Posts Tagged ‘Bribery’
The dam has broken, the curtain has been lifted, and the flood of scandals coming to light this week is finally beginning to open people’s eyes.
1. Benghazi. Four Americans were abandoned to die in the middle of a terrorist attack. In the aftermath the administration changed the talking points, lied about a stupid video being to blame, and spent months trying to hide the truth as they intimidated and blocked access to witnesses.
2. The IRS admits to targeting Tea Party groups. It turns out they were also targeting pro-life groups, pro-Israel groups, religious groups, and pretty much anybody who dared to criticize Obama’s policies. They were also leaking confidential information about the opposition to their political friends.
3. The Department of Justice secretly obtained months of phone records from over 100 AP reporters and sources, including Congress. Guess the Obama administration likes to keep a jealous eye on his favorite mistress.
4. HHS Secretary shakes down companies she regulates for “donations” to implement Obamacare. It’s the Chicago way.
5. The EPA applies a double standard when dealing with conservative vs. liberal groups. If you’re “green,” you’re clean. If you oppose EPA power grabs and agenda, you’re treated as an enemy.
So how is Obama trying to squirm his way out of trouble?
One unique excuse being offered by David Axelrod is that the government is simply too big for Obama to know what’s going on. Yes, you heard that right…the liberals’ favorite argument that more government is the solution to every problem has suddenly turned into an excuse for ruling class ignorance and incompetence.
Another approach has been to claim that Obama is simply a passive and aloof leader who tends to distance himself from the nitty gritties of governing, and therefore has no clue what his underlings are up to.
Obama’s consistent claim that he always finds out about these scandals the same way that we do – when they first appear on the news – has become such a running joke that even Jon Stewart tore into him over the absurdity of it all.
Whoever created this meme summed it up beautifully:
Yep. That’s their story and they’re sticking to it.
I’m sure that robbers, rapists, murderers, drug dealers, gang members and the criminally insane were the first in line to surrender their weapons, right? Sleep well, gullible citizens.
Days after a deadly shooting in Newton, Conn., that left 26 people dead, including 20 children, a state-sponsored cash-for-guns program held on Friday and Saturday in Camden, N.J., one of America’s deadliest cities, brought in 1,137 guns, easily beating 2009′s previous record of 700.
“A lot of people said they don’t want the guns around the house now,” state Attorney General Jeffrey Chiesa said Tuesday as he announced the results of the buyback program.
“Let me be clear,” Chiesa added, “I am not suggesting that a buyback such as this could have prevented the shooting in Newtown, which was a cowardly act, nor am I suggesting that gun buybacks are some sort of magic solution to the complex and multi-faceted problem of violence in our society.”
“But we have to keep forging ahead using all of the strategies at our disposal.”
In other words, “We admit this really doesn’t work. But hey, it’s not supposed to. We just want to take away your guns.” The same kinds of programs are being used in San Francisco and are being scheduled around the country.
Don’t these people realize that they’re being bribed with their OWN TAX MONEY? That the money for these “buy-back” programs will eventually be taken out of their paychecks?
Also, how many of these “volunteers” were probably turning in stolen weapons for the drug money? In addition, these programs are awash with opportunists who scan the crowds, offering cash for guns they know are valuable and disposing of junk to the state for a taxpayer-funded profit. Who can blame them, when the state provides such an incentive?
As for the citizens stupid enough to take a government “IOU” in exchange for anything, they probably shouldn’t own a gun anyway.
I think it’s wrong to use taxpayer dollars to compel people to give up their guns. The constitutional right to keep and bear arms shouldn’t be for sale and the government shouldn’t be in the business of paying people to opt out.
Thankfully, not every American is taking the bait. In fact, some are doing just the opposite.
Obama’s full 2007 speech:
View at the Daily Caller
This is one of many revealing stories that the media chose to hide from the voters in 2008, helping Obama disguise his true ideology and agenda behind a veneer of moderation and unity.
In his own words, Obama reveals himself as the racially resentful, divisive and deceptive person we have all discovered him to be.
In a video obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, then-presidential candidate Barack Obama tells an audience of black ministers, including the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, that the U.S. government shortchanged Hurricane Katrina victims because of racism.
“The people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!” Obama shouts in the video, which was shot in June of 2007 at Hampton University in Virginia. By contrast, survivors of Sept. 11 and Hurricane Andrew received generous amounts of aid, Obama explains. The reason? Unlike residents of majority-black New Orleans, the federal government considers those victims “part of the American family.”
