Did I Read That Right?!

After all, Ed Morrissey isn’t known for hyperbole:

Hillary: Let the babies starve until we fund abortions

Alternate headline: Holding Starving Babies Hostage:

In their National Review column, Halpine and Pfundstein report that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wants that aid held hostage in order to push an abortion agenda:

On the agenda at the G8 summit in Canada is promoting maternal and infant health in the poorest parts of the globe.  The high rates of maternal and infant mortality in many countries are an impediment to democracy and social development, to say nothing of a human tragedy for these communities. Commitments of resources from the G8 countries to address these problems should be welcomed and commended. Why, then, is the Obama delegation threatening to derail these agreements? …

Given this, one would expect there to be universal support for Canada’s leadership in taking on these problems and working to meet these critical needs.  But the Obama administration is obstructing this positive consensus.  Hillary Clinton, when asked about Canada’s G8 plan to address infant and maternal health in the developing world, said the following: “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion.” …

“You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health.”

No funds for ze behbies, without funds for ze abortions, capiche?

That’s the Chicago way, right?

“If we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform.”

No border security for law abiding citizens without amnesty for illegals, capiche?

Ugh.

Disgusting, but not at all surprising.

Share

Raw Audio Of Al Gore’s Accuser’s Testimony

I’ve shied away from this story, because I thought the alleged victim’s story lacked credibility. She didn’t  press charges at the time,  (she expressed why during her testimony), and waited several years to sell her story to a tabloid.

But her testimony from January 2009  is compelling, and sounds convincing, to me, (despite the “Vice-Presidential fan fiction” nature in parts of it) The alleged incident took place in October, 2006:

Part One:

Read the rest of this entry »

2010 Kansas City 4th of July Tea Party Reminder

Please Note: This year’s tea party will be held on the 3rd.

KC Tea Party: “Proud To Be An American”, July 3rd, 2010


July 4th, 2009

Via: Political Chips, the Kansas City area’s premiere tea party organization:

Time: July 3, 2010 from 9am to 11am
Location: 127th and State Line, Correction: 135th and State Line
Event Type: celebration
Organized By: Political Chips

Let’s continue where we left off last year by lining both sides of State Line on July 3rd beginning at 9:00 a.m. Bring your patriotic signs, banners, and flags. Join us for a great time while honoring our Vets, Troops, and the greatest Country in the world.


You can find more free tea party sign artwork, here.

RELATED:

4th Of July Poke Cake Recipe



Share

Video: Elena Kagan And The Other Barak

This AUL video features Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, praising “the world’s most radical advocate for an agenda-driven judiciary,”  former Israeli Supreme Court justice, Aharon Barak, who is well known for his belief that judges may impose their own personal agenda upon others by changing the law:

Here’s Jeff Sessions on the Senate floor, commenting on Kagan’s lack of legal experience, her leftist political views, and most disturbingly, who her judicial heroes are:

See Americans United For Life (AUL) for more  on Kagan.

Hat tip: Juanell

Share

Sparks Fly On Neil Cavuto Show

Whoa.

AFL-CIO economist, Ron Blackwell called Cavuto an a**hole  (live on air), after Neil asked him if he got his degree at a “baking school” for “cooking up these numbers”…

Video at RCP.

H/T: markjuelich on Twitter.


Share

McChrystal Resignation A Blessing In Disguise

Was the whole awkward and embarrassing McChrystal affair, which culminated in his resignation, a blessing in disguise?

With the appointment of Petraeus as his replacement, and this report that the General is preparing to modify the rules of engagement in Afghanistan, “to make it easier for U.S. troops to engage in combat with the enemy”, I’d say, resoundingly, yes.

Troops on the ground and some military commanders have said the strict rules — aimed at preventing civilian casualties — have effectively forced the troops to fight with one hand tied behind their backs.

Petraeus spokesman Col. Eric Gunhus pushed back on the claim Friday, telling Fox News it’s too soon to tell whether Petraeus would change the current rules. But he said it is one of many issues he’ll take under consideration during his assessment after he’s confirmed and after he takes over command in Afghanistan.

Any adjustment to the rules of engagement does not mean the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan will change. President Obama stressed Wednesday — after he accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s resignation in the wake of a magazine article in which he and his staff were critical of the administration — that the change-up does not represent a shift in war policy.

