Senator Coburn recently remarked that the recent order by Obama, ordering all employers to offer health insurance that covers birth control, sterilizations and abortion pills, regardless of any religious objections….is not that big a deal:

“This is blown out of proportion,” he said. “It is an important point in terms of religious liberty, but it’s a consequence of having too big of a government.”

I don’t agree that it’s blown out of proportion but I do agree on the reasons why no one should be surprised.

This was what ObamaCare was about in the first place. To place every American under the power of the federal government. To rule every aspect of your life. It’s just another power grab by the federal government, and this Administration, at the expense of the States and the individual.

Daniel Henninger:

The Catholic Church has stumbled into the central battle of the 2012 presidential campaign: What are the limits to Barack Obama’s transformative presidency? The Catholic left has just learned one answer: When Mr. Obama says, “Everyone plays by the same set of rules,” it means they conform to his rules. What else could it mean?

This battle is to repeal ObamaCare, plain and simple.

Oh wait, Romney is going to be our nominee…

Nevermind.

Exit quote:

“We are all familiar with an individual mandate that was authorized by the U.S. Congress and notoriously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court: the affirmative duty of persons of Japanese descent to report to a Civil Control Station. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1943). The distinction between mere prohibition and command played a large role in the internment cases. . . . Korematsu is a perfectly fine precedent: it has never been overruled. Moreover, it is the feds’ best and only precedent. So why don’t they cite it?”

That President Barack Hussein Obama has made “green energy” a priority of his administration is no secret. Under the Obama watch, the Department of Energy (DOE), headed by Dr. Steven Chu, has spent, loaned, or guaranteed loans, and the total amount is $80 billion. And we all know that Solyndra failed, costing taxpayers over $500 million. So what? you say. That’s old news. Well, as the late (great IMHO) Paul Harvey used to say, here is “the rest of the story.”

Believe it or not politics played an important part of Obama’s green energy policy. As Gomer Pyle used to say on The Andy Griffith Show, “Surprise, surprise, surprise!” Obama’s entire $80 billion clean-technology program now looks like a political liability for an administration about to enter a bruising reelection campaign. With that in mind, let’s “follow the money,” let’s see how politics played a part in the entire Solyndra and green energy scandals.

Obama’s green-technology program was rife with politics at every level. Political considerations were raised repeatedly by company investors, the DOE, and White House officials. But to no avail. Obama and his administration remained steadfast in its support for Solyndra. Rarely, if ever, was there discussion of the impact that Solyndra’s bankruptcy would have on laid-off workers or on the development of clean-energy technology. “What’s so troubling is that politics seems to be the dominant factor,” said Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “They’re not talking about what the taxpayers are losing; they’re not talking about the failure of the technology, whether we bet on the wrong horse. What they are talking about is ‘How are we going to manage this politically?’”

The Obama administration gave easy access to venture capitalists with stakes in some of the companies backed by the administration. Many of those investors had given to Obama’s 2008 campaign. Some took jobs in the administration and helped manage the clean-energy program. “This was a merit-based decision made by expert staffers at the DOE,” White House spokesman Eric Schultz said. (personal comment: If you believe Schultz’s statement, I own a bridge in NYC in which you may be interested!)

Two days before Obama’s visit to Solyndra, fundraiser Steve Westly warned presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett that an appearance by Obama could be problematic, citing Solyndra’s financial problems and that the company’s failure could generate negative media attention. Wrote Westly, “The president should be careful about unrealistic/optimistic forecasts that could haunt him in the next 18 months if Solyndra hits the wall.” After assurances from DOE officials that their policy was sound and that Solyndra’s troubles would be short-lived, Obama made the appearance. However, Solyndra’s financial picture did not improve, and by the end of 2010, the company was failing. Its investors pitched bailout plans, seeking help from what a Solyndra executive referred to as the “Bank of Washington,” his term for U.S. taxpayers. Said Solyndra board member Steve Mitchell, “The DOE really thinks politically before it thinks economically.” Solyndra eventually realized that it had to lay off workers. But DOE urged company officials to delay the move until after the contentious November 2010 midterm elections. An e-mail among company investors stated, “No announcement till after elections at doe request.”   [emphasis mine]  

But that’s not all. Solyndra’s strongest political connection was to George Kaiser, an oil industry billionaire, and major Democrat fundraiser, who had once hosted Obama at his home in Oklahoma. Kaiser’s family foundation owned more than a third of Solyndra, and Kaiser took a direct interest in its operations. Kaiser flew to Las Vegas, NV, days before the 2010 midterm elections and was a guest at a private fundraising dinner for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and was seated next to Obama at the dinner. During the dinner, Kaiser complained to Obama about Chinese manufacturers dumping cheap solar panels on the US market. After dinner he pressed Obama’s deputy chief of staff about the need for a “Buy American Act” for federal agencies. The company was intent on making the federal government a major customer of Solyndra.

