Who, What, Why: The Most Staggering Argument Made This Week In The Supreme Court

Little noticed in all the golden jurisprudential nuggets of this past week is the purpose of a rather ballsy argument made on Day 3 of oral argument on the Obama health scam. The two main actors: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy. The star: Anthony Kennedy. The argument: A Modest Proposal.

Here is the purpose of the most staggering argument made this week in the Supreme Court, in simplified form (documentation of our claim follows):

1. Obama health scam supporters are trying to intimidate the Justices at the Supreme Court. In particular they are targeting Chief Justice Roberts and threatening to politically assassinate him by utilizing Roberts’ promise to the Senate Judiciary committee to be a modest “umpire” if confirmed.

2. That wily bird, Justice Kennedy, provided the Chief Justice with a most cheeky and daring argument to claim that indeed he, the Chief Justice, is being most modest even as potentially he crafts and coordinates one of the most daring opinions in constitutional history since Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison.

* * * * * *

In anticipation of an historical defeat Robert Shrum is screaming that the Supreme Court is “the Tea Party Supreme Court” (Associate Justice Antonin Scalia is scorned as “Injustice Antonin Scalia”).

At the DailyKooks Hopium hole the kooks think repeating “the radical Roberts Court” is the intimidating trick that will work (the DailyKooks Supreme Court “expert” is the Left Talker who endorsed Obama over Hillary because Obama was the “media darling” and this educated fool also wrote Obama would be another FDR!.)

It’s not just the DailyKooks and the Obama protecting strategists. Surprise!, it is also Big Media doing everything possible to intimidate Chief Justice Roberts in particular. Attorney Jeffrey Rosen was tasked by Politico to declare that this week was a “Moment of truth for Justice Roberts”:

“Before this week’s historic Supreme Court argument, conventional wisdom held that the court would uphold “Obamacare” — as its opponents call it — by a lopsided bipartisan margin. [snip]

If the court does, in fact, strike down the mandate by a 5-4 vote, conventional wisdom most likely will crystallize around a new narrative: The Supreme Court is all about politics. [snip]

There’s no question that the conservative justices on the Roberts court have political leeway to strike down Obamacare because of its current unpopularity. [snip]

When Chief Justice John Roberts began his tenure, he said he wanted to be remembered for presiding over a court that reached narrow unanimous opinions — transcending the partisan divisions that have polarized Washington in Congress and the executive branch.

So far, Roberts has had mixed success.

That’s what makes the health care cases a moment of truth for the chief justice. If Roberts presides over a court that strikes down health care reform by a 5-4 vote, his ambition of transcending politics on the Supreme Court will have to be judged a failure.

If, by contrast, Roberts can find a way of helping his conservative colleagues to overcome their political convictions and uphold health care reform on narrow grounds, even his critics will have to admit that he has achieved a real success.

Uniter or divider — the choice is his.”

So it’s vote the way I say or else you are a divider. It does not enter Rosen’s mind that perhaps Obama appointed Elena Kagen should have either recused herself or that she should vote to get rid of the Obama health scam and thereby prove she is not a political hack. And really, “uniter or divider”? Wasn’t it Obama who promised transparency on any health care reform? Wasn’t it Obama who promised eighty percent majorities in passing health care reform? Rosen ignores Obama’s lies and scribes intimidating hackery in support of Obama. But at Politico, Rosen is not alone.

Glenn Thrush has inherited the “Ben Smith JournoLister” chair at Politico. His article intimidating Chief Justice Roberts (and anyone who might vote to get rid of the Obama health scam) is called “Roberts Court On Trial”:

“John Roberts is having his Bush v. Gore moment.

If the wily chief justice felt squeamish about leading the Supreme Court into an election-year political maelstrom, that was nowhere on display Tuesday, when the Roberts-led conservative majority signaled its collective skepticism, even hostility, for President Barack Obama’s health care law.

If the Affordable Care Act goes down — especially if it suffers the same schismatic 5-to-4 blow sustained by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in the Citizens United case — critics will accuse the Roberts Court of rigging the game and covering their power play with constitutional doublespeak.

The critics aren’t even waiting for the third and final day of arguments before drawing their conclusions. Roberts’s grilling of administration officials Tuesday — and his willingness to take up polarizing immigration and affirmative action cases in an election year — has already invited comparisons to the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, whose court decided the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush.

If the court again splits along a traditional conservative-liberal fault line, the health care debate will further erode the ideal of the court as an impartial arbiter and cast doubt on Roberts’s own idyllic description of his role as judicial “umpire” laid out during his 2005 confirmation hearings.”

Glenn Thrush is supposed to be a news guy not an opinion guy. The above excerpts from Thrush however indicate that he is in line to get a job at the Carney White House Press Circus.

Thrush searched his Rolodex in search of anyone and everyone to trash and intimidate Chief Justice Roberts. He starts with another Jeffrey, Toobin:

“Roberts isn’t a hypocrite. … His judicial worldview is so close to his political worldview, I think he honestly believes he’s an umpire — but this is an incredibly activist court, especially when — sorry, I mean if — it overturns health care.”

Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute, a frequent court critic, expressed the view of many liberals who think Roberts is, at his core, a partisan who works from a conclusion backwards: “If he’s the umpire, how come he always has a bat in his hand?

The outcome of the health care case, Democrats and Republicans agree, will go a long way in defining a Roberts Court already ranked among the most conservative in recent history.

In a larger sense, the case is also a critical test of Roberts’s evolving role as the leader of his own court: In decades past, chief justices have labored mightily to secure something approaching consensus on major decisions. [snip]

But Harvard law professor Michael Klarman, who has written two histories of the high court, said the fact that the fight over the health care law is playing out according to the standard Republican vs. Democrat script — the same script as the 2000 election fight — has eroded the idea that the GOP-appointed court is rooted in restraint and precedent-based impartiality.

“The idea they are operating from precedent can’t pass the laugh test, especially after Bush v. Gore. The country is dividing along the same ideological and political lines this time, and so is the court,” Klarman said.”

So if all the Justices appointed by Democratic (or Dimocratic as in the case of Obama) presidents vote to uphold the law they are “rooted in restraint and precedent-based impartiality” but if the Republican appointed Justices disagree they are political animals desecrating the high court – according to Thrush’s attack piece.

Why is Politico doing a full court press attack on the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Roberts in particular? The only answer is shock. Obama supporters for years thought two things about the legal challenges to Obama’s health scam: (1) the suits opposing Obamacare were entirely without merit (“frivolous”); (2) at the final stop, the Supreme Court, Anthony Kennedy would join the majority and force John Roberts to possibly go along and uphold the scam. Then Tuesday came and the shocks followed as they listened.

Thrush’s lament:

“But he seemed less critical of the law than Kennedy, whom liberals predicted would be more open to the argument that the law is rooted in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

“Assume for the moment that [the health care law] is unprecedented. This is a step beyond what our cases have allowed, the affirmative duty to act to go into commerce,” Kennedy began, adding: “I understand that we must presume laws are constitutional, but, even so, when you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this, what we can stipulate is, I think, a unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?”

Obama supporters thought that Justice Anthony Kennedy would be the one they would woo and win. Kennedy, they presumed, would be the blushing little girl they would get drunk then bed. Kennedy was that sweet old woman juror they would smile at and lightly flirt with to get their way. Kennedy was the ugly girl at the bar that with a few drinks, some time, some sweet words of praise, would surrender her belle chose to the rakes. But that shy sweet plain girl turned out to be the Wife of Bath.