Rather, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday that Petraeus, currently head of U.S. Central Command and the former U.S. commander in Iraq, will have the flexibility to reconsider “the campaign plan and the approach.”

Last October, I linked to this commentary – McChrystal’s Folly: Let Them Fight Or Bring Them Home, written by John Bernard, the father of  late Lance Corporal Joshua Bernard. Joshua Bernard is the soldier who, thanks to  the Associated Press, was last seen in a photo, bleeding to death after being mortally wounded by a Taliban rocket.

We have been listening to General McChrystal for some time now. His doctrine has become his mantra; integrate, integrate, integrate and, oh yeah protect the ‘innocent’ civilians – at all cost. The problem is the cost is the lives of the sons and daughters of the United States of America. I don’t mean to sound like I am disregarding the contributions and sacrifices of other NATO Nations but frankly; they aren’t our concern. The welfare of soldiers from other nations should be the concern of those nations whom they represent.

The General’s premise is that there are factions that are easily identified as friend or foe and that we need to defend the defenseless innocents of Afghanistan – at all cost, to assure their willing cooperation in the future and, along the way, build a whole new infrastructure for them. This makes for nice dreams but is just that; a dream. He cannot point to a single instance of general support for a non-Islamic force, on Afghan territory in the entire history of Afghanistan. All one might be able to do is find isolated incidents of occasional support in some remote corners of the operation of the time.

The fact is that all parties within the borders of Afghanistan agree with one another on the only level that really matters here and that is religious ideology. They are all Islamic and while you can make the case that some are more loyal to the tenets of the faith than others, the fact remains that they have more in common with one another than they do with the ‘Great Devil from the West’. When they do show support or at least cooperation it is a matter of convenience. All they understand is force. If you are the strong man in the back yard they will support you. If the Taliban has the upper hand (controls the battle space), they will support them.

Read the whole thing.

At long last, this folly is coming to an end.

Hat tip: Ace

Linked by Gateway Pundit and Sister Toldjah, thanks!


Share

Posted in GWOT. 2 Comments »

Senate Negotiators Approve Bank Bailout Bill/House Passes Disclose Act

Chief negotiators, Frank and Dodd, What could go wrong, right?

Don’t tell me Obama is failing just because of  his weak poll numbers. He’s been stunningly successful at passing a radical agenda thanks to Dem Socialist majorities in Congress, and Republicans will have much work to do to undo the damage when they take control, next year. And they will take control of at least the House.
True to form, the partisan bank bailout “compromise” occurred in the wee hours of the morning, spurring Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) to ask:  “Why is it that Congress always sees the need to raise taxes on the American people in the dead of night at 3 o’clock in the morning?”

The Politico reports:

An all-night House-Senate conference committee delivered President Barack Obama and Democrats a far-reaching and historic achievement Friday – a realignment of the rules that govern Wall Street and a second victory toward Obama’s legislative triple crown.

The compromise bill now goes to the House and Senate for approval. For all the messiness of the process, financial reform and March’s health care reform win cumulatively make clear Obama and Democrats are governing in consequential ways – and once again Friday, without a single Republican vote. The results make clear the argument over Obama is no longer whether he’s effective or not, but whether voters will like the results.

The agreement came at 5:39 a.m., after 20 straight hours of work in the committee, a marathon session that tested the negotiating skills, patience and endurance of several dozen lawmakers tasked with reconciling two competing approaches to reining in Wall Street.

But it left no doubt about the mark Obama has left on his twin Democratic majorities in Congress – reluctant, even recalcitrant at times, but in the end, doing his bidding to remake two of the most important sectors of the U.S. economy.

His hoped-for third act – a wide-ranging climate change and energy bill – is next on Obama’s docket, and absent these successes, it would be easy to believe there was simply no way he could bend Congress to his will yet again, with midterms looming, poll numbers sagging and the nation’s financial coffers tapped out.

Do not underestimate the abilities of this particular group of delusional Utopians, drunk with power. It’s now or never! Weeee!

H/T: Big Government.

Meanwhile, yesterday, the House passed the Disclose Act,  the Democrats’ big legislative “fix” to pushback against the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. It passed along partisan lines, 219-206, with  36 Democrats voting against it.

