E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Larry Downing / Reuters
President Barack Obama waves after he talks about the rising costs of student loans while at the University of Iowa in Iowa City, April 25, 2012.
The president this week drove a message without distraction, but also pushed the limits of “official” travel … Boehner accuses Obama of making the presidency “smaller” – he’s become Mitt Romney’s biggest ally on Capitol Hill … Outside group accuses Obama of being too “cool” to be president … Bill Clinton testifies to Obama’s strength, as the campaign highlights the bin Laden raid … Cold War kids … Obama speaks to troops, women … Romney’s in Ohio – at a college campus with Gov. Kasich.
*** Driving a message and pushing the limits: It was a week in which the Obama campaign was remarkably able to push a single issue without distraction from something (or someone) – on student loans. The president took (justified) criticism for pushing that message on official business with Air Force One in swing states, on college campuses (not one but three), while mixing in slow-jamming the news. House Speaker John Boehner yesterday accused the president of starting a “fake fight,” demanded that he reimburse the government for the trips, said it was “beneath the dignity” of the White House, and even went so far as to charge, “This is the biggest job in the world and I've never seen a President make it smaller.” At the end of the day, Obama was able to get out and appeal to groups in areas that are going to matter to his reelection – and, more importantly from a trip-legitimacy standpoint, there is supposed to be a vote today (the last vote by about noon ET, we’re told), on the “policy” in the House, something that might not have happened without the president pushing the issue. Still, the White House pushed the limit on this when they picked three universities all in battleground states. Had they picked just one in a non-battleground, it would have a little higher ground to stand on.
Daily Rundown guest host Luke Russert is joined by NBC's Domenico Montanaro to talk about the House speaker's comments and whether his attack is a coordinated push with Mitt Romney.
*** A “Stark Contrast”: The Romney campaign pens a memo this morning, highlighting what it sees as the difference between its candidate and President Obama. “This past week previewed the stark contrast facing voters in this election. Governor Romney’s speech Tuesday night in New Hampshire contained a crisp and specific critique of President Obama’s policy failures and his own positive vision for a better America.” But: “President Obama … spent the week slow-jamming the news, striking a Heisman pose, and trying to pick a fight over student loans to help the one-in-two recent college graduates who are either jobless or underemployed as a result of his policies (which is apparently really funny stuff to the President). Unfortunately for him, Republicans agree with the need for a temporary extension, but want it paid for by cutting spending rather than raising taxes. So instead of the fight he was hoping for, he got a debate over taxes and spending – which he wasn’t hoping for.”
*** Too “Cool” for the White House? On cue, Karl Rove-backed American Crossroads is up with a video called, “Cool,” which cuts together clips of Obama wearing 3-D glasses, dancing on “Ellen,” singing Al Green, drinking a beer, killing a fly, calling Kanye West a “jackass,” and slow-jamming the news with Jimmy Fallon. It asks, “After 4 years of a celebrity president, is your life any better?” The ad picks up where John McCain left off with his “Biggest Celebrity in the World” ad, a narrative that was starting to take hold… until McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.
*** Superficial vs. Serious – Bill Clinton testifies: But the Obama campaign is out with its own strong and sober video, featuring Bill Clinton as a testifier. It is juxtaposition to the superficiality narrative the Crossroads ad tries to create. “There’s one thing that George Bush said that was right,” Clinton says, “The president is the ‘Decider-in-Chief.” It then shows pictures of Obama in the Situation Room during the Osama bin Laden raid. “Nobody can make that decision for you,” Clinton says. “Look he knew what would happen. Suppose the Navy Seals had gone in there, and it hadn’t been bin Laden. Suppose they’d been captured or killed. The downside would have been horrible for him. … He took the harder, and more honorable path.” Then, a graphic comes up asking, “Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?” And highlights this Romney quote: “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” This Sunday, Obama will raise money with Clinton at the Virginia home of Terry McAuliffe, the former Democratic National Committee chairman and former Virginia gubernatorial candidate. By the way, there’s been a lot of talk and about Obama money problems, especially with the Super PAC, Priorities USA. Bloomberg today notes that Clinton backers are waiting for Obama backers to start writing checks to the PAC before they will.
