Immigration Records suggest elder Obama forced to leave Harvard

This is the Father that Obama never knew who is the main person in Obama's book, Dreams from my Father, that most likely Bill Ayers ghost wrote for Obama.

Things seem to be falling apart in Obamaland. Imagine one of the reasons that the Obama, the Father, was forced to leave Harvard while studying for his PhD was that Harvard didn't know how many wives he had. Some father figure that is. The father that should cost Obama the Presidency because his being a British subject from Kenya means that Obama is not a 'natural' born citizen. Personally think the elder Obama seems like pretty much of a scumbag.

Harvard didn't like his lack of finances either so his student visa to get his PhD from Harvard was not granted and he had to go back to Kenya. Would bet there is more to this story.

Maybe the Democrats should have done a background check on Obama before they decided in 2004 that he would be the chosen one in 2008. Bad choice and now the Country is paying for it along with the Middle East. If a clerk-typist for the government is required to have a background investigation for a Top Secret clearance, then why aren't all our candidates running for Congress and the Presidency and Vice Presidency required to do the same. A secrecy oath is required by Congress:

Congress relies on a variety of mechanisms and instruments to protect classified information in its custody. These include House and Senate offices responsible for setting and implementing standards for handling classified information; detailed committee rules for controlling access to such information; a secrecy oath for all Members and employees of the House and of some of its committees; security clearances and nondisclosure agreements for staff; and formal procedures for investigations of suspected security violations. Public law, House and Senate rules, and committee rules, as well as custom and practice (including informal arrangements), constitute the bases for these requirements

If I was a spy, I would not hesitate to sign a secrecy oath -- with no background investigation, who would know. If you are running for Congress or President/Vice President, there is not even a routine background check performed that is required now to get a job in a lot of places.

If you judged Obama by the company he has kept since coming back to the United States from Indonesia, he couldn't get a security clearance and a background investigation would read like a who's who of unAmerican people. The investigators wouldn't look kindly on his being mentored by Franklin Marshall Davis, a communist, had communist leaning grandparents and mother, hung out with the domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dorhn, etc. No one would be granted a security clearance with his background but now he is serving in the highest office in America because the Democrats only say a way to get the Presidency did no further checking into his background. After all they could use the word racist against the rest of us who didn't support him.

Looks like all Obama had to do was smooze enough Democrats from Illinois after taking out the Republican to get elected to the Senate, get a diplomatic passport, and then convince people he was the chosen one in 2004 to run in 2008. Obama even convinced Soros to switch from Hillary to him. Obama become President without even a background check and then sealed all his records. He releases what is obviously a phoney birth certificate once and most likely twice. The birth certificate names Barack Obama as the Father who is British which makes Obama, a Constitutional Law adjunct professor, unable to be President but what does the Constitution matter when the Democrats and the mainstream media have found their chosen one who can walk on water?

Will someone please explain after Obama releases what he claims is the official birth certificate without a seal, how he is going to run again since he is not a 'natural' born citizen that is required by the Constitution.

Obama is serving illegally as our President and anyone with a conscience would step down and say he didn't understand which we wouldn't believe but we would be most happy to see him go. Maybe then our healthcare system, our economy, the Middle East, and whatever he has next up his sleeve to tank American can be righted.

Files suggest elder Obama forced to leave Harvard

BOB SALSBERG Associated Press
Published: April 29, 2011

BOSTON (AP) — Newly obtained federal immigration records indicate that President Barack Obama's father was forced to leave Harvard University in 1964 before finishing his doctorate in economics because the school was concerned about his personal life and finances.

Files suggest elder Obama forced to leave Harvard According to immigration memos, Barack Obama Sr.'s request to extend his stay in the U.S. was denied and he returned to his native Kenya.

One memo said Harvard administrators were unsure about Obama's financial arrangements and "couldn't seem to figure out how many wives he had."

The Boston Globe first obtained the documents through a Freedom of Information request.

Harvard says in a statement that it could not find any information to support the account in the government documents.

The federal Homeland Security Department said Friday it does not comment on specific immigration cases.

Source: The Oklahoman

It is so nice of Harvard not to find any information to support the claim and explain why he left Harvard early -- the cover up now has gone to the Father. What else is being covered up by the man who claimed he was going to have the most transparent government ever when he became President and has the least. Cannot believe Obama has the nerve to run again.

When AP starts putting out articles like this, the people in Obamaland better start worrying.

Constitution Requires a 'Natural' Born Citizen to be President

Consider the fact that if the Obama birth certificate released yesterday is legitimate, Obama is not eligible to be President as he is not a 'natural' born citizen of the United States. As we stated in the article below this one on Tuesday, the difference between 'native' born and 'natural' born only applies to those people running for President and Vice President.

Why the media and radio pundits are wanting to move on is beyond the comprehension of many of us unless they don't understand what the Constitution says about who is eligible to be President or Vice President. We think that is pretty important, but for some the fact he was born in this Country is all they want to know. Conservatives dissing the Constitution are not something I thought I would ever see.

If you review the facts on the Birth Certificate, if legit, it shows his Mother was not old enough according to the laws in place at the time to confer citizenship on Obama and his Dad was a British citizen from Kenya. It takes two parents who are United States citizens to bestow natural born status on their child -- native born or naturalized parents makes no difference and neither does location of the birth.

What is so hard to understand about that fact and why wasn't the birth certificate challenged by members of Congress when Obama decided to run? This is a basic Constitution Law on Presidential and Vice Presidential eligibility and there has been no amendment changing the Constitution. Anyone running for President knows if both their parents were American citizens when they were born. Obama, the so-called Constitutional Adjunct Professor, had to have known but ran anyways spitting on the Constitution and our elected officials never said a peep.

Those same Democrat elected officials in the Senate required John McCain to prove his eligibility because he was born to two United States citizens in the Panama Canal Zone.  Since his parents were both United States citizens with his Dad serving in the Navy, he was declared eligible to run by the Senate. Obama's Father was a British subject but they never required him to submit his birth certificate. Why? Because they knew he wasn't eligible and thought no one would care?

Why don't American citizens especially those in the military have standing in the Court to challenge the eligibility of the President? After all he is our President and the military's Commander in Chief.  If he is not eligible to run the American public has a right to know.

By all documentation, Obama is serving as President illegally. We would hate to think that Harvard Law taught Constitutional Law that 'natural' and 'native' born were interchangeable. Obama has a reading Comprehension problem if he doesn't know the difference between 'natural' and 'native' born. We believe he has known all along and Obama and his cronies have been trying to find away around the law but is is no way to spin the Constitution so they hope it all goes away with the releasing of the birth certificate, if legit. 

In fact when he was born, his mother was too young to give him American citizenship according to the laws on the books at the time. It is not where you are born, but who your parents are. We suspect he has known all along and so have most elected Democrat leadership but figure if he was in office for more than two years, no one would dare stand up and ask him to leave office. You cannot resign an office if you were not eligible to hold office.  Obama is probably right that no member of Congress would stand up and tell the President that is ineligible to be President.  Now we know why we had all the voter fraud in 2006 and 2008 out of the Democrats to take Congress because they knew a Republican Senate would question Obama's eligibility.  Looks like Obama was set to run for President in 2004 by Democrat leadership.

Was the Clinton silence, after initially bringing up the fact he wasn't eligible to run, bought by naming Hillary Secretary of State?  Is that what that lunch between Bill Clinton and Obama was all about?

We are shocked he is running for President again and this time our elected officials need to stand up and be counted. What do you think the media and Democrats would be saying if Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal announced they were running for President? They were be screaming all over the place demanding to see not only their birth certificates but the naturalization papers of their parents. Why did Obama get a pass and continues to get a pass today?

Decide for yourself after reading the article by Bob Unruh below if Obama is eligible to be President:

BORN IN THE USA?
Obama challengers: Doc proves president ineligible'They are going to have to face the music on this at some point'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 27, 2011
8:07 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

President Barack Obama in the Oval Office April 4, 2011
The "Certificate of Live Birth" document released by the White House today, if authentic, assures Americans that their president was born in Hawaii as he has said, according to two participants in a lawsuit who challenged the president's tenure in the Oval Office.

But they say it also proves he's ineligible under the Constitution's requirements to be president.