Mark Hemingway reported:

House Republican Leader John Boehner’s already declaring that the legislation will “Shred Our Constitution for Raw, Ugly, Partisan Gain.” Normally, I’d automatically dissmiss such a press release as hyperbole, but this time I’m not so sure. For one thing, the DISCLOSE Act does this:

A Democratic amendment tucked into campaign finance legislation Wednesday night also drew fire from Republicans and their allies, who contend it gives special treatment to Democrat-allied labor unions. The language in question would exempt from disclosure requirements transfers of cash from dues-funded groups to their affiliates to pay for certain election ads. It was inserted into the bill by Rep. Robert Brady (D-Pa.), chairman of the House Administration Committee and a big union backer.

So unions now get nearly unrestricted, undisclosed political spending. Further, the restrictions in the DISCLOSE Act only cut one way — against business.

LifeSite News:

With a political audacity that has become characteristic since the caustic health care debates, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted Thursday to approve a campaign finance disclosure bill that critics on both the left and the right say will disable grassroots political voices – including the nascent “Tea Party” movement that has been looking to sweep away liberal incumbents in November.

***

Should the Senate approve the DISCLOSE Act, and should it be signed into law by President Barack Obama, the act would take effect in 30 days, even if the Federal Elections Commission has not yet crafted new guidelines – just in time for the mid-term elections in November.

During the one-hour debate on the bill, Rep. Dan Lungren expressed outrage that unlike every other campaign finance bill passed by the House, this bill has no provision for expedited judicial review. He said the lack of such a provision makes it clear the DISCLOSE Act is meant to influence the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections.

He also expressed frustration that so little time was given the House to debate a matter impacting Americans’ First Amendment rights.

“We have spent 40 hours in this Congress naming post offices. Can’t we spend a little time protecting the Constitution of the United States?” Lungren exclaimed.

“We’re talking about political speech: the essence of the First Amendment.”

The Dems believe in political speech! Just more for some than others, that’s all.

Here’s John Boehner speaking on the House floor about the disparities in the bill, (starting at 1:50 in):

It’s going to be a long 4 months heading into November, folks.

See also:

Ken Klukowski at the Washington Examiner: DISCLOSE Act attacks freedom of speech

Dana Loesch: Dems Urge Socialist Takeover of Financial Sector

Quote of the day goes to Doug Powers:

I want to get these slimy jerks on an airplane, lock them in, tell them the plane was manufactured by a bunch of guys with a history of shady dealings, no experience in the airline industry and who were up all night, tell them “nobody knows if this will work until we’re airborne” and see how many of these worms wet themselves when the plane starts taxiing down the runway.

Word.

RELATED:

How the most transparent administration evah, operates:

The NYTs: Across From White House, Coffee With Lobbyists

Here at the Caribou on Pennsylvania Avenue, and a few other nearby coffee shops, White House officials have met hundreds of times over the last 18 months with prominent K Street lobbyists — members of the same industry that President Obama has derided for what he calls its “outsized influence” in the capital.

On the agenda over espressos and lattes, according to more than a dozen lobbyists and political operatives who have taken part in the sessions, have been front-burner issues like Wall Street regulation, health care rules, federal stimulus money, energy policy and climate control — and their impact on the lobbyists’ corporate clients.

But because the discussions are not taking place at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they are not subject to disclosure on the visitors’ log that the White House releases as part of its pledge to be the “most transparent presidential administration in history.”

Hat tip: Juanell

Share

Republican Congressman Leading Effort To Save “Son of Hamas”


Good News for Mosab Hassan Yousef, aka “Son Of Hamas”, aka “dead man walking”, who is scheduled to be deported back to the West Bank: The Weekly Standard reports that a Republican congressman has taken up his cause:

Rep. Doug Lamborn is leading an effort in the House of Representatives to gather support for Mosab Hassan Yousef, the son of a founder of Hamas who converted to Christianity, became an anti-Hamas informer, and is now living in the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security, incredibly, is opposing his application for political asylum.

