SEPTEMBER 13, 2010.
Political thuggery from HHS..
'As a consequence of us getting 30 million additional people health care, at the margins that's going to increase our costs—we knew that," President Obama said at his press conference Friday in response to a question about rising health spending.
That wasn't how he sold the plan, but, anyway, that's a truism. Here's another: The White House was always going to blame insurance companies for any cost increases, even when its own policies cause them.
Witness Kathleen Sebelius's Thursday letter to America's Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group—a thuggish message even by her standards. The Health and Human Services secretary wrote that some insurers have been attributing part of their 2011 premium increases to ObamaCare and warned that "there will be zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases."
Associated Press
Kathleen Sebelius
.Zero tolerance for expressing an opinion, or offering an explanation to policyholders? They're more subtle than this in Caracas.
What Ms. Sebelius really means is that the government will prohibit insurers from doing business if reality is not politically convenient for Democrats. ObamaCare includes a slew of mandated benefits for next year, such as allowing children to remain on their parents' plans until age 26 and "free" preventative care (i.e., no direct out-of-pocket cost sharing for consumers). The tone of Ms. Sebelius's letter suggests that she doesn't understand that money is exchanged for goods and services, and that if Congress mandates new benefits, premiums will rise.
The Administration estimates that these regulations should increase all premiums by 1% to 2% on average. Even if that turns out to be right—on average—that isn't what insurers are finding in practice in the local, price-sensitive individual and small business insurance markets, where coverage is typically less comprehensive to hold down costs. For some current policies in some states, the one-year increase jumps as much as 9%.
ObamaCare gives Ms. Sebelius's regulators the power to define "unreasonable" premium hikes, which will mean whatever they decide it will mean later this fall. She promised to keep a list of insurers "with a record of unjustified rate increases" and then to bar them from ObamaCare's subsidized "exchanges" when they come on line in 2014. In other words, insurers must accept price controls now or face the retribution of a de facto ban on selling their products to consumers four years from now.
This is nasty stuff and an obvious attempt to shift political blame for rising insurance costs before the election. It's also an early sign of life under ObamaCare, when all health-care decisions are political and the bureaucrats decide who can charge how much for a service or product.
Democrats built this system and they now own it politically. The least they could do is take credit for its consequences.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A20Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com
Monday, September 13, 2010
'Obama has a grudge against America. It's personal.'
David Limbaugh: 'Obama has a grudge against America. It's personal.'
by Connie Hair
09/07/2010
It is refreshing to interview someone as straightforward and truthful as David Limbaugh. He is what he is: a God-fearing, flag-waving, freedom-loving American patriot with a brilliant legal mind.
His new runaway bestselling book, “Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama,” has struck a chord with the public, debuting at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list.
An unusual page-turner for its genre, Limbaugh’s book presents exactly what the title suggests: a meticulous case against the President of the United States for his unprecedented assault on ordered liberty and the American way of life.
The cumulative impact of the evidence Limbaugh has compiled in his book is breathtaking. And footnoted.
When I spoke with Limbaugh (a dear friend) about his book, I thanked him for documenting in one readable volume the historic calamity that is the Obama presidency.
DAVID LIMBAUGH: I did not intend to compare Obama to every other president when formally sitting down to write this book. We’ve had some doozies who have served. But when you look at what Obama’s doing, he is almost single-handedly going to bankrupt the country. Granted we had a good start before him, but instead of tightening our belts during this challenge, he has moved into hyper-speed with his spending and he’s doing it with reckless abandon.
He wants to redistribute wealth. He is impervious to facts. I think even if he were capable of digesting the truism that Keynesian economics does not work, that government pump priming does not grow the economy, that it shrinks the pie, I think he would do it anyway.
He believes ideologically there ought to be equalization of wealth and that America is too big for its britches. We ought to redistribute wealth to foreign countries, and he’s done that with his International Monetary Fund (IMF) pledge with no constitutional authority and against the express prohibition of Congress.
I think he is taking us over the cliff of financial bankruptcy. He is undermining our position in the war and our security, he’s taken us back to a pre-9/11 mindset, and is dangerously reducing our nuclear arsenal at a time when the nuclear genie is out the bottle. I don’t mean to be overstating the case, but if you look at this new SALT treaty that he negotiated, it is very much to our disadvantage. Russia will end up with a decided advantage in tactical nuclear weapons. The Heritage Foundation explains it all in frightening detail.
HUMAN EVENTS: Do you think it’s on purpose?
LIMBAUGH: It’s complex. For those who are dismissive of the notion that Obama would be deliberately damaging our economy I remind them of his answer to Charlie Gibson in one of the debates where Gibson pointedly asked him why he would be in favor of increasing the capital gains tax rate knowing that every time we do we reduce revenues and that every time we decrease it we increase revenues. Obama said, “Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”
A person cannot but come away with the conclusion that he’s willing to spread the misery in order for the wealthy that he resents to be punished. You can’t deny that part of it’s on purpose. He is, on purpose, willing to destroy wealth for a great number of people and he’s doing it.
He’s purposefully implementing an agenda that will destroy America financially, whether or not he intends the harm. I don’t know that he’s part of this Cloward-Piven strategy to purposefully destroy it so that he can rebuild it in the name of socialism. He might be. I don’t know. But I do know that he’s purposefully adopting policies that will destroy the country and that he wants to bring the country down to size in terms of its outward projection of power.
Yet, there is a disconnect. While he tacitly admitted the negative effects of increasing capital gains rates, I think he is otherwise wedded to his blind faith in the notion that Keynesian economic policies can produce prosperity. He’s got this warped liberal notion -- this statist notion -- that you can actually increase prosperity and growth with these make work policies that he initiates. Despite incontrovertible evidence of the manifest failure of his policies to produce the growth (and cap unemployment at 8%) that he projected and promised, he doesn’t seem to be able to digest the bad news. It is simply contrary to his secular faith in the power of government to cure all ills and bring us toward enlightenment. It is not surprising that those who are unrealistic enough to advocate Utopian prescriptions are unrealistic enough to comprehend and accept their failure.