We now know that none of these political connections and string pullings helped, and Solyndra filed for bankruptcy on August 24, 2011. The first $75 million recovered from Solyndra’s sale is expected to go to Kaiser’s nonprofit organization and other investors. It is unclear how much, if anything, will be left for taxpayers.

All of this “politics” was played out around Solyndra and its loan guarantee from DOE. And we know that DOE provided loan guarantees for numerous other green energy projects. So what other “political” surprises await us? And all of this from the guy who promised us (taxpayers) an unprecedented transparent and open government. And I’m reminded of the definition of an “honest” politician: when he’s bought, he stays bought!

But that’s just my opinion.

Access to other articles like this one can be found at RWNO, my personal web site.

Dennis Kucinich is arguably one of the most anti-American members of the United States Congress and seems continuously determined to prove it. He has introduced a plan to regulate oil company profits- or, rather to prevent them.

Six House Democrats, led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), want to set up a “Reasonable Profits Board” to control gas profits.

The Democrats, worried about higher gas prices, want to set up a board that would apply a “windfall profit tax” as high as 100 percent on the sale of oil and gas, according to their legislation. The bill provides no specific guidance for how the board would determine what constitutes a reasonable profit.

The Gas Price Spike Act, H.R. 3784, would apply a windfall tax on the sale of oil and gas that ranges from 50 percent to 100 percent on all surplus earnings exceeding “a reasonable profit.” It would set up a Reasonable Profits Board made up of three presidential nominees that will serve three-year terms. Unlike other bills setting up advisory boards, the Reasonable Profits Board would not be made up of any nominees from Congress.

No one from the industry will have a say in what is “reasonable.”

The bill would also seem to exclude industry representatives from the board, as it says members “shall have no financial interests in any of the businesses for which reasonable profits are determined by the Board.”

The funds seized from the oil companies would be thrown down the “alternative” toilet

According to the bill, a windfall tax of 50 percent would be applied when the sale of oil or gas leads to a profit of between 100 percent and 102 percent of a reasonable profit. The windfall tax would jump to 75 percent when the profit is between 102 and 105 percent of a reasonable profit, and above that, the windfall tax would be 100 percent. The bill also specifies that the oil-and-gas companies, as the seller, would have to pay this tax.

Kucinich said these tax revenues would be used to fund alternative transportation programs when oil-and-gas prices spike.

Those supportive of this legislation are the usual brain dead groups:

Co-sponsoring the bill are five other Democrats: Reps. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), Bob Filner (Calif.), Marcia Fudge (Ohio), Jim Langevin (R.I.), and Lynn Woolsey (Calif.).

There is no doubt that were this effort to succeed, it would be only the tip of the spear into the heart of American business and industry. Democrats would love nothing better than to impose regulations on the profits of all business in the US, deeming what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. And you would have absolutely no voice for your business.

Kucinich’s umbrage is nothing but pure idiocy. Oil company profits rise with the price of oil and no one has pushed the price of oil higher than Barack Obama. He’s said no to every single energy proposal that would succeed and has forced us all to pay for those which have all failed.

If one wanted to limit oil company profits, one would push the price of oil down, not up. If one takes away incentive to produce more oil as Kucinich would seize all the profits, one would have no incentive to provide more oil domestically.

That’d be a fun time.

The last moderate leaves the Obama administration.

Barack Obama has burned through his second chief of staff, Bill Daley. It was thought that Daley would remain on board until after the next election but that is not to be and Daley’s departure is the opening salvo in what promises to be a war.

Charlie Gasparino tells us why Daley left and what it means: a hard left turn.

The announcement that Bill Daley will step down as President Obama’s chief of staff is further proof that as the 2012 election approaches, Obama is embracing his inner leftist on anything touching the economy. The administration has moved so far left that even one of the country’s most prominent Democrats can’t fit in.

And he believes that the Republican nominee will face a “scorched Earth” campaign assault.

