TPP: Obama’s Secret Deal to Sell America Out

Have you heard of the TPP–Trans Pacific Partnership? If not, you are not alone. According to Wikileaks, Obama is in secret talks with large global corporations to sell America out. This is just further proof that the man in the White House is not who his followers think he is.

Watch and listen:

Advertisements

Obama’s Uncle and Immigration Reform

Barack Obama’s Uncle Onyango (Omar) Obama could complicate the immigration reform bill. Omar came to the United States in 1963 on a student visa. He overstayed his welcome and is still here. At a public immigration hearing this week, Judge Leonard Shapiro granted Uncle Omar legal residency, citing his good moral character and a federal statute that grandfathers in some immigrants who came to the U.S. before 1972.

Did Omar’s last name have anything to do with the judge’s decision? Did Omar’s casual mention during the hearing that not only had President Obama met him, but he had lived with him for about three weeks in the 1980s (after Omar’s visa had expired, and he was living here illegally) have anything to do with the decision?

We don’t know the answer to that, and to try to put an answer on it is pure speculation. What we do know is that the “good moral character” cited by the judge might be stretching the definition somewhat. In August 2011, Uncle Omar was pulled over in Framingham, Mass., for driving under the influence. His arrest revealed both several outstanding orders for his deportation and his relationship to the president. Shortly after the arrest, Uncle Omar reportedly told the police, “I think I will call the White House.”

The White House told the Boston Globe in November 2011, just as the 2012 election was kicking into gear, that there was no record that Obama had ever met his uncle. Another lie? Seems like it, but, sadly, there are just too many to count any more. On Thursday the White House issued a correction, confirming that the president stayed with Omar briefly when he moved to Cambridge to attend Harvard Law School.

“After that, they saw each other once every few months, but after law school they fell out of touch,” said White House spokesman Eric Schultz. “The president has not seen him in 20 years, has not spoken with him in 10.”

Later on Thursday Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked about the WH backpedaling on the issue of Omar Obama. In the video below you can see Jay Carney doing what he does best…the Carney spin dance.” Sometimes I…almost…feel sorry for the guy. But, then, reality sets in. He is paid, by taxpayer funds, to lie for Obama.

This is another embarrassment for Obama and his administration. Just as he is making a push for immigration reform (his goal for his second term), his uncle receives a green card after living in our country illegally for 43 years.

The White House says Omar Obama was granted legal residency “without any interference from the president or the White House,” notes New York’s Joe Coscarelli, wryly adding: “As if the heads of those inclined to believe otherwise hadn’t already exploded in rage.”

It’s safe to say that many conservatives aren’t buying the White House’s explanation. “If you believe Jay Carney, the original denial was issued based on documentary evidence,” says Daniel Greenfield at FrontPage. “Also if you believe Jay Carney, the moon is made of pure hopium and so is Barack Obama.” Hot Air’s Allahpundit is only a little more polite:

Who are you going to believe? A man who cheated to stay in the U.S. illegally, or the president of the United States? Right. Believe the illegal. [Hot Air]

So, why does the case of Omar Obama matter when it comes to Immigration Reform?  House Speaker John Boehner (R Ohio) needs a sizable number of Conservative Republicans to believe that immigration reform will be good for the GOP, and the country.  If Conservatives believe that ‘Obama is gaming the system to pull in his previously undocumented Kenyan-born uncle, that will make voting for any immigration reform that much harder of a sell.’

If you think that a minor episode of White House crow-eating over President Obama’s absentee father’s half-brother seems an unlikely event to derail a major piece of legislation, you may be right.  But consider this.  The same immigration judge made the decision to grant asylum to Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango — Uncle Omar’s sister — in 2010.

And Uncle Omar has been nominated as a symbol of Obama’s immigration policy before. Here’s Tom Fitton, president of the influential conservative group Judicial Watch, a month after Oyango Obama’s 2011 arrest:

President Obama’s “Uncle Omar” is the face of what is wrong with the Obama administration’s lawless and dangerous approach to illegal immigration. Instead of being deported, as the law requires, Uncle Omar was allowed to roam the streets and endanger the lives of innocent people, including a law enforcement officer. [Judicial Watch, via WND]

View this article on TheWeek.com

 

Hillary: A Generation Too Late

121020115217-37-hillary-clinton-1020-horizontal-galleryHillary Clinton–a familiar name, an ofttimes battered name.  The woman is to be respected for her climb through the maze of politics.  I think we can all agree that it is still not easy for a woman, but Hillary has gained strides for all of us of the “weaker” sex.  For that I give her a nod of approval.

Does my approval extend to a Hillary Clinton presidency?  A resounding NO!  She is a lifetime politician, who will continue the progressive agenda of Barack Obama.  In my opinion she did not make a name for herself as Secretary of State.  Look at the condition of our foreign affairs.  Could it be any worse?  Look at Benghazi.  That event alone should keep her out of the White House.  The terrible events of that day in Benghazi rests heavily on Hillary’s shoulders, and no one should ever forget it.