According to Mario Apuzzo, the attorney who argued the Kerchner vs. Obama case, and the lead plaintiff, retired Navy Cmdr. Charles Kerchner, the documentation reveals that Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan national subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, was the father when Barack Obama Jr. was born.

That, they say, would disqualify Obama because of the Founders' requirement in the Constitution that a president be a "natural born Citizen," commonly understood during the era of the beginnings of the United States to mean a citizen offspring of two citizen parents.

(snip)

They quote Vattel's 1758 "The Law of Nations," a document used widely by the American Founders, where it states in Vol. 1, Ch. 19, Section 212: "natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

His organization, ProtectOurLiberty.org, also explains that under the British Nationality Act of 1948, when Obama was born in 1961 he was a British subject.

The goal, according to Apuzzo, was to avoid a president with divided loyalties – to America and to another nation to which his father or mother owed loyalty.

"This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) at the time of birth assure that one is born with sole natural allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives)," the organization explains.

"Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and sole natural allegiance from birth only for the president and commander in chief of the military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to make decisions for our national survival. It is required of the president because such a status gives the American people the best chance that a would-be president will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation.

"The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the constitutional Republic, the office of president and commander in chief of the military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the 'natural born Citizen' clause that gives the American people the best chance to keep it that way."

He said in American jurisprudence "there is not one case that says being born to an alien parent creates a natural born citizen."

But Apuzzo said the White House simply wants to ignore the Constitution's demand.

"It doesn't say born," he said. "They want to steamroll over 'natural born.'"

He said the problem, however, is getting a court to decide the dispute he raised. The seven or eight dozen cases brought so far largely have been turned back without a review of their actual merits.

Courts decided that plaintiffs don't have "standing," or an injury or possible injury from a violation of the U.S. Constitution, so the cases are thrown out.

Apuzzo said, however, with the flood of state proposals being considered at the legislative level, at some point a law specifically will give a plaintiff standing, and then a dispute could be argued in the state courts.

(snip)

Read more: Obama challengers: Doc proves president ineligible

Natural Born Citizen versus Native Born Citizen

It is not about the birther movement but that every American citizen has a right to know if ANY candidate for President meets the eligibility requirements to run as a 'natural' born citizen which means having two American citizens as parents. If one parent is not an American citizen, then the person is ineligible to run for President. How hard is that to understand?

Most of us learned in civics that to be 'natural' born, you had to be born to two American parents on American soil or your parents had to be in the military or Government employees. In doing the research it looks like that has evolved to two American citizens would be able to convey natural born citizenship to their baby even if the child was born overseas. In the case of Obama that part doesn't matter as his Dad was a British subject at the time of his birth.

We find the fact that Donald Trump is not afraid to ask the tough questions and is shining the light on this issue of 'natural' born refreshing. Trump is getting crucified in the media and by some Republican/conservative pundits/candidates for daring to question Obama. Why? What is being hidden? Sarah Palin immediately backed Trump in his quest to find the truth, but where are the other candidates and some Governor's? Cowering in a corner somewhere or coming out saying Obama was born in Hawaii? They miss the boat as where he was born is irrelevant if one parent is not an American citizen. His mother was only 17 and not old enough at that time to convey citizenship, but putting that aside, Barack Obama was a British subject at the time of Obama's birth which makes Obama ineligible to ever run for President or Vice President.

Today we see once again that CNN is carrying the water for Obama saying he was born in Hawaii. Hate to break the news to CNN but if Barrack Obama was Obama's father then he is does NOT meet the eligibility requirements to run for President or Vice President.

This is not only about Obama but any potential candidate where his parents came to this Country and were not Naturalized American citizens when the baby was born. Very simple to understand but it is going over the heads of so many people that we decided to dedicate a blog post to Natural Born versus Native Born.

There are only two positions, President and Vice President, in the United States Constitution where natural born is required which rules out dual citizenship at anytime in the life of the candidate. That would affect any candidate born in this Country whose parents were not naturalized or native born citizens at the time of the candidate's birth.

Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Decided to look further into what is a natural born citizen and found a website dealing with the subject of a natural born citizen:

Justice Hugo Black in DUNCAN v LOUISIANA Indicates Obama Would Not Be Eligible: Ineligibility Echoed by Former Attorney General Jeremiah Black

According to Justice Black, Bingham’s words uttered on the floor of the House are the most reliable source. Bingham made three statements, none of them challenged on the Floor, which indicate that a natural born citizen is a person born on US soil to parents who were US citizens. Obama does not fit that description since, at the time of his birth, his father was a British subject.

Obama’s own web site, throughout the entire 2008 Presidential campaign, stated that his birth status was governed by the United Kingdom:

“As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.”

ATTORNEY GENERAL JEREMIAH BLACK

According to a July 18, 1859 official proclamation by former Attorney General Black (as reported in the New York Times on July 20, 1859), only those who never owed fealty to another nation may be President:

“Here none but a native can be President…A native and a naturalized American may therefore go forth with equal security over every sea and through every land under Heaven…They are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe fealty elsewhere, and the other, at the time of his naturalization…threw off, renounced and abjured forever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, State and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. “

Here again we see a person in high office stating that to be President one must never have owed fealty to another nation. We see the true legal requirement that the President never owed allegiance to any foreign sovereign. This clean natural citizenship is one which can only be present at birth. Since the naturalized citizen can’t be President because he once owed allegiance to a foreign nation, the same goes for any other citizen who owed allegiance to a foreign nation.

Obama admits to having owed fealty, aka allegiance, to the United Kingdom at the time of his birth. Therefore, upon the authority of Representative Bingham, Justice Black and Attorney General Black, Obama is not eligible to the office of President.

If "Dreams from my Father" is correct and the birth certificate says that Barrack Obama is the father then as stated before Obama regardless of place of birth was not eligible to run for President as his father was a British subject. If the parents were naturalized citizens and gave birth, the baby would be a natural born citizen as his parents were citizens of the United States at the time of his birth.

Too many people mix up American citizen with what the requirements are to run for President. If a child is born to Mexican citizens in the United States that child is an American citizen but cannot run for President as both parents were not American at the time of the birth. If the Mexican parents become naturalized citizens before the birth of their child, then the child is a natural born citizen.

More from the American Thinkeron the subject:

Native born” means someone born on U.S soil. “Natural born” means born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. If the Founding Fathers had meant “native born” they would have written “native born” in the U.S. Constitution, but they didn't. They wrote: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." They specifically stated “natural born Citizen,” a term which all educated persons at the time knew meant, per the nomenclature of the time, born on U.S. soil to citizen parents.

The United States Constitution was written in clear and concise terms by extremely intelligent and articulate men. To claim or act as if natural born means nothing more than born on U.S. soil assaults both the U.S. Constitution and the great intelligence of the Founding Fathers. That most Americans are poorly educated these days is no justification whatsoever for violating, or advocating violating, the United States Constitution. As for Hussein Obama, if somebody gets away with murder that does not mean that all murders should henceforth get a pass. Again, why is American Thinker posting articles that advocate making war on the United States Constitution?

The American Thinker is about as clear and concise as you can get and leaves us with the question of "Why are the pundits and some Republican candidates who want to 'move on to other subjects' ignoring that part of the equation?" The words racist, birther, etc. has been used to describe anyone who dares to question Obama on his qualifications to be President. Why? If his Dad was Barrack Obama as alleged in the book, then he had no right to run for President no matter where he was born. If his Dad was not Barrack Obama, then we have a right to know who was the father and was he an American citizen.  If that is the case then we know Obama perpetrated a fraud on the citizens of the United States pretending to be a son of Kenya.

There has also been discussion about being born on foreign soil to two United States citizens if the child would be considered a natural born citizen. We know for a fact that children of military or US Government employees stationed overseas would give their child natural born status. But what about others?

The various sites have a lot of discussion that has been in the courts including the Supreme Court about what it takes to give a citizenship status versus a natural born citizen.

The 14th Amendment requires “exclusive allegiance” to the United States either at birth or at the time of naturalization.

This rules out dual citizenship which a child is given if one parent is from another Country and requires that child to renounce one of the citizenship's at 18 during the time period we are discussing with Obama. Know for a fact that is the case as I have two cousins born to an English Mom and American Dad who at 18 had to decide with Country to declare their allegiance.

It also would seem to state that if two American citizens have a child overseas, they can convey 'natural' born status to their child. That part may be up for debate but the part that both parents have to be American citizens is not.

