If you vote for Barack Obama because of his charm, his urbanity, his soaring rhetoric that seems to endorse traditional American values, and presume that a man of such fine qualities must be open and honest in his agenda…well, you’ve been conned.
Read the original article American Thinker
Iran’s threat to close Strait of Hormuz: bluff to influence U.S. presidential election?
By Heather Robinson
Last week, as many Americans took to the skies and roads to visit with family and friends for the New Year’s holiday, the Islamic Republic of Iran unleashed a torrent of threats to close the Strait of Hormuz, a shipping channel vital to transporting one third of the world’s crude oil.
On Tuesday, Iranian Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi warned that “not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz” if the West imposed new sanctions against the country’s oil sector. Wednesday brought a boast from Iran’s navy chief, who said that the Islamic Republic could close the Strait, adding that doing so would be very easy for his country’s forces. Thursday, a commander of the Revolutionary Guard continued to raise the specter of disrupting the Strait, declaring, “The U.S. is not in a position” to tell Iran what to do and adding, “Iran does not ask permission to implement its own defensive strategies.”
As I wrote last week, most oil analysts agree that, in the words of one, “shutting down the Strait is the last bullet Iran has” short of attaining nuclear weapons and that “therefore we have to express some doubt that they would do this” at this juncture. With oil prices actually declining slightly mid-week despite the Iranian threats, the smart money said the Iranians would not make good on them. And sure enough, they haven’t: on Saturday, Tehran seemed to back off, with a Revolutionary Guard commander suddenly suggesting such discussion is passe and “belongs to five years ago.”
What the heck is going on here? Some argue the Islamic Republic is simply acting irrationally in the face of international pressure. And many assume Iran’s latest challenge was simply intended to dissuade Obama from signing ratcheted-up sanctions against Iran’s oil sector or to bully the EU out of its planned boycott of Iranian oil. Perhaps. But if so, it predictably fell flat (over the weekend Obama at last signed a defense bill that penalizes foreign financial firms that do business with Iran’s central bank).
Unless, that is, Iran’s threat to close the Strait reflects a more patient strategy. The Islamic Republic’s overriding goal is to attain nuclear capability. Is it possible that the Iranians could be calculating that backing down from an empty threat to close the Strait will enhance Obama in the eyes of the U.S. electorate?
If President Obama calls Iran’s bluff he gets to look strong for the moment and his chances of re-election are enhanced.
“The extremists [in the region] view Obama as weak,” according to Iraqi politician Mithal al-Alusi, a Sunni Muslim who was elected to Iraq’s Parliament in 2005 on a platform that advocated free markets, free speech, rule of law, and normalized relations between Iraq and Israel. Alusi, who has long warned of the Iranian nuclear threat and Iranian influence in Iraq’s government, says that Iranian leaders follow the U.S. election process closely – and they have their preferences.
To understand what they want in a U.S. leader, Alusi says one must “remember how they reacted to Carter, and then to Reagan.”
During Jimmy Carter’s presidency, the Iranians held 52 American hostages for 444 days, abused and paraded them blindfolded in a spectacle designed to humiliate the U.S. They freed them the day of Reagan’s inauguration.
In threatening to close the Strait, then, the Islamic Republic’s leaders could be engaged in a sleight of hand. If their goal is to attain nuclear capability so as to dominate the region, continue to export terrorism, destroy Israel, and establish a global caliphate, Iran’s leaders do not want an American president who will stop them.
Perhaps fearing the election of a Republican U.S. president, the Iranians are trying to create a pretext of imminent threat to oil transport via the Strait from which to back off in response to strong statements from the U.S., such as Wednesday’s remarks by representatives of the U.S. Navy and the Pentagon that any blockage of the Strait “will not be tolerated.”
If Iran makes idle threats and backs off, it will strengthen Obama’s image at home in advance of the next election. The Iranians want Americans to elect as President someone they believe will not stop them from attaining nuclear capability.
