President Obama vs. We the People again

"We the People" again confronts President Obama

Vote for Liberty on November 6
 
Values voting guides



American Family Association

Christian Coalition

President Obama, Congress, and Budget Timeline

 American History Timeline: Pay Attention

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009, it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress. The Democrat Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is "Bush's Fault", think about this:

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress.
At the time:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush's Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB GROWTH
Remember the day...
 
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
Unemployment... to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!

Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie - starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy.

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac? BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA and the Democrat Congress
So when someone tries to blame Bush.
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007.... THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!"

Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democrat Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2007 & 2008 as well as 2009 & 2010.

In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.

For 2007 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budgets.

And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009. 

If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2006 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.  After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Hussein Obama, who voted for the budgets.  If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.

In a nutshell, what Barack Hussein Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.

President Obama, Abortion, and Infanticide

Obama not only supported Abortion, but Voted 4 times for Infanticide

Abortion Survivor Asks: What Will You Answer?

Ad by Susan B. Anthony List

President Obama, Libya, Terrorism, and Truth

What is the Truth? Is there a Cover Up? Demand that Congress Investigate.

Sign a petition; Demand the Truth.

Steve Elliot, Grassfire Nation

Is the Obama administration intentionally withholding information about the terror attack in an attempt to cover up the truth about the killing of these four Americans? It's a question that must be asked ... and answered!

It's been more than two-and-a-half weeks since an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya killed four American diplomats, including widely respected ambassador Christopher Stevens. Yet, President Obama STILL has not publicly acknowledged that attack as terrorism.

Even though it has been widely reported that the Obama administration knew within 24 hours that the tragedy which transpired on the eleventh anniversary of September 11 was not a "spontaneous action" to an anti-Islam YouTube video, our "Commander"-in-Chief refuses to call this deadly attack what it is -- TERRORISM.

Why hasn't the President publicly acknowledged that the murders in Benghazi were the result of a terrorist attack? His Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did in a Pentagon news conference on Thursday saying flatly: "It was a terrorist attack."

+ + Demand Congress Investigate the Libya Attack

Yet for more than two weeks, the White House stuck to its story that Chris Stevens' murder was committed in retaliation for the ridiculous and laughable "Innocence of Muslims" clip. Remarkably, the President still blamed the anti-Islam video for Stevens' death in his speech before the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday.

Is the Obama administration intentionally withholding information about the terror attack in an attempt to cover up the truth about the killing of these four Americans? It's a question that must be asked ... and answered!

Go here now to take immediate action:

www.grassfire.com/278/petition.asp

+ + Americans Demand the Truth

Grassfire is moving quickly to mobilize 50,000 Americans who want to know exactly what the Obama administration knew before and after terrorists attacked our consulate and murdered our fellow citizens.

As Americans, we deserve answers to these and other critical questions that continue to surface about the Benghazi attack. Go here to sign our Grassfire petition and demand that Congress determine whether or not there's been a cover-up by the Obama administration:


P.S. You can do something to hold the Obama administration accountable. Demand that Congress investigate and reveal any efforts to cover up the deadly events in Libya. Go here now to sign our Grassfire petition and demand Americans learn the full truth about the Benghazi attack:

President Obama Campaign redesigns American Flag

 Obama Campaign Redesigns American Flag

President Obama’s re-election campaign has re-designed the American flag … and it’s already making waves.

A new campaign poster wipes out all 50 stars on the flag, replacing them with Obama’s logo. The campaign is putting the flag up for sale, hoping people will dole out $35 for their own copy.
Reaction has been streaming in, including that of Fox News Radio’s Todd Starnes, whose Tweets haven’t concealed his own feelings on the poster:

In a recent Fox News Radio article, Starnes discussed the story, as well as what his listeners have had to say in response:

The Obama campaign is now selling copies of an American flag painting that replaces the 50 stars in a blue field with the president’s campaign logo. Critics are calling the artwork creepy and un-American…

…Reaction on social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook has been overwhelmingly negative.

“This is so offensive,” one reader wrote. “I don’t know why I’m shocked, but I am. This stoops to new lows.”
 
Another reader offered this assessment: “Once again, very shameful. This is a disgrace.

“And just what was wrong with the flag with the stars and stripes?” a Facebook reader wondered. “Why must Obama create his own flag?”

What do you think?

President Obama Executive Order Threatens Freedom of Speech

DHS: Obama Cyber Security Executive Order “Close To Completion”
Threatening Freedom of Speech and First Amendment

Tim Brown

Freedom Outpost

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security andGovernmental Affairs on September 19, 2012 and said that a cyber security executive order is “close to completion” that will grant the president broad and sweeping powers over the internet.

Napolitano said, “DHS is the Federal government’s lead agency for securing civilian government computer systems and works with our industry and Federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government partners to secure critical infrastructure and information systems.”
Joe Wolverton, II, at the New American, rightly points out the problem with the federal government’s exercising an authority they are not specifically given in the Constitution.
Precisely which clause in the Constitution grants to the president specifically or the executive branch (of which DHS is a part) generally authority to exercise any sort of oversight of such matters was not cited by Secretary Napolitano.