Why was John McCain required to provide proof he was eligible to run when his parents were in the military and he was born out of the Country while his Dad was on deployment to the Canal Zone? Best guess we have is that they wanted to make sure that both parents were American citizens and that would give John McCain natural born status. Why didn't the same Senate require Obama to provide the same detailed information?

Will someone explain why it is so wrong for American citizens to want to know the background of a Presidential candidate including birth certificate, school, passport, and health records, where a candidate has spent their life and who were his friend and mentors? Seems pretty clear cut if you are going to run for President, that you are going to be an open book, but guess we were wrong. According to some pundits, we have no right to know anything about Obama except what he tells us in his books especially "Dreams from my Father" which is now widely considered to be written by Bill Ayers with some of the material about Ayers not Obama. Why do we not have a right to know about the man who was elected President with almost 'zero' background available and what was available is up for debate?

We hope this has cleared up the distinction between native born and natural born because there is a definite difference.

Roger Hedgecock: Donald Trump: The new Perot?

Some friends from San Diego first told me I would really enjoy listening to Roger Hedgecock's program and they were correct. Many times I have turned into his program on the net and never am disappointed.  This latest article from Hedgecock says what a lot of us have been thinking and what is driving the elitist, establishment Republicans up a wall.  Former President George HW Bush and his cronies who support Romney most likely are behind the pit bull, Rove who has gone way over the top with his attacks on Trump.  Unlike some others Rove has taken out, The Donald is fighting back!

For any one who doesn't know, Karl Rove got his start thanks to George HW Bush while he was the head of the RNC during the Nixon years and is still loyal. Bush 41 pushed Mitt Romney in 2008 and is once again pushing him for President. Why? Makes no sense unless it is the connection to his Dad. Romney does not go over well with a lot of the activists and grassroots. Most of us went to McCain instead of Romney which speaks volumes.

Donald Trump has tapped into the Republican grassroots community because unlike what so many of the GOP candidates are doing by being differential to Obama and his Administration, Trump is taking them on with their failed policies and Obama's secret records.

If I see one more political official say they know that Obama was born in Hawaii and let's move on, I am going to scream. First of all, how do they know where he was born as the Certificate of Live Birth is useless. At that time any Tom, Dick, or Harry could walk up to their local issuing place and give the details of when a child was born with zero proof and then fill out the birth announcement for the paper to go along so the birth would be announced. Hawaii was looking for citizens which is even more reason for Obama to provide the long form. 

Can guarantee you that if any Republican wouldn't release their records, the Obama media would never stop demanding access to the records.  Look what happened to Pres GW Bush on his grades which he finally released. They never quit on his guard records actually reporting on phony records that were proved false but it didn't stop Dan Rather from continuing to say the documents were not correct but it didn't make them not true. HUH?

Donald Trump is willing to say what needs to be said thus tapping into support of the grassroots who are tired of the elites deciding who to run as being witnessed right now as Rove and others try to take out Trump and it is not working.

Trump is as appalled at the waste and corruption riddling the Obama government as more and more Americans are. Trump has put his reputation on the line, betting that his saying what everyday Americans are thinking will help shape the 2012 debate, force politicians to address the fiscal emergency and maybe even propel him into the White House.

I don't know about the latter, but if Trump succeeds in speaking for an increasingly gloomy America and makes the 2012 election a real debate about solutions, he will have performed a patriot's duty and, like Perot, be honored by his countrymen for his sacrifice.

If Trump makes it to the White House, I'm sure critics will have plenty of fodder for columns like this one, but who else would you rather have as president negotiating for America? I'll take the author of "The Art of the Deal."

Roger Hedgecock is correct who he would rather have negotiating for America -- we agree with him the author, Donald Trump, who wrote "The Art of the Deal" because Trump will be a tough negotiator.

Donald Trump: The new Perot?
Roger Hedgecock
Posted: April 25, 2011
1:00 am Eastern

Donald Trump, like Ross Perot 20 years ago, is a rich, successful, supremely confident salesman and patriot intensely dissatisfied with the competence of the present ruling political elite of both parties.

Trump is speaking out and speaking truth to Obama power like no one else. Like Perot before him, he's used to speaking his mind in blunt terms. He's not beholden to anyone. He scares the ruling elite. To the establishment, Trump has gone rogue.

I've seen this movie before.

In 1992, rich outsider Ross Perot loudly voices dissatisfaction that mirrors widespread public concerns not addressed by existing politicians. Insiders panic, fearing the power of a rogue voice unbeholden to the usual agendas and rich enough to be heard.

Critics tear at "gaffes" ("Larry, they doctored the photo"), paranoia ("they tried to kill me"), past business practices (Didn't his business make millions computerizing Medicare?), charge "racism" ("you people") – anything to stop the public from believing and following the outsider.

But Perot seemed right about a lot of things in 1992 and seems more right today than ever.

His prediction about the ultimate insolvency of Medicare was spot on. His opposition to wars not declared by Congress found support then and certainly rings true four ruinous wars and 20 years later. His criticism of NAFTA and "free trade" sounded like evil protectionism in 1992, but sounds like prophesy to many American ears today. Perot's 1992 advocacy of a balanced federal budget brings moans of "if only we had followed that advice" today.

Blocked from the presidential nomination by either party in 1992, Perot sought third-party recognition as the Reform Party in all 50 states, got it, dropped out of the race at the peak of his popularity, dropped back in right before the election and still got nearly 20 percent of the vote – enough to defeat the incumbent and elect Clinton.

Remembering the Perot experience, I doubt the closed-shop mentality of the political class will allow Trump a fair fight for the Republican presidential nomination.

The insider's character assassination of Donald Trump is intensifying.

Can The Donald starring as The Donald in "The Donald" be serious? Isn't this just another stunt to flatter his considerable ego? Critics flacking for the insiders call Trump a "clown," a "birther," "ignorant," "crazy" in print and worse in private.

But the rising hysteria of the insiders is in direct proportion to Trump's exploding out of political nowhere to capture a significant following and the pole position in early presidential opinion surveys.

In 2011, a significant majority of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, that a government-directed economic recovery funded with borrowed trillions is not working, that the Libya war-that-is-not-a-war is wrong on every level.

With persistent high unemployment, jobs fleeing overseas, constant war, government regulation, taxation and nanny state intrusions turning Americans off, Trump is the loudest voice telling us the Emperor has no clothes, no matter what the New York Times says.

When Trump points out that every country in the world except Obama's America is drilling for oil, gas, coal, gold, copper, etc, etc., to make money, create jobs and improve their citizens' standard of living, Americans are listening. Maybe to the Sierra Club it makes sense that we should not use the riches literally bubbling up under our feet, but to Trump and a majority of Americans, this is just plain nuts.

The Chinese are hacking our computers, threatening our aircraft carriers and undermining our economy. Not one American politician wants to talk about this.

Excerpt: Read more: Donald Trump: The new Perot?

For too long our elected officials at times have been very weak and deferential when talking to foreign leaders especially Obama not to mention Clinton or Carter. We loved it when George Bush stood on the ruins of the World Trade Center and told the terrorists:

“I can hear you! I hear you, the rest of the world hears you, and the people who knocked down these buildings will hear all of us soon!” George Bush at WTC site on September 14, 2001

Then he named the Axis of Evil in his speech following 9/11. What happened to that President who wasn't afraid to take on the world?

We need a President who is as tough as nails and stands up for America from day one to the last day of his term. We want a President who the rest of the world respects but fears. We are seeing daily what it is like to have a President who only stands up to our allies like Great Britain and bends over for people who harbor our enemies along with our enemies. Obama has tried his best to get Chavez to really like him but Chavez does not respect a weak President and takes full advantage. Some negotiating team we have -- Obama and Hillary Clinton -- horrible combination.

Right now of all the people who have said they are considering running, only Donald Trump has the proven business and negotiating experience, along with a backbone. The chattering class are being driven up a wall as they once again figured they could choose the next Republican nominee -- not going to happen this time. No more Bob Dole's or John McCain's period -- men who were rewarded by the establishment clearing the way for them to run for President.

This time the establishment is not going to move Donald Trump out of the way no matter what. Americans want a real leader who believes we are an Exceptional Country and no one is going to take advantage of us -- Donald Trump is the ONLY person we see that meets that criteria.

Happy Easter 2011!