HE: In your book you make the case that Obama is a different kind of narcissist. You could make the case that most politicians are narcissists. What’s different about Obama?
LIMBAUGH: Clinton was a narcissist in the sense that he wanted to be adored by the public so much that he would even be willing to subordinate his ideology -- which he really believed in -- to remain high in the polls. He would move center, engage in a sophisticated triangulation strategy, he would do anything in order to stay popular, even if it meant compromising his and Hillary’s agenda.
Obama, I think, has a more intense case of narcissism, more a clinical case study as opposed to the lay understanding that you and I have about narcissists, i.e., self-absorbed people who look in the mirror all the time and crave love and adoration.
I think Obama has grandiose delusions about his historic role in the world. We saw it in how he choreographed himself during the campaign with the Greek columns as a backrop, injecting an echo effect into his voice and holding his head high in the air as if he were a pompous player in some royal regime. Don’t forget that he has this idea that he alone can cause the oceans to subside, that he alone can affect transformational change and he is hell bent on doing it even if it means sacrificing his second term.
He even said that in an interview, that he’d much prefer being a great one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. The horrifying thing about that is how he defines success and greatness. He defines it as transformational change, as uprooting America’s foundational principles. That’s what he’s about: transformational change of the America we know and love -- which he obviously doesn’t. You don’t want to fundamentally change something you love. Period!
HE: You document fundamental, habitual lies that are part of Obama’s governance scheme. Why do you think most couldn’t see through his façade during the campaign?
LIMBAUGH: When he had his candid moments such as with Joe the Plumber where he said he just wanted to spread the wealth around a little bit or when he made his “bitter clingers” comments, he would say what he really meant. He even said he was looking for transformational change.
But otherwise he fundamentally misrepresented who he was. He said he was post-racial, post-partisan and post-grievance and that he would bring a new era of politics, a different kind of politics to Washington. It turns out that he has been the most divisive president that I can remember. And it’s noteworthy that he brought about this divisiveness with his own statements and actions; he did not reach out to Republicans, but for the most part, excluded them from the process -- bringing them in at the last minute on major items of legislation, and then only for photo ops.
HE: Why do you think he has gotten away with it for so long?
LIMBAUGH: I think the mainstream media like Obama and like most modern liberals operate under this end-justifies-the-means mentality. They’re not about tolerance, they’re not about free speech, they’re not about racial colorblindness; they’re about results.
These liberals will call us all kinds of names and they’ll suppress our speech. Elena Kagan, Obama’s Supreme Court appointee, has advocated the “un-skewing” of speech -- only liberals could come up with this kind of psycho-babble: that it’s justifiable for government to un-skew speech if there is an “overabundance” of it -- like conservative talk. Thus their support for the Fairness Doctrine, Net Neutrality Rules, and campus speech codes. Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar, advocates “cognitive infiltration.”
Back to more liberal-speak, cognitive infiltration is when liberals in the government get on websites and other media and advocate liberal positions while pretending to be grassroots citizens. This is what they say conservatives do, that the Tea Party is Astroturf, i.e. artificial. It’s just the opposite and more liberal projection.
This administration has a blog squad in the Department of Justice which spends its time surfing conservative websites and posting comments while pretending to be private citizens. This is within the Department of Justice, which is supposed to administer justice impartially -- not engage in political activism, much less partisan political activism.
HE: You also make the case that Obama is a dictator or at least believes he is.
LIMBAUGH: Yes, he acts like a dictator. Not only has he engineered the government takeover of private companies, but he also attempted to restructure the Chrysler and GM post-bankruptcy companies so to the decided advantage of general creditors (his unions buddies) and disadvantage of secured creditors, who are entitled to priority status under the law. When the secured creditors didn’t conform to his dictated cram down, Obama went out in the public and lambasted them publicly and called them a greedy group of speculators who took bailout monies but wouldn’t sacrifice for the public good.
In fact, the hedge funds had not taken any bailout monies and they were sacrificing because they were entitled to one hundred percent on the dollar on their secured claims and were willing to take about fifty cents on the dollar -- but not the 20 percent that Obama was demanding. They were not doing anything wrong; they were merely exercising their rights under the law.
Another outrageous example occurred when Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, asked Obama in a letter to consider freezing the stimulus money that had not yet been spent, saying that what had already been spent really hadn’t stimulated anything.
Four cabinet members simultaneously, as if it were not a conspiracy, fired off separate letters to Kyl threatening to withhold Arizona’s portion of the stimulus money as if it were Obama’s personal stash. As if Obama has the authority singlehandedly to withhold or dispense the stimulus money. It’s really scary.
HE: Which brings us to the case you make in your book against Obama the Bully. It seems to me that Obama doesn’t much like the actual job of being President, he just likes imposing on everybody what he thinks is best for them.
LIMBAUGH: I agree with you. I don’t think he’s a details guy. I think he’s a big policy guy and he wants to issue his edicts and expect his minions to get it done. [LAUGHS] As with the Gulf oil spill: “Just plug the damn hole!”
Obama called financial institutions “fat cat bankers” and you want to tell me this guy’s sophisticated and presidential? “Fat cat bankers”! That’s disgusting! Saying it is un-presidential is about the nicest thing I can say about it.
During speeches like the State of the Union when other presidents were trying to be unifying, he says if anybody misrepresents his plans he’ll call them out. This is street thug language! This is Chicago street thug organizing behavior.
He attacks Fox News as not being a news organization like other news organizations. He tried to shut Fox News out of the news for an interview of Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg because Major Garrett had been asking some tough questions. So the administration tried to punish Fox. In that case, though, the other news organizations in the White House news pool defended Fox, to their credit, and the administration had to relent.