On the brink of going nuclear, Iran’s leaders view the next four years as pivotal.
So should we.
Read the original article Jewish World Review
CNSNews:‘Fast and Furious’ Linked to Immunity Deal Between U.S. and Sinaloa Cartel,
Edwin Mora
‘Fast and Furious’ Linked to Immunity Deal Between U.S. and Sinaloa Cartel,
Trafficking Defendant Alleges in Court Papers.
An alleged Mexican drug trafficker awaiting trial in a Chicago federal court claims that the notorious Sinaloa cartel received weapons from “Operation Fast and Furious” under an alleged immunity agreement that the U.S. government made with cartel leaders, in exchange for information on rival gangs.
The defendant in a trafficking case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Vicente Jesus Zambada-Niebla, also claims the immunity deal allowed the criminal cartel to “continue to smuggle tons of illicit drugs” into the United States.
He wants the U.S. government to provide documents relating to the botched gun running sting operation along the southwest border, arguing that it would benefit his defense.
Operation Fast and Furious, which began in September 2009, saw the Phoenix office of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives supervise the sale of guns to straw purchasers with the intent of tracing the guns to Mexican drug trafficking organizations and prosecuting their members. The ATF allowed about 2,000 guns to be sold in this manner.
The operation came under congressional scrutiny after it was linked to the December 2010 murder of U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry at the hands of Mexican bandits.
An investigative report, spearheaded by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), found that most of the weapons provided to Mexican criminals under the operation were going to the Sinaloa cartel, arguably one of the world’s largest drug trafficking organizations.
In a court pleading filed last July, Zambada-Niebla made the claims about an immunity deal.
“Mr. Zambada-Niebla believes that the documentation that he requests will confirm that the weapons received by Sinaloa Cartel members and its leaders in Operation ‘Fast & Furious’ were provided under the agreement entered into between the United States government and [a Mexican lawyer] on behalf of the Sinaloa Cartel that is the subject of his defense …,” it said.
“Mr. Zambada-Niebla believes that the documentation will also provide evidence showing that the United States government has a policy and pattern of providing benefits, including immunity, to cartel leaders, including the Sinaloa Cartel and their members, who are willing to provide information against rival drug cartels.”
The defendant argued that he is protected from federal prosecution for trafficking drugs into the U.S. between 2004 and 2009 under an alleged immunity deal struck between the U.S. government and Sinaloa leaders.
According to court documents, Zambada-Niebla claims that the immunity deal provided the cartel’s leadership with “carte blanche to continue to smuggle tons of illicit drugs into Chicago and the rest of the United States” in exchange for information on rival drug cartels.
U.S. prosecutors deny the existence of such an immunity deal between the U.S. government and the cartel.
Nevertheless, the U.S. government last September filed a motion to invoke the Classified Information Procedures Act, which is aimed at assuring that national security information stemming from criminal cases – such as details associated with CIA operations – are not leaked to the public during court proceedings.
In a court pleading filed in September, U.S. prosecutors claimed that Zambada-Niebla’s allegations about Fast and Furious have no merit.
“Defendant requests all information in the possession of the U.S. government related to an ATF investigation referred to as ‘Fast and Furious’…” it said. “Defendants request related to Fast and Furious … and other unrelated matters are gratuitous and wholly unrelated to any legitimate discovery issues in this case.”
Zambada-Niebla, who was arrested in Mexico in March 2009 and extradited to the U.S. eleven months later, is accused of smuggling tons of cocaine and heroin into the U.S.
He claims he was working on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration, FBI, and U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, court documents show.
The defendant’s pleading highlighted a July 2011 letter sent by Issa and Grassley to Attorney General Eric Holder, “suggesting that multiple United States agencies were employing as informants members of Mexican drug organizations.”
“The evidence seems to indicate that the Justice Department not only allowed criminals to smuggle weapons, but that tax payers’ dollars in the form of informant payments, may have financed those engaging in such activities,” the pleading added.
Read the original article CNSNews