Usa Thread

[HSTEACH]

CURL: The very angry first lady Michelle Obama

 

by Joseph Curl

 

Michelle’s back, and she’s madder than ever. She was already pretty angry, seemingly unhappy with just about everything. As her husband wrapped up the Democratic nomination in 2008, she let fly her real feelings: “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.†A few months into her job as first lady, her French counterpart asked how she liked the gig: “Don’t ask!†she reportedly spat. “It’s hell. I can’t stand it!â€

 

She even seems to be mad at her silver-tongued husband. When the two were to set off on a luxurious 10-day vacation to Martha’s Vineyard, she left early - four hours early - and flew up alone. And those private vacations. She’s traveled to some of the world’s most plush resorts, taking 42 days off in the past year - that’d be eight weeks of vacay time if she held down a normal job.

 

Now, she is ready to spew her bilious disgust with America on the campaign trail. A dignified, transcendent first lady? No chance. Michelle is going to break with a hundred years of tradition and play the role of attack dog, heaping derision on her husband’s political opponents like no other first lady before her.

 

And it’s already begun. Mad Michelle this week popped down to Davis Island, Fla., to hobnob with the very people her husband despises - the 1 percent. At a massive mansion on the bay, filled with the wealthiest of the wealthy, America’s first lady launched into a tirade about “them†- the Republicans.

 

“Let’s not forget about what it meant when my husband appointed two brilliant Supreme Court justices, and for the first time in history, our daughters - and our sons - watched three women take their seats on our nation’s highest court. But more importantly, let’s not forget the impact their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come - on our privacy and our security, on whether we can speak freely, worship openly and love whomever we choose. That is what’s at stake here,†she said to applause.

 

Yes, Republicans hope to regain the White House so they can install Supreme Court justices who will trample Americans’ privacy, ignore the nation’s security, crush free speech and persecute the religious.

 

Oh, and they’re rich and racist to boot. “Will we be a country where opportunity is limited to just the few at the top? Who are we? Or will we give every child a chance to succeed no matter where they’re from, or what they look like or how much money their parents have. Who are we?â€

 

That’s right, rich people (white, of course) certainly don’t want black people to succeed. They want to squelch success based on what people look like, how much money they have. “Are we going to let them succeed?†the first lady yelled. “Nooo!†the rich white people screamed.

 

Just as her husband’s re-election strategy is inanely simplistic - blame the Republicans for thwarting his brilliant, economy-saving policies - so too is the first lady’s. She will go to the opulent homes of rich people across the country to tell them how rich people are to blame for America’s woes and guilt them into giving millions for her husband’s campaign.

 

And the Princeton graduate will tell supporters they simply can’t comprehend the significance of what’s occurring today in America.

 

“It can be hard to see clearly what’s at stake - because these issues are so complicated, and quite frankly, folks are busy and they’re tired. We’re raising families and working full-time jobs, and many helping out in their own communities on top of all that. So many of us just don’t have the time to follow the news and to sort through all the back-and-forth, and to figure out how all of this stuff connects to our daily lives.â€

 

Yes, only Michelle and her husband can truly understand, although she often tells those uninformed people that when the president returns from one of his campaign trips, “He says, ‘You won’t believe what folks are going through.’ †So maybe she is the only person in America who understands.

 

So, America’s first lady will travel the country this election season to tell her fellow Americans just how bad it is out there (between lavish vacations, of course). Unlike President Ronald Reagan, who saw morning in America - that great shining city on a hill - Michelle will tell all who will listen that Republicans want to poison the air and water, stifle free speech, oppress the religious. She will offer not an uplifting vision of what her husband’s America could be but only a vapid view of what Republicans’ America would be.

 

That is the America she lives in, and by campaign’s end, it will be clear that she’s no longer “proud of my country.†Maybe she never really was.

 

Washington Times

 

 

 

She only has 14 months left to complain......

