Obama And Liberal Democrat Ally General Electric Paid NO Taxes Last Year And In Fact Was GIVEN Money By Government

Before we get to our main story, let’s do a little recent historical review.

First of all, G.E.has been a key Obama ally, and GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt is basically even working for Obama:

Obama Names GE CEO Immelt As Economic Adviser
January 21, 2011

President Obama wants to cast some light on economic success stories in the shadows of a slow recovery. And he is looking to find some more.

On Friday, the president travels to Schenectady, N.Y., birthplace of the General Electric Co., to showcase a new GE deal with India and announce a restructured presidential advisory board to focus on increasing employment and competitiveness.

Obama is naming GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt as the head of a Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. The panel replaces Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, which had been chaired by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. Obama announced late Thursday that Volcker, as expected, was ending his tenure on the panel.

Then there’s the fact that G.E. has been a MASSIVE beneficiary of the Obama- and Democrat-imposed radical so-called “green” agenda:

Undisclosed NBC Conflict of Interest Again Arises in Annual ‘Green Week’
By Lachlan Markay | November 16, 2010 | 16:47

On Sunday, NBC Universal launched its annual “Green Week,” as part of the company’s “Green is Universal” environmental awareness campaign.

As NBC embarks on yet another week of “environmentally themed programming,” it falls to media watchdogs to point out the massive conflict presented by NBC parent company General Electric’s significant financial interests in the policies “Green Week” indirectly advances.

GE stands to make millions from Democrats’ “clean energy” agenda. The company has invested massive amounts of money in technology that can only be profitable through government intervention or subsidization.

Put these two facts together and what do you get?

Now consider this, stupid, depraved fools (i.e., anyone who calls themselves a “Democrat” and says that evil corporate greed comes from Republicans:

G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
Published: March 24, 2011

General Electric, the nation’s largest corporation, had a very good year in 2010.

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.

Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

That may be hard to fathom for the millions of American business owners and households now preparing their own returns, but low taxes are nothing new for G.E. The company has been cutting the percentage of its American profits paid to the Internal Revenue Service for years, resulting in a far lower rate than at most multinational companies.

Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

While General Electric is one of the most skilled at reducing its tax burden, many other companies have become better at this as well. Although the top corporate tax rate in the United States is 35 percent, one of the highest in the world, companies have been increasingly using a maze of shelters, tax credits and subsidies to pay far less.

In a regulatory filing just a week before the Japanese disaster put a spotlight on the company’s nuclear reactor business, G.E. reported that its tax burden was 7.4 percent of its American profits, about a third of the average reported by other American multinationals. Even those figures are overstated, because they include taxes that will be paid only if the company brings its overseas profits back to the United States. With those profits still offshore, G.E. is effectively getting money back.

So we’ve got a giant mega-corporation whose top leadership is clearly in the pocket of the Democrat Party and which has clearly benefitted from the Democrat Party agenda.

And lo and behond, it turns out that not only do these piles of quivering un-American slime at GE not pay taxes, but Obama actually has the naked chutzpah to reach into the American people’s pocket and say, “We owe you this, Mr. Immelt.”

Now, this would be loathsome and indefensible enough it GE was a rightwing corporation.  But understand that Democrats are continually demonizing Republicans as being “the party of corporate greed” when in fact THEY are the real winners at the corporate greed game.

Democrats calling Republicans “corporate shills” is like Yassar Arafat calling Ronald Reagan “anti-Jew”; the label only works if you are an idiot on every level imaginable.

Want more?  Feed on this:

Here’s one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs? They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.

The greater Congress’ ability to grant favors and take one American’s earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making. There’s no better influence than money. The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.

And guess what?  As soon as Democrats took over Congress that’s exactly what they did: they criminalized incandescent light bulbs and made GE’s mercury-laden CFL bulbs the “Big Brother” alternative.

GE gave $20 million to Democrats.  But don’t worry, Democrats took money right out of your and your children and grandchildren’s pockets to pay back their corporate pals with their usual array of shennanigans.

And the only thing that is more despicable than that is that all the while they’re doing all this, Democrats are constantly demonizing Republicans.

Hypocrisy is the quintessential defining essense of liberalism.  Pure and simple.

New Gallup Poll Shows Obama At Lowest Approval Ever

This goes along with the CBS and Fox News polls which came out last week, both of which reveal that Obama’s poll numbers plunged to an all-time low AFTER he and the Demagogues I mean Democrats rammed through their ObamaCare in a hard-core partisan ideologue process.

The Gallup chart on their site has the poll numbers pop up at every data point.  It’s worth clicking on so you can see Obama’s plunge in a new dimension.

Riddle me this, Democrats.  If the American people really want your ObamaCrap, as you keep deceitfully claiming, then why have Obama’s poll numbers reached new lows???

Obama’s down to 45% approval, with 48% disapproving.  Obama doesn’t represent America anymore.

We’ve gone from Democrat-to-Republican or Republican-to-Democrat administrations before.  Many times before, in fact.  But we’ve never seen anything like the radical hijacking of our very way of life like what is going on now.

