Pinocchio Has Nothing On Obama Campaign – Lies About Romney and Bain Continue

Obama’s bullying pulpit – President goes out of his way to shake America’s foundations

By Robert Knight via The Washington Times

I don’t know which was more embarrassing: Barack Obama trying to bully the Supreme Court – again – or The Washington Post trying to clean up after him.

Warning the court not to rule against Obamacare, Mr. Obama said it would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” of judicial activism. He chided conservatives for long complaining about judicial activism, “that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

Because this hasn’t ever happened at the Supreme Court, according to the man who lectured about constitutional law at the University of Chicago, court watchers must have been smoking something since 1803, when Chief Justice John Marshall established judicial review in Marbury v. Madison.

Mr. Obama knows all about judicial activism. He’s fine with the court’s Roe v. Wade (1973) decision creating a “right” to abortion and overturning all abortion laws, a ruling Justice Byron White called “an exercise of raw judicial power.” Mr. Obama’s Justice Department is working to have a court overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed in 1996 with overwhelming, bipartisan majorities.

His warning to the court was a shocker, and The Washington Times and Wall Street Journal ran it on their front pages above the fold. Not so The Washington Post, which relegated this mighty clash of the federal branches to Page A5. Writer David Nakamura noted that “Obama made his argument in unusually blunt language that was rare for a sitting president.” Indeed. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt, who threatened to “pack the court” when it wouldn’t rubber-stamp his New Deal, didn’t dare explicitly claim the court could not overturn legislation that it found unconstitutional. Or maybe he did and Mr. Obama is channeling him.

The next day, Mr. Obama did some damage control with help from his friends. In an editorial headlined “A more judicious view,” The Post summarized Mr. Obama’s clarification: “He made clear that he was not questioning the court’s power to strike down a statute, just that exercising it in this situation, involving Congress‘ ability to regulate commerce, would be remarkable.”

Oh, that’s what he meant. The Post then gently chided Mr. Obama like a rambunctious child, advising him, “Given the power of the bully pulpit, presidents are wise to be, well, more judicious in commenting about the high court.”

Yes, sounding like a president instead of a frustrated Caesar would be better.

In 2010, Mr. Obama bullied the court in front of the nation during his State of the Union address, brazenly mischaracterizing the justices’ Citizens United ruling. He had Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius bully pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies that wouldn’t knuckle under to Obamacare. He has made a sport of bullying Israel. He is bullying the oil companies and crushing the coal industry. Recently, he sent Hillary Rodham Clinton around the world to bully nations that won’t buy the homosexual political agenda.

The other day, he even bullied journalists at his fawnathon press conference, telling them how to report. Face it, folks. America elected a bully in 2008, and he shows no sign of mellowing.

Mr. Obama has stepped on the Constitution six ways from Sunday since the day he took power. Speaking of Sunday, Mr. Obama once again made Christians suspicious of his professions of faith when he told a group of clergy on Wednesday, according to CNS News, that Easter reminds us of “all that Christ endured – not just as a Son of God, but as a human being.”

“A Son of God,” not “the Son of God.” It could have been a slip of the tongue, or perhaps it revealed more than he intended. The New Testament says God has only one Son, and it’s Jesus Christ, through Whom “all things were made” (John: 1:3).

I’d be inclined to give Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt, because everyone misspeaks, but he has let slip other clues before and after gaining the bully pulpit.

On Sept. 5, 2008, on ABC television, Mr. Obama answered a question from former Clinton press secretary George Stephanopoulos with the line, “You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.” Mr. Stephanopoulos quickly saved Mr. Obama by noting that he meant to say his “Christian” faith.

Three times in 2010, Mr. Obama omitted the words “by their Creator” when reciting the passage about unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. In November 2010, he said the national motto was “E pluribus unum” (out of many, one) instead of “In God We Trust.”

In 2009, in Cairo, Mr. Obama quoted from the “Holy Koran,” used his middle name, Hussein, and indicated that the United States and Muslim nations have the same commitment to tolerance and freedom.