And let’s not forget when Obama said, through Mr. Gibbs, this fine creature serving us as White House press secretary, that he would keep his boot on the throat of BP.
Is this guy Don Corleone? Can you imagine the outrage if Tony Snow had said that?
He has mocked the Tea Partiers. His own Department of Homeland Security implied Tea Partiers are domestic terrorists and suggested that veterans coming back from service in the military with right wing views are one nurse shy of serial killer Richard Speck.
But as dictatorial actions go, Obamacare is the crowning blow when you consider the disgraceful manner by which he crammed it down our throats through lying, cheating, legislative trickery and bribing. After he had failed in his earlier attempt to pass it and the public had soundly repudiated him in the Massachusetts senate election (which was clearly a referendum on the Obama agenda, especially Obamacare), his response was he had to get the American people to take a second look at his plan. He wasn’t chastened, he wasn’t humble, he wasn’t contrite in the State of the Union speech. He gave no indication he heard or cared what the people said. He went back, forced it through against the will of the people then claimed a victory on our behalf and pledged to continue working for us.
HE: I promise this is not a birther question. A great deal of Obama’s influences and the shaping of who he is actually came from third world politics outside of America…
LIMBAUGH: I agree. I have not focused much on the birther question. I don’t know what the final facts are, I’m not sure we’ll ever know, but regardless of where he was born, the reason the Framers wanted to keep a foreign-born person from becoming president was that they distrusted their innate loyalties. Whether or not Obama is an actual American citizen, he has the instincts of someone who cannot stand America.
I think he has visceral contempt for pre-Obama America. He displays the attitude of his mother and stepfather, and his mentor, Franklin Marshal Davis. In his book he describes his mother’s disdain for America. He married a woman who believes America is downright mean. He ran with America-hating leftists. He attended an America-bashing church. He promised fundamental change -- something that one who loved this nation and its founding principles would never do. He embarked on a world apology tour -- denouncing America as arrogant, dismissive, selfish, imperialistic and historically blemished. Has he no appreciation for America’s role as a liberator of people? Of our unparalleled record of magnanimity as the world’s sole superpower? He obviously disapproves of the free market system, despite having boasted that he was a fierce advocate of it. He seems to want to bring America down to size; to right the alleged (mythical) wrongs, to correct the inequities in wealth. I seriously believe he has a grudge against America. It’s personal.
HE: Do you think Obama’s presidency has harmed race relations?
LIMBAUGH: Without question. Obama has brought up race and exploited it at every chance he’s gotten. He did that with his friend professor Henry Gates when he accused the Cambridge Police Department of acting stupidly. That was all about race. He’s accused Arizonans and conservatives who support the Arizona law of nativism and racism.
When Americans overwhelmingly oppose the mosque at Ground Zero he implies it’s for racial reasons. His Attorney General Eric Holder, with Obama’s full blessing, says we are cowards on race, and that we’re not willing to have a national dialogue -- though we’ve been having a national dialogue on this for decades. I don’t know what planet these guys are on.
The Obama-Holder Justice Department dismissed the case against the New Black Panther Party members even after having won it by default judgment, obviously for racial reasons. Some insiders at the Justice Department like Christian Adams said there was an unwritten policy at the Department of Justice that whites cannot be the victims of blacks in civil rights voter intimidation cases.
They are expressly applying a race conscious policy to the administration of our laws, which are supposed to be administered blindly: the blindfolded Lady Justice. Color should be irrelevant, and its injection into justice destroys the concept of equal protection under the law.
HE: Your book was timed to come out before the elections and it really does give people the information they need to win people’s hearts and minds. Is this about independent voters?
LIMBAUGH: I did not just write a handbook for people to convince independents to come to our side. I think independents will come to our side (and they’re already leaving Obama in droves) as a result of principled opposition and principled advocacy of the conservative ideal. You don’t need to specifically cater to the independents by diluting our message. I think that’s where we make our mistake. If the GOP will stick to conservative principles and employ inspired leadership they will rebuild an enormous base.
My hope is that Crimes Against Liberty will serve as a reference guide, or, as one host aptly put it, a combat manual as we attempt to persuade our friends and neighbors to oust officeholders enabling Obama’s disastrous agenda. We ignore Obama’s capacity for mischief and the magnitude of the destructive impact of his agenda at our nation’s peril. Hopefully, this book will help us not to underestimate the gravity of what we are facing.
HE: Are you trying to make the case that Obama should be impeached before 2012?
LIMBAUGH: No. This book is a comprehensive indictment and listing of Obama’s abuses of power and his misrepresentations and his bullying and his conceit and his narcissism and how his personal characteristics, when coupled with his irrepressibly extreme left wing ideology, spells disaster for America. The cumulative evidence I’ve documented is staggering. One reader Tweeted that he began to highlight the book for salient points and had to quit because every sentence was being highlighted.
I am not alleging in the book that he has committed infractions under the criminal code, that he’s a common criminal. I am not suggesting that he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors so as to constitute impeachable offenses under the Constitution. I am not advocating and do not advocate in the book that we initiate impeachment proceedings if for no other reason than I think it would backfire and it would make him a victim and it would play into his hands. Even the relatively small number of liberals who are disgusted with the destructive path he’s taken us on would flock back to him, thinking it was an excessive partisan exercise. If we were less cynical about the Constitution and the rule of law, then Obama may well be in jeopardy at least of an impeachment inquiry. His abuses of power that I detail in the book are stunning. But again, I’m not advocating impeachment. Let’s beat him at the ballot box.
But if you asked me if I honestly think he’s committed infractions that might rise to the level? Oh, yeah. But that’s not the thrust of my book or its purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Hair writes daily as HUMAN EVENTS' Congressional correspondent. She is a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference. You can follow Connie on Twitter @ConnieHair.