Daley was about the last moderate in the Obama administration. He no doubt riled his colleagues and boss with the occasional flash of truth:

Daley said he couldn’t get into detail about the individual case which he said sounded like the “typical sort of bureaucratic stuff that’s hard to defend. Sometimes you can’t defend the indefensible.” The chief of staff said he would look into the case to “see if there is any way to bring some reason into it.”

Daley eventually became a pariah because of his tendency to be a moderate:

Daley thought he had the president’s blessing to move the Obama economic agenda to the center, but that support quickly evaporated as the ideologues and the spin masters like Valerie Jarrett and David Plouffe assumed bigger roles in the administration’s daily affairs.

As I reported on the Fox Business Network back in September, Daley grew increasingly agitated about his role. He openly complained that he was being isolated by Jarrett, Obama’s friend and personal adviser, who’s been at the forefront of Obama’s most recent leftward tilt, and let it be known that he wanted to do something else — maybe serve as treasury secretary, given his banking background at JP Morgan.

Daley was reportedly undercut routinely by the Chicago mafia:

Daley was often overruled by Obama Chicago insiders like Valerie Jarrett, leaving him ineffectual. If nothing else it’s surprising Bill Daley put up with the level of disrespect he faced from the “chosen few,” in the administration.

But it seems his greatest fault was trying to work with Republicans

Daley’s downward spiral was accelerated when he tried to work with Congressional Republicans, something he learned from serving in the Clinton administration. Daley suggested Obama work with Speaker Boehner to “go big” on a deal during the summer debt ceiling negotiations while Obama’s close friends wanted Obama to take a tougher “take it or leave it,” approach.

Obama Senior Adviser David Plouffe and incoming Chief of Staff Lew were in favor of a big deal with Boehner while National Economic Council Chairman Gene Sperling was opposed. Sperling won and Daley lost.

Daley’s moderate views and his willingness to work with Republicans made him widely unpopular with White House staff leading to deterioration in his role in administration efforts. Daley’s businessman’s approach to the nation’s fiscal issues ran in direct opposition to key White House advisors that wanted more liberal policies.

Tavis Smiley says the coming election will be the “ugliest.”

You can bet on it.

People forget that this is the same Barack Obama whose people somehow managed to come into possession of Jack Ryan’s sealed divorce records and then had his operatives email supporters about it. The Chicago Tribune then piled on, suing to have Ryan’s sealed records made public. Then, inexplicably, Berkeley-educated and Grey Davis-appointed judge Robert Schnider decided that Ryan’s divorce records should be made public and Ryan’s campaign was doomed.

Obama made a pious reversal on his position about injecting Ryan’s records into the race- but only after they were ordered released. Yet he did not call on others to do the same.

Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Barack Obama reversed his position on Republican rival Jack Ryan’s divorce file Friday, calling on fellow Democrats to refrain from trying to inject it into the campaign.

“I don’t think it’s an appropriate topic for debate,” Obama said.

Obama has consistently said that his campaign would not focus on Ryan’s 1999 divorce from TV actress Jeri Ryan.

But when he first made that pledge, Obama refused to call on other Democrats to follow his lead.

“It’s going to be up to other people to determine what’s appropriate and what’s not,” Obama said the day after his March primary victory.

Given’s Obama’s past and with Axelrod, Plouffe and Jarrett behind the scenes, you absolutely can expect to see the nastiest, filthiest election campaign you have ever seen.

It’s the Chicago way.

Whose side is he on? I have already posed that question.

It’s not enough that Barack Obama gives away British missile secrets to the Russians:

The US secretly agreed to give the Russians sensitive information on Britain’s nuclear deterrent to persuade them to sign a key treaty, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Now Obama seems bent on weakening our national defenses to the point of uselessness.

President Obama signaled Congress this week that he is prepared to share U.S. missile defense secrets with Russia.

In the president’s signing statement issued Saturday in passing into law the fiscal 2012 defense authorization bill, Mr. Obama said restrictions aimed at protecting top-secret technical data on U.S. Standard Missile-3 velocity burnout parameters might impinge on his constitutional foreign policy authority.

As first disclosed in this space several weeks ago, U.S. officials are planning to provide Moscow with the SM-3 data, despite reservations from security officials who say that doing so could compromise the effectiveness of the system by allowing Russian weapons technicians to counter the missile. The weapons are considered some of the most effective high-speed interceptors in the U.S. missile defense arsenal.

