Category Archives: Barack Obama

Bruce Fein speaks on Constitution and Obama regime

Constitutional lawyer and Ron Paul associate Bruce Fein spoke on the Obama regime’s constant disregard of the Constitution to the Arlington County Young Republicans.  The group’s members are millennials, heavily small “l” libertarian.  A few people with military connections and one former Bush appointee in the audience were upset with Fein’s praise of Edward Snowden.

Bush administration political appointee Charles Hokanson asks a question:

Q&A conclusion:


….

The talk before the Q&A

more:


and a little more:

Obama vs education

The lowdown on DC vouchers


    Obamanomics

    COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

    ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It’s 7.8%.

    COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

    ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.

    COSTELLO: You just said 7.8%.

    ABBOTT: 7.8% Unemployed.

    COSTELLO: Right 7.8% out of work.

    ABBOTT: No, that’s 14.7%.

    COSTELLO: Okay, so it’s 14.7% unemployed.

    ABBOTT: No, that’s 7.8%.

    COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 7.8% or 14.7%?

    ABBOTT: 7.8% are unemployed. 14.7% are out of work.

    COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.

    ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can’t count the “Out of Work” as the
    unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

    COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

    ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

    COSTELLO: What point?

    ABBOTT: Someone who doesn’t look for work can’t be counted with
    those who look for work. It wouldn’t be fair.

    COSTELLO: To whom?

    ABBOTT: The unemployed.

    COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

    ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who
    are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in
    the ranks of the unemployed.

    COSTELLO: So if you’re off the unemployment roles that would count
    as less unemployment?

    ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

    COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don’t look
    for work?

    ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That’s how the current administration
    gets it to 7.8%. Otherwise it would be 14.7%. Our govt. doesn’t want you
    to read about 14.7% unemployment.

    COSTELLO: That would be tough on those running for reelection.

    ABBOTT: Absolutely.

    COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two
    ways to bring down the unemployment number?

    ABBOTT: Two ways is correct
    .
    COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

    ABBOTT: Correct.

    COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking
    for a job?

    ABBOTT: Bingo.

    COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and
    the easier of the two is to have administration supporters stop looking
    for work.

    ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like the Economy Czar.

    COSTELLO: I don’t even know what the hell I just said!

    ABBOTT: Now you’re thinking like our current President.

    Democrat Website Publishes List of Obama Accomplishments, Half of Them Are the Names of People He’s Killed

    Because the studio audience needs to know when to clap, the Democratic Hub, a forum for the “Advanced Liberal Political Community,” keeps a running tab of President Obama’s accomplishments. Half the list, as Charles Davis points out, is dead people:
    The rest of the list contains many more evil Muslims, which proves that Obama truly is the best. 

    Why You Could Be On Obama’s Kill List and Nobody Would Ever Know

    Why You Could Be On Obamas Kill List and Nobody Would Ever Know

    Share on Facebook

    In Sylvester Stallone’s futuristic thriller Judge Dredd, Stallone plays a police officer who serves as judge, jury, and executioner. Set in a dystopian future where civilization does not exist outside of heavily fortified cities, the movie posits a world where armed judges have unlimited power to take the law into their own hands.
    But while the idea of a completely unaccountable extra-judicial “judge” seems un-American, as the New York Times revealed in a front page story last weekabout President Obama’s use of drones in the war on terror, the concept is no longer confined to the world of fiction. If their reporting is correct, the only things distinguishing Obama from Dredd are their choice of facial accessories and preferred methods for divvying out justice.
    According to the Times, based solely on the deliberation of people within the American military and intelligence infrastructure, Obama is given a list of people considered high-value targets. On that basis, he can then sign their death warrant. From there, if a drone spots this person, they can be killed with a targeted missile.
    Because of national security concerns, no outside scrutiny of this process is allowed. There is no way to know or judge the value of the evidence being used to sentence people to death; the American public simply has to take the president at his word that he is using this unprecedented amount of power wisely.
    In a speech last year, John Brennan, Obama’s chief counter-terrorism officer, said that the number of civilian deaths from the drone program was in the “single digits.” However, as the article reveals, that’s because the White House has redefined the term “militant” to include all military-aged males in a “strike zone.” But since there are no defined battlefields against Al-Qaeda, the entire Middle East is essentially a strike zone.
    Without being glib, Obama’s underlying assumption bears repeating: as the president, he can order the death of any male above the age of 14 in any country the CIA suspects Al-Qaeda is using as a base of operations. Not only can these men not appeal their death sentences, there’s no way for them to know of the sentence until a missile dropped from thousands of miles away kills them and anyone “associating” with them.
    Even if the CIA made a mistake about their identities, by virtue of being killed by a drone, by definition, they are now “militants.” In essence, Obama’s policy gives the American President the right to kill anyone in the Middle East on a whim.
    Yet Al-Qaeda doesn’t exist solely in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. By the same logic the president can use to order their execution overseas, he could surely order it closer to home if he suspected they were on American soil to commit an act of terrorism.
    Nor, for that matter, is Al-Qaeda the only organization who wants to harm the U.S. and its citizens. Not only has Osama Bin Laden’s group inspired waves of copycats throughout the Middle East with only a tenuous connection to its recently deceased leader, but domestic terrorism has been a concern since the Oklahoma City bombing in the mid-1990s.
    In the past few years, discontent has reached unprecedented heights in the U.S., with the Tea Party from the right and Occupy Wall Street from the left emerging to protest the growing consolidation of power in Washington, D.C. as well as rising economic inequality. If their rhetoric inspires people to commit acts of civil unrest, where does the president draw the line in terms of what he can and can’t do to protect the American public? 
    Under the prevailing logic of national security, there’s no way for the public at large to know. We just have to trust the president. Yet even if Democratic-leaning voters are willing to trust Obama, would they do the same for George W. Bush or Mitt Romney?
    Under the watch of both Bush and Obama, the American president is now judge, jury, and executioner in the war on terror. This, like the Stallone movie it resembles, will not end well.