Kennedy’s performance was shocking to those that thought the legal claims in opposition to Obama’s health scam were “frivolous”. These dolts watch MSNBC and thought it was impossible to stop the “big f*cking deal”. Many were like Chris Matthews: I’m pretty suprised to learn that the mandate might be unconstitutional.

But as can be read at that last link to Allahpundit, some on the right cannot believe they are seeing what they are seeing so they come up with their own version of “brilliant Obama”. The right wing version of “brilliant Obama” is that somehow Obama is so brilliant that he had his Solicitor General “throw the fight” at the court because Obama wants the court to throw out the health scam law for some three dimensional brilliant Obama chess playing. Rubbish.

Obama is a boob who thought the court would uphold his scam law, his badly written law. That’s why Obama wanted the court to rule in June of this year. Obama thought he could run on a popular law that the court would rule as constitutional this June. [For the record, Verrilli was not the worst performance by an Obama boob at the high court. That dubious distinction belongs to Elena Kagan who screwed up when arguing Citizens United and for banning books.]

Instead the law remains unpopular and the Supreme Court might, just might throw the whole crooked thing into the garbage bin. The right wing is often as bedazzled as the dumbest on the left with Obama. We think we are correct. Obama is a treacherous boob, who is capable of mucking up even the simplest of matters. If it wasn’t for Big Media protection Obama would be a house husband at the Rezko House while Michelle continued to engage in patient dumping schemes in Chicago.

In today’s article (Pelosi on ObamaCare: “We wrote our bill in a way that was constitutional”) the important Republican/conservative Allahpundit wittingly or unwittingly falls into the trap of Roberts intimidation:

“I think ultimately, rather than torpedo legislation this momentous on a 5-4 vote, he’ll err on the side of letting it stand if the opinion can be written narrowly enough to limit the decision to health insurance and nothing else. And once he makes that move, I think Roberts will join him for two reasons. One: I’m sure he’s sensitive to the grumbling about how divided and partisan the Court often seems, especially after he was confirmed promising to be a neutral “umpire.”

If anyone is throwing the fight it is Allahpundit by buying into the DailyKooks/Thrush intimidation of Roberts. While Roberts might join the majority to uphold the scam – that would only be a ploy to get to write the majority opinion and that would only be if Anthony Kennedy votes to uphold. But will Kennedy vote to uphold?

Allahpundit’s comrade, Ed Morrisey posts via Video: Why the White House should be afraid, very afraid, over the ObamaCare arguments this week:

Will Justice Kennedy vote to uphold (will Ted Kennedy attend the next Michelle Obama diet lecture?) the Obama health scam? The L.A. Times doesn’t think so because of the number, the targets, and types of questions Kennedy asked. Daniel Foster thinks it’s a goner too. The New York Times is busy whistling – through the graveyard – fingers crossed that what they heard this week is not what dear ol’ grandma Anthony Kennedy will really vote.

The Obama loving’ JournoListers believed their own phony nonsense. It was Rectal Myopia. What we urge the Allahpundits of the world to consider is that Justice Kennedy was not only asking questions this week, Justice Kennedy was engaged in something very usual and acknowledged by Supreme Court watchers: asking questions and making comments to influence his fellow Justices as to how they will vote.

Thus, Kennedy by positing that the most modest course for the high court if it strikes down the individual mandate provisions of the badly written law is to strike down the entire law rather than judicially legislate, – was verbalizing a legal brief for the Chief Justice to argue that a ruling striking down the entire Obama health scam law was the modest “umpire” thing to do. It’s a ballsy argument. You must have iron cojones to make this assertion but indeed that assertion was made. It was made by no longer “grandma” Kennedy:

“When you say judicial restraint, you are echoing the earlier premise that it increases the judicial power if the judiciary strikes down other provisions of the Act. I suggest to you it might be quite the opposite. We would be exercising the judicial power if one Act was — one provision was stricken and the others remained to impose a risk on insurance companies that Congress had never intended. By reason of this Court, we would have a new regime that Congress did not provide for, did not consider. That, it seems to me can be argued at least to be a more extreme exercise of judicial power than to strike -than striking the whole.

We don’t want anyone to forget that as tough as Justice Kennedy was on Tuesday while discussing the mandate provisions, Justice Kennedy was even more brutal on the third day when Medicaid was on the menu, according to SCOTUSblog:

“Perhaps the most threatening point for the Solicitor General’s argument, and for the Medicaid expansion itself, was a comment by Justice Kennedy — whose vote, as is so often true with a divided Court, might be crucial. Kennedy picked up on one of the points in Clement’s brief, that onerous conditions imposed in a federal grant program raised the threat that the people of a state would not know whom they could hold accountable if a state disobeyed a condition and lost its federal funding for an important public program.

That gave Kennedy an opportunity to talk about one of his favorite subjects: how the citizenry can know whom to blame when something goes awry in government, when the lines get blurred. “Does federalism require,” Kennedy asked, “that there be a relatively clear line of accountability for political acts? Is that subsumed in the coercion test, or is that an independent one” Verrilli conceded that the coercion test was related to concerns about threats to federalism. Kennedy responded that it was “necessary for the idea of federalism that there be a clear line of accountability so the citizen knows it’s the federal or the state government should be held responsible for the program.”

The seeming significance of that exchange was that, if Kennedy were persuaded that the coercion theory was, indeed, a part of the accountability equation, then he might well embrace it. It was not a promising moment for Verrilli.

One final point, and this one on Verrilli. It is agreed by most if not all that Verrilli stunk up the court this week. We don’t think that is particularly significant. It is Obama supporters trying to rationalize this week’s shocks at the high court by shooting the messenger. Again, here is SCOTUSblog (which supports the Obama health scam), on why not Verrilli but rather Kennedy will provide the rationale for whatever happens:

“If Justice Anthony M. Kennedy can locate a limiting principle in the federal government’s defense of the new individual health insurance mandate, or can think of one on his own, the mandate may well survive. If he does, he may take Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and a majority along with him. But if he does not, the mandate is gone. That is where Tuesday’s argument wound up — with Kennedy, after first displaying a very deep skepticism, leaving the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior.”

Those that in 2008 thought Obama was the savior, the Mess-iah, are not exactly reassured by the mess Obama has made of their hope for change. This week Obama and his Hopium pickled kooks faced a death panel in black robes. As Charles Hurt wrote, it was a “Brutal week for Obama, the worst of his presidency”.

Hurt cites the hurts on Obama as his Trayvon Louis Gates moment, the hot microphone in South Korea displaying his treachery to come on missile defense, and “uniter” Obama getting a unanimous “NO” vote in the House of Representatives on his budget. Sneers Hurt: “Not that you will see any trace of embarrassment in the face of Mr. Obama. He has mastered the high political art of shamelessness, wearing it smugly and cockily. Kind of like a hoodie.”

Hurt does not mention that this week Big Pink stopped being a concern for a well known Republican writer as the realization dawns on Peggy Noonan: This Obama character seems increasingly dishonest and devious to me

It was a bad week for Obama because he and his scams are finally getting vetted. The ones doing the vetting on Obama scams are wearing black robes – or are those hoodies?