There are also concerns that Russia could share the secret data with China and rogue states such as Iran and North Korea to help their missile programs defeat U.S. missile defense.

Congress tried to stop him

Section 1227 of the defense law prohibits spending any funds that would be used to give Russian officials access to sensitive missile-defense technology, as part of a cooperation agreement without first sending Congress a report identifying the specific secrets, how they would be used and steps to protect the data from compromise.

but Obama has let it be known that he will have no part of anyone preventing him from giving away defense intelligence:

Mr. Obama said in the signing statement that he would treat the legal restrictions as “non-binding.”

“While my administration intends to keep the Congress fully informed of the status of U.S. efforts to cooperate with the Russian Federation on ballistic missile defense, my administration will also interpret and implement section 1244 in a manner that does not interfere with the president’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign affairs and avoids the undue disclosure of sensitive diplomatic communications.”

Apparently nostalgic for another massive breach of national security Barack Obama wants to arrange another Chinese nuclear scientist exchange:

Deputy Energy Secretary Daniel B. Poneman is working on a major Obama administration initiative that would renew scientist exchanges between U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories and Chinese nuclear facilities.

The idea is aimed at promoting openness and transparency by China’s military about its secret, large-scale buildup of nuclear weapons, according to U.S. officials.

Critics say the plan is similar to an exchange program in the 1990s that sent U.S. nuclear scientists to China and produced one of the worst cases of nuclear espionage. Secrets about every deployed warhead in the U.S. arsenal were compromised, including the W-88 small nuclear warhead deployed on submarine-launched missiles.

“We’ve seen this movie before, and it has a bad ending,” one official said.

Unlike Obama, the Chinese are resisting, recognizing the value of secrecy.

Chinese officials repeatedly have rejected U.S. calls for strategic nuclear talks, most recently in January during the visit there by then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.

A 2008 State Department cable quoted Chinese Foreign Ministry official He Yafei as rejecting U.S. appeals for Chinese nuclear transparency, noting that openness “would eliminate the value of China’s strategic deterrent.”

How ironic that the President who wants to help prosecute the leaker of the climategate emails himself is so willing to leak national security secrets on his own.

It is no longer simply a good idea to change Presidents. It is absolutely imperative. Without such a change, we have no hope.

There is no way anyone can argue that the ObamaCare waiver process isn’t benefiting Obama’s crony’s and supporters:

Documents released in a classic Friday afternoon news dump show that labor unions representing 543,812 workers received waivers from President Barack Obama‘s signature legislation since June 17, 2011.

By contrast, private employers with a total of 69,813 employees, many of whom work for small businesses, were granted waivers.

So it looks like most of the liberals who support Obama don’t want anything to do with ObamaCare.

Shocker!

So lets ask a few questions. If ObamaCare is so awesome, is so helpful and affordable, why are so many businesses, state and local governments, and labor unions seeking exemptions from it? And why did Obama grant the exemptions.

But with the newly released report from the Department of Health and Human Services revealing such a heavy tilting of waivers toward Big Labor, the Obama Administration’s move will give further ammunition to Republican presidential candidates like Gov. Mitt Romney who have labeled Mr. Obama a “crony capitalist.”

Hopefully the Supreme Court will issue us all waivers later this year

Click here to view the embedded video.

When is anyone going to start getting concerned?

President Obama used his recess appointment powers Wednesday to name a head for the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and three new members to the National Labor Relations Board — moves Republican lawmakers said amounted to an unconstitutional power grab.

The president acted just a day after the Senate held a session — breaking with at least three different precedents that said the Senate must be in recess for at least three days for the president to exercise his appointment power. Mr. Obama himself was part of two of those precedents, both during his time in the Senate and again in 2010 when one of his administration’s top constitutional lawyers made the argument for the three-day waiting period to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Obama tapped former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the CFPB, and named three others to the labor board — all of which had been stymied by congressional Republicans who said Mr. Obama is accruing too much power to himself through those two agencies.

In strikingly sharp language, Republicans said the Senate considers itself still in session for the express purpose of blocking recess appointments, and the move threatened to become a declaration of war against Congress.

“Although the Senate is not in recess, President Obama, in an unprecedented move, has arrogantly circumvented the American people,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican.

It kind of ignores the word “Recess” as well as Obama’s own stated adminstration policy.

It turns out that the action not only contradicts long-standing practice, but also the view of the administration itself. In 2010, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained to the Supreme Court the Obama administration’s view that recess appointments are only permissible when Congress is in recess for more than three days. Here’s the exchange with Chief Justice John Roberts:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn’t work why?

