OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERS:
“This was not because of
difficulties in securing indictments or convictions. On the contrary, Attorney
General Eric Holder told a Senate committee in March of 2013 that the Obama
administration chose not to prosecute the big banks or their CEOs because to do
so might “have a negative impact on the national economy.”
OBAMANOMICS
TO SERVE BANKSTERS AND
GLOBAL BILLIONAIRES
"One of the premier institutions of
big business, JP Morgan Chase, issued an internal report on the
eve of the 10th anniversary of the 2008 crash, which warned that
another “great liquidity crisis” was possible, and that a
government bailout on the scale of that effected by Bush and Obama
will produce social unrest, “in light of the potential impact
of central bank actions in driving inequality between
asset owners and labor."
BARACK OBAMA’S CONSPIRACY FOR A THIRD TERM FOR LIFE
First, destroy Trump and put Hillary away if she doesn’t end up in
jail.
HE PARTNERS WITH ZUCKERBERG, SOROS AND LOUIS FARRAKHAN
“Obama would declare himself president for life with Soros
really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”
“Hillary was always
small potatoes, a placeholder as it were. Her health was always suspect. And do
you think the plotters would have let a doofus like Tim Kaine take office in
the event that Hillary became disabled?”
“Obama has the totalitarian
impulse. After all, he went around saying he didn't have Constitutional
authority to legalize the illegals, and then he tried anyway. The courts
stopped him.”
“The bottom line 2 is
this: Barack Obama is a Communist. This was all an Obama operation. Why is
anyone surprised that a communist (Obama) tried to subvert an election. That is
what Communists do. It is Barack Obama and his people like Brennan and Clapper behaving
to type. That's what Maduro does in Venezuela. That's what the Castro brothers
did. That's what every communist and socialist nation does. THEY FIX ELECTIONS!!”
“Hillary
kept a secret server overflowing with national security info which, more than
likely, was hacked. June 28, 2016, on a Phoenix tarmac, Bill Clinton met with
Attorney General Loretta Lynch to seal a deal insuring Hillary would not be
prosecuted.”
“Obama, of course, covered
up his own role, depicting his presidency as eight years of heroic
efforts to repair the damage caused by the 2008 financial crash. At
the end of those eight years, however, Wall Street and the financial
oligarchy were fully recovered, enjoying record wealth, while
working people were poorer than before, a widening social chasm that
made possible the election of the billionaire con man and Demagogue in November
2016.”
David Bernstein & The Heritage Foundation - “Lawless: The
Obama Administration’s Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule
of Law.”
“The
Lawlessness of the Obama Administration: A never-ending story.” Michael Barone
– American Historian – Washington
Examiner
Obama’s crony earned big bucks while Chicago pension funds lost $54 million
Chicago’s pension obligations are a time bomb nearing explosion. Taxes already have been increased, but far steeper hikes will be necessary, worrying city council members. Imagine yourself a Chicago homeowner receiving a property tax bill that has risen by middle double digits, knowing that the pension funds are going to have to replace $54 million that was lost in deal handed to insiders who lost money while collecting $9 million in developer’s fees. Would it be any comfort to know that the two principals in the deal were former Mayor Richard M. Daley’s nephew and a politically connected developer that was Barack Obama’s boss when the Harvard Law graduate entering Chicago political life.
The Chicago Sun-Times reports on the scandal, minus the Obama connection of one of the principals.
If there ever was any hope that five Chicago city workers pension funds would make any money by investing $68 million with then-Mayor Richard M. Daley’s nephew and one of his key political supporters, it didn’t last long.Only months after the deals were made a dozen years ago, problems began to emerge.The nephew, Robert G. Vanecko, and his business partner Allison S. Davis, a developer who gave campaign money to Daley and was appointed by the mayor to head the Chicago Plan Commission, started investing in a series of property deals that, by the time the last of them are unwound by the end of December, will have cost the city workers pension funds 80 percent of the $68 million they put in — $54 million in all.Vanecko and Davis set up a company, DV Urban Realty Partners, and bought an apartment building that was riddled with code violations.They invested in a vacant building that once housed the Chicago Defender, even as City Hall inspectors threatened to tear it down unless repairs were made.They put city employees’ pension money into an old warehouse that sat on land so poisoned with arsenic and lead that the pension funds had to help pay $2.6 million for cleanup just to be able to unload it at a huge loss.