The Mighty Supreme Court Bookend: Twilight Of The Commerce Clause?

The Obama health insurance scam might end up to be a bookend ruling. The many hours set aside by the high court to discuss the law just might be the end of the long run of the Commerce Clause as the rationale for expanded federal power. The first bookend is the New Deal cases and the Civil Rights cases which followed decades later. The Obama government might prove to be the end times for the Commerce Clause and expanded federal power.

* * * * * *

After today we know a whole lot about how, when, who, and why the Supreme Court will rule on the Obama health scam. We might even know a little bit of “what” the Supreme Court will rule.

After the arguments yesterday and today we can be quite sure that the Supreme Court will sweep aside all the collateral issues and jurisprudential barnacles (such as the Anti-Injunction Act) and there is now only one issue before the high court. That issue is the Commerce Clause and the power of the federal government.

After the arguments yesterday and today we can be quite sure that the Supreme Court will come down to one man, one vote: Justice Anthony Kennedy.

While Justice Sotomayor made some noise indicating she might oppose the individual mandate and other Justices made equally intriguing statements/questions the bottom line is that both the “liberal” and “conservative” wings of the court will vote as expected (until negotiations begin at least). It is Anthony Kennedy that will determine the decision and once he decides the negotiations that will determine the ultimate vote will begin – ending in a ruling.

If Justice Anthony Kennedy decides to reject the law then some “liberal” justices might be persuaded to join in that rejection if only to ameliorate the impact of the ruling. If Justice Anthony Kennedy decides to uphold the law then some “conservative” justices might be persuaded to join in if only to ameliorate the impact of the ruling.

How might Justice Kennedy rule? Obama health scam supporters once ridiculed the possibility of the Supreme court rejecting Obama’s “big f*cking deal”. Now? As we wrote yesterday, supporters of the Obamination law are so desperate they are currently making the argument that a Supreme Court rejection of the Obamination health scam will be a plus. Sadly James Carville joined Tomasky and others in that embarrassing argument. Carville: ObamaCare being struck down would be the best thing ever to happen to Democrats.

Why is such a silly “we win when we lose” argument being made? Listen to the audio of Anthony Kennedy: The mandate fundamentally changes the relationship between citizens and the federal government:

If that exchange is in any way indicative of Justice Kennedy’s thinking the Obama health scam is doomed. Of course judges can be wily and merely be playing devil’s advocate with probing questions. But even the most avid Obama health scam supporters are in shock. For example CNN’s
Toobin: “Train wreck for the Obama administration” today on individual mandate:

It’s gonna be struck down:

“According to CNN’s legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were “a train wreck for the Obama administration.”

This law looks like it’s going to be struck down. I’m telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong,” Toobin just said on CNN.

As to Justice Roberts upholding the law, does this sound like a man who is about to vote to uphold?:

Don’t count on Scalia either. Today Scalia lectured Verilli on enumerated powers:

Are we being selective in our quotes and misinforming our readers? We think our assessment is very fair. Even the rude DailyKooks realize that reality is intruding on their Hopium den and that the Obama health scam is in very “significant trouble”.

At the end of oral argument Day 2 of 3 it is the Commerce Clause, the difference between health care (which affects every human), health insurance (which the world has existed without for millennia), and Justice Anthony Kennedy. It is also clear that the high court will issue this ruling-this term, and it will not be a punt into 2015.

At the end of Day 2 we also have (via the respected SCOTUSblog) informed speculation as to what that ruling will be:

“Based on the questions posed to Paul Clement, the lead attorney for the state challengers to the individual mandate, it appears that the mandate is in trouble. It is not clear whether it will be struck down, but the questions that the conservative Justices posed to Clement were not nearly as pressing as the ones they asked to Solicitor General Verrilli. On top of that, Clement delivered a superb presentation in response to the more liberal Justices’ questions. Perhaps the most interesting point to emerge so far is that Justice Kennedy’s questions suggest that he believes that the mandate has profound implications for individual liberty: he asked multiple times whether the mandate fundamentally changes the relationship between the government and individuals, so that it must surpass a special burden.

As to the meaning and impact of the eventual ruling this year? The highest of high stakes. We turn again to SCOTUSblog (from yesterday, before today’s hearing results):

“Without exaggeration, the final ruling has the potential to be the most important declaration on how the Constitution divides up power between national and state governments since the New Deal days some three quarters of a century ago. Without exaggeration, it could be the most important pronouncement on the federal “safety net” since the Social Security Act was upheld by the Court in 1937. Without exaggeration, a decision to strike down all or part of the new health law could be the most severe rebuff of Congress’s power over the national economy since the Sick Chicken Case in 1935. And, without exaggeration, a nullification of the Act in whole or in part could be the most devastating blow to presidential power and prestige since the Steel Seizure Case in 1952.

The law at issue is not directly about civil rights, but for the nation’s working poor, the coming ruling on the law’s validity could be as important to them as a 1938 decision was for racial minorities, essentially starting the modern civil rights revolution. And for individuals who want to be left alone by their government, the final decision may be a reminder of a 1905 decision that first spelled out a theory of individual liberty that, in time, would contribute importantly decades afterward to that same civil rights revolution.

Yes, it is that important…”

That’s a skewed view in favor of the government and a powerful federal government, but the potential impact is correct.

That analysis written before today’s events at the high court describes effectively what actually transpired today and what the arguments were/are:

“The federal government gets to open the argument that day, and its top Supreme Court advocate will seek to persuade the Court that history is on the government’s side, that health care is in a crisis of national proportions, that Congress must have the authority to rise to such occasions, and that this controversy calls for judicial modesty. For almost as long as there has been constitutional history, that attorney seems sure to argue, economic crises too big for the states to handle have been left to Congress. If Congress was constitutionally disabled from enacting this law, it will have had to surrender core constitutional power, the Court may be told.

And then two lawyers for the challengers will take turns arguing that this case does not involve just another episode of familiar history, but rather that this is constitutional history starting over. Congress, they will say, has never dared to so manage Americans’ private lives as it now has attempted, without precedent and without even a hint of authority from the Constitution. If Congress can do this, there is no invasion of private choice that will not be constitutionally tolerable, the Justices almost certainly will be told.

Wednesday will be a double-header on constitutional history. In the morning, the Court will return — as so often in the past — to the fundamental division of government authority between Congress and the courts — horizontal separation of powers that James Madison thought essential to individual liberty. That will be at the center of the argument on what happens to the remainder of the new health care law if the individual mandate were to be struck down,. And, in the afternoon, the Court will trace many of history’s earlier steps along the line that divides national and state power — the vertical separation that Thomas Jefferson thought essential to the sovereignty and dignity of governments closest to the people. That will be the focus of the argument over the expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor, for the first time providing those benefits to millions of the working poor and to childless adults.”

That assessment is again skewed in favor of the government’s view. But it is correct that the issues before the high court are very high.

Left unmentioned by many is how badly Obama’s health scam is written (we can’t wait to hear the government explain why boilerplate such as a “severability clause” were not included in this legislative mess). Left unmentioned by many is the Karma of all this.

Instant Karma. Barack Obama repeatedly attacked Hillary Clinton on the very question of the “mandate”. Barack Obama was warned here and by such as Paul Krugman that his attacks would come back to bite his scrawny ass. That they have.

