ET Williams

The Doctor of Common Sense

Blog

by

Even Occupy Knows Obama IS Doing A Bad Job

I'm An Occupy Idiot

Numerous protesters at yesterday’s Occupy Wall Street rally in New York City viciously blasted President Obama as a horrible failure, signaling a major break from a liberal base that once celebrated Obama’s lofty rhetoric of hope and change.

“I feel that Obama, especially on the civil liberties perspective, has raped me in the a–,” admitted a shirtless man who donned a purple flower in his hair. “I’m not very happy with his job in the slightest.”

The disillusioned demonstrator, who identified himself as a financial analyst, went on to scold Obama for capitulating to Wall Street bankers and global monetary interests.

“The guy freaks me out a little bit,” the man said. “I’m not going to lie. He’s pretty, and we all think we did something because of his color, and I don’t discount that, but for f—k’s sake, he scares the hell out of me.”

The growing dissatisfaction among the president’s most liberal supporters could make November’s election more competitive, as former Obama diehards stay home instead of casting a ballot in his favor.

Other Occupy protesters—who spent the majority of Tuesday cluttering city streets in a series of disorganized mass demonstrations celebrating May Day—accused the president of behaving like a “Nazi,” a charge that could be found particularly offensive in light of accusations that a cohort of Occupy sympathizers are anti-Semitic.

“I voted for Obama, and it was a big mistake,” said one protestor who lofted a sign equating Obama with a swastika symbol. “I’m very angry about it. Obama is murdering thousands of people throughout the world with his drone strikes.”

The occupier accused Obama of having the same foreign policy priorities as his predecessor, George W. Bush.“The foreign policy between Bush and Obama is the same. He hasn’t changed,” he said. “[Obama] did talk like a Nazi in the campaign, but you gotta vote for a black president, which I did, but I will never again vote for a Democrat, not even for dog catcher.”

Even supporters of New York’s labor unions lamented what they described as the president’s multiple shortcomings.

“I feel that President Obama has betrayed us, has broken every promise that he made,” said one man sporting a cap that read, Local 338. “The change that he promised didn’t happen. The only economic change that happened was for the one percent. Every promise he has broken.”

An elderly female activist who identified herself as a former supporter of the president charged that he is “killing the teachers” and “killing the kids” by failing to enact wide-ranging educational reforms.

“I no longer put my hopes there,” she said. “I wish I could, but I can’t.”

Asked directly if the president had let her down, the woman hung her head and lamented, “Let’s say so. Let’s say so.”

Other demonstrators expressed their disappointment by carrying signs that were highly critical of the president’s policy choices.

One referred to the president as “Ali baba Obama” and labeled him a “political gangster” who should “keep your bloody hands off Libia [sic], N. Korea, Arabias [sic], Cuba.”

During a ceremony in Union Square, an elderly man wearing a “Canada kicks ass” t-shirt and an Adidas sweatband told the Free Beacon that Obama’s policies could cause a “revolution.”

“The problem is, how can [Obama] stand up against the economic system?” he asked. “I think that’s going to take a major revolution and hopefully it will be peaceful, but there are no guarantees.”

Though protests in New York City remained mostly peaceful, Occupy supporters in other states went on multiple rampages, damaging property as part of a mission whose goal remains unclear.

http://freebeacon.com/occupy-hope-and-change/

by

Remember What Obama Told Medvedev about Missile Defense

2 Communist Brothers

The United States does not expect an agreement with Russia this year to settle a dispute about a U.S.-backed plan to place an anti-ballistic missile shield in countries around Europe, according to the senior U.S. government officials leading a U.S. delegation to a missile defense conference in Moscow this week.

The admission comes just over a month after President Barack Obama unknowingly spoke into an open microphone to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev saying he would have “more flexibility” to negotiate on missile defense after the U.S. elections.

The U.S. officials now openly acknowledge there will be no agreement this year.

Speaking to reporters on the phone from Russia on Wednesday, Ellen Tauscher, the U.S. special envoy for strategic stability and missile defense, and Madelyn Creedon, assistant secretary of defense for global and strategic affairs, said because the United States is in an election year and Russia is just coming out of one, there is too much uncertainty for there to be an agreement.

