Tuesday, March 20, 2018

OBAMA'S CRONY CAPITALISM 'Smash and Grab' and call it "Hope and Change'...... What a psychopath huckster he was and is!



 Editorial Reviews

Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics.

Exclusive–‘Smash and Grab’: Schweizer Explains How Obama Weaponized Regulations to Enrich His Buddies

Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute, joined Monday’s edition of SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Tonight to discuss revelations in his latest book, Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends, including how former President Barack Obama’s “smash and grab” strategy allowed friends to buy up various companies for “pennies on the dollar” following market devaluations resulting from the Obama administration’s regulatory policies. Some of the ill-gotten funds later found their way into the Obama Foundation.

Breitbart News Editor-at-Large Rebecca Mansour asked Schweizer to explain Obama’s “smash and grab” policy. “Tell us about this thing with Obama because I’m looking at all the characters on your cover here of your book. … Tell us about Obama and his best friend and what they did.”
Schweizer spoke of Martin Nesbitt — whom he described as Obama’s “best friend” — monetizing his knowledge of Obama’s regulatory plans.
“This one was really surprising because, I have to say, I did not think of Barack Obama as somebody who was necessarily involved in financial corruption,” replied Schweizer. “I mean, there are all these controversies or certain issues about his policies, but Barack Obama has this best friend that few people have ever heard of, a guy named Marty Nesbitt. When Barack Obama is reelected in 2012, his best friend in the world, Marty Nesbitt, sets up this private equity fund called Vistria, and Vistria says in its corporate documents, explicitly, that it is designed to invest in highly regulated industries, and when your best friend is the regulator-in-chief, I guess that makes sense, and what happens is, they make a series of investments or deals based on companies or industries that are being smashed by the Obama administration’s regulations.”
Schweizer pointed to the acquisition of the University of Phoenix by Vistria Group — the private equity firm run by Nesbitt that he co-founded in 2013 — as an illustration of Obama’s “smash and grab” strategy.
“So to give you one brief example, [the] University of Phoenix, it’s a for-profit school — a lot of people have heard of it — the Obama administration declares that the company is not serving students well, and they say, ‘We are going to suspend GI dollars from the Pentagon for soldiers to study at the University of Phoenix,'” explained Schweizer.
“Well, you can imagine, this for-profit university, its stock price goes from like a hundred dollars a share down to three dollars a share overnight. So what happens? Marty Nesbitt, Barack Obama’s best friend, says, ‘Hey! We’ll step in and buy it. We’ll step in and buy the company.’ They do. They basically buy it for three cents on the dollar, and then, lo and behold, imagine what happens next. The Obama administration decides that, ‘No, we are going to allow GI dollars flow to the University of Phoenix,’ thereby boosting the valuation of the company again.”
Schweizer described Obama’s “smash and grab” strategy as repeatedly used across Obama’s presidential tenure, with beneficiaries such as Tom Steyer and George Soros. He further noted that such ill-gotten funds partly find their way into the Obama Foundation via Nesbitt’s financing.
“This pattern is repeated over and over and over again, not just with Marty Nesbitt, but with people like the environmentalist investor Tom Steyer [and] George Soros,” Schweizer said. “Barack Obama smashes coal companies, [and] what do these guys do? They go in, they buy them for pennies on the dollar, and when the regulatory weight is lifted, their valuations increase, and they make a lot of money, and you see that pattern in all of these industries. So what you see is these crusades that Obama is going on related to companies that are supposedly doing all these evil things really has this profit or money-making component to it that I was unaware of, and a lot of other people were unaware of. Now, in a sense, the favor gets returned because Marty Nesbitt is now the chairman of the Obama Foundation and is pouring money into that institution and is responsible for raising it so Barack Obama’s legacy can be applauded in Chicago.”
Breitbart News Tonight airs Monday through Friday on SiriusXM’s Patriot channel 125 from 9:00 p.m. to midnight Eastern (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Pacific).
Follow Robert Kraychik on Twitter @rkraychik.

OBAMA’S CRONY BANKSTERISM destroyed a 11 TRILLION DOLLARS in home equity… and they’re still plundering us!