Obama and the Democrats have become tyrants, bent on usurping the will of the American people and imposing their radical partisan agenda on the backs of our children who will never be able to repay the skyrocketing costs.

Vote them out.  Get rid of them.  Make them an abject lesson of history as to what will happen should progressivism ever be allowed to rear its ugly head again.  Or they will literally vote out America and the American way of life.

Saul Alinsky And the Obama-SEIU Ideology

This is worth a read:

Alinsky citing reveals SEIU-Obama ideology

U.S. purposefully mismanaged by President Andy Stern

The 2008 election was aimed, as Barack Obama said, “to fundamentally change America.” The American people did not do their homework. They thought he believed in the original paradigm. They were intentionally misled, but this could have been prevented.

Ask the leaders of the Democratic party who Saul Alinsky is and you will likely get obfuscation. They will tell you Barack Obama spent three years teaching Alinsky’s philosophy and methods but he likely will not answer questions about Alinsky. Hillary Clinton wrote her college dissertation on Alinsky but you won’t likely get a peep out of her.

Bluntly put, Alinsky is opposed to freedom. He is an elitist. He believed in communism and atheism. The fundamental values, as stated at the beginning of this column, are seen by Alinsky as horrors that have created mass inequities and careless behavior. What makes Alinsky dangerous is that he is insidious.

Alinsky’s primary approach to politics is deceit. The ends justify the means. He would create a communist Utopia dominated by his friends but not through open and honest debate. Therefore, they disguise themselves as believers in the republic and democracy. Gaining control is objective No. 1. This was the beginning of their revolution. The goal, then, for Alinsky was “to take from the haves and give to the have-nots.”

Obama taught this. He “community organized” under this philosophy. He has surrounded himself with people of like mind. John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Anita Dunn, Valerie Jarrett, and Van Jones are just a few of the core conspirators.

Alinsky knew the core beliefs of the American people. He knew they had to be deceived and manipulated. His opinion was they were too selfish to give up the America that was constructed by the founding fathers. His followers have taken over the Democratic Party although many Republicans also are participating in the movement under the guise of progressivism.

The change they want will fundamentally eliminate freedom, representative government, democracy, free enterprise, private ownership, individual responsibility and religious faith. I have no problem with them telling you that and putting it up for debate but they will not because they would be thrown out of office.

This strategy has been known since the late 1960s. Since they cannot challenge those positions successfully, the next best thing is to get into the current system through deceit. Tell people you are something you are not. Then destroy people’s belief in the system by destroying it from within. This is the strategy employed by the disciples of Alinsky.

Alinsky said, “Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, nonchallenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution.”

(from news-herald.com)

Related video: Saul Alinsky takes the White House

One of the fundamental “disappointments” that independents – who have massively abandoned Obama and his agenda – have is that Obama misrepresented himself (i.e., he lied) about who he was and what he would be about if he were elected president.

Too many people did not see Obama’s anti-free market agenda (Obama’s demagoguery of banks, of car companies, of insurance companies, of the Chamber of Commerce, of Fox News, etc.) coming.  They should have seen it, and they would have had they paid better attention, or had the mainstream media attempted to do its constitutionally-appointed duty.  But now they are left fearful.  Now they and the businesses they work for are being inundated with fundamentally hostile attacks against business.  And as a result we are forced to live through a period in which fully 77% of investors view their president as “anti-business.”

People didn’t vote for that.  They were lied to.

At the same time, Obama has surrounded himself with openly Marxist advisers (see also here), which brings out the crystal-clear-in-hindsight fact that Obama’s long association with Marxist radicals such as Frank Marshall Davis, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers.

An American Thinker piece ties Obama’s relationship with the pedophile communist Frank Marshall Davis to an early indoctrination in the philosophy of Saul Alinsky.

You reveal yourself in whom you choose as friends.  And Obama revealed himself:

“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”

To cite Dr. Raymond Stantz from Ghostbusters, I wouldn’t have touched these people with a ten meter cattle prod.  And few Americans would have.

SEIU union president Andy Stern, who has visited the White House more than anyone else since Obama was elected, offers this view of the world:

– “Because workers of the world unite, it’s not just a slogan anymore.”

– “We like to say: We use the power of persuasion first. If it doesn’t work, we try the persuasion of power.”

That is a radical agenda from a clearly Marxist worldview.  And how does Obama respond to this vision?

“Your agenda has been my agenda in the United States Senate.  Before debating health care, I talked to Andy Stern and SEIU members.”

“We are going to paint the nation purple with SEIU.”

In a frightening way.

And so people who understood Obama weren’t at all surprised that he would pick a manufacturing czar such as Ron Bloom who said:

Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money, ’cause they’re convinced that there is a free lunch.

We know this is largely about power, that it’s an adults only no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog.”

If this agenda doesn’t terrify you, it is because you are ignorant.  Just take a look at the giant black hole that Illinois state union employees and their unsustainable benefit schemes have put the taxpayers in.  And that same black hole is probably in your state, too.

Unions – whether public or private sector – are breaking the back of this country.  They are breaking down our society.  They are fundamentally destroying our American way of life.

