Politics | Obama: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of Him?


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (133613)5/24/2012 10:39:40 PM
From: Hope Praytochange1 Recommendation   of 156322
 

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/05/24/the_pelosi_chart_that_inspired_rex_nutting

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: tonto who wrote (133614)5/24/2012 10:40:49 PM
From: Hope Praytochange   of 156322
 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2887676/posts

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Hope Praytochange who wrote (133618)5/24/2012 10:43:29 PM
From: MJ   of 156322
 
Hi

For some reason I can't get this link to load. I have tried two different servers Firefox and then MSN.

Can you summarize or if a written comment section copy the gist of the message.

Thanks

mj

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (5)

To: MJ who wrote (133621)5/25/2012 12:27:39 AM
From: d[-_-]b1 Recommendation   of 156322
 
try this one - the other some extra characters at the end

rushlimbaugh.com 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (133622)5/25/2012 1:31:23 AM
From: MJ   of 156322
 
Thank you, the video with Romney worked--------excellent interview.

I like the newscasters playing Obama's remarks and Romney commenting
after watching.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: calgal5/25/2012 2:50:18 AM
1 Recommendation   of 156322
 
Obama's Land of the LOST


May 25, 2012














  • What's green and blue and grabby all over? President Obama's new pressure campaign for Congress to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

    The fight over LOST goes back three decades, when it was first rejected by President Ronald Reagan. He warned that "no national interest of the United States could justify handing sovereign control of two-thirds of the Earth's surface over to the Third World." According to top Reagan officials William Clark and Ed Meese, their boss believed the "central, and abiding, defect" was "its effort to promote global government at the expense of sovereign nation states -- and most especially the United States."

    The persistent transnationalists who drafted LOST favor creation of a massive United Nations bureaucracy that would draw ocean boundaries, impose environmental regulations and restrict business on the high seas. They've tinkered with the document obsessively since the late '60s, enlisted Presidents Clinton and Bush, and recruited soon-to-depart GOP Sen. Dick Lugar to their crusade. Ignore the mushy save-the-planet rhetoric. Here's the bottom line: Crucial national security decisions about our naval and drilling operations would be subject to the vote of 162 other signatories, including Cuba, China and Russia.

    While our sovereignty would be redistributed around the world, most of the funding for the massive LOST regulatory body would come from -- you guessed it! -- the United States. Forbes columnist Larry Bell reports that "as much as 7 percent of U.S. government revenue that is collected from oil and gas companies operating off our coast" would be meted out to "poorer, landlocked countries." This confiscatory act of environmental justice would siphon billions, if not trillions, away from Americans. International royalties would be imposed; an international tribunal would be set up to mediate disputes. There would be no opportunity for court appeals in the U.S.

    LOST is just the latest waterlogged power grab by the Obama administration. As I reported in 2010, the White House through executive order seized unprecedented control from states and localities over "conservation, economic activity, user conflict and sustainable use of the ocean, our coasts and the Great Lakes." Obama created a 27-member "National Ocean Council" by administrative fiat that is specifically tasked with implementing ocean management plans "in accordance with customary international law, including as reflected in the Law of the Sea Convention."


    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

    From: calgal5/25/2012 2:59:27 AM
       of 156322
     
    Yes!

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

    To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (133586)5/25/2012 7:26:23 AM
    From: lorne2 Recommendations   of 156322
     
    ‘Stand Your Ground’ backed in Florida, poll shows
    By TIM MAK
    5/24/12
    politico.com 


    Despite increased scrutiny of Florida’s gun laws following the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, a majority of the state’s voters support the state’s Stand Your Ground law.

    Indeed, 56 percent of the registered voters in Florida support the law, compared with 35 percent who oppose it, according to a new Quinnipiac poll.

    The polling showed a notable racial divide: White voters supported the controversial law 61 percent to 31 percent; while Hispanic voters supported it 53 percent to 36 percent. Black voters are opposed, 56 percent to 30 percent.

    George Zimmerman, the man alleged to have shot Trayvon Martin, is of Hispanic descent, while Martin is black.

    Zimmerman has claimed that he shot Martin in self-defense during a confrontation in his Sanford, Fla., neighborhood on Feb. 26. Florida’s Stand Your Ground law allows individuals to use deadly force in their own defense.

    Meanwhile, support was strongest among Republicans, who supported it 78 percent to 15 percent, while independents supported it 58 percent to 35 percent. A majority of Democrats opposed it: 59 percent to 32 percent.

    Men were more likely to support the law than women, supporting it 65 percent to 31 percent. Women supported the law 48 percent to 39 percent.

    The Quinnipiac poll was conducted May 15-21 with a sample of 1,722 voters and a margin of error of 2.4 percentage points.

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (4)

    To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (133586)5/25/2012 7:39:34 AM
    From: lorne1 Recommendation   of 156322
     
    kenny....What is wrong with America when they would honor a person because they are queer/homosexual?
    It use to be a person was honored for some good accomplishment in their life. Being queer/homosexual is not IMO a great life accomplishment. You going to this party?



    Dem fundraiser honors 25th anniversary of Rep. Barney Frank's coming out
    By Josh Lederman -
    05/24/12
    thehill.com 


    House Democrats will hold a fundraiser next week honoring the 25th anniversary of Rep. Barney's Frank (D-Mass.) coming out of the closet.

    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.) will join Frank for a reception on the rooftop of El Centro DF, a popular Mexican restaurant in Northwest Washington.

    Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.), another openly gay member of Congress, penned the email that the DCCC sent to supporters inviting them to the event.

    "Barney is an inspiration to all of us as one of the first openly gay congressmen to serve in the House," Polis wrote. "This event will be particularly moving for me as it will be one of our last events with him before he retires this year."

    Tickets for the May 30 event range from $100 for an individual to $5,000 for PACs or those who want to co-host the event.

    Democrats have been aggressively raising money from gay and lesbian donors and their allies in the two weeks since President Obama declared his support for gay marriage during a television interview. His campaign said it raised $1.5 million in the 90 minutes after the interview aired. A review of Obama's bundlers by The Washington Post found that 1 in 6 are openly gay.

    Frank revealed he was gay in 1987 in an interview with a reporter, becoming the first member of Congress to do so voluntarily. He became a leading voice for gay rights in the House during his 16 terms but announced in November his intention to retire from Congress.

    In January, Frank announced that he will marry his long-time partner, Jim Ready, in Massachusetts.

    More recently, Frank said that Obama won't be invited, citing the security headache it would create.

    "If he and Michelle wanted to come, I would be delighted and honored to have them, but he will bring the Secret Service," Frank told C-Span's "Newsmakers" program last Friday.

    "I don’t want to be accused of having shut down the entire region for a five-mile radius on a holiday weekend."

    Mike Lillis contributed.

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

    To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (133586)5/25/2012 7:41:56 AM
    From: lorne2 Recommendations   of 156322
     
    phillips ..Some racial stuff to start your day in the right left frame of mind.

    Unearthed: Young Obama took racial swipe at Colin Powell

    Implied 4-star general acceptable to 'white America'
    by Aaron Klein
    Friday, May 25, 2012

    President Obama took an apparent racial swipe at Colin Powell in a 1994 NPR interview in which he implied the four-star general is acceptable to “white America.”

    In the same interview, Obama advocates that the government should provide jobs for every citizen and prenatal care for all women.

    Obama in 1994 was a community organizer and lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

    WND unearthed an Oct. 28, 1994, interview the future president gave to NPR in response to political scientist Charles Murray’s controversial book “The Bell Curve,” which argues that there are racial differences in intelligence.

    During the radio interview, Obama said “the idea that inferior genes account for the problems of the poor in general, and blacks in particular, isn’t new, of course.”

    “Racial supremacists have been using IQ tests to support their theories since the turn of the century,” he said.

