In 2009, President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his effort to strengthen worldwide diplomacy. But critics believe he didn’t deserve it then and doesn’t deserve it now. The activist group Roots Action is spearheading an online petition that has gathered thousands of signatures to take the prize out of the hands of the US president due to his broken promise of closing Guantanamo Bay and his aggressive drone policy abroad. Leah Bolger, a board member for Veterans for Peace, joins us with more about the online campaign.
Social networks went into overload after ‘The Bible’ broadcast depicted an actor portraying Satan who bore an uncanny resemblance to President Obama.
Why does Satan look suspiciously like President Barack Obama in the History Channel’s hit series The Bible?
That’s the question on many viewers’ lips after Sunday evening’s episode of the popular show featured a devil-playing actor with an uncanny resemblance to the 44th POTUS.
Social networks went into meltdown as thousands of the 13.1 million audience pointed out the eerie similarity between Obama and actor Mohamen Mehdi Ouazanni, reports mediaite.com.
Right-wing commentator and radio-host Glenn Beck tweeted: “Anyone else think the Devil in #TheBible Sunday on History Channel looks exactly like That Guy?”
It airs on the History Channel in two-hour chunks on Sunday nights, with its finale scheduled for March 31, Easter Sunday.
Burnett has so far not commented on the controversy.
This is just one of the results from the brilliant power play by Sen Rand Paul and Crew. They outed MSNBC-GE-Comcast, Democrats, OBOMBA Koolaid drinkers, AND the McCain / Graham RINO’s!!!!! Gotta love it!
Actor John Cusack describes himself as a progressive, but he has been a critic of the federal government’s drone program regardless of who has been is in office. Frankly, he has also be a pretty harsh critic of President Barack Obama as well.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and other GOP senators on Wednesday conducted an old-school filibuster on the Senate floor to block John Brennan’s nomination and bring attention to the potential for drone strikes on U.S. soil. As the hours went by, Cusack was curious to know: “where are Democrats?”
Cusack had one tweet that was longer than 140 characters, but here’s what he wrote:
AG say its ok to kill us citizens–and other bad guys- but trust us we’re the good guys..
how’d that play out through history mr holder…
pay no attention to the man behind that curtain
the great and powerful O has spoken…
The filibuster lasted almost 13 hours.
To hear President Barack Obama tell it, the impending $85 billion in spending cuts to the federal budget known as the sequester are the worst disaster since Seth MacFarlane hosted the Academy Awards.
But before you dive deep into depression, here are five facts that should take the sting out of the sequester.
1. The Cuts Are Tiny!
The actual cuts in fiscal year 2013 are only $44 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The rest don’t even take place until 2014 or later. Whether you use $44 billion or $85 billion we’re talking about 1 or 2 percent of total government spending.
2. Spending is Still Going Up!
Even with the sequester, the federal government is expected to spend more this year than it did last year. The government spent $3.5 trillion in 2012 and i expected to spend $3.6 trillion in 2013 (see Summary Table 1).
3. The Pentagon Won’t Starve!
The largest chunk of cuts will come out of the defense budget, which has doubled over the past decade. The Pentagon will still have about $500 billion at its disposal, not counting war-related and emergency appropriations.
4. You Can’t Cut Nonexistent Programs!
The White House’s Office of Management and Budget says the sequester will cut a whopping $2 million from the $20 million budget for the National Drug Intelligence Center. That sounds pretty bad – until you realize the Drug Intelligence Center closed its door in June 2012.
5. It Was All Obama’s Idea!
The whole damn sequester was the Obama administration’s idea. As the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward has reported, despite Obama’s denials to the contrary, “the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House” as part of the deal to raise the debt limit back in August 2011.
So as members of the president’s cabinet and party rail against the draconian nature of the sequester and the unfairness of it all, it’s worth keeping in mind that these cuts are genuinely puny.
And that the president has nobody to blame but himself.
About 2 minutes.
Produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie, who also narrates.
Robert Gibbs, President Barack Obama’s former press secretary, says that he was once instructed by the White House not to acknowledge the administration’s use of drones.
“When I went through the process of becoming press secretary, one of the first things they told me was, you’re not even to acknowledge the drone program,” Gibbs said on MSNBC’s “Up With Chris Hayes” on Sunday. “You’re not even to discuss that it exists.”
Or, to paraphrase an oft-quoted line from David Fincher’s 1999 film “Fight Club“: The first rule of the drone program is you do not talk about the drone program.
Gibbs, who was recently hired by MSNBC as a contributor, called the proposition “inherently crazy.”
“You’re being asked a question based on reporting of a program that exists,” Gibbs, who served as White House press secretary from 2009 to 2011, said. “So you’re the official government spokesperson acting as if the entire program—pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
Obama’s former spokesman said that while the administration has recently expressed the need to be more transparent about its use of drones, certain aspects of that program are “highly sensitive” and will likely remain secret.