Also in 2009, he told a press conference in Turkey, “Although we have a large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values. I think modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of values.”

WallBuilders, a Christian research group headed by David Barton, has compiled “America’s Most Biblically Hostile U.S. President,” an extensive list of Mr. Obama’s statements and actions that suggest less than fidelity toward Christianity or the Bible and a weakness for Islam. Taken as a whole, it’s devastating.

On March 6, 2007, New York Times writer Nicholas D. Kristof wrote in “Obama: Man of the World”:

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’ “

Here are the opening lines of that prayer, courtesy of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission: “Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that Muhammad is his prophet!”

To a devout Christian, this “call” is not pretty, however it once sounded to a young boy being raised as a Muslim in Indonesia.

The bully pulpit, whatever it once was, has never sounded quite like this.

Robert Knight is senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for the Washington Times.

For more information click here.

Obama Must Defend Israel, Not “Caution” Our Most Important Ally

By Jay Sekulow, ACLJ

Israel is facing grave danger from Iran, which is expected to have nuclear weapons within a year.

The big question: Where does President Obama stand? Will he back Israel and defend our most important ally, if necessary?

Don’t seem to be getting that feeling from the White House. The Washington Post reports: “President Obama and Panetta are said to have cautioned the Israelis that the United States opposes an attack, believing that it would derail an increasingly successful international economic sanctions program and other non-military efforts to stop Iran from crossing the threshold.”

The President “cautioning” Israel? He should be warning Iran, not Israel. Why is he urging Israel to stand-down? And, where’s our pledge of support to Israel? Our promise to defend them if necessary?

No, that’s not happening. Instead, Defense Secretary Panetta told reporters that “we have expressed our concerns” to Israel about a potential military strike against Iran.

Let’s put this into the proper perspective. Israel – under siege – in the crosshairs. Consider this new threat issued today by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He says Iran “will support and help any nations, any groups” in fighting Israel. He added: “The Zionist regime is a true cancer tumor on this region. . . .and it definitely will be cut off.”

Israel has no shortage of enemies and Iran is said to be cozying up to anti-Israel groups around the globe. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak understands the danger. He says military action might be necessary if sanctions don’t work.

This from Barak:

“Today, unlike the past, there is no question of the unbearable danger a nuclear Iran poses for the future of the Middle East, for the security of Israel and for the security and financial stability of the entire world.

Today, unlike the past, the world has no doubt that the military nuclear program is steadily nearing ripeness and is about to enter the ‘immunity zone.’ From that point on, the Iranian regime will be able to act to complete the program, with no effective disturbance and a time that is convenient for it.

He who says ‘later,’ may find that it is ‘too late.'”

It’s been nearly 60 years since an American President turned their back on Israel. The last time that happened was in 1956 when President Eisenhower condemned an Israeli-European attack on the Suez Canal. We cannot turn our back on Israel again.

Stand with us and demand that President Obama support Israel and defend Israel if necessary. This is not the time for political posturing. It’s time to show our unequivocal support for Israel. Add your name to our petition now.

Environmentalism Goes Spaceship Earth


By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh in Canada Free Press

A new breed of environmentalist do-gooders has emerged, those who call for man to take charge of “Spaceship Earth.”

On a full-page spread, the Washington Post declared on January 3, 2011 “More and more environmentalists and scientists talk about the planet as a complex system, one that human beings must aggressively monitor, manage and sometimes reengineer. Kind of like a space ship, “Spaceship Earth.” In a leftist disingenuous fashion, the paper generalizes and exaggerates the number of environmentalists and scientists who think this way.

“The new way of thinking green” is a departure from “viewing nature as something that must be protected from human beings – not managed by them.” Mark Lynas writes in his book, “The God Species: Saving the Planet in the Age of Humans,” “Nature no longer runs the Earth, We do. It is our choice what happens from here.”

Who knew or even guessed that humans were so powerful that we could determine the movement of the stars, planets, the sun, the moon, weather, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, floods, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, and other natural calamities?