Easter Eggs from Innsbruck, Austria

On this Easter morning 2011 as we celebrate the Resurrection of Christ, we have even more to be thankful for as the drought is starting to be broken in Central Oklahoma. The first rain we have seen in months is now falling along with thunder and lightening. We have a lot to be thankful for this morning with the rain as our lakes and ponds have been getting lower and lower. Sitting here watching the yard green up.  Easter egg hunts will be inside this year as the little kids run to fill their Easter baskets with eggs. 

As I was looking for pictures of Easter services, I found these from around the World. There is is always a huge crowd in Vatican Square to hear the Pope's Easter message, the Greek Orthodox celebration is well known, but never thought of services in Baghdad and China. The message of Christianity travels around the world and in some countries it had to be hidden for years but now worshippers can openly celebrate Easter in their churches. 

Easter in Vatican Square



Bejing China -- Christians worship at Xishiku cathedral





Istanbul, Turkey: The Greek Orthodox spiritual leader Bartholomew I
leads the Easter ceremony at St George's church



Baghdad, Iraq: Easter at the Virgin Mary Chaldean church


Have a Blessed Easter Day!





Earth Day 2011

This article sums up a lot of what a lot of us have thought over the years. Like the author I am also conservative but I am also someone who considers herself a conservationist only because the word 'environmentalist' has such a negative connotation in Republican circles today. Admit to using green products in my home to clean because frankly they are better for my allergies and do a better job without the harsh chemical or perfume smells you get. When it comes to light bulbs, I am less than impressed with a light bulb that I have to be careful with because it contains mercury. What was wrong with the old fashioned light bulb that was around forever and did very well?  Light bulbs is one area where the environmentalists went nuts trying to dictate how we live.

There was an article yesterday making its rounds about how you could save so much energy by turning off your cable box, computer, TV, etc. Don't know about anyone else but if you turn the cable box here, it is going to take at least 10 minutes to get the signal back and sometimes it takes calling the cable company. So to save a few pennies I am going to go through the hassle of rebooting every day -- not going to happen. My computer goes into suspend mode when I am not using it but I do not intend to turn it off every night. Only time I shut down everything is when I am gone for a few days or a severe electrical storm is in the area.

Don't understand why Republicans don't speak out more on how the environment can be improved. Do you want clean air and water? I certainly do. When President Bush did his 'Clean Air Initiative,' some conservatives made all kinds of sarcastic remarks which made no sense.

There has to be a happy medium between the environmentalist who want to put people last in their mission to make it better for the animals like little spiders then for humans and the people on the right who want to be able to do anything with the land and air as it is their right to litter or pollute. Common sense would go a long way in this discussion.

How about every Earth Day plant a bush, a tree, a vegetable plant, herbs, etc. to celebrate Earth Day. Spend a lot of time outdoors -- have a vegetable garden, roses, bushes, trees and various flowers around my home. This year I am going to plant a dwarf sour cherry tree as my contribution to the environment not to mention I love pie cherries. 

We were given this earth to take care so each of us needs to do our part without going over the edge like some environmentalists. Use 'Common Sense' and the place we live will be a better place for today's children as they grow.

Happy Earth Day (Final Installment)April 23, 2011 Posted by Steven Hayward at 10:16 AM

A commenter on a previous installment of my Earth Day series here offers a challenge that I hear a lot in various forms:

I've been a social and fiscal conservative for as long as I can remember. One thing I don't understand about my fellow conservatives is their contempt for environmental protection and those that support such protections. It seems to me that conserving the environment would be a significant part of the conservative ideology. When will conservatives put forth a realistic environmental policy of their own? Why concede the issue to the liberals? Something better than "we don't hurt anything" or "it'll grow back" is desperately needed!

As it happens, this is a subject I've written quite a lot about, including a lecture entitled "Is 'Conservative Environmentalist' an Oxymoron?" The short answer is "No," but in the spirit of Mark Twain's comment (or was it Groucho Marx?) that he'd never belong to any club that would have him as a member, I don't call myself an environmentalist because of the company I'd have to keep. (Actually I recently joined the board of an environmental organization that does real honest to goodness, hands-on conservation work, but no political lobbying.)

It is forgotten today that, for example, Barry Goldwater was a member of the Sierra Club, but the fact that not even Goldwater's maverick, pro-environment successor, John McCain, could conceivably belong to the Sierra Club today (they probably wouldn't accept him anyway) tells the whole story in a nutshell. The environmental movement, like the civil rights movement before it whose natural home for a long time was the Republican Party, moved sharply and swiftly to the left in the early 1970s, and is today a wholly-owned adjunct of the Democratic Party. After an early bipartisan start, the movement got taken over by people like New Republic columnist James Ridgeway, who wrote around 1973: "Ecology offered liberal-minded people what they had longed for, a safe, rational and above all peaceful way of remaking society...[and] developing a more coherent central state..."

As I mentioned in a short squib in the New York Times "Room for Debate" blog on Thursday, "It is all but forgotten today that the Endangered Species Act had considerable conservative support in the 1970s; one of its chief co-sponsors was conservative Senator James Buckley (William F. Buckley's brother); Newt Gingrich still defends the act, but gets no credit for it whatsoever from environmentalists." Another data point: the first President Bush made passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 a major legislative priority, securing the last significant bipartisan environmental legislation we've seen, and also attended the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, committing the U.S. to the whole UN global warming process. And how many environmental groups endorsed Bush for re-election? That's right: zero. To the contrary, most environmental groups boycotted the Clean Air Act signing ceremony in 1990 because it wasn't extreme enough for them.

The League of Conservation Voters deliberately crafts its vote-rating scorecards to make Democrats look good and Republicans look bad. I have to say I'm enjoying the irony that if McCain (LCV score: zero) had won the 2008 election instead of Obama (who scored perfectly with the LCV--when he showed up to vote), we'd surely have passed a cap and trade bill, as McCain, who'd co-sponsored earlier cap and trade bills with Joe Lieberman, would have made it a higher priority than health care reform, and would have brought some Republicans along.

It is finally starting to occur to a few environmentalists and journalists who cover the beat like the New Republic's Brad Plumer that their extreme partisanship and ideological rigidly has hurt them, but the environmental establishment's response to their internal critics like Matt Nisbet and the dynamic duo of Shellenberger and Nordhaus has been to stomp their feet and yell louder. Who are the "denialists" now?

Special Earth Day bonus: Don't miss Charles Lane's takedown of China's high speed rail in today's Washington Post. Prediction: this won't make Tom Friedman stop talking nonsense about how awesome China is.

Powerline Blog

We decided to pursue the Special Earth Day Bonus about the High Speed Trains of China. We discovered the system Obama holds up as an example of how the United States should have more high speed trains is in deep trouble. How many business' that Obama's and his Administration took over or are telling what to do will have the same thing said in the months ahead starting with Chrysler:

China’s train wreck


Video: Is China’s high-speed rail a model for U.S. transportation? Based on his travels in China, Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane thinks not.
_________

By CHARLES LANE, Friday, April 22, 8:05 PM

For the past eight years, Liu Zhijun was one of the most influential people in China. As minister of railways, Liu ran China’s $300 billion high-speed rail project. U.S., European and Japanese contractors jostled for a piece of the business while foreign journalists gushed over China’s latest high-tech marvel.

Today, Liu Zhijun is ruined, and his high-speed rail project is in trouble. On Feb. 25, he was fired for “severe violations of discipline” — code for embezzling tens of millions of dollars. Seems his ministry has run up $271 billion in debt — roughly five times the level that bankrupted General Motors. But ticket sales can’t cover debt service that will total $27.7 billion in 2011 alone. Safety concerns also are cropping up.

Faced with a financial and public relations disaster, China put the brakes on Liu’s program. On April 13, the government cut bullet-train speeds 30 mph to improve safety, energy efficiency and affordability. The Railway Ministry’s tangled finances are being audited. Construction plans, too, are being reviewed.

Liu’s legacy, in short, is a system that could drain China’s economic resources for years. So much for the grand project that Thomas Friedman of the New York Times likened to a “moon shot” and that President Obama held up as a model for the United States.

Rather than demonstrating the advantages of centrally planned long-term investment, as its foreign admirers sometimes suggested, China’s bullet-train experience shows what can go wrong when an unelected elite, influenced by corrupt opportunists, gives orders that all must follow — without the robust public discussion we would have in the states.