The racially charged and at times angry speech undermines Obama’s carefully-crafted image as a leader eager to build bridges between ethnic groups. For nearly 40 minutes, using an accent he almost never adopts in public, Obama describes a racist, zero-sum society, in which the white majority profits by exploiting black America. The mostly black audience shouts in agreement. The effect is closer to an Al Sharpton rally than a conventional campaign event.
Sarah Palin remarked on her Facebook page:
Many of you have seen the 2007 speech in which then-Senator Obama suggested that because of racism the federal government didn’t waive the Stafford Act to assist New Orleans after Katrina. What you may not know is that 10 days before Senator Obama gave this speech, the federal government did in fact waive the Stafford Act for New Orleans. And to add insult to injury, Barack Obama was one of 14 senators who actually voted against the bill that included the provision to give supplemental emergency assistance to New Orleans. In other words, he was being dishonest and divisive, which is behavior we’ve sadly seen far too often from him in the last four years.
Beltway pundits are trying to excuse the 36-minute speech before a black audience in Virginia as just political pandering. But Obama goes out of his way to give “a special shout-out” to his “white America”-hating pastor seated in the crowd, exalting the execrable Rev. Jeremiah Wright as his “friend and a great leader.”
It’s clear from Obama’s angry rhetoric throughout that he actually believes the racist swill he heard while sitting in Wright’s church all those years. Just as he actually believes in redistribution.
From his own pulpit, Obama told blacks the U.S. government cheats them in favor of whites. He thundered that “our people” and “our neighborhoods” should be getting federal money, jobs and housing. Imagine a white politician speaking to a white audience about “our people”? He’d literally be run out of office, if not the country.
It’s also clear from his speech, which the media never revealed in full to the public, that Obama doesn’t really work for all Americans, least of all the middle class he claims to champion. He’s secretly working to promote the race-based spoils system for what he describes as his own people in the inner city, while breeding envy and resentment toward suburban whites.
[...] The “bold experimentation” Obama has planned for a second term could involve stealth reparations, whereby the president pushes government transfer programs and disparate-impact lawsuits and even changes to what he believes is a still-racist Constitution (or changes to the Supreme Court that change how the Constitution is interpreted) that favor minority groups to the extreme detriment of the majority of Americans.
In his 2006 autobiography, Obama actually outlined such a strategy of stealth. He said he would push government programs with “universal appeals,” such as universal health care, “even if such strategies disproportionately help minorities” who are uninsured.
Yes, he really is that desperate. Obama doesn’t want the consequences of his party’s demands for massive defense cuts – millions of layoffs – to go into effect until after the election, and he’s willing to bribe companies to break the law and fire employees without notice for his own benefit.
On January 2nd, under the Budget Control Act of 2011, $1.2 trillion in spending cuts will be made–half coming from the defense budget. One analysis estimates that over two million jobs are at risk in 2013 due to the sequestration rules under the Budget Control Act–not all of them defense related.
However, in the defense industry, as Investor’s Business Daily aptly points out:
The law requires $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, half coming from defense on top of a half-trillion in cuts already made by the Obama administration. That means layoff warning notices will be required by law to go out to hundreds of thousands of workers employed by defense contractors on Friday, Nov. 2, just days before the presidential election, a prospect President Obama and his campaign staff do not relish.
In July, one of those defense contractors, Lockheed Martin, stated that it might have to issue layoff warnings to a “substantial number of our employees, starting late in the third quarter.”
This, in turn, has set off alarm bells in the Obama
White Housecampaign headquarters, which, in turn, caused Obama’s Office of Management and Budget to send out a memo on Friday offering to cover companies’ costs (legal and employee compensation costs) if the companies follow the administration’s “guidance” and violateignore the law:
…any resulting employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys’ fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable.
The Obama administration’s offer to raid the public treasury to reimburse labor law violators if they’re sued apparently worked for Lockheed Martin.
Lockheed has agreed to wait until after the election and violate the WARN Act, which requires them to give their employees 60 days warning before a layoff. In exchange, Obama will give them taxpayer money to cover their fines.
Yesterday, Lockheed Martin, a massive contractor, announced it had reached a “deal” with the White House and would not send out the legally required layoff notices. The Obama Administration had “interpreted” the law and found it would be “inappropriate” to send out the layoff notices.