Hillary Clinton proposed a mandate based on regional markets. Constitutional questions on the mandate could have easily been resolved, as Hillary proposed, with point of contact (meaning when you actually get sick and need health care) registration.

Also, Hillary Clinton had a plan that improved “health care”. Obama’s plan is a protection racket for the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance companies. That the Supreme Court is noticing what we noticed at the time – Obama’s scam is an health insurance finance scheme unrelated to somatic health care – is gratifying.

Under Hillary Clinton’s plan there would have been improvements on health care and the cost of insurance would have come down (by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for drugs, for instance). But Obama allied himself with Billy Tauzin in private meetings at the White House early in 2009 (the same Billy Tauzin Obama attacked in campaign ads).

Obama (when he was popular and had high approval ratings in February 2009) sold out the American people to Billy Tauzin for money from Billy Tauzin. It’s what Obama always does (read about the Obama health plan Obama supporters do not want to discuss) – treachery for personal gain and advancement.

Barack Obama’s presidency is a failure already. Barack Obama has destroyed the Democratic Party of FDR and Hillary Clinton. Now Barack Obama unwittingly will destroy the Commerce Clause as it has been wielded for a century.

In a sense the Supreme Court is irrelevant to the discussion of health care and health insurance and the Obama health scam. That judgement has already been rendered by the American People. All that is left for the Supreme Court to do on the Obama health scam is to place the tombstone.


Obama Treachery In Russia As Obama’s Heath Scam Goes To The Supreme Court

In March of 2008, during the primaries, Barack Obama made sure that Austen Goolsbee informed the Canadians that all that talk about NAFTA was just words designed to fool the yokels in Ohio and states he needed to win. All that tough talk on NAFTA was “more reflective of political maneuvering than policy” Goolsbee informed the Canadian government. Big Media protected Obama on his campaign trail lies in 2008.

Today it is Barack Obama himself declaring his future intentional treacheries to the Russian government. Already the Washington Post and National Journal are on the job protecting Obama and dismissing today’s treachery as a “gaffe”.

Congressman Turner of the House Armed Services Committee is warning Obama against trading away American missile defense, which is obviously what Obama intends if he can only get the Russians to shush:

“Except Obama wasn’t caught telling Medvedev that he needed more space because missile defense was “incredibly complicated.” He told Medvedev that he needed more space on the issue — in other words, to have it downplayed as a national-security dispute with Russia — in order to win a second term, so that he could have “more flexibility” to deal with the Russians. Very obviously, Obama gave a strong hint that he could be more favorable to the Russian position, which completely opposes the deployment of a Western missile shield in Europe, when Obama doesn’t have to worry about being more accountable to the voters.”

Credit where credit is due – Jake Tapper of ABC News. It’s Tapper who’s not letting this treachery go into the Big Media crapper. It’s Tapper who reported on the conversation of “Obama to Medvedev: I’ll totally cave on missile defense in my second term if Putin will give me “space”’:

“President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.”

The Russians are not going to give Barack Obama something for nothing. They’ll give Obama his personal political “space” if Barack Obama gives the Russian Federation all the space out there. A second term for Barack Obama would mean treachery unleashed.

Obama behind the scenes and Obama behind a TelePrompTer says two different things. Remember Obama calling the yokels “bitter” and attacking Netanyahu in private and saying he did not really say what he said, in public? He stood up against Exelon in public, he stood up with Exelon in private. And there is healthcare. Remember our article called “Barack Obama Is The Enemy Of Health Care Reform, Parts I and II”?

To say Obama’s health scam is in any way connected to healthcare reform is in many ways the biggest scam of all. The Obamination passed by Obama Dimocrats is really the government of the United States bailing out pharmaceutical companies (Obama is an investor in pharmaceuticals but other than here you rarely if ever hear that mentioned) and health insurance companies by forcing American citizens to buy crap “insurance” from these companies. The U.S. Government itself will act as a Frank Nitti style enforcer in the service of these heath care business companies.

In public Barack Obama attacked Billy Tauzin with campaign ads. In private Barack Obama made a deal with Billy Tauzin which gutted the concept of cost controls and real health care reform.

In public Barack Obama declared that his corrupt “reforms” would “bend the cost curve” downwards on health care costs but in private it was known back in 2009 that the numbers were all phony.

In public Obama declares that he does not raise taxes, that his health care scam is not a tax – in the courts however Barack Obama’s defense of his scam is that indeed it is a tax:

“The IRS will be the enforcer. It’s a tax.

Barack Obama attacked Hillary Clinton and John McCain and Sarah Palin by declaring one or all of them were too divisive whereas he would be “a uniter not a divider”, he would pass health care with a ton of bipartisan votes, they were for taxes and he would not raise taxes for those making less than $250,000, they were for mandates whereas he was against mandates, they were for taxing health insurance plans whereas he was against raising taxes on health insurance plans, they would penalize those who did not buy health insurance he would not…. Lies all.”

Immediately after the Obama health scam passed we discussed the legal issues that would come into play. The issues we discussed then are the issues the Supreme Court will discuss this week. There is the additional new issue of contract law which has captured many minds with its simple yet powerful case.

The JournoListers are on the protect Obama beat. So scared are the Praetorian Guard Journolisters, indeed most of Big Media, of the possibility of Obama care thrown into the garbage can that they are saying it would be good for Obama if his singular “achievement” gets dumped:

“There are ways, in other words, that Obama would be better off politically by losing this case, after he endures the first few days of horrible press. [snip]

Therefore, if the court does overturn the ACA, if this group of five conservatives legislates from the bench and violates the central conservative legal tenet of recent American history, enough Americans will smell a rat that the decision will invite a backlash. Certainly, liberals who were never wild about it (and there are many) would find themselves suddenly angry that it was negated by these five, not to mention furious at the sight of celebrating conservatives. And to independents who weren’t fans of the bill, Barack Obama can say, “OK, it’s gone, but if your 24-year-old daughter gets thrown off your plan, or your spouse gets denied coverage because of a preexisting condition, don’t blame me. I bestowed those rights. Some other people took them away.”

That’s simply wishful thinking. Opponents of the Obama health scam would achieve a massive victory and be exultant if they win. If they lose the sound heard would not be defeat but a roar of anger.

If supporters of the Obama health scam win in the courts they will lose in the ballot box. If the Obama health scam gets flung into the garbage can by the Supreme Court supporters of the scam would realize that Obama wasted years chasing a greased pig.

The Supreme Court of the United States will likely have it’s say this June when it issues it’s ruling on the Obama health scam. But the supreme sovereigns of the United States will have their say on all the Obama scams and on the scam artist himself this NOvember.


Obamination Anniversary: Corpse Of Trayvon Martin Abused By Barack Obama To Hide From Heathcare Scam Anniversary

Today is the second year anniversary of the horrid and hated Obama heath scam passage into law. Did Barack Obama celebrate and trumpet his singular “achievement”? No. Barack Obama chose instead to mutilate the corpse of Trayvon Martin by saying that kid resembles him. What an insult to the dead!

This miserable creature called Barack Obama is without shame. The Associated Press wrote last week about Obama’s use of his daughters for political gain:

“He’s cited Sasha and Malia, now 10 and 13, in discussing everything from the rescue of an American aid worker from Somali pirates to the touchy subject of public access to emergency contraception. His daughters also are prominent in a family photo being used by his re-election campaign. [snip]

Obama said at a news conference that he’d called Fluke after Limbaugh made his comments “because I thought about Malia and Sasha, and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on. I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don‘t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re good citizens.”