*** Boehner, Romney’s biggest ally on Capitol Hill: Back to Boehner’s attack. Of course, Democrats made similar charges against former President George W. Bush in 2004. But as NBC’s Luke Russert points out, Boehner, who stayed out of the endorsement fray, has emerged as Romney’s chief ally on Capitol Hill. “One of the more fascinating developments in the last two weeks on Capitol Hill has been the degree to which House Speaker John Boehner has gone after President Obama and helped to try and frame Obama's general election matchup against Mitt Romney.” Since endorsing Romney 10 days ago, Boehner went on the attack the next day, “accusing Obama of being ‘AWOL’ for the last 6 months and on a ‘constant campaign.’” He accused the president of “failing to lead” on the economy and on legislation related to jobs, student loans, gas prices, and the national drug shortage – instead opting for “campaign theatrics.” The DNC’s Brad Woodhouse responded on Twitter, leveling this: “Let’s be clear: John Boehner is the most useless, feckless, weak and failed Speaker of the House perhaps in American history.” Wow. Here’s NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell’s report on NBC Nightly News last night.
*** Outside spending ramps up: Those aren’t the only ads out there. Americans for Prosperity -- a conservative group with ties to the billionaire Koch Brothers, who made millions in the oil and gas industry -- is actually ON AIR in the next two weeks with a $6.1 million ad buy in eight states – all battlegrounds: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia. It once again focuses on clean energy and, in an odd way, outsourcing. “Fact: Billions of taxpayer dollars spent on green energy went to jobs in foreign countries. … Tell President Obama: American tax dollars should help American taxpayers.” There’s also a seven-figure ad buy up in Wisconsin in that recall race supporting Democrat Kathleen Falk ahead of the primary there May 8 to take on Gov. Scott Walker. And the NRCC is going up with $150,000 in ads in the Gabrielle Giffords district, AZ-8.
*** Cold war kids: Vice President Joe Biden was in full attack-dog mode yesterday, lambasting Mitt Romney’s foreign policy, saying that he “mired in a Cold War mindset.” And two Romney advisers added fuel to that attack yesterday when one, former Navy Secretary John Lehman said: "We are seeing the Soviets pushing into the Arctic with no response from us.” And Pierre Prosper, a former U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes, said, "The United States abandoned its missile defense sites in Poland and Czechoslovakia, yet Russia does nothing but obstruct us, or efforts in Iran and Syria." Czechoslovakia split into what’s now the Czech Republic and Slovakia… in 1993, two years after the Soviet Union fell. Remember, Romney called Russia America’s “No. 1 geopolitical foe.”
*** Obama signs order on troops, education, then speaks to women: Today, the president pushes the issue of education again in Georgia at Fort Stewart, where he’ll sign an executive order “intended to help protect active-duty troops and veterans from deceptive and misleading practices.” (He’ll make remarks at 12:35 pm ET). And who’s going to disagree with that? Later, the president speaks to the National Women’s Issues Conference at 4:55 pm ET in DC. Women are, of course, a key group for the president. In the latest, NBC/WSJ poll, women approved of the job the president was doing by a 52%-43% margin and favored him over Romney, 53%-41%. In 2008, Obama won them 56%-43%, an improvement from 2004, when John Kerry won them by just three points, 51%-48%. Mitt Romney is in that all-important swing state of Ohio at… a college campus (Otterbein University in Westerville). Coincidence? He’ll speak at 3:05 pm ET. Ohio Gov. John Kasich will campaign with Romney in the afternoon. Kasich, of course, isn’t the most popular politician in the country.
***Elsewhere On the trail: Newt Gingrich continues his farewell tour, with stops in North Carolina. … Ron Paul hosts a town hall in Houston, TX.
Countdown to Election Day: 194 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Leave a Comment:
Anyone, ANYONE who thinks that FOX news isn't a right-leaning propoganda machine is a complete idiot. Hell, anyone actually thinking that couldn't beat Palin in a game checkers.
WOW!
If anyone can inform me what Re, Wright has to do with this discussion other than to pad the string with silly things camoflaging someone's lack of a grasp on the subject at hand, please, please???
Why isn't anyone asking the question as to why a company(s) can make consistent, record breaking multi-billion dollar profits needs subsidies. I mean really, when did common sense become a rarity. You should be asking why the oil companies continue to bend you over and then ask you to remain in the position.
Gross stupidity or what???!!
and anyone who plans on voting for obama is a complete moron....
mcpaddywack
They aren't morons, they just uninformed/misinformed individuals that haven't realized that Obama is laying down the foundations for a military take over of our Constitutional government.
They vote him back in office and his never ending debt crises will be the excuse for this take over.
Chip, because they have something we all need and we will pay for it. No, I don't like paying so much for gas. Nor do I like having to spend 1/4 of a house for a car (GovCo bailout). Nor do I like 80.00 a month for internet or cell phone. But, if you had an invention that even Apple wouldn't be able to duplicate in say another 3 years, would you not take advantage of the perceived "need" for your product and make as much as you could morally before the competition caught up and lowered your price?
Why the hell is anyone against regulations? You idiots do realize that without regulations the country would be an industrial wasteland and no one would have enough to eat as no one would have money. Why do you think companies use slave labor over seas? Its bs that they claim they can't make profits using American workers would the profits be as high no but they'd still be making profits. WE NEED MORE regulations especially on insurance companies and companies that contract with the government look at the mold found in housing for solidiers and sailors in multiple bases that's what happens when agencies don't do their jobs. Companies have to be regulated and watched like hawks there is NO corporation that does the right thing without being forced to by regulations.
we are totally over regulated by bureaucrats at every level........i don't need some asswipe in DC telling me how to live my life......
You are both wrong and right. Its the degree of the regulations that have become the problem.
As history has taught us, over regulated or under regulated means bad things will happen to Americans.
Finding the right amount of regulations seems to be the difficult thing to do.
The problem in this country is that the politicians aren't willing to work to find that balance.
Because of it, we are now living with a never ending debt crises that is destroying our economy.
@Mcpaddy & What Happened -
You only mind regulations when they directly touch you - what about women? We're supposed to roll over and let government into our reproductive life without you blinking an eye! VA Gov wants vaginal probes, another wants a live abortion shown to a woman before she makes her choice.
As for the economy - you sound like it's out of control during only President Obama's years in office when in fact it's taken decades to get to this point. No one noticed, again, until it directly touched them ($$$).
Also Nazarite religious babble has NO place in politics KEEP RELIGIONG THE HELL OUT OF POLITICS ALL TOGETHER. I would honestly rather have an honest atheist than someone who tries to force their view of christian values on the country. As to why I feel that way it's not the aethiests trying to prevent me from marrying who I want to
Tiffany, Libidiots like you COMPLETELY MIS-INTERPRET the 1st Amendment.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is also the first section of the Bill of Rights. It is arguably the most important part of the U.S. Constitution, as it guarantees freedoms of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government. In addition, it requires that a wall of separation be maintained between church and state. It reads:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
To restrict religion's influence on politics would violate freedom of speech in the 1st Amendment. Separation of Church & State as stated in the Constitution, and I quote; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
As you can see Our Constitution says NOTHING about keeping religion out of politics, it states quite the contrary.
I have for a long time said that reading and comprehension are two subjects only one of which is taught in school, that being reading. ssmithlgll you jumbled two different points into one. Lets try this "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" What do you think this statement means, could it mean that no law shall be created to support a religious belief. Next. " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof " What is the meaning of this statement. Could it mean no law will be passed preventing a person from practicing their choice of religion. How do you respond
tiffany - you can marry a dog if you so choose. That style might suit you.
Tissy - that mean that the Fed Gov could not impose a national religion. The states and people were free to worship as they please. The Fed Gov was intended to be very weak. National Defense, trade and handling disputes between the states.
Tis the Season, to understand the Constitution you must understand the history around it.
Our founders declared their independence from England, and it's state sponsored church. The Church of England developed and acknowledged the authority of the Pope in Rome until the Reformation in the 16th century. The religious settlement that eventually emerged in the reign of Elizabeth the 1st gave the Church of England the distinctive identity that it has retained to this day. That is where "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" came from. Our Freedom of Religion comes from the next section, "or (Congress) prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" I hope this answers your question.
The more Boehner and his ilk kvetch, the more Obama and his team must realize they're scoring points.
Well said!
Doug and sharky
Nothing you say changes the fact that we have a never ending debt crises that is destroying our economy.
If scoring points is Obama adding uncontrolled debt to his never ending debt crises than you could say that Obama is scoring tons of points, but at what cost?
Are you going to cheer at all the points on the score board when our economy collapses from the weight of the never ending debt crises?