Emma Harris, another environmentalist, advocates for an interventionist and managerial role in the “restoration ecology” movement that manages forests and other natural systems.

The article talks about the wilderness movement of John Muir in the 19th century and Teddy Roosevelt’s in the 20th century, which “sought to draw boundaries between civilization and nature.”

Rachel Carson’s book, “Silent Spring,” giving “detailed” ecological damage such as singing birds disappearing, managed to ban DDT, the only pesticide that kept mosquitoes under control. Three million people die each year from malaria thanks in part to Rachel Carson’s unfounded scaremongering.

Eco-protectors cite ice core drillings in Greenland that show a “chemical signature of the Industrial Revolution.” What the author fails to mention is that ice core drillings in the Arctic have shown pollution from Roman times when they did not necessarily have an Industrial Revolution and the planet had less, much less than 7 billion people.

“Influential thinkers” believe that invasive species that have stowed away on planes and boats and migrated from one area of the planet to another should no longer be eradicated but “relocated” in order to stay ahead of climate changes.” What a huge undertaking that would be, and who will pay for it?

Stewart Brand, “the dean of technological environmentalism,” a 1960s hippie who wrote “Whole Earth Catalog” in 1968, promotes in his “Whole Earth Discipline: An Ecopragmatist Manifesto” the use of genetically modified organisms and nuclear power, “solar radiation management” through cloud-seeding, and “geo-engineering” to control climate change.

Another expert on greenology, my word for the faux science of environmentalism, Albert Borgmann, a professor of philosophy at the University of Montana, is concerned about overreliance on technology “to fix problems that humans have made.” I did take a course in philosophy in my lengthy college career and I know that it had nothing to do with science.

Another expert greenologist said that the March 11, 2011 earthquake in Japan “wasn’t supposed to be possible.” That is because science was only prepared for an earthquake of 8.4 on Richter scale, not a 9.0, and the generated tsunami waves were 18.7 feet high, far exceeding the planned 13 feet.  Nature could have been controlled and harnessed if science would have been more accurate. Generators were located too low. Japan is an island, which by definition, no matter where you locate something, it is going to be low in some areas or possibly below the sea level.

Activist Bill McKibben published “Eaarth” in 2011 in which he advocates for “a new planet, not so pleasant for human beings, with new values and aspirations.” In case you are anxious to know what such a planet would look like, it will be “decentralized in political power, energy generation and food production.”  In his mind, decentralized power would prevent “small problems from exploding into societal catastrophes.”

“The future should belong, and could belong, to the small and many, not the big and few.” (Bill McKibben)

Richard B. Alley, Penn State climate scientist and author of “Earth: The Operator’s Manual,” said, “We are as gods and have to get good at it.” I personally only recognize one God and I am a mere blink in His plan.

We have been around this type of tribalism, which resulted in extinction from disease, lack of food, lack of energy sources, proper shelter, clothing, draughts, lack of mobility, invasions of pests, and of neighboring tribes. I do not think humanity would like to revisit such a societal organization. Only in the warped minds of a few greenologists would return to the sordid and uncivilized past is a great idea. We are not gods and we need a well-organized society in order to live and thrive. If we unite and work in cooperation, we survive. If we divide into small tribes and communities, we fail miserably.

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh Most recent columns“Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh ( Romanian Conservative) is a freelance writer (Canada Free Press, Romanian Conservative), author, radio commentator, and speaker. Her book, “Echoes of Communism, is available at Amazon in paperback and Kindle. Short essays describe health care, education, poverty, religion, social engineering, and confiscation of property. Visit her website, 

Making Eco-village in Green Mansions

By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh

Loudon County, Virginia, is one of the richest counties in the nation. They are now at the forefront of implementing the environmentalist green agenda of living in an eco-village. The residents are “a typical middle class mix of mostly white-collar workers.” (Washington Post, December 31, 2011)

If we consider this group typical middle-class, we should consider the price of homes in this utopian “paradise.” The last home bought in this Shangri-La in September 2011, a foreclosed home, cost $359,000. Some sell between $895,000 and $1.7 million.