Yousef, himself once a member of Hamas, is not a jihadist. In fact, he’s quite the opposite, having had both a religious and a political conversion. He’s now living in San Diego, but his stay in America could end shortly (he’s been here around three years). It all hinges on whether he’s granted political asylum by American officials. Right now, the Department of Homeland Security is against this designation, in part it seems, because the government agency has misread his remarkable tell-all memoir, Son of Hamas.

In the book, Yousef tells his story. He experienced a sort of epiphany, turning against Hamas and his family, to become a key informant for the Israeli intelligence agency the Shin Bet. The intelligence he provided allowed Israeli officials to prevent acts of terror, saving many innocent lives. The DHS interprets his book as proof that he has ties to terrorist organizations.

If Yousef were to be deported, and returned to the West Bank, there’s little question that he would end up on a Hamas hit list.

Lamborn has written a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, with signatories from the House that include, Trent Franks, Cynthia Lummis, Bill Posey, Kenny Marchant, Rob Bishop, John Kline, and John Shadegg. The full text of the letter can be read at The Weekly Standard.

PREVIOUSLY:

Please Fight to Save Mosab Yousef

Hat tip: Weasel Zippers: GOP Rep. Doug Lamborn Leading Congressional Effort to Stop Obama Admin From Deporting Son of Hamas Founder Who Spied for Israel, Converted to Christianity…


Share

Thursday Oil Spill Blog Links

Ramirez cartoon via Lucianne

CFP: Our Lazy President:

I’m starting to get the feeling that President Obama is no workaholic.

His much trumpeted “War on Petroleum” speech in the Oval Office last week fell flat to most listeners, regardless of political affiliation, because our “genius”, Harvard educated President made it clear to the entire world that he knew less about the Gulf spill than the average 10th grader.

What has this man been doing with his time for the past two months?

You’d think by now Obama would at least have something intelligent to say about containment booms, or sand berms, or the Jones Act, or flow rates, or the coming hurricane season and its possible effects on the cleanup effort.

Sen. George Lemieux had this to say about a recent talk with Obama: “He doesn’t seem to know the situation about foreign skimmers (or) domestic skimmers.”

No kidding.

Gateway Pundit: It Begins… Plans to Evacuate Tampa Bay Are Put Into Place …Update: Pensacola Beach Closed

Gateway Pundit: Last Week: Gov. Charlie Crist Praises Obama’s Handling of Gulf Oil Spill… This Week: Oil Closes Pensacola Beach & Threatens Tampa Bay

Christian Science Monitor: In Gulf oil spill ‘war,’ cleanup foot soldiers threaten mutiny

Sing along with BO’s Oil Spill’s Blog:


(We All Live With) Obama’s Oil Spill

In the Gulf where it was born,
Lived an oil spill that fouled the sea,
And they tried to end its life,
But they were useless, BP,

So He golfed and took vacation,
Then He ate to get his fill,
And the crisis spun out of control,
And now we call it His oil spill,

We all live with Obama’s oil spill,
Obama’s oil spill, Obama’s oil spill,
We all live with Obama’s oil spill,
Obama’s oil spill, Obama’s oil spill.

Finish singing at the link.

MORE:

The Most Important Gulf Update on the Oil Spill that You Will See

Zero Does Nero

Judge Faces Death Threats After BP Gulf Oil Drilling Moratorium Ruling

Doug Ross: Judge Martin Feldman slapped down the federal government’s second request to resume an offshore drilling ban on 33 deep-water rigs in the Gulf.

“Get that weak sh** outta here, cowboy Ken.”

Share

Video: Chris Christie Rules Out Run For POTUS

Neil Cavuto interviewed Chris Christie, yesterday, and asked if he was interested in a run for President.

Christie, with his typical bluntness, said he didn’t want it, and didn’t feel he was ready for it. You’ll enjoy the reaction of the audience when Cavuto mentions the fact that he has more experience now, than the current occupant of the White House:

You know what I like about Chris Christie?

Everything.

Here’s the rest of the interview:

Read the rest of this entry »

Sharia In America

Watch this, and tell me there’s not something rotten going on in the state of Dearborn:

You know what? At every St. Patrick’s Day parade I’ve gone to here in Kansas City, there have been evangelists passing out anti-Catholic literature to the parade goers. Not merely bible tracts, like the evangelists in Dearborn were passing out, but literature specifically critical of the Catholic Church’s teachings.