You can also follow Connie Hair and Human Events on FACEBOOK.
by Connie Hair
09/07/2010
It is refreshing to interview someone as straightforward and truthful as David Limbaugh. He is what he is: a God-fearing, flag-waving, freedom-loving American patriot with a brilliant legal mind.
His new runaway bestselling book, “Crimes Against Liberty: An Indictment of President Barack Obama,” has struck a chord with the public, debuting at #1 on the New York Times bestseller list.
An unusual page-turner for its genre, Limbaugh’s book presents exactly what the title suggests: a meticulous case against the President of the United States for his unprecedented assault on ordered liberty and the American way of life.
The cumulative impact of the evidence Limbaugh has compiled in his book is breathtaking. And footnoted.
When I spoke with Limbaugh (a dear friend) about his book, I thanked him for documenting in one readable volume the historic calamity that is the Obama presidency.
DAVID LIMBAUGH: I did not intend to compare Obama to every other president when formally sitting down to write this book. We’ve had some doozies who have served. But when you look at what Obama’s doing, he is almost single-handedly going to bankrupt the country. Granted we had a good start before him, but instead of tightening our belts during this challenge, he has moved into hyper-speed with his spending and he’s doing it with reckless abandon.
He wants to redistribute wealth. He is impervious to facts. I think even if he were capable of digesting the truism that Keynesian economics does not work, that government pump priming does not grow the economy, that it shrinks the pie, I think he would do it anyway.
He believes ideologically there ought to be equalization of wealth and that America is too big for its britches. We ought to redistribute wealth to foreign countries, and he’s done that with his International Monetary Fund (IMF) pledge with no constitutional authority and against the express prohibition of Congress.
I think he is taking us over the cliff of financial bankruptcy. He is undermining our position in the war and our security, he’s taken us back to a pre-9/11 mindset, and is dangerously reducing our nuclear arsenal at a time when the nuclear genie is out the bottle. I don’t mean to be overstating the case, but if you look at this new SALT treaty that he negotiated, it is very much to our disadvantage. Russia will end up with a decided advantage in tactical nuclear weapons. The Heritage Foundation explains it all in frightening detail.
HUMAN EVENTS: Do you think it’s on purpose?
LIMBAUGH: It’s complex. For those who are dismissive of the notion that Obama would be deliberately damaging our economy I remind them of his answer to Charlie Gibson in one of the debates where Gibson pointedly asked him why he would be in favor of increasing the capital gains tax rate knowing that every time we do we reduce revenues and that every time we decrease it we increase revenues. Obama said, “Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”
A person cannot but come away with the conclusion that he’s willing to spread the misery in order for the wealthy that he resents to be punished. You can’t deny that part of it’s on purpose. He is, on purpose, willing to destroy wealth for a great number of people and he’s doing it.
He’s purposefully implementing an agenda that will destroy America financially, whether or not he intends the harm. I don’t know that he’s part of this Cloward-Piven strategy to purposefully destroy it so that he can rebuild it in the name of socialism. He might be. I don’t know. But I do know that he’s purposefully adopting policies that will destroy the country and that he wants to bring the country down to size in terms of its outward projection of power.
Yet, there is a disconnect. While he tacitly admitted the negative effects of increasing capital gains rates, I think he is otherwise wedded to his blind faith in the notion that Keynesian economic policies can produce prosperity. He’s got this warped liberal notion -- this statist notion -- that you can actually increase prosperity and growth with these make work policies that he initiates. Despite incontrovertible evidence of the manifest failure of his policies to produce the growth (and cap unemployment at 8%) that he projected and promised, he doesn’t seem to be able to digest the bad news. It is simply contrary to his secular faith in the power of government to cure all ills and bring us toward enlightenment. It is not surprising that those who are unrealistic enough to advocate Utopian prescriptions are unrealistic enough to comprehend and accept their failure.
HE: In your book you make the case that Obama is a different kind of narcissist. You could make the case that most politicians are narcissists. What’s different about Obama?
LIMBAUGH: Clinton was a narcissist in the sense that he wanted to be adored by the public so much that he would even be willing to subordinate his ideology -- which he really believed in -- to remain high in the polls. He would move center, engage in a sophisticated triangulation strategy, he would do anything in order to stay popular, even if it meant compromising his and Hillary’s agenda.
Obama, I think, has a more intense case of narcissism, more a clinical case study as opposed to the lay understanding that you and I have about narcissists, i.e., self-absorbed people who look in the mirror all the time and crave love and adoration.
I think Obama has grandiose delusions about his historic role in the world. We saw it in how he choreographed himself during the campaign with the Greek columns as a backrop, injecting an echo effect into his voice and holding his head high in the air as if he were a pompous player in some royal regime. Don’t forget that he has this idea that he alone can cause the oceans to subside, that he alone can affect transformational change and he is hell bent on doing it even if it means sacrificing his second term.
He even said that in an interview, that he’d much prefer being a great one-term president than a mediocre two-term president. The horrifying thing about that is how he defines success and greatness. He defines it as transformational change, as uprooting America’s foundational principles. That’s what he’s about: transformational change of the America we know and love -- which he obviously doesn’t. You don’t want to fundamentally change something you love. Period!
HE: You document fundamental, habitual lies that are part of Obama’s governance scheme. Why do you think most couldn’t see through his façade during the campaign?
LIMBAUGH: When he had his candid moments such as with Joe the Plumber where he said he just wanted to spread the wealth around a little bit or when he made his “bitter clingers” comments, he would say what he really meant. He even said he was looking for transformational change.
But otherwise he fundamentally misrepresented who he was. He said he was post-racial, post-partisan and post-grievance and that he would bring a new era of politics, a different kind of politics to Washington. It turns out that he has been the most divisive president that I can remember. And it’s noteworthy that he brought about this divisiveness with his own statements and actions; he did not reach out to Republicans, but for the most part, excluded them from the process -- bringing them in at the last minute on major items of legislation, and then only for photo ops.