Allison Davis is not merely a political donor. That name has appeared many times in AT. For instance:
In 1993, Barack Obama joined a Chicago law firm that specialized in helping develop low-income housing. In time, the job would bring him political support from slum landlords who make Clinton's shady Arkansas associates look like teenage shoplifters.Obama's connections with public housing developers and property managers have been investigated in depth by a cadre of reporters from the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun Times. The major TV networks and national print media, particularly the New York Times and Washington Post, have ignored their findings.Once the media declared the Tony Rezko story over when he was convicted in federal court, the national media's attention turned away from Chicago. Here's just part of the story they've missed.Obama Joins The Law Firm of Davis Miner Barnhill & GallandBarack Obama was a law student at Harvard in 1990 when Rezko's low-income housing development company offered him a job. He declined. Two years later he returned to Chicago to work on a voter registration drive while he figured out what to do next.Next came in 1993 when he joined a law firm that represented subsidized housing developers eager to tap into government funds available to reconstruct public housing. Mayor Richard M. Daley planned to tear down Chicago's old, dilapidated public housing stock and build new units. It promised government housing renovation on a massive scale.At Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, Allison Davis was Obama's boss and tutor in the legalities of government subsidized housing.A generation older than Obama, Davis grew up in Hyde Park, home of the University of Chicago, where his father was the school's first African-American professor. After a stint in the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in West Africa, he returned to Chicago to become active in the civil rights movement as an attorney in the Metropolitan Housing and Planning Council. In those years, Davis was a reformed-minded lawyer often at odds with Mayor Richard J. Daley, Richard the 1st.In 1971, Davis opened a small law firm that would include Carol Moseley-Braun, who became a one-term U.S. Senator from Illinois. Years later, Davis would serve on the finance committee of another former employee running for the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama, along with Tony Rezko and Valerie Jarrett.Obama worked at the firm from 1993 until he was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004.
Hey, it’s the Chicago Way.
Recall that Barack Obama moved to the Windy City because he was attracted to its political possibilities.
More 'legacy lies' from
outgoing Obama on economy
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/more_legacy_lies_from_outgoing_obama_on_economy.html#ixzz404dvRyAl
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/a_day_in_the_life_of_central_americans_crossing_mexico.html
The ‘Right Stuff’ for the
Presidency
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_right_stuff_for_the_presidency.html#ixzz3z2cbt8Me
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
More 'legacy lies' from
outgoing Obama on economy
By Jack Hellner
Here is what President
Obama said on the Ellen show on Abe Lincoln's birthday:
Since I came into office,
we reduced the deficit by two-thirds, but if you ask the average person,
they're sure that spending has shot up. And the reason is because there are a
bunch of folks who say that we're wildly overspending, even though we aren't.
Here are some actual
numbers: in FY 2007, the last year President Bush and Republicans had 100%
control of Congress, federal spending including both wars was $2.7 trillion.
The budget President Obama just submitted is $4.1 trillion. That is
up over 50% despite record-low interest rates and his continually bragging that
he has ended the wars. Median family income around the country is
actually down or flat, so I do not understand how the president could pretend
that they aren't overspending and taxing.
The deficit was down to $161 billion in FY 2007, including the spending on the wars and because of President Bush's across-the-board tax cuts in the summer of 2003. In FY 2003, federal income tax receipts had decreased to around $900 billion prior to the tax cuts, due to a recession and a collapsed stock market. By FY 2007, due to the stimulus of the tax cuts, the economy rebounded, economic growth was substantial, unemployment was way down (not because of a lower labor participation rate), and income tax receipts had climbed to over $1.5 trillion. The tax rate cuts did not cause receipts to go down, as Democrats and CBO had projected; they actually skyrocketed by over 60%. The tax cuts obviously did not cause the deficit.
The projected deficit for FY 2016 is projected to be over $500 billion. Think how high it would be if the Federal Reserve weren't keeping the interest rates artificially low.
Despite the record-low interest rates and massive increases in federal spending, economic growth has been some of the slowest on record after a recession. Keynesian economics is obviously not that stimulating.
The president also continually says that his policies brought us out of the great recession. The recession actually ended by June 2009, four months and ten days after he took office. This is obviously before any of his policies could have had any effect.
On February 10, in Springfield, Illinois, he gave a speech where he said his opponents are not entitled to their own facts. It would be nice if he paid attention to that lecture, and it would be great if the media would call him out on his many false statements.
The deficit was down to $161 billion in FY 2007, including the spending on the wars and because of President Bush's across-the-board tax cuts in the summer of 2003. In FY 2003, federal income tax receipts had decreased to around $900 billion prior to the tax cuts, due to a recession and a collapsed stock market. By FY 2007, due to the stimulus of the tax cuts, the economy rebounded, economic growth was substantial, unemployment was way down (not because of a lower labor participation rate), and income tax receipts had climbed to over $1.5 trillion. The tax rate cuts did not cause receipts to go down, as Democrats and CBO had projected; they actually skyrocketed by over 60%. The tax cuts obviously did not cause the deficit.
The projected deficit for FY 2016 is projected to be over $500 billion. Think how high it would be if the Federal Reserve weren't keeping the interest rates artificially low.
Despite the record-low interest rates and massive increases in federal spending, economic growth has been some of the slowest on record after a recession. Keynesian economics is obviously not that stimulating.
The president also continually says that his policies brought us out of the great recession. The recession actually ended by June 2009, four months and ten days after he took office. This is obviously before any of his policies could have had any effect.
On February 10, in Springfield, Illinois, he gave a speech where he said his opponents are not entitled to their own facts. It would be nice if he paid attention to that lecture, and it would be great if the media would call him out on his many false statements.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/more_legacy_lies_from_outgoing_obama_on_economy.html#ixzz404dvRyAl
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/a_day_in_the_life_of_central_americans_crossing_mexico.html
The ‘Right Stuff’ for the
Presidency
By Jon N. Hall
An old joke I heard during my brief time in the opera business went something like this: There are four types of tenors: leggiero, lyric, spinto, and heldentenor. The leggiero tenor has no balls. The lyric tenor has one ball. The spinto tenor has two balls. And the heldentenor has two balls, and he’s standing on one of them.
An old joke I heard during my brief time in the opera business went something like this: There are four types of tenors: leggiero, lyric, spinto, and heldentenor. The leggiero tenor has no balls. The lyric tenor has one ball. The spinto tenor has two balls. And the heldentenor has two balls, and he’s standing on one of them.
The joke might be funny
only to opera goers, especially those who attend the Bayreuth Festival. But
allow me to add that the recently-departed Canadian heldentenor Jon Vickers had
three or four balls and never needed to stand on any of them. (As you might
guess, I’m a fan of that late, great singer.)
In any event, balls bring us to Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of the U.K. Some might think it rude to say that the “Iron Lady” had more balls than the men of her day leading other European nations -- rude, that is, to Lady Thatcher, who was every inch a woman. However, it could be said that compared to some of her male counterparts, Mrs. Thatcher certainly had no fewer balls.
What is meant by “balls” is: guts, grit, courage, will, determination, and resolve. But those attributes can also work in the service of evil; Hitler certainly had “will,” didn’t he? So there must be other qualities that are needed in the leader of a nation besides balls. Just what are those other qualities that make a person fit to be the prime minister or the president of a great nation?
At a recent rally in New Hampshire, former president Clinton spoke of his wife Hillary: “I spent a lot of time thinking about this. I do not believe in my lifetime anybody has run for this job at a moment of great importance who was better qualified by knowledge, experience, and temperament to do what needs to be done now to restore prosperity, to deal with these human issues, to make us as safe as possible. Thank you very much [short video].”
Okay, but why believe him? After all, the former president has a record of lying, even under oath in a grand jury. Perhaps Bill’s just trying to get himself back in the White House. And I’d like to remind the former president that he was alive in 1946. So his “lifetime” includes the runs for president of Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, and Reagan. Hillary’s more qualified than those guys? C’mon, Bill.