More amazingly, the White House promised to pay any fines or penalties that might be leveled against the company for violating federal law. Read that again.
Yes, the White House just told companies to violate federal law and that, if they get in trouble for it, the government, i.e. taxpayers, will cover their fines.
Let’s remember, this federal law requiring the lay-off notices, the WARN Act, was passed in 1988 by a veto-proof Democrat Congress. It went into effect without President Reagan’s signature. It was an urgent matter for Democrats, until, apparently, they didn’t like the consequences of it.
Nothing must interfere with Obama’s reelection. Not even federal law.
In any other industry, this would be known as a BRIBE, which is a CRIME.
The President of the United States putting his re-election above of the law–something that America’s Founding Fathers sought to avoid.
When America becomes ruled by men in all their capriciousness and not by laws, tyranny is sure to shortly follow.
As to the media’s refusal to cover this story, Doug Powers observes at Michell Malkin:
It’s been asked: This is a big deal. So why isn’t it on the front page of every major newspaper in America?
It’s a sad state of affairs because it never even occurs to me to ask that question anymore. Besides, major newspapers these days have more important stories to put on the front page this year.
People with this kind of entitlement mentality pay nothing to maintain the massive welfare state they demand. They have no skin in the game. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by using the state as an instrument of plunder against their fellow citizens. So they are easily bribed by the promise of “more stuff” by unscrupulous politicians who offer goodies stolen from their neighbors.
Right now, about 47% of Americans are receiving government hand-outs in one form or another, and though many don’t want to remain dependent and are trying to break free, the vast majority WANT entitlements, and demand even more. When those people exceed the tipping point of 50% of voters in this country, our nation is lost. We are already on the razor’s edge.
He’s blatantly buying entire voter groups with our hard-earned taxpayer money, abusing powers that aren’t even granted in the constitution. It’s time for Americans to wake up and start holding elected officials accountable for this kind of corrupt, unconstitutional behavior.
The Obama administration said Friday that it will start charging young illegal immigrants $465 for temporary work permits to avoid deportation under a new immigration policy announced earlier this summer.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will begin accepting applications Aug. 15 for the DREAM Act-like policy, which is being implemented without congressional approval.
Under the new policy, eligible applicants must have arrived in the United States before their 16th birthday, be 30 years old or younger, lived in the U.S. for at least five years and be in school, graduated or served in the military. They must not have been convicted of a felony, three misdemeanors or one “significant” misdemeanor such as driving under the influence or gun or sex charges, according to the Associated Press.
The administration said applications will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis at one of four service centers run by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service. It’s unclear how long the process will take, but some immigrants are expected to receive temporary legal status before Election Day, according to ABC News reported.
Clearly Republicans have a problem with this, but so do the unions for Homeland Security officers and Border Patrol:
The heads of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents’ and Border Patrolmen’s unions joined Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and David Vitter (R-La.) at a recent press conference in Washington. The labor leaders exposed the end-run legalization scheme that Obama higher-ups are implementing.
U.S. agents are under orders to take the word of all illegal aliens who claim they qualify for this amnesty, union leaders said. Word from the field has it that “significant numbers” of unqualified illegals are exploiting the Obama policy.
“Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything,” the head of the ICE union, Chris Crane, said. Any agents who buck the Obama amnesty directive stand “under threat of losing their jobs.”
[...] “Not only is your directive an affront to our system of representative government and the legislative process,” the senators wrote, “but it is an inappropriate use of executive power.”
[...] Obama’s illegitimate power grab amounts to implementing legislation that Congress never enacted. The Senate rejected consideration of the DREAM Act in a lame duck session late in 2010. There’s no acceptable basis for what Obama’s DHS is doing.
In the creation of this country, Founding Father John Adams declared that America must be a “nation of laws, not of men.” But like most things “American,” Obama just doesn’t get that or seeks to forever undermine it.
While in spirit I’m probably closer to Obama when it comes to immigration issues than many of my conservative friends, what is unforgivable is the president of the United States usurping the law rather than doing the hard work to change it.
Polls say that the people are on Obama’s side when it comes to his illegal DREAM Act move, which means that his decision to break the law as opposed to change it reveals just what a lazy failure of a leader he really is.
Rachel Alexander has an excellent piece at Townhall breaking down exactly how government meddling in the housing market caused the bubble and bust that ended up costing many Americans everything they had:
The epidemic of home foreclosures has been made far worse than necessary due to the banks’ unwillingness to work with homeowners. Although Congress has passed numerous laws to force the banks to assist homeowners, the banks have found ways not to comply. The banks also brazenly break other laws to further their profits at the expense of homeowners, most recently by falsifying interest rates in theLIBOR scandal.