    Obama accused Murray of “pushing a very particular policy agenda, specifically, the elimination of affirmative action and welfare programs aimed at the poor.”

    Obama then made the remarks about Powell.

    “With one finger out to the political wind, Mr. Murray has apparently decided that white America is ready for a return to good old-fashioned racism so long as it’s artfully packaged and can admit for exceptions like Colin Powell,” Obama said.

    While Obama clearly focused his ire on Murray, his singling out of Powell as acceptable to “white America” may raise some eyebrows.

    In 1994, Powell was coming out of a six-year high-profile stint as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, including during the first Gulf War.

    Radical black leaders have long taken racial swipes at Powell, accusing him of being a “sell out” and an “Uncle Tom” for joining Republican administrations.

    Such anti-Powell rhetoric, for example, was routine for Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who in the 1990s was a regular guest lecturer at Obama’s Trinity United Church. In 1995, Obama, Wright and Al Sharpton marched in Farrakhan’s Oct. 16 Million Man March.

    In an Oct. 24, 1989, Washington, D.C., speech, Farrakhan even claimed Powell was planning “a war against the black people of America.”

    To this day, Farrakhan still sounds off about Powell. In an address in April, the extremist preacher called Powell “a black man in front of a policy to kill black people.”

    In the same speech, Farrakhan stated both Obama and Powell want a “pat on the back” from their “former slave-masters and their children.”

    In a May 2003 speech sponsored by Harvard Law School, Sharpton likened Powell and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to subservient house slaves.

    In a 2007 Tennessee speech, Sharpton was asked by an audience member whether Powell and Rice are “house Negros.”

    Sharpton replied: “I don’t know that they are viewed as house Negros in the term. I believe that they are in the house and the rest of us are in the field. So it would not be an inaccurate description.”

    In 2002, actor and activist Harry Belafonte compared Powell to a plantation slave who moves into the slave owner’s house and says only things that will please his master.

    “Colin Powell’s committed to come into the house of the master. When Colin Powell dares to suggest something other than what the master wants to hear, he will be turned back out to pasture.”

    In 2008, Powell crossed party lines and endorsed then-Sen. Obama, calling him a “transformational figure.” But now Powell is shrinking away from the topic every time a pundit asks him if he will throw his support behind Obama this election year.

    The Associated Press reports that he credits Obama with stabilizing the financial system and “fixing the auto industry” but says the president should have spent more time improving the economy, lowering the unemployment rate and closing Guantanamo.

    Earlier this week, Powell told NBC’s Matt Lauer:

    “I feel as a private citizen that I ought to listen to what the president says and what the president has been doing. but I know I also have to listen to what the other fellow is saying. I’ve known Mitt Romney for many years, good man. … I’m still listening to what the Republicans are saying they’re going to do to fix the fiscal problems we have, to get the economy moving. I think I owe that to the Republican Party.”

    Powell is currently promoting his new book, “It Worked For Me: In Life and Leadership,” a compilation of lessons learned and anecdotes drawn from his childhood in the Bronx, his military service and his work under four U.S. presidents. The book also includes Powell’s candid thoughts on the lead-up to the war in Iraq in 2003.

    Government provided jobs, healthcare

    In the NPR interview, Obama also advocated massive government expansion over jobs and health care.

    “Real opportunity would mean quality prenatal care for all women and well-funded and innovative public schools for all children,” he said. “Real opportunity would mean a job at a living wage for everyone who was willing to work, jobs that can return some structure and dignity to people’s lives and give inner-city children something more than a basketball rim to shoot for.”

    Obama said that in the short run, “such ladders of opportunity are going to cost more, not less, than either welfare or affirmative action.”

    “But, in the long run, our investment should pay off handsomely,” he said. “That we fail to make this investment is just plain stupid. It’s not the result of an intellectual deficit. It’s the result of a moral deficit.”

    With additional research by Brenda J. Elliott

    Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
    Previous 10 | Next 10 

    Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.