'So God Made A Liberal' (video)

the brilliant original video...

Obamacare: Michelle Malkin vs Juan Williams (video)

Democratic Ohio Poll Watcher: Yeah, I Voted For Obama Twice

by Katie Pavlich
Feb 08, 2013

 Think voter fraud doesn't exist? Think it doesn't matter in states like, oh I don't know...Ohio? Think again. More from John Fund:

The Hamilton County Board of Elections is investigating 19 possible cases of alleged voter fraud that occurred when Ohio was a focal point of the 2012 presidential election. A total of 19 voters and nine witnesses are part of the probe.

Democrat Melowese Richardson has been an official poll worker for the last quarter century and registered thousands of people to vote last year. She candidly admitted to Cincinnati’s Channel 9 this week that she voted twice in the last election.

But don't worry, she didn't really mean to vote twice, it just happened.

According to county documents, Richardson's absentee ballot was accepted on Nov. 1, 2012 along with her signature. On Nov. 11, she told an official she also voted at a precinct because she was afraid her absentee ballot would not be counted in time.

"There's absolutely no intent on my part to commit voter fraud," said Richardson.

According to BOE records, her name appeared on an absentee ballot list prior to Election Day. The board's report states poll workers should have updated the signature poll book by flagging "absentee voter" next to the names of those who appeared on the list. Upon investigation it was found that  none of the voters who appeared on the list were flagged, which included Richardson. The staff could not locate that supplemental list when asked.

Richardson voted at the Madisonville Recreation Center where she worked as a paid worker on Election Day.

She has worked the polls since 1988. Richardson said in her youth she would accompany her mother, who also worked at the polls, even thought she wasn't old enough to vote at the time.

"I, after registering thousands of people, certainly wanted my vote to count. So, I voted. I voted at the poll," she said.

Yes, Ms. Richardson certainly wanted her vote to count...twice.

Panetta: Obama Absent Night of Benghazi

by DANIEL HALPER
Feb 7, 2013 

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified this morning on Capitol Hill that President Barack Obama was absent the night four Americans were murdered in Benghazi on September 11, 2012:



Panetta said, though he did meet with Obama at a 5 o'clock prescheduled gathering, the president left operational details, including knowledge of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, "up to us."
In fact, Panetta says that the night of 9/11, he did not communicate with a single person at the White House. The attack resulted in the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Obama did not call or communicate in anyway with the defense secretary that night. There were no calls about what was going on in Benghazi. He never called to check-in.
The 5 o'clock meeting was a pre-scheduled 30-minute session, where, according to Panetta's recollection, they spent about 20 minutes talking a lot about the American embassy that was surrounded in Egypt and the situation that was just unfolding in Benghazi.
As Bill Kristol wrote in the month after the attack, "Panetta's position is untenable: The Defense Department doesn't get to unilaterally decide whether it's too risky or not to try to rescue CIA operators, or to violate another country's air space. In any case, it’s inconceivable Panetta didn't raise the question of what to do when he met with the national security adviser and the president at 5 p.m. on the evening of September 11 for an hour. And it's beyond inconceivable he didn't then stay in touch with the White House after he returned to the Pentagon."
Perhaps it was "inconceivable," but it is according to Panetta exactly what happened.
But Obama did have time to make a political call to the Israeli prime minister. "[W]e do know one thing the president found time to do that evening: He placed a call to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu in order to defuse a controversy about President Obama's refusal to meet with Netanyahu two weeks later at the U.N. General Assembly, and, according to the White House announcement that evening, spent an hour on the phone with him," Kristol wrote.
 "While Americans were under assault in Benghazi, the president found time for a non-urgent, politically useful, hour-long call to Prime Minister Netanyahu. And his senior national security staff had to find time to arrange the call, brief the president for the call, monitor it, and provide an immediate read-out to the media. I suspect Prime Minister Netanyahu, of all people, would have understood the need to postpone or shorten the phone call if he were told that Americans were under attack as the president chatted. But for President Obama, a politically useful telephone call—and the ability to have his aides rush out and tell the media about that phone call—came first."

You Could End Up On Obama’s Kill List

by CHQ Staff
6th January, 2013

In our criticism of President Barack Obama’s claim of the power to kill an American citizen without a trial, determination of guilt of a capital offense or even that the American citizen is presently engaged in combat against the United States -- it is hard to know where to start.