Barack Obama created more debt for the middle class than any president in US

history, and also had the only huge QE programs: $4.2 Trillion.

OXFAM reported that during Obama’s terms, 95% of the wealth created went to the top 1% of the world’s wealthy. 

Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)


Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses


 Editorial Reviews

Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics.

Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?

Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers.




Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).




July 1st 2008

Wall Street firms have chipped in more than $9 million to Barack Obama. Zurga/Bloomberg Wall Street is investing heavily in Barack Obama.

Although the Democratic presidential hopeful has vowed to raise capital gains and corporate taxes, financial industry bigs have contributed almost twice as much to Obama as to GOP rival John McCain, a Daily News analysis of campaign records shows.


“The administration has been pushing hard for a settlement among state attorneys general, the nation's five largest mortgage servicers — Bank of America Corp.JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Ally Financial Inc. — and certain federal agencies.”


Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants -Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207)
and Citigroup ($358,054).



Abortionist: I Cut the Vocal Cord So The Baby Can't Scream

Michael W. Chapman
 By Michael W. Chapman | March 19, 2018 | 3:48 PM EDT

(Screenshot: Twitter) 
Dr. Leah Torres, an OB/GYN in Salt Lake City, Utah, said that when she performs certain abortions she cuts the vocal cord of the baby so "there's really no opportunity" for the child to scream. She also described herself as a "uterus ripper outer" because she performs hysterectomies.
Torres made her disturbing comments on Twitter on March 11, in response to a question.  
As the tweets show, @ZarbaNotZorba asked Torres about the aborted babies: "Do you hear their heartbeats when you lay down at night? Do you hear their screams?"
Torres replied, "No. You know fetuses can't scream, right? I transect the cord 1st so there's really no opportunity, if they're even far enough along to have a larynx."
"I won't apologize for performing medicine," said Torres. "I'm also a 'uterus ripper outer,' if that's how you'd like to describe hysterectomy." 

(Screenshot: Twitter, KP@She_ Became)
Torres's tweet garnered a lot of backlash from pro-life activists. David Daleiden, with the Center for Medical Progress, tweeted on March 13 that his organization did not investigate the Planned Parenthood facilities in Utah "in part because their abortion doctors were the only ones who actually scared me."
"Thanks @LeahNTorres for the very honest reminder," said Daleiden on Twitter. 
On March 15, Dr. Torres disclosed that she had deleted her tweet about cutting a baby's vocal cords. 
"Yes, I deleted the post," she said on Twitter. "My friend asked me to. See, the thing is, she is trying to open dialoge between 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice' here in Australia, for the greater good of reproductive health.
"Folks allowed the post to inhibit progress, so, it's off my feed."  (Torres's feed indicates she was visiting Australia at that time.) 

Funding the Planned Parenthood Chop Shop

Irony has been redefined in the omnibus budget bill, where there is funding for both fighting opioid addiction and Planned Parenthood, meaning the government is simultaneously paying for the saving and destruction of human life.
Defunding Planned Parenthood is something more than a campaign promise. Life is supposed to be the first unalienable right conferred on us by our Creator.  Liberals are also supposed to be in favor of "safe spaces."  One would think the womb should be the safest space of all.  It is not so considered on K Street.

Recently the New York Times reported on the opioid crisis and made the following demonstrably false observation:

