Archive for the 'Impeach Obama' category

Dangerous Precedents. "Desert is not a right." "Backyard gardens."

Jul 18 2010 Published by under Filburn, health care, Impeach Obama, Wickard, Wickard v. Filburn

We all knew it was a tax, so it’s really no surprise Obama would have Holder argue it as such in his legal defense of the monstrous health care law, but take that together with Kagan’s refusal to answer “No” when asked whether the Supreme Court had the right to tell you what to eat added to Michelle telling us “Desert is not a right.” through the lens of what follows and you get a sense of how much smarter this crowd thinks they are than you…

…and how dangerous this much power is for them (or anyone) to have over you.

Let me introduce you to a gentleman farmer, one Roscoe Filburn, from the Depression Era. His Supreme Court case is *exactly* the one Obama’s DOJ is using to argue the legality of the health care law. (It’s one of ten precedents they cite.) 

From the Austin Free Press, an article opposing a farming bill, HR875, lays out Wickard V. Filburn. It makes reference to an article the Huffington Post had published in favor it:

“… Looking at the case of Wickard V. Filburn, we can see how a seemingly innocuous bill (like HR 875) can (lead to) draconian (food) circumstances …

The summary of the case of Wickard V. Filburn is really quite simple. The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 (AAA) set quotas on the amount of wheat that could enter interstate commerce and created penalties for overproduction. Farmer, Roscoe Filburn, met his quota for wheat but failed to include in his quota the amount of wheat that he grew for his own consumption. Secretary of Agriculture, Wickard, ordered Filburn to destroy his excess crops and pay a fine. Filburn refused to pay and filed suit claiming that AAA was acting unconstitutionally seeking to limit local commercial activity, which went beyond the purview of Congress under the Commerce Clause….Shockingly, the Supreme Court held (in Wickard V. Filburn) that “wheat not intended in any part for commerce but wholly for consumption on the farm, are within the commerce power of Congress.” The Supreme Court reasoned that although the amount of wheat that Filburn would not purchase from the market (because he had provided for his own needs) may be trivial in this particular circumstance, it does not remove him from the scope of federal regulation because, his circumstance, when taken with similar others, could be far from trivial. This basically set the precedent that, under the act, the government is legally entitled to prevent individuals from growing wheat for their own consumption (beyond the designated quota) because, if too many people were to do this, it would negatively impact the interstate wheat market – which was precisely the fear outlined by the concerned citizen in the Huffington Post…”

“…One of the main arguments in the Huffington Post in support of HR 875 is that it… could not possibly affect small (family or even backyard) farms and farmer’s markets…”
Now let’s extrapolate this out to what these kinds of powers could actually mean in the wrong hands.  This is not to say that anyone would do this, just that this would give our federal government the legal right to do it. From a December 29, 2009 article from Associated Content:
The specific wording in the bill defines a “food production facility” as any “farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal feeding facility” with the possibility (regardless of how remote) that it could be expanded to include any place that grows food, even a backyard garden… Proponents of the H.R.875 bill state there is nothing in the wording that would lead to making backyard gardens illegal. On the opposite side, it is believed that the wording is so broad that opponents to the bill insist this will also include all organic farms, small or family farms, and including backyard gardens at any location – even if it is not considered a typical farm.
Now here we are to this morning’s New York Times article where Obama’s DOJ is preparing its constitutional defense of health care on  Wickard v. Filburn:
In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use.

The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn “may be trivial by itself,” the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce.

Spooked yet?  I don’t think Madison and Jefferson, when crafting our founding documents throwing off the tyranny of King George III had in mind that America would allow even a whisper of constitutional language that would even hint at powers so broad that the federal government could have this kind of power of you.  In fact, reasonable people would argue that it was exactly that kind of power our 18th century ancestors were fleeing, yes?

God help us all.