In Obama’s frightening interpretation of the Constitution, all that is now required to receive a death sentence from the President is a “belief” by a government official that one is an “imminent” threat, that one is somehow associated with al Qaeda or an affiliated organization and that one is a senior operational leader of such an organization.

The standard of mere “belief” by a government official that one is engaged in wrongdoing to justify a death sentence for an American citizen is so low that it does not even meet the requirements for surveillance of one’s telephone or internet communications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Yet, in the view of President Obama and his lawyers, it is enough to justify an unappealable death sentence.

To those who are inclined to accept the idea that in the war with radical Islam constitutional considerations should be suspended, we simply note that the Constitution has no “time outs” and that it is the paramount law of the land precisely to prevent the government from using arbitrary standards -- like mere belief to justify killing or otherwise oppressing citizens. That’s why James Madison insisted a Bill of Rights was necessary and that’s why the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment is there.

As bad as Obama’s attempt to suspend the Fifth Amendment is, it is not the most pernicious aspect of his claim of the power to execute an American without a trial or other constitutional authority. The most troubling aspect of the President’s policy is that he claims it is inherent in his executive power to do so.

The logical conclusion of such a claim is that ANYONE believed by the President to be a threat may be targeted for execution. The limit Obama currently imposes upon himself that these killings may take place outside areas controlled by the United States could be changed or abandoned entirely at his whim.

What this means is that if the President were to decide that the current policy of limiting such killings to al Qaeda and its affiliates needed to be changed to deal with another perceived threat, it could be changed by the President to include, for example, those whom the Department of Homeland Security identified as “right-wing extremists” back in 2009.

The report, for which the administration later apologized, identified as imminent threats those Americans “that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”

The practical consequence of Obama’s claim that the executive has the inherent power to kill you without a trial if he merely believes you are an imminent threat is that no one is safe in their political views or opinions.

Imagine for a moment Obama’s execution by drone strike policy being applied to the Michigan “Christian warriors” -- the Huttaree. These Americans were arrested because, based on information obtained through an informant, the government “believed” they were an imminent threat.

The Huttaree were charged with sedition and conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction against the government – the same kind of acts that would earn an American a death sentence under Obama’s drone strike policy.

Ultimately, U.S. District Judge Victoria Roberts dismissed the sedition and conspiracy charges, saying,  although testimony showed that Hutaree leader David Stone Sr. "may have wanted to engage in a war with the federal government … it is totally devoid of any agreement to do so between Stone and the other defendants," and that federal prosecutors failed in five weeks of trial to prove that the Huttaree had a specific plan to kill a police officer and attack law enforcement personnel who showed up for the funeral.

Of course Americans targeted under Obama’s drone strike policy don’t get five weeks of trial... they can be killed based on less evidence than the government submitted in its failed case against the Huttaree.

We agree that the war with radical Islam is an existential threat, not just to the United States, but to western civilization. However, that war is as much a war of ideas as it is a war of guns and bullets. The idea that a mere “belief” by a government official – unknown and unelected we might add – can lead to a death sentence for an American citizen is so antithetical to the founding principles of the United States as to constitute a victory for those who wish to destroy us.

It is time Congress stepped in and put an end to Obama’s policy of executing Americans without a trial before the drones fly home and none of us are safe.

Prince George’s considers copyright policy that takes ownership of students’ work

By Ovetta Wiggins,
February 3, 2013
 
A proposal by the Prince George’s County Board of Education to copyright work created by staff and students for school could mean that a picture drawn by a first-grader, a lesson plan developed by a teacher or an app created by a teen would belong to the school system, not the individual.
The measure has some worried that by the system claiming ownership to the work of others, creativity could be stifled and there would be little incentive to come up with innovative ways to educate students. Some have questioned the legality of the proposal as it relates to students.
 “There is something inherently wrong with that,” David Cahn, an education activist who regularly attends county school board meetings, said before the board’s vote to consider the policy. “There are better ways to do this than to take away a person’s rights.”