And they now have someone who is helping them do it in the White House.

You start throwing out radical names of dangerous people that Obama has been associated with and a pattern emerges:  the aforementioned Davis, Jeremiah Wright (see also here and here and here), Khalid al-Mansour (more here), Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers.  And you realize that Obama has been steeped in a profoundly Marxist worldview.  Obama isn’t stupid; he knows that the American people don’t want that ideology.  But no one can conceal his worldview completely.  Critical observers saw it clearly.

And they accurately understood what it would portend if he was elected president.

Obama underscores the self-concealment of his worldview in his book which bears its title in inspiration of a Jeremiah Wright sermon that described his view that “white folks’ greed runs a world in need” (The Audacity of Hope):

“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”

A politician who has Obama’s ostensible verbal skills is, quite simply, not a “blank screen” unless he wants to be.

Obama did not want us to know who he was, because we would have rejected him as our leader if we knew.

The more we finally learn about who Obama really is and what he really wants to do, the less we are going to like it.

Democrats React To Republican Victory In Massachusetts With Spin, Total Incomprehension

A few lines from a Politico article from January 15:

While few have said so publicly, there is widespread recognition that a Brown victory in one of the most Democratic of states will go a long way for all Republican candidates, offering the clearest signal yet that voters are rejecting the ambitious Democratic agenda.

“Rising tides lift all boats,” said veteran GOP pollster David Winston, explaining the surge of interest in Brown’s campaign. “No matter where they are, it will be of help.”

“A lot of people would see this as a national race. If Democrats aren’t safe here, they aren’t safe anywhere,” explained Alex Castellanos, a veteran GOP media consultant who advises the Republican National Committee. “You want to surf that wave that’s out there, and I’m sure that’s what Republicans are doing.”

How did victorious Scott Brown frame his opposition to ObamaCare?

When there’s trouble in Massachusetts, rest assured , there’s trouble everywhere, and they know it. One thing is very, very clear as I traveled across this state. People do not want the trillion dollar health care plan that is being forced on the American people, and this bill is not being debated openly and fairly. It will raise taxes, it will hurt Medicare, it will destroy jobs and run our nation deeper in to debt.

But the same Democrats who couldn’t understand that Republican Scott Brown was winning in the bluest of blue states of Massachusetts can’t understand what the true ramifications of the stunning Republican victory are.

Instead, they are reacting with spin and vowing to redouble their efforts to do the very things that turned the American people against them in the first place.

I turned on MSNBC, and it was amazing.

According to the evening’s propaganda equivalent to a news broadcast: the race had nothing to do with national issues; Martha Coakley was entirely to blame for running a terrible campaign; Barack Obama is still incredibly popular and powerful, and he brought Coakley up by a great deal – but couldn’t make up for Coakley’s terrible campaign; even though the most liberal state in the union didn’t want ObamaCare, the rest of the nation still did; the Brown “forty-one” seat wouldn’t really hurt the Democrats all that much if they rededicate themselves to their agenda; etc.

I have a background in philosophy of religion, and I began to hear what was clearly a liberal theodicy: why does Obama allow evil in the world?

The gist of the evening is that Obama is greater than the divine Messiah, and his will and his agenda are perfect, and cannot be questioned.

From that starting point, the leftist network began to explain the event of how a candidate running against Obama’s agenda could win a seat held by Democrats since 1952 in the most Democrat state in the country.

After Obama spent his last 2 cents’ worth of credibility campaigning for Martha Coakley, he didn’t fail – HE CANNOT FAIL!!! The fact that he is now something like ZERO for 5 (Olympics, Jon Corzine, Creigh Deeds, Copenhagen/Climate Change, and now Martha Coakley) is nothing more than a coincidence.  Clearly, there had to be some other explanation.  It couldn’t be that even people in Massachusetts now recognize that Barack Obama is a failure, and that his agenda is a gigantic boondoggle.

It’s not that Obama has shorter coattails than a naked midget; Obama can lower the oceans!

It’s not that people are no longer paying attention to a president who has demonstrated that he is an incompetent loser; Obama could call fire down from heaven if he wanted to destroy his opposition.

It’s not that Obama’s agenda should now clearly be treated by Democrats like kryptonite is treated by Superman; Obama’s agenda is perfect in every way!  And if the people hate Obama’s plan for his world, it is only because they are ignorant and depraved in their sinfulness.

Democrats appear to be utterly failing to understand that Scott Brown’s victory demonstrated a referendum on Obama and his agenda – and the people voted a loud “NO!”

They have failed to understand all along.

They repeatedly and continually mocked Tea Party conservatives.  They demonized the people who voiced their protests and concerns of ObamaCare last August.  They trivialized and demagogued any and all opposition to their agenda, as if all those people were some kind of minor nuisance, rather than the voice of the American people.

And they just got knocked out with one good punch by “Mister 41,” Scott Brown.

For the last 365 days, Democrats have demonstrated that they are like the proverbial lemmings leaping off of the cliff to their political doom.  It’s a terrible plan, and everyone pretty much realizes it’s a terrible plan.  But, like that poorly-conceived migration route that leads off the steepest cliff in the region, Democrats have to keep pushing and pushing for it.