The roads are unpaved, the terrain is rough, and the non-existent lawns are typical of wilderness grasses. The inhabitants like to keep them this way in order to reduce their Al Gore-determined carbon footprint. The gravel roads and the untended surroundings are definitely intentional.

“The development attracts a self-selecting group of people who, to varying degrees, are in search of a more sustainable and locally-centered lifestyle.” This may sound admirable to some people, but it regurgitates the buzzwords and goals listed in the UN Agenda 21 for all nations who signed the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Treaty. I am not sure about you, but I like my roads paved.

Gravel is intended to reduce harmful runoff into the Potomac and to slow down auto traffic. Parking is delineated to lots around the commune, not in front of people’s homes.

According to the Washington Post, “although it’s become almost mainstream to be ‘green,’ residents of EcoVillage, founded in 1996, are on the cutting edge of the movement.”

I am unsure how mainstream United Nations dictates are in America or the push by leftist environmentalists to get their carbon footprint tax.  Most Americans do not desire to live such “locally centered lifestyles.” We love our cars, we love our roads, our cities, and we are not so much fond of village life, which most societies try to escape. We would like to be able to keep our mobility and freedom to go greater distances in search of the American dream. Trying to fashion 19th century lifestyles for the rest of us in the 21st century is not exactly the majority of Americans’ idea of progress.

Residents, in communist fashion, must abide by strict ecological standards for building, lighting, and landscaping. Perhaps they should include goats in their lawn management program. “Villagers” can only pick from six approved house plans and must build in clusters of one-third to three-quarter acre lots for a total of 14 houses. There are 14 more lots, nine of which are vacant and for sale at $80,000 a piece. How many middle-class Americans can afford to pay $80,000 for such a tiny piece of land?

“Villagers” planted 11,000 trees in order to replace flora with indigenous varieties. After all, according to National Geographic, any species of flora that are not local represents “biological imperialism.”

Planting trees is a laudable effort; it makes the area a “heaven for birds,” which prompted the Audubon Society to name the EcoVillage a Home Wildlife Sanctuary. “Eighty-five percent of its 90 acres are protected open space.” This brings me back to the United Nations Agenda 21 and the Biodiversity Plan which aim to make most land protected and unavailable to human use.

The founders of the village lived since 2001 in a “straw bale house with timber beams, encased in thick stucco walls.”  I remember living in my Grandma’s straw and mud house in the early sixties in communist Romania. It was a heaven for mice and rats who tunneled and made their homes inside the walls. We could hear busy rat stomping feet all night long.

A solar system on the roof of a typical EcoVillage home heats the house with a complicated system of pipes and switches and an electric backup, just in case the sun does not shine at all. Some homes have geothermal underground pipes and windows are strategically placed to capture more sun.

“Villagers” claim that their choices have not been about the money, implying that the costs were not effective. They are well-off people trying to escape “the traffic and congestion of Vienna,” an upscale town with homes in the millions of dollars.

Potluck suppers and tree planting parties are the life of the “village.” Adults and children are required to do monthly community service in the EcoVillage. It reminds me of our forced “volunteer” work we had to do in the communist dictatorship in Romania – 30 days in the fall, picking the crops, and 30 days in the spring, planting the crops. We were not given as much as water during the 10 hours of daily forced labor.

Americans care for their environment and have plans in place for tree planting in order to prevent deforestation. We do not wish to excessively pollute our environment and do our part to protect it. The capitalist free market does a good job of eliminating and weeding out companies who over pollute. The price system, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” intervenes magically.

EPA rules and regulations protect our soil, water, and air. We do not need to revert to medieval times of village living in order to protect the planet. The environmental promoters have planned huge economic gains from carbon footprint taxes.

Cap and trade has been defeated so far, yet the United Nations, supported by the Sierra Club and other NGOs, goes full-steam ahead to charge Al Gore’s carbon footprint taxes in total disregard of our laws and Congress.