Gas Price Hypocrisy: Bush high gas prices are bad; Obama high gas prices are good

Watch Obama, Pelosi, Barbara Boxer (Californiia) et al,  trash Bush about the price of gas —— which has increased many fold now under Obama.

How does the media feel about high gas prices now? Watch how they support it now under Obama. “Less particle pollution..”  Ha!

   -Peregrine
……………………………………………………………………….

In 2006 the Democrats and the media screamed bloody murder over the high price of gas. When Barack Obama was inaugurated, the average gas price was $1.87 a gallon. Now that the price has more than doubled, what are the Democrats and the administration saying now? If you guessed that high gas prices under Obama are somehow a good thing, give yourself a pat on the back. The liberal mindset is always an amazing thing to behold.

Allen West –"I'm the Liberals' Worst Nightmare"

How about Allen West running against Barack Obama in 2012?  -Peregrine
…………………………………………………………… 

Uploaded by  on Apr 17, 2010

Lt. Colonel Allen West, candidate for Congress in 2010, FL Dist 22. Here he fires up the Tea Party on Tax Day 2010 in West Palm Beach, FL

Independents poised to deal hard blow to Democrats

October 25, 2010 Posted by Paul at 9:25 PM / Powerline

Story number one in this election cycle is, in my opinion, the abandonment of the Democratic Party by independent voters. This phenomenon pretty much ensures that the Dems will lose control of the House and that the Republicans will enjoy major gains in the Senate.

Story number two is the enthusiasm gap, of which the Tea Party movement is, depending on one’s point of view, a cause, an effect, or some of both. If this gap is large enough, it will propel the Republicans into House gains of historical proportion and into control of the Senate.

The latest POLITICO/George Washington University Battleground Poll confirms how badly the Democrats are faring with independents. It shows Republicans with a 14-point edge among independents and, accordingly, a 5 point lead (47-42) in the generic ballot match up. The Republican generic ballot lead expands to 12 points among those “extremely likely” to vote. That’s the enthusiasm gap.

Continue reading HERE.

Analysts: White House Panicking Over Elections

Sept. 5, 2010 / By Jimmy So / cbsnews.com

Nancy Cordes

CBS) With many polls indicating the Republicans may win back control of the House of Representatives (and possibly the Senate as well) in the upcoming mid-term elections, Jim VandeHei, the executive editor of Politico, told CBS’ “Face the Nation” that the Obama administration is in a horrible position.

“Does the White House understand this?” asked guest host Harry Smith. “Do you feel any sense of panic or concern” on the part of the administration?

“They get it. There’s panic. There’s concern,” VandeHei said. “The reality for this administration stinks, politically and practically, when it comes to the economy. You’re not going to be able to change that 9.6-percent unemployment figure. You can’t get anything from Congress in the next couple of months.”

Read the rest of the article HERE.

Share

Dems Start to Panic As Midterm Reality Sets In

By Mark Halperin Monday, Jul. 19, 2010

Under pressure, the Democrats are cracking. On both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, there is a realization that Nancy Pelosi’s hold on the speakership is in true jeopardy; that losing control of the Senate is not out of the question; and that time, once the Democrats’ best friend, is now their mortal enemy.

MORE HERE.

Governors Voice Grave Concerns on Immigration

With each threat that Obama hurls at Arizona, he mires himself, his party, but most importantly, his country in problems, and the latest threat is the lawsuit he promises he will bring to fight the ”racist“ Arizona law. A growing unrest now is from within the Democrat party and those who face stiff reprisals from their constituents, who largely favor the Arizona anti illegal immigration law. Obama had better listen before he loses not just the Independents, but members of his own party. The rest if us have already decided that the Marxist has to go.  ~Peregrine
………………………………………………………………………………

By ABBY GOODNOUGH / Published: July 11, 2010 / newyorktimes/politics

At the National Governors Association meeting, from left, Phil Bredesen, Deval Patrick, Joe Manchin III and Bob McDonnell.

BOSTON — In a private meeting with White House officials this weekend, Democratic governors voiced deep anxiety about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, worrying that it could cost a vulnerable Democratic Party in the fall elections.

While the weak economy dominated the official agenda at the summer meeting here of the National Governors Association, concern over immigration policy pervaded the closed-door session between Democratic governors and White House officials and simmered throughout the three-day event.

At the Democrats’ meeting on Saturday, some governors bemoaned the timing of the Justice Department lawsuit, according to two governors who spoke anonymously because the discussion was private.

“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs,’ ” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, said in an interview. “And all of a sudden we have immigration going on.”

He added, “It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.”

The administration seemed to be taking a carrot-and-stick approach on Sunday. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, in town to give the governors a classified national security briefing, met one-on-one with Jan Brewer, the Republican who succeeded her as governor of Arizona and ardently supports the immigration law.