“I think it’s pretty clear that this is a year in which we are not going to achieve any sort of a breakthrough, and President Obama and President Medvedev agreed to let the technical experts to do the work of better understanding our respective decisions,” Tauscher said.

The two are in Moscow to attend a missile defense conference hosted by the Russian Ministry of Defense, where the United States plans to again make its case to Russia.

Russia has long said early warning missile detection radars and anti-ballistic missiles would undermine its strategic nuclear deterrent, but the United States has maintained that the system is not designed to target Russian nuclear missiles but a ballistic missile threat from the Middle East, such as Iran.

The United States and NATO have been in discussions with the Russians, explaining how the system will work and trying to alleviate their worries about the system, according to Tauscher. Russia has also been invited to be a part of the shield because the missile threat from the Middle East could involve them as well, according to Tauscher and Creedon.

“The system we are deploying in Europe to defend our European allies and the United States against a Middle East threat is not oriented against Russia, We feel very confident that it would be a game changer,” Creedon said alluding to an improvement in relations between the two countries if Russia did agree to the missile shield deployment.

But missile defense and NATO experts say Russia has long considered NATO a national security threat and has been making excuses for years to try to stall the missile shield’s deployment.

“The Russians have been uncomfortable with the whole endeavor and (are) not keen to see it go forward in an alliance context,” said Damon Wilson, executive vice president of the Atlantic Council and a former special assistant to the president on the National Security Council.

“At the end of the day, they (Russia) will only come around to negotiate a deal with NATO when this is absolutely inevitable,” Wilson said.

Russia has also proposed a legally binding agreement for the United States to sign that would hold NATO to using the anti-missile system for a Middle East ballistic missile threat and not retune it to use against Russian missiles.

“We cannot agree to any limitations on our missile defense deployments,” Tauscher said, referring to Russia’s proposal.

“We do not want to be limited on our system by Russia that is not even about Russia,” according to Wilson.

“Negotiating a legally binding agreement with the Russians that are unilateral where the restrictions are on the U.S. side over a system that is strategically not related to Russia takes you down a very difficult and dangerous policy path,” Wilson continued.

An anti-missile radar is already in place in Turkey, and the United States is planning to keep moving forward despite Russian concerns.

“There is nothing that I can imagine that will stop us from making those deployments on time,” Tauscher said.

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/02/russia-and-nato-still-at-odds-over-missile-shield/

by

Ann Coulter on Illegal immigration

On no issue is the elite/American divide so great as on immigration. For decades, a majority of Americans have wanted to decrease immigration. Not just illegal immigration — all immigration.

Nearly three times as many Americans support reducing immigration as want it to stay the same, according to Gallup polls. A grand total of 5 percent of the population want to increase legal immigration — 10 times less than want to decrease it. I myself would like to deport the people responsible for our current immigration policies.

Our official policy is to turn away scientists in order to make room for illiterate Pakistani peasants who will drop out of high school to man coffee carts until deciding to plot a terrorist attack against the United States. That’s this week’s immigration poster boy, Najibullah Zazi.

Zazi’s own step-uncle said of him: “He was a dumb kid, believe me.” Our immigration officials said, WELCOME, ZAZI!… Oops, sorry Swedish scientists and nuclear engineers — no room for you.

In February, Zazi pleaded guilty in a plot to bomb the New York City subway.

One of his co-conspirators, Zarein Ahmedzay, was welcomed from Afghanistan to America because he was willing to do a job no American would: drive a cab. Where are you going to find an American with a driver’s license?

This week, a third accomplice, Adis Medunjanin, was convicted in the subway conspiracy. Medunjanin came from Bosnia and became an American citizen — a priceless gift to The New York Times, which was then able to begin its article on his convictions: “An American citizen was convicted of a host of terrorism charges on Tuesday …”

For this we can thank the late, lamented Teddy Kennedy, who altered our immigration laws in 1965 to ensure massive immigration from the Third World while severely limiting the number of Europeans who could come here.

And that’s legal immigration. When it comes to illegal immigration, Americans are in a sputtering rage about politicians’ obtuse refusal to address the problem.