If the policy is approved, the county would become the only jurisdiction in the Washington region where the school board assumes ownership of work done by the school system’s staff and students.
David Rein, a lawyer and adjunct law professor who teaches intellectual property at the University of Missouri in Kansas City, said he had never heard of a local school board enacting a policy allowing it to hold the copyright for a student’s work.
Universities generally have “sharing agreements” for work created by professors and college students, Rein said. Under those agreements, a university, professor and student typically would benefit from a project, he said.
“The way this policy is written, it essentially says if a student writes a paper, goes home and polishes it up and expands it, the school district can knock on the door and say, ‘We want a piece of that,’ ” Rein said. “I can’t imagine that.”
The proposal is part of a broader policy the board is reviewing that would provide guidelines for the “use and creation” of materials developed by employees and students. The boards’s staff recommended the policy largely to address the increased use of technology in the classroom.
Board Chair Verjeana M. Jacobs (District 5) said she and Vice Chair Carolyn M. Boston (District 6) attended an Apple presentation and learned how teachers can use apps to create new curricula. The proposal was designed to make it clear who owns teacher-developed curricula created while using apps on iPads that are school property, Jacobs said.
It’s not unusual for a company to hold the rights to an employee’s work, copyright policy experts said. But the Prince George’s policy goes a step further by saying that work created for the school by employees during their own time and using their own materials is the school system’s property.
Kevin Welner, a professor and director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado in Boulder, said the proposal appears to be revenue-driven. There is a growing secondary online market for teacher lesson plans, he said.
“I think it’s just the district saying, ‘If there is some brilliant idea that one of our teachers comes up with, we want be in on that. Not only be in on that, but to have it all,’ ” he said.

Welner said teachers have always looked for ways to develop materials to reach their students, but “in the brave new world of software development, there might be more opportunity to be creative in ways that could reach beyond that specific teacher’s classroom.”
Still, Welner said he doesn’t see the policy affecting teacher behavior.
“Within a large district, there might be some who would invest a lot of time into something that might be marketable, but most teachers invest their time in teaching for the immediate need of their students and this wouldn’t change that,” he said.
But it is the broad sweep of the proposed policy that has raised concerns.
“Works created by employees and/or students specifically for use by the Prince George’s County Public Schools or a specific school or department within PGCPS, are properties of the Board of Education even if created on the employee’s or student’s time and with the use of their materials,” the policy reads. “Further, works created during school/work hours, with the use of school system materials, and within the scope of an employee’s position or student’s classroom work assignment(s) are the properties of the Board of Education.”
Questioned about the policy after it was introduced, Jacobs said it was never the board’s “intention to declare ownership” of students’ work.
“Counsel needs to restructure the language,” Jacobs said. “We want the district to get the recognition . . . not take their work.”
Jacobs said last week that it was possible amendments could be made to the policy at the board’s next meeting. The board approved the policy for consideration by a vote of 8 to 1 last month but has removed the item from its agenda Thursday.
School systems in the Washington region have policies that address the use of copyrighted materials, but none has rules that allow ownership of what a student creates, officials said. Some do address ownership of employees’ work.
The District holds common law copyright, at a minimum, to all relevant intellectual property its city and school employees create, a spokeswoman said.
In Montgomery County, the school system says supplies, equipment or instructional materials that are made by a school employee using “substantial time, facilities or materials” belonging to the system become the property of the public schools. If the activity is performed partially on private time and partially on public time, the school superintendent will approve the arrangement, according to the district’s conflict-of-interest policy.
Peter Jaszi, a law professor with the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic at American University, called the proposal in Prince George’s “sufficiently extreme.”
Jaszi said the policy sends the wrong message to students about respecting copyright. He also questioned whether the policy, as it applies to students, would be legal.
He said there would have to be an agreement between the student and the board to allow the copyright of his or her work. A company or organization cannot impose copyright on “someone by saying it is so,” Jaszi said. “That seems to be the fundamental difficulty with this.”
Cahn said he understands the board’s move regarding an employee’s work, but he called the policy affecting the students “immoral.”
“It’s like they are exploiting the kids,” he said.
For Adrienne Paul and her sister, Abigail Schiavello, who wrote a 28-page book more than a decade ago in elementary school for a project that landed them a national television interview with Rosie O’Donnell and a $10,000 check from the American Cancer Society, the policy — had it been in effect — would have meant they would not have been able to sell the rights to “Our Mom Has Cancer.”
Dawn Ackerman, their mother, said she would have obtained legal advice if there had been a policy like the one being considered when her daughters wrote their book about her fight against cancer 14 years ago.
“I really would have objected to that,” Ackerman said.
Paul agreed, saying the policy seems to be ill-conceived. It could stifle a child’s creativity and strip students and their families of what is rightfully theirs, she said.
“I think if you paint a picture, publish a book or create an invention as a kid, your family — certainly not the school board — should have the rights to that,” she said.