HE: Why do you think he has gotten away with it for so long?
LIMBAUGH: I think the mainstream media like Obama and like most modern liberals operate under this end-justifies-the-means mentality. They’re not about tolerance, they’re not about free speech, they’re not about racial colorblindness; they’re about results.
These liberals will call us all kinds of names and they’ll suppress our speech. Elena Kagan, Obama’s Supreme Court appointee, has advocated the “un-skewing” of speech -- only liberals could come up with this kind of psycho-babble: that it’s justifiable for government to un-skew speech if there is an “overabundance” of it -- like conservative talk. Thus their support for the Fairness Doctrine, Net Neutrality Rules, and campus speech codes. Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar, advocates “cognitive infiltration.”
Back to more liberal-speak, cognitive infiltration is when liberals in the government get on websites and other media and advocate liberal positions while pretending to be grassroots citizens. This is what they say conservatives do, that the Tea Party is Astroturf, i.e. artificial. It’s just the opposite and more liberal projection.
This administration has a blog squad in the Department of Justice which spends its time surfing conservative websites and posting comments while pretending to be private citizens. This is within the Department of Justice, which is supposed to administer justice impartially -- not engage in political activism, much less partisan political activism.
HE: You also make the case that Obama is a dictator or at least believes he is.
LIMBAUGH: Yes, he acts like a dictator. Not only has he engineered the government takeover of private companies, but he also attempted to restructure the Chrysler and GM post-bankruptcy companies so to the decided advantage of general creditors (his unions buddies) and disadvantage of secured creditors, who are entitled to priority status under the law. When the secured creditors didn’t conform to his dictated cram down, Obama went out in the public and lambasted them publicly and called them a greedy group of speculators who took bailout monies but wouldn’t sacrifice for the public good.
In fact, the hedge funds had not taken any bailout monies and they were sacrificing because they were entitled to one hundred percent on the dollar on their secured claims and were willing to take about fifty cents on the dollar -- but not the 20 percent that Obama was demanding. They were not doing anything wrong; they were merely exercising their rights under the law.
Another outrageous example occurred when Senator Jon Kyl, Republican of Arizona, asked Obama in a letter to consider freezing the stimulus money that had not yet been spent, saying that what had already been spent really hadn’t stimulated anything.
Four cabinet members simultaneously, as if it were not a conspiracy, fired off separate letters to Kyl threatening to withhold Arizona’s portion of the stimulus money as if it were Obama’s personal stash. As if Obama has the authority singlehandedly to withhold or dispense the stimulus money. It’s really scary.
HE: Which brings us to the case you make in your book against Obama the Bully. It seems to me that Obama doesn’t much like the actual job of being President, he just likes imposing on everybody what he thinks is best for them.
LIMBAUGH: I agree with you. I don’t think he’s a details guy. I think he’s a big policy guy and he wants to issue his edicts and expect his minions to get it done. [LAUGHS] As with the Gulf oil spill: “Just plug the damn hole!”
Obama called financial institutions “fat cat bankers” and you want to tell me this guy’s sophisticated and presidential? “Fat cat bankers”! That’s disgusting! Saying it is un-presidential is about the nicest thing I can say about it.
During speeches like the State of the Union when other presidents were trying to be unifying, he says if anybody misrepresents his plans he’ll call them out. This is street thug language! This is Chicago street thug organizing behavior.
He attacks Fox News as not being a news organization like other news organizations. He tried to shut Fox News out of the news for an interview of Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg because Major Garrett had been asking some tough questions. So the administration tried to punish Fox. In that case, though, the other news organizations in the White House news pool defended Fox, to their credit, and the administration had to relent.
And let’s not forget when Obama said, through Mr. Gibbs, this fine creature serving us as White House press secretary, that he would keep his boot on the throat of BP.
Is this guy Don Corleone? Can you imagine the outrage if Tony Snow had said that?
He has mocked the Tea Partiers. His own Department of Homeland Security implied Tea Partiers are domestic terrorists and suggested that veterans coming back from service in the military with right wing views are one nurse shy of serial killer Richard Speck.
But as dictatorial actions go, Obamacare is the crowning blow when you consider the disgraceful manner by which he crammed it down our throats through lying, cheating, legislative trickery and bribing. After he had failed in his earlier attempt to pass it and the public had soundly repudiated him in the Massachusetts senate election (which was clearly a referendum on the Obama agenda, especially Obamacare), his response was he had to get the American people to take a second look at his plan. He wasn’t chastened, he wasn’t humble, he wasn’t contrite in the State of the Union speech. He gave no indication he heard or cared what the people said. He went back, forced it through against the will of the people then claimed a victory on our behalf and pledged to continue working for us.
HE: I promise this is not a birther question. A great deal of Obama’s influences and the shaping of who he is actually came from third world politics outside of America…
LIMBAUGH: I agree. I have not focused much on the birther question. I don’t know what the final facts are, I’m not sure we’ll ever know, but regardless of where he was born, the reason the Framers wanted to keep a foreign-born person from becoming president was that they distrusted their innate loyalties. Whether or not Obama is an actual American citizen, he has the instincts of someone who cannot stand America.
I think he has visceral contempt for pre-Obama America. He displays the attitude of his mother and stepfather, and his mentor, Franklin Marshal Davis. In his book he describes his mother’s disdain for America. He married a woman who believes America is downright mean. He ran with America-hating leftists. He attended an America-bashing church. He promised fundamental change -- something that one who loved this nation and its founding principles would never do. He embarked on a world apology tour -- denouncing America as arrogant, dismissive, selfish, imperialistic and historically blemished. Has he no appreciation for America’s role as a liberator of people? Of our unparalleled record of magnanimity as the world’s sole superpower? He obviously disapproves of the free market system, despite having boasted that he was a fierce advocate of it. He seems to want to bring America down to size; to right the alleged (mythical) wrongs, to correct the inequities in wealth. I seriously believe he has a grudge against America. It’s personal.