Attacking Obama over his real estate dealings with convicted Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko

We support Donald Trump on his wanting the American people to see Obama's birth certificate and other records including college records and real estate dealings in Chicago. The American people have a right to see the records and discover why Obama has spent over $2M keeping them sealed. That should be enough money to make anyone wonder including the Obama media.  That would be the day for the Obama media to actually question because most of the MSM is in the Obama camp and have no desire to find the truth and have their bubble burst.

We think that Rezko is a key to the underhanded dealings of Obama in Chicago that date back to when Franklin Marshall Davis first introduced him into Chicago politics. Today Valerie Jarrett, daughter-in-law of Davis' best friend, Vernon Jarrett, sits in the White House near Obama. Then you also have Valerie Jarrett's mother's close relationship with Tom Ayers, Bill Ayers father. Davis and Jarrett were both involved in the Communist party of the USA starting in the 50's along with Obama's grandfather, Stanley Dunham who became friends with Davis in Hawaii. The Dunham's when living in Seattle were members of a left-wing Unitarian church near Seattle. The church located in Bellevue, Washington was nicknamed "the little red church," because of it's communist leanings. All this background leads Obama to Chicago and eventual involvement with Rezko which may be the achilles heel the MSM doesn't want anyone to know about.

Will Donald Trump be able to break through the MSM and their 'Iron Curtain' they have erected around Obama? We are betting the answer is 'YES!' We believe that Canada Free Press may be right that the MSM are concentrating on the birth certificate to keep the Rezko connection quiet.  We will have more in the days ahead as we pull out some of the research from 2008/2009.  We do know that spending $2M to keep records quiet smells and Obama's book, "Dreams from My Father" is not factual and not written by Obama-- we would take that to the bank.  Obama had no relationship with his father but writes a book about him?  It was purely because he was running for President and to make money -- it worked because the MSM was to lazy to investigate that as well.

Attacking Obama over his real estate dealings with convicted Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko
Donald Trump Breaks Through the MSM Iron Curtain


- Fred Dardick Friday, April 22, 2011

Billionaire Donald Trump may be a publicity junkie and questionable presidential material. Athough who am I to say, just look at what we got right now—but he makes for one awesome Obama attack dog. With the self assurance that only money, power and celebrity can buy, Trump has been knocking down the walls the main stream media have erected around the President to expose parts of his background that liberals would prefer never see the light of day.

Trump has raised the issue regarding Obama’s birth certificate from conspiracy theory to legitimate topic of conversation. Finally someone has destroyed the false MSM narrative that a “Certificate of Live Birth” and a birth certificate are the same thing.

Last week Trump raised the stakes by attacking Obama over his real estate dealings with convicted Chicago slumlord Tony Rezko. While MSM reporters have been happily reporting the Trump birther issue, something they believe most Americans will just laugh away, they have not spent anywhere near the same energy publicizing Obama’s connections to Rezko, a story that could really hurt Obama should it become common knowledge.

There is no chuckling away Rezko’s purchase of the lot next to Obama’s Chicago home and the subsequent sale of a strip of land to Obama that “conferred a benefit by helping Obama obtain something he couldn’t otherwise afford”. In other words it was a payoff from a Chicago power player to an up and coming politician for services yet to be rendered. Already the MSM are circling the wagons on this story as a Google News search for “Trump and birther” shows 2,917 results while a search for “Trump and Rezko” yields only 13.

This past week CBS carried water for Obama once again by refusing to release the complete “hot mic” recording of his meeting with Democratic donors. It would seem CBS doesn’t want audio of the President referring “to a group of Americans as ‘slugs’” making it to the airwaves. One can only imagine how quickly it would have been released had the President been named Bush.

Trump has shown that direct confrontation with Obama is the best way forward in 2012 - Trump is only down 2 points to Obama in the latest Newsweek/Daily Beast poll. No longer can Republican candidates pull a John McCain and sit calmly on the sidelines while the liberal controlled media decides which Obama stories are newsworthy and which are not. The more Republicans expose of Obama’s shady past and unethical presidency to the American people, the better chance we have of putting the worst President in modern times behind us.

Source: Canada Free Press.com

Direct confrontation seems to be the ONLY way. While most of our candidates are saying Trump should back off, Donald Trump is doing the right thing to shine the light of truth on Obama and the media is in full meltdown attacking Trump which means he is hitting pay dirt. Why do so many Republicans including candidates want Trump to back off finding the truth on Obama. We are sick and tired of the no backbone candidates we keep getting. If the elitists and establishment of the GOP want to know why Trump is picking up steam -- look no further than their limp wristed approach they have had to Obama putting the birth certificate and records off limits. WHY?

Washington Whispers: Earth Day Ends Obama's 53,300 Gallon Trip

This is one American who could care less about what Obama has to say about Earth Day after wasting our tax dollars flying around the Country for a fundraiser and what was obvious a campaign swing.  This article shows the hypocrisy of Barack Obama for all to see and in particular these two paragraphs:

During his trip, Obama's 30-car motorcade was used to carry him to events. His limo, and there are usually two in the motorcade, gets a high of 8-10 miles per gallon, according to industry estimates, ironic considering his recent criticism of low-mileage cars. In Pennsylvania earlier this month, he mocked low-mileage vehicles that get 8 miles per gallon, like heavy duty work trucks.

"If you're complaining about the price of gas and you're only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know," Obama said laughingly. "You might want to think about a trade-in."

Does this mean he plans on trading in the limos. This 3-day trip was obviously political so is the DNC or Obama campaign going to reimburse the Air Force for approximately $180,000 spent on fuel for Air Force One not to mention crew, food, alcohol, etc? We are not holding our breath!

We have Obama celebrating Earth Day  flying around the Country again on our nickle because he has to  raise money for his campaign from Hollywood. That's obviously more important then anything else on the agenda. The nerve of this President to already start flying around the country on campaign trips when so much is happening in the world and the price of fuel is so high. Maybe Rev Manning is right about Obama and his lifestyle.

Paul Bedard has touched the pulse of the Nation as we are getting sick and tired of all the trips Obama is making at a huge cost to the taxpayer but then tells us to get a more fuel efficient vehicle to drive. Why doesn't Obama just stay home instead of using our tax dollars to campaign?  Pretty soon, it will be obvious to all the Obama never quit campaigning and used the Oval Office to keep his campaign going.  The formal announcement this far in advance was a joke as this man who said "I Won" has been in campaign mode the whole time he has been in office wasting our tax dollars and running up the deficit. 

Washington Whispers

Earth Day Ends Obama's 53,300 Gallon Trip
By Paul Bedard

Posted: April 22, 2011

President Obama declared today's 41st annual Earth Day proof of America's ecological and conservation spirit—then completed a three-day campaign-style trip logging 10,666 miles on Air Force One, eating up some 53,300 gallons at a cost of about $180,000. And that doesn't include the fuel consumption of his helicopter, limo, or the 29 other vehicles that travel with that car.

In a two-page statement issued before leaving Los Angeles, his last stop in a three city-fund-raising tour that also included important policy pronouncements like his plan to probe what's behind high gas prices, Obama proclaimed: "For over 40 years, our nation has come together on Earth Day to appreciate and raise awareness about our environment, natural heritage, and the resources upon which generations of Americans have depended. Healthy land and clean water and air are essential to the health of our communities and wildlife. Earth Day is an opportunity to renew America's commitment to preserving and protecting the state of our environment through community service and responsible stewardship."

[See a slide show of the 10 states that use the least energy.]

His proclamation added, "Our nation has a proud conservation tradition, which includes countless individuals who have worked to safeguard our natural legacy and ensure our children can benefit from these resources. Looking to the future of our planet, American leadership will continue to be pivotal as we confront the environmental challenges that threaten the health of both our country and the globe."

Unfortunately for any president, there is no way around traveling and the high costs of maintaining armored and militarized equipment sometimes make it a political target. The costs of travel by recent presidents have typically been investigated by opposing parties, but because the administrations and Secret Service don't discuss details like fuel consumption, those probes can't be exact in the total costs.

But it is pretty easy to ballpark the costs of most trips, like Obama's three-day tour. He started at the White House on Wednesday, flew out of Andrews Air Force Base and ended up in San Francisco. On Thursday, he flew to Reno and ended the day in Los Angeles. Today, he flew home, via Andrews Air Force Base.