[Steve]

Michelle has been a great first lady in my humble opinion. She wears The Gap dresses and shops at mainstream places. She's been very positive. I also liked Laura Bush and she always came off as pleasant. We didn't hear much from her as First Lady but every time she did appear she represented the position well. Hillary and Nancy Reagan are two I didn't care for. I liked Barbara Bush when she was in the white house but have changed opinion a little to the negative after. Rosalyn Carter was nice as well.

 

As for Cain, you know when you're a serious candidate when the rumors and accusations start flying. He's been accused of sexual harassment back aroun '90. Now, I'm no supporter of his but over 20 years ago? Even if he was, things change. Hell, I sexually harrassed coworkers when I first started working. I dismiss accusations like that, as I do about smoking pot when they were in college.

[Flashermac]

<< Disclosures filed during his campaign in 2011 categorized Cain's wealth as of that time as being between $2.9 to $6.6 million, with Cain's income for both 2010 and 2011 combined being between $1.1 to $2.1 million. >>

 

And fat tub of shite Michael Moore, who is out backing the Occupy Everything folks, is worth over $50 million - but insists he is not one of the 1%.

 

<< Cain serves as an associate minister at the church in Atlanta which he joined at the age of 10. The church is part of the National Baptist Convention, USA. >>

 

How 'bout that.

 

<< In an interview with Greta van Susteren, Cain further said that the allegations had been investigated and found baseless. He recalled that one of the specific allegations was making a gesture indicating his wife's height by holding his palm flat, which one of the accusers found objectionable. >>

 

How disgusting! How could he do such a vulgar thing?

 

<< A sometimes gospel vocalist, Cain performed on the 13-track album Sunday Morning released by Selah Sound Production & Melodic Praise Records in 1996. >>

 

A singing preacher in the White House?

 

Wikipedia

[Flashermac]

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DrSEyjBj1w

 

 

[Flashermac]

WTF?

 

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/perrys-bizarre-campaign-speech/6aicx53

 

 

 

 

 

[Flashermac]

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mq6V2EJexI&feature=related

 

 

 

 

 

[Flashermac]

On FOIA, Obama wants a license to lie

 

 

It's not often that the liberal American Civil Liberties Union and conservative Judicial Watch agree on anything, but the Obama administration's lack of transparency has brought the two together. Obama's Justice Department has proposed a regulatory change that would weaken the Freedom of Information Act. Under the new rules, the government could falsely respond to those who file FOIA requests that a document does not exist if it pertains to an ongoing criminal investigation, concerns a terrorist organization, or a counterintelligence operation involving a foreign nation.

 

There are two problems with the Obama proposal to allow federal officials to affirmatively assert that a requested document doesn't exist when it does. First, by not citing a specific exemption allowed under the FOIA as grounds for denying a request, the proposal would cut off a requestor from appealing to the courts. By thus creating an area of federal activity that is completely exempt from judicial review, the proposal undercuts due process and other constitutional protections. Second, by creating a justification for government lying to FOIA requestors in one area, a legal precedent is created that sooner or later will be asserted by the government in other areas as well.

 

Under FOIA's current national security exemption, bureaucrats can already deny access to documents without acknowledging their existence. This was noted by the ACLU (joined by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and OpentheGovernment.com) in a comment on the proposal. In instances where there is a legitimate grounds for not confirming a document's existence, "the agency should simply respond that 'we interpret all or part of your request as a request for records which, if they exist, would not be subject to the disclosure requirements of FOIA pursuant to section 552©, and we therefore will not process that portion of your request.' This response requires no change to the current FOIA regulation." Such a response would preserve a requestor's right to appeal to a federal court.

 

Chris Farrell, director of investigations and research for Judicial Watch, may have the answer for why the Obama administration wants the new liar's rule. Judicial Watch has been fighting the White House over a FOIA request for copies of its visitor logs. The White House insists, absurdly, that the documents are theirs, not the property of the Secret Service, and therefore withholdable. "Every day," Farrell notes, "the Obama administration misrepresents and conceals the true, complete record of who is going in and out of the White House -- all the while proclaiming themselves champions of transparency. It's truly Orwellian." The proposed new rule could add a patina of legality to the refusal to acknowledge the existence of the visitors logs as White House documents. Despite its flaws, FOIA is one of the few checks on excessive executive branch power. It should not be weakened by Obama's proposed "license to lie."