HE: Do you think Obama’s presidency has harmed race relations?
LIMBAUGH: Without question. Obama has brought up race and exploited it at every chance he’s gotten. He did that with his friend professor Henry Gates when he accused the Cambridge Police Department of acting stupidly. That was all about race. He’s accused Arizonans and conservatives who support the Arizona law of nativism and racism.
When Americans overwhelmingly oppose the mosque at Ground Zero he implies it’s for racial reasons. His Attorney General Eric Holder, with Obama’s full blessing, says we are cowards on race, and that we’re not willing to have a national dialogue -- though we’ve been having a national dialogue on this for decades. I don’t know what planet these guys are on.
The Obama-Holder Justice Department dismissed the case against the New Black Panther Party members even after having won it by default judgment, obviously for racial reasons. Some insiders at the Justice Department like Christian Adams said there was an unwritten policy at the Department of Justice that whites cannot be the victims of blacks in civil rights voter intimidation cases.
They are expressly applying a race conscious policy to the administration of our laws, which are supposed to be administered blindly: the blindfolded Lady Justice. Color should be irrelevant, and its injection into justice destroys the concept of equal protection under the law.
HE: Your book was timed to come out before the elections and it really does give people the information they need to win people’s hearts and minds. Is this about independent voters?
LIMBAUGH: I did not just write a handbook for people to convince independents to come to our side. I think independents will come to our side (and they’re already leaving Obama in droves) as a result of principled opposition and principled advocacy of the conservative ideal. You don’t need to specifically cater to the independents by diluting our message. I think that’s where we make our mistake. If the GOP will stick to conservative principles and employ inspired leadership they will rebuild an enormous base.
My hope is that Crimes Against Liberty will serve as a reference guide, or, as one host aptly put it, a combat manual as we attempt to persuade our friends and neighbors to oust officeholders enabling Obama’s disastrous agenda. We ignore Obama’s capacity for mischief and the magnitude of the destructive impact of his agenda at our nation’s peril. Hopefully, this book will help us not to underestimate the gravity of what we are facing.
HE: Are you trying to make the case that Obama should be impeached before 2012?
LIMBAUGH: No. This book is a comprehensive indictment and listing of Obama’s abuses of power and his misrepresentations and his bullying and his conceit and his narcissism and how his personal characteristics, when coupled with his irrepressibly extreme left wing ideology, spells disaster for America. The cumulative evidence I’ve documented is staggering. One reader Tweeted that he began to highlight the book for salient points and had to quit because every sentence was being highlighted.
I am not alleging in the book that he has committed infractions under the criminal code, that he’s a common criminal. I am not suggesting that he has committed high crimes and misdemeanors so as to constitute impeachable offenses under the Constitution. I am not advocating and do not advocate in the book that we initiate impeachment proceedings if for no other reason than I think it would backfire and it would make him a victim and it would play into his hands. Even the relatively small number of liberals who are disgusted with the destructive path he’s taken us on would flock back to him, thinking it was an excessive partisan exercise. If we were less cynical about the Constitution and the rule of law, then Obama may well be in jeopardy at least of an impeachment inquiry. His abuses of power that I detail in the book are stunning. But again, I’m not advocating impeachment. Let’s beat him at the ballot box.
But if you asked me if I honestly think he’s committed infractions that might rise to the level? Oh, yeah. But that’s not the thrust of my book or its purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Hair writes daily as HUMAN EVENTS' Congressional correspondent. She is a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference. You can follow Connie on Twitter @ConnieHair.
You can also follow Connie Hair and Human Events on FACEBOOK.
Obama’s Backdoor Amnesty
Obama’s Backdoor Amnesty
by Connie Hair
09/13/2010
The Obama administration has begun implementing a backdoor amnesty through selective enforcement of U.S. immigration law.
A leaked internal memorandum from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) -- part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) -- entitled “Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform” revealed a series of “deferred action” plans to sidestep legislative requirements.
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.), ranking Republican on House Homeland Security Committee’s oversight subcommittee, spoke with HUMAN EVENTS about these recent actions -- or orders for inaction.
“It’s a separation of powers issue,” Bilirakis told HUMAN EVENTS in an exclusive interview. “I think they feel that they don’t have the votes in both chambers to pass amnesty. This should go through the legislative process.”
USA Today reported Friday recent Obama administration illegal immigration law enforcement cherry-picking including:
• Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton ordered agency officials on Aug. 20 to begin dismissing deportation cases against people who haven't committed serious crimes and have credible immigration applications pending.
• A proposed directive from Morton posted on ICE's website for public comment last month would generally prohibit police from using misdemeanor traffic stops to send people to ICE.
Bilirakis is demanding answers about the CIS memo from DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, more pointedly asking if she or anyone in her department or the White House itself directed the production of the memo.
“I want to know if they’re behind it and I have a suspicion they are. This is a back door way of doing it because they’re bypassing the legislative process,” Bilirakis said. “It’s unconstitutional, it’s arrogant and it’s dangerous.”
He also asked Mme. Secretary specifics about the “deferred action” implemented by her department in its unequal application of the law. Napolitano responded with the usual Obama administration non-answer answer complete with the standard “I want to be clear” amid the muddled language.
“Specifically as it relates to deferred action, I want to be clear, DHS will not grant deferred action or humanitarian parole to the Nation’s entire illegal immigrant population or classes of such population. Deferred action will be used, as it has been, on a case-by-case basis when a significant public benefit or the totality of the circumstances would so warrant,” Napolitano said in a brief response letter.