Overdoses, fueled by opioids, are the leading cause of death for Americans under 50 years old – killing roughly 64,000 people last year, more than guns or car accidents, and doing so at a pace faster than the H.I.V. epidemic did at its peak.
The leading cause of death for Americans under 50 years old is abortion, thesingle largest practitioner of which is Planned Parenthood:
Planned Parenthood is by far the nation's largest abortion provider.  Over the holidays, they conveniently and quietly published their annual report for 2016-2017.  Last year, Planned Parenthood published their annual report months late – in May!  An analysis of the 2016-2017 report along with Planned Parenthood's previous reports shows that Planned Parenthood is responsible for the deaths of over 7.6 million human babies.  We know the Planned Parenthood number is likely low, in fact, pro life journalists with the Media Research Center estimated in 2016that Planned Parenthood had killed upwards of 7.5 million babies.
In the 2016-2017 fiscal year detailed in the report, Planned Parenthood performed 321,384 abortions.  Last annual report (2015-2016), Planned Parenthood performed 328,348 abortions.  The year before that (2014-2015) Planned performed 323,999 abortions.
Before President Trump signed the bill, in the face of the overwhelming urgency to repair our decaying military in critical times, he was urged by pro-life leaders to consider how many lives are being lost, not in combat or training accidents, but to the scalpels of abortion providers paid for by our tax dollars:
"Mr. President, Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion business in the U.S., making them one of the largest abusers of human beings in the world," said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue and one of the founding members of the Center for Medical Progress.  "It is currently under investigation by your Department of Justice for engaging in the illegal sale of aborted baby remains for profit, as revealed in a series of authenticated undercover videos that shook the nation in 2015."
"During your 2016 Presidential Campaign, you promised to defund Planned Parenthood," he reminded Trump.  "I urge you now to keep your promise and veto the Omnibus bill until it no longer provides any of our tax money to Planned Parenthood."
In one disturbing video and its appalling transcript, made by the non-profit groupCenter for Medical Progress, which describes itself as "dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances," it is made clear that the alleged noble crusade against unwanted children is a fraud, and that Planned Parenthood's interest in abortion is a financial one and that human life is just a commodity to be bought and sold on the open market.
The video shows a doctor named Nucatola negotiating with two actors posing as agents of a fetal tissue procurement company and discussing the body parts of aborted babies as if she were a butcher at the local meat market.  As Breitbart.com reports:
"We've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I'm not gonna crush that part," Nucatola coldly explains.  "I'm gonna basically crush [the unborn child] below, I'm gonna crush above, and I'm gonna see if I can get it all intact. ... And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they'll know where they're putting their forceps."
Nucatola also goes into great detail to explain how Planned Parenthood  is able to use its loose affiliates as a way to protect the parent company from potential legal fallout.
The video goes a long way to explain Planned Parenthood's eternal devotion to legalizing late-term and partial-birth abortion.
Nucatola explains to the undercover reporters that the butchered body parts (hearts, livers, "lower extremities – probably for the muscle") sell for $30 to $100 apiece.
Moreover, the more fully-formed the baby body parts, the more valuable those parts are.
Indeed, immature or improperly dismembered baby parts could dramatically impact Planned Parenthood's and the abortion industry's bottom line.  The use of aborted fetuses and their tissues is justified by abortionists as the key to medical research, as using embryos for stem cell research was and is.  Planned Parenthood's operation strays perilously close to the territory of Dr. Joseph Mengele, the Nazi "doctor" who justified his ghastly practices in the name of research.
Planned Parenthood and its supporters got caught with their forceps down, so anything they can do to cloud the issue and cast doubt on the integrity of their accusers is in their interest.  Planned Parenthood has already tried to discredit the videos by saying they were carefully edited and that the admissions of Planned Parenthood officials of conducting a for-profit baby body part flea market were taken out of context.  It is hard to imagine in what "context" the discussion of the price of a fetal head versus the price of a new Lamborghini is okay.  AsLifeNews.com comments:
The video of the Houston Planned Parenthood makes it appear the Planned Parenthood abortion business may be selling the "fully intact" bodies of unborn babies purposefully born alive and left to die.  The video shows the Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Melissa Farrell, advertising the Texas Planned Parenthood branch's track record of fetal tissue sales, including its ability to deliver fully intact aborted babies[.] ...
Planned Parenthood could be breaking the federal law known as the Born Alive Infants Protection Act that requires abortion clinics, hospitals and other places that do abortions to provide appropriate medical care for a baby born alive after a failed abortion or purposefully birthed to "let die."  That would be one of the potential ways Planned Parenthood could produce a "fully intact" baby to sell to StemExpress for research.  Most "crunchy" abortion methods would do damage to the baby's body.
This is what our taxpayer dollars will continue to pay for – the death and dismemberment of human beings championed by those who worry about AR-15s killing children but not scalpels.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor's Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.ns she cuts the vocal cord of the baby so "there's really no opportunity" for the child to scream. She also described herself as a "uterus ripper outer" because she performs hysterectomies.