Regular middle class Americans everywhere have unjustly lost their homes to foreclosure. They ended up in homes they could not sell due to the Federal Reserve Board, not their own actions. The Fed manipulates interest rates in order to grow or shrink the economy. It kept rates artificially low several years ago for a lengthy period of time. At the same time, Congress relaxed the laws on lending. The Obama administrationordered banks to lend to risky borrowers or face lawsuits. Many people with poor credit bought homes who were clearly risky borrowers. A large number were issued subprime loans they could not afford, ensuring their default.
Once the defaults began in 2007, the abandoned homes flooded the housing market, driving down home values for everyone. This left most homeowners unable to sell their homes, since most homeowners have a sizable mortgage. Someone who bought a home with a mortgage for $200,000 saw the value of their home dip to as low as half of that. Upside down, there is no way for someone to sell their home without owing the bank a considerable amount.
As people began losing their jobs due to the recession, they could not downsize to a smaller house or apartment because of being upside down on their mortgages. Many tried to short sale their homes, in the hopes of walking away without owing anything. In order to force the banks to accept a short sale, homeowners had to play chicken and stop paying their mortgages. Other homeowners stopped paying their mortgages in hopes of getting a loan modification, relying upon laws that were passed requiring banks to work with homeowners on loan modifications.
Very few of these homeowners were able to save their homes from foreclosure. The banks routinely turned down their requests for loan modifications, for trumped-up excuses like not turning in enough information or ironically missing mortgage payments, a catch-22. The banks turned down their short sale offers, for equally invalid excuses like claiming perfectly reasonable offers were not a good deal, or losing their paperwork. Finally, when some homeowners began to see their home values bounce back this year, allowing them to sell, the banks would not give them a payoff amount but went ahead with foreclosure.
Under Obama’s Homeowner and Stability Plan of 2009, the banks were given bonuses for each loan modification they implemented; $1,000 to the bank and $1,500 to the servicer. The banks put some homeowners in temporary “trial” loan modifications, collected the bonuses, then ultimately rejected the homeowners from permanent modifications and foreclosed on their homes. Half of the homeowners who entered the program were booted out. It soon became apparent that the program had been implemented to stave off foreclosures until after the 2010 election. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, architect of the 2009 Troubled Asset Relief Program, TARP, cruelly referred to the program as homeowners “foaming the runway” for the distressed banks looking for a safe landing. Neil Barofsky, former special inspector for TARP, has written a book exposing the fraud, entitled “Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street.” Barofsky is a Democrat and contributor to Obama, but was so appalled by what he encountered that he went public with the scandal.
Of the $46 billion in federal aid directed to distressed homeowners under TARP, only 10 percent has been distributed. One of the programs, which allocates $2.7 in TARP funds to encourage lenders to write down or eliminate second liens when refinancing, has not helped a single homeowner.
In the private sector, this is commonly known as bribery.
Welfare to work is the cornerstone of a reform passed in 1996 by a Republican Congress and signed by Bill Clinton. The Obama administration on Thursday announced it was taking steps to gut this landmark law.
The theory behind welfare reform was people on government assistance not only should work towards getting a job but actually want one. The law is credited with shrinking the welfare caseload by over 2.8 million, making them productive members of society. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will now undo the reform by offering states waivers on work requirements imposed on some individuals receiving welfare money. The change will create voters dependent on the state who will be more likely to pull the lever for the party committed to expanding government.
The work requirements HHS considers so onerous cover a wide range of activities currently supported by local benefits offices. “Job training, job skills, vocational education, learning english as a second language, pursuing a GED, and apprenticeship programs all provide preparation for people to get job skills under their belts,” said Heritage Foundation’sKatherine Bradley, former deputy director of the office of family assistance (which administers the welfare program known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or TANF). “That’s all going to stop because of this waiver. It’s going to give people who were getting help to become more employable no help. By removing the expectation that people leave the rolls and get jobs, it robs them of their dignity and chance to break the generational cycle of government dependency.”
It’s not clear that HHS even has the legal authority to waive the work requirement. “Simply put, if Congress had intended to allow waivers of TANF work requirements, it would have said so in the statute,” wroteRep. Dave Camp, Michigan Republican and Sen. Orrin Hatch, Utah Republican, in a letter sent Thursday to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. They have asked Mrs. Sebelius to provide an explanation of the legal reasoning they called “deeply flawed and specifically contradicted by TANF and related statutory language.”