MR. KATYAL: The — the recess appointment power can work in — in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And — and so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that — that could — that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions –

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.

Back in 2005, President Stinking Hypocrite had a different opinion on recess appointments in general:

“To some degree, he’s damaged goods,” said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “I think that means we’ll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed.”

The anencephalic Harry Reid applauded Obama’s power grab despite of a history of blocking Bush from doing the same:

Iain (here and here) and Dan (here) are right to be outraged at President Obama’s brazenness (if not lawlessness) on the recess appointments, but it is not like he lacks accomplices. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has backed the president’s play, according to the Hill. Senate Democrats will no doubt echo that support.

The hypocrisy here is blatant, even by congressional standards. In 2007, Reid kept the senate in pro forma session in order to block President Bush from making recess appointments — particularly, the eminently qualified Steve Bradbury’s appointment to head DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel. “I had to keep the Senate in pro forma session to block the Bradbury appointment,” Reid recounted in 2008. “That necessarily meant no recess appointments could be made.

Obama is out of control. He is dangerous. We are headed toward a Constitutional crisis. Thus I feel a need to reiterate Andy McCarthy’s plea:

So my question is: are Republicans just going to grouse about this, or are they actually going to do something about it?

“I will see nutting!”

Or, why Eric Holder will remain in office until 2013 at least.

A pair of articles from the Washington Times make clear that the White House has a plan for the 2012 election, and that is to guarantee victory for Obama regardless of the outcome of the vote. A large part of it depends on Eric Holder and his continual bastardization of the law.

The first comes from Robert Knight and his account of why democrats despise voter id laws:

Assistant AG Thomas Perez, the same official who terminated the Black Panther voter intimidation case, ordered South Carolina to stop enforcing its voter photo ID law. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson explained precisely why the law is necessary:

The state Department of Motor Vehicles audited a state Election Commission report that said 239,333 people were registered to vote but had no photo ID. The DMV found that 37,000 were deceased, more than 90,000 had moved to other states, and others had names not matched to IDs. That left only 27,000 people registered without a photo ID but who could vote by signing an affidavit as to their identity.

Contrary to left wing claims, requiring photo ID has not been shown to suppress voter ID:

A bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform in 2005 chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III found no evidence that requiring photo IDs would suppress the minority vote. The panel recommended a national photo ID system and a campaign to register voters.

The second article comes from Jeffrey Kuhner. Against the backdrop of the Carter/Baker report (of which Holder appears to be completely ignorant) Eric Holder plays the race card for South Carolina:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. claims Jim Crow is returning. In a recent speech, Mr. Holder said that attempts by states to pass voter identification laws will disenfranchise minorities, rolling back the clock to the evil days of segregation. He said that a growing number of minorities fear that “the same disparities, divisions and problems” now afflict America as they did in 1965 prior to the Voting Rights Act. According to the Obama administration, our democracy is being threatened by racist Republicans. Hence, the Justice Department must prevent laws requiring a photo ID to vote from being enacted.

Holder’s argument has no foothold in reality.

Kuhner points out that Holder’s real problem is that photo ID laws will impair ACORN’s ability to conduct fraud:

Mr. Holder evidently wants to scuttle ID laws because he knows which organization will be hurt most: ACORN. For years, community activist groups, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, have engaged in massive electoral fraud – registering illegal aliens, offering bribes to numerous politically disinterested people in the inner cities as inducements to vote and pushing underage and multiple voting. Election reform, therefore, is a stake aimed at the heart of Democratic corruption and ACORN’s power. Clean up the voter rolls and Mr. Obama’s re-election is in serious jeopardy.

Free photo ID cards are made available to anyone who needs one in South Carolina as are absentee votes for those who would trouble getting to the polls. Additionally, in blocking the South Carolina law Holder runs afoul of stare decisis:

Moreover, the Supreme Court already has ruled on the issue – upholding state voter ID laws. In the 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board decision, the high court held that an Indiana law mandating photo identification at the voting booth was indeed constitutional. If it is good enough for the Supreme Court and the overwhelming majority of the states, then it should be for Mr. Holder as well.