Mississippi Becomes First State to Ban Abortions Past 15 Weeks of Pregnancy

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant has signed a bill into law making his state the first in the nation to ban abortions past 15 weeks of pregnancy.

The Republican governor signed House Bill 1510 into law on Monday, drawing an immediate lawsuit from the state’s only abortion clinic – Jackson Women’s Health Clinic – which claims the law is unconstitutional.
“We’ll probably be sued here in about half-hour,” Bryant joked as he signed the bill into law. “That’ll be fine with me. It’s worth fighting over.”
The bill makes exceptions to the 15-week ban if the mother’s life is in danger or the unborn baby has a life-threatening abnormality.
Abortion rights advocates claim the law is unconstitutional because it prevents women from having abortions prior to the stage of viability, when a fetus is able to live outside its mother’s womb.
“The legal standard that the Supreme Court has said is that a woman has the right to end a pregnancy before viability,” said Julie Rikelman, legal counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, according to Mississippi Today. “And this ban takes effect well over a month before the fetus is viable, and the Supreme Court has said repeatedly that you just can’t do that.”
However, Jameson Taylor, interim director of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy – a conservative think tank that authored the bill – cited Gonzales v. Carhart, a 2007 Supreme Court case that upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortions. Taylor explained that viability of the fetus is not the “penultimate standard” as it has been in past years, in part due to medical advances that have allowed prematurely born babies to survive outside the womb earlier.
“What’s important is that this regulation makes rational sense,” he said. “That’s exactly what the courts will be looking at, to what extent does this protect the health of the mother and the life of the unborn child.”
While presenting the measure, Republican state Rep. Andy Gipson cited statistics from the pro-abortion rights Guttmacher Institute that shows a mother’s chances of having serious health risks increase substantially when abortions are performed after 18 weeks, from 0.3 deaths per 100,000 abortions performed prior to eight weeks, to 6.7 deaths per 100,000 abortions after 18 weeks.
Planned Parenthood Southeast Advocates condemned the legislation:

If Gov. Bryant truly cared about the health and well-being of Mississippi women and families, he would be working to expand access to health care — not taking it away,” said Felicia Brown-Williams, state director for Planned Parenthood Southeast Advocates. “This law was written by politicians, not doctors. (House Bill) 1510 is just the latest in a series of attacks targeting women and access to safe, legal abortion.”
Bryant, however, said he was “proud” to sign the bill into law.
“I pray today we have saved the first life of an unborn child in Mississippi,” Bryant tweeted:

“I was proud to sign House Bill 1510 this afternoon,” the governor also posted on his Facebook account. “I am committed to making Mississippi the safest place in America for an unborn child, and this bill will help us achieve that goal.”

Supreme Court Skeptical of California Law Forcing Pro-life Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortions

Lauretta  Brown
Posted: Mar 20, 2018 1:55 PM

Supreme Court Skeptical of California Law Forcing Pro-life Pregnancy Centers to Promote Abortions
Washington, D.C. - The Supreme Court appeared likely, following oral arguments Tuesday, to strike down a California law that requires pro-life pregnancy centers to post messages promoting abortion. During oral arguments, both conservative and liberal justices expressed serious concerns that the law violated the free speech rights of pro-life pregnancy centers. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan even expressed concern that the law had been “gerrymandered” to target these pregnancy centers.
“If it has been gerrymandered, that’s a serious issue,” Kagan said.
Justice Samuel Alito observed that California's criteria about which centers must comply with the law seemed to be aimed at only "pro-life clinics."
"When you put all this together, you get a very suspicious pattern," he said.
The centers are required by the law to post a notice that “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].”
The conservative justices and Justice Kennedy, the crucial swing vote on the court, said the law appears to violate the First Amendment.
Kennedy said the law was "mandating speech," and forces pro-life centers to "alter the content of their message."
According to the New York Times, “a part of the law that requires some unlicensed centers to disclose their status in large type and many languages when they advertise seemed likely to be struck down.”
Kennedy said that that part of the law constituted an “undue burden” and Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed that it was “burdensome and wrong.”
Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer brought up that the Supreme Court has permitted states to require abortion doctors to include statements about support available for women who decide to continue their pregnancies.
“In law, what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” Breyer said. He did go on to note, however, that since the law was immediately challenged, lower courts have been unable to assess the burdens it places on pregnancy centers.
During oral arguments, both NIFLA and the abortion group NARAL held rallies outside the court despite the freezing rain.
Kate Anderson, legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, the group representing NIFLA in the case, told Townhall they were “very hopeful,” for a good outcome.
“This case is about the right of every American to not be forced by the government to promote a message that violates their conscience,” she emphasized, “and that’s something that should unite the court and unite every American.”
Jeanne Mancini, president of March for Life, said in her remarks at the rally that the case is "critically important,” arguing that “the government shouldn’t have the power to force anyone to speak a message with which it disagrees. Pregnancy centers were established specifically to help women – at no charge – to choose life for their children. The government shouldn’t force them or anyone to advertise for something that directly contradicts the very reason they exist."