“Let’s remove all doubt,” said Nancy Pelosi. “We will have health care one way or another.”

The problem is, that single-minded determination to ruin the country against the clearly-expressed will of the people has come home to roost like [Obama’s Marxist, anti-American, racist reverend] Jeremiah Wright’s chickens.

“If Democrats aren’t safe here, they aren’t safe anywhere,” says Alex Castellanos.

And now Democrats are suddenly looking every bit like cockroaches with nowhere to run when the light gets turned on.

Democrats will either turn and run from ObamaCare, cap-and-trade, climate change, card check, and all the other loathsome elements of the Obama agenda, or else they will get squished.

Another Milestone Day For Obama: The Monstrous Mistake Of Trying Foreign Terrorists Like U.S. Citizens

I didn’t used to believe in anything special about “Friday the 13th.”  It was just another day.  Turns out I was wrong.

Obama has brought about yet another “change.”

Friday the 13th now features a new monster – the President of the United States of America – as the Creature Who Made Terrorists Feel Right At Home.  I know the name doesn’t sound as scary as “Jason Voorhees,” the hockey-masked hacker-slasher, but believe me, this is a monster that can kill more Americans than Jason Voorhees ever did.

Under Obama, we’re undermining our CIA.  We’re mirandizing terrorists captured on foreign battlefields.  And now we’re trying mass-murdering terrorists like American citizens in our justice system.

And, of course, when a terrorists actually guns down more than two score unarmed soldiers on a military base, he denies the man is even a terrorist in a rush to whitewash lest the revelation somehow undermine our “diversity.”

Hope you terrorist-murderers feel at home.  If there’s anything else we can do for you, please let us know.  Our president will go to any lengths to make you as comfortable as possible.

And don’t you mind that whole “slaughtering” thing.  We’re really like sheeple now; we don’t mind.  Murder 3,000 of us, or 3,000,000; we’re fine with it.  Really.

Why are we going to put the 9/11 mastermind and four of his fellow murderers on trial in civilian court?  Because Barack Obama is more righteous and wonderful than our despicable presidents of the past – such as Abraham Lincoln and the admittedly less-righteous FDR – have ever been.  Honest Abe was actually DIShonest Abe because he had military tribunals.

NYC trial of 9/11 suspects poses legal risks

By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Devlin Barrett, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 33 mins ago

WASHINGTON – In the biggest trial for the age of terrorism, the professed 9/11 mastermind and four alleged henchmen will be hauled before a civilian court on American soil, barely a thousand yards from the site of the World Trade Center’s twin towers they are accused of destroying.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced the decision Friday to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to trial at a lower Manhattan courthouse.

It’s a risky move. Trying the men in civilian court will bar evidence obtained under duress and complicate a case where anything short of slam-dunk convictions will empower President Barack Obama’s critics.

The case is likely to force the federal court to confront a host of difficult issues, including rough treatment of detainees, sensitive intelligence-gathering and the potential spectacle of defiant terrorists disrupting proceedings. U.S. civilian courts prohibit evidence obtained through coercion, and a number of detainees were questioned using harsh methods some call torture.

Holder insisted both the court system and the untainted evidence against the five men are strong enough to deliver a guilty verdict and the penalty he expects to seek: a death sentence for the deaths of nearly 3,000 people who were killed when four hijacked jetliners slammed into the towers, the Pentagon and a field in western Pennsylvania.

“After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York — to New York,” Holder repeated for emphasis — “to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks away from where the twin towers once stood.”

Holder said he decided to bring Mohammed and the other four before a civilian court rather than a military commission because of the nature of the undisclosed evidence against them, because the 9/11 victims were mostly civilians and because the attacks took place on U.S. soil. Institutionally, the Justice Department, where Holder has spent most of his career, has long wanted to reassert the ability of federal courts to handle terrorism cases.

Lawyers for the accused will almost certainly try to have charges thrown out based on the rough treatment of the detainees at the hands of U.S. interrogators, including the repeated waterboarding, or simulated drowning, of Mohammed.

The question has been raised as to whether the government can make its case without using coerced confessions.

That may not matter, said Pat Rowan, a former Justice Department official.

“When you consider everything that’s come out in the proceedings at Gitmo, either from the mouth of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others or from their written statements submitted to the court, it seems clear that they won’t need to use any coerced confessions in order to demonstrate their guilt,” said Rowan.

Held at Guantanamo since September 2006, Mohammed said in military proceedings there that he wanted to plead guilty and be executed to achieve what he views as martyrdom. In a letter from him released by the war crimes court, he referred to the attacks as a “noble victory” and urged U.S. authorities to “pass your sentence on me and give me no respite.”

Holder insisted the case is on firm legal footing, but he acknowledged the political ground may be more shaky when it comes to bringing feared al-Qaida terrorists to U.S. soil.

“To the extent that there are political consequences, I’ll just have to take my lumps,” he said. But any political consequences will reach beyond Holder to his boss, Obama.

Bringing such notorious suspects to U.S. soil to face trial is a key step in Obama’s plan to close the military-run detention center in Cuba. Obama initially planned to close the prison by next Jan. 22, but the administration is no longer expected to meet that deadline.

Obama said he is “absolutely convinced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will be subject to the most exacting demands of justice. The American people will insist on it and my administration will insist on it.”

After the announcement, political criticism and praise for the decision divided mostly along party lines.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said bringing the terrorism suspects into the U.S. “is a step backwards for the security of our country and puts Americans unnecessarily at risk.”

Former President George W. Bush’s last attorney general, Michael Mukasey, a former federal judge in New York, also objected that federal courts were not well-suited to this task. “The plan seems to be to abandon the view that we are at war,” Mukasey told a conference of conservative lawyers. He said trial in open court “creates a cornucopia of intelligence for those still at large and a circus for those being tried,” and he advocated military tribunals instead.

But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the federal courts are capable of trying high-profile terrorism cases.

“By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system — a system respected around the world,” Leahy said.

Family members of Sept. 11 victims were also divided.

“We have a president who doesn’t know we’re at war,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother, Charles Burlingame, had been the pilot of the hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon. She said she was sickened by “the prospect of these barbarians being turned into victims by their attorneys.”

From McClatchey:

Congressional Republicans, however, promptly accused the Obama administration of trying to return to a pre-Sept. 11 mentality of criminalizing the war on terrorism.

Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas warned that “bringing these dangerous individuals onto U.S. soil needlessly compromises the safety of all Americans.”

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio said the possibility that the accused terrorists “could be found not guilty due to some legal technicality just blocks from Ground Zero should give every American pause.”

Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder – who actually has a track record for PARDONING AND FREEING TERRORISTS had this to say:

A big obstacle could be whether an impartial jury can be impaneled so close to where the twin towers of the World Trade Center once stood.

Holder said that a careful jury selection process should dispel those concerns.

“I would not have authorized the bringing of these prosecutions unless I thought that the outcome … would ultimately be successful,” he said. “I will say that I have access to information that has not been publicly released that gives me great confidence that we will be successful in federal court.”

But what happens if you thought wrong, Holder?  What happens then?

What happens if these guys are found not guilty?  Are we supposed to just let them go?

What happens if the five terrorists draw a liberal activist judge who wants to make “torture” and issue, rather than “terrorism” and “3,000 murdered Americans”?  Is Obama and his Justice Department at work to circumvent the system relating to the assigning of judges to particular cases and guarantee that “the right” judge hears the case?  Wouldn’t that be tantamount to the very worst that Obama has claimed he wants to avoid in the first place?  Wouldn’t that amount to a show trial?

Obama is either taking a giant chance, a literal roll of the dice, or he’s already stacked the deck.

What happens if a Muslim is on the jury pool?  That one’s kind of interesting.  A single juror can hang the jury and lead to a mistrial.  Do we want to take a chance that a sympathizer throw a monkey wrench into the system?  Is the Obama team that so values “diversity” going to try to prevent Muslims from serving on the jury?

What about a change of venue?  Surely a judge would HAVE to grant such an obvious petition, given the fact that the attacks occurred in New York, virtually every adult was impacted, and “New York” is hardly the best place to find an untainted jury pool for the 9/11 attack on the “World Trade Center attack in New York”?  And yet New York has this mulit-million dollar high tech courthouse complex to deal with them.

I mean, again, if you grant the change of venue, people will justifiably become enraged.  And if you DON’T grant the change of venue, people will justifiably think that the fix is in.

A military tribunal of KSM and his terrorist buddies at Gitmo would have been a ho-hum affair.  A civilian trial in a lower Manhattan courthouse with the press swarming over every detail like cockroaches would be the trial of the century.

Propaganda forum?  You bet.  Journalists will cover every remark that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his merry band of mass murderers offers.  Including the words of solidarity with other jihadist murderers.  Including words of encouragement to any who would murder Americans anywhere on the planet.  This is hardly the message that the American media should be broadcasting, but rest assured we’ll be broadcasting every word of it.

Terrorists are different from jewel thieves and even from gang bangers: every single thing they do is directed toward spreading a message.

These terrorists want a big stage.  And Barack Obama and Eric Holder want to make sure they have that stage.

And what happens if the trial – whether it’s held in New York or somewhere else – stimulates more terrorist attacks?  It’s one thing if terrorists try to attack Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, quite another if they launch an attack in New York, Los Angeles, or wherever else.

And assuming (no guarantee anymore) that these terrorist monsters go to prison, you can bet in the age of Gitmo (which is actually a model prison) being shut down under Obama that these guys will end up in the U.S. civilian system.  And they will be welcomed like rock stars.

Authorities are becoming increasingly alarmed over the radicalized Muslim population coming out of the U.S. prison system:

“Over the past 30 years, Islam has become a powerful force in the U.S. prison system, with some estimates that up to 20% of the inmate population is now Muslim.  Terrorism experts are increasingly concerned that disaffected inmates drawn to radical Islam could become a source of homegrown terrorist activity.”

Authorities are seeing more and more “homegrown jihadists” coming out of the prison system.  Just two weeks ago, federal authorities were confronted by radicalized Muslims coming out of the U.S. prison system and organizing a cell that was claiming “that the government was the enemy and they must be willing to take on the FBI — even if it meant death.”  And thanks to this brain dead decision by Barack Hussein, we’re going to start seeing a lot more of this.  Putting these terrorists into the U.S. prison system is tantamount to putting crack cocaine in the hands of addicts.  It will not end well.

This is a truly stupid idea on every level imaginable.

My question is, what are we gaining from taking what Obama’s Justice Department ADMITS is a risk?  That we were “open”?

There’s the obvious question, “You know what?  This thing could backfire.  I mean these guys could be acquitted.”  And MSNBC Justice Department Correspondent Pete Williams has this to say, based on his sources:

“No.  They’ve got a drawer full of other charges that they could bring against these defendants.  There are already indictments pending against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for other crimes, so they will just re-arrest them and charge them with something else.”

The thing about a fair game is that either team could actually win.  This isn’t a fair game.  And everyone in the world is going to know that, no matter where it is held.  Contrary to what the White House might think, the inhabitants of the rest of the world are not as stupid and gullible and willing to believe propagandist drivel as Democrats are.  This isn’t going to be any kind of demonstration about how “open” we are.  People who didn’t believe it before won’t start believing it now – unless and possibly even including that we allow the five terrorists to walk out of court free men.

A National Review article entitled, “Holder’s Hidden Agenda,” reminds us of how Obama’s people just ripped into the CIA and started pulling out every wire and diode they could.  They demanded an investigation and just plain released all kinds of previously classified information that made the US and the CIA look as bad as they possibly could.  To what end?

This summer, I theorized that Attorney General Eric Holder — and his boss — had a hidden agenda in ordering a re-investigation of the CIA for six-year-old alleged interrogation excesses that had already been scrutinized by non-partisan DOJ prosecutors who had found no basis for prosecution. The continuing investigations of Bush-era counterterrorism policies (i.e., the policies that kept us safe from more domestic terror attacks), coupled with the Holder Justice Department’s obsession to disclose classified national-defense information from that period, enable Holder to give the hard Left the “reckoning” that he and Obama promised during the 2008 campaign. […]

So: We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. That is what is going to happen in the trial of KSM et al. It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda’s case against America. Since that will be their “defense,” the defendants will demand every bit of information they can get about interrogations, renditions, secret prisons, undercover operations targeting Muslims and mosques, etc., and — depending on what judge catches the case — they are likely to be given a lot of it. The administration will be able to claim that the judge, not the administration, is responsible for the exposure of our defense secrets. And the circus will be played out for all to see — in the middle of the war. It will provide endless fodder for the transnational Left to press its case that actions taken in America’s defense are violations of international law that must be addressed by foreign courts. And the intelligence bounty will make our enemies more efficient at killing us.

Like I said.  The new Friday the 13th monsters revealed today as Barack Obama and his AG Eric Holder are far more dangerous to Americans than Jason Voorhees ever was.

Update, November 14: TEN jihadists terrorists are coming to the U.S. to stand trial in civilian court, rather than the five that Obama and Holder claimed.

Update, November 14: Barack Obama, on September 27, 2006, in the debate concerning “The Military Commissions Act of 2006,” assured America that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and those like him would face MILITARY justice, and that he would NOT get “all kinds of rights.”  Obama is, as usual, a documented liar.

Colin Powell Turns Against Obama Agenda

What do you call it when the man who gave candidate Obama instant (pseudo)-credibility in both foreign policy and “bipartisanship” by endorsing him goes on the record as being very much against Obama’s massive-debt-creating economic policies?

The mainstream media calls it a “non-story.”  But people should know that Colin Powell – who is as responsible as anyone short of Beelzebub for getting Obama elected president – is now opposing the guy he championed.

Powell airs doubts on Obama agenda

By Jon Ward

July 3, 2009

Colin Powell, one of President Obama’s most prominent Republican supporters, expressed concern Friday that the president’s ambitious blitz of costly initiatives may be enlarging the size of government and the federal debt too much.

“I’m concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them,” Mr. Powell said in an excerpt of an interview with CNN’s John King, released by the network Friday morning.

Mr. Powell, a retired U.S. army general who rose to political prominence after a long and accomplished military career, said that health care reform and many of Mr. Obama’s other initiatives are “important” to Americans.

But, he said, “one of the cautions that has to be given to the president — and I’ve talked to some of his people about this — is that you can’t have so many things on the table that you can’t absorb it all.”

“And we can’t pay for it all,” said Mr. Powell, who was the first African-American to serve as secretary of state, under former President George W. Bush. He was also national security adviser to President Reagan, and was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President George H.W. Bush from 1989 to 1993.

You’re a little late coming to the game, Colin.  Business leaders have been saying this – based on what Obama said he’d do as president – well before Obama was even elected:

Chief Executive Magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country. […]

In expressing their rejection of Senator Obama, some CEOs who responded to the survey went as far as to say that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.” In fact, the poll highlights that Obama’s tax policies, which scored the lowest grade in the poll, are particularly unpopular among CEOs.

There is no question that Colin Powell’s backing of Barack Obama at a critical point in the campaign gave Obama instant foreign policy “street cred,” while his being an ostensible “Republican” allowed Obama to proclaim himself as “bipartisan.”  It followed in the wake of controversy surrounding Obama’s now-annihilated “without preconditions” policy on Iran.  And it  underscored the media’s biased hypocrisy in their totally ignoring the fact that 300 generals and admirals had officially endorsed John McCain.

Obama has already proven both completely false.  Even the uber-lib of all uber-lib media – MSNBC – now claims in a story breaking today that Obama “misread” the situation in Honduras and “underestimated how fearful the Honduran elite and the military were of ousted President Manuel Zelaya and his ally President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela.”

Obama utterly failed to offer the people support in Iran when they came out en mass to denounce the fraud in a sham election because he doesn’t want to “meddle,” and then he couldn’t wait to “meddle” in Honduras.  His terrible-to-begin-with policy on Iran (for which he was justifiably called out by then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton) is now in shambles.  He was rightly labeled “cowardly” by the international press for his silence on Iran.  So he then reacts by screwing up so badly on Honduras?

Obama went from utterly failing in Iran by timidly refusing to condemn a totalitarian and rogue regime to utterly failing in Honduras for “boldly” standing up for a dictator supported by the chief rivals of the United States in the region (Venezuela and Cuba)

Roger Simon is right to ask – given the Obama position on the two countries – if Obama is “objectively pro-fascist.”  Frankly, that is the only policy position that even makes sense right now, coming from the Obama White House.

I have been arguing for over a year that a Barack Obama presidency would guarantee a nuclear-armed Iran — which will be a foreign policy disaster and a massive threat to what little stability there is in the Middle East.  And I see nothing that doesn’t make me more confident of that impending disaster than ever.

Meanwhile, North Korea – which fired seven UN-banned Scud missiles to help Obama celebrate the July 4th holiday – continues to demonstrate that it has no respect for Barack Obama.  It is now readily obvious that the Obama administration has utterly failed in North Korea as well.  The fact of the matter is, “North Korea’s Kim Jong Il has challenged President Obama more in four months than he did President George W. Bush in eight years.”

And Obama’s shutting out Republicans from pretty much everything proves he has no “bipartisanship” in his soul.  He has rather lurched so far to the left that it is frightening.

Obama was THE most liberal senator in Congress.  Furthermore, his connections to far-leftist radicals were broad and deep.  Anyone who thought he wouldn’t be THE most liberal president in history was a fool from the getgo.

So much for any credibility that Colin Powell’s endorsement “bequeathed” on Barack Obama.

Colin Powell’s criticism of Obama’s policies strangely did not include either comments as to Obama’s foreign policy or his total lack of moderate bipartisanship.  Rather he focused on economic policy.  In doing so, Powell joins a growing chorus of progressives who are now increasingly beginning to worry that Obama’s spending will create a “debt tsunami” for the country.

The editorial board of the  liberal Washington Post earlier wrote:

To put it bluntly, the fiscal policy of the United States is unsustainable. Debt is growing faster than gross domestic product. Under the CBO’s most realistic scenario, the publicly held debt of the U.S. government will reach 82 percent of GDP by 2019 — roughly double what it was in 2008. By 2026, spiraling interest payments would push the debt above its all-time peak (set just after World War II) of 113 percent of GDP. It would reach 200 percent of GDP in 2038.

Barack Obama is a failure on foreign policy.  He is a failure as a moderate bipartisan leader.  And he is a failure on the domestic economy.

We can now confidently proclaim as a FACT that Colin Powell should be ashamed for his support of Obama.  Way to go, Colin.

Government Covering Up Science Proving Global Warming Is Bogus

In April, President Obama declared that “the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.”  It was just another smarmy attempt on his part to demagogue the Bush administration and hold himself up as superior.  But rather than actually proving himself morally superior to George Bush, Barack Obama has actually demonstrated just the opposite.

Science is forced to sit at the back of the bus now as it has never been before.  And it is Barack Obama who is making it sit there.

While we consider massive legislation that would cripple U.S. productivity for a generation in the name of curbing carbon dioxide gasses that supposedly cause global warming, shouldn’t we consider the fact that the science actually says that global temperatures actually DROPPED for the past 11 years, even as carbon dioxide gas increased? Shouldn’t it matter that global temperatures are roughly where they were at the middle of the 20th century, and that if anything temperatures are going down rather than up?  Shouldn’t it matter that the models that created the alarmist hype of “global warming” have now been proven to have been entirely wrong?  Shouldn’t we truly question the link between whatever global warming we are seeing and carbon dioxide?

Not if the Obama White House and his Envioronmental Protection Agency have anything to do with it.

EPA May Have Suppressed Report Skeptical Of Global Warming

The Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government, according to a series of newly disclosed e-mail messages.