No responses yet

Obama World Citizen

Jun 02 2010 Published by under Impeach Obama

No responses yet

"Crime Inc" or "The Chicago Mob’s Excellent Adventure to the White House"

May 01 2010 Published by under CCX, Impeach Obama

If you missed the Glenn Beck show this week (or believe him to be a fat, crying, rodeo clown with zero credibility so you always miss it) then you missed Monday’s & Thursday’s jaw dropping, stupefying, damned near death-defying expose he did on Obama’s little ten trillion dollar footsie game with a hitherto innocuous CCX (Chicago Carbon Exchange) and one not so innocuous Goldman Sachs.  There are other players, notably Albert Gore. The whole pile of dough hinges on a little bill known as “Cap & Trade.” Note: our entire gross domestic product is roughly fourteen trillion. If this thing goes, it will mean ten trillion…. per year.

Getting the picture how big and bad and dirty this is? Does it clean it up at all to know that the whole thing got started the day after Obama was elected Senator in 2006 and culminated with a private Oval Office meeting with Goldman Sach’s poobah Blankfein about ten days before the congressional spanking they took for their oh so bad behavior? Beck was curious about the timing, too. 

And then got curiouser and curiouser…

See his Thursday show notes/video here

SOME incredibly talented individual put together this four page PDF of the CCX scandal.  Don’t know who, but the link to the original site of the pdf is below. Someone on Twitter linked to it. WOW.
Original source of the four brilliant panels above:

No responses yet

Woodward & Bernstein… and Beck!

Apr 27 2010 Published by under Glenn Beck, Impeach Obama

What Glenn Beck revealed tonight will end Barry’s presidency. If it doesn’t, it means the fourth estate has died, and thus, the Republic has died. WOW.  Transcript below from tonight’s show.

Why Goldman Is Willing to Take the Heat
Monday , April 26, 2010

By Glenn Beck

Faith, hope and charity: We used to seek God’s blessings on the country, we used to pursue maximum freedom to solve problems and we’d rely on one another in times of need.

Now we’re being pushed towards what progressives have always found hope in: Dependency on regulations and administrations. Average Americans find that approach to be red tape. Our Founding Fathers found it to be slavery.

So it kind shocks me when there’s no outcry to news stories like this one reported in the Financial Times over the weekend: The “U.S. is preparing to pivot from domestic regulatory reform to push for a tough new international capital regime.”

Excuse me?

We’re talking about the foundation of international financial regulations and global governing. It’s a trial balloon being floated out there and I guess it was a success because the response was complete and total silence.

Is it just me who thinks this is a bad idea? Am I alone? I guess so, because even Republicans are OK with this one. How could that happen? Easy: It’s those evil, greedy Sith lord Wall Street executives! Like the ones at Goldman Sachs, who are appearing before the almighty Senate Tuesday to get grilled by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (sounds scary) about their so-called attempts to manipulate and profit off the crash of the housing market.

They’ll get chewed out and made an example of by people like Chris Dodd, who joined in the chorus of Goldman haters on “Meet the Press” on Sunday:


SEN. CHRIS DODD, D-CONN.: Here we are, 17 months after someone broke into our house in effect and robbed us… and we still haven’t changed the locks on the doors.

LARRY SUMMERS, WHITE HOUSE ECONOMIC ADVISER: These off-balance sheet, nontransparent vehicles with what people call implicit guarantees, invite these kinds of problems.

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY, R-ALA.: We have to end once and for all the casino atmosphere on Wall Street, where they’re gambling, basically, on synthetic ideas and so forth — with somebody else’s money.


You’re right, Chris: You have to change those locks. But the other thing to make sure of is that the people you are calling to change the locks aren’t the same ones who were involved with the robbery in the first place.

Yes, Dodd and his buddies will chew out Goldman, but if they are the root of all evil, why do these people all still work in the administration?

• William C. Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; was a partner and managing director at Goldman

• Gary Gensler, chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission; spent 18 years at Goldman

• Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Tim Geithner; former Goldman lobbyist

• Philip Murphy; nominated for ambassador to Germany; former Goldman executive

• Diana Farrell; deputy director of the National Economic Council; formerly with Goldman

• Emil Michael; White House fellow; former investment banker with Goldman

There’s just a few. And if Goldman really are the bad guys, we have bigger problems than just regulation, because we have to talk about global warming as well.

I got a tip from a watchdog — and by the way, if you are new to the program and don’t know what a watchdog is, that’s you. We’ve got millions of watchdogs e-mailing in tips and stories big and small and we welcome every single one of them. We get to as many as we can and even report on some of them, like this one about the Chicago Climate Exchange.