About the same time as that meeting, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said on a taped Sunday talk show that the Justice Department could bring yet another lawsuit against Arizona if there is evidence that the immigration law leads to racial profiling.

Ms. Brewer said she and Ms. Napolitano did not discuss the current lawsuit. Instead, in a conversation she described as cordial, they discussed Arizona’s request for more National Guard troops along the border with Mexico, as well as other resources.

The Democrats’ meeting provided a window on tensions between the White House and states over the suit, which the Justice Department filed last week in federal court in Phoenix. Nineteen Democratic governors are either leaving office or seeking re-election this year, and Republicans see those seats as crucial to swaying the 2012 presidential race.

The Arizona law — which Ms. Brewer signed in April and which, barring an injunction, takes effect July 29 — makes it a crime to be an illegal immigrant there. It also requires police officers to determine the immigration status of people they stop for other offenses if there is a “reasonable suspicion” that they might be illegal immigrants.

The lawsuit contends that controlling immigration is a federal responsibility, but polls suggest that a majority of Americans support the Arizona law, or at least the concept of a state having a strong role in immigration enforcement.

Republican governors at the Boston meeting were also critical of the lawsuit, saying it infringed on states’ rights and rallying around Ms. Brewer, whose presence spurred a raucous protest around the downtown hotel where the governors gathered.

“I’d be willing to bet a lot of money that almost every state in America next January is going to see a bill similar to Arizona’s,” said Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican seeking re-election.

But the unease of Democratic governors, seven of whom are seeking re-election this year, was more striking.

“I might have chosen both a different tack and a different time,” said Gov. Bill Ritter Jr. of Colorado, a Democrat who was facing a tough fight for re-election and pulled out of the race earlier this year. “This is an issue that divides us politically, and I’m hopeful that their strategy doesn’t do that in a way that makes it more difficult for candidates to get elected, particularly in the West.”

The White House would not directly respond to reports of complaints from some Democratic governors.

But David Axelrod, the president’s senior adviser, said on Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the president remained committed to passing an immigration overhaul, and that addressing the issue did not mean he was ignoring the economy.

“That doesn’t mean we can’t have a good, healthy debate about the economy and other issues,” Mr. Axelrod said.

Mr. Obama addressed the economy last week during stops in Kansas City and Las Vegas, and has been calling on Congress to offer additional tax relief to small businesses.

And the heads of Mr. Obama’s national debt commission — Alan K. Simpson and Erskine B. Bowles — were on hand here on Sunday to press the economic issue.

The nation’s total federal debt next year is expected to exceed $14 trillion, and Mr. Simpson, a former Republican senator from Wyoming, and Mr. Bowles, a Democrat and the White House chief of staff under President Bill Clinton, offered a gloomy assessment if spending is not brought under control even more.

“This debt is like a cancer,” Mr. Bowles said. “It is truly going to destroy the country from within.”

Still, the issue of immigration commanded as much attention as anything here this weekend.

Ms. Brewer, who was trailed by television cameras all weekend, called the lawsuit “outrageous” and said the state was receiving donations from around the country to help fight it.

“I think Arizona will win,” she said, “and we will take a position for all of America.”

Immigration was not the only topic at the Saturday meeting between Democratic governors and two White House officials — Patrick Gaspard, Mr. Obama’s political director, and Cecilia Munoz, director of intergovernmental affairs. But several governors, including Christine Gregoire of Washington, said it was a particularly heated issue.

Ms. Gregoire, who does not face an election this year, said the White House was doing a poor job of showing the American public that it was working on the problem of illegal immigration.

MORE HERE.

Share

How Obama Used an Army of Thugs to Steal the 2008 Democratic Party Nomination

I remember that nominating  season in 2008 when Hillary Clinton’s Code Pink delegates  in Texas were hollering foul that the Obama people were actually dumping signatures gotten for her. Now thanks to J. Christian Adams we can trace a path of similar cheats and trickery because now we have reports that the Department of Justice made it clear that this administration was not going to prosecute voter intimidation fraud cases if the intimidated were Whites and the intimidators were Black. ~Peregrine
………………………………………………………………
By Fred Dardick  Thursday / July 8, 2010

Obama looking at Hillary Clinton

Think those billy club armed New Black Panther thugs in Philadelphia were the first time Obama used Stalinist tactics to intimidate voters and disenfranchise the American people?

Think again.

In testimony this week before Congress, former Justice Department Official J. Christian Adams revealed that not only were similar claims “pervasive”, but Obama activists committed the “same” crimes during the 2008 Democratic primary to help then Sen. Obama defeat Democratic heir apparent Hillary Clinton.

Obama gamed the system in 2008 by not only allowing an army of young men station themselves outside polling locations in African American communities to prevent elderly women and others from voting for their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, but he also trained thousands of willing accomplices—while I do not have confirmation, I do sense the presence of ACORN here—spread throughout the Democratic caucuses to commit voter fraud on a massive scale.