“She’s repeating what the memo says,” Bilirakis warned. “She’s saying if they do anything it’s not going to be a large class. They’re being very, very vague and broad. Their intent is non-action. It is amnesty through non-action. That’s why we’re calling for hearings.”
Bilirakis has requested formal hearings in the House Homeland Security subcommittee on Management, Investigations and Oversight immediately upon Congress' return to D.C. from summer break. (The House is back in session tomorrow, Tuesday, September 14.)
The requested hearing on “deferred action” amnesty isn’t likely unless Democrats lose majority control of the House in November’s elections.
“If the people give us the majority back, we’ve got to make this a top priority,” Bilirakis said.
In his letter to Napolitano, published below, Bilirakis raises a list of concerns about the CIS memo.
Dear Secretary Napolitano:
We are writing regarding a recently disclosed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (CIS) internal memorandum entitled “Administrative Alternatives to Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”
This memorandum appears to have been produced to provide options for the Department of Homeland Security (Department) to carry out the Administration’s misguided vision of large-scale amnesty, referred to as comprehensive immigration reform, without Congressional authorization. The memo clearly states that “the following options -- used alone or in combination -- have the potential to result in the meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action.”
We are greatly concerned that the options provided in the memorandum contemplate inappropriately extending to entire classes of aliens forms or relief that are properly reserved for individual aliens on a case-by-case basis in extraordinary circumstances. Moving forward on the recommendations contained in this memorandum in the absence of legislative action by Congress would amount to nothing more than a backdoor amnesty, which neither the American people nor their elected Federal representatives support.
This memorandum is just the most recent example of the Administration putting the interests of those who have disregarded our nation’s immigration laws ahead of those who are trying to enforce them. For example, the Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit to prevent implementation of Arizona’s immigration law, which seeks to make a state crime that which is already illegal under Federal law. At the same time, the Administration has failed to take action against sanctuary cities that openly refuse to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement efforts.
This memo raises many serious questions that deserve answers, especially given the Administration’s efforts to block implementation of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law and the President’s support for providing a path to citizenship for those who have violated our nation’s immigration laws.
Therefore, we would appreciate your answers to the following questions:
1) Who, if anyone, within the Department or White House directed the production of this memorandum?
2) Were you aware of, or consulted in any manner about, the production of this memorandum?
3) Does the Department’s Office of general Counsel agree that current law provides authority to implement any or all of the options proposed in the memorandum?
4) Does the Department plan to implement any or all of the options proposed in the memorandum?
5) Does the Department plan to provide Congress with specific written guidance, regulatory language, implementation protocols, outreach and training materials, or any other written directives prior to the implementation of any or all of the options proposed in the memorandum?
6) Have you discussed this memorandum or provided any guidance to CIS Director Mayorkas about whether any or all of the options proposed therein should be pursued or rejected?
7) Do you agree with the memorandum’s finding that it is ‘possible to grant deferred action to an unrestricted number of unlawfully present individuals …?’
8) Do you agree with the memorandum’s finding that CIS should refrain from issuing a Notice to Appear ‘where no relief exists in removal for an applicant without any significant negative immigration or criminal history?’
9) How does the Department define ‘any significant negative immigration or criminal history’?
10) How many of the estimated 10.8 million illegal aliens currently in the United States would qualify for relief under the options proposed by the memorandum?
11) Would implementation of any or all of the recommendations included in the memorandum preclude any security checks or background screenings to which individuals would otherwise be subjected absent such relief?
12) The recently released Bottom Up Review states that to support the mission area of enforcing and administering the Nation’s immigration laws the Department will pursue comprehensive immigration reform. Are the methods put forth in the CIS memorandum how the Department intends to achieve this ‘reform?’
Connie Hair writes daily as HUMAN EVENTS' Congressional correspondent. She is a former speechwriter for Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) and a former media and coalitions advisor to the Senate Republican Conference. You can follow Connie on Twitter @ConnieHair.
Bill Gates: End-of-Life Care vs. Saving Teachers' Jobs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03MZG9vK0W8
Billionaire Bill Gates making an out-of-context argument in favor of death panels.
ForaTv September 10, 2010
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2010/07/08/A_Conversat...
Microsoft Chairman and philanthropist Bill Gates examines the impact that the misallocation of healthcare funds has on the education system. He pins some of the blame on excessive end-of-life care, asking whether extending life by three months is worth laying off three teachers.
Bill Gates selling Death Panels to America - Michael Savage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciXTwPlFouY
8-9-10. Savages plays clips of Bill Gates discussing "death panels".
Sunday, September 12, 2010
He Left Her With Nothing
She went to her cupboards,
they were bare,
she looked into her purse,
only a few pennies and nickels,
no money to spare.
The home she lived in, not her own,
rent coming do,
food to buy,
he left her with nothing,
what will she do?
The savings account he had,
given to others,
some to nieces,
some to brothers,
she was left with chad.
The funeral and financial matters,
the so-called pension,
left to a niece to dispose,
dispose she did,
the widow left with indebted letters.
Social Security so needfully sort,
incurred expenses,
no financial support,
medications required, no help in sight,
her emotions in desperation fraught.
Money used up,
cupboards and pantry bare,
enveloped by illness,
he left her with nothing,
what will she do, cry in despair.
Used and abandoned,
death’s embrace inviting,
he left her with nothing,
what will she do? Who is to care?
Only God’s mercy and love, there is nothing to compare.
Gordon Avery, Sunday, September 12, 2010
they were bare,
she looked into her purse,
only a few pennies and nickels,
no money to spare.
The home she lived in, not her own,
rent coming do,
food to buy,
he left her with nothing,
what will she do?
The savings account he had,
given to others,
some to nieces,
some to brothers,
she was left with chad.
The funeral and financial matters,
the so-called pension,
left to a niece to dispose,
dispose she did,
the widow left with indebted letters.