Invoking his daughters is a way for Obama to bring big issues down to human scale, in a disarming way. It also is a reminder to Americans of the president’s photogenic family, a priceless political asset in an election year.

The Obamas can be fiercely protective of their daughters’ privacy in some ways, complaining if the girls are photographed while out on their own, for example. But they’ve been more than willing to keep bringing them up in the national conversation and to keep them in the minds of voters as the general election approaches.”

This past week most Big Media news organizations actually removed news stories already published about an Obama daughter traipsing off to a Mexico vacation, earthquake included. So Obama exploits the daughters and Big Media scrubs references to them that do not flatter Barack Obama.

Exploitation of his daughters (is this “pimping” your daughters? as Obama lovin’ and protectin’ MSNBC once accused Hillary Clinton of doing?) apparently is not enough. Now Obama is entering the various realms of necrophilia as he exploits the dead Trayvon Martin.

Today, Barack Obama weighed in on the Trayvon Martin case. “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon” Obama said. It’s always about Barack to Barack.

Barack started his statement by noting he is the head of the Executive branch of government. It’s always about Barack. Then Barack proceeded to exploit the death of Trayvon. It should be noted that the Obama White House spokesmen have not commented all week on the Trayvon Martin case. [That might have been a smarter policy because the attempts to make this shooting a “racist” case (or as Geraldo does, blame the hoodie) might face some difficulty as the shooter is a Latino who comes from a multi-racial family and the facts on the case as presented by Big Media reports conflict with statements from the Latino Zimmerman family.]

A few minutes before the press conference began Josh Earnest of the press office approached the NBC JournoLister present and whispered something into his ear. The NBC JournoLister later asked Obama about Trayvon. Yes, we are implying this was a set up question designed to exploit the death of Trayvon Martin. It was the race card with a personal twist from a twisted personality that “occupies” the White House as if it were Zoo-cotti Park.

Why did Obama posthumously adopt Trayvon Martin? It’s a Friday adoption to make Americans forget about the Obamination Anniversary:

“Friday marked the second year anniversary of the passage of President Barack Obama’s controversial healthcare law referred to by many as “Obamacare.”

Next week, the law goes before the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear arguments on whether the law violates the Constitution.

One of the major sticking points to Obama’s contentious healthcare overhaul is the requirement that all Americans must buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.

Recent polls show three out of every five Americans oppose that mandate.

The White House was noticeably silent on the law’s two-year anniversary.

The Supreme Court takes up the law Monday to hear arguments on whether it’s constitutional.”

Two years ago Joe Biden said it was a “big f*cking deal”. Now it is without doubt a big f*cking disaster and Trayvon Martin will be hoist onto an Al Sharpton flatbed truck for an Obama adoption ceremony in order to avoid the “big f*cking disaster” getting discussed.

Today in a typically biased-towards-Obama article, Politico states those assumptions by Democrats on Obamacare were way off. Politico JournoListers did everything they could to help Obama pass his health scam two years ago and now even they have to admit we were right and they were wrong. Big f*cking wrong.

Barack Obama wants to posthumously adopt Trayvon Martin as his own today rather than discuss his own soon to be dead ultimate “achievement”. Others are not ignoring the Obamination Anniversary. Some are marking Obamacare’s Anniversary:

“On Wednesday, The Hill reported that Barack Obama wouldn’t do anything to celebrate the two-year anniversary of ObamaCare, his signature legislative achievement.  That might have to do with the fact that a majority of voters wants it repealed, and even a plurality of Democrats (48%) want it rolled back in whole or in part.  Still, just because Obama wants to be a party pooper doesn’t mean that others aren’t celebrating.  The RNC, for instance, has this brief spot called “ObamaCare’s Lonely Birthday,” but which could also be titled, “It’s My Party and I’ll Cry If I Want To”:

The Barack Obama lies on his signature Obamination are coming home to roost. The “cost curve” has not been bent downwards, as promised. Prices are soaring.

Next week the Supreme Court will begin its review of the Obamination. Barack Obama did not want to spend the Friday before that review begins on Monday engaged in a public discussion of how hated the Obamination is. That’s why Obama dredged up the body of Trayvon Martin today.


Illinois Republican Primary Showdown

A lot of delegates are up for grabs today in the Illinois showdown between Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. It’s Mittens versus Sweater day.

We’ll be looking at the results from the Chicago collar communities:

After voting for Barack Obama in 2008, all of them turned around and voted Republican by wide margins in the 2010 races for governor and Senate.

That this is a two man showdown demonstrates that Santorum has replaced Newt Gingrich as the Non-Romney in the race. That’s really very remarkable when one considers that Santorum lost his last general election race by double digits even as he declares that he is the one that will most definitely win Pennsylvania this NOvember.

Santorum used to have a lot of influence in Pennsylvania that cannot be denied. But that is not necessarily a positive. According to Arlen Specter 2006: “Hey, if not for Rick Santorum, I wouldn’t have been reelected.”

That Santorum bit of history altering influence did not work out so well:

As to Willard, he comes off a stunning victory in Puerto Rico by 75 points. Illinois voters better consider their vote with great care. Illinois voters owe the nation after foisting Barack Obama on us.


More Gassy Obama Lies And Treacheries

“I do think your record and what you say matters. And when it comes to a lot of the issues that are important in this race it is sometimes difficult to understand what Senator Obama has said because as soon as he’s confronted on it he says that’s not what he meant.”

That’s only half the problem. Barack Obama lies but he does more than lie – his lies are stacked on top of other lies. “As soon as he’s confronted on it he says that’s not what he meant” but the moment you explore that lie you find other lies gush out like a Texas oil strike.

This past week Obama focused his lies on oil, energy and especially gas prices. Obama at a nationally televised press conference smirked that no one can possibly believe that he is for higher gas prices because it is inconceivable that he would want higher gas prices as he runs for reelection. But then those damned video tapes condemn Obama as a liar who .

Yup, “Obama in 2008: Americans need to suck it up and pay more for energy.” It’s not the first time Barack Obama has lied about energy prices. In 2007/2008 we almost could not keep up with the many Obama lies on this topic. Big Media did its best to keep the Obama lies on the down low.

Let’s stroll memory lane to track Obama lies on energy. From “More Flops, More Flips, More Flims, More Flams”:

“Obama lied in February 2007 about his vote for Dick Cheney’s energy bill when he visited Selma for the first time ever.

Although Sen. Obama voted for the legislation, he has spoken as if he opposed it on the campaign trail, criticizing it repeatedly. At a presidential debate he said “You can look at how Dick Cheney did his energy policy…he met with oil and gas companies forty times, and that’s how they put together our energy policy.” He’s attributed the failure of our current energy policy to Congress’s “failure to stand up to the lobbyists.”

Sen. Obama’s rhetoric blasting the policies of Vice President Dick Cheney and energy lobbyists can be stirring. But Obama’s actions haven’t matched his words.

