Obama Turns His Back on the Rule of Law in Georgia and the Media Insures Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case **UPDATED 2/5/12**

===============

**UPDATE at end of this post***

==========

Does Obama feel the State of Georgia doesn’t matter or count?

Obama shrugs over subpoena to appear in Eligibility Case to be placed on State Ballot for Presidential Elections of 2012 and the Media shrugs along with Obama.

=================

===============================

From American Thinker:

Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case

By Cindy Simpson

January 30, 2012

Last week, I noted that Obama turned his back not just on Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer, but also on the laws of the State of Georgia.  I closed my column, “Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks on By,” with the observation: “And most of the media has followed along right behind him.”

At the time, I had just witnessed an historic hearing that actually discussed the eligibility of the sitting president of the United States to run for a second term.  The president had been subpoenaed to appear, and instead of his attorney respectfully following protocol to have that subpoena recalled, both Obama and his attorney, Michael Jablonski, simply failed to show up at all or offer any defense whatsoever.

Isn’t there a headline in there somewhere?

The hearing proceeded as planned, even though the table for the defense was empty.  Attorneys Van Irion and J. Mark Hatfield presented their cases first and offered compelling arguments — not regarding Obama’s birthplace, but rather that the non-U.S. citizenship of Obama’s father precluded Obama’s “natural born” eligibility under the Constitution and existing Supreme Court precedent.  Attorney Orly Taitz, however, did present interesting evidence that questioned the validity of Obama’s birth certificate and questions surrounding his Social Security number.

When the hearing ended, the media in attendance almost literally pounced on Taitz.  Irion and Hatfield and their clients had left the premises earlier, while Taitz was still presenting her case; however, Irion asserted to me that not one member of the press stopped them on their way out.  Doubtless the media did not want to discuss the law — they’d rather write their usual stories on the birth certificate and interview the one they’ve dubbed the “birther queen.”

Attorney Taitz handled herself well, even though the press taunted her with rudeness and leading questions she has doubtless experienced many times.  After the reporters finished letting Taitz feel the full extent of their contempt for both her and the entire morning’s event, they packed up to leave.

I walked up to one particular reporter from one of the prominent mainstream entities, noting that he seemed frustrated that he didn’t get a clear answer from Taitz to one of his questions, and I informed him that I did know the exact answer, if he’d like to hear more about it.  He said no, he didn’t.  I asked then, wasn’t he a reporter, and why did he ask the question if he didn’t want the answer?  And as I was speaking, he turned and walked away from me.

The same thing happened with another reporter from another major network.  He had asked Taitz why no one cared that there were past presidents who had fathers not born in the country.  I explained to him that it was not the place of birth of the presidents’ fathers that was the issue, but rather the status of their citizenship at the time of their sons’ births.  The reporter scoffed and told me that that was just my opinion, but when I attempted to inform him that it was also the opinion of the Supreme Court, he turned and walked away from me while I was in mid-sentence.

Does this behavior seem familiar?

Even though I saw reporters from every major network on the scene, the actual reporting of the event was scant — primarily only in blogs or local news.  Google “Georgia Ballot Challenge” and note the non-mainstream coverage of the event.

Rachel Maddow must not have gotten the memo, though, because she dedicated a full 8 minutes of her January 26 show to telling her viewers why they should “feel almost duty-bound as a patriot to ignore” the hearing and not to “dignify this nonsense or elevate it by paying it any attention.”  Not only were none of the legal points addressed in the hearings brought up by Maddow, but Maddow excused the extraordinary fact that Obama and his counsel, instead of respecting the law, had simply snubbed it, calling the case “ridiculous.”

As Sunny of Sunny TV points out in this hilarious but uncomfortably true video, “Tyranny is as Tyranny Does”; “[l]et’s just hope the next President is just as benevolent as Obama because they could really use that power for bad.”  At the end of the clip, as Sunny pretends she is Obama, issuing orders right and left, she points to her crown and says: “This makes me in charge.”  As Teri O’Brien noted in her interview discussing Obama’s penchant for walking away from those with whom he disagrees, “[g]ods don’t debate.  They issue decrees.”

Attorney Irion, in this follow-up letter from his Liberty Legal Foundation, pointed out: “Yesterday President Obama completely ignored a court subpoena, and the world shrugged.”

Yes, Obama shrugged, and the media has shrugged along.  Irion further noted:

Obama’s behavior yesterday is even more disturbing than Nixon’s. Nixon at least respected the judicial branch enough to have his attorneys show up in court and follow procedure[.] … Nixon acknowledged the authority of the judicial branch even while he fought it. Obama, on the other hand, essentially said yesterday that the judicial branch has no power over him. He ordered his attorneys to stay away from the hearing. He didn’t petition a higher court in a legitimate attempt to stay the hearing[.] … Rather than respecting the legal process, Obama went around the courts and tried to put political pressure directly on the Georgia Secretary of State. When that failed, he simply ignored the judicial branch completely.