The Siren song of austerity a.k.a. how to create a depression.
The single biggest limit Obama has pushed in the last three+ years is the limit of credibility - he's pushed that right off the cliff.
I honestly had high hopes for his success, even though I didn't vote for him, and after all this time, the only hope I have left is for change in November.
Send in the Gestapo or KGB, then again, he may now have them working for him. Am I still allowed to say this?
Take note:::approved by both parties and signed by the prez.
HR 347 ONE MORE STEP TOWARD DICTATORSHIP
This is a new law signed by Obama in early March 2012 which makes it illegal to protest in his presence. Regardless of where you stand politically, this is very scary. Please at least watch this before you delete it.
The law means that wherever Obama is you do not have a right to ask him anything you want to. His secret service can have you arrested, fined, and imprisoned for more than a YEAR if you ask him something he doesn't like or doesn't want to answer. This sounds as if he's becoming more like Hitler than Lincoln. THIS IS HIS LATEST ATTEMPT TO STAGE A TAKE OVER OF AMERICA.
May the Lord have mercy on us!!!!
popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium
Jethro bob,.. where do you get this mindless nonsense??
Seriously here... Get a hobby....
Look it up 1200. It is real and not just directed at the POTUS.
I think you have taken one too many bugs in the mouth or birds in the chest on your "ride".
grounded123 Me thinks thou doth protest to much, and incorrectly as well. HR 347 does not make it illegal to protest in as you state Obamas presence and it was passed 399 to 3 that must mean Republicans voted for it as well. It only prohibits violent behavior in restricted building or areas were the Secret Service is protecting either a building or area including the president and vice president. It does not limit peaceful demonstrations or questions but forth. If you are going to make statement as you have above without knowing the facts and then stating them as such you are without a doubt dumb as a post and no insult to the post is intended.
H.R.347
One Hundred Twelfth Congress
of the
United States of America
AT THE SECOND SESSION
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the third day of January, two thousand and twelve
An Act
To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011’.
SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.
Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
-‘Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
Too bad Wisconsin didn't have this a couple of years ago when the morons "took over" the state house.
TH. you really missed the point. Did they do so with violence, were they not exercising the very thing you are arguing for freedom of speach, you really need to get your message straight, the only reason you consider them morons is because you disagree with them so they must not have the same rights you have. Thanks for playing
No tis the season- go back up and read #3 of sec 1 short title of the article to address your last statement
grounded I think you needed to go a little further up "Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds" Was or is a State capital building Restricted or open to the public, or as you are trying to point out only certain memebers of the public. Keep playing this is getting to be fun.
I was referring to( the hands ) comment about wisconson when they took over the state capitol and would not leave-------and by the way 1 part of a section of the law in no way negates or changes the meaning of another addendom of the article in question
Tis - They occupied it 24/7. I believe in free speech but to take over a building and interrupt regular business is a bit of a stretch.
TH in other words you only believe in free speech as long as you agree with it and its method and how much business do they do after 6pm til 6am in a state capital on a routine day. Do you now determine when and how free speech is appropriate.
grounded which article are you referring to the new law or constitution.
ssmith, Equally important is the part of the First Amendment that states " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." It follows that no laws should be passed that supports ANY religious ideology.
So what purpose/value does discussion of religion in politics provide?
It DOES NOT belong in political conversations outside of insighting division and diversion away from real issues. How on earth do you declare one brand of theology over another? It's impossible... Even though it's covered under freedom of speech, it adds zero value.
Well said Chip
Chip, by the same token, no laws should be passed that deny a religion its ideology. For instance forcing the Catholic Church to cover contraception would violate the Catholic Church's first amendment rights. Same for a Catholic hospital or college. By the same token should we force Jehovah's Witnesses to provide for blood transfusions in their insurance policies?
The ACA wants to force religious institutions to provide services they do not believe in. Isn't that a violation of their first amendment rights?
I don`t get riled very often at the garbage from right. My great-grampa had dairy cattle, and grampa kept chickens. I visited often enough to learn to recognize both BS and CS. You could say been there, stepped in it.
“If we abide by the principles taught in the Bible, our country will go on prospering and to prosper; but if we and our posterity neglect its instructions and authority, no man can tell how sudden a catastrophe may overwhelm us and bury all our glory in profound obscurity.”