Democrats look at immigration as a way to increase their voter rolls, and Republicans look at immigration as a way to get cheap labor for big business. Any Americans who disagree with our all-Third World immigration flow are called “racists.”

This is why Democrats and establishment Republicans are desperate to talk Mitt Romney into flip-flopping on his immigration positions. He’s with Americans.

n a novel thought, Romney proposes that we grant citizenship to people who would make America a better place, repeatedly saying that he would like to “staple a green card” to the diplomas of foreigners who receive Ph.D.s in math or the hard sciences. He may be the first national politician in two generations who thinks we should use legal immigration to get our average up.

It would be as if the University of North Carolina recruited only the top basketball players in the county, instead of — out of fairness — taking players of all skill levels, and their relatives. What? They already do that? Way to go, Carolina!

Romney is also one of the few politicians who acknowledge the danger of creating magnets for more illegal aliens streaming across the border.

During a primary debate last September, Romney said simply: “Of course we build a fence, and of course we do not give in-state tuition credits to people who come here illegally. That only attracts people to come here and take advantage of America’s great beneficence.” (These are the positions he took and enforced as governor of one of the most liberal states in the country.)

I would add that the absolute worst thing we could do is grant citizenship to illegal immigrant children brought here by their parents — as the various DREAM acts do. What stronger magnet could we devise than offering citizenship to a person’s children? (The parents will then become citizens, anyway, under our phony “family reunification” policy.)

Instead of drafting bills, such as the DREAM act, to give illegal aliens benefits, can’t we all agree that the very first thing we have to do is seal the border? Otherwise, it’s like mopping the floor before turning off the bathtub spigot.

First, turn off spigot; second, mop floor.

And surely no one wants any immigrants coming here and immediately going on welfare. (That would be like North Carolina actively recruiting the blind for their basketball team.) Can’t we all agree not to give immigrants government handouts?

Starting with those two policies is not only logical, but will force Democrats to admit they have no intention of ever blocking the border. Their dearest desire is for immigrants to arrive, become dependent on government and start voting Democratic.

http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2012/05/02/deport_the_gop_establishment

by

Obama Abuses His Powers Again

I'm God - Worship Me

 

President Obama regularly misuses executive power, often nakedly in the service of his political interests.

Last week, two examples of his imperial ways drew public attention. First, a Government Accountability Office study knocked the Department of Health and Human Services for inappropriately spending Obamacare money to delay the law’s politically dangerous Medicare cuts — until after the election. Meanwhile, congressional Republicans complained on the House floor about IRS harassment of Tea Party groups.

Here’s the Medicare slush fund story:

In 2010, Democrats were crowing that Obamacare would reduce the deficit. Under official budget scoring, the bill’s $940 billion in new spending over a decade was more than paid for by a trillion dollars in new taxes and spending cuts.

Obamacare got some of its alleged savings by cutting Medicare spending by $500 billion. Republicans — hypocritically, given their constant attacks on “government-run health care” — made political hay over the Medicare cuts. Republicans know that seniors vote, and they like their Medicare.

Specifically, 12 million seniors use a program called Medicare Advantage, under which the government pays private insurers to cover seniors.

Medicare Advantage customers typically have more options, and at times more coverage, than standard Medicare customers. But the Obama administration said Medicare was overpaying the private insurers, and so the architects of Obamacare slashed $136 billion from Medicare Advantage to offset the cost of Obamacare.

The Medicare Advantage cuts were to begin in 2013, which would cause many insurers to pull out of the program, thus driving seniors into regular Medicare. So much for “if you like your plan, you can keep it.”

The New York Post’s Benjamin Sasse and Charlie Hurt explained the awkward details of timing: “Open enrollment [for 2013 Medicare Advantage] begins Oct. 15, less than three weeks before voters go to the polls.” So Obamacare would kick seniors out of their Medicare program three weeks before Obama’s re-election.

That, of course, would be politically damaging. So Obama simply took $8.35 billion from a Obamacare fund for “demonstration projects” and used it to delay the brunt of the Medicare Advantage cuts until after the election.

The GAO last week pointed out the extraordinary nature of this “demonstration.” The program “dwarfs all other Medicare demonstrations — both mandatory and discretionary — conducted since 1995,” the GAO stated.