“Going the Distance,” a January 2014 article in The New Yorker, is often cited for Pres. Obama’s reference to ISIS as a junior varsity basketball team: “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” (And getting elected president doesn’t mean one is fit to be president, Mr. President.)
Another Obama quote from that same article is germane to our issue of what are the essentials, the “right stuff,” for being president: “I have strengths and I have weaknesses, like every president, like every person. I do think one of my strengths is temperament.”
Is that a fact? Does Obama have the correct temperament for the presidency? When Bill Clinton spoke in New Hampshire about his wife, he stressed the word “temperament.” So, what exactly is theideal presidential temperament?
One important aspect of temperament is the ability and willingness to be collegial. “Collegiality” involves respecting one’s colleagues and listening to their ideas; it involves being open to others’ input. So many of the monumental achievements of the modern age, like going to the Moon, were massive collegial efforts, where folks pool their knowledge and expertise. Together, we’re smarter.
Barack Obama demonstrated a lack of collegiality at the Healthcare Summit in 2010. Senator McCain had just presented a very respectful call to revisit certain issues in the healthcare legislation that would become ObamaCare, and finished his comments saying, “I thank you, Mr. President.” Obama responded thus: “Let me just make this point, John, because we’re not campaigning anymore; the election’s over.” Some might have wished that McCain had responded in kind: Yes, Barry, I know, and I can’t explain the electorate’s bad judgment.
Fortunately, Sen. McCain was a gentleman and refrained from payback. Had he done so, it would have further poisoned the summit, (and he would have lowered himself to Obama’s level). There was nothing in Sen. McCain’s comments that was unreasonable, but the president couldn’t resist putting McCain in his place. What would possess someone to be so rude to a genuine American patriot? Was it that Sen. McCain wouldn’t let Obama cut him off: “Can I just finish, please?” Maybe that ticked off our little princeling. (You can watch McCain’s entire presentation by starting at the 2:21:10 mark of this C-SPAN video, or you can watch just the end, or this split-screen version positioned at Obama’s snark.)
Throughout his presidency, Obama has demonstrated a singular deficiency at collegiality. When Obama encounters questions he doesn’t like, he tries to shut down the questioner and end the discussion. When asked if the healthcare bill’s “individual mandate” were actually a tax, Obama would have none of it, and laughed at his questioner dismissively. Obama’s belief in his own pet ideas is so absolute that he is even comfortable overriding the best advice of his generals. Obama seems not to have an ability to work with others; it’s all “my way or the highway.” But there’s no need for collegiality if you already know everything. In “The Confident Ignorance of Barack Obama,” Thomas Sowell writes:
In any event, balls bring us to Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of the U.K. Some might think it rude to say that the “Iron Lady” had more balls than the men of her day leading other European nations -- rude, that is, to Lady Thatcher, who was every inch a woman. However, it could be said that compared to some of her male counterparts, Mrs. Thatcher certainly had no fewer balls.
What is meant by “balls” is: guts, grit, courage, will, determination, and resolve. But those attributes can also work in the service of evil; Hitler certainly had “will,” didn’t he? So there must be other qualities that are needed in the leader of a nation besides balls. Just what are those other qualities that make a person fit to be the prime minister or the president of a great nation?
At a recent rally in New Hampshire, former president Clinton spoke of his wife Hillary: “I spent a lot of time thinking about this. I do not believe in my lifetime anybody has run for this job at a moment of great importance who was better qualified by knowledge, experience, and temperament to do what needs to be done now to restore prosperity, to deal with these human issues, to make us as safe as possible. Thank you very much [short video].”
Okay, but why believe him? After all, the former president has a record of lying, even under oath in a grand jury. Perhaps Bill’s just trying to get himself back in the White House. And I’d like to remind the former president that he was alive in 1946. So his “lifetime” includes the runs for president of Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, and Reagan. Hillary’s more qualified than those guys? C’mon, Bill.
“Going the Distance,” a January 2014 article in The New Yorker, is often cited for Pres. Obama’s reference to ISIS as a junior varsity basketball team: “The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant.” (And getting elected president doesn’t mean one is fit to be president, Mr. President.)