It is disconcerting to see that the president, whose primary duty is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, has turned his back on the rule of law of one of those states.  Especially, as Sunny uncomfortably reminded us, since this is the same president who routinely sidesteps the law or places himself above it.

Even more troubling is the fact that the mainstream media not only seems to approve — but they fail to report it at all.

LINK

***Written by Cindy Simpson***

Emphasis added

===============================

It takes 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency.

Georgia only counts for 15.  LINK

Does Obama feel Georgia doesn’t matter?

YOU DECIDE.

=========================

RELATED LINKS:

Its Time for ALL of Us to Take Action on Obama’s Eligibility

******************

A MUST READ! Absolute Proof Of A Democratic Party Conspiracy!!

*****

One person, One vote…..or the Chicago Way in Indiana?

*************

U.S. Supreme Court (in 1875) Has Ruled on Obama’s Eligibility!! **Plus Pelosi and DNC Conspiracy in 2008?**

************

Marxism/Socialism and Tyranny vs. Liberty and Freedom November 6, 2012

=============================

====================

***UPDATE**

JUDGE SAYS OBAMA CAN BE ON GEORGIA BALLOT

February 3, 2012

Excerpt:

Malihi’s decision came without any evidence being presented by Obama or his lawyer after they refused to participate in the required hearing under a state law that mandates all candidates qualify for the office they seek.

The law also allows any voter to raise a challenge, and several did. A hearing was held on their evidence on Jan. 26.

Malihi essentially tossed all of the information the plaintiffs and their attorneys presented.

“The court finds the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the exhibits tendered, to be of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support plaintiffs’ allegations,” he said.

He was miffed at Obama but decided the case on the merits, as requested by the plaintiffs.

“Neither defendant nor his counsel, Michael Jablonski, appeared or answered. Ordinarily, the court would enter a default order against a party that fails to participate in any stage of a proceeding. … Nonetheless, despite the defendant’s failure to appear, plaintiffs asked this court to decide the case on the merits of their arguments and evidence. … By deciding this matter on the merits, the court in no way condones the conduct or legal scholarship of defendant’s attorney, Mr. Jablonski,” he said.

The judge ignored plaintiffs’ urging that a request for a contempt citation be issued against Obama for refusing to appear as subpoenaed.

The decision can be reviewed by Secretary of State Brian Kemp, who earlier warned Obama and his attorney that to snub the Georgia court system would be at Obama’s “peril.”

Mark Hatfield, one of the attorneys who, along with Van Irion, focused on the issue of the definition of “natural born citizen,” said the judge ignored the issue of burden of proof.

“If Obama has the burden of proof, and failed to show up, clearly he didn’t carry the burden,” he told WND. “The judge here completely ignores that.”

He also noted it was highly unusual for a judge to reach into another state’s repository of court rulings to support his decision when the U.S. Supreme Court itself has made a determination.

He said he’s hoping the Georgia secretary of state will evaluate the issue carefully, but he’s prepared to take the dispute to the appeals level.

=================================

Last week the judge was siding with the plantiffs; Obama and attorney’s basically in contempt of court.  Now within 2 days, he sides with the Obama team and refers to Indiana’s ruling in the Georgia case.

WHO got to the judge?  WHY the abrupt change in the judge’s thoughts?

Intimidation?

YOU DECIDE.

=================================

Will Rahm Emanuel Control “Occupy Chicago” or will He Send a Message?

=================

=========

Glenn Beck has warned America MONTHS AGO that this “uprising” will evolve from the “Arab Spring/Caliphate” from the Middle East.

America has witnessed Occupy Oakland, Occupy DC, Occupy Charlotte, etc. for months now.  The newest venture in the planning stage is “Occupy Chicago” (to coincide with the G8 and NATO meetings scheduled for May 2012).

Bob Parks, at Canada Free Press states:

Uh, oh they are going tactical:

Tactical Briefing #25
And if they don’t listen … if they ignore us and put our demands on the back burner like they’ve done so many times before … then, with Gandhian ferocity, we’ll flashmob the streets, shut down stock exchanges, campuses, corporate headquarters and cities across the globe … we’ll make the price of doing business as usual too much to bear.

It looks like the AdBusters-Occupy brats are pleading for relevance and the police have been warned (threatened)  in advance. Should be a fun May, the Chicago way.

******************************

**********************

If you haven’t read this YET, I suggest you click the link and educate yourselves.  One of the authors is non other than Van Jones.

RECLAIMING REVOLUTION      

   (pdf format)

Note:  Van Jones named his son Cabral after the Revolutionary  Amilcar Cabral; an African Revolutionary leader.  I guess Che would be too obvious.

Discover the Networks has great information relating to Van Jones and S.T.O.R.M

Excerpts:

Amid mounting controversy over his radical past, Jones resigned his post as “green jobs czar” on Labor Day weekend 2009, claiming that he had been victimized by “a vicious smear campaign.”

Jones was later asked whether President Obama had been aware of Jones’ controversial history before appointing him as green jobs czar. Jones replied: “I was fully candid, I mean, about my past, about the ideas that I explored….”