― Daniel Webster
grounded123 if you wish to live by a bible then you have every right to do so. What you do not have the right to do is enforce your bible on anyone else. You can choose to live your life by your beliefs as anyone else can by their choice, it is not up to you to judge another on how they live their life. Judge not least ye be judged. Is this not in your bible or let the first to cast a stone be stoned. If you are going to live by your bible then at least attempt to live by the whole thing not pick and choose the pages you agree with and burn the ones you don't
In the United States, the religious civil liberties are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution:
grounded not sure what you are trying to say by simply restating what you have already posted. It is agreed you have the right to practice whatever religion you wish and so does everyother person in the country but what you do not have the right to do is create a law based on a religious belief which is then forcing someone to live according to your religion thus denying them of their freedom of religion.
Tis, the first amendment does not allow laws prohibiting the free practice of religon. We cannot pass a law telling Catholic Hospitals and schools to follow practices that are against Catholic doctorine.
Soon you will see these words become obsolete: "Of the People, By the People, and For the People" and the new replacement within into Law: "Of the Corporations, By the Corporations, and For the Corporations". That is if we let them. Remember, Corporations have been judged(?) to be People by Court Order. Who's Court? Theirs.
Your Rights, Your Privileges, and your Freedoms will be meaningless under the Corporate Rule. Be aware that should the wrong people govern, our style of Government can shift very easily to one that is Autocratic even becoming a Totalitarian in its nature.
Under the Libertarian version of Corporate Rule, the Military will belong to them as would the Courts. The present Laws will not exist. Corporate Law will govern how these bodies function. Protest and you may find out exactly what will happen. PS: That has happened here in the U.S. decades ago before Laws prevented such actions. This was when Governors could call up their National Guards and Militias to put down Protests, etc. if some Company Owner should request intervention. Read your History and you will know.
Be extremely vigil or History will repeat itself.
If they were not declared an existence of some sort, they would not have to pay taxes. They can't just be a void. Because they do pay taxes, they are afforded the same rights as any other tax payer. They have a say albeit maybe too much, but a right nonetheless.
Talk to the hand, a Corporation is not a person, it is own by a person or persons. A Corporation is not a right it is a business nothing more. The individuals that own the corporation have the same rights as all citizens but giving their corporation the rights of a person now means the owner or owners have two votes one as an individual and one as a corporation. How do you justify that. Paying taxes does not a person make nor does paying your water bill each month. Being a citizen does give you rights and Corporations are not citizens they are businesses and nothing more.
And just how does a corporation vote?
You just made my point for me. What is the point of stating a Corporation is a person if it can not vote. The only purpose was to allow a free flow of money into the political process which will only lead to coruption.
Oduma beleives in world wide equalty. He will not stop until we are the equivalent of Kenya.
Nazzy you really need to get a new hobby, you are not very good at this one. We understand you do not like Obama but your rants are childish and make little sense to anyone but yourself. That make your statements a waste of time. Get an education, talk like a real person put forth your views intelligently and maybe someone will listen until then you are nothing more than mild entertainment for some of us.
“Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world.”
― Daniel Webster
nazarite, this will be my last response to any of notes... You have to be the worst Christian on the planet. You must have to hit a confessional every half hour or so.
They should establish drive-thrus just for people like you.
See ya!
Chip - thank you for your final generous words. If a heathen, evil liberal Demorat detest my words, I must be doing a great job. And Please, never respond again. Since you are a liar, you will never honor your word.
The progressive leadership believed every citizen dependant upon the government should own a home, along with government provided food, cell phone, health care, retirement, fifty two weeks a year paid vacation, education and a “Bling” allowance. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd coddled and protected the sub-prime Ponzi scheme that finally collapsed the economy into a major recession in 2008. Barney Frank had an illicit love affair with “Fannie” Mae, which further clouded his thinking. I thought “Mae” was a women’s name. The sub-prime loan scam was destined to fail. After all, it was just another government program. There is an old saying “Crap in, Crap out”. The tidal wave of home loan defaults, spread over the country, causing economic devastation though out the land.
This economic misery fermenting for years just happened to fall upon the latter years of the “W” administration.
The same politicians that caused the banking crisis were now in charge of fixing the problem. Many years before, a young Barack Obama sued Citibank for having best and fair lending practices. Citibank used the same lending standards for all Americans, with race never being a factor. African Americans as a group had worst credit, lower income and less employment stability. This translates to fewer people in this group qualifying for home or auto loans. They overall had a higher home loan rejection rate or were forced to pay higher interest rates than the general population. If the numbers don’t work out to your favor, it must be racism. Lord Obama told Citibank to make home loans to minorities regardless of credit, having a job, income, still in jail, or being deceased. Lawyer Obama worked with the nutty social justice at all cost group, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn). They forced Citibank into a large out of court settlement. Citibank relented to the blackmail from Obama. Otherwise, even though Citibank was innocent, they would be called racist for not submitting to the will of Obama. This racial bullying and blackmail served him well then and now as President. The government, Progressives, Acorn and others forced banks to participate in the sub-prime lending scheme. This eliminated many lending standards that had served the country well for years. Once the door for corruption was forced opened, it became a modern version of: “Bankers Gone Wild.” Most hard working Americans were not a party to the sub prime government loan scam but greatly suffered during the long recession. Jobs were lost; wages and benefits were cut and value of their homes rapidly declined. As bad as the recession of 2008, few knew the worst was yet to come.
Pure right wing BS above.
sharky, nothing pure about it.
Hey tis - It has nothing to do about corp getting another vote--It is about financial contributions-------------And about hr347 the new addition means anywhere a ss agent is assigned they can squash your 1 ammendment rights
grounded I believe that was my line and HR 347 if you have so much trouble with it have you admonished your Republican members for voting for it. They seem to have agreed with it in numbers. Another thought for you how many buildings dothe Secret service restrict access too at any given time. I think it is prudent given the times to have a law limited as this one is for the protection of this president and the ones to follow as our society becomes more violent. It does not restrict peacefull demonstrations only those that attempt to disrupt business must like you defend in State capitals. So which is it we have freedom of speech or we do not. You can not have it both ways. Again thanks for playing
the best shark repellant is to have a dead shark in the area. Tissy - pure to you is unknown. Lib's, Why all the personal attacks. You have nothing good to say about your DARK lord, Barack Insane Obama.
Barack was born somewhere, this we know to be true. His ascension was a terrible tragedy for all humankind. For the sake of this story, let us say he was born in the state of Hawaii. In 2011, the progressives created an oily black smoke screen known as the “birther” agenda. This false story was used to stoke Obama’s mindless athletic supporters and open the gate for the call of racism. When everything else fails, Holler Racism! They enlisted Donald Trump to be their spokesperson and used their media to keep alive the story. I still don’t know if Trump is friend or foe. Trump “Birther” claims distracted others from the important story that Obama is an incompetent leader, bent on destroying America and reshaping it into his progressive, socialist, anti-capitalist way. His ultimate and over riding goal is to seek revenge upon white America, to punish them and redistribute their wealth to his people. Obama, other progressives, greenie weenies hinder US from using our fossil fuels, making the price of gas prohibited. The EPA is their latest weapon against the American People.
Gee once again I am left to wonder if they were planning to attack Obama because he's a democrat or because of his race! Probably both! The Good Ole Boyz In the GOP just never cease to amaze at how low they will go for what they want, huh ?
Hey here's an idea lets all really screw this nation an vote in Romney!
Obama has a race? Being a black liberationists, socialist, racist, Muslim means a lot more than the color of his skin. Why do only Demorats bring up race?
Hillary said "Obama played the race card" 4 years ago.
I would've voted for Hillary
Wow nazarite are you really going to just do this until you see the President giving his re-election speech???!!! Why such hate and unbelievable non-sense sir??/!!!
All these sour grape Repub comments...what is going to happen when President Obama is re-elected in 2012...they will have more sour grapes to eat....LOL!
I like raisins!
the only way this country gets back on its feet is if we get rid of the socialist president running it. we cant afford to keep printing money......keep giving it away to everyone .....keep spiraling downward. republicans arent blameless in this but the president should do all good democrats a favor and at least drop the (D) next to his name. should be a capital (S) for socialist party
One of these days, Hispanics will figure out that Obama and Holder have killed more Mexicans with their support of illegal drugs and sending guns to the Cartels. Then, Obama will go down as he is impeached and extradited to Mexico to stand trial in front of the Hague!
Holder/Obama lied, many Mexicans died. Anything to create a gun crisis, then regulate and restrict gun sales and ownership.
And then,... you'll wake up from the dream, and mom will be telling you to get ready for school..