In case you didn’t know the Chicago Climate Exchange existed — it does and it started trading in 2003. It’s billed as: “North America’s only cap-and-trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.” Members agree to a voluntary but legally binding agreement to “meet annual Green House Gas emission reduction targets.”

What’s cap-and-trade? A scheme designed to transfer wealth from the companies that have to the companies that have not through the regulation of invisible gases. Remember, it was ENRON who lobbied heavily for this type of system, because they knew how to swindle a profit out of it.

Environmentalists like Obama want this system because it will make prices skyrocket and people will be forced to use less energy. But I don’t want to put words in his mouth, I’ll let him say it:


THEN-PRESIDENTIAL CANIDATE BARACK OBAMA: Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.


Got it? So the main beneficiaries will be big corporations and proponents of the redistribution of wealth. You are the loser here because you pay more for energy. But you can feel good because you saved the planet.


Not to mention, other places — like Europe — who have tried to implement green initiatives (like Spain) and then base markets on it are suffering the consequences. Because, as Time unwittingly described the creation of Chicago Climate Exchange, it “creates something out of nothing.” There is no value behind the market; it’s like except now its solar panels.

So who would want to create something like this?

In 2000 and 2001, Chicago Climate Exchange received start-up grants from the Joyce Foundation. The Joyce Foundation is like the George Soros’ TIDES Foundation. In fact, it’s actually bigger than TIDES and even funds TIDES. Think of it as a place where uber-rich and powerful liberals like to dump their money into, so the cash can be spread around to their pet projects without a direct link.

The Joyce Foundation supports such luminaries as John Ayers (William Ayers’ brother).

There was one influential member on the board of the Joyce Foundation at the time the Chicago Climate Exchange got its seed money; someone instrumental in steering the funds towards the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange. They were on the board from 1994-2002. The founder of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Richard Sandor, said that he “knew (this person) well,” which is perhaps how the money was awarded to the Kellogg Graduate School of Management, where Sandor was a research professor. I’ll get back to that person in a minute.

Sandor saw big things in a climate exchange market. How big?


BLOOMBERG REPORTER: So how big do you think this market could be?

RICHARD SANDOR, CHICAGO CLIMATE EXCHANGE: I think it’s a $10 trillion a year market.

REPORTER: Say that again?

SANDOR: $10 trillion a year.


A $10 trillion a year market? That’s a lot to go around. In comparison, the value of U.S. company shares on major U.S. and foreign stock exchanges equities market was $15 trillion in 2009. There’s a lot of money riding on this climate legislation. But remember: It’s all about saving the Earth.

London-based Generation Investment Management sees the earning potential as well. That’s why they purchased a stake in Chicago Climate Exchange and are the fifth largest shareholder. The cofounder of the London-based firm? Former Vice President Al Gore. I say cofounder because some of the other founders include David Blood (former Goldman executive), Mark Ferguson (Goldman) and Peter Harris (Goldman).

In 2006, the Chicago Climate Exchange got a nice boost of confidence when an investor stepped to the plate and ponied up to purchase 10 percent of the combined company. Cofounder of the Chicago Exchange said the investment was big and welcome news. The investor? Goldman Sachs.

Oh and I almost forgot: The person at the beginning of it all? The one on the board of the Joyce Foundation that secured the initial funding for this project? Barack Obama.

This is so weird. It’s almost like those our government says are responsible for the financial collapse are the ones directly involved in the “solutions.” So much for “changing the locks,” Chris.

OK, now let’s look at this. What you have is a structure. This is the building: the Exchange. You’ve got the structure, all the players.

So what are we missing? Well, we’re missing the bill and the technology to make it happen; the machinery to make it happen.

You are trading air; it’s hard to keep track of air. The good news is, the bill is being worked on by Republicans and Democrats. That’s cap-and-trade.

The machinery, the device? A patent for such a device was worked on by CEO Carlton Bartels. Shortly after he filed for the patent on his system to trade residential carbon credits, he was killed in the 9/11 attacks. Bartels wife then shopped the idea around and was able to find a buyer. The buyer ended up being a guy who wasn’t really a good guy, he committed massive accounting fraud and manipulated earnings in his company in order to make huge bonuses.

