New Audio Surfaces of Obama Defending Infanticide in Illinois

In 2003, then-State-Senator Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois legislature to oppose a bill to provide medical care for newborns who survived failed late-term abortions. A similar bill passed in the U.S. Congress with only 15 votes against it (out of 535). Read and listen to Senator Obama defending his barbaric position that live-born babies should simply be set aside, uncared for, and to die. Who is the extremist? What kind of human being thinks this way?

www.lifenews.com/2012/08/23/new-audio-surfaces-of-obama-defending-infanticide-in-illinois

Watch and see for yourself …

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/08/top-neurosurgeon-rips-obamacare-to-presidents-face-video/

As the sequester cuts Obama signed into law in August 2011 draw closer to implementation, the Navy is making plans to ground the Blue Angels during the latter half of 2013.

This was revealed by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert last week, when he sent out a memo showing the Navy’s plan for complying with the cuts.
Grounding the Blue Angels for half a year will entail canceling 30 shows and will save approximately $20 million.
Greenert says the Navy is already making cuts “because of Congress’s failures to pass…spending bills last year,” and if sequester hits it will cost them an additional $4 billion for 2013 alone.
Sequester was the risk Obama was willing to take to raise the debt ceiling in 2011. Now, it is posed to cost us the Blue Angels.

“Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Jane S. Solomon, J.), entered November 1, 2011, granting the petition to the extent it sought an order directing respondent, under the Freedom of Information Law (Public Officers Law § 84 et seq.) (FOIL), to provide an electronic copy of a database, as redacted, of names and addresses of New York City residents who have been granted handgun licenses, and a database, to be redacted, of hate crimes reported to respondent from January 1, 2005 to the present, and denying the petition to the extent it sought an order directing respondent to provide an electronic copy of its crime incident database, a declaration that respondent’s practices in responding to FOIL requests violate the statute, and an order directing respondent to cease these practices, unanimously modified, on the law, to deny the petition as to the databases of handgun licensees and hate crimes and to reinstate the petition with respect to the demand for the crime incident database, insofar as it seeks production of the electronic crime incident database produced in Floyd v City of New York (08 Civ 01034 [SAS] [US Dist Ct, SD NY]) (the Floyd database), and the matter remitted to Supreme Court for a determination of whether production of the Floyd database should be ordered, and, if so, to what extent and under what conditions, and otherwise affirmed, without costs,” reads the ruling.

“The court correctly declined to declare that respondent’s responses to FOIL requests and rulings on administrative appeals are as a matter of practice untimely and to order respondent to cease this practice. The FOIL requester’s statutory remedy for an untimely response or ruling is to deem the response a denial and commence a CPLR article 78 proceeding “for review of such denial” (Public Officers Law § 89[4][a],[b]; Matter of Miller v New York State Dept. of Transp., 58 AD3d 981, 983 [3d Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 712 [2009]). Review of a FOIL determination does not provide for mandamus relief (see Matter of Harvey v Hynes, 174 Misc 2d 174, 177 [Sup Ct, Kings County 1997]).”

The appellate court rules that a lower court erred by ordering the release of “the home addresses of handgun licensees in electronic form.” “The court erred in ordering respondent to release the home addresses of handgun licensees in electronic form. The fact that Penal Law § 400.00(5) makes the name and address of a handgun license holder “a public record” is not dispositive of whether respondent can assert the privacy and safety exemptions to FOIL disclosure, especially when petitioners seek the names and addresses in electronic form (see Matter of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Kelly, 55 AD3d 222, 226 [1st Dept 2008]). In addition, “[d]isclosing a person’s home address implicates a heightened privacy concern” (Matter of New York State United Teachers v Brighter Choice Charter School, 64 AD3d 1130, 1132 [3d Dept 2009], citing, inter alia, Public Officers Law § 89[7], revd on other grounds 15 NY3d 560 [2010]).”

The ruling adds, “However, the Floyd database was produced in an unrelated federal action, governed by very different standards from those that govern public access to records under FOIL (see Svaigsen v City of New York, 203 AD2d 32 [1st Dept 1994]). Further, the database was produced pursuant to strict confidentiality requirements, which indicates that disclosure to the [*4]general public would, at a minimum, raise serious confidentiality and privacy concerns. Accordingly, we remand to Supreme Court to determine whether the Floyd database should be released, and if so, under what conditions.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/court-nytimess-request-new-york-city-gun-owners-violates-law_700264.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/feb/5/obama-health-law-will-cost-7-million/

And yet, the real world tumbled on. I needed money for college, so I had to get a job for the summer between high school and pre-orientation. For only the second time in my life — and the first in the private sector — my time was a facet of other people’s bottom lines, and they cared not one whit for my imaginations of grandeur. My Jeep sputtered and demanded service like a petulant millennial. I had to lose a Saturday changing out a flat tire and buying a new one. Gas prices were suddenly my concern, rather than just my parents’. Beyond all that, I finally got to New Haven only to find my star not quite as bright as I had let myself believe. I learned a lot about humility from age 18 to 22.