In April 2010, Jones said the following about the nature of the Obama administration: “You look at the New Party, which is now the Working Families Party, the idea of a new politics — that you could actually in this country bring together labor and civil rights and feminists, etc., and actually make a difference … is the basic framework for what just took over the White House.”

Jones serves as one of 20 advisers to the Presidential Climate Action Project (based at the University of Colorado), which makes climate-policy recommendations for the Obama White House. He has been praised for his environmental work by such notable leftists as Thomas Friedman, Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Arianna Huffington, Ben Jealous, Laurie David, Gavin Newsom, Carl Pope, Tavis Smiley, Fred Krupp, and John Podesta.

In June 2011, Jones formally launched the American Dream Movement. He also serves, along with Gina Glantz and others, as a board of trustees member for the public-policy organization Demos.

*********

In the early 2000s, STORM was active in the anti-Iraq War demonstrations organized by International ANSWER.

In December 2002, STORM dissolved due to internal tensions and rivalries. In 2004, a number of STORM’s former members collaborated to publish a booklet titledReclaiming Revolution, wherein they recapped their own organizational history — in hopes that their reflections and observations would help “move the Left forward.”

STORM’s most notable leader was Van Jones, who would go on to become President Barack Obama‘s “Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation” in 2009.

************

The Leftists were behind Obama’s 2002 Anti-War speech (conveniently scrubbed from those wanting to know).

Chicago New Party and Barack Obama

In Chicago, the New Party consisted mainly of ACORN, DSA, SEIU (Service Employees International Union) and the Committees of Correspondence (CoC). A breakaway from the Communist Party USA, CoC worked closely with DSA and many activists were members of both organizations.

The Chicago New Party began to get organized^[8]in January 1995.

On Saturday, January 14, the New Party in Chicago took another step in its effort to establish itself as a political force by holding a major outreach meeting directed at Chicago’s Left. About 100 people, with sizable delegations from DSA and CoC among others, heard Bruce Colburn and Elaine Bernard preach the gospel of the New Party…

Elaine Bernard, a Labor Studies lecturer at Harvard, is a prominent DSA member. Bruce Colburn was an officer of the Milwaukee Central Labor Council and the Chair of the local New Party affiliate in Milwaukee.

The meeting was held at the meeting hall of SEIU Local 880, a local that is tackling the extremely difficult task of organizing home health care workers in Illinois. SEIU Local 880 and ACORN share office space.

DSA and their CoC allies saw the New Party as a vehicle for major political change-to both move the Democratic Party leftward and to eventually prepare the ground for an entirely new third party.

At a meeting attended^[9]by Chicago DSA members Kurt Anderson and Bob Roman, plus CoC members Ronelle Mustin and Sandy Patrinos, CoC leader Carl Davidson explained the New Party’s role in first working through the Democratic Party then eventually replacing it.

On January 27th approximately 45 people attended the Chicago DSA and Chicago CoC organized public form at the ACTWU hall on Ashland Ave. Each organization had two representatives on the panel to present their particular elections ’94 post-mortem perspectives. Chicago DSA was represented by Co-Chair, Kurt Anderson and Political Education Officer, Bob Roman. CoC was represented by Carl Davidson, who is a member of CoC’s National Coordinating Committee and Ronelle Mustin, an activist from the 22nd ward. The event was chaired by Sandi Patrinos, chair of Chicago CoC…

Carl Davidson wanted to focus on “voting patterns.” There were essentially two winners. Naturally the Republicans, but so were the most left in Congress such as the Progressive and Black Caucuses. The latter were re-elected while the neo-liberal and conservative Democrats were voted out. More importantly this election was the de facto defeat of the elitist Democratic Leadership Council who do not care about the poor or Labor.

To win elections, Davidson emphasized that there are two necessary coinciding factors. First, a passive majority… Secondly, a militant minority, which came to fruition for the Right wing with the Christian Coalition…

Hence Davidson emphasized that in this historical period the Left’s strategy must be electoral politics not revolution. Consequently the Left must galvanize the “majority” – the working class and poor… Moreover the democratic left needs get active in the New Party which has won 20 of 30 local elections. Thus a short-term strategy of working with the Democratic Party and in the long-term work with the New Party.

Barack Obama clearly saw the potential of the New Party, because he was soon seeking their support^[10]-alongside Michael Chandler, Willie Delgado, Miguel del Valle, Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez and Jesse Garcia.

About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. The purpose of the meeting was to update members on local activities and to hear appeals for NP support from four potential political candidates. The NP is being very active in organization building and politics…

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia’s District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer’s vacant seat…

Although ACORN and SEIU Local 880 were the harbingers of the NP there was a strong presence of CoC and DSA (15% DSA)… Four political candidates were “there” seeking NP support.

Barack Obama won the 1996 election, by using legal technicalities to get all his opponents disqualified-but he still encouraged New Party volunteers to join^[11]his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.

The NP’s ’96 Political Program has been enormously successful with 3 of 4 endorsed candidates winning electoral primaries. All four candidates attended the NP membership meeting on April 11th to express their gratitude.