According to the mileage calculator on webflyer.com, those trips total 10,666 air miles. Published reports say that Boeing 747s similar to Air Force One burn about 5 gallons per mile. With companies like Jet Blue now paying $3.37 a gallon, that’s a total fuel cost of $179,621.

(snip)

Excerpt: Read More at US News and World Report

Federal labor board seeks to ground Boeing

Yesterday it came out that the Obama Administration wants to require companies submitting proposals for contracts to include their campaign donations. We thought that was blatantly illegal, but today we seeing the further grab of private industry since the Obama National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) wants to tell Boeing where to locate their new plant when the plant is South Carolina is almost finished..  Why?  Obama and the NLRB want Boeing to put the plant in the non-Right to Work, Blue State, Washington.  They have given no thought to the fact the plant is almost finished in Right to Work, Red State, South Carolina.

Is Obama trying to further alienate Red versus Blue states.  In the process he is going to find that some of the states who went Blue for him in 2008 are going to come back solidly Red in 2012 like Florida.  With this type of coercion against companies, we look for more than just Florida to turn red.  Americans are fed up with Obama telling private industry what to do.  We expect a huge backlash from the voters against the socialist tendencies of Obama and his cronies in 2012.
What right does Obama or any Administration have to tell a privately held company where to locate a new plant? Did Boeing not give enough money to Obama for his campaign or is it the fact they don't want to give this time around?  It is all about the campaign now as Obama lines up his union supporters. 

The Obama Administration is doing more of a power grab by the day and quickly writing off states. Now it is all the Right to Work States who will not be allowed to lure any business from companies in Blue non-Right to Work states because of union demands.  Looks to us like the union leaders are telling Obama to do their bidding in exchange for their help in 2012.  How much voter fraud plus illegal donations did the unions provide to Obama in 2008?

When it dawns on you that the plant is virtually complete but Obama still wants them to relocate to Washington, you get the sick feeling that this President does considers himself a dictator now. Over the years Boeing has lost almost $1.8B since 1989 because of the every three year strikes by Boeing union members but that is okay because Obama wants to reward union members who try to take down the evil management of a company.

Obama is once again going against the vast majority of Americans who believe union workers are coddled and go on strike to take time off. Since OSHA came on the scene to protect workers, what are the reasons for the unions to strike as it not worker safety. The GM plant in Midwest City was closed because they kept doing unsanctioned strikes. Until the building was turned over to the Government for Tinker AFB, some of the union members played cards all day for their full pay.

We have witnessed the mess union members leave behind in Wisconsin with their litter and damage to buildings because they didn't like a law that was being discussed. Will someone tell me why we have teacher unions to start with? Never could believe their striking when their job is to educate our children.

Now we have this latest from Obama and NLRB telling a private company, Boeing, who has almost finished their facility in South Carolina that they are going to have to pick up and move to a Blue State which does not have Right to Work. Has Obama crossed the line?  We believe he has.

Federal labor board seeks to ground BoeingBy: Examiner Editorial 04/21/11 8:05 PM

Can federal bureaucrats tell a private company where to build a factory?

Members of President Obama's National Labor Relations Board think they can. In a decision that even the New York Times is describing as "highly unusual for the federal government," Lafe Solomon, who was appointed to the board by Obama, filed a complaint on behalf of the NLRB on Wednesday seeking to force the Boeing Co. to build an assembly line in Washington state instead of South Carolina. The NLRB action stems from Boeing's October 2009 decision to build a new factory for its new 787 Dreamliner airplane near Charleston, S.C. Boeing first sought to build the new plant near its existing facility in Puget Sound, but negotiations with the International Association of Machinists broke down when the union refused to agree to a long-term no-strike clause. The IAM had struck four times since 1989, costing Boeing at least $1.8 billion in revenue.

That's when Boeing chose South Carolina, a right-to-work state where, unlike Washington, workers are not forced to join unions. As a result of this policy, only 6.2 percent of South Carolinians belong to unions. Construction of Boeing's new Charleston factory is nearly complete, and the company has already hired more than 1,000 new employees, drawn mostly from within the immediate region. And back in Washington, Boeing has actually increased employment at its Puget Sound plant by 2,000 workers. But that isn't good enough for the IAM or the Obama White House. After suffering major defeats in Wisconsin and Ohio, the labor movement is looking for a scalp. Obama's NLRB is trying to turn Boeing into one.

The NLRB is hanging its case on a senior Boeing official's statement to the Seattle Times that "The overriding factor [in transferring the line] ... was that we cannot afford to have a work stoppage, you know, every three years." The NLRB absurdly claims this is "unlawful employer speech" that infringes on "a worker's fundamental" right to strike. But the Supreme Court has long held that firms may consider the economic effect of strikes when making business decisions. Also, Boeing's existing collective bargaining agreement with the IAM allows Boeing to build facilities at other locations. An administrative law judge will hear Boeing's objection to the NLRB's complaint June 14, so there still is hope sanity will prevail. But a decision in favor of the IAM would be a disaster not just for Boeing, but for American workers everywhere. A ruling in favor of Obama's NLRB would make it presumptively illegal for any unionized firm to invest in a right-to-work state.

At first, this would mainly hurt right-to-work states, as they would no longer be able to lure new businesses from existing unionized firms. But over the long run, this policy would hurt unions and all Americans. Why would any domestic company choose to build a factory in a forced-union state if it knew that meant it could never expand to a right-to-work state? Why would any international firm invest anywhere in this country if it knew the White House would favor political allies?

The NLRB isn't protecting workers, it is setting them up for eventual unemployment.

Read more at the Washington Examiner

This latest attempt by Obama to tell private industry where to build their plant is one more reason for Republicans to field a strong candidate in 2012 to take down Obama. That candidate is not any candidate who ran in 2008 in the GOP Primary because if they couldn't beat McCain how does anyone think they will beat Obama. The only one who had the capability of beating Obama, Rudy, couldn't get over the hurdle of the GOP primaries.

Soon after May 22nd, a candidate will announce who will change the dynamics of the race. Stay tuned!

Fox News Insider: Trump on Running in 2012: In My Own Mind I’ve Made the Decision

From the Fox Insider comes this telephone interview with Donald Trump. The buzz keeps growing waiting for that formal announcement.

So, does this mean what we think it does? Find out! Plus, Trump (sort of) tells Alisyn Camerota how much money he’d be willing to spend on a presidential campaign.

May 22nd is the last episode of 'The Apprentice' so how about May 23rd for the formal announcement by Donald Trump? We are looking forward to Donald Trump officially getting in the Republican Primary for President. After a formal announcement, a candidate has 90 days to submit their financial statement -- Donald Trump has just said that he will submit his right away maybe even the day he announces. He is organized and now having to wait until after May 22nd, he will be a well oiled machine hitting the ground running the day he announces.

Since he has a lot of assets and little debt, that is exactly the type of person we need running the Country. Think it is time to have a businessman who understands the bottom line be President because frankly Governors or Senators are not doing well. The last non-politician to run and win was Republican General Dwight D. Eisenhower who began the end to segregation in the south starting in Little Rock, Arkansas. After a highly successful career in the Army he ran for President because he didn't like the way the Country was moving. Donald Trump who is a very successful businessman sounds the same way when you listen to him.

If I was betting in Vegas or Atlantic City on whether Donald Trump is running, my money would be on 'Trump is running' -- not one doubt in my mind or that of many others I know. He brings energy to the Republican primary which is sorely lacking right now. Went from the doldrums of who was running to excitement in a short period of time all thanks to The Donald!

'Contracts for Political Donations?'

This flawed Administration now wants companies bidding on Government contracts to list their political contributions. It is not in place yet, but they are looking to find out how to require the information. If this becomes part of contracting law, then any company's political contributions will be looked at as part of the Source Selection process. Does that include the Union PACs as well?  Could political contributions be used as the determining factor on who gets the award by putting a checkmark beside Democrat contributions and nothing beside Reublican contributions?  Sure sounds like that is the purpose -- this is not transparency but using coercion to get companies to make more donations to Obama and the Democrats in order to get a Government contract.

This should send a chill up every one's spine that in the future a government contract could be awarded based on if you gave to Obama and the Democrats. Might as well put out a sign that says 'No Republican companies need apply.'