Are these people annoying? Of course.

Have I ever once wished that the police would stop them and arrest them for annoying me? God, no. This is a free country, they have every right to do that.

Except in Dearbornistan.

The Thomas More Law Center has taken the case, and Allahpundit says:

Note to the defendants: Don’t forget to ask for damages. A lot of damages.

A message needs to be sent. Islamic intolerance will not be tolerated in the United States of America..

UPDATE:

Atlas Shrugs has much more, including : Chuck Johnson says there is “almost no difference between fanatics like acts17 and the Taliban.”

Proving once again, that liberalism is a mental disorder.

Share

Republicans Still Rule On Twitter

File this one under “Epic Fail”.

The Democrats awkwardly started a snarky trending topic today on Twitter; WWRD? (What would Republicans do?)….unintended hilarity ensued, as The Hill reported:

This morning, the House Democratic Caucus tweeted: Scary exercise: What Would Republicans Do (#WWRD) w/a majority in Congress? Shed light on R policies: suggest your own!

So, House Dems got together and said, “let’s mock Republicans on Twitter! That will make us more popular!”

Democrats followed with three posts, saying that Joe Barton “would side w/ Big Oil,” Republicans “want to end funding for PBS and NPR,” and that Republicans “want to repeal HCR consumer protections.”

LOL!: Joe Barton would “side with Big Oil” ? Who’s writing their tweets, Alvin Green? That sounds suspiciously like Green’s debut tweets, last week, (only he didn’t capitalize “Big Oil”):

Sen DeMint ok with risking disaster off of south carolina coast. I will fight for our coast, for people of sc. DeMint fights for big oil.

Sen DeMint fights for big oil http://bit.ly/a18V9z

Nice to know they’re all using the same lame playbook.

“Republicans “want to end funding for PBS and NPR” : Is there a problem with that?

Republicans “want to repeal HCR consumer protections.” Hell yes, we want to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

Those were supposed to be criticisms?

Pwnage ensued when Republican House members started using the hashtag:

More than 11 Republican lawmakers have responded, including House Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.). Reps. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) and Peter Roskam (R-Ill.) turned the discussion to the budget.

McHenry tweeted: @HouseDemocrats What Would Repubs Do w/ majority in Congress? Well, pass a budget for one… “If u can’t budget, u can’t govern” #WWRD

Roskam continued: #WWRD? Does your family make a budget every year? @HouseDemocrats just decided it was too hard to make one for USA in 2010

Since 11 a.m., both messages have been retweeted more than 20 times by other Republican House members. So far, no Democrats have replied.

Of course not. Dems can’t handle the truth.

A couple more:

@donmanzullo (Congressman Don Manzullo represents the 16th Congressional District in Illinois):

#WWRD? Cut spending instead of raising taxes on Americans already struggling because of disastrous job-killing policies.

@repcharlesdjou (Rep Charles Djou representing Hawaii’s First Congressional District):

#WWRD Pass a budget, like it’s been done every year since modern budget rules were enacted. Not to budget but keep spending is irresponsible

I like how @HillsdaleForum thinks:

Use the Dem’s #wwrd hashtag to tell them “What Republicans Would Do” if they take over in November #tcot #tlot #sgp #teaparty #gop

SEE ALSO: Human Events: The House Democratic Caucus Fails On Twitter

RELATED:

Boehner Releases “ObamaCare: Three Months of Broken Promises” Report

43 pages.

Previous Dem Fails:

New Low: DNC Urges Supporters To Battle Sarah Palin On Facebook

DNC Website Hosts Anti-Rush Slogan Contest

Share

Video: Obama Announces McChrystal’s Resignation

Whether or not you agree with Obama on the question of whether McChrystal’s Rolling Stone interview undermined the civilian control of the military, (and I tend to agree that it did), this incident is a great example of the sort of thing that gets this particular President exercised.

Note: President Barack Obama was “angry” after reading Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s remarks about colleagues in a Rolling Stone article, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday.

The Bookworm Room has a great post, today, comparing issues the President responds to apathetically,  to the things that make him angry.

The sorts of issues the President coasted on, include:

The Green Revolution in Iran, The Gulf Oil Spill, The Iranian Nuclear Bomb, The cratering economy, The Fort Hood Massacre, The two front war (Iraq and Afghanistan) that America is engaging in against Islamic jihad, Continued Islamic jihad directed at the American home front.