“I have not talked to him about this, so I want to be careful,” Gibbs said, “but I think what the president has seen is, our denial of the existence of the program when it’s obviously happening undermines people’s confidence overall in the decisions that their government makes.”
A Richmond police officer who reported fellow cops for allegedly threatening President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama has been fired from his job on the force.
WTVR on Wednesday confirmed that the officer, who did not wish to be named, had been called to police headquarters where he was terminated on Tuesday.
The officer blew the whistle on a 20-year department veteran and other members of the Richmond force after they made inappropriate comments while providing protection to the president and first lady.
“There was an officer providing exterior security to the president on that day on the phone with the supervisor,” the whistleblower explained to WTVR last May. “The supervisor said to that particular officer, ‘you’re down there right? So, you can take a couple of shots, you might have to kill yourself, but you can take a couple of shots.’”
He said that the supervisor made those comments to a sharpshooter on the day of the president’s visit to Richmond.
And “another officer in the background started talking and he said, ‘yeah, somebody should plant a bomb underneath the stage while they’re on there and blow it up,’” the source said.
Raw Story (http://s.tt/1A4eI)
FASCISM RISING; America, Hillary Clinton’s Values, ‘More Like Mein Kampf’, ‘Hitler Would Be Envious’
“Hitler would be envious of getting the kind of respect that this society gets for doing many of the same things that people were put on trial in Nuremberg for doing.” – Dr. Randy Short
Dr. Randy Short should be commended for telling the truth… a revolutionary act in this time of universal deceit.
Hitlery KKKlinton’s reign of terror as Secretary Of State was one of the most destructive and worst examples of “political diplomacy” in US history.
Now we have the reign of John Kerry to look forward to… a man with so many skeletons in his closet (ie, BCCI cover up, Skull & Bones) he could almost make the Bush Crime Family blush. It’s interesting how the media is portraying Obama’s selection of Chuck Hagel as Secretary Of Defense (SecDef) as some great move towards “peace”, yet they completely ignore Kerry’s pro “War On Iran” stance. Even Kerry’s fascist wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, said Bush was too easy on Iran:
“The only way to prevent the virus from surviving and spreading,” the former Mrs. Heinz advises, “is to attack, killing it with the strongest possible condemnations before it has a chance to mutate and spread.”
Speaking of ketchup… the Heinz Kerry’s also has a vendetta against Venezuela for nationalizing some of their Heinz factories… so don’t be surprised to see more destabilization actions against Venezuela. Obama could not have picked a worse person for this position.
People better start recognizing exactly what Randy Short is saying here… it may sound like he’s joking, but I’ll assure you that he’s not…
2013.2.2 ‘US Continues To Pursue Fascist Values’ (Interviews Dr. Randy Short; Hillary Clinton’s Farewell Speech To State Department) (PressTV, youtube.com):
A political analyst tells Press TV that the US values are very strange values that do not jibe with the Declaration of Human Rights, with the UN or any other civilized country.
The comments came after Hillary Clinton gave a farewell speech to US citizens on Friday after sending a letter of resignation to President Barack Obama as her last act in the US State Department in Washington, DC.
Press TV has conducted an interview with Dr. Randy Short, member of Dignity, Human Rights and Peace organization, to further discuss the issue.
Mere hours after News published an excerpt from an interview with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) in which he speculated that President Barack Obama would “prefer a different kind of constitution,” one with a Bill of Rights based on the South African model, former Obama administration regulatory czar Cass Sunstein published an op-ed making a similar argument: that the president wants a “second Bill of Rights” alongside the existing one.
Sunstein located the source of Obama’s inspiration in Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1944 State of the Union address, rather than the South African constitution–though the American academics whose writings inspired South Africa’s ambitious Bill of Rights could well have taken Roosevelt’s proposals as their foundation.
Roosevelt’s Second Bill of Rights–not a list of constitutional amendments, but policy goals–was as follows:
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
Sunstein points out Roosevelt was not a socialist–and yet many of the “rights” he proposed were inspired by socialist policies. The Soviet constitution of 1936, too, included the right to work, among other guarantees.
In addition, Sunstein argues that Obama has made progress on least one of these rights: the right to health care, through the highly controversial Obamacare–whose costs will begin to be felt this year in earnest.
The analogy is not perfect: one “right” on which Roosevelt would not have agreed with Obama, for example, is the “right” of public sector workers to bargain collectively and to strike, which Roosevelt opposed.
Regardless, both conservatives and liberals may agree: Obama is aiming at achieving a new set of socioeconomic rights, whether through law or through policy. It is the dream of progressives and liberals for the better part of a century–a dream that has resisted the reality that these “rights” are not justiciable; that they degrade the value of other, fundamental, rights; and they create more policy problems than they solve.
From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation’s sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.
In New Mexico, 30 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.