Social Security so needfully sort,
incurred expenses,
no financial support,
medications required, no help in sight,
her emotions in desperation fraught.
Money used up,
cupboards and pantry bare,
enveloped by illness,
he left her with nothing,
what will she do, cry in despair.
Used and abandoned,
death’s embrace inviting,
he left her with nothing,
what will she do? Who is to care?
Only God’s mercy and love, there is nothing to compare.
Gordon Avery, Sunday, September 12, 2010
Domestic Enemies of the Constitution
Defend the Constitution of the United States
Domestic Enemies of the Constitution
By Mike Foil Sunday, September 12, 2010
CFP
Listed below are the various oaths that are administered to the people entering each specific position:
The oath of enlistment for the military:
“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
The oath for commissioned officers in the military:
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
The oath taken by Congress and Senators:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
The oath for the President of the United States:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
A common theme is contained in each oath, “defend the Constitution of the United States”. Whether it is an elected leader or a volunteer member of our military, they have each sworn to defend the Constitution. They ALL have sworn that they will do what it takes to protect the Constitution “from ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.”
This begs the question; where is the line, that once crossed, will transform a person from an ally to an enemy? The Founding Fathers recognized that a citizen can become a domestic enemy of our country. They even took it a step further, they understood the possibility of a political leader, a soldier, an officer in the military, or even the President could become an enemy of the Constitution.
Again, what defines a domestic enemy of the Constitution? What would one have to do? How far would one have to go in order for those in these sworn positions to invoke action to protect the Constitution? What would that action look like?
To some degree, our country and our Constitution have been under assault, domestically, for decades. It appears the progression of the attack has escalated over time to even include a total disregard of the law of the land. We currently have elected officials who have taken the above oath and appear to have a disdain for the protections the Constitution provides to the people. We have those in Congress who have stretched the meaning of certain phrases of the “living document” so that they no longer resemble the written word.
Obama stated that the Constitution is a “document of negative liberties.” What perspective must you view the Constitution from, in order to have that opinion? A majority of “we the people” would read the Bill of Rights, not as a list of negative liberties to each of us, but a list of stated restrictions upon the federal government. The “Rights” enumerated do not restrict you and me, they limit what the politicians and bureaucrats do to or against us. In order to view these as “negative liberties”, you would have to be seeing them from the viewpoint of how they limit what you would want to do to the people. To Obama, the Constitution is in his way. If taken seriously, it would stand in his way from pushing his agenda. Lucky for him, he does not care what it says. It’s full-steam ahead!
If the liberal Democrats can use the Constitution against the conservative Republicans, they will. They will preach Rights with fervor. But, if their desires run contrary to the document, it is easily ignored.
With adversaries to the Constitution within the highest levels of our government, what are we to do? What are the sworn defenders to do? At what point is non-political action necessary? If there was never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each oath require such?
At the present time, with an election only days away, the action required is political. Every measure must be taken to help elect protectors of the Constitution. Conservative control of Congress is absolutely mandatory in order to begin to reverse the direction of the past two years. Anything less than that will bring the nation to the point of having to answer the above questions. God help us when the time comes to exercise those oaths.
Domestic Enemies of the Constitution
By Mike Foil Sunday, September 12, 2010
CFP
Listed below are the various oaths that are administered to the people entering each specific position:
The oath of enlistment for the military:
“I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
The oath for commissioned officers in the military:
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
The oath taken by Congress and Senators:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
The oath for the President of the United States:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
A common theme is contained in each oath, “defend the Constitution of the United States”. Whether it is an elected leader or a volunteer member of our military, they have each sworn to defend the Constitution. They ALL have sworn that they will do what it takes to protect the Constitution “from ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC.”
This begs the question; where is the line, that once crossed, will transform a person from an ally to an enemy? The Founding Fathers recognized that a citizen can become a domestic enemy of our country. They even took it a step further, they understood the possibility of a political leader, a soldier, an officer in the military, or even the President could become an enemy of the Constitution.
Again, what defines a domestic enemy of the Constitution? What would one have to do? How far would one have to go in order for those in these sworn positions to invoke action to protect the Constitution? What would that action look like?
To some degree, our country and our Constitution have been under assault, domestically, for decades. It appears the progression of the attack has escalated over time to even include a total disregard of the law of the land. We currently have elected officials who have taken the above oath and appear to have a disdain for the protections the Constitution provides to the people. We have those in Congress who have stretched the meaning of certain phrases of the “living document” so that they no longer resemble the written word.
Obama stated that the Constitution is a “document of negative liberties.” What perspective must you view the Constitution from, in order to have that opinion? A majority of “we the people” would read the Bill of Rights, not as a list of negative liberties to each of us, but a list of stated restrictions upon the federal government. The “Rights” enumerated do not restrict you and me, they limit what the politicians and bureaucrats do to or against us. In order to view these as “negative liberties”, you would have to be seeing them from the viewpoint of how they limit what you would want to do to the people. To Obama, the Constitution is in his way. If taken seriously, it would stand in his way from pushing his agenda. Lucky for him, he does not care what it says. It’s full-steam ahead!
If the liberal Democrats can use the Constitution against the conservative Republicans, they will. They will preach Rights with fervor. But, if their desires run contrary to the document, it is easily ignored.
With adversaries to the Constitution within the highest levels of our government, what are we to do? What are the sworn defenders to do? At what point is non-political action necessary? If there was never intended to be action to defend the Constitution from those who are domestically attempting to destroy its power and authority, why would each oath require such?
At the present time, with an election only days away, the action required is political. Every measure must be taken to help elect protectors of the Constitution. Conservative control of Congress is absolutely mandatory in order to begin to reverse the direction of the past two years. Anything less than that will bring the nation to the point of having to answer the above questions. God help us when the time comes to exercise those oaths.