As a Conservative/Republican, I have many reasons for not wanting Hillary Clinton to be elected to the office of the president in 2016.  Although I do not agree with all of the sentiments in the article I’m posting below, it adds a new dimension to the argument.

Hillary, don’t run for president

By James Moore, Special to CNN
updated 9:59 AM EDT, Wed September 25, 2013
James C. MooreEditor’s note:  James C. Moore, a Texan, is a business consultant and partner at Big Bend Strategies. He is co-author of “Bush’s Brain:  How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential” and a TV political analyst.
Nobody is saying the former secretary of state, New York senator, U.S. and Arkansas first lady, and Yale-trained attorney is not qualified for the White House.  In fact, she may have one of the most impressive resumes to ever be submitted for the job.  Clinton has a breadth of experience that indicates she has every capability needed to be president of the United States.
But it is time for America to move on.
The first argument against another Clinton candidacy is generational.  Baby boomers need to release their arthritic fingers from the torch of leadership and pass it off to another generation.  Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama will have accounted for 24 years of the presidency by 2016, which seems more than sufficient.  Clinton’s election potentially extends boomer influence in a manner that risks creating a generation gap that further increases political disaffection among young voters.
Age is another important consideration, regardless of howls of outrage on this question by her supporters.  Clinton would be 69 when she raised her right hand for the oath of office.  She would be the second-oldest person to become president — younger than Ronald Reagan by several months. 
The pressures of the White House amplify the afflictions of time.  Arguably, an optimal president combines an earned wisdom and natural intellect with the residual energy of youth.  No one does this by turning 70 during their first year as president, which would by Clinton’s status.
How long can Hillary Clinton wait?
Although doctors pronounced her perfectly healthy after a recent scare with a blood clot on the brain, the probabilities of geriatric disease in office are very real for someone who might be 77 at the end of a second term.
Reagan’s comportment during his last years suggests that he had already begun moving behind the veil of Alzheimer’s.  This is not ageism.  An accumulation of years defines our range of capabilities, physically and intellectually, and the Clintons as well as the nation need to confront the question of whether a person in their mid-70’s is the best to serve as president.  The obvious answer is no.
There is, nonetheless, no underestimating the cultural importance of the first female president and the glory it will bestow upon history’s grandest democracy.  The Democratic Party, too, will have an interest in being the political organization that gave the country its first female as well as African=American presidents.
Clinton, who is properly positioned with experience, has other challenges that impede her getting a chapter in future textbooks as the first woman in the Oval Office.
America is weary of limited political choices and dynasties.  A second Clinton presidency might culminate in 28 years of Clinton-Bush control.  We are, more than even, a nation that desperately needs to renew itself with what is different and hopeful and visionary.  Unfortunately, there is too much that is predictable with a second Clinton candidacy.
No one needs a time machine to look into the future and see the grainy video in TV attack ads with a baritone voice rattling on about Benghazi or mumblings about how her husband enriched himself by accumulating a net worth of $55 million since leaving office.
Hillary on possible presidency:  “I’m realistic.’
“Don’t the Clintons have enough?” the voice would ask.  “And hasn’t America had enough of the Clintons?”
In spite of the fact that Clinton’s accomplishments as secretary of state are significant, including diplomatic efforts that averted a war between Israel and Hamas, she is likely to be forced to endure campaign onslaughts accusing her of character flaws for forgiving her husband’s indiscretions, which means the electorate probably has to endure at least some painful flashbacks.
This is not, however, a recommendation to back away from a fight.  Clinton has proved that her political knuckles are toughened with gristle, and she can skillfully marginalize absurd allegations from her opponents.  Instead of running and winning a fierce campaign, there might be a more honorable endeavor for the former secretary of state.
There is always a right moment to leave the stage, and failing to recognize that timing can lead to a lingering image that, in the longer term, overwhelms the accomplishments of a person in the prime of their powers.
Hillary Clinton can make a gracious exit.  Yes, she has every right to run for president and is brilliantly qualified for the job.  That does not mean, however, she is the best person at this time in American’s narrative.
There is also nothing inexorable about anyone’s presidential candidacy, regardless of how vehemently it is argued by Clinton’s backers.  Presumptive candidacies, which appear initially like logical choices that are the consequence of devotion and hard politics, often tend toward failure.  The Dole, McCain and Romney nominations, presumed candidates with generationally disconnected politics, have sundered the GOP’s power for possibly decades.
Running for president because it is expected and seems like an obvious decision are clearly not the right motivations.
Clinton’s service to her country has already transcended even the starry-eyed youthful dreams she shared with her husband.  Beyond her time in office as U.S. senator, and as secretary of state, and as counsel to Bill during his presidency, the namesake foundation she leads with her husband and daughter is having a profound impact in this country and internationally, facilitating education, health care and nutritional programs.  That nonprofit needs her guidance and initiative.  America, though, is ready for different choices representing a new generation for president.
Don’t run, Hillary.