CNSNews.com previously reported that 28 of the 29 sheriff’s in Utah sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not enforce any new gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional.
A host of Oregon sheriffs have said that they will not comply with any new unconstitutional gun regulations:
- Sheriff Craig Zanni wrote, ”I have and will continue to uphold my Oath of Office including supporting the Second Amendment,” in a letter to Coos County citizens.
- Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said he would refuse to enforce any new Federal gun law he believes is unconstitutional.
- In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Grant County Sheriff, Glenn Palmer writes: “I will not tolerate nor will I permit any federal incursion within the exterior boundaries of Grant County, Oregon, where any type of gun control legislation aimed at disarming law -abiding citizens is the goal or objective.”
- Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County told Biden in a letter: ”Any rule, regulation, or executive order repugnant to the constitutional rights of the citizens of this County will be ignored by this office.”
- Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon says his department will not participate in any overreaching and unconstitutional federal firearms restrictions.
In California, Sheriff Adam Christianson of Stanislaus County wrote to the vice president: “I refuse to take firearms from law abiding citizens and will not turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by enforcing useless gun control legislation.”
Will the biggest scandal circa Obama be swept under the Rug?
Attorney General Eric Holder and his Department of Justice have asked a federal court to indefinitely delay a lawsuit brought by watchdog group Judicial Watch. The lawsuit seeks the enforcement of open records requests relating to Operation Fast and Furious, as required by law.
Judicial Watch had filed, on June 22, 2012, a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking all documents relating to Operation Fast and Furious and “specifically [a]ll records subject to the claim of executive privilege invoked by President Barack Obama on or about June 20, 2012.”
The administration has refused to comply with Judicial Watch’s FOIA request, and in mid-September the group filed a lawsuit challenging Holder’s denial. That lawsuit remains ongoing but within the past week President Barack Obama’s administration filed what’s called a “motion to stay” the suit. Such a motion is something that if granted would delay the lawsuit indefinitely.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said that Holder’s and Obama’s desire to continually hide these Fast and Furious documents is “ironic” now that they’re so gung-ho on gun control. “It is beyond ironic that the Obama administration has initiated an anti-gun violence push as it seeking to keep secret key documents about its very own Fast and Furious gun walking scandal,” Fitton said in a statement. “Getting beyond the Obama administration’s smokescreen, this lawsuit is about a very simple principle: the public’s right to know the full truth about an egregious political scandal that led to the death of at least one American and countless others in Mexico. The American people are sick and tired of the Obama administration trying to rewrite FOIA law to protect this president and his appointees. Americans want answers about Fast and Furious killings and lies.”
The only justification Holder uses to ask the court to indefinitely delay Judicial Watch’s suit is that there’s another lawsuit ongoing for the same documents – one filed by the U.S. House of Representatives. Judicial Watch has filed a brief opposing the DOJ’s motion to stay.
As the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was voting Holder into contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with congressional investigators by failing to turn over tens of thousands of pages of Fast and Furious documents, Obama asserted the executive privilege over them. The full House of Representatives soon after voted on a bipartisan basis to hold Holder in contempt.
There were two parts of the contempt resolution. Holder was, and still is, in both civil and criminal contempt of Congress. The criminal resolution was forwarded to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ronald Machen–who works for Holder–for prosecution. Despite being technically required by law to bring forth criminal charges against Holder, under orders from Holder’s Department of Justice Machen chose to ignore the resolution.
The second part of the contempt resolution–civil contempt of Congress–allowed House Republicans to hire legal staff to challenge President Obama’s assertion of the executive privilege. That lawsuit remains ongoing despite Holder’s and the DOJ’s attempt to dismiss it and settle it.
It’s unclear what’s in the documents Obama asserted privilege over, but the president’s use of the extraordinary power appears weak. There are two types of presidential executive privilege: the presidential communications privilege and the deliberative process privilege. Use of the presidential communications privilege would require that the president himself or his senior-most advisers were involved in the discussions.
Since the president and his cabinet-level officials continually claim they had no knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious until early 2011 when the information became public–and Holder claims he didn’t read the briefing documents he was sent that outlined the scandal and how guns were walking while the operation was ongoing–Obama says he’s using the less powerful deliberative process privilege.
The reason why Obama’s assertion of that deliberative process privilege over these documents is weak at best is because the Supreme Court has held that such a privilege assertion is invalidated by even the suspicion of government wrongdoing. Obama, Holder, the Department of Justice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and virtually everyone else involved in this scandal have admitted that government wrongdoing actually took place in Operation Fast and Furious.
In Fast and Furious, the ATF “walked” about 2,000 firearms into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. That means through straw purchasers they allowed sales to happen and didn’t stop the guns from being trafficked even though they had the legal authority to do so and were fully capable of doing so.
Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexican citizens–estimates put it around at least 300–were killed with these firearms.