Obama’s latest flim-flam – still pretending he opposed the Cheney energy bill:

Democratic candidate Barack Obama criticized Republican John McCain on Tuesday for taking a page out of “the Cheney playbook” on energy, overlooking his own support of oil-friendly policies that the unpopular vice president helped to craft. [snip]

“President Bush, he had an energy policy. He turned to Dick Cheney and he said, ‘Cheney, go take care of this,'” Obama said. “Cheney met with renewable-energy folks once and oil and gas (executives) 40 times. McCain has taken a page out of the Cheney playbook.” [snip]

However, Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

Barack Obama lied about his intentions and votes when he ran against Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama lied about his intentions and votes when he ran against John McCain. Barack Obama continues to lie. Barack Obama will lie again.

Right now Barack Obama is preparing to loot American strategic oil reserves to help his reelection chances. Before he does this flip flop flim flam let’s get the history from 2008 before Obama flip flops and flim flams in 2012:


“As Republicans point out, Obama was against tapping the preserve just earlier this month. “I do not believe that we should use the strategic oil reserves at this point,” Obama said July 7. “I have said and, in fact, supported a congressional resolution that said that we should suspend putting more oil into the strategic oil reserve, but the strategic oil reserve, I think, has to be reserved for a genuine emergency. You have a situation, let’s say, where there was a major oil facility in Saudi Arabia that was destroyed as a consequence of terrorist acts, and you suddenly had huge amounts of oil taken out of the world market, we wouldn’t just be seeing $4-a-gallon oil. We could see a situation where entire sectors of the country had no oil to function at all. And that’s what the strategic oil reserve has to be for.

In August of 2008 Kevin Drum noted that Obama can’t be trusted on energy issues.

Every single story I’ve read about Obama’s energy speech today has the exact same lead: it’s yet another switcheroo from the Democratic candidate. Flip flop, flip flop.

And we can’t blame this one on the media, folks: Obama really is flopping around on energy policy, and he’s doing it in the most craven possible way, switching from correct but politically risky stands to dumb panders.

Obama cannot be trusted. As Hillary Clinton honestly stated as soon as he’s confronted on it he says that’s not what he meant. Obama lies about his lies and lies again when told that he lied:

Obama threatened to bankrupt coal powered plants. More importantly, Obama predicted that in an Obama presidency energy prices would “skyrocket”.

The issue, once again, is deception and trust. What are Barack Obama’s real intentions? [snip]

In remarks delivered earlier this year in San Francisco, Obama stated he plans to bankrupt the coal industry.

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them.“

There was in 2008 the time when Joe Biden declared he and Obama were against clean coal plants. When caught Biden yelled “liar” to smear those telling the truth.

Whenever confronted with the truth Barack Obama says it is not what he meant or else has his henchmen falsely charge “racism” or yell “liar”. It’s what Obama has done before. Past is prologue:

“No doubt, Obama will soon issue a denial that he ever said “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

The costs will be borne by the consumer – so said Barack Obama. Now in 2012 Barack Obama lies about what he said. When confronted Obama lies again and declares those telling the truth are “liars”.

Who’s the liar? Who can’t be trusted? Who has lied before, continues to lie, and will lie again?


Don’t Worry, Be Happy – Alabama, Mississippi Republican Primary Night

We’ve been saying for a while now to Republicans “Don’t Worry, Be Happy”. But still we hear that it is time to shut down the primaries and get on to the job of clobbering Barack Obama. Now we have to say “We’re right, you’re wrong.”

We’re right and those wanting an immediate end to the primaries are wrong. The bottom line is that not even the well organized Mitt Romney organization is sufficiently organized at the moment to successfully take on the Barack Obama organization. The Santorum and Gingrich “organizations” are not organized at all.

The longer the primary fight continues the more time the political organizations have of learning about each individual state and learning how to fight to victory. At the end of the primary season all the battle hardened troops of all the Republican campaigns will come together and take on the flabby Obama organization.

But, but, but, doesn’t this this long fight help Obama”? No. The flabby Barack Obama campaign is devouring money every month to simply exist and making nonsensical attempts to divert from the failures of tin calf Barack Obama. The latest desperation distraction is a silly ad attacking Sarah Palin.

In a wily response Sarah Palin issued her own challenge to debate “anytime anywhere” and noted that the Obama campaign was busy with the usual “diversionary tactics it employs to distract us from the issues our President just doesn’t want to talk about – issues that affect us all every day and must be addressed.”

Obama has to distract from his record. Today the CBO’s new 10 year projected cost of Obamacare is $1.76 trillion. It’s the failures stupid.

We say “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” because in the midst of this divisive fight within the Republican Party – Barack Obama is still in trouble. Proof? Obama’s approval rating has hit new lows in the CBS poll. The Washington Post/ABC poll also shows Obama hammered by gas prices. These are problems algae and diversions won’t fix or disguise.

Tonight we will witness the Alabama and Mississippi primary results roll in. Whatever happens in Alabama and Mississippi, (Romney win/wins in the South, Gingrich comes back a third time) we have the same advice to all: Don’t Worry, Be Happy. NOvember is almost here.


Andrew Breitbart Strikes From The Grave: Barack Obama The Race-Baiter Protected By Corrupt Big Media

Update: Yup, it’s all racism. CNN beclowns itself painting Breitbart editor-in-chief as racist. Discuss the real Obama and you too are a racist – aren’t we right Bill Clinton?


We should call this article “Dumb White People, Part II”. In March of 2008 we wrote “Dumb White People” and everything we wrote then is being constantly confirmed.

In “Dumb White People” we documented Andrew Sullivan asking Americans to vote for Barack Obama because Obama has a black face. “Black face” ordinarily would be minstrelry but for Obama Hopium Guzzlers this was a most excellent reason to vote for the corrupt clown from Chicago. In “Dumb White People” we documented John Kerry saying vote for Obama “because he’s a black man“.

In “Dumb White People” we also quoted from a profile of Barack Obama which gained almost zero attention. After reading that profile we wrote:

“Amazing how the recollections of Obama’s friends over and over again conflict with Obama’s fictionalized accounts of his life story.”

In this case the recollection, clear as a memory from Dumbledore’s pensive, questioned one of the central pillars of the Obama faithful: the notion that Barack Obama was “post racial”. Post racial? Barack Obama? Race-baiter is more like it. From the profile:

Keith Kakugawa was a close friend of Obama’s at the Punahou School. (He appears in “Dreams” as a revised character named “Ray” who may be a composite of more than one Obama friend.) He says that Obama, being a dark-skinned kid growing up in a white household, sensed that something was amiss. “He felt that he was not getting a part of who he was, the history,” says Kakugawa, who is also of mixed race. He recalls Obama’s reading black authors —James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, Langston Hughes—looking for clues. Keith didn’t know at first that Obama’s given name was Barack. “We were in the library and there was a Malcolm X book,” Kakugawa tells NEWSWEEK. “He grabbed it and looked at it and he’s checking it out, and I said, ‘Hold on, man. What you gonna do? Change your name to something Muslim?’ He said, ‘Well, my name is Barack Obama.’ And I said, ‘No it isn’t.’ And we got in an argument about that in the library and they had to tell us, ‘Shhhh’.”

Back in Hawaii in the 1970s, it could seem that everyone was some kind of a minority. The fact that Obama was half-black and half-white didn’t matter much to anyone but Obama, Kakugawa says: “He made everything out like it was all racial.” On one occasion, Obama thought he’d gotten a bad break on the school basketball team because he was black. But Kakugawa recalls his father’s telling the teenager, “No, Barry, it’s not because you’re black. It’s because you missed two shots in a row.” (Here, Kakugawa’s memory is different from Obama’s. The Ray character in the book is the one obsessed with being discriminated against.)