And the GAO made it pretty clear that this slush fund trick looks little like a “demonstration” of anything. “The design of the demonstration precludes a credible evaluation of its effectiveness,” the GAO report stated, concluding it is “unlikely that the demonstration will produce meaningful results.”

But the Obama administration is looking for a different sort of “meaningful results” — more votes on Election Day. So the Department of Health and Human Services stood firm when the GAO recommended scrapping this spurious demonstration.

The administration’s sleight of hand on Medicare Advantage fits a pattern of Obamacare provisions that were abandoned when they were shown to be unworkable. What makes the Medicare gambit more distressing is that Obama is using taxpayer money for political purposes.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/medicare-slush-fund-shows-obamas-abuse-power/510121

by

Chinese Man under U.S. Protection after exposing China’s Forced Abortion

 

Exposing China’s Forced Abortion
Exposing China’s Forced Abortion

A Chinese activist who exposed force abortions and other atrocities in his home country has escaped house arrest in his province and is under the protection of U.S. officials, a Christian human rights group said Saturday.

The announcement about blind activist Chen Guangcheng by the Texas- based China Aid group comes just days before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to visit Beijing.

The 40-year-old Chen exposed forced the abortions and sterilizations in Chinese villages that are part of the country’s one-child policy.

He fled April 22 from his guarded home in Shandong province in eastern China. Activists said local supporters took Chen away by car, then delivered him others who brought him to Beijing.

Chen had been held in him home since his release from prison in September 2010.

Neither the United States nor China has not confirmed the reports of Chen’s fleeing or his whereabouts.

However, ChinaAid President Bob Fu told Fox News on Saturday he has confirmed reports that Chen is under diplomatic protection in Beijing and that officials are involved in “high-level negotiations about the next step.”

Fu hopes Chen’s departure will be a catalyst for large talks about human rights conditions in China, regardless what happens before Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner visit there Thursday and Friday for talks on global economics and topics including the violence in Sudan.

“Given Mrs. Clinton’s repeatedly telling China to release him, I’m optimistic this will help the diplomatic push,” Fu said.

He called the development a “pivotal moment” for U.S. human rights diplomacy.

“The Obama administration must stand firmly with (Chen) or risk losing credibility as a defender of freedom and the rule of law,” Fu added.“ If there is a reason why Chinese dissidents revere the U.S., it is for a moment like this.”

He also said the case should be handled like that of professor Fang Lizhi.

In 1989, Lizhi, whose speeches inspired student protesters throughout the 1980s, fled with his wife to the U.S. Embassy after China’s military crackdown on the pro-democracy movement. He stayed there for 13 months while the countries discussed his fate.

Chen’s case comes as the U.S. is looking for help from China on many worldwide issues, such as trying to restrain North Korea and Iran on their nuclear ambitions, and push Syria to observe a cease-fire in the fighting in that country.

Fu and Chinese-based activists said Chen’s his wife and 6-year-old daughter are still at the family’s home.

Chen recorded a video as a direct address to Premier Wen Jiabao, condemning the treatment of him and his family and accusing local Communist Party officials by name. Activists sent the video Friday to the overseas Chinese news site Boxun.com, which posted part of it on YouTube.

Activist Hu Jia met with Chen after his escape and said people with Chen later called him.

If Chen is in the U.S. Embassy or with U.S. officials at another location, it is not known how he would be able to leave or where he could go without Chinese permission. There was no extra security outside the U.S. Embassy in Beijing on Saturday.

Hu’s wife, Zeng Jinyan, posted a photo Friday on Twitter of Chen and Hu together. Chen is wearing the same clothes he wore in the video. Both men are smiling.

China’s media have been silent on the case, and most words related to Chen and his village have been blocked online. Chinese political analysts have declined to comment.

A self-taught lawyer blinded by fever in infancy, Chen served four years in prison for revealing the abortions and sterilizations in his and surrounding villages. Since his release, local officials confined him to his home, beating him up on several occasions.

Chen is widely admired. Even Hollywood actor Christian Bale tried to visit, but was roughed up by locals.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/28/escaped-china-activist-now-under-us-protection-rights-group/