In 2008, John McCain tried too hard to stay “above the fray,” refusing to vett his opponent. We can see how far that got him. ALINSKY RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules”….while the Left breaks ALL the rules and so takes the advantage. You can’t fight back against an Alinsky bully by “making nice.”
Well, that didn’t take long. No sooner had the idea surfaced in the house organ of the Obama reelection campaign — that would be the New York Times — that a Romney super PAC funded by conservative billionaire Joe Ricketts was contemplating attack ads centered on the president’s now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t relationship with his “controversial” pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he of “God d*** America” fame, than it got shot down in one news cycle by both Romney and Ricketts, with an obligatory cameo appearance by John McCain. Even by Stupid Party standards, it was an impressive display of preemptive surrender.
I can see why Romney “repudiated” the effort; so far, so boilerplate for a cautious candidate like Mitt, who’s clearly going to run on an above-the-fray, “I can fix this mess” campaign, and leave the gut-punching to others. But it doesn’t help to allay the fears of conservatives who were appalled by the “honorable campaign” of 2008 that Romney doesn’t yet realize the mortal threat Obamaism poses, not simply to the economy but to the nature of the nation. The malevolent phoniness of “hope and change” was evident to some of us from the moment it began, and McCain’s campaign’s blanket proscription against calling it by name was the real reason he lost so badly. (A little madcap straight talk from Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention might have helped.)
My friends and former colleagues over at the revamped Breitbart sites are busily retroactively vetting Obama, dropping this little stinkbomb yesterday. There’s simply too much that’s still obscure about the Punahou Kid, and the voting public deserves to know more about him and the party he represents. If the Right accepts the liberals’ definition of “negative campaigning” as simply telling the truth about them, we might as well go home.
Obama sat in this man’s pews and listened to his heretical Marxist sermons for 20 years. He has governed by the principles Wright taught him. This is a crucial part of Obama’s “evolution” that was deliberately ignored by the press in 2008, and we can’t afford for voters to continue to be ignorant about it.
Reverend Wright‘s sentiment and his rants do not belong in any American church. Getting people high on hating America and its so-called white oppressors is what carnival barkers like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson do for a living. Most Americans still find it hard to reconcile the rage and the hate being preached at our president’s old house of worship. Christians get high on love, not hate. Christians are encouraged to be forgiving, not condemning. Christians seek to spread the good news and Christ’s commandment that “[y]ou shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The hate and seeds of division being spouted at the president’s church are an assault on Jesus Christ, and everyone knows it.
So is Mitt Romney right? Should we dismiss Jeremiah Wright as just another phony street agitator like Sharpton and Jackson? Do we need this distraction from the economic ruin Obama has wrought? As an exercise in academic free thought, I think we do.
Black Liberation Theology is a phony cult concocted by Marxists to divide America along racial lines on the American continents. It explains how Hugo Chávez came to power. This toxic Marxist theology helps explain Obama’s destructive presidency. It explains why racial division is being stoked by Obama’s White House and his legions in the media. Obama is a true believer in the idea that “rich white people” are to blame for the poor living standards of black Chicago orphans. To wit: blacks and minorities are victims of an unjust system that rewards the few at the expense of the many. Our system is inherently unfair, and Obama inherited an unjust system. And Obama seeks to fundamentally transform that system — “the man,” the free market, and the powers of each uniquely individual American. To Obama, a true believer, all the world’s ills can be laid at the feet of America’s enlightened Western free-enterprise economic system.
Obama’s false religion explains why he seems to have a chip on his shoulder about the country he is supposed to serve. It explains the truly queer Reverend Wright quotation which Obama says inspired him to write Dreams from My Father: “White folks’ greed runs a world in need.” Obama claims that it was this hateful sermon that brought tears to his eyes. And it is no wonder Obama has a dim view of white people in power; he was and is surrounded by dishonest, power-grabbing white liberals from the corrupt Chicago Democrat Party.
Obama’s faith that America is to blame for the world’s ills is why he avoids talking about how America liberated over 5 million Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Kuwait. Obama does not know, nor does he care, that Kuwaiti children are named after Bush and not Hussein. Obama’s inculcated hatred for the American system explains why he married a woman who was not proud of her country until Barack ran for office. Obama’s inculcation into Black Liberation Theology explains why the president felt the need to go on a global apology tour on behalf of a disbelieving nation. It helps to explain why the American left blithely describes the Israeli nation as illegitimate invaders and occupiers who practice Apartheid.