Less than two weeks before the agency formally submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty “decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

The EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an e-mail message to a staff researcher on March 17: “The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward… and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.”

The e-mail correspondence raises questions about political interference in what was supposed to be a independent review process inside a federal agency — and echoes criticisms of the EPA under the Bush administration, which was accused of suppressing a pro-climate change document.

Alan Carlin, the primary author of the 98-page EPA report, told CBSNews.com in a telephone interview on Friday that his boss, McGartland, was being pressured himself. “It was his view that he either lost his job or he got me working on something else,” Carlin said. “That was obviously coming from higher levels.”

E-mail messages released this week show that Carlin was ordered not to “have any direct communication” with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed that his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic.

“I was told for probably the first time in I don’t know how many years exactly what I was to work on,” said Carlin, a 38-year veteran of the EPA. “And it was not to work on climate change.” One e-mail orders him to update a grants database instead.

The suppression of evidence against global warming is not just occurring at the EPA.  It goes on all the time.  In another example that is occurring right now, one of the world’s leading polar bear experts is being barred from a conference simply because he knows how to count and doesn’t want to be pressured into positions that are opposed to his own scientific conclusions.

One of the world’s leading polar bear experts has been told to stay away from an international conference on the animals because his views are “extremely unhelpful,” according to an e-mail by the chairman of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, Dr. Andy Derocher.

The London Telegraph reports Canadian biologist Mitchell Taylor has more than 30 years of experience with polar bears. But his belief that global warming is caused by nature, not man, led officials to bar him from this week’s polar bear specialist group meeting in Denmark.

Taylor says the polar bear population has actually increased over the last 30 years. He says the threat to them by melting Arctic ice — illustrated by a famous photo taken by photographer Amanda Byrd — has become the most iconic cause for global warming theorists. The photo is often used by former Vice President Al Gore and others as an example of the dangers faced by the bears. But it was debunked last year by the photographer, who says the picture had nothing to do with global warming, and that the bears were not in danger. The photographer said she just happened to catch the bears on a small windswept iceberg.

As Alan Carlin’s own suppressed report also states, the best evidence holds that we will actually be seeing global cooling over the next three decades.

Do we have an impartial analysis of climate change data that shows the best conclusion of science apart from bias?  Not even close.  NASA has repeatedly erred in its presentation of data that reveals outright bias.
Back in 2007, NASA had to eat a report that had showed the hottest recorded years on record had occurred during the 1990s when in fact they had occurred in the 1930s.  There have in fact been repeated corrections that always erred on the side of the global warming alarmists.  And the unfortunate past shows that NASA has been all-too-willing to engage in speculation and hype in place of legitimate science.

During the 1970s, NASA scientists were warning about ice-age-like global cooling due to “the fine dust man constantly puts into the atmosphere” and saying that “fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees” (realizing that all the disaster-hype now is freaking out over certain predictions of just a ONE degree increase.  That alarmist prediction was published in the Washington Post on July 9, 1971 in an article entitled, “U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming.”  The NASA scientist who offered that clearly false prediction relied on data compiled by a computer model created by colleague James Hansen.  And Hansen has flipped from being one of the very worst alarmists about a cataclysmic ice age to one of the very worst alarmists about a cataclysmic global warming.

We have seen a pattern of bogus science and alarmism for decades now.  And all men like Alan Carlin ask is that bureaucrats take a step back and assess the science before they jump into overreaching policies that will destroy our economy.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which released the EPA-suppressed Alan Carlin report, made the following statement:

“We have become increasingly concerned that EPA and many other agencies and countries have paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA an d others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclu sions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these groups that may be blamed for this error.”

CEI also released the emails, avalible here.

That the IPCC should be discounted as a serious scientific entity should be proven by their gullible and ideological acceptance of a “hockey stick” model (so named because the data were manipulated to appear as though temperatures which had supposedly been flat for centuries suddenly shot up to form a hockey stick-like graph) was entirely fraudulent.

Anyone who takes a long view of things – and takes a few minutes to actually look at the scientific evidence – isn’t particularly alarmed about the “global warming.”  What we find instead of anthropogenic global warming is a consistent cycle that has continued steadily long before man began to do anything to change the environment.

(Accessed via Newsbusters, which has a write-up on the chart).

I read the powerful book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years, which presents such an overwhelming case for naturally occurring warming and cooling cycles (having nothing to do with carbon dioxide or human activity) that it is posivitively unreal.  Based on my reading, I wrote 2 articles that summarized some of what I learned:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

Not only is the current Obama cap-and-trade legislation based on bogus science, but even if it WEREN’T bogus, the massively costly program would STILL have absolutely no impact on “global warming.”

Harvard economist Martin Feldstein writes in the Washington Post:

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States. […]

In my judgment, the proposed cap-and-trade system would be a costly policy that would penalize Americans with little effect on global warming. The proposal to give away most of the permits only makes a bad idea worse. Taxpayers and legislators should keep these things in mind before enacting any cap-and-trade system.

The people who are advancing the global warming agenda don’t give a whig about climate change.  What they want is statist government control, and the implementation of economic redistributionism in the name of “science.”