Things Only a Democrat Could Get Away With

By Daniel Greenfield
February 4, 2013 

On Friday, Hillary Rodham Clinton left the Harry S. Truman Building of the State Department after doing a grand media tour of every media outlet with a camera and a microphone. Meanwhile in Benghazi, where it was twenty degrees warmer, foreign organizations were fleeing the city while the killers who stayed behind still walked the streets.
In her joint appearance with Obama on 60 Minutes, Clinton claimed that her critics were not living in an “evidence-based world”. This is the same world of which she wrote in her goodbye letter to her State Department colleagues; “I am proud of what we have accomplished together.” Those accomplishments are hard to find among the debris of three failed wars, two failed containment policies in Iran and North Korea, and more attacks on American diplomatic facilities than ever before.
Hillary Clinton presided over the first murder of an American ambassador in thirty years. It was the closest thing to a notable moment in her time as Secretary of State, which concluded, in true Clinton style, with a cover-up, Senate hearings and more finger-wagging.
And yet, despite all that, the media threw her a farewell party in preparation for the 2016 election.  Four Americans died in Benghazi and in four years, Hillary Rodham Clinton expects to take the White House.
There is a certain symmetry to that. A year of political exile for every man she left unguarded and unsupported while lavishing millions on mosque renovations, embassy paintings and assorted trinkets. A year for every man whose blood was spilled on the warm streets of Benghazi. Four dead men and four years in which to prepare to do the same thing all over again as President of the United States.
It’s a big job and HRC finally has the experience for it.
The Benghazi attackers came out of Al Qaeda in Iraq; an organization that is showing more staying power than General Motors, and like the maker of the Aztek, it’s spending a lot of time and energy expanding internationally.
When Obama turned his back on Iraq, discarding the sacrifices of the Surge, like he did the lives of the four men murdered in Benghazi, the terror didn’t stop. Al Qaeda bombs have kept going off as Iraq melted down into a conflict between its Iranian-backed Shiite government, the Kurds and Sunni Islamists. And Al Qaeda found new wars. Like a persistent suitor, it followed BHO and HRC to Benghazi.
Obama’s surrender in Iraq paved the way for the regional resurgence of Al Qaeda. It put a spring in the step of every enemy from Iran to the Muslim Brotherhood to the grimmer sort of Salafis. It convinced them that they could take on the United States and win.
Like Hillary, Obama has never been held accountable for any of it. And Hillary’s very lack of accountability, her immunity from accountability makes her eminently qualified for the top spot in a Democratic Party where it’s more important to know how to shrug off accountability than it is to get things right.