What does requiring a company to list their political contributions have to do with the transparency that Obama promised. Zero, zip, nada. You award a contract based on who has the best proposal including costs not on which party or candidate they contributed. Obama and his cronies have sunk to a new low just like everything else they have touched. The logical question would be, "Is Obama hurting for campaign contributions?" Why else would they want such a rider on procurement proposals?

This last paragraph from the article speaks volumes:

Letting contracts be rewarded on the basis of government reviewers' opinions of companies' political activities doesn't sound much like what most Americans presumably think of when they hear talk of ensuring that the government be open and transparent. To the contrary, this sounds like another step in making this the most transparently political administration in history.

As someone who has been around Government contracting from both sides for most of my adult life, I find this latest ploy on the part of Obama and his Administration so blatantly political that I cannot foresee this becoming part of Procurement Law. If the political hacks in this Administration want to know who companies donated, look it up on like the rest of us.  Are their no adults left in the White House?

The Most Transparently Political Administration in History?Obama administration to make government contracts political.
2:46 PM, Apr 21, 2011 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

Under a headline reading, "White House may add politics to contract bids," Washington Technology Daily reports, "The Obama administration is determining how to require companies competing for government contracts to list their political contributions when submitting a contract bid." According to the report, the administration's draft executive order says, "To increase transparency and accountability to ensure an efficient and economical procurement process, every contracting department and agency shall require all entities submitting offers for federal contracts to disclose certain political contributions and expenditures that they have made within the two years prior to the submission of their offer." (The Washington Post’s report on this story is here.)

Far from promoting "transparency," however, the order's effect—and its aim—would seem to be to promote further political cronyism. Would contributions to Republicans—or, say, to groups opposing Obamacare—help a company get a contract awarded to it by this administration? Conversely, how about contributions to the administration’s favorite social causes?

Letting contracts be rewarded on the basis of government reviewers' opinions of companies' political activities doesn't sound much like what most Americans presumably think of when they hear talk of ensuring that the government be open and transparent. To the contrary, this sounds like another step in making this the most transparently political administration in history.

Source: Weekly Standard

Time for the Congress to step in to stop this from happening.  Will be interesting to hear what some of our Senators like Jim Inhofe and Tom Coburn have to say.  You might as well call this latest from the Obama Administration by its rightful name -- 'Contracts for Political Donations.'

Department of Energy's "Innovative Energy Technologies" Guarantees $2.1 billion loan to German firms

Department of Energy chose two Germans firms under the program to guarantee $2.1 billion loan? Are there no American companies that would qualify? There is also no transparency according to GAO and DOE Inspector General. Bad enough the Government guaranteed the loans which was a new program as part of  the 2005 energy bill but then Obama comes along expanding the subsidies and removing the requirement that the recipients provide a 'down payment' to cover the risk. Sounded like a boondoggle from the beginning that has been made worse by Obama.

The 2005 energy bill authorized the Department of Energy to guarantee private bank loans for "innovative energy technologies." President Obama's 2009 stimulus bill expanded the subsidies and removed the requirement that the beneficiary provide a "down payment" of sorts to cover the risk. But the program has consistently received harsh critiques from the Government Accountability Office and the DOE's inspector general.

These two German firms are going to build a solar plant in the Mojave Desert and expect to create 1,000 construction jobs and 220 permanent jobs, but those numbers could fluctuate or not be there at all if this never really gets off the ground. We are talking about spending $2.1 billion for 220 permanent jobs? That is not a very good return. Do they even know if this proposal will work? Hard to tell since there is not very good record keeping at DOE on any of the projects under this program.

Where are they going to find workers to work in the Mojave Desert during the summer. We drove I-15 from San Bernardino to Las Vegas in the first week of August and there was a sign that said turn off your air conditioner for the next 20 miles so not to overheat your engine. We spent the night in Boulder after going to view the dam and at the pool the temperature at 6:30 at night was 115 degrees. Yet they want to put this project out in the desert. There is a reason there is not much there.

Now the taxpayers are on the hook if it fails like other projects in this program have in the past.  Not only are the taxpayers on the hook, but the lender is Deutsche Bank which means if the two German companies fail, the US taxpayer gets to pay a German bank back.  What a sweetheart deal these Germans have gotten from the Obama Administration:

Solar Trust of America is owned 70 percent by German company Solar Millennium and 30 percent by Ferrostaal, also of Germany. One of STA's finance partners is Deutsche Bank, which could end up being the lender. In that case, the guarantee would mean that if a German company fails to repay a German bank, U.S. taxpayers would foot the bill.

Maybe instead of awarding $2.1B to foreign companies, they might want to scrap the program and start over with a program that works as this one obviously has been a failure when you read the money spent and outcomes. Looks like transparency and accountability are non-starters for this program from DOE which mirrors the Obama Administration.

U.S. taxpayers guarantee $2.1b loan to German firms

By: Timothy P. Carney 04/20/11 8:05 PM
Senior Political Columnist http://twitter.com/TPCarney

A federal subsidy program with consistently poor marks on transparency and accountability has just announced its largest ever award: a $2.1 billion loan guarantee to a German-owned solar power company. The Solar Trust of America, the U.S.-based joint venture of two German companies, says the subsidized project will create 1,000 construction jobs and 220 permanent jobs in the desert where the new solar power plant will be built. Maybe so, but there are plenty of reasons to question the efficacy of this government job creation project -- including the fact that the key components of the plant will be built by robots.

(snip)

Federal loan guarantees put the U.S. taxpayer on the hook if the borrower cannot repay the loan. When it comes to nascent technologies in economically dicey industries like energy, default is a serious concern.

"Ability to perform and repay the loan," was one of the important things DOE officers sometimes failed to examine, according to an IG report issued in late 2007. In July 2008, the GAO concluded that "the Department of Energy was not well positioned to manage the Program effectively and maintain accountability," according to one summary. In early 2009, another IG report noted improvements, but still found the program lacking "procedures necessary to estimate potential losses in the event of default." A July 2010 GAO report found the program treating applicants inconsistently.

The latest IG report, issued in March, found widespread shortcomings in documentation and transparency. None of the 18 loan guarantees issued under the program had been properly documented. The program officers "did not always record the results of analyses" of loan applications. Program officers told the IG things about risk management efforts that clashed with the agency's written records.

In short, while there's no hard evidence of clean-energy loan guarantees being given out haphazardly, the Department of Energy can't prove they're being approved with proper care, either.

In this context, the department approved a $2.1 billion guarantee for a solar power plant in the Mojave Desert.

(snip)
STA's Blythe Solar Power Project in California's desert will have no solar panels, but instead uses large parabola-shaped mirrors to focus the sun's energy on a pipe filled with a synthetic oil. The hot oil is piped to a nearby building where it boils water, generating steam, which spins a turbine, generating current.

Excerpt:  Read more at the  Washington Examiner

Do we know how much energy will be generated? Then you learn that these job numbers may not hold as some of the effort will be done by robots.

A 2011 report from an executive at Flagsol, which will make the mirrors for Blythe, stated: "Each subprocess, such as assembling, bolting and cementing, will be performed in the future by robots."

When I see someone from John Kerry's staff was the lobbyist for this group, I have my serious doubts:

Former Energy Department official and John Kerry staffer David Leiter was one of STA's lobbyists working on "financial incentives for renewable energy, including protecting funding to DOE loan guarantee program," according to a lobbying disclosure form filed April 14.

All this looks to be an idea some group has to make electricl current. Reminds me of a science project for the Science Fair. What happens if this idea provides little electricity, and we are on the hook for $2.1B because not enough is generated to pay back the loan? We will be left with a facility in the desert with $2.1 B on the way to Deutsche Bank. There is no risk to anyone but the US taxpayers.

Is this program part of Greening up America that is going to cost the taxpayers dearly and have little to show in the end?

Conspiracy between Newsmax and Donald Trump? Washington Whispers says YES!