That person was Franklin Raines, who just happened to be the CEO of Fannie Mae at the time. The patent was eventually approved by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office on Nov. 7, 2006 — coincidentally the day after Democrats took control of Congress. Thanks to Barbara Hollingsworth of the Washington Examiner for pointing this out to us.

So now, Fannie Mae, who is congressionally mandated to “make housing more affordable,” is poised to reap billions on a system that has nothing to do with housing except for that it would make housing costs go up.

That’s great.

Remember when Fannie purchased risky mortgages from banks, bundled them together and sold to investors as mortgage-backed securities? And then the housing market was absolutely destroyed? Well, former Fannie VP Scott Lesmes was responsible for that bundling.

Well, here’s the good news: Not only will this new carbon trading “system” try the exact same bundling method (except with air); they are using the exact same guy: Scott Lesmes.

But, please, don’t worry. The only ones involved in this are the corrupt Franklin Raines, Mr. redistribution of wealth Barack Obama, and all the people who the House and Senate are currently saying are the bad guys. Other than that, this should work out great.

It’s almost like Goldman is willing to take a little heat now, in order to get a little piece of the $10 trillion green pie later. I challenge the media: Will anyone pick this story up? Will anyone question this and the timing of it all?

All of a sudden illegal immigration has leap-frogged global warming? Is it because Goldman has to take hits to get the global government structure done? And then they get the payoff? Or will you continue to say oh, he’s crazy and not talk about the facts.

— Watch “Glenn Beck” weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on Fox News Channel

No responses yet

Obama’s Private Army

Apr 26 2010 Published by under Healthcare, Impeach Obama

No responses yet

Just One Day w/Obama: Iran Nuke "inevitable" so NO MORE USA NUKES… What?

Apr 06 2010 Published by under Impeach Obama, Iran, Nukes, Obama, Treason

Life long democrat Pat Caddell flirting with actual, demonstrable TREASON on the part of Obama, here.  I don’t know how anybody of any political persuasion can think it’s SENSIBLE to announce “No more nukes” to our enemies on the SAME DAY the President SAID that a nuclear Iran is INEVITABLE… Never mind that we have military on the ground in TWO war zones right now.  And not just no nukes, no nukes even in SELF-DEFENSE.  If this isn’t TREASON what the hell is?

No responses yet

Another Birther Argument

Mar 21 2010 Published by under Birth Certificate, birther, Impeach Obama, Obama

No responses yet

Wicked Smaht Boston Radio Host Calls for IMPEACHMENT

Mar 18 2010 Published by under 96.9, Glenn Beck, Impeach Obama, Jay Severin

Jay Severin is many things, good and bad (as are we all), but his analysis of all things political is absolutely, positively, without even a close competitor by a thousand miles, the most prescient, accurate and insightful on radio or any other medium, print or broadcast. RAZOR FRIGGIN’ SHARP. (He is consistently RIGHT about stuff, days, weeks, even YEARS ahead of others when they are just awakening from their stupor.  VERY much like Glenn Beck.  You can call them every name in the book all day long but it doesn’t make them any less right, over and over and over again, year after year, which is what hacks off liberals so bad, I’m sure!)

Below is the unexpurgated text of his latest blog post – about Impeachment of Obama based on the activities surrounding health care. I recommend listening to his first half hour every day, starting at 2pm eastern. You will learn more in those 30 minutes daily than in all other hours from all other sources combined. It’s not even close.

Procedural Rules – Posted by Jay Severin

Posted 3/18/2010 12:32:00 PM

Quite chilling how monumental – and wicked – instants of history can occur so quickly and with such incredible nonchalance.
As in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, who just happens to be the President of the United States, who yesterday breezily declared he “doesn’t pay much attention to procedural rules”.
Oh, Barrack, you are so chill!
Who needs all those old fashioned (not to mention inconvenient) laws, anyway, right dude?
Okay. So it is time for somebody to use the “I” word, as in Impeachment.
I will.
Impeachment of a President (an indictment, not removal form office, which is “Recall”) may occur when he or she is found guilty of the commission of high crimes and misdemeanors.
Is not openly denouncing and violating the essential oath of his office – which is exactly Obama has done – Impeachable on its face?
Did Obama not swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution (you know, one of those old “rules” you don’t pay attention to)?
Obama has violated his sacred oath.
He deserves Impeachment, and we deserve to draw this line, wage this honorable fight.
We are, with current Congressional composition, unlikely to fashion actual Impeachment; that is for after the coming election day.
But, as we certainly know (see Scott Brown) we can make a great deal of noise, and trouble for the other side. We just need to get “Impeachment” in the wind, in the media, in the conversation.
We need to verify to them, to our children, to ourselves that we are serious about the President noit taking seriously his oath of office.
We can do that, now.
And I now believe we must do that, now.
Impeachment, anyone?

Posted By: Jay Severin   

No responses yet

The "Change" Obama Brought to Washington

Mar 17 2010 Published by under Constitution, Healthcare, Impeach Obama, Obamacare

Constitution Smonstitution.  Who needs the separation of powers when you can abuse your Executive Authority?  It’s ALL ALLOWED. Legal, even.  Even our Founders, who crafted that glorious document to protect us from such evil, never envisioned the wholesale lack of HONOR we are now witnessing in Washington.

Thanks to he who shall not be named for sharing.

No responses yet

I’m Not a Racist…

Feb 17 2010 Published by under Black, Impeach Obama, Racism, White

Just came across an Obama internet poster’s signature that made me laugh out loud:

“I’m not a racist.  I hate his white half, too.”

Hah!  Take that all you intellectually lazy weenies who accuse anyone and everyone who disagrees with The Chosen One that we are racists because of it.  We disagree with the whole Obama, not just the black half!  Hah!

One response so far

Think the NEA under Obama would approve of either one of these?

Feb 16 2010 Published by under Billboard, Bush, Constitution, Impeach Obama, Lies, NEA, Obama

The “Miss Me Yet” picture below originally featured a photo of a smiling & waving W. (He spent like a Democrat, but kept us safe like a MAN… unlike the radical-man-child we have now in the Oval Office) but someone who reads Michelle Malkin (who is a smart as she is beautiful) Photoshopped it and sent it to her and she posted it on her website.

The Obama picture below it, also from her website, seems the perfect flip side to this one, huh?

No responses yet

President Transparency?

Feb 16 2010 Published by under Birth Certificate, Executive Order, Impeach Obama, Radical

Just came across this post on an Executive Order Obama signed on his first day in office shielding Presidential records from the Freedom of Information Act… Papers that previous Presidents made available.

It’s his first day… Unless he’s got or is planning to have something to hide, why, on his first day, would Mr. Transparency be so concerned about keeping his papers secret?

I give you the “regular person” test… the one that absolutely NOONE in the mainstream media seems to feel the effect of… ever:

If it’s you, and you’re in charge, and you have nothing to hide, and you know that the usual, long-standing protections regarding national security, etcetera, are already in place, and you’re just there to protect and defend the constitution, are you this paranoid? You’re not George Washington, okay?  It’s not like you’re the first guy ever who has been President and have to be mindful of the law of unintended consequences and balance historical record with keeping our secrets from the bad guys… There are nearly four dozen presidents before you who made sure that the release of Executive papers won’t endanger the American people in any way.  So if it’s not the American people you are trying to protect, that leaves only one person… YOU.

THINK about this.  Obama’s legal counsel didn’t just wake up, hungover from the Inaugural Balls, answer the phone and get the order to proceed, bloodshot eyes and shaking hands, over to the computer and slap together the proper and precise legal language to enact this executive order so his boss could sign it later that morning. This required planning, thought, approval, specifics… Obama had intent, here.  He had something in mind.  Multiple somethings…. What?

IT DEFIES COMMON SENSE.  THIS is why people are so enamored with Scott Brown and Sarah Palin – because they don’t do “weird” stuff like this.  They don’t do stuff that DEFIES COMMON SENSE and FLUNKS THE SMELL TEST.

So much of what Obama does requires the willful suspension of disbelief… over and over and over again…

No responses yet

Billboard in WI: "Impeach Obama"

Feb 15 2010 Published by under Billboard, Impeach Obama, WI

God Bless America and the 1st Amendment, while we have it!
See the story, here.

No responses yet