Bill Clinton ushered in the post-accountability era, where evidence no longer mattered and the law was something that you could ignore if you felt like it. It is the thing that Obama, Clinton 2 and Biden all have in common. They are the poster-children of the post-accountability era where the synergy of media and party is so complete that it no longer matters what you do; only which side you’re on.
Jimmy Carter, the man under whose administration the last American ambassador was murdered, was also the last Democratic president to be held accountable for anything. His successors just smirk, wipe the blood off and do the rounds of fawning media interviewers.
Looking back on the last two decades, it almost seems as if the Clinton era never ended. Not only are both Clintons on television all the time, but so is Al Gore, still playing the guru in a suit, the deep thinker with a hand out to foreign governments. In the Clinton era, it was Communist China. Today it’s Islamist Qatar. At the time Gore said that he had done nothing wrong because there was no controlling legal authority. There still isn’t. Not where Democrats are concerned.
Al Gore, whose palm always itches for money from the enemies of the United States, nearly made it to the White House, where his influence peddling would have taken place on a whole other scale. Clinton, who did make it, deported a little boy to a Communist country at gunpoint and murdered more children at Waco, in the world’s bloodiest training exercise.
But again no one was held responsible. It’s a long way from Benghazi to Waco, but the Clintons retain their talent for walking over corpses to reach their ambition. And their critics, who notice the bodies, are accused of harboring personal vendettas and of not living in an “evidence-based world.”
The Democratic Party in the last two decades has absorbed Bill Clinton’s ability to avoid accountability. The ranks of its congressmen are full of liars, felons and lunatics. It is a party so devoid of accountability that the likes of Sheila Jackson Lee can sit on the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics without being able to tell apart the Moon and Mars, while Hank Johnson can warn that Guam may tip over if too many Marines land on it.
The Party of Jefferson has made the long sad trip to a party that views Massachusetts scandal machines like Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank as elder statesmen, instead of criminals who were never locked up, on account of their political influence. And it is full of these elder statesmen, men like Joe Biden, whose only gift is an inability to shut up and a media unwilling to condemn even the worst of their shenanigans.
The only remaining virtue in the Democratic Party is shamelessness. Those Democrats who have no shame prosper, those who do turn themselves in and serve their time.
After having trashed the housing market, the likes of Barack Obama and Andrew Cuomo step forward as reformers. After having murdered a woman, Ted Kennedy retired as a champion of women’s rights. After murdering children, Bill Clinton is touring in support of gun control to save the lives of children. And four years from now, Hillary Clinton will be touting her experience in Benghazi as a reason that she should be elected to the White House where she will be able to do it all over again.

How Democrats Understand Immigration Reform: 'A Gigantic Block [Sic] of Progressive Voters'

by Joel B. Pollak 
3 Feb 2013

As the national debate over immigration reform heats up, Republicans who believe that there are political benefits in passing new legislation might consider what Democrats believe about their own political advantages.

For years, Democrat strategists such as convicted felon Robert Creamer--a key organizer in Chicago, closely connected to the circle around Barack Obama--have openly proclaimed the electoral advantages of immigration reform for their own party.
From a federal prison camp in 2006, Creamer--pictured above, at a 2009 state dinner with spouse Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)--began writing his plan for a future “progressive” administration. The book that emerged, Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win, was effusively praised by many of Barack Obama’s key staffers and supporters. Chief political strategist David Axelrod, for example, called it “a blueprint for future victories.”
In December 2009, Breitbart News exposed how Creamer’s political plan called for a future “progressive” administration to push for universal health care in its first year in office. The plan--which called for attacking the health insurance industry, among other steps--closely mirrored the actions that the Obama administration and its campaign arm actually took in the contentious battles throughout 2009 and the early months of 2010.
Universal health care was to be only the first in a series of steps in what Creamer called the “battle over the distribution of income, and control of wealth in the United States.” The first radical changes--such as health care reform--would make each subsequent transformation more politically feasible. One of the most critical steps was to be comprehensive immigration reform, which Creamer described in naked partisan terms:

If Democrats continue to stand unequivocally with Hispanics and recent immigrants, it will benefit the party for years to come...
To neutralize [a] backlash, we need to reframe the battle for immigration reform as a campaign for an "Earned Path to Citizenship"...
...[T]he immigration battle is also important because it will have an enormous impact on the battle for power between the progressive and conservative forces in American society. As of 2007, there are 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. If they are placed on an earned pathway to citizenship through immigration reform, they will be eligible for citizenship and voting rights by 2012 and 2016.
They will join the nearly 30 million immigrants who are legal residents and could apply today for citizenship, or are citizens yet not registered to vote, or immigrant voters who never go to the polls, or immigrants who will turn 18 years old this year and could register to vote.
If Democrats continue to stand firmly for immigrant rights, the issue will define immigrants’ voting loyalties for a generation. If we are successful, a gigantic bloc of progressive voters will enter the electorate over the next 15 years--a block that could be decisive in the battle for the future.

The “future,” as Creamer saw it, involved creating “a democratic society”--i.e. not the democracy we know today, but one in which “power is diffused to everyone,” a classic left-wing utopia. These ambitions were not just limited to the United States, but to the entire world, as Creamer urged a “battle for progressive control of governments around the world.”
Immigration reform was just one piece of that “progressive” puzzle--but an essential one, and one that Obama’s “progressive” advisers have no intention of sharing credit for with the Republican opposition.