Yeah, in Obama’s fictionalized books he is the racial healer. Obama’s lies are self interested. Keith Kakugawa’s memories are more reliable first of all because his name is not “Ray” as Obama prefers and because Kakugawa has no need to distort the truth. Obama fictionalizes himself as the racial healer and his friend “Ray” as the “one obsessed with being discriminated against”. But it is Obama for whom race is the be all and end all. It is for Obama and his Hopium Guzzlers that the color of skin is what matters not the content of character.

When we wrote “Dumb White People” the Pennsylvania primaries loomed large. Obama trashed small town America as populated by “bitter” people who “cling” to guns and the Bible and that was Obama’s understanding of why small town America would not worship at his altar.

We now know that an army of news reporters and opinion writers at the time were secretly meeting at a listserve called “JournoList”. We now know that the JournoListers conspired to willfully “kill” the Jeremiah Wright story. The JournoListers understood that the Jeremiah Wright association with Barack Obama killed the “post racial Obama” lies that Obama spun.

Today, from the grave, Andrew Breitbart rises to challenge race-baiter Barack Obama’s lies and fictional history. Called to once again rescue Barack Obama? – JournoLister Ben Smith:

“Earlier today, Buzzfeed’s Ben Smith announced on Twitter that video researcher Andrew Kaczynski had released “the mysterious Harvard/Obama/race video that the Breitbart folks have been talking about.

The video, which Kaczynski says was “licensed from a Boston television station,” shows a young Barack Obama leading a protest at Harvard Law School on behalf of Prof. Derrick Bell, a radical academic tied to Jeremiah Wright–about whom we will be releasing significant information in the coming hours.

However, the video has been selectively edited–either by the Boston television station or by Buzzfeed itself. Over the course of the day, Breitbart.com will be releasing additional footage that has been hidden by Obama’s allies in the mainstream media and academia.

Breitbart.com Editor-in-Chief Joel Pollak and Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro will appear on The Sean Hannity Show to discuss the tape. The full tape will be released tonight on Fox News’ Hannity.

Isn’t it amazing that television stations had footage of Obama which would have hurt him severely in 2007/2008 but they kept Obama protected and the video secret.

The first comment at Breitbart.com sums it up:

“So let me get this straight:

After all these years, Buzzfeed just happens to find the same video Breitbart promised to release. A video no one in the mainstream media — with all their resources — could be bothered to find during the ’08 election cycle.

Now, with the threat of the Bigs publishing it, Obama’s palace guard preemptively distributes it — with severe edits.

The corruption in the media has gone too far. They are open partisans and must be countered with everything we have.”

In Dumb White People we cited Barack Obama calling his grandmother, the grandmother who took good care of him while his mother was tramping around the world looking for third world men to satisfy her fetish of non-white men, as a “typical white person“. Imagine the outrage if anyone called Barack Obama or his lantern-jawed hulking wife “a typical black person”.

Barack Obama and his henchmen have spent years and millions of dollars trying to hide the real Barack Obama. Pictures of Barack Obama smoking and in leather jackets with wide brimmed pimp hats were successfully hidden from sight by Big Media in 2007/2008. But those pictures emerge bit by bit now.

In “The Persistence of Memory“, we documented that the strategy has been to keep the real Obama hidden from sight:

“The L.A. Times is the latest cheerleader for the unvetted Obama.

Obama can thank Jack for keeping the roll of photographs she took of him in 1980 out of circulation until he was elected. Nine were first published in Time magazine’s December “Person of the Year” spread on Obama; now 21 of the 36 photos, plus a blow-up of her original contact sheet, make up “Barack Obama: The Freshman,” an exhibition opening Thursday at M+B Gallery in West Hollywood.

Jack rummaged for the long-ignored negatives in her Minneapolis basement early in 2008, after it became clear Obama was a serious contender for the presidency. The callow kid kicking back on a couch in a living room near L.A.’s Occidental College, where he and Jack were students, may not have been the image the Obama campaign wanted to project.

It was a strategy to keep information about the real Barack Obama from the public in order to put him in the White House all the while denouncing anyone who called Obama the “Manchurian Candidate”. Big Media and everyone who wanted their Manchurian Candidate in the White House knew that the truth would hurt Barack Obama and they purposefully deceived the public by purposefully hiding the truth:

“I’m sure Hillary would have paid a fortune for them: ‘Is this who you want picking up the phone at 3 a.m.?’ ” Jack said from Minneapolis, her discourse earthy, humorous and freewheeling, sometimes salty. “I could have made a boatload of money, probably, but I wanted to do it right.”

As we noted at the time, the Time photo editor, Alice Gabriner, who saw the Obama-as-pimp photographs before the election but kept the secret from the American public now works for Barack Obama:

As his bandwagon rolled toward the White House last year, Jack knew her pictures would have both historical interest and cash value. At Time magazine, chief photo editor Alice Gabriner viewed the contact sheet Jack had sent on spec before the election and was impressed. “She’d captured something we hadn’t seen before.” When the discussion turned to payment, Gabriner said, “She was really a novice. I told her, ‘You have to think what’s the right home for these. I’m sure a tabloid would pay you a lot of money.’ She said, ‘No, no tabloids.’ ”

Gabriner, who left Time in March to become deputy director of the White House photo staff, says she’s never heard what Obama thought of Jack’s pictures.

Dead Andrew Breitbart is more of a journalist and more active in the pursuit of truth than all the Ben Smiths which populate Big Media.


Superlies on Super Tuesday

The misogynist-in-chief tried to step on the Republican Super Tuesday primaries today. Again. The sexist Barack Obama is casting himself as a women’s rights activist and the Republicans are so stupid they are letting him get away with this lie. Instead of calling Obama out on his overt sexism, on Obama Dimocrat’s overt misogyny Republicans are talking about a fluke argument on contraceptives.

It’s not the only lie Republicans allow Obama to spout. There are the backstabbing lies and attempts to weaken Israel which we discussed earlier this week. WATCH YOUR BACK ISRAEL! There are the lies about gas prices and energy.

After advocating and agitating for higher energy prices, starting in 2007, Obama today audaciously advertised the fact that he was against high gas prices because otherwise it would hurt his reelection chances. It’s always about himself.

In their defense, Republicans are too busy shooting at themselves to worry about Obama. It’s as it should be. They first need to settle the argument amongst themselves as to who the leader of their party is to be and then they can begin to take care of business with Barack Obama.

With tonight’s results we will be on huge step forward in the Republican’s making up their minds on a nominee. Some might call today “Stupor Tuesday” but we’ll at least be exultant that this is getting closer to resolution. Let’s call it “Splendiferous Tuesday” whatever happens because it heralds one more step towards dumping Barack Obama back into the sludge pits of Lake Michigan.

We’ve, fairly we think, trashed all the Republican candidates for president. We’ve told the truth about Barack Obama too. We won’t go into all those arguments tonight and suffice to say “NObama”.

Tonight is just a night to watch the numbers (yup, OHIO) as they come in.


Treachery Followed By Bamboozlement: Barack Obama Against Israel

It’s really easy to understand Barack Obama. First comes the river of flowery words and promises. Then comes the treachery. Once the treachery is recognized by those he duped – comes the river of flowery words designed to bamboozle. Lies – Treachery – Deceit.