Supreme Court should spare pro-lifers from compelled pro-abortion speech

March for Life Supreme Court Abortion
Pro-life activists converge in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Friday, Jan. 27, 2017, during the annual March for Life. Thousands of anti-abortion demonstrators gathered in Washington for an annual march to protest the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 decision that declared a constitutional right to abortion.

Today, the Supreme Court hears its second case this term on compelled speech in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. In December, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission addressed a similar free speech question.
Here, the question is whether the state of California can force pro-life pregnancy help centers to advertise for state-sponsored abortions. If it sounds bizarre to you that anyone would think it could, that’s a good sign you possess a healthy American appreciation for freedom. Unfortunately, lawmakers in Sacramento don’t share your appreciation.
In 2015 Democrats in the California statehouse passed the “Reproductive FACT Act” on a strict party-line vote. Governor Jerry Brown signed it into law. The law forces licensed pro-life medical centers to display a message to all clients about how they can obtain a “free or low-cost…abortion” from a government agency.
It forces non-medical pregnancy centers to announce that they are not medical facilities in 48-point type, in up to 13 different languages.
As a society, shouldn’t we support pregnant women who choose to go to a life-affirming pregnancy center?
By their own admission, these officials created this law to target pro-life pregnancy centers because they are pro-life. “Discouraging abortion” is an “unfortunate” message, they said in one legislative committee report. And so they crafted a law forcing the centers to speak their message -– a message about “free or low-cost” government-sponsored abortion.
The goal of a life-affirming pregnancy center is to help a woman escape the abortion mentality; to give her resources to choose life for her child, to make an adoption plan, or to receive practical resources to care for her child, all at no cost to her.
In 2013, The New York Times reported that nationally, pro-life pregnancy centers outnumbered abortion facilities, 2,500 to around 1,800 in all. In 2015 — in two short years — the number of pregnancy help centers rose to 4,000, compared to just 739 abortion facilities.
That’s not all. Last year, we witnessed the lowest abortion rate in the United States since 1975.
Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the U.S., has revenues of well over a billion dollars annually and gets more than half a billion dollars from taxpayers every year. They have plenty of money to get out their pro-abortion message in any venue they want.
In contrast, approximately half of pregnancy care centers only bring in revenue of $125,000 or less per year. Planned Parenthood contributes millions of dollars to Democratic candidates every election, including donations that California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has happily received.
The issue of abortion has a way of clouding people’s thinking. What if government officials forced private entities to advertise against their interests? What if it made soccer leagues promote the local football club, or a vegan grocer to post ads for the local butcher shop? Everyone would agree that that’s not fair.
What if it came to light that the politicians behind the law were football fans or meat lovers who view veganism as unhealthy. That would be even more outrageous.
Is competition for the hearts and minds of young people really that much different? California lawmakers are trying to make that competition unfair by overriding the First Amendment, forcing private entities to speak messages against their beliefs, and punishing them if don’t comply. This should be of grave concern to all Americans, whatever their views on abortion.
If the government has the right to compel speech from these centers, what will stop the government from targeting you next for what you believe?