Another Obama quote from that same article is germane to our issue of what are the essentials, the “right stuff,” for being president: “I have strengths and I have weaknesses, like every president, like every person. I do think one of my strengths is temperament.”
Is that a fact? Does Obama have the correct temperament for the presidency? When Bill Clinton spoke in New Hampshire about his wife, he stressed the word “temperament.” So, what exactly is theideal presidential temperament?
One important aspect of temperament is the ability and willingness to be collegial. “Collegiality” involves respecting one’s colleagues and listening to their ideas; it involves being open to others’ input. So many of the monumental achievements of the modern age, like going to the Moon, were massive collegial efforts, where folks pool their knowledge and expertise. Together, we’re smarter.
Barack Obama demonstrated a lack of collegiality at the Healthcare Summit in 2010. Senator McCain had just presented a very respectful call to revisit certain issues in the healthcare legislation that would become ObamaCare, and finished his comments saying, “I thank you, Mr. President.” Obama responded thus: “Let me just make this point, John, because we’re not campaigning anymore; the election’s over.” Some might have wished that McCain had responded in kind: Yes, Barry, I know, and I can’t explain the electorate’s bad judgment.
Fortunately, Sen. McCain was a gentleman and refrained from payback. Had he done so, it would have further poisoned the summit, (and he would have lowered himself to Obama’s level). There was nothing in Sen. McCain’s comments that was unreasonable, but the president couldn’t resist putting McCain in his place. What would possess someone to be so rude to a genuine American patriot? Was it that Sen. McCain wouldn’t let Obama cut him off: “Can I just finish, please?” Maybe that ticked off our little princeling. (You can watch McCain’s entire presentation by starting at the 2:21:10 mark of this C-SPAN video, or you can watch just the end, or this split-screen version positioned at Obama’s snark.)
Throughout his presidency, Obama has demonstrated a singular deficiency at collegiality. When Obama encounters questions he doesn’t like, he tries to shut down the questioner and end the discussion. When asked if the healthcare bill’s “individual mandate” were actually a tax, Obama would have none of it, and laughed at his questioner dismissively. Obama’s belief in his own pet ideas is so absolute that he is even comfortable overriding the best advice of his generals. Obama seems not to have an ability to work with others; it’s all “my way or the highway.” But there’s no need for collegiality if you already know everything. In “The Confident Ignorance of Barack Obama,” Thomas Sowell writes:
As Professor Richard
Epstein of the University of Chicago Law School has pointed out, Obama
made no effort to take part in the marketplace of ideas with other
faculty members when he was teaching a law course there. What would be the
point, if he already knew the truth and knew that they were wrong? [Italics
added.]
The main objective of
“political animals” like Obama and the Clintons is to get elected; it’s not to
fix a broken America, nor to protect her. There are people who govern and there
are people who campaign; Obama and the Clintons are the latter. Just look at
the huge Republican electoral gains under Obama and the Clintons. It’s amazing
that Democrats who still care about their party still support the very people
who have brought it down.
America is so beaten up and broken right now that she needs a “savior,” like a Lincoln. If Obama doesn’t do the right thing and proceed with an indictment of Mrs. Clinton, then Republicans should “fight fire with oil” and nominate a woman. And they should also insist on a minority for running mate. Just to be sure, they probably ought to do those two things anyway. Carly Fiorina might just have the right temperament to be president, but there are other terrific conservative women that convention delegates could draft.
America needs a collegial president, not a “lyrical” one.
America is so beaten up and broken right now that she needs a “savior,” like a Lincoln. If Obama doesn’t do the right thing and proceed with an indictment of Mrs. Clinton, then Republicans should “fight fire with oil” and nominate a woman. And they should also insist on a minority for running mate. Just to be sure, they probably ought to do those two things anyway. Carly Fiorina might just have the right temperament to be president, but there are other terrific conservative women that convention delegates could draft.
America needs a collegial president, not a “lyrical” one.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/the_right_stuff_for_the_presidency.html#ixzz3z2cbt8Me
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
.jpg){kind=link}
No comments:
Post a Comment