The issues that make him ass-kicking mad:

State efforts to stem the terrible criminal and economic consequences of uncontrolled federal borders, Israel’s efforts to stem the terrible genocidal consequences of Hamas on her borders, and The military’s deep concern at the fact that the Obama White House is mishandling our two front war in Iraq and Afghanistan:

Huge, earth-shaking things have been going on around the world, and Obama has acted in a bizarrely passive (or, sometimes, passive-aggressive) way.  But General McChrystal does a rather foolish interview in Rolling Stone, and suddenly Obama is all action.

And let’s not forget Obama’s anger at Honduras for defying Washington’s dictates during the Zelaya affair.

Make what you will of it.

UPDATE:

The Blogging Professor has another example of angry Obama from a few years ago:

General Stanley McChrystal out, replaced by Petraeus, whom Obama blasted for 7 minutes at Congressional hearings when he was a Senator

It should be noted that when the Senate voted to condemn the Moveon.org General Betray-us ad, Sept 2007, Captain Kick-Ass voted “present”:

The resolution condemning the ad was sponsored by conservative Republican John Cornyn of Texas. Voting against it were Democratic presidential hopefuls Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, another contender for the Democratic nomination, did not vote, although he voted minutes earlier for an alternative resolution by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.

RELATED:

Someone else thinking along the same lines:

Doug Ross: Ain’t it intriguing that the only time the President makes a snap decision is when his oh-so-tender ego gets bruised?

People notice these things.

Share

Video: Obama’s Chicago Network

Teehee…my favorite part comes at :43 secs in:

Drama!

Hat tip: Freedom’s Lighthouse

Share

The George Soros – Drilling Moratorium Connection

This administration is a nightmare.

Obama’s decision to impose a six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling in the gulf penalizes companies with better safety records than BP’s and will result in many  drilling rigs being sent to offshore oil fields in Brazil or Africa, perhaps never to come back.

Drilling suspension will result in a loss of thousands of Louisiana jobs in the first two to three weeks and possibly over 10,000 in a few months.

Michael Barone called it, “ineffective thuggery”:

The justification offered was an Interior Department report supposedly “peer reviewed” by “experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.” But it turned out the drafts the experts saw didn’t include any recommendation for a moratorium. Eight of the cited experts have said they oppose the moratorium as more economically devastating than the oil spill and “counterproductive” to safety.

This was blatant dishonesty by the administration, on an Orwellian scale. In defense of a policy that has all the earmarks of mindless panic, that penalizes firms and individuals guilty of no wrongdoing and that will worsen rather than improve our energy situation. Ineffective thuggery.

Now, via FrontPageMagazine, we’re beginning to see the reason for the ineffective thuggery. As always with this administration – there’s a method to its madness:

Within 48 hours after President Obama issued the six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling, the George Soros-backed Brazilian oil company, Petrobras, contacted a large New Orleans company, Laborde Marine, which services the deep-water drilling market. The company was seeking to lease all its vessels. “If the moratorium on deep-water drilling is not lifted, 33 semi-submersible rigs and/or drill ships affected will simply go to other countries where they will be well received, such as Brazil,” Cliffe F. Laborde and J. Peter Laborde, Jr. wrote in a June 4 letter to their Louisiana Senators.

Could this be merely a happy coincidence for George Soros, the major financial backer of Obama’s presidential campaign who also has $811 million invested in the Brazilian oil company, Petrobras? Wasn’t it enough of a payback to Soros when the Obama Administration loaned up to $10 billion to Petrobras? Soros, with his far left-wing organization, MoveOn, is called the Godfather of world socialism. But most relevant currently is that he has been an enthusiastic proponent of global warming and environmental liberalism. He has urged adoption of a global carbon tax. Could it be more than coincidence that his position is strikingly similar to what Obama called for in his June 14 Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil spill and future energy actions?

Read the full report.

Glenn Beck covered the story on his show, Tuesday:

Read the rest of this entry »

  • Blog Stats

    • 4,473,575 hits
  • free counters
  • Is your cat plotting to kill you?
  • Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 464 other followers

    %d bloggers like this: