President Of Nottingham: Obama Would Be Villain In 'Robin Hood' Tale By John Nolte

 

President of Nottingham: Obama Would Be Villain in 'Robin Hood' Tale by John Nolte over at Big Government

Here's Obama yesterday at a swank fundraiser in Connecticut. Per the usual, Obama packs more dishonesty into two minutes than one would ever think possible. Obama even misleads on the Robin Hood legend. But when you consider the state of our government-run schools, it's easy to assume you can get away with such a thing:

The Video can be seen at President of Nottingham: Obama Would Be Villain in 'Robin Hood' Tale. My computer had slight issue with it.

TRANSCRIPT: Last week an independent non-partisan organization crunched the numbers; they went through what it would mean to add a five trillion-dollar tax cut. Just to give you a sense of perspective here -- our entire defense budget is a little over $500 billion per year, but it's less than six hundred. So you're talking about -- each year -- a tax cut that is the equivalence of our defense budget, for the next ten years.

What this policy center did, they just ran the numbers. If you actually wanted to pay for that, what would that mean? And they determined that Governor Romney's plan would effectively raises taxes on middle class families with children by $2,000 -- to pay for this tax cut. Not to reduce the deficit, not to invest in things that grow our economy -- like education or roads or basic research. He'd ask the middle class to pay more in taxes so that he could give another $250,000 tax cut to people making more than $3 million a year.

It's like Robin Hood in reverse -- it's Romney-hood. …

They have tried to sell us this trickle-down, tax cut fairy dust before -- and guess what? It doesn’t work.

It didn't work then and it won't work now. It's not a plan to create jobs, it's not a plan to reduce our deficit, and it's not a plan to move our economy forward.

-----

1. This so-called non-partisan study was co-authored by a former member of Obama's economic team. The study also assumes Romney would raise taxes on the middle class and ignores how a growing economy can increase tax revenues.

2. Obama says tax cuts don’t create economic growth, spending on roads and education and research do. Are you going to believe your lying eyes or our lying president? According to Obama, the Reagan years were a flop and his trillion-dollar spending binge was an epic success.

3. Robin Hood didn't rob from wealthy private citizens to give to the poor. Robin Hood robbed from the Obamas and Pelosis and the Harry Reids of his time -- he robbed from overbearing, power-hungry big government bureaucrats who over-taxed private citizens and business owners to feather their own nests and pay off Solyndra and unions their cronies.

Robin Hood gave the people back money stolen from them by corrupt, greedy, selfish, statist government officials.

Obama is no Robin Hood, he's the Sheriff of Nottingham --he's the reverse-Robin Hood stealing from The People to feed The Government.

By the way, where are our media fact-checkers on all of this? Oh, yeah, too busy calling Romney a liar for saying a president who didn't go to Israel didn’t go to Israel.

Shills.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Needs To Be Fire

 

Isn’t what this woman doing called blackmail?

Washington this witch needs to be fired we don’t need people like this in our senate. People that go to the extremes of blackmail to get their way.

Senator: 'Country Will Have to Face the if GOP Supports Bush Tax Cuts by Tony Lee over at Big Government

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) threatened on Monday that Democrats would let the Bush tax cuts expire for everybody if Republicans did not compromise with Democrats and not extend the tax cuts for those in income brackets above $250,000.

"Unless Republicans end their commitment to protecting the rich above all else, our country is going to have to face the consequences of Republican intransigence," Murray said in a speech at the Brookings Institution, according to CBS News.

Would Democrats, for purely political purposes, take the country close to the so-called “fiscal cliff” that would occur if the Bush tax cuts were not extended while the $110 billion in defense and domestic spending cuts take place at the end of the year?

Read More

Speaking Of Felonies, Democrats! Remember This?

 

Since the Democrats want to talk about felons and felonies, it is time to  throw their criminal sins back at them. Joel B. Pollak starting the job real well.

 

Speaking of Felonies: The White House and the Sestak 'Bribe' by Joel B. Pollak over at Big Government

 

While Democrats continue to accuse Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney of being a felon until proven otherwise, it’s useful to remember an apparent felony that was allegedly committed by Barack Obama's White House in 2009: the attempted bribe of Democrat Joe Sestak. Sestak claimed the Obama administration offered him a job if he would stay out of the primary in Pennsylvania for the U.S. Senate seat then held by Arlen Specter.

Specter, formerly a Republican, had switched parties in April 2009, giving Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate that enabled them to pass any law they wanted. Until the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy that August, and the surprise victory of Republican Scott Brown in the special election that followed in Massachusetts in January 2010, the Obama administration hoped to use that majority to rush through health care reform.

There was one small catch: Specter evidently expected to be repaid for his defection, and the Obama administration was eager to oblige by ensuring that he ran unopposed. So they attempted to dissuade Sestak from running--and Sestak made the offer public, in an effort to cast himself as a Washington outsider versus the octagenarian Specter, the consummate Beltway insider. He told the story several times on the campaign trail.

As Karl Rove pointed out at the time, either Sestak was lying, or the White House had committed a felony--namely, offering a government job in exchange for something of value. The independent-minded Jake Tapper of ABC News prodded President Obama’s then-press secretary, Robert Gibbs, for answers--and Gibbs had none. Future House oversight chair Darrell Issa (R-CA) said the scandal could be Obama’s Watergate.

In the end, it emerged that former president Bill Clinton had been the intermediary for the White House. Clinton and Sestak got their stories straight, and saved the White House by reassuring the most of the public, the press and the opposition that nothing untoward had taken place. Charles Krauthammer called the White House response “deceptive,” but predicted--accurately--that the mainstream media would let it go.

Sestak went on to win the primary, but lost the general election to Republican Pat Toomey. The full story of the Sestak “bribe” has never been told. Yet it was critical to creating the early political momentum for Obamacare--and foreshadowed the later (legal, but awful) payoffs that were offered to secure its passage: the “Louisiana Purchase” and the “Cornhusker Kickback,” among the most notorious examples.

Read More

Senator Chambliss Demands More Action from Attorney General on SWATtings by Liberty Chick

 

I have to add my two cents to this. I am probably going to sound cynical. It was good of Senator Chambliss to send a letter to Holder to investigate Swatting. But I truly believe it was a waste of Chambliss time as well as the other 85 members of Congress to send letters to a bigot jerk. To me it just looks like they were doing something to look good, knowing full well Holder isn’t going to do anything about it. If they truly wanted Holder to move on Swatting they should of added sticks to those letters and stop screwing the American people. I guess you can tell I don’t have much faith in our leaders. They betrayed out trust. They need to earn our trust back, not making themselves look good, acting like their doing something for us.

 

Senator Chambliss Demands More Action from Attorney General on SWATtings by Liberty Chick over at Big Government

 

Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) today sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder regarding the recent incidents of SWAT-tings, and has demanded a more thorough response to the earlier letter he sent on June 6, 2012. In Wednesday’s letter, Senator Chambliss emphasized the dangers that SWAT-ting presents, and warned “When innocent people are handcuffed, children witness their parents treated as criminals, helicopters overhead awaken the neighbors and the victim realizes that one wrong move by him or his family could lead to irreversible catastrophe, there is overwhelming cause for concern.” Since Chambliss' initial letter was sent to Holder, another SWATting has occurred.

Chambliss also noted his concern that the recent SWAT-tings may be used as a tool for silencing political speech.

On June 11, 2012, more than 85 members of Congress sent a similar letter to Holder, demanding that the Department of Justice investigate the recent incidents of SWAT-tings.

Chambliss called upon Holder to elaborate on whether any federal laws have been violated and on whether local criminal authorities are adequately equipped to investigate such incidents. The senator has demanded a response from Holder’s office by July 27, 2012.

The letter appears below in full.  You can also read the press release and letter here at the Senator's website.

July 11, 2012

Dear Attorney General Holder:

As you recall, I wrote to you on June 6, 2012, over the trend of SWAT-ting cases that apparently target political commentators. Since then, at least one additional incident has been reported.

On a June 6 phone call, you personally assured me that you would give special attention to my inquiry on this matter. On June 29, my office received a cursory, boilerplate response from the acting assistant attorney general in the office of legislative affairs that did not address the substance of the issue at hand. With that in mind, I am asking for a more substantive response to my initial inquiry and for illumination on the following points:

The department letter states the Federal Bureau of investigation and its law enforcement partners are working the telecommunications industry to address this issue. A SWAT-ting story from February 2008 on the FBI's public website also states that," law enforcement agencies at all levels are currently working with telecommunications providers around the country to help them address SWAT-ting activity." After four years, I believe that Congress needs additional information to aid in our understanding of this cooperation.

The department letter also mentions that the FBI has investigated some instances of SWAT-ting directly, but that the majority of cases have been investigated at the local level. As my initial letter stated, I have no doubt that local law enforcement is reviewing each incident, but I ask that you," look into these cases as well to determine if any federal laws have been violated." Your response was notably silent on whether this has happened. Why are the majority of cases investigated at the local level if there is a strong possibility that federal laws have been violated?

Finally, the department letter indicates a willingness to work with Congress to determine whether existing criminal authorities are adequate to address this problem. In advance of any discussion regarding sufficiency of existing criminal statutes, it would seem necessary for Congress to have a better understanding of how the department has attempted to apply those existing provisions, a point on which your letter was also silent. In order to better inform us, please provide examples of where the department believes existing criminal authorities, when applied to these cases, are potentially inadequate.

I remain extremely concerned about the danger SWAT-ting presents, and am worried about its use as a tool for silencing political speech. You and your department should be equally worried about these attempts at intimidation.

To date, no one has been harmed during these dangerous acts, but when an unsuspecting family is awakened in the middle of the night by police with guns drawn rushing into their bedrooms, all of the elements are in place for a tragedy. When innocent people are handcuffed, children witness their parents treated as criminals, helicopters overhead awaken the neighbors and the victim realizes that one wrong move by him or his family could lead to irreversible catastrophe, there is overwhelming cause for concern. An issue of such gravity is deserving of more than a cursory response from your department.

I hope you will take this opportunity to more thoroughly address my concerns. Delay in addressing this issue could prove disastrous. Again, I appreciate your attention to this matter, and look forward to your response by July 27, 2012. Please feel free to contact my office with any questions or comments you may have.

Very truly yours,

Saxby Chambliss

A note to Liberty Chick, please forgive me for adding on you masterpiece article.

Conservatives Got Suckered Again In Obamacare Decision By Vik Rubenfeld

 

Conservatives Got Suckered Again in Obamacare Decision by Vik Rubenfeld over at Big Government

 

We Conservatives keep playing by "nice guy" rules and still screwed. We all recognize how John McCain blew it in 2008 by refusing to criticize Obama for:

• His 20-year history of close ties with people who hate America and say so.
• His official position is that he had no idea what his close friend Reverend Wright was like.
• How he was raised from the ages of 6 to 10 in Jakarta, Indonesia, and as a result does not have the deep understanding of America and love for it that an American President needs to have if he is to take every possible action for the good of this country and its citizens.
• His claims to have no Muslim background, despite having a Muslim father, a Muslim middle name, and being able to recite the first prayer in the Koran from memory, in Arabic.
• Video in which Obama says "We are no longer a Christian nation - at least not just...."
• His opposition to things necessary for a strong economy, like drilling.
• His irrational desire to nearly double the capital gains tax, which would result in lowering tax revenue to the U.S. government, not in raising it.
• etc.

McCain refused to do serious criticism of Obama and as a result lost the election.

We Conservatives thought we had learned the lesson of that. But the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare proves that as a group we haven't learned a thing.

All through the months SCOTUS was considering its Obamacare ruling, Obama himself and many surrogates were in the media playing Chicago politics with the Supreme Court: using threats to intimidate the supreme judges of our nation.

• April: Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law
• May: Obama Warns Supremes: Don't Overturn Healthcare Reform
• May: Senator Leahy Threatens Justice Roberts In Advance of the Obamacare Decision

We Conservatives responded only by attempting a rap on the knuckles those on the left seeking to threaten, intimidate, and thereby coerce the highest court in the land:

• Mitch McConnell Warns Obama To 'Back Off' Supreme Court Justices
• Obama Risks Backlash by Warning Top Court
• Republicans slam Obama over warning to 'unelected' Supreme Court

That was our tepid response to threats issued against SCOTUS. It was as if a robber were holding up a man at gun-point in the street, and Conservatives responded by publishing opinions to the effect that the robber wasn't behaving very well. 

Read More

1776: Independence Did Not Come In A Day By Dan Riehl

 

1776: Independence Did Not Come in a Day by Dan Riehl over at Big Government

 

Initially, John Adams thought July 2nd would be used to mark America's independence from Britain. July 2nd was the day the Continental Congress voted in favor of Richard Henry Lee's motion for independence. It was actually the 2nd when Adams wrote to his wife, the second "will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival" that would include "Pomp and Parade...Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other."

In fact, Lee's motion for independence was first introduced a month before on June 7th to heated debate and, while it wasn't voted on, a five-man committee to draft a formal statement of independence was formed. It was comprised of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin and Robert R. Livingston. Jefferson took the lead and is largely credited with authoring the Declaration of Independence, formally adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4th 1776, thus our American Independence Day was born.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Yet, for many Americans, it wasn't until the War of 1812, again, with Britain, that the day took on added significance. And it took until 1870 for Congress to make July 4th a federal holiday. Looking back, the man who introduced the original motion, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, didn't even favor the U.S. Constitution. But he did place states rights before federalism. How's that for a revolutionary idea in this day and age?

Read More

Democrats Show Disrespect For the Dead Of Fast And Furious

 

I agree with what Kent Terry said. The Democrats rather protect their own then see justice done.

Exclusive -- Border Patrol Agent's Brother Kent Terry, Jr Reacts to CBC Walkout by Mary Chastain over at Big Government

 

While Attorney General Eric Holder was held in contempt of Congress, it was a bittersweet day for the family of slain Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. The disrespect the Democrats showed Agent Terry was appalling, including the Congressional Black Caucus walking out on the contempt vote.

Agent Terry's brother Kent responded to the walkout in a grieved email:

Very sad that our childish Government walks out. What kind of respect? Does that tell you they're for getting justice for Brian and [Jaime] Zapata and any law enforcement that dies in the line of duty? This is the respect they get.

The families of Agent Terry and the 300+ dead Mexicans deserve justice, and it is telling that members of Congress are more interested in protecting one of the most powerful, sheltered men in the country rather than pursuing that justice.

Berkeley Man Murdered While Police Monitor #OccupyOakland March

 

This so sad. Police monitored Occupy Oakland march while a man gets murdered. When is Oakland going to get rid of these parasites.

 

Berkeley Man Murdered While Police Monitor #OccupyOakland March by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro over at Big Government

A 67-year old Berkeley man who was attacked in his own home desperately called a non-emergency line for help, but police were too busy to respond while they monitored an Occupy Oakland march.

 

Peter Cuckor, the owner of a nearby logistics firm was allegedly murdered by Daniel Jordan Dewitt, a 23-year old Alameda man with a mental illness who trespassed onto Cuckor’s property. The two reportedly did not know one another, and Dewitt was located only a block from Cuckor’s large Tilden Park home after the slaying occurred.

 

Read More

 

Related Article:

1. Berkeley Man Beaten To Death While Police Too Busy Monitoring Occupy Oakland Protest To Respond…

American Majority Racing And NASCAR

 

American Majority Racing and NASCAR by Ned Ryun over at Big Government

On Thursday, American Majority launched an unprecedented program to engage NASCAR fans this year and promote fiscally conservative values on Fox News. American Majority Racing is a year-long project in conjunction with MacDonald Motorsports, challenging millions of race fans to “Pledge to Vote to Keep America Free.” Car #81, driven by rising NASCAR star Jason Bowles, is going to be on the track for the entire Nationwide series in 2012.

 

The effort will also be off the track, activating and educating fans through a state-of-the-art booth on vendor’s row and special outreach at the campgrounds surrounding the races. If fans aren’t registered to vote, we’ll be doing that as well. There will be race car simulators, contests, a show car and American Majority Racing “swag” at the booth – all of which will be messaged encourage increased participation by fans. NASCAR fans are the American majority and as such, should have a louder, stronger voice in the direction this nation takes.

 

People have asked why “Keep America Free.” As my friends over at The Frontier Lab pointed out, if you were to compress our Founders’ lives, actions and writings into three words they would be this: keep America free. It’s a very simple message, but one that we know will resonate with NASCAR fans. They believe that America needs to be protected from the triple threat of big government, massive debt and over taxation. 

 

Read More