Naturally, a document written 225 years ago would not include a reference to cyber security, but the principles of enumerated powers and limited government apply to any program or project of the federal government. According to the contract that created the three branches of the federal government, none of those departments may do anything unless specifically granted that authority in the Constitution.

This is a principle of constitutional interpretation often overlooked. Those promoting a larger government with increasing influence on the lives of private citizens commonly defend government growth by insisting that “nothing in the Constitution forbids us from doing” whatever federal program they are advocating.

Had I been living at the time, I would have sided with the anti-Federalists. However, Wolverton goes on to point out that James Madison wrote in The Federalist,No. 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The reason this is all taking shape into an executive order is because the Congress shot down the overreaching powers of the federal government in the cyber security bill earlier this year. They did so with good reason. Not only was it a stealth bill to introduce more gun control, but back in July it was reported. . .

The updated version of the bill reflects changes to the provision to assign the Department of Homeland Security the role of creating mandatory cyber security standards for infrastructure industries.

The newer version of the bill does not include language for “mandatory, regulatory sections,” but still requires a creation of industry best practice standards for the purposes of protecting critical infrastructure, but rather than making the adoption of those standards mandatory, the owners of the critical infrastructure adopt “voluntary” standards. The bill offers incentives to adopt those standards, such as liability protection, and access to threat information.

Some contend that the revisions are not ideal, however, as it gives the government the power to deny threat information to critical infrastructure owners who choose not to comply with the voluntary standards. Likewise, the incentives are too insignificant to fully incentivize any company to adopt the standards.

My fellow Americans, do we really want the federal government to have this kind of power? Really? I know some will say “yes, we need this,” but before you move too fast, think about it. We’re talking about the incompetent Department of Homeland Security here, under the direction of the President of the United States.

See Complete article and Draft of the executive order

President Obama, Terrorism, and Libya

Does Obama Foreign Policy Restrain or Encourage Terrorism?

Vote in Related Poll
From American Family Association

Muslim rioters murder U.S. ambassador, three others

Much like the Syrian debacle, much like the Iranian debacle, much like the Iraqi debacle -- [this is] the same sort of failed policy," he tells OneNewsNow. "They do not understand that part of the world, they don't listen to people who do -- and as a result we shed a lot of innocent blood."

Bob Maginnis, Family Research Council

The U.S. ambassador to Libya and three American members of his staff were killed in the attack on the U.S. consulate in the eastern city of Benghazi by protesters angry over a film that ridiculed Islam's Prophet Muhammad, Libyan officials said Wednesday.

They said Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed Tuesday night when he and a group of embassy employees went to the consulate to try to evacuate staff as the building came under attack by a mob guns and rocket propelled grenades.
The three Libyan officials who confirmed the deaths were deputy interior minister for eastern Libya Wanis al-Sharaf; Benghazi security chief Abdel-Basit Haroun; and Benghazi city council and security official Ahmed Bousinia.

The State Department said Tuesday that one American was killed in the attack. It has not confirmed the other deaths.

The attack on the Benghazi consulate took place as hundreds of protesters in neighboring Egypt scaled the walls of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and tore down and replaced the American flag with a black Islamic banner.

The attacks in Benghazi and Cairo were the first such assaults on U.S. diplomatic facilities in either country, at a time when both Libya and Egypt are struggling to overcome the turmoil following the ouster of their longtime authoritarian leaders, Moammar Gadhafi and Hosni Mubarak, in uprisings last year.

The protests in both countries were sparked by outrage over a film ridiculing Muhammad produced by an Israeli filmmaker living in California and being promoted by an extreme anti-Muslim Egyptian Christian campaigner in the United States. Excerpts from the film dubbed into Arabic were posted on YouTube.
 
Stevens, 52, was a career diplomat who spoke Arabic and French and had already served two tours in Libya, including running the office in Benghazi during the revolt against Gadhafi. He was confirmed as ambassador to Libya by the Senate earlier this year.

One foreign policy debacle after another

Chad Groening - OneNewsNow
National defense analyst and Pentagon advisor Bob Maginnis says the initial reaction of the U.S. consulate in Cairo to condemn an anti-Islam movie is another sign of the appeasement attitude of the president when it comes to Islam. The perpetrators of Tuesday's attacks in Egypt and Libya cited that reaction as a reason for their actions.

Maginnis, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who is now senior fellow for national security at the Family Research Council, says this is another in a long line of Obama foreign policy debacles.

"Much like the Syrian debacle, much like the Iranian debacle, much like the Iraqi debacle -- [this is] the same sort of failed policy," he tells OneNewsNow. "They do not understand that part of the world, they don't listen to people who do -- and as a result we shed a lot of innocent blood."

Continue and vote in related poll