It’s not that the Reverend Wright is anti-Semitic per se. Wright and Obama simply see the Palestinians as all theologians of Marxist Liberation Theology do; what ails the Palestinians is that they are oppressed to live in the freest, safest, and most prosperous nation in the middle east: Israel. To Obama, the Palestinians living in Israel are suffering under a Western free-market democracy; therefore, they are suffering in a “world of need” run by white people’s greed.
Obama’s worldview is so simple to see. It is so simple to understand. What motivates Obama is so simple to explain, if only a free media would bother to expose it. Cockamamie, but simple. Obama believes he is on a mission from God to upend our oppressive free-market system and replace it with mystic utopian “fairness” as yet to be determined by enlightened ruling-class elites like him.
Black Liberation Theology explains Obama’s fuzzy utopian vision, where everybody pays his fair share (to government statists like Obama), and everyone has equal work and equal pay in a government-subsidized fantasy industry. Obama’s mission explains his blind hubris and his laughable preaching to his fellow Americans to “be their brother’s keeper” while his own brother, George Obama, lives in a hut in crushing poverty under Marxist rule. What an embarrassment. According to Obama’s own written words, the American free-market system is to blame for George Obama’s crushing poverty. Indeed, white men’s greed runs a world in need.
Sean Hannity interviews author Ed Klein about his book “The Amatuer,” and plays clips of Klein’s interview with Obama’s radical former pastor, Jeremiah Wright:
View on YouTube
View on YouTube
Obama voluntarily sat in this man’s church and soaked up his heretical, hateful rants for 20 years, without any objections. But he didn’t want American voters to realize just how radical his pastor was…until after the 2008 elections. So, Wright claims, Obama sent someone to offer him money to keep quiet.
“How much money did he offer you?”
“One hundred and fifty thousand dollars,” Wright said.
“Did Obama himself ever make an effort to see you?”
“Yes,” Wright said. “Barack said he wanted to meet me in secret, in a secure place. And I said, ‘You’re used to coming to my home, you’ve been here countless times, so what’s wrong with coming to my home?’ So we met in the living room of the parsonage of Trinity United Church of Christ, at South Pleasant Avenue right off 95th Street, just Barack and me. I don’t know if he had a wire on him. His security was outside somewhere.
“And one of the first things Barack said was, ‘I really wish you wouldn’t do any more public speaking until after the November election.’ He knew I had some speaking engagements lined up, and he said, ‘I wish you wouldn’t speak. It’s gonna hurt the campaign if you do that.’
“And what did you say?” I asked. “I said, ‘I don’t see it that way. And anyway, how am I supposed to support my family?’ And he said, ‘Well, I wish you wouldn’t speak in public. The press is gonna eat you alive.’
“Barack said, ‘I’m sorry you don’t see it the way I do. Do you know what your problem is?’ And I said, ‘No, what’s my problem?’ And he said, ‘You have to tell the truth.’ I said, ‘That’s a good problem to have. That’s a good problem for all preachers to have. That’s why I could never be a politician.’
What exactly is this “truth” Obama believes Wright is preaching? Everything he claimed to disavow in 2008?
Apparently, then, Obama never disowned Wright’s views. He just disowned him publicly, and tried to pay him off to keep quiet.
But it gets even more interesting. Obama recently awarded a $5.9 million contract to the buddy who offered Wright the bribe on his behalf:
Klein, making an appearance on Sean Hannity’s radio show (via the Daily Caller), said, “Well, what happened is that after ABC’s Brian Ross broadcast the video tapes of the Rev. Wright ‘God damning America’ and slamming whites and slamming Jews and America, he was contacted by one of Obama’s closest personal friends – a guy who travels on Obama’s plane, who plays basketball with him, who goes on vacation with him.” Klein continued to out the briber, saying, “His name is Dr. Eric Whitaker. Dr. Whitaker is the vice president of the University of Chicago Medical Center and he’s a member of Obama’s very tight inner circle. And he sent an email to a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ.”
[...] Whitaker would offer the $150,000 to Rev. Wright “if he would shut-up and not criticize Obama anymore. Then after the Rev. Wright said ‘No thank you,’ Obama himself paid a personal call on the Rev. Wright,” which took place “about ten days” after Obama’s ‘race speech’ in 2008.