Just like every other weekday morning..
demonstrating your ignorance? the Hague is in the Netherlands, not Mexico.
"Boehner": when "keeping it real" goes wrong.
Documents: ATF used "Fast and Furious" to make the case for gun regulations
By
Sharyl Attkisson
(Credit: CBS) Documents obtained by CBS News show that the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) discussed using their covert operation "Fast and Furious" to argue for controversial new rules about gun sales.
PICTURES: ATF "Gunwalking" scandal timeline
In Fast and Furious, ATF secretly encouraged gun dealers to sell to suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels to go after the "big fish." But ATF whistleblowers told CBS News and Congress it was a dangerous practice called "gunwalking," and it put thousands of weapons on the street. Many were used in violent crimes in Mexico. Two were found at the murder scene of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.
ATF officials didn't intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called "Demand Letter 3". That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or "long guns." Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.
On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF's Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:
"Bill - can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks."
More Fast and Furious coverage:
Memos contradict Holder on Fast and Furious
Agent: I was ordered to let guns "walk" into Mexico
Gunwalking scandal uncovered at ATF
On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as "(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue." And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: "Bill--well done yesterday... (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case."
This revelation angers gun rights advocates. Larry Keane, a spokesman for National Shooting Sports Foundation, a gun industry trade group, calls the discussion of Fast and Furious to argue for Demand Letter 3 "disappointing and ironic." Keane says it's "deeply troubling" if sales made by gun dealers "voluntarily cooperating with ATF's flawed 'Operation Fast & Furious' were going to be used by some individuals within ATF to justify imposing a multiple sales reporting requirement for rifles."
The Gun Dealers' Quandary
Several gun dealers who cooperated with ATF told CBS News and Congressional investigators they only went through with suspicious sales because ATF asked them to.
Sometimes it was against the gun dealer's own best judgment.
Read the email
In April, 2010 a licensed gun dealer cooperating with ATF was increasingly concerned about selling so many guns. "We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys," writes the gun dealer to ATF Phoenix officials, "(W)e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items."
A Progressive/communist government must control three elements of the population, Media(MSNBC, CNN etc), speech and preventing the population from being armed where they could physically resist. They have succeeded with the first two objectives and must confiscate all weapons held by the public to prepare for their communist violent takeover of America. Obama/Holder devised a plot as an excuse to limit/remove guns and ammo from the citizens. Secretly sell Mexican Narco Terrorists weapons in America and aid their trafficking across the border. When these weapons are used to murder innocent Mexicans and then traced back to America, Obama/Holder would use the crisis they created to disavow our second amendment right to keep and bear arms. Never let a good crisis go to waste! If a Progressive needs a crisis, just manufacture one! What an outrage that weapons from America are killing and wounding so many South of the border! When Holder/Obama are caught as leaders of this conspiracy, they just lie, lie, and lie. Where is the outrage! They should be fired, impeached, imprisoned and then deported.
Operation Fast and Furious was another inept program ran by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), between 2009 and 2010. The purpose was to create a crisis and blame it on gun sales along the border. They did not care if over 100 people were slaughtered. They had to make a political statement. The problem is the Federal Government sold at least 2,000 guns knowing most would be trafficked to Mexico. Did they consult with the Mexican Government, physically follow the weapons or even place tracking devices within the guns? NO! ATP field agents told the Border Patrol to “Stand down” and let the smugglers and weapons pass.
I have unassailable proof that Romney was born in a lab as a test tube baby. ( Not sure if it was an American lab though )
He also secretly wants to re-instate the Mormon practice of multiple wives when he gets into office.
While at Bain Romney joined the Bildeburg group to advance the policies for a New World Order.
There is also talk from the Romney camp about relocating the American Muslim.
nazzie-this was a Bush program. Did you forget?
When Obama gets finished with the coal industry, You could not afford to charge the "Leaf"
Dumb FUX NEWS, the hate Obama and Liberals cable TV and Radio is making people crazy...
Obama should open the coal industry back up to allowing 14 year olds to get back into the mines....then remove all safety regulations...just so the teapublicans can feel better..
Of course until there is a mine catastrophe then they can rail on Obama for not enforcing regulations!
Boehner - The guy who was caught handing out lobbyist checks on the floor of the US House of Representatives..
Then the teapublicans made him Speaker of the House...
Really???