Danny Davis, winner in the 7th Congressional District, invited NPers to join his Campaign Steering Committee.

Patricia Martin, who won the race for Judge in 7th Subcircuit Court, explained that due to the NP she was able to network and get experienced advice from progressives like Davis.

Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration…

LINK

===========================

Brief History Of Chicago’s 1968 Democratic Convention

(Sources: “Miami and the Siege of Chicago” by Norman Mailer, Facts on File, CQ’s Guide to U.S. Elections)

The Riots

Outside the official convention proceedings, anti-war demonstrators clashed with 11,900 Chicago police, 7500 Army troops, 7500 Illinois National Guardsmen and 1000 Secret Service agents over 5 days.

The violence centered on two things: the Chicago police forcing protesters out of areas where they were not permitted to be; and protesters clashing with police, and their reinforcements, as they tried to march to the convention site.

The violence began Sunday August 25th. Anti-war leaders had tried to get permits from the city to sleep in Lincoln park and to demonstrate outside of the convention site. Those permit requests were denied, although the city did offer them a permit to protest miles away from the Amphitheater But the protesters were undeterred. When the park was officially closed, Chicago police bombed protesters with tear gas and moved in with billy-clubs to forcibly remove them from the park. Along with the many injuries to anti-war protesters, 17 reporters were attacked by police (including Hal Bruno, who was then a reporter for Newsweek and is now political director for ABC.) Throughout the convention, police would see the press as the enemy. Subsequent battles between police and protesters occurred nightly in Lincoln Park and Grant Park.

Also present that first night and throughout the convention were the famous Beat artists Allen Ginsberg and William Burroughs and French poet Jean Genet. Most events and protests featured speeches from Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin.

The worst day of protesting was Wednesday, and was dubbed the “Battle of Michigan Avenue.” Protesters were stopped in their march to the convention site and the media recorded graphic violence on the part of the Chicago police. Many innocent bystanders, reporters and doctors offering medical help were severely beaten by the police. Many hotels where the delegates were staying were affected by the riots. Fumes from the tear gas used by the police and “stink bombs” thrown by the protesters drifted into the buildings. (One of those affected was the Conrad Hilton, the headquarters for the Democratic party and the press.)

Another major clash occurred on the final day of the convention, when protesters tried once again to reach the convention center. They were twice turned away. A barricade was put up around the convention center to prevent anyone without credentials from entering the facility.

When the convention was finally over, the Chicago police reported 589 arrests had been made and 119 police and 100 protesters were injured. The riots, which were widely covered by the media, led to a government funded study to determine the cause of the violence. The study was led by Daniel Walker, a Democratic businessman from Illinois who would ran successfully for governor in Illinois in 1972. The study placed most of the blame on the Chicago police. Mayor Daley disagreed with the report and issued the Chicago police a pay raise.

The Aftermath

On March 20, 1969, a Chicago grand jury indicted eight police officers and eight civilians in connection with the disorders during the Democratic convention. The eight civilians, dubbed the “Chicago 8,” were the first persons to be charged under provisions of the 1968 Civil Rights act, which made it a federal crime to cross state lines to incite a riot. David Dellinger was chairman of the National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam. Rennie Davis and Tom Hayden were members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin were leaders of the Youth International Party (YIPPIES). Lee Weiner was a research assistant at Northwestern University. John Froines was a professor at the University at the University of Oregon. Bobby Seale was a founder of the Black Panthers.

===========================

Demos, one of the nations premier leftist “think tanks” has close ties to Democratic Socialists of America, and, until the organization morphed into a vast array of semi-disguised clones, ACORN.

Interestingly Demos’ founding 1999-2000 Board of Trustees, included an obscure Illinois State Senator named Barack Obama.

A few years later an equally obscure San Francisco communist radical named Van Jones would also join the Demos Board.Small world isn’t it?

Demos 2009 report “Flying blind”, page 3

LINK

================================

Does Rahm Emanuel govern as Mayor of Chicago in  the old “Cosa Nostra” style (history of mailing dead fish to people he didn’t like and stabbed a steak knife into a table yelling “Die”, “Die”)?

Will Emanuel tolerate riots in Chicago in the fashion of the riots of 1968?

Does Obama know WHO the organizers are of the “Occupy Chicago”?

YOU DECIDE.

=========================

=============================

============

Is Lady Liberty Still Worth Fighting For? Time to RING THE BELL of Freedom….

=====================

===========

For those that believe the Leftist Rhetoric (Reid, Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, etc.) that the Tea Party are “terrorists”……..

***********************************************************

****************************

Compare the Tea Party to what you witness today with the “Occupiers”promoting Leftist ideology.……

Curiously, the media has failed to connect this violence with the explicit endorsements of the movement by President Obama.

********************

*****************

Tea Party:

May 6, 2010<<<Note Date……Will this apply to the 2012 Election cycle?

RISE UP (original song) – Jeremy Hoop [from the Tea Party Movie]

************************

April 4, 2009<<Note date: Does it still apply today in the 2012 Election Year?

A Revolution’s Brewing – A TEA Party Rally Song

**Listen closely to the WORDS of the song**

============================

Remember Who We Are

=============================

The 2012 Elections will be

Mandates, extreme regulations, executive order fiat and government controls

vs.

Liberties and Freedoms for individualism and prosperity.

The Choice is yours America……Choose wisely.

================================

=============================

WHY Isn’t THIS MAN on the GOP TIcket? “No GUTS……No GLORY”

================

=======================

A Man you says what he means……and means what he says.

Is the GOP gutless to NOT want to endorse Allen West on their ticket?

********************************

ALLEN WEST TO OBAMA, REID, PELOSI: ‘GET THE HELL OUT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’

January 29, 2012

By Madeleine Morgenstern

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) had a strong message Saturday for President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz: “Get the hell out.”

West made the comments during a speech at a Palm Beach County GOP event in West Palm Beach.

“This is a battlefield that we must stand upon. And we need to let President Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and my dear friend, chairman of the Democrat National Committee, we need to let them know that Florida ain’t on the table,” West said.

The audience was booing by the time West got to Pelosi’s name.

“Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else,” he continued. “You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.”

As the audience cheered and many rose to their feet, West added, “Yeah I said ‘hell.’”

“This is not about 1 percent or 99 percent. This is about 100 percent. It’s about 100 percent America. And I will not stand back and watch anyone defame, degrade or destroy that which my father fought for, my older brother, my father-in-law, myself, my nephew and all my friend still in uniform,” he said.

“I will not allow President Obama to take the United States of America and destroy it. If that means I’m the No. 1 target for the Democrat Party, all I got to say is one thing: Bring it on, baby.”

*******************************

Allen West – Obama is Destroying This Country!

============================

=============

==========================

==============

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.

Alexis de Tocqueville

LINK

========================

New York Times FAILS to Mention Gingrich Was Cleared Of Ethics Charges. While YOU were Busy Watching GOP Rivalries: Warning! Progressives’ NPV Plan

=====================

===========

From Big Journalism:

By John Sexton

January 29, 2012

This is what real journalism looks like, folks. Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes a 2,300 word piece about Newt Gingrich’s relationship to ethics charges (those brought by and against him) that ends with this rehash of his fall from grace:

In the end, nearly all of the charges were dismissed. But the ethics committee did find that Mr. Gingrich had used tax-exempt money to promote Republican goals, and given the panel inaccurate information for its inquiry.

Mr. Gingrich formally apologized, conceding he had brought discredit on the House. He had always   regarded himself as a “transformative figure” who would change the course of history, but on Jan. 21, 1997, he made history in another way.

The House voted 395-28 to reprimand him and fine him $300,000, making him the first speaker ever disciplined for unethical conduct.

That’s it. That’s how the tale ends. It’s as if they’ve quoted Newt’s history but added an invisible ellipsis over the final portion of the story. This is a doctored quote of the record. This is “agenda journalism.”

Do you think it’s relevant that after the events described above Democrats campaigned for a further investigation? Is it relevant that the IRS took them up on it, and that after more than three years determined that Newt did nothing wrong? Simply put, all the charges, even the ones Newt was reprimanded for, were bogus. Is any of that worth mentioning in a front page story on the topic at the New York Times?

The real journalists at the NY Times have simply decided their readers don’t need to know the rest of the story.

LINK

=============================

WHY doesn’t an MSM ask Obama:  WHY are his school records, social security records, Harvard Law School writings being sequestered at Interpol?  Or why Obama pays THOUSANDS of dollars a year for lawyers to protect his history?

RELATED LINKS:

Assploding Hypocrisy: Obama Campaign Rips Romney For Refusing To Release Records…

*********************

Executed December 15, 2009

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-amending-executive-order-12425

Obama Executive Order Alters Your Legal Protections

Excerpted:

Specifically, Interpol’s property and assets remained subject to search and seizure by American law enforcement, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions of the Freedom of Information Act. Interpol had to answer to the FBI and U.S. courts under Reagan’s order. These safeguards were stripped away by Obama’s action the week before Christmas without debate or explanation. Obama picked the holiday season to make this radical change to minimize media coverage.

This order marks a significant change in federal policy and usurps the constitutional power of our government by yielding it to an international organization. Michael van Der Galien writes, “This foreign law enforcement organization can operate free of an important safeguard against government and abuse. Property and assets, including the organization’s records, cannot now be searched or seized. Their physical operational locations are now immune from U.S. legal and investigative authorities.”

Obama has given an international organization unsupervised freedom to investigate Americans on our own soil without recourse or the supervision of our own government.

LINK

================================

While YOU were Busy Watching GOP Candidate Rivalries: Warning! Progressives’ NPV Plan for White House Control, 2012 & Permanently

==============================

Robert Bauer and Anita Dunn (Spouse) in Obama’s White House. Nepotism? Or Political Protectionism? UPDATE! Bauer is “IN”

===============================

The Pro-Obama biased, protectionist MSM’s the likes of the New York Times are bloviating about the “One”, but WHERE are the true Muckrakers when it comes to actually looking into Obama’s background?

Paid off?

Intimidated?

Worth $14 million, Elizabeth Warren thinks she’s not a wealthy investor

===================

==========

From American Thinker

By Rick Moran

January  29, 2012

I think she actually believes that she isn’t a wealthy investor. This kind of radical disconnect from reality is typical of many rich liberals because they believe that the care so much about the rest of us, that they are actually one of us.

Business Insider:

“I realize there are some wealthy individuals – I’m not one of them, but some wealthy individuals who have a lot of stock portfolios” she told him.

Hard to see how Warren wouldn’t be, by most standards, wealthy, according to the Personal Financial Disclosure form she filed to run for Senate shows that she’s worth as much as $14.5 million. She earned more than $429,000 from Harvard last year alone for a total of about $700,000, and lives in a house worth $5 million.

She also has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 million, according to the form, which lists value ranges for each investment. The bulk of it is in funds managed by TIAA-CREF.

Warren would not, of course, be particularly wealthy by the tony standards of the Senate. But she’s also unlikely to draw the sort of popular identification with her financial status that might attach to Marco Rubio, whose home is underwater.

And efforts to pass herself off as one of the 99% for whom she aims to speak appear likely to backfire.

Evidently, most of Warren’s stock is in the form of mutual funds. Why this would make a difference since all congressmen and senators put their stock wealth in blind trusts is a mystery.

Read more……..

===========================

Added from The Blaze:

The issue with that statement is that Warren — who’s running against Republican Scott Brown — could be worth as much as $14.5 million, Buzzfeed pointed out. Financial disclosure forms show she and her husband own between $100,001 and $250,000 of IBM stock, and between $2.8 million and $7.9 million in TIAA-CREF funds, the Boston Globe reported.

Elizabeth Warren Says She’s Not Wealthy

============================

Elizabeth Warren claims she is “not wealthy” and NOT part of the 1%?

Elizabeth Warren’s net worth is $14 MILLION.

Elizabeth Warren lives in a house valued at $5 MILLION.

Elizabeth Warren has a portfolio of investments in stocks and bonds worth as as much as $8 MILLION.

Yet Elizabeth Warren attempts to pass herself off as one of the 99% she says she represents?

=============================

====================

Think Government Without Corruption Is Impossible? Don’t Be Too Sure

====================

============

From Canada Free Press:

By Jerry McConnell

January 28, 2012

**Eliminate the possibility for reelection and you eliminate all of the bad that accompanies it**

On Thursday, January 26, 2012, the wise, intelligent and extremely talented wordsmith, Thomas Sowell authored an article in the GOPUSA Eagle titled, “Sowell: Is Anybody Serious?” accusing the Republican candidates of being in a “circular firing squad” mode and in a particular damaging one using machine guns.

Sowell warned that “Whoever the eventual ‘last man standing’ turns out to be, he may not be standing very tall or very steadily on his feet—and he may be a pushover for Barack Obama in the general election, thanks to fellow Republicans.”

Is that what America, regardless of party affiliations, wants to see happen? I think not.  Four more years of Obama and his ‘way beneath the norm’ in matters of decency, loyalty to the country, and helpfulness to his fellow Americans would without question destroy any last vestiges or similarities to the once strong and fearless bastion of freedom that our Founding Forefathers envisioned and initiated back in the late seventeen hundreds.

After a short period of time into Obama’s second term we would more likely be prisoners without chains and shackles but with oppressive debt and poverty, groveling to his Administration and ministers of darkness under the oppressive overall yoke of United Nations One World Autocratic dictatorship.

That “last man standing” that Sowell envisioned after the constant suicide commentaries of, in particular, the two most acknowledged leaders, Gingrich and Romney or Romney and Gingrich as even the polls do declare that the only thing constant is the constant change in who has the lead and in what polls. Either of those two combatants will be in no condition to carry on and wage a knock-down, drag-out battle with the well rested and overflowing money chests of Obama and company.

Sitting back and observing the daily, and with the heavy number of prime time televised debates, demagoguery and accusations by both of those now recognized ‘last standers’, one has to wonder if this loss of human-ness, brotherly love and familial common decency is worth the expected prize of facing one of this country’s largest anti-American ideals and disparagement purveyors for the title of leader of a country that is on the edge of annihilation of its own accord.

What has changed our principles and morals and the values that holding public office once brought pride in accomplishing?  Greed and power lusts are certainly two prime responses to that question.  But greed for one just doesn’t seem to be a prime factor given the ample financial status of both candidates.  More money is always a magnet but my belief is that the given power that accompanies ascension to the lofty POTUS title and its world-wide notability and weightiness is the key premise of most presidential office seekers.

There is no doubt that many office seekers, especially in the area of ruling governance such as either house of Congress, know of the almost instant access to personal monetary accrual and the steady accumulation of such wealth as the length of service increases over the years.

The congressional office holders are among the wealthiest of Americans even if they didn’t start off that way and as their personal portfolios grow their effectiveness as legislators for all Americans dwindles while they reward the others most responsible for the size of their riches.  This is why cumulative reelections are mandatory for many, if not most, of our elected solons.

This seemingly ever cumulative and additional years entrenchment in the legislative offices of the federal government becomes the primary reason for deteriorative conduct such as outright theft, to multiple practices of deception and deceit and blatant corruption.

To guarantee prevalent status as a continuing congressperson or senator is the prime reason for “anything goes” from direct criminal activities, to lying, cheating and yes even stealing and coercion of anything with a possibility of helping to insure continuing reelection.

For proof or verification of what I say here ask if the politicians will make their financial records available for inspection of growth of income since taking office.  Or just ask if their accumulated wealth has substantially increased since they were first elected.  I think you’ll find that the answers are ‘yes’ to both question.

This country desperately needs TERM LIMITS on all elective offices, including the Presidency and Vice President.  The title should be changed to SERVICE LIMITS and the U. S. Constitution should be amended to provide for a SINGLE period of service not to exceed FOUR CONSECUTIVE YEARS.  The person elected to the office of the Vice President or any other federal elective office shall not be permitted to seek election to the higher office of president until a period of four consecutive years out of federal elective service has passed.

The single word “REELECTION” is the basis for all that is criminal and nefarious within the halls of elected government.  Eliminate the possibility for reelection and you eliminate all of the bad that accompanies it.

LINK

================================

RECOMMENDED READING:

Throw Them All Out

by Peter Schweizer

Description:

One of the biggest scandals in American politics is waiting to explode: the full story of the inside game in Washington shows how the permanent political class enriches itself at the expense of the rest of us. Insider trading is illegal on Wall Street, yet it is routine among members of Congress. Normal individuals cannot get in on IPOs at the asking price, but politicians do so routinely. The Obama administration has been able to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to its supporters, ensuring yet more campaign donations. An entire class of investors now makes all of its profits based on influence and access in Washington. Peter Schweizer has doggedly researched through mountains of financial records, tracking complicated deals and stock trades back to the timing of briefings, votes on bills, and every other point of leverage for politicians in Washington. The result is a manifesto for revolution: the Permanent Political Class must go.

LINK

================================

========================================

We have term limits for President; why not Congress?

===============================

=====================================

Is Obama Emulating Elizabeth Warren or “Rehashing” Socialist Ideology?

================

====================

FIRST THIS:

Good Grief… Obama: People Don’t Get Rich Without Government Investment (Video)

Posted by Jim Hoft

January 27, 2012

Yup. He’s a socialist alright… A hardcore committed socialist.

Barack Obama, the worst jobs president since the Great Depression, told an audience today that people don’t get rich without government investment.

And, you wonder why his economic policies are a complete disaster?

Via Breitbart TV:

From the video:

“We’re successful because somebody started the University of Michigan. We’re successful because somebody made an investment in all the federal research labs that created the internet…. We’re successful because somebody built roads and bridges…. And if we all understand that we’ve got to pay for this stuff, it makes sense for those of us who’ve done best to do our fair share and to try to pass off that bill on to somebody else, that’s not right. That’s not who we are.”

LINK

==============

Now listen to Elizabeth Warren running for U.S. Senate (against Scott Brown) in Massachusetts.

Elizabeth Warren on Fair Taxation

September 21, 2011

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there – good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.  You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory… Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea – God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” – 

****

For those that don’t know Elizabeth Warren go HERE.

=========================

Don’t think Elizabeth Warren is a Socialist?  LOOK at the picture below:  Elizabeth Warren is meeting with Congressional Progressive Caucus. (Started by Openly Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont)

=============================

=================

****************************************************

**************************************************

Hostess Foods Company Files Bankruptcy: Unions Scramble to Protect Pensions

==============

=========================

How many times will Americans hear the Union contracts,pensions and healthcare provisions have bankrupted a company?

*******************

From the Communist Party USA’s newsier People’s World:

Unions scramble to protect pensions in Hostess bankruptcy

By Mark Gruenberg

January 16, 2012

KENSINGTON, Md. – The Bakery Workers (BCTGM), the Teamsters, and other unions representing Hostess Foods employees scrambled to protect their members as the snack food company filed for bankruptcy on Jan. 11 for the second time this century.

The 2011 filing, like that of ’04, could affect some 5,500 BCTGM workers at Hostess plants nationwide, union President Frank Hurt told Press Associates Union News Service. The Teamsters report that they represent 7,500 Hostess drivers and merchandisers. Several other unions have smaller contingents at Hostess.

Regardless of the final details, Hurt predicted his members would be harmed by whatever the federal bankruptcy judge in New York City permits the firm’s owners – mostly a group of venture capitalists – to do.

“Those with the gold make the rules,” he said, including the company’s lawyers in that group. “And hourly workers are left holding the bag.”

The big question, Hurt said, will be if the bankruptcy court gives the reorganizers of Hostess so much leeway in cutting workers’ pay, pensions, and benefits and tearing up union contracts that it doesn’t make sense to continue the effort to save Hostess.

“I haven’t heard from our attorneys to what extent the law will let them” – the company’s bankruptcy overseers – “gut our contracts,” he added. “I’m telling our members we want to keep the company in business.”

Hurt instructed his union’s attorneys, appearing at the Jan. 11 hearing, to get the court to order company officials “to tell us the bottom line you need to keep it in business – and let us decide whether we will work under those conditions or not.”

Hostess first flagged the unions that it was headed for the financial rocks last summer[2011], Hurt explained. It approached the unions and told them it would stop paying the firm’s share of pension plan contributions. It also wanted to cut costs by proposing “a lousy-ass” health insurance plan for the workers, he added.

In a formal statement, Hurt said Hostess’ financial problems – which have prompted the firm to stop its payment into the jointly run union-management Taft-Hartley multi-employer plan covering the industry – were the result of mismanagement. Hostess claims its pension obligation of $1 billion is too much.

“I find it deeply offensive and highly disingenuous for the company to claim [that] its financial woes are the result of its union contracts and pension and health benefits obligations,” Hurt’s statement said. “We contend the company is in dire financial shape because of a string of failed business decisions made by a series of ineffective executives who have been running this company for the past decade.

“BCTGM has contracts with dozens of baking companies across the country, including Bimbo Bakeries USA, the nation’s largest and most successful. The vast majority of those companies are doing just fine because they have experienced baking industry professionals managing them,” he added.

BCTGM called Hostess “a longstanding participant” in the Taft-Hartley pension fund. It said $1 billion is the Hostess’ “withdrawal liability”-the cumulative amount it would have to pay present retirees and workers when they retire if Hostess dropped out of the multi-employer plan.

“Contributions Hostess paid into the fund were negotiated through the collective bargaining process and are part of an overall economic compensation package. Pension benefits that retirees receive each month are paid by the fund and not the individual companies,” BCTGM noted.

More here………..

***Emphasis added***

==============================

Taft-Hartley pension fund.

It said $1 billion is the Hostess’ “withdrawal liability”-the cumulative amount it would have to pay present retirees and workers when they retire if Hostess dropped out of the multi-employer plan.

Let’s REPEAT the above:  $1 BILLION is the Hostess Foods “withdrawal liability”  from the Taft-Hartley pension fund.

Unions find this offensive:  Hostess Foods state its financial woes are the result of its union contracts and pension and health benefits obligations.”

Nope it is NEVER the fault of the UNIONS; just the “evil” Capitalists.

======================

===========================

The Taft-Hartley Act (also known as the Labor-Management Relations Act) was passed over the veto of Harry S. Truman on 23rd June, 1947. When it was passed by Congress Truman denounced it as a “slave-labor bill”.

The act declared the closed shop illegal and permitted the union shop only after a vote of a majority of the employees. It also forbade jurisdictional strikes and secondary boycotts. Other aspects of the legislation included the right of employers to be exempted from bargaining with unions unless they wished to.

The act forbade unions from contributing to political campaigns and required union leaders to affirm they were not supporters of the Communist Party. This aspect of the act was upheld by the Supreme Court on 8th May, 1950.

The Taft-Hartley Act also gave the United States Attorney General the power to obtain an 80 day injunction when a threatened or actual strike that he/she believed “imperiled the national health or safety”.

LINK

============================

===========================

George Soros to Benefit From Obama’s Natural Gas Policy

================

=======================

By Josh Peterson – The Daily Caller

January 27, 2012

President Barack Obama, at a Las Vegas UPS facility Thursday, pitched a plan to boost the American use of natural gas, a plan that would not only benefit long-time natural gas proponent billionaire T. Boone Pickens, but also long-time Obama supporter, billionaire investor and progressive philanthropist George Soros.

Westport Innovations, a recent purchase by Soros, would benefit from the windfall of policies that pursue the use of natural gas for transportation. The company, whose shares have been projected to explode if Congress were to approve the Natural Gas Act, makes natural gas engines for heavy-duty trucks.

“Soros’s investment funds have pumped about $122 million into WPST, and he’s added to his control as recently as December and March, when he picked up over a million shares, bringing his total to 5.5 million shares,” reported BigGovernment.

“If Westport reaps the predicted windfall, one of the chief beneficiaries will be George Soros, a major Obama donor and supporter. Soros’s hedge fund holds 3,160,063 company shares (as of its last SEC filing),” reported the Heritage Foundation.

As of September 30, 2011, the oil and gas sector ranked third in his portfolio after consumer goods and technology, according to investment strategy site, GuruFocus.com.

Obama’s recent rejection of TransCanada Corp’s Keystone Pipeline oil permit also benefited another one of the president’s men, billionaire Warren Buffett. The Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, owned by Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, is the nation’s largest rail transporter of coal.

LINK

***Emphasis added****

===========================

=============================

Has Obama’s Energy Policy been ONLY about his heavy hitting donors and NOT the American people?

Has Obama’s Energy Policy been a BIG failure?

YOU DECIDE.

=====================

============================