That last stage, bamboozlement, is the state Americans, and especially supporters of Israel, find Obama wriggling in right now. After years of engaging in his anti-Israel treachery Barack Obama finds many Americans support Israel and that it is an election year:

“The large majority of Americans continue to view Israel favorably, while far fewer say they view the Palestinian Authority or Iran very or mostly favorably.

These data are from Gallup’s annual World Affairs survey, conducted each February since 2001. The Feb. 2-5, 2012, survey asked Americans to rate a list of more than 20 countries. Iran ranked at the very bottom, the Palestinian Authority was several spots higher up, and Israel was much closer to the top of the list.

President Obama is to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Monday at the White House, where the two leaders will likely focus most of their discussion on their nations’ respective stances toward Iran. Obama made strong statements on the issue in an interview this week with The Atlantic magazine, telling the publication that the United States “has Israel’s back.” Both leaders are scheduled to address the upcoming American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington D.C., which will also be highly focused on Iran. The three leading Republican presidential candidates are also set to speak at the pro-Israel lobbying organization’s annual gathering — each seeking to position himself as best equipped to support Israel. [snip]

On that front, most Americans also continue to say their sympathies are more with the Israelis than with the Palestinians.

Americans have consistently been more sympathetic to the Israelis than the Palestinians since Gallup started asking the question in 1988. Since the mid-2000s, Americans have become increasingly sympathetic to the Israelis, while the percentage sympathetic to the Palestinians has stayed the same. The percentage volunteering a neutral position or no opinion has declined in recent years.”

That Gallup poll demonstrates why Barack Obama is trying to cover up his years of anti-Israel treacheries with the current bamboozlement tour. Barack Obama snubbed Israel when he went to the Middle East. Barack Obama has refused to visit Israel. Barack Obama distorted Middle East history to paint Israel as the villain when he gave a speech to the “Muslim World” in Cairo (the same trip in which for the first time an American President in the Middle East refused to go to Israel choosing instead to visit Arab Muslim capitals and bow humbly to the Saudi King). Barack Obama in essence demanded the destruction of Israel with his “return to the 1967 borders” speech. Barack Obama displayed his contempt for the Israeli Prime Minister repeatedly in ways that no Arab/Muslim leader could fail to notice or act on. Barack Obama has done more to postpone an Israeli strike against Iran than to stop an Iranian bomb. Barack Obama because of his treacheries and policies has made it more likely, not less, that Israel will eventually have to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Obama is attempting this election year bamboozlement but some are standing up to his lies:

“We believe that that the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines,” Obama is shown saying, a reference to his May, 2011 speech, where he for the first time explicitly defined U.S. policy as supporting the 1967 borders with agreed swaps as the basis for Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

“He didn’t quite have a full grasp of what the full region looks like,” conservative journalist Lee Smith is shown saying in the video. “This is not how you treat an ally.” [snip]

The video was produced by the group the Emergency Committee for Israel, which has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on its pre-AIPAC publicity campaign, including posters and billboards all over Washington that question Obama’s commitment to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

“He says a nuclear Iran is unacceptable. Do you believe him?” the posters read. Then, next to a picture of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini and President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, it says, “Do they?” [snip]

“We hope he means what he says, but the recent statements from his administration, his contentious relationship with the Israeli government, and his consistent efforts to weaken congressional sanctions don’t inspire confidence.” [snip]

Pollak also said that the video, billboards, and ads happen to refute a pre-AIPAC interview Obama gave to The Atlantic, in which Obama expressed frustration with the attacks coming from conservative lawmakers and groups like ECI that claim he is not pro-Israel.

“Every single commitment I have made to the state of Israel and its security, I have kept,” Obama said. “Why is it that despite me never failing to support Israel on every single problem that they’ve had over the last three years, that there are still questions about that?”

“Obama said today he doesn’t understand why there are questions about his record of support for Israel,” Pollak said. “We think this movie will set the record straight, and remind pro-Israel Americans of the facts of this administration’s failure to stand with Israel at some critical moments.”

Barack Obama has repeatedly signaled Arab/Muslim leaders that he is anti-Israel. Those leaders know they have a friend in the White House. Those leaders know Israel has an enemy in the White House.

As to the State Department, we have repeatedly defended and continue to defend Hillary Clinton as a strong supporter of Israel holding back a treacherous Barack Obama. We believe we are correct in defending Hillary Clinton. But on the off chance that we are wrong (and have no doubt we are absolutely correct on this matter) or that some will seek to shield Barack Obama with Hillary Clinton let’s make this point clear: the American alliance with Israel is much more important than the fate of any one leader no matter how much we admire her and no matter how much a resurrection of a functioning and fair Democratic Party hinges on her political viability. We stand with Israel. America must stand with Israel.

Many smart Israeli’s will not be bamboozled by Barack Obama’s treachery coverup tour and his speech today before AIPAC. Few believe Barack Obama:

“Obama’s words are tough but his actions aren’t… He talked about Teddy Roosevelt holding a big stick. Right now we are seeing big words but a very, very small stick.”

Obama’s repeated lies about support for Israel at AIPAC today have been proven to be lies.

In 2007/2008 Hillary Clinton told America that Barack Obama was not ready to be president. It was a powerful message encapsulated in an television ad that Obama supporters loathed. The ad told the truth. An updated version of the ad tells the truth about the abyss we face:

“Here Comes Obama’s 3 AM Phone Call

In the next 60 days Obama’s presidential career will finally meet that concrete wall of reality. He will either fail or survive. Trouble is, he might take many innocent people with him if he fails.

So far, the most hyped-up and unqualified president in US history has shown no capacity at all to act, in the face of a do-or-die challenge. [snip]

On or about April 1 of 2012, that 3 AM phone call will reach the White House. We know what it will be — which is itself a sign of stunning incompetence in this White House. None of this information should ever be public. Ever.

But this administration has chosen its Secretary of Defense to publicly leak the most closely guarded secret of Israel’s back-against-the-wall defense against Iranian nuclear weapons. [snip]

Obama thrives on crisis and chaos. He is a gambler and a con artist who follows Napoleon’s slogan of “audacity, audacity, always audacity.” But Napoleon met his Moscow winter and his Waterloo. The only question is when Obama will crash into his own brick wall of reality.

April Fool’s Day would be a very suitable target date for the coming Iranian nuclear crisis. [snip]

Around April 1, the biggest fool of the 21st century will stand revealed to the world.

After that, the American people will have to decide.

It’s 3 a.m. and the Prime Minister of Israel is Calling.”

We have heard from sources that Barack Obama wants to make it difficult for Israel to attack Iran in spring of this year because Barack Obama wants to have American forces attack Iran – in September/October. The reasons for this are supposedly because this attack will be timed for the election. With Americans overwhelmingly in support of Israel and against Iranian nuclear weapons Obama reasons, we have heard, that he will then be a popular war leader and be elected. Obama is more than willing to betray those phony “anti-war” hypocrites that have gone silent since he became president.

But we have also heard that the stall until September/October might be all the time that Iran needs to get a nuclear weapon. It’s a confusing situation because with Barack Obama treachery hides behind treachery.

This year more than ever it is important to remember what we have written repeatedly year after year:

“Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.”