The movie “We Will Not Be Silenced”, made by Democratic Party activist Gigi Gaston, produced by Bettina Sofia Viviano, and executive produced by former Clinton Campaign Regional Director John Siegel, documents how the unknown Senator from Illinois used “falsified delegate counts, falsified documents, and other violations” to beat the seemingly unbeatable Clinton machine and claim the Democratic nomination.

The documentary describes “the disenfranchising of American citizens by the Democratic Party and the Obama Campaign… ‘Change’ from Chicago encouraged and created an army to steal caucus packets, falsify documents, change results, allow unregistered people to vote, scare and intimidate Hillary supporters, stalk them, threaten them, lock them out of their polling places, silence their voices and stop their right to vote.”

“Teachers, professors, civil rights activists, lawyers, janitors, physicists, ophthalmologists, accountants, mathematicians, retirees… discuss how their party has disenfranchised them, and how, when they saw and reported multiple instances of fraud, everyone turned a blind eye. Rather than support and protect the voices and votes of its loyal members, the DNC chose to sweep this under the rug by looking the other way.”

During the election the Hillary campaign issued multiple press releases in an attempt to publicize these events and bring them to the voter’s attention, but to no avail. The main stream media, like the Democrat Party leadership, had already chosen their candidate.

They willfully ignored the worst election abuses in a generation and allowed an immoral and unworthy man take control of this great nation.

I highly recommend you watch the entire video; it will only take about 35 minutes and is well worth the time. Be sure to forward it on to others, because everyone should know the true story about how Obama became President.

A link to the We Will Not Be Silenced website.

The documentary is available in four parts on YouTube here. ()

MORE HERE at canadafreepress.com

Share

Obama cartoon slideshow for June 28, 2010

Click the arrows to stop, pause, or go.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Share

Constitution of No

Our Constitution was written to protect the people by restricting what the government can do. Do you not see the beauty of that?  ~Pesky Emotional Republican
______________________________

By Jim DeMint / nationalreviewonline.com /June 8, 2010 4:00 A.M.

If President Obama’s motto is “Yes, we can,” the Constitution’s is “No, you can’t.”

When a reporter asked House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) during a press conference last year where the Constitution granted Congress the authority to enact an individual health-insurance mandate, she answered, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Speaker Pelosi then dismissed the question and moved on to the next reporter.

This exchange illustrates the way “yes we can” liberals treat the Constitution: They simply ignore it when it gets in the way of their big-government bailouts and takeovers.

Democrats have always been the “party of go,” bent on transforming America with their “living Constitution,” which changes to suit the political whims of the day. That’s why Republicans shouldn’t flinch when they are criticized as being the “party of no.” Saying no is necessary to uphold the freedoms on which our nation was founded.

The Constitution is full of no’s. It is by telling the government what it cannot do that the Constitution protects our freedoms. The Founders loathed tyranny and sought to erect a government ruled by law, not people. As Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense, “in America the law is king.”

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” or abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or the right to assemble and petition government. Americans are allowed to keep and bear arms because the Bill of Rights says that this right “shall not be infringed.” It also says no to unreasonable search and seizure, and to cruel and unusual punishment. The Fifth Amendment says that the government cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process, and that private property cannot be taken without just compensation. The Eighth Amendment says no to excessive bail and fines, and the Tenth Amendment says powers not explicitly given to the federal government in the Constitution go to the states or the people. The Bill of Rights says no to the federal government over and over again.

Using the Constitution’s amendment-making process, Americans have added even more no’s over the years: The 13th Amendment says no to slavery; the 15th and 19th Amendments say no one can be denied the right to vote based on race or sex.

Every clause of Article 1, Section 9, which is all about the limits on Congress, contains the words “no” or “shall not.”

There’s one “no” in particular that Congress should have paid attention to in the fall of 2008, when the banking crisis reared its ugly head: “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” That means only Congress can appropriate money to be spent.

But Washington didn’t say no when President Bush’s Treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, came asking the Democratic Congress to give Treasury a $700 billion blank check. Paulson said the money would be used to buy up toxic assets under a Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP. In the end, only a portion of the money was used to do that.

The rest of the money became a slush fund for the president, greatly inflating the power of the executive office. TARP funds were used to bail out GM, Chrysler, and auto suppliers without a single vote from Congress. Because too many elected members of Congress didn’t abide by the Constitution, one bad bailout led to another at the discretion of the executive branch.

More HERE.

Share

America Rising: An Open Letter to Democrat Politicians

signal1010 — January 04, 2010 — America elected you on a promise of hope and change. America regrets it. In 2010, we are taking our country back. Blue collar democrats, libertarians, independents, and conservatives. We love our country. We are proud of our founders. And we will fight for our traditions. We don’t want your revolution!

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.