    Share on Facebook

    The Life of Julia

    The Life of Julia (Libertarian Remix)

    How Obama’s – and Romney’s – policies will make one woman’s life more miserable.

    The Obama-Biden campaign has just released the cartoon slideshow “The Life of Julia,” which takes “a look at how President Obama’s policies help one woman over her lifetime—and how Mitt Romney would change her story.”
    In our remix of that effort, we take a look at how President Obama’s policies is already helping to make one woman’s life more miserable than it has to be – and how Mitt Romney would pretty much do exactly the same.
    Under President Obama: Julia’s father is arrested and put in jail for running a legal medical marijuana dispensary in California, where President Obama’s Justice Department has overseen a drug war thatJacob Sullum calls in many “ways even more aggressively intolerant than George W. Bush’s.”
    Under Mitt Romney: “We’ve got to not only continue our war on drugs…but also to market again to our young people about the perils of drugs.”
    Next: The best place for immigrants is anywhere but here…
    Under President Obama: Julia’s mother is among the more than 1 million immigrants that Obama has deported since taking office while promising not to deport immigrants, and loving them very much.
    Under Mitt Romney: Julia’s mother is also deported, but only after cutting his lawns.
    Next: When college is a necessity, it will necessarily cost more and more…
    Under President Obama: Julia is ready to start college at a four-year state school, which now costs $55,000 a year thanks to persistent tuition inflation fueled by massively expanded student loans and other grants. She wants to see a doctor to get free birth control but an intense physician shortagecaused by universal coverage mandates means she relies on coitus interruptus.
    Under Mitt Romney: College is for billionaires only and sex is banned.
    Next: What goes around comes around, usually in the form of lower economic growth…
    Under President Obama: After seven years and three children, Julia finishes college but has trouble finding a job in an economy that due to record high levels of spending and borrowing is at least 25 percent smaller than it might have been.
    Under Mitt Romney: Record high levels of spending and borrowing are slightly lower than under Obama, but the Navy has several more boats than it did in 1917.
    Next: School choice should be reserved for those who can afford to pay for it…
    Under President Obama: One of Julia’s kids is forced to attend a mediocre but expensive neighborhood school because Obama has closed down school choice programs like he did in Washington, D.C. Teachers unions spent $400 million on getting Democrats elected in 2012, so really, what else could he do? Julia wants to marry her girlfriend, but Obama still refuses to support marriage equality.
    Under Mitt Romney: The former Massachusetts governor bets Julia’s son $10,000 that he would too have totally killed bin Laden.
    Next: The future of wheelbarrows and broccoli look very promising…
    Under President Obama: As publicly held debt rushes past 100 percent of GDP, Julia decides to start a new online business selling wheelbarrows in which Americans can carry their rapidly depreciating dollars to the grocery store to buy their legally mandated broccoli.
    Under Mitt Romney: The Republican negotiates a deal for the federal government to collect a federal VAT on all online sales made through a weakened but still potent al Qaeda affiliates program.
    Next: Why life will begin at 67, whether you like it or not…
    Under President Obama: Worn out by decades of hope and change and having paid increasingly high amounts of taxes into an unreformed old-age entitlement system that went bankrupt years earlier, Julia resigns herself to the fact that she is only halfway through her work life. She is optimistic that the troops will be home soon from Iraq and Afghanistan, but probably not from Korea or the Mexican border anytime soon.
    Under Mitt Romney: President Romney sells a majority stake in the United States to Bain Capital, which promises to return the country to profitability or sell off its assets within a year.
    Meredith Bragg is managing editor of Reason.tv. Nick Gillespie is the editor in chief of Reason.com and the co-author of The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What’s Wrong With America.