Klein confirmed that the schedules reported by Rev. Wright and U.S. Secret Service Logs matched up, “so we have confirmation that [the meeting] actually took place.”
It is worth noting that the White House Dossier reported today that Whitaker just received a $5.9 million dollar grant from the Department of Health and Human Services last week. He won the grant from over 3,000 applicants.
How is our tax code influenced by special interests?
Randall Holcombe, Professor of Economics explains how cronyism in the tax code can benefit special interest groups, and he discusses how we can address this cronyism by reducing the spending power of the government.
“If you really want to understand the nature of our tax code, don’t ask yourself, ‘Why aren’t these provisions in the public interest?’ That’s not how taxes are passed. Ask yourself, ‘Who benefits from these taxes, and how much political power do they have?’” — Professor Randall Holcombe
H/T Mike Kubinec
These are the same kinds of regulations, created by the “Community Reinvestment Act” of 1977, that led to the housing bubble and mortgage crisis. The idea is to force banks to make loans to minority and low income applicants – most of whom CAN’T AFFORD TO PAY IT BACK! If they don’t meet their quotas, banks are charged with “discrimination” and face heavy penalties.
Obama is not only forcing banks to lower their lending standards and transferring risk to the taxpayers…he’s going around congress again, unilaterally dictating by fiat. The president’s job isn’t to make or change laws – that’s the job of congress.
Wth no authorization from Congress, President Barack Obama has announced that his administration–through the Federal Housing Administration–will insure refinanced mortgages for 2 to 3 million borrowers without verifying their income or even if they hold a job, according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Obama announced his latest mortgage program at a White House news conference on Tuesday.
Any American with a mortgage insured by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) endorsed on or before May 31, 2009 and who is current with their mortgage payments would qualify, according to HUD.
No additional underwriting, or examining the verification of income, employment status or creditworthiness, will be done.
This is yet another reason to get the government OUT of the student loan business altogether: picking winners and losers, and now specifically targeting religious institutions as the “losers,” is completely unconstitutional and immoral.
The Obama administration views anything the church does outside of the church building itself as not covered by the First Amendment’s religious liberty language.
Just as ObamaCare gave the Obama administration incredible power to regulate the health care industry – power it is now using to mandate limits to how Catholics live out their faith in America – the government takeover of the student loan business has empowered government to make these new student loans forgiveness rules, by which the administration again attacks religious organizations that dare to reach out to the broader community.
Religious organization often view community outreach ministries as part of their religious mission. A church operating a free clinic for the poor, a shelter for the homeless, or gathering clothing and food for the less fortunate often views its efforts as both living out the will of the Savior and seeking to bring more people to Him. In other words, charity is often also a form of proselytizing.
Such not-for-profit ministries need good college graduates, but because they generally can’t or won’t pay as well as jobs in the for-profit sector, the student loan forgiveness program was there to help them compete for good talent.
But the new rule barring loan forgiveness for graduates whose “job duties” are “related to … any form of proselytizing” is not a narrow prohibition against government helping fund, say, the salary of a preacher or rabbi, but an overly broad rule through which the government can now refuse to forgive student loans for anyone who takes almost any job at any non-profit connected to a church or religious organization.
While religion-based public service is now on the Obama administration’s enemies list, graduates can get part of their student loans forgiven if they take a job with federal, state or local government agency or a government organization such as public water, bridge or housing districts, or nonprofit organizations that the Internal Revenue Service has designated as tax exempt. Also, graduates who take a job in emergency management, the military, public safety, law enforcement are eligible, as are graduates who take a job at a public health service, public library, public school or other public-school-based service, public interest law firms, or in early childhood education; public service for individuals with disabilities and the elderly.
The new rules are designed to steer graduates away from faith-based public service, to the only kind of public service the Left admires: government and secular. It doesn’t matter at all to the Left that faith-based public service organizations are very effective at helping people. In fact, they seem to view it as an affront to their vision of a society run by Big Government in which the faithful do not allow their faith to guide their lives outside of the church door.
So, under the new student loan forgiveness rules, if you take a job with your state’s Emergency Management Agency, you’re cool, but if you take a job with a large religious organizations’ disaster relief program, you’re not. If you take a job at the local city health clinic, you can get your student loans forgiven, but not if you go to work for a non-profit hospital run by the Catholic Church.