Holder claims that requiring a photo ID is tatamount to a poll tax but that is laughable:

“He has a particularly hard time explaining how the South Carolina requirement of government-issued photo identification amounts to a ‘poll tax’ when the state has also made provisions to provide that identification, free of charge. Hear that, Mr. Attorney General? The only thing the voter has to do is show up and get his or her photo taken. And if that’s too much darn trouble well, then, that person can do something else on election day.”

Why is too burdensome to show up and obtain a photo ID but not too burdensome to show up to vote?

The ducks are aligning in a row. Blocking the South Carolina law will allow ACORN and other left wing operations to run amuck with voter fraud. The problem is that election fraud is a Federal offense, and that’s where Holder becomes critical. I fully expect no end to election chicanery on the part of the ACORN and the left, whether it involves “finding” lost votes as in Minnesota, printing out enough democrat ballots to guarantee a victory, forging signatures, or forging more signatures. I also expect that Holder would dismiss out of hand all claims beneficial to Obama and democrats and pursue only those in which the outcomes favored Republicans.

Ultimately the job of the Attorney General of the United States is protect the law from abuse but it is painfully clear that Eric Holder was appointed to protect abuse from the law.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:

”There is no question about legitimacy or importance of a state ‘s interest in counting only eligible voters.”

The integrity of the vote means nothing to Holder. Eric Holder would not know integrity if it bit him in the ass.

And that’s exactly why he was appointed.

In his latest signing statement Obama said:

“My administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens,” Obama said in the signing statement. “Indeed, I believe that doing so would break with our most important traditions and values as a nation.”

Now why would he even need to say that were it not possible?

Does his signing statement make you feel safer? It ought not. After all, it was Obama who said unequivocally that he would not use signing statements to “get his way.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

Obviously it is now possible for Obama to hold any American he deems a potential terrorist indefinitely without trial.

And who can be declared a terrorist? Among the possibilities are these:

People or groups who:

* Provide identification that is inconsistent or suspect or demand identity “privacy”
* Insist on paying with cash or uses credit card(s) in different names
* Make suspicious comments regarding anti-US, radical theology, vague or cryptic warnings that suggests or appear to endorse the use of violence in support of a cause
* Demonstrate interest in uses that do not seem consistent with the intended use of the item being purchased
* Possess little knowledge of intended purchase items
* Make bulk purchases of items to include:
-Weatherproofed ammunition or match containers
-Meals Ready to Eat
-Night Vision Devices; night flashlights; gas masks
-High capacity magazines
-Bi-pods or tri-pods for rifles

I am not comforted by Obama’s assurance that he would not detain an American indefinitely. Not one bit, especially given the bona fide idiots who are in charge of the Department of Injustice and Homeland Insecurity. And considering this- my brother-in-law and I formed a partnership to buy and rent a condo at a ski resort. We were notified that we had subsequently been placed on a terrorist watch list.

Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.

Anyone remember this from 2008?

Click here to view the embedded video.

Q: When Congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use presidential signage [sic] to get your way?

OBAMA: Yes. [Applause] Let me just explain for those who are unfamiliar with this issue. You know, we’ve got a government designed by the founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a President that’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or courts that are too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’ job is to pass legislation. The President can veto it, or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do is part of his effort to accumulate more power in the Presidency, is, he’s been saying, “Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter that says ‘I don’t agree with this part’ or ‘I don’t agree with that part.’ I’m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way.” Uh, that’s not part of his power. But this is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he’s going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for ten years, I believe in the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.

Hypocrisy….thy name is Obama.

President Obama said Friday he will not be bound by at least 20 policy riders in the 2012 omnibus funding the government, including provisions pertaining to Guantanamo Bay and gun control.

After he signed the omnibus into law Friday, the White House released a concurrent signing statement saying Obama will object to portions of the legislation on constitutional grounds.

Signing statements are highly controversial, and their legality is disputed.

“I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient,” Obama said in a statement as he signed the bill into law.

So no end round Congress there? The worst Attorney General in history, Eric Holder, said:

“So we are in a better place, I think the regulations, procedures that will help, and we’ll also have a signing statement from the president” which will help clarify how they view the law, Holder said.

Yup, that’s called doing a end run around Congress Mr. President.

Where are they cries from the MSM and the Democrats? Or do they only cry when a Republican is in the White House? Hell, Charlie Savage at the New York Times won a Pulitzer for his work on Bush’s “abuse” of signing statements. The American Bar Association denounced Bush’s use of signing statements. Democrats called Bush’s use of signing statements as the beginning of a dictatorship. Not a peep about Obama’s.

I’m shocked!