I don’t know what, exactly, President Obama learned over the four years of his first term. I notice that second-term Obama inherited quite a mess — underemployment is higher, more people are out of work, racial disparity is wider, and labor participation is lower than when first-term Obama moved into the White House. Not surprisingly, the economy, jobs, and the debt are the top issues for most Americans. More bafflingly, however, none of these issues appears on the short list of a second-term agenda that reads more like a progressive manifesto than a disciplined contract with America.

What’s most striking, however, is not the fact of his shameless liberalism — most of us expected that much — but the way his meteoric boldness is divorced from what should by now be intuitive political understanding. Assuming the Democrats believe their own mythology, Team Obama must posit that the president’s aggressive interjection on any sensitive issue is likely to complicate, if not derail, consensus-building. So in light of a bipartisan Senate outline for immigration reform, what on Earth did President Republicans-All-Hate-Me expect to accomplish with his immigration speech? Does he honestly believe including immigration provisions for same-sex spouses will be more feasible because of his public grandstanding? Is it all of a sudden the case that his front-and-center presence will grease over the wheels of political action? Did his perceived failings in his first term really come down to not enough sternly worded speeches?

Ronald Reagan was fond of saying, “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit.” The corollary, of course, is that it is amazing how much you can obstruct your own stated goals when your primary concern is husbanding your own legacy. (But if Obama is going to cultivate part of that legacy on the rocky, urban soil of gun control, at least he had the forethought to have a camera ready for that one time he went skeet shooting.)

So let’s not mince words. In the late push to enshrine the progressive revolt against the prosperity of Reagan’s free markets and the Clinton-Gingrich balanced budgets, Obama has all but sidelined the once central push for jobs and a robust economy. In doubling down on the creeping expansion of the welfare state, he is expected to ignore the advice of his own jobs council in favor of an expansive regulatory regime. Never mind that free enterprise and some attendant inequality are vital to a climate of robust innovation. With a contracting economy and unemployment eking upward, the unemployment of the jobs council certainly clarifies priorities.

Notwithstanding the stagnant economic promise of Barack Obama’s America, the president’s left flank remains determined to see in him the same singular greatness he doubtlessly sees in himself. All flaws, failings, and ambitions unrealized are the fault of maleficent Republicans tilting bitterly at the windmills of Hope & Change™ because they hate minorities or something. The president’s approval ratings are impressively high on the afterglow of his re-election, and liberals have already carved his place in the 21st-century Pantheon of the “post-Rushmore Rushmore.” While the media remains complicit in the impression of progress on jobless “hot button” issues, this polling advantage might persist for a time. But eventually, the ultimate questions will crescendo: Where is the progress? Where are the (good) jobs?

The flying unicorn mythology of Obama’s legend — a hodgepodge of truth, legerdemain, and outright fantasy — was a problem evident in that early rebuke of Eric Cantor: “Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.” It continued in a pattern of unanimous rejections at the Supreme Court through the recent judicial rebuke of the unprecedented expansion ofexecutive authority to declare when the Senate is not in session — a step even George W. Bush did not take. Most recently it emerged in the fantastic notion that a skeet-shooting photo has any more relevance to a discussion on the right to self-defense than “American Idol” balloting has to the right to suffrage.

Obama’s cool hubris is a fascinating extension of the atmospheric self-infatuation that characterizes his young American bulwark of support. It’s small wonder that a generation raised on social promotion — as opposed to demonstrable merit — and feel-good pop moralism — as opposed to substantive ethics and results — would increasingly rate itself “above average” while clingingto a commander-in-chief who simultaneously embodies and enables the party of lip-service responsibility amid spiraling insolvency.

The sad irony is that Obama’s governance is in many ways the instantiation of the America of my generation. The staggering self-absorption prevents the kind of raw but earnest self-reflection that would reveal a rather inconvenient but obvious truth: we would rather convince ourselves and others that we love and represent humanity than undergo the hard, unflattering work of ensuring that anyone but ourselves is substantively better off. Thus the focus on “hot button” issues to the neglect of a broader, practicable vision of the world. As William Kremer put it, “Narcissists may say all the right things, but their actions eventually reveal them to be self-serving.”

To the degree that young America is the Obama demographic, we are The Post-Everything Generation of Internet activists, community organizers, and It Gets Better. Our leaders are terrified of civilian weaponry they don’t bother to understand and yet are comfortable deriding a prince in active military service. They borrow endlessly with no regard for our future or our children, and we dutifully enable them with paeans to “intersectionality” and “kyriarchy” (neither of which, according to Windows and Chrome, are even words). Our philosophy is post-reality, our metric post-results, and our outlook post-narcissism. We are a cesspool of vanities anathema to pride or consequence. We are the generation of Hope, which is but reified wind.

But nothing is forever. One day soon, Obama’s colossal pride will stumble in the ever-quaking rumble of reality, and my generation will discover its liberalism is at odds with its entitlement. In the end, we all just want to do right by our convictions. As my eighteen-year-old self discovered the world wouldn’t change my ruined tire, no matter how much I valued and deserved my weekend, there will be a day of reckoning for the big-government activism of the Obama coalition.

Anthony Rek LeCounte is a Yale-educated conservative. He blogs atToken Dissonance, where this essay originally appeared.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/03/reality-and-obamas-colossal-pride/#ixzz2Jz2OMyU0

According to cops, the other driver apparently did not appreciate the bumper sticker and “displayed his dislike by showing his middle finger.”

In response, Guaschino allegedly followed the other driver to a traffic light, where he exited his car–baseball bat in hand–and struck the trunk of the middle finger-waving driver. The second motorist “fled in fear of his safety,” police reported.

The road rage incident resulted in three criminal charges being filed against Guaschino (threatening, criminal mischief, and breach of peace).

Guaschino, who did not return a message left at his Manchester home, is scheduled for a February 20 Superior Court appearance. While state records show that Guaschino is registered to vote, he has not declared a party affiliation.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/impeach-obama-road-rage-875624

winning

“The path to citizenship in my judgment is going to fail,” Buchanan said. “It will certainly be stopped in the House, and I think Marco Rubio, who has gotten himself out front on it, will be badly damaged, because I think there’s going to be a rising populist reaction to his proposal.”

Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift agreed with Buchanan, adding that the downfall of immigration reform would also cost Republicans generally in the 2014 midterms.

“It’ll pass the Senate probably with 70-plus votes,” Clift said. “And then the House is problematical for the very reasons that Pat just outlined. Republicans don’t like giving the undocumented immigrants the path to citizenship. And if they block that, the Democrats have a helluva an issue going in the 2014 midterm elections.”

Co-panelists Mort Zuckerman of U.S. News & World Report and moderator John McLaughlin predicted the legislation would indeed succeed, with McLaughlin saying Rubio will walk away from it just fine.

Reports indicate that New York Times computers were breached by Chinese hackers following the NYT’s Oct. 25th investigation into the accumulation of wealth by a family member of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao.

The attacks are allegedly retaliation for the NYT’s story, which “embarrassed the Communist Party leadership” just as the party was making a concerted effort to bridge the gap between the Chinese people and their leaders.

Since that initial breach, hackers have gotten into the NYT’s computers again and again–“stealing reporters’ passwords and hunting for files on [the] investigation” into Wen’s family.

To date, the hackers have been able to get into the personal files of 53 NYT employees.

The Chinese government has denied that such hacking is taking place, stating that their country has laws against it.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/02/02/Chinese-Hackers-Get-Information-on-53-NYT-Employees

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/02/02/Washington-Post-also-hacked-by-Chinese

I tell ya what girl, dance for me.. I’ll keep you over employed..

GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS!..
Tropicana’s where the NJ Senator lost his heart…
GIRLS GIRLS GIRLS!……. have you heard the news?”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/menendez-denies-prostitutes-dom-rep-18357622#.UQnYlov2ahs.email

President Barack Obama is set to reject the key compromise at the heart of a bipartisan deal on immigration reform announced by eight Senators yesterday. The president, who will deliver an address later today in Las Vegas, NV outlining his own immigration ideas, is reported to oppose linking a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants, a Democrat demand, to stronger law enforcement and better border security, a Republican demand.

The president will apparently argue that the administration has met reasonable goals on enforcing current immigration legislation, and that additional security will merely create new obstacles to legalizing the roughly 12 million illegal immigrants thought to be living in the United States. The federal government accelerated deportations in the first years of the Obama presidency, and sent new personnel to patrol the southwestern border.
However, starting last year, the Obama administration declined to enforce existing law regarding the so-called “Dreamers”–immigrants brought illegally to the U.S. as children. The election-year move drew praise from Hispanic groups but preempted congressional legislation, and brought criticism from proponents of immigration reform, including Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), who objected to the president’s clear circumvention of Congress.
The essence of the deal struck by Rubio with Senate colleagues in the “Gang of Eight” or “immigration eight” is that a path to citizenship would be contingent upon meeting law enforcement criteria. Republican critics of the Senate deal–including some who are otherwise supportive of immigration reform–argued that the deal would cause “instant legalization” of illegal immigrants, while the border security provisions would take time.
Rubio has proposed dealing with that problem by suggesting that the reform package be broken up into several pieces of legislation rather than one bill that would pass the citizenship and law enforcement provisions simultaneously. A previous reform law, the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986, was ineffective precisely because it made legalization and border security simultaneous, rather than making the latter prior to the former.
The president is said to share Democrats’ objections to a series of legislation that would formally put law enforcement first, and prefers one comprehensive bill. But he will also go even further today, and reject the compromise outright.
The president may feel he does not have to compromise, having won re-election. But in blocking the quid pro quo at the heart of the Senate deal, and insisting on a path to citizenship without additional security, he may well scuttle a chance at reform–again.
That may have been the president’s intention from the beginning, and the reason that the “Gang of Eight” acted yesterday to upstage the president.
As Breitbart News noted yesterday, Democrats have long pushed for “comprehensive” immigration reform, but have also blocked reform when passage was possible, as in 2005-7, since retaining the issue as a grievance motivates Hispanic voters and immigrant-oriented interest groups.
By rejecting the citizenship-for-security compromise, the president may hope to focus media criticism on Republicans in Congress, who largely oppose a new amnesty for illegal immigrants. If the past is any indication, Obama will use that opposition to label Republicans as racist.
Once again, politics will trump progress–and Republicans, who were split on the Senate deal, may well thank Obama for sparing them a difficult choice.

Let’s hope he’s a better shot than he is a bowler.

President Barack Obama has revealed that he is a regular shooter, according to an interview posted Sunday at The New Republic:

FF: Have you ever fired a gun?

Yes, in fact, up at Camp David, we do skeet shooting all the time.

FF: The whole family?

Not the girls, but oftentimes guests of mine go up there. And I have a profound respect for the traditions of hunting that trace back in this country for generations. And I think those who dismiss that out of hand make a big mistake.

It is odd that the president would make that claim only now, after several years of tough campaigning, where such a revelation would have earned him both interest and praise from the voters he once dismissed as “bitter.”

It is unclear whether Obama meant to include himself in his response; he is not directly quoted as saying he personally went shooting, but that “we”–people staying at Camp David–did so. He did not include or exclude himself specifically.

But if Obama did, indeed, mean to refer to himself, it would not be the first time he has boasted of his sporting knowledge or prowess–often without the evidence to back him up.

He has long claimed to be a fan of the Chicago White Sox, for example, but could not namea single White Sox player when asked, and incorrectly referred to the name of their home stadium as “Cominskey Field.” His basketball skills are also somewhat oversold: NBA commissioner David Stern said President Obama is “not as good as he thinks he is.”

In his infamous bowling stunt during the Democratic primary in 2008, then-Sen. Obama bowled a 37, rolling his first ball straight into the gutter . Later, in an appearance on The Tonight Show, Obama mocked his performance as being worthy of the “Special Olympics,” a remark for which he was criticized and later apologized

Obama’s shooting claim is evidently meant to assuage critics of his gun control proposals by reassuring them that he shares their enthusiasm for Second Amendment rights–not just sport shooting, but hunting in particular.

Yet supporters of gun rights insist that the Second Amendment is about far more than hunting or even self-defense.

As Breitbart News Editor-at-Large Ben Shapiro told Piers Morgan during their debate earlier this month: “The basis of the second amendment is not really about self defense and it’s not about hunting. It’s about resistance to government tyranny. That’s what the founders said and that’s what the right believe in this country.”

Nearly two-thirds of the nation–not just gun owners–agreed with Shapiro in a recent Rasmussen poll.

Curiously, the president attempted to draw a distinction between gun ownership in rural areas versus urban areas, according to the interview:

Part of being able to move this forward is understanding the reality of guns in urban areas are very different from the realities of guns in rural areas. And if you grew up and your dad gave you a hunting rifle when you were ten, and you went out and spent the day with him and your uncles, and that became part of your family’s traditions, you can see why you’d be pretty protective of that.

So it’s trying to bridge those gaps that I think is going to be part of the biggest task over the next several months. And that means that advocates of gun control have to do a little more listening than they do sometimes.

Were any other politician to have made such a distinction, they might well have been accused of racism.

Whether the Constitution recognizes such geographic distinctions or not, the president’s warning contrasts with the views of at least some law enforcement agencies. Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, Jr. recently urged residents to become familiar with the use of firearms for their own protection.

This much can be said for President Obama: if he is indeed as regular a shooter as he claims to be, he has not shot anyone in the face.