Washington Whispers: Trump-Newsmax Conspiracy Is Real

When I opened my email this morning and saw this story, I burst out laughing. Had no plans to do another Trump story today but this one was too good to pass up.  Now we have a conspiracy (tongue in cheek) between Donald Trump and Newsmax. We have enjoyed the Washington Whispers part of the US News and World Report for years. Some background on Washington Whispers from US News and World Report:

Washington Whispers has been featured in U.S. News & World Report since 1933, offering a fun, insider's view of Washington

What we have learned this week is that the potential Trump candidacy has broken people into two camps --

The first camp where a lot of the grassroots belong is having a blast with the way Trump is handling the media and some establishment types in the GOP. It is awesome to finally see someone from the GOP get some traction who is not 'next in line' for a try at the Presidency. Trump is witty, smart, and understands the economy as well as dealing with foreign countries. He also could be called arrogant and brash but it comes off to a lot of people as refreshing that he says what he thinks. Heard several people say if they had his money, they would do the same thing.

IMO Trump has connected to those of us who live outside the huge cities of the East and West Coasts and Chicago also known in elitists circles as fly-over country. We consider Donald Trump refreshing and are having fun watching the inside the beltway elitists and establishment types go over the top with comments. Told someone this morning in an email that I have not had this much fun in politics in a long time. I am energized by a potential Donald Trump entry into the Republican primary for President.  At the same time I cannot quit chuckling at some of the ridiculous comments I have seen out of the chattering class on some of the websites and on the broadcast networks.

The second camp cannot help themselves but go over the edge of the cliff about Trump with some of their rhetoric which borders on ludicrous.  Most of the people in this second camp come from the cable media, alphabet networks, establishment Republicans and Democrats, and some libertarian leaning websites:

We have Charles Krauthammer, a huge Romney supporter, comparing Donald Trump to Al Sharpton. Now if that is not going over the edge, nothing is. We actually get a kick out of Rev Al and his humor -- he was the only person to make the Democrat debates bearable when he ran. We turned into watch the lifeless Democrat candidates compete with Rev Al. We are positive that is not the comparison that Krauthammer was looking for when he made the comment. As a huge Romney supporter who got mad at McCain for not picking Romney for VP and then went after Sarah big time, we are not surprised at his comments.

Why did Karl Rove go over the edge when he called Trump a 'joke candidate?' We will let The Donald speak on that subject from Fox & Friends this morning, when he fired back at Karl Rove for calling him a "joke candidate."

"One of the problems that Rove has is that he's devastated, I understand, that Romney's doing so badly.

He took a shot at me the other day, which was, I think, disgraceful, but he's devastated by the fact that Romney is doing so poorly.

.... Frankly, Karl Rove got more publicity from this than he has for anything in awhile."

Chris Matthews weighed in by slapping Trump and praising Romney for being a man whatever that means. Four months ago Matthews called Trump a racist according to reports because The Donald dared to question Obama's lack of providing his 'official' birth certificate.

These are just a few examples of the over the edge comments about Donald Trump from the pundits -- we will leave the website writer comments for a new post on another day when we need some more laughs. The anti-Trump camp is so ludicrous with their comments that all you can do is laugh at their ever the edge rhetoric. Donald Trump really has the Romney camp spooked along with pundits, political operatives, and the elitists who support Romney.

Maybe we should start a sidebar box for the most ridiculous comments of the week against Donald Trump. These week we would have multi winners!  That sounds like something to include when we move later this summer to a regular website in preparation for an extremely interesting campaign season that is no longer dull for Republicans.

Been tired for a long time of the typical Presidential candidate regurgitating the speech the speechwriter wrote that his campaign manager hands him to read from the teleprompter. If the candidate says something wrong, the spinners start in from the campaign. Teleprompter speeches are boring for the most part.  Would like to be there in person to watch some campaign manager hand a speech to Trump and tell him this is what you need to read from the teleprompter. Can see the "You're Fired" quickly following.

We remember what happened at the GOP Convention when Rudy's teleprompter went nuts -- he winged it and his speech was awesome as he went off the script.  We found Rudy refreshing as a candidate but Donald Trump even more so because he is a conservative on many issues including the social issues which mean so much to so many in our Party.

This quote from Christopher Ruddy in the article is so true:

"To us it's just a great news story in a very boring Republican Primary right now."

The minute Donald Trump said he was considering running, the Republican Primary became much more interesting and a lot more fun.  Read the article from Washington Whispers and ask yourself if you are not happy that there are websites like Newsmax willing to get out in front of stories like they have the potential Donald Trump run for President.

Washington Whispers

Trump-Newsmax Conspiracy Is Real
By Paul Bedard

Posted: April 19, 2011

Donald Trump is riding high in conservative Republican circles, thanks in part to the wall-to-wall coverage center-right Newsmax, the national magazine and heavily-trafficked website, is giving to his upstart and popular presidential candidacy.

Need proof? Time's story on Trump has The Apprentice host waving a copy of a Newsmax poll showing him in the lead and says Trump speaks regularly to conservative "force" Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy. And the liberal media watchdog Media Matters has suggested that the two are in cahoots.

[See a gallery of political caricatures.]

So is there a Trump-Newsmax conspiracy? "Yes," cheers Ruddy. "Trump realizes the great potential of Newsmax and has been using it very adroitly. We're well aware he's using it, happy he's using it" says Ruddy from the Newsmax HQ in Florida.

[Get Whispers first, subscribe to U.S. News Weekly]

"He's been really responsive to our news team here," says Ruddy, who calls Trump a "friend."

Recently, the potential 2012 GOP primary candidate dropped by Newsmax's West Palm Beach HQ and even chose it as the place to reveal his American birth certificate, part of his effort to call into question President Obama's birthplace. Ruddy doesn't back the birther movement and says he told Trump that he believes Obama was born in Hawaii.

Media Matters last week put a spotlight on the news site's coverage of Trump, calling it an "early and enthusiastic promoter of Trump's presidential ambitions."

Ruddy has no problem with that description. "Media Matters is right," he says.

But much more than Trump, says Ruddy, Newsmax is pushing all the leading candidates in the GOP field who see his site as a must-have interview. Those who've made the pilgrimage include Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, and Mike Huckabee.

"I think that we're having an impact that no other media organization can have right now. Really smart political candidates realize that on the path to 2012, we are key," said Ruddy.

"We are the platform for any Republican candidate that wants to articulate a vision to the American people and the Republican Party, and Trump is articulating a vision and idea and he's catching fire," says Ruddy. "He is offering some views that people aren't hearing. When people say they want Donald Trump, they are saying they want something different, and that means it could be something different three months down the road. But right now he's touching a nerve."

[See a gallery of the month's best political cartoons.]

Newsmax has also won national attention for its Trump coverage because it's been advertising a Trump poll on several sites. So far some 800,000 have voted online. But Ruddy says that there is no formal or business relationship with Trump. "He did ask if he could change the name of the place to 'Trumpmax' I said no," joked Ruddy. "To us it's just a great news story in a very boring Republican Primary right now."

Is there a conspiracy between Donald Trump and Newsmax -- we hope so as we would like to see Newsmax be part of this extraordinary campaign because we have always respected Christopher Ruddy and his not giving into the establishment or Fox News. He is his own man and it shows. We haven't always agreed with some of the articles from Newsmax but that is not unusual for any media outlet. One thing about Newsmax is that you can always count on their reporters to do the hard hitting investigative reporting that other journalist ignore. When you hear the mainstream media squealing at their stories, you know they hit paydirt.

Don't Mess with Texas!

Looks like Obama never learned that lesson as he tried to say he only lost Texas by a few percentage points -- WRONG! He lost by over 11%.  The Sooner State residents still thought that was too close for comfort compared to the only got 34% of the vote he received from us. 




What a dumb comment trying and spin how much he lost Texas by in 2008. Maybe they didn't tell him? Wonder if they told him that he lost every County in OK and some of our 'Democrat' counties only gave him 12-15% of the vote? We won't be seeing any local reporter interviewing Obama for his campaign anytime soon.

Do Republicans get equal time if the Obama infomercial airs locally? No one even his new mouthpiece can convince anyone with an ounce of political savvy that all of a sudden doing these interviews in swing states is not political. Trips to swing states since he declared should be billed to his campaign account or the DNC because they is only one reason to go there -- Obama reelection campaign.

As part of the oil and gas producing triangle of Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana, none of us are going to  forget what Obama is doing to try and tank our economies with lack of permits being issued for oil and gas.  No way the price of gas should be so high right now which is driving groceries and all other goods that have to travel up in price.  Obama has no credibility in this part of the Country except by those who would vote for him no matter what he did.  They will laugh and pay their $5 a gallon in gas because Obama said it is a good thing while the rest of us who care about America work to oust him from the White House in 2012.