 

My link

[Steve]

I don't see the 1% on purely financial lines. I don't think most Americans do either. I think people see the onerous 1% as those that have money and power and who are bent on using it to maintain their hold over the rest of us and in some cases bleed us. I don't think most would count Oprah, Michael Moore or Warren Buffet as part of the 1% for the simple reason that they have a reputation for wanting to help the poor, whether its true or not.

 

As for the Obama administration's skirting the Freedom of Information act, its very disappointing. I would fight against what they propose. It must be said and this is NOT excusing them, but its suprising because this is usually something that Republican administrations do. The Bush years are replete with all kinds of ways to deny civil liberties. I don't see it as a reason not to vote for Obama because I believe the other side would do it as well...or worse.

 

As I said, Cain makes a good story but is woefully unprepared for the office. So many things he says he would 'look at'. The job is too big and there are so many things that need addressing immediately that he simply won't have time. It also doesn't look good that a person who is running for the highest office didn't prepare himself adequately. Some of the things are embarassingly bad such as not knowing about the jewish concept of right of return. This coming from a church man. He knows less about foreign policy than most forumites on this thread. He doesn't know about many domestic things as well. Heatlh care under Cain would be a mess. His 999 plan would eliminate funding for medicare I think because its funded via payroll taxes and his plan eliminates that. He wants tort reform. Basically making it easier for malpractice and many states already have some sort of tort reform. Try suing a hosptial nowadays? Good luck. He supports the Ryan plan which would eliminate medicare for those born 1957 and after when they reach 65. He's being accused of running for Presient to sell his book and be on the speaking circuit to make money and its looking like it is because he has no grasp of the major issues. Cain had cancer about 5 years ago and made the outrageous claim that he would not have survived it if he had it under Obama's health plan. I can't take a guy who says such hyperboic statements like that seriously. His comments on mosques and not hiring moslems automatically rules him out for the highest office. I think he said to pander to the core right but its racist pure and simple.

 

Romney would do what Obama would did on a few things such as health care. Other than Cain, Huntsman is a good candidate but he was dismissed early for being the Ambassador to China for Obama. WTF? As if the job and its one of the most important ones is any stamp on Obama's policy. Credit to him for serving his country and not looking at party lines and credit to Obama for including rational, qualified people of either party to high posts.

[cavanami]

Sheriff: Fast and Furious Bigger Scandal Than Watergate

 

Paul Joseph Watson

Infowars.com

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

 

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu joined over two dozen Republican lawmakers in calling on Attorney General Eric Holder’s to resign over Operation Fast and Furious, the gunrunning program that saw the ATF deliver some 2,000 guns directly into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, labeling the scandal worse than the Watergate cover-up that brought down the Nixon White House.

“I thought it was a telling sign when President Obama embraced him and gave him the Al Capone hug and the Scarface whisper in the ear that I support you. He did this publicly. I thought, `Wow, this is his last hours here, that he’s on his way out,†Babeu told KTAR News.

 

Holder is set to testify once more on the subject in front of a Democratic-led Senate committee on November 8.

 

By no means for the first time, if Eric Holder repeats his dubious contention that Fast and Furious only came to his attention when it became public knowledge, he will be knowingly committing perjury.

 

http://www.infowars.com/sheriff-fast-and-furious-bigger-scandal-than-watergate/

[Flashermac]

<< It also doesn't look good that a person who is running for the highest office didn't prepare himself adequately. Some of the things are embarassingly bad such as not knowing about the jewish concept of right of return. >>

 

At least Cain knows there are not 57 states in the USA (not counting Alaska and Hawaii).

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws