Obama's EPA Working With Environmental Extremist Groups

Is Obama's EPA releasing Beef Producer information to Environmental Extremist Groups? Yes they are!

A few week ago, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) was notified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that the agency had been collecting information from states on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).

This information was requested by environmental extremist groups, including Earth Justice, the Pew Charitable Trust and the Natural Resources Defense Council, through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, and was actually granted to them.

“When we reviewed the information submitted by the states and released by EPA, we were alarmed at the detail of the information provided on hard-working family farmers and ranchers, family operations including my own,” said NCBA Past President J.D. Alexander, a cattle feeder from Pilger, Nebraska.

“It is beyond comprehension to me that with threats to my family from harassment atop bio-security concerns, that EPA would gather this information only to release it to these groups. This information details my family’s home address and geographic coordinates; the only thing it doesn’t do is chauffeur these extremists to my house. For some operations, even telephone numbers and deceased relatives are listed.”

In January 2012, EPA proposed the Clean Water Act Section 308 CAFO reporting rule to collect information from CAFOs and make it publicly available and readily searchable through their website.

Cattlemen and women along with the Department of Homeland Security expressed concerns that this was not only a serious overreach of EPA’s authority and would create a road map for activists to harass individual families, but that the proposal would aid and abet terrorism and provide a very real threat to the nation’s food security.

EPA later withdrew the 308 rule on these grounds, but NCBA has learned that the agency still intends to use this gathered data to create a national searchable database of livestock operations.

EPA’s current action proves that our nation says it is concerned with national security, but does not care about personal small business security, said Alexander.

“Cattle producers won this issue with EPA’s decision to withdraw the rule and with the withdrawal we had hoped precautions would be taken by the agency to protect such information. Instead of protecting this information, EPA was compiling it in a nice package for these groups, all on the federal dole,” said Alexander.

“Moreover, EPA knew, or had reason to know, this information would be readily accessible to all groups wishing to harm agriculture, through a simple and quick FOIA request. My question is, with government overspending and rumors from United States Department of Agriculture Secretary Vilsack threatening to shut down meat inspection to control spending, why is EPA using valuable government resources to do the dirty work of extremists, activists and terrorists?”

The information released by EPA covers CAFOs in more than 30 states, including many family farmers and ranchers who feed less than 1,000 head and are not subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act.

This is simply an invasion of privacy and should not be done.

If the Federal Government cannot safeguard information that they demand from American citizens, then they should get rid of that information after they are through with it.

There is no reason that the government has to compile information on law abiding citizens and hold on to it.

There is absolutely no reason that citizens in good standings should be treated like criminals with their names in files in some bureaucrat's office in Washington D.C..

The Freedom of Information Act should be about getting information from the government, not on information pertaining to private citizens.

This has to stop. We must find a way to repeal or amend that Act to restrict its use against private citizens, law abiding citizens, citizens who need not worry about being attacked physically or financially from extremists. This has to stop.

There is no telling what these extremist groups will do with such information. To me, them just knowing where these Americans live can put them in harm's way.
Environmental Extremist Groups have no conscience.

Conscience is an aptitude, faculty, the judgment to distinguish right from wrong. Moral judgment may derive from values or norms, principles and rules. These extremist groups who spike tree, attack people, ruin crops, burn homes and storage buildings and farm equipment have no conscience.

And yes, I really believe that Obama's EPA would have no remorse if someone, a father, a son or daughter, or even a child, of a farm family would be hurt or killed during an attack from those terrorists.

And don't kid yourself, these extremist groups are front groups for Eco-terrorism as well as Agro-terrorism.

Agro-terrorism, also known as Agri-terrorism, is a malicious attempt to disrupt or destroy the agricultural industry and/or food supply system of a population through "the malicious use of plant or animal pathogens to cause devastating disease in the agricultural sectors".

These terrorist carry out hostile attacks towards agricultural, including infrastructures and processes, for political reasons.

They are just as nasty and foul as Muslim terrorists. They are both the same, fanatics who have no remorse for their actions.

And who will protect these farm and ranch families from the extremists? Not the government, especially not this administration.

And why should they, besides being asisted by the White House by way of this administration's EPA, they get a free pass because these radical environmental extremist groups are big Democrat Party donors.

The Obama White House is on the side of Eco and Agro terrorists who would attack and harm the innocent American farmer and rancher who is just trying to hold on and keep their farms or ranches going during these tough insane times.

Our farm and ranch families provide food for our nation and the world, they should not be attacked or harassed while doing so.

And yes, Obama's EPA giving information to those Eco and Agro terrorist front groups is like giving gasoline to a group of arsonist. It's just a matter of time before they act out their sick desires.

When your equipment is in flames and your livestock have been poisoned, you'll be able to thank the government for it.


Story by Tom Correa

Gun Owners Worry New Proposals Could Make Millions Of Americans Criminals

By The Raleigh Telegram

RALEIGH – Many North Carolina gun owners and gun enthusiasts are worried that new gun proposals that go far beyond an assault rifle ban would make many of the otherwise law abiding 80 million Americans who are gun owners into criminals if they do not register their weapons with federal authorities.

National and international media reports have stated that the White House under a committee led by Vice President Joe Biden is going to seek sweeping changes in how guns are registered, sold, and taxed in the wake of the Newton, Connecticut school shooting.

Under the potential proposals which have yet to be officially announced, all firearms would be required to be registered in a national database that would keep track of all guns and who owns them.

The database would include all new guns but also would include all guns that have been sold in the past, as there would be no “grandfather” clause in the new proposals.

In addition, one gun shop operator told the Telegram that the proposals could basically treat all firearms as “class three” weapons.

This would mean that they would be tracked in a national database, that there would be a substantial tax on the guns, and that they could not be passed from generation to generation as they would be destroyed upon the death of the registered owner.

In addition, it would be a federal crime to transfer the guns or even to own them without having them registered, even if they were legally obtained.

Currently, state laws vary on how guns can be transferred. North Carolina allows the legal transfer of a shotgun or rifle from one private person to another as long as the people involved do not have felony convictions or if there are other reasons such as mental illness or a history of domestic abuse that would keep them from owning such a weapon.

Similar laws apply to pistol sales except that the private sale of pistols require the purchaser to have a gun permit issued by the local Sheriff’s office, which does a background check on the applicant.

Any gun sold at a gun shop in North Carolina requires a federal background check and if a pistol is being sold, a gun permit is also required from the local Sheriff’s Department in the resident’s county.

Currently all counties in North Carolina except one, no guns are listed or registered with law enforcement authorities, although the serial numbers of guns that were sold as new weapons are recorded and retained by federal authorities.

The effort to include all guns in a national database to allow the government to track has already generated a national controversy.

Recent efforts by US Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California) after the Newtown school shooting have included her publicly stated goal of getting all guns listed in a national database.

In an open letter that was reported on and published by CNN, Marine Corps veteran Joshua Boston who has served in both Iraq and Afghanistan said that Feinstein and others who are trying to make the registry a reality are “overstepped a line that is not your domain.”

“I am not your subject,” he added. ”I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant.”

Boston said he would not register his guns with the federal government and wouldn’t comply with that new law if it is implemented.

Several people on both sides of the issue spoke with The Raleigh Telegram about guns and gun control.

Similar to the abortion debate where there seems to be high emotions on both sides of the issue with little compromise, everyone we spoke with did not want to have their names published in the newspaper for fear of being targeted online or elsewhere by opponents who don’t agree with them.

A high-ranking law enforcement official with over 30 years of experience spoke with The Raleigh Telegram on the condition that his name not be used.

The official said that although he could understand an assault weapons ban, he was concerned that all of the talk of massive new gun measures have actually had the opposite effect on keeping guns off the streets.

“It seems like ten years worth of gun sales have taken place in just two months,” said the police official. ”Instead of taking a quiet approach to the issue, it seems like this hype and all of the media attention has just meant big gun sales. All of these millions of guns are now out on the streets.”

The officer said he had talked to the owner of a North Carolina gun store that had ordered 700 semi-automatic AR-15 style rifles before the holidays and before the Newtown shooting.

“Sales were not as good as they had been and they were concerned that they were going to stuck with them,” he said. ”After talk of an assault rifle ban, they sold every last one of them.”

Indeed, guns and ammunition have been flying off the shelves at local stores. At places like Dick’s Sporting Goods, Gander Mountain, and other gun stores, new pistols and rifles have been in short supply, especially those types of guns with high-capacity magazines that may fall under new bans.

At some Dick’s Sporting Goods in North Carolina, signs have been placed on ammo shelves saying that they are short on ammunition and that customers are limited to a certain number of boxes.

Handgun rounds, .22 rifle rounds, and .223/556 rifle shells have been especially in short supply.

Another high ranking law enforcement officer who wished not to be identified said that he has been in favor of expanding some gun rights for various reasons.

For example, he is in favor of the North Carolina concealed carry permits because the “fingerprinting [required for the permit] means that we have that many more people in the database” to help solve crimes.

However, despite some support for some gun rights measures, he said he was in favor of new gun laws that require more stringent background checks in terms of mental health issues.

“There are lots of people out there who have no business owning a gun,” he said.

“With patient confidentiality [in mental health records], we have no way of knowing what that person is capable of doing. It’s not on their record when we pull them over and it’s not on their profile when they apply for a gun. Also, if you live with a person who is mentally unstable, you should be required to keep the weapons under lock and key. That’s gotta change.”

Another law enforcement official with the same agency had a much different opinion and said that he was not in favor of any private citizen having a gun on their person unless they were in their home.

“People who carry guns find a way to use them,” he said. ”Instead of avoiding trouble if you don’t have a gun, sometimes people go looking for it.”

Many gun owners that the Telegram spoke with said that they were afraid that a nationwide gun registry would eventually lead to gun confiscation by the federal authorities.

“The first thing they will come for is your guns,” said a woman in a gun store, who didn’t want to give her name. ”Then they can do whatever they want to after that. That’s why it’s in the Constitution right after the right to free speech.”

Other gun owners said gun laws are not followed by criminals and people with mental health issues. They say that there are already gun laws on the books that aren’t followed by criminals every day.

“If someone really wants to kill someone, they don’t have to go to a gun shop to buy a gun,” said one gun owner who said he had a concealed carry permit and carried a gun with him all the time as allowed by law.

”They can go steal one or buy it on the streets from another criminal. More gun laws mean that only cops and criminals will have guns. Mass shooters don’t go to police stations to kill people. They go where they know there are no guns.”

A criminal defense attorney who works in Durham in North Carolina commented to the Telegram that she feels that guns are far too prevalent in society. She mentioned that she had a gun pointed at her on one occasion and that is fearful of guns entirely. She said based on her experience with her own clients, that it’s too easy for people to obtain guns and that she had seen the results of gun violence in the courts.

“I don’t feel that banning assault rifles would be a bad thing,” she said. ”Those types of guns shouldn’t be out on the streets. There will always be guns out there but if there are less of them, it would help. There are just too many people out there shooting each other.”

Durham County requires handgun owners to register their guns with officials at the courthouse, but the rule seemingly has rarely been enforced. As the county is the only one in North Carolina with that requirement, its effects on reducing gun violence, which is common in the city of Durham, is unknown.

Some gun owners says such registration rules, if enacted on a national scale, would simply mean that millions of gun owners would become criminals.

“It will be just like Prohibition and we see how that turned out,” said one gun store worker who wished not to be identified.

“There will be mass noncompliance. I don’t know many gun owners who are going to want to tell the government what guns they have. It will just make criminals out of normal, ordinary people. That’s exactly what the gun control people want — to make criminals out of people who own guns.”

Many gun owners say they are law abiding citizens who are already being treated like criminals. After the Newtown shooting, The Journal News newspaper in New York drew lots of criticism for printing the names and addresses of those who had received gun permits.

There was a map that allowed people to get directions to the homes where gun owners lived. Shortly after, the website Gawker listed all of the names of those in New York City who had gun permits.

Neither the newspaper nor the website chose to print the names or addresses of criminals who had been charged with illegal gun possession crimes in those areas, just those who had legally obtained guns or least gun permits.

Gun control activists say that the legal registrations are public record and as such are printable in the media to let people know who owns a gun in their neighborhood. Gun supporters say that at best, the listings of gun owners subject the owners to possible identity theft and at the worst, make them targets for burglars looking for guns to steal.

“While the information is public record, what they’ve done is point out all these homes to criminals and burglars and also point out all those homes that don’t have weapons that they could target,” said William J. Pape II, the editor and publisher of the Waterbury, Connecticut-based Republican-American, in an interview with the Bloomberg News.

Some states such as Connecticut do not allow that information to be given out to the public.

In North Carolina, some information concerning gun ownership is considered public record.

Last year, WRAL-TV 5 in Raleigh drew flak from viewers when it listed the names and addresses of all concealed carry gun permit holders on its website.

Bowing to criticism, the website was later limited to listing those concealed carry holders who lived in the Triangle as opposed to the entire statewide list. In addition, the TV station later changed its listings to include only the street, not the entire home address.

Some concealed carry gun owners objected to being listed on television website like sex offenders or other criminals.

“Why does anyone even need this information?” said Grassroots NC President Paul Verone in a posting on the gun rights group’s website.

”The only people subjected to similar treatment are sex offenders, to protect against predation. Does WRAL consider permit-holders dangerous?”

Verone also pointed out that many of the 300,000 plus people who have applied for a concealed carry gun permit in North Carolina may not want their addresses to be given if they are the victims of domestic violence and are trying to escape an abusive ex-spouse or boyfriend.

“House Bill 1311, the “Domestic Violence Victims Empowerment Act,” requires courts to advise victims who apply for “50B” protective orders of their right to apply for concealed handgun permits,” said Verone in his blog.

”Most certainly, these victims would not be ‘proud’ to have their information revealed, especially to the abuser against whom they just filed a restraining order.”

The debate about what types of weapons are appropriate for civilians to own and whether there should be limits on gun ownership in a modern world will likely continue for some time.

As America struggles with balancing Second Amendment rights with protecting its citizens from gun violence, the laws and rules will likely shift in both directions over time.

Guns with high capacity magazines have been around for some time.

For example, in 1860, the Henry Repeating Rifle was introduced to the civilian market and later became a staple in the Old West. The gun held 15 rounds in the tubular magazine.

According to magazine advertisements of the era, in the 1920′s and 1930′s, a Thompson Submachine gun could be ordered through the mail with a 50 round drum magazine.

However, with notable exceptions like the Kent State shootings in 1970 where 13 students were shot by members of the Ohio National Guard, regular mass shootings of civilians on school campuses seems to be unique to the last couple of decades.

As its citizens struggle with complex causes that also include exposure to violent movies, video games, mental health treatment, copy cat fame seekers, media coverage, and of course, access to guns, the debate as to what the solutions will work best will likely continue for some time. ::

Article posted on Thursday, January 10th, 2013, by The Raleigh Telegram.

The American Cowboy Chronicles, Editor's Note:

Since the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, and everything to do with our protection and safety and liberty, we should all ask ourselves:

Can I depend on the government to support and defend my freedoms, to safeguard and never violate my liberties, and moreso can I depend on the government by way of local law enforcement to protect me and my family when I need them right now at this very instant?

If you believe that we do not need our Second Amendment rights in today's society, and truly are a person who believes that the government will never violate your freedoms and liberties, and that furthermore you can totally depend on the police to protect you and your family?

Well, then, you are a fool and shouldn't own a gun.

Fact is, if you are willing to take the gamble and wait for police to respond to your call for help, and believe that the government will never become too powerful to stop when it wants to steal your liberties, then you are destined to be a subject and live under the boot of the state.

But then again, if you answered no, then you have made a smart decision to protect yourself and your family, and defend the Constitution which was designed to keep government from enslaving our people?

Then yes, you have decided that you are a citizen and never want to become a subject.

By deciding to own a gun and having it ready to be used as a tool for your survival - then you have demonstrated that you are not willing to become a victim. You have decided to be a survivor.

There stands the debate: It is a debate between those who see the government as intruding on our personal liberties, and those who do not. It is a debate between those who find safety depending on the implied protections of the government through local law enforcement, and those who have listened to the many Chiefs of Police who have come forward to tell Americans that they cannot protect us.

It is simply a debate by those who are willing to forfeit their freedoms and liberties to become subjects and victims verses those who have steadfast resolve to remain survivors and citizens.

Which do you choose? If freedom means anything to you at all, choose wisely.

More Proof of Vindictiveness from President Obama

There is something that most folks already know: If you want to keep something a secret, don't tell anyone. Especially if its wrong, keep it to yourself.

Richard Nixon found that out the hard way. He supposedly only told 3 other people about Watergate. That's right, only three others. And yes, he was still found out.

Of course in those days, a president found breaking the law or abusing his authority was investigated, or impeached, or resigned. It seems as though politicians were held at higher standards than they are today.

Like Richard Nixon, Barack Obama is finding out that White House secrets are being "leaked" to the public.

And yes, like Nixon, Obama is finding out that Americans don't like what they are seeing.

In his case, the real Obama - a very vindictive, a very powerful, president of the United States who is throwing a tantrum.

Obama has ordered his Departments to make cuts in a way as to exaggerate the effects of cutting 2% off the government's more than $3 Trillion Dollar budget.

Supposedly a secret to the public, he has ordered all departments of the Federal government to make the public pay for not supporting him. But now, now Obama is finding out that his betrayal of the public's trust is being revealed.

Last week another federal employee has come forward to claim the Obama administration resisted efforts to ease the impact of sequester.


A U.S. park ranger, who did not wish to be identified, told Fox News that supervisors within the National Park Service overruled plans to deal with the budget cuts in a way that would have had minimal impact on the public. Instead, the source said, park staff were told to cancel special events and cut "interpretation services" -- the talks, tours and other education services provided by local park rangers.

"Apparently, they want the public to feel the pain," the ranger said.

The National Park Service is among many federal agencies warning of a major impact from the sequester cuts, which took effect last Friday. The agency has warned of delayed access to portions of Yellowstone and Yosemite national parks, closed campgrounds at Great Smoky Mountains National Park, reduced hours at the Grand Canyon visitor center and other ramifications.

The Obama administration says these cuts must be made in order to make the $85 billion in cuts from Congress' failure to avert the sequester. At the NPS, the agency was dealing with an across-the-board 5 percent cut.

Republicans have claimed the administration is making some cuts in order to exaggerate the impact. Lawmakers this past week revealed a leaked email from the Agriculture Department in which a field officer appeared to tell his team that he was instructed not to contradict the bosses' warnings about the cuts.

At the Park Service, the alleged incident occurred in one region and it's unclear whether other divisions were given similar guidance.

But a Park Service spokesman told Fox News he's "never heard of guidance given like that."

The spokesman said that like other agencies, the Park Service was absorbing a 5 percent cut in just seven months. It was also being forced to cut seasonal employees, which make up a big part of the department's labor costs. Doing this, he explained, would impact "interpretive programs and public events."

But he denied the claim there was any directive to make those cuts more visible to the public.

"There's not a ton of flexibility," he said, noting that most cuts will end up impacting visitors at some level. "Everything in parks is geared toward either the preservation of the resources or the needs of the visitors."

Joan Anzelmo, a former park superintendent in Colorado, also said that while it's possible one specific location was giving guidance to make sure the public sees the cuts, she doesn't think that was happening across the country.

She also said any cuts to services and staffing would be made in large part because the parks budgets do not have much "wiggle room."

"I would be hard pressed to be able to make those cuts as a superintendent and not have an impact to the public," said Anzelmo, now a spokeswoman for The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

Nonetheless, memos have surfaced from National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis appearing to show the agency put a priority on telling the public how the cuts would affect them.

One Jan. 25 memo, which was obtained and published by the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, showed Jarvis directing regional directors to carefully explain the "specific and tangible results" of the cuts as they submitted their cost-saving plans.

Jarvis wrote that agency officials expected the cuts to result in reduced visitor services, shortened seasons and other visible changes.

"Parks must be specific in their description and include the number of visitors affected and an indication of the effect on nearby communities and businesses," he wrote. "All other organizations should describe impacts in terms of diminished performance and reduced administrative services and oversight."

Another memo, dated Feb. 26th, railed against the "senseless, across-the-board budget cuts." Jarvis, in that memo, described "long-term and wide-ranging effects," while pledging to try to "mitigate" the impact.

The ranger who spoke to Fox News.com, though, stressed that it was still just a 5% cut.

"It's obvious that they want the public to feel the pain in order to push this agenda that Washington wants," the ranger said. "A lot of these parks can absorb these cuts without the public's visit being affected."

60,000 Border and Customs Agents Told to Take Furloughs


Sixty-thousand federal employees responsible for securing the nation’s borders and facilitating trade will be furloughed for as many as 14 days starting next month because Obama is throwing a tantrum.

That's right, there will be 60,000 employees who will get two weeks off without pay starting soon. Let's make it clear that they are not losing their jobs, just take two weeks off without pay.

Since I worked for companies who laid-off people for much longer for two weeks at a time. Like many other Americans, I've been laid-off before. And like many of you out there right now, many times much longer than 2 weeks at a time throughout a year.

So no, I really don't see the problem here.

With roughly 20 Million Americans without jobs, including several million Americans with few job skills, I would think the option of being laid off for a couple of weeks is much more attractive than facing unemployment.

But than again, these are government employees and they are accustomed to stability. I guess starting next month, they can see how the rest of the nation lives and works.

The fastest growing employer today is the Federal Government, the Private Sector which pays the bulk of taxes faces this sort of situation all the time.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials said the furloughs would cause delays at ports of entry, including international arrivals at airports, and would reduce the number of border patrol officers on duty at any one time.

David Aguilar, the agency's deputy commissioner, said it must cut about $754 million by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

The agency plans to institute furloughs throughout its departments, a hiring freeze — and to reduce or eliminate overtime, compensatory time, travel and training.

Other federal agencies are following similar steps because of the spending cuts that took effect on March 1st through sequestration.

The Customs furloughs will begin in mid-April, with reductions in border patrol overtime starting on April 7, Burke said.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said on Monday that she expects customs wait times to increase to 150 to 200 percent of normal, CNN said.

In other words, they are already slow as molasses - now we expect them even slower.

"I don't mean to scare, I mean to inform,” Napolitano said. “If you're traveling, get to the airport earlier than you otherwise would. There's only so much we can do with personnel.”

I don't trust Napolitano or anyone else in the Obama White House.

Late last month, Napolitano and other Obama administration officials came under fire — particularly from officials in Arizona — for the release of hundreds of illegal immigrants held in local jails to save money as the sequester neared.

Using the sequester to carry out Obama's vindictiveness, Napolitano has since promised to release more illegals saying the sequester had left her no choice.

Internal Homeland Security documents quoted in news reports indicated that 2,000 illegals had already been released by the time of the sequester - even before the sequester went into effect. And yes, internal documents show that officials planned a long time ago to let go 3,000 more.

The sequestration is just a convenient excuse for their shady behavior.

White House suspends public tours, but first family trips in full swing

Part and parcel of Obama’s government-by-tantrum where air travelers are threatened with three-hour delays, 3,000 illegal aliens are released from jail, aircraft carriers are not refueled, meat isn’t inspected and, as The Wall Street Journal writes, “eighth graders visiting from Illinois” are punished by the administration.

Visitors to the nation's capital looking for a White House public tour are out of luck starting this weekend, courtesy of what the Secret Service says is its own decision to deal with the sequester cuts.

But while the agency said it needed to pull officers off the tours for more pressing assignments, the budget ax didn't swing early or deep enough to curtail a host of recent Secret Service-chaperoned trips like President Obama's much-discussed Florida golf outing with Tiger Woods, first lady Michelle Obama's high-profile multi-city media appearances, or even daughter Malia Obama's New York dinner outing with a group of teenage friends.

Obama's pricey golf outings have been a particular target for Republicans who see them as examples of what they say are the administration's rather selective concerns with running up the tab of Secret Service resources.

On March 5th, Texas Rep. Louis Gohmert filed an amendment to a House resolution that would prohibit federal funds from being spent on Obama's golf trips until public tours of the White House resumed.

Gohmert referenced press reports pegging the U.S taxpayer cost of Obama's recent Florida golf outing with Tiger Woods at $1 Million.

Imagine that for a moment, he always talks about the rich when he spends our money, yours and mine to the tune of One Million Dollars so that he can play golf.

First, let's make it clear that Guiness Record Book should be contacted because Obama probably has the record for spend more of someone else's money on a round of golf, and second, let's also make it clear that when rich people go play golf they use their own money.

Rep. Louis Gohmert also cited press reports saying 341 federal workers could have been spared furloughs if Obama had stayed home and not played golf with Woods.

"The president's travel expenses alone, for the golfing outing with Tiger Woods, would pay for a year of White House visits," Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said Thursday. "So I suggest that perhaps he curtail the travel."

The price tag and draw on Secret Service resources involving promotional campaigns like Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" initiative is less clear.

The Secret Service does not usually reveal how many agents and other resources are assigned to protective missions so it's not known just how much it cost taxpayers to ferry the first lady to events like her dance routine on Jimmy Fallon's show -- the highlight of a February 22nd media blitz in New York -- or her February 27-28 visit to Mississippi, Missouri and her hometown of Chicago.

Those trips would all have involved Secret Service details traveling with the first lady, as well as advance work by teams of agents on location.

When asked by Fox News if the first lady's office or schedule would be affected by the sequester, the White House issued a 100-word statement that made no mention of any specific cuts that might affect Michelle Obama's activities -- while making a generic reference to cuts affecting the "Executive Office of the President," which houses the first lady's office.

But let's get something straight, Obama is exempt from feeling the effects of any cuts.

President Obama won’t have to worry about his paycheck if the spending sequestration included in the Budget Control Act that he signed into law in 2011 begins taking effect this Friday.


A report published last month by the Congressional Research Service --“Budget Sequestration and Selected Program Exemptions and Special Rules" -- identifies certain programs that are exempt from sequestration and lays out special rules that govern the sequestration of others.

Section 255 of the Budget Control Act includes “Compensation for the President” as one of those exemptions (Page 19).

“Most exempt programs are mandatory, and include Social Security and Medicaid; refundable tax credits to individuals; and low-income programs such as the Children’s Health Insurance Program, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Supplemental Security Income,” the report states.

“Some discretionary programs also are exempt, notably all programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs,” it said. “Also, subject to notification of Congress by the president, military personnel accounts may either be exempt or reduced by a lower percentage,” the report states.

The report states in a footnote that the White House notified Congress last year of President Obama's intention to exempt military personnel accounts from sequestration.

Pensions for former presidents are also exempt, according to the report.

The report states that “the effect of sequestration on any given program is subject to the interpretation of the law’s provisions by the Office of Management and Budget” -- which is part of the Executive branch.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 7 of the Constitution says that the president's compensation shall not be increased or decreased during the time for which he is elected.

"The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected," says the Constitution, "and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

  So when White House Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked how the White House was cutting back, he declined to provide details about any potential furloughs or other cuts.

But on the decision to close the tours, he said "the President and the first lady have throughout the time that they've been here made extraordinary efforts to make this the people's house, and it is extremely unfortunate that we have a situation like the sequester that compels the kinds of trade offs and decisions that this represents."

It's also not clear what Secret Service resources were dedicated to the New York visit by 14-year-old Malia Obama, who was spotted dining with a group of friends at the New York restaurant Buddakan less than 24 hours after President Obama signed off on the sequester.

According to media reports, the group was chaperoned by four parents and five security guards who dined at the table directly next to them. There were also Secret Service agents in the restaurant, according to reports that said they stayed behind the group.

How much overtime these types of assignments cost the Secret Service may be an area of concern. Donovan told Fox News that overtime costs factored into the decision to shut down the White House tours.

By taking the 30 officers involved in the tours and assigning them to high-priority security posts, officers normally on those duties can log fewer hours -- in turn saving the Secret Service money.

"It reduces overtime costs overall for us," Donovan said.

The tours will not be rescheduled and will stay frozen until further notice.

That's bad news for groups like the sixth graders at St. Paul's Lutheran School in Iowa, who had been planning to take the White House tour on March 16th.

Fourteen students from that group and their teacher took their frustrations to Facebook. In a web video, they held up handmade posters and chanted, "The White House is our house."

Some Republicans in Congress expressed their displeasure with the cuts more forcefully.

"Canceling all self-guided White House tours is the latest shameless political stunt by the president, who is twisting basic government efficiency into an extreme consequence," Rep. Tom Graves, R-Ga., said in a statement March 5th.

Anyways you cut it, it's just a shameful situation.

And for a man who is always talking about doing things "for the children," Obama just proves that he's all talk and no action when it comes to actually doing something "for the children."

And ask yourself, since the maintaining the White House tours only costs $1800 a month, why can't we get some of the money to keep it going - from say what we taxpayers spend on the Obama family?

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on Obama family last year, perks questioned in new book

Most Americans are probably unaware of what goes with Air Force One when it goes somewhere. Please understand that it is not only Air Force One that goes with the president.

When the President goes anywhere in Air Force One, a large support contingent goes with him.  Along for the ride are many aides, administration and security personnel, medical personnel, communication and equipment maintenance people, and so on.

There are also many vehicles such as armoured limousines and other government vehicles for administration, communications, security and even an ambulance. Many trips, especially overseas, even helicopters are taken along with him.

To haul all this material and equipment around the world the U.S. Air Force provides four giant C-17 transport aircraft to carry everything the president needs.

I mean, let's be honest here, no one expects the President of the United States to carry his own teleprompters in his trunk.

And yes, so far we're only talking about what the president needs when he gets there.

On the way to wherever Air Force One is going, whether it's a campaign event in Denver or taking Michele Obama on a $700,000 taxpayer paid vacation in Spain, there are also two or more U.S. Air Force fighter jets that escort Air Force One along the route.  

On July 16th of 2012, it was reported that Obama used Air Force One to travel to a campaign rally near Richmond, Virginia, a location that was only 90 miles away from the White House.

At the time, his trip threw focus on the large expenses being borne by taxpayers as this President traverses the country to campaign and raise cash for his re-election campaign.

The cost of flying Air Force One is currently about $180,000 per hour, according to ABC News.

Did he need to take Air Force One and its entourage of plans, personnel, and equipment? No he didn't.

With a cruising speed of around 130 mph, Obama’s Marine One helicopter could easily have had the president at his location in 45 minutes at far lower cost to the taxpayer.

Obama used Marine One anyway to ferry him from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base, where he boarded his jet.

It’s possible there is some kind of security purpose to using Air Force One instead of Marine One, even though Obama flies his chopper several times a week. What’s more, Obama took Marine One on a trip of similar length in 2009 to Dover, Delaware.

George W. Bush who didn't travel as much as Obama used Marine One to ferry him to the Richmond area

Though Air Force One makes a more impressive entrance to a city hosting a presidential appearance, you would think he'd be at least a little concerned with cost.

His trip last July is emblematic of the approach Obama whose frequent use of Air Force One for campaign purposes has drained money from taxpayers while filling his campaign coffers.

In June of last year, Obama held 33 campaign fundraisers – about eight times the number held by Bush during his reelection effort in June 2004 – the whole time traveling literally from coast to coast to raise cash for himself.

All at our expense!

It was reported last September, 2012, author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that American Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year.

How much money is that? Well, in comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.

In the new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks, author Robert Keith Gray researched and found that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office.

But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under Obama needs to be reined in.

Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”

“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.

“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC.

Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidized Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.

When the trip is deemed political, it’s customary for the president to pay the equivalent of a first class commercial ticket for certain passengers.

But Gray says that hardly covers the taxpayer cost of flying the president and his staffers around on Air Force One.

“When the United States’ billion-dollar air armada is being used politically, is it fair to taxpayers that we only be reimbursed by the president’s campaign committee for the value of one first-class commercial ticket for each passenger who is deemed aboard ‘for political purposes?’” Gray asks in the book.

“And is that bargain-price advantage fair to those opposing an incumbent president?”

In the book, Gray admits Americans want their president to be safe and comfortable but argues that most Americans also want the system reformed to stop the amount of unquestioned perks given to the president.

“There is no mechanism for anyone’s objection if a president were to pay his chief of staff $5,000,000 a year,” he told TheDC. “And nothing but a president’s conscience can dissuade him from buying his own reelection with use of some public money.”

Aside from a salary, the president gets a $50,000 a year expense account, a $100,000 travel account, $19,000 entertainment budget and an additional $1 Million Dollars for “unanticipated needs,” he notes.

When Obama declares a stop to tours of the White House because it cost the taxpayers too much money to keep it open for tours, then maybe Obama can cut back on just one trip anywhere for the next four years.

At $180,000 an hour just for Air Force One, not counting the cost of all of the other planes, the vehicles, personnel and equipment, just one of his $4 Million Dollar trips to Hawaii  would keep the White House tours open for at least the next few years or so.

But I don't see that Spoil Brat and Chief doing that, after all he sees himself as Royalty and us the little people - his subjects.

Story by Tom Correa

A Vindictive Obama Now Wants You To Feel Pain

Is Obama a Drama Queen and Liar, or just spoiled and vindictive?

OK, in contrast to what Obama The Drama Queen was telling us prior to "The Great Sequester of 2013" - we all survived.

Just like Y2K, the Mayan calender, and the Last Real Depression under Jimmy Carter, amazing as it may sound to those in the White House, yes we pulled it off again and avoided completely vanishing as a species upon the earth.

Yes, surprising as it was to our Drama Queen In Chief, no one has gone hungry, millions aren't jumping off bridges and out of skyscrapers in despair, the sun came out, and all will go on.

That's the good news.

The bad news however is pretty bad. Not earth shaking, and maybe just an awakening for the liberal left, but it is a look behind the curtain.

You see, if we Americans did have a "real" catastrophe like say the Muslim Terrorist Attack on the World Trade Towers on 9/11, I really believe that President Obama would wet himself.

The Great Sequester of 2013 has shown the American public, sans us who have known for more than 4 years what Obama was made of, what kind of Drama Queen and Liar our president really is.

The scare tactics, the ringing of hands, the dire predictions, the cataclysmic event that the Obama White House told us about simply did not take place.  He has revealed himself to be the liar that most on the right have known about for a long long time.

It must be tough on millionaire socialist types like Tom Hanks and others from Hollywood to see Obama at his worse. And yes, his worse is simply being caught in lie after lie. But then again, the left sees Obama's act as being justified. After all, they don't care about morality or right and wrong, they just want what they want and see Obama as there chance to get it. To Hollywood left and their cohorts in colleges and universities across the country, the end really does justify the means.

But maybe that why I think it must be tough for socialist like George Soros. He waits and plots and schemes and tries again and again to use his billions to create organization after organization to help spread Socialism and plant the roots of Communism.

Then of course, Soros like others of his ilk sees their dream of an American economic collapse thwarted -- at least for a little while.

And yes, I really believe that guys like Soros really do dream of a day when America falls into complete economic and moral bankruptcy. I believe that that is why Soros and others spend so much time and money trying to kill our nation.

I'm willing to wager that there are not all that many out there who really thought that a maniac socialist like George Soros and his leftist friends would get the help of an American President to bring about our ruination.

Poor Barack, the boy cried wolf and was found out. And now, now the American people, on the left and right, really have had a look behind the curtain - and now know for certain that he is as phony as a 3 dollar bill.

The American people have found out that he really is all about scare tactics and lies. They all now see that Obama only knows how to scam and con his way through life to get what he wants.

But the president is so much then just a our Drama Queen and Liar, he is spoiled and extremely vindictive. Actually, he is scary vindictive.

Have you ever wondered if Obama was one of those kids who threw himself into a fit if he didn't get what he wanted as a kid?

Have you ever wondered if he really and truly just lied and scammed his way through life, and if he's just doing more of the same while in the White House?

I have to be honest and say, I have wondered these very things. And honestly, I can't help it.

To me, his mannerisms scream con man, scam artist, swindler, petty criminal, hood, and punk.

I can't help but wonder if I feel that way because I read his autobiographies? Maybe it's just that simple? Maybe that's the reason that I see him as always getting pampered and spoiled? Maybe I see him that way because he was pampered and spoiled from a young age.

I mean let's think about this for a minute, from going to the most expensive private schools in the state of Hawaii starting in the 5th grade and going on to doing dope and drugs all through high school and college. And yes, there were never consequences for his doing drugs.

Sure they were illegal, but I don't think Obama would let a like thing like the law stop him from doing what he wants. Why should it?

After all, he has learned that he is above such things as paying a price for breaking the law. In fact, he has seen how he is rewarded and no one cares if he does what he does.

Example, how can anyone who has done drugs and dope as he has acknowledged in his books that he has, get a Top Secret Security Clearance or be privy to anything Classified.

By his own omissions, it is against the law to give him or anyone else who has used illegal drugs and pot any sort of government Security Clearance -- Top Secret, Secret, or even Classified.

All the way through college and university after university, all through his life, all the way up to when he became a Community Organizer, Obama never had to work a day in his life because others paid his way.

And yes, the guy keeps his college and university transcripts sealed because he doesn't want people to know how he pulled that off.

I mean, think about it, how did he pay for his education after High School? And really, why didn't he have to work like everyone else who was supposedly brought up by a single mother?

Sure his grandparents were well-off, and his mothers was endlessly going to universities either in Hawaii or Washington state - and I'm sure that someone had to pay her way, so where did the money come from?

No one knows because Obama ain't telling, and its just that simple. So let's face it, the guy has been spoiled all his life.

But as being vindictive, how vindictive is Obama? Well, in a word, very. Obama is a product of his being pampers and spoiled as a kid and a young adult.

His character is such that he knows how to get what he wants, and will do anything to achieve getting what he wants. But when he doesn't, he is vindictive as the day is long.

In the news, things are starting to come out showing more and more about what's going on behind the curtain at the White House. Obama's whole line of "transparency" has just been a sham, a hoax, and only now are we learning how his White House works.

And no, its not pretty.

It is not without a bit of irony that, in the 40 years since the explosion of the Watergate story, Bob Woodward would again be under attack from the White House for trying to tell the truth. But this time the attack is coming from a Democrat President, a super secretive administration, and leftist media.

Barack Obama and his White House are the closest thing to the Nixon regime of any that we have seen since then -- both in the extent of their paranoia and their willingness to suppress the truth and push the boundaries of law.

In my lifetime, in over 40 years in national politics, Mr. Obama is the only president who comes close to rivaling Richard Nixon for fundamental disingenuousness.

In my lifetime, Barack Obama is the only president who comes close to rivaling Richard Nixon for fundamental disingenuousness.

Bob Woodward of Watergate fame then went on to say that the Obama White House actually threatened him.

To make matters worse, a few more people came out and said it happened to them also. And no, none were Republicans.

In fact, all of those involved in that story are Democrats. They are either Democrats who work in the news media such as the legendary Bob Woodward or they worked in the Clinton Administration as a Clinton aide. And yes, there are others elsewhere in the Democrat political machine that are coming out as well.

Just as Woodward and Bernstein were attacked back in the early 1970s by the mainstream media for daring to question a president -- or do a story that they wouldn't touch -- the Obama White House is orchestrating an attack with the mainstream media on Woodward the same way that the Nixon White House did back when he and Carl Bernstein pursued Watergate.

Patrick Caddell is a Democratic pollster. He served as pollster for President Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden and other Democrats. He has spoken out against the media being in the pocket of the Obama White House.

He said recently, "Since Benghazi, when I raised the alarm about a media that was not only willing to blatantly support one political party or one political candidate but for the first time seemed willing to suppress or ignore the facts and truth as related to a disaster of American foreign policy, my fear has been that we are now on a slippery slope.

Almost everything since then has helped to realize that fear. Chuck Hagel, the sequester, Mr. Obama's speeches -- all of these have revealed a mainstream press that has absolutely decided to wear its bias openly as outriders of the Obama administration. Except for one issue -- when the president refused to allow reporters to cover him and Tiger Woods playing golf together. Now that's something they can get riled up about.

During Watergate, there were a number of Republicans who were willing to stand against the president of their party in defense of the United States of America.

Sadly, as as Democrat, I must confess, that today there is no Democratic Senator or member of the House who appears to be willing to publicly put the country ahead of Barack Obama's White House."

Though the media is involved with assisting Obama with his vindictive war on anyone they decide is an enemy, it all doesn't stop with Bob Woodward.

The American people are Obama's new enemy!

Why? How come?

Well my friends, an ego is a terrible thing when you are supposedly working for someone else. In this case, the President of the United States doesn't see himself as working for the American people.

Since "The Great Sequester of 2013" has transpired, he now sees himself in the position to teach America a lesson.

Yes, like a spoiled kid who didn't get what he wanted, Obama is not on a crusade to punish the American people in every way possible.

Higher taxes? Sure he wants more of what you make, but that ain't the half of it.

Leaked email are now showing what the Obama White House has planned for the American people just to drive home the impact of stopping the 2% increase in the government's 2013 annual spending increase.

And let's make that real clear, there were no cuts made to any department. What took place was far from cuts, the $87 Billion was part of an increase for the federal government.

They still got there increase with the exception of 2% which totaled $87 Billion taxpayer dollar.

And by the way, in a total buget of $3.73 Trillion for 2012. Stopping $87 billion in that big a buget is small potatoes to those in Washington, but a big deal if you're increasing the size of the feds and not reducing it as you promised.

Premises that he never intended to live up to. 

Because he didn't get it all, he is now on a mission, a crusade, to make Americans feel the pain of not letting him have what he wants.

It started a few days before the Sequester ever took effect when the Department of Homeland Security let loose illegal aliens who were being held as criminals in jails and prisons.

A few days later, Department head Janet Napolitano said she knew nothing about the political move. If that really is the case, then she should be fire for incompetency.

Fact is, she had to know about it, and most likely ordered it while working with the Obama White House to show the American people how Sequestration will hurt. It was a deliberate effort to become highly political and teach the American people a lesson.

A leaked email from an Agriculture Department field officer adds fuel to claims President Obama's political strategy is to make the billions in recent federal budget "cuts" as painful on the American people as humanly possible.

The email, circulated around Capitol Hill, was sent Monday by Charles Brown, a director at the agency’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) office in Raleigh, N.C.

In his email, he tells his regional team about a response to his recent question on the amount of latitude he has in making cuts.

According to the email, the response came from the Agriculture Department’s budget office and in part states, “However you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we [Obama White House] said the impact would be.”

The response noted that the administration had already told Congress that the APHIS would "eliminate assistance to producers in 24 states in managing wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry without additional funds."

Arkansas Republican Rep. Tim Griffin said the Obama administration’s response to Brown’s email shows a bid to undermine efforts to replace the cuts with worse ones.

“This email confirms what many Americans have suspected: The Obama administration is doing everything they can to make sure their worst predictions come true and to maximize the pain of the sequester cuts for political gain,” Griffin said in a statement.

Rep.Griffin told Fox News on Wednesday that the bosses effectively said, “You can’t do anything that is inconsistent with the negative impact that we’ve told everybody these cuts are going to have.”

Under the 2011 deal reached by Obama and Congress, the cuts are supposed to be across the board, meaning government officials have limited flexibility in moving around money.

The Obama administration in recent weeks has made doomsday predictions about the impact of the cuts.

And the Obama White House so far has appeared unwilling to accept a Republican offer to give the president more autonomy in making the cuts, covering $87 Billion this fiscal year, to help reduce the impact on some of the most essential or hardest-hit programs or agencies.

Some political strategists say the president hopes the cuts hurt enough to compel Republican lawmakers seeking re-election next year to end them by agreeing to more tax increases.

On Sunday, Gene Sperling, the White House’s top economic adviser, suggested Republicans would indeed make this decision.

“Our hope is, as more Republicans start to see this pain in their own districts, they will choose bipartisan compromise over this absolutist position,” he said.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, during a House hearing Tuesday, was asked by South Dakota Republican Rep. Kristi Noem about the Brown email.

Not surprising at all, Vilsack said he was unaware of the email, but denied the administration has a policy of being inflexible and maximizing the cuts’ impact.

The administration had warned inspectors would have to be furloughed, which could reduce supplies of beef, pork and poultry.

The Washington Times discovered, even with the cuts, that APHIS is still hiring new employees and interns. The agency has posted 24 help-wanted ads, including 22 student internships since Sunday. One seeks a clerk in a New York office, and one seeks three “insect production workers” to grow boll worms in Phoenix.

Still, the administration warns that at least a million federal workers may be taking unpaid time off, due to sequestration. The government has begun sending furlough notices, effective in April.

No money because of the Sequester?

Since only 2% of their budget increase is being held back, is this really something the Obama administration wants to go to war with the American people over.

Imagine the pity childish bullshit going on in the White House. Imagine them sitting around on your dime trying to figure out ways to screw you out of services just to make you feel the pain -- all because Barack didn't get all that he wanted.

Imagine it for a second, all of a sudden an Obama aide jumps up and says let's stop the American people from visiting the White House - and we'll tell them that it's all because of Sequestration and those evil Republicans.

Well, that's not funny at all because that's what they have done.

On March 05, 2013, the Obama White House canceled all tours of the White House because of the sequester.

And yes, many lawmakers are pissed and call their decision purely political.

If you were Washington-bound for spring-break, your White House tours have been canceled.

The Obama administration announced Tuesday that it will cancel all tours starting this weekend, due to sequester cuts.

The move prompted swift condemnation from Republican lawmakers, who described the decision as the latest attempt to make the sequester seem worse than it is.

"It's politically motivated," Rep. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., told Fox News. "It seems childish -- take my ball and go home."

Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, declared in a statement that "the people have been banned from the people's house."

The announcement is the latest from the administration about the impact of the cuts that went into effect last Friday. Congressional staffers received a terse email saying White House tours would be canceled effective this Saturday.

The email cited "staffing reductions" because of the sequester.

"Unfortunately, we will not be able to reschedule affected tours," the notice said. "We very much regret having to take this action, particularly during the popular Spring touring season."

White House tours, which are self-guided, are typically scheduled through members of Congress. Visitors can request a tour through their representative up to six months in advance.

Anyone arriving after Saturday, though, is in for a disappointment.

A recorded message on the White House visitor's hot line Tuesday confirmed that the tours will soon be nixed until "further notice."

If you think this is insanity and absolutely childish, you are right!

Did I say Obama was vindictive? You bet I did.

A senior administration official explained to Fox News that the cancellation arose from Secret Service staffing decisions.

According to the Secret Service, officers normally assigned to the public tours are being reassigned to other posts. The Service says the move will reduce costs and "ultimately reduce the number of potential furloughs necessary by our agency."

I'd like to know how many government employees are in on this bullshit?

Rep. Cramer said if he were to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, he could see White House tours being on the list of nonessential items. He said he doesn't think they'll close the White House to the public forever.

Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, said the decision is just a bid to pressure Republican members to change course on the sequester -- he said it would not be successful.

But Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, told Fox News this is another reason why both sides should figure out a compromise. She said the closure of White House tours will be "alarming" for children coming to D.C. for spring break.

The annual National Cherry Blossom Festival also attracts droves of tourists in late March and early April, though the White House can no longer be on their itinerary.

The administration has announced a raft of expected cutbacks in response to the sequester. The Defense Department, and other federal agencies, are planning to furlough thousands of workers to save money. Congress also announced that it would cut back on foreign travel.

Compromise, closed because of the Sequester, what a line of crap!

While the Obama administration is closing the doors to the very people who pay to keep them open, Obama's top diplomat Secretary of State John Kerry advised the anti-American President of Egypt that he is giving him $250 Million dollars -- and that's extra, above and beyond the $3 Billion American taxpayer dollars we just gave the Egyptian bastard.

The Obama White House should really get a clue that making the American people angry is not a good thing. Someone should advise the president that his vindictiveness over not getting his way and closing down some services just to inflict pain upon the American people will only hurt him in the long run.

Do they want to cut funds during this Sequester? If so, then start with no spending billions upon billions of dollars on foreign aid to nations and people that hate our guts.

Start by concealing funds to a billion dollar corporation called Planned Parenthood. Start with cutting $67 Billion a year in waste from the Defense Department. The DOD does not need a cooking show that costs taxpayers a million dollars and so on.

We give billions to nations and organizations for purely political reasons. We should stop and learn to spend wisely. If the managers can't get it in their heads that they need to manage and not just suck up to the White House, then fire their asses and bring in people who want to do the job.

Do I really think that Obama gives a rip about cutting foreign aide or stopping that money John Kerry is freely handing out?

No, the truth is that Obama wants to inflict pain upon the American people, blame the Republicans, and subsequently win the public opinion battle against Republicans with the help of the media.

If Obama can pull this off, then he is hoping to have the Republicans thrown out of Congress in 2014.

If he gets a majority, and subsequent control of Congress and the Senate, then he can put through his number one legislative priority.

What does Barack Obama want? What is his number one legislative priority?

President Obama is seeking to repeal the Twenty-Second Amendment of the United States Constitution which sets a term limit for election to the office of President of the United States.

Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951.

You think I'm off base on this?

Well, fact is that several Democratic congressmen, including former Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. José Serrano, Rep. Howard Berman, and Sen. Harry Reid, have introduced legislation to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment.

But, each resolution died before making it out of its respective committee. Some have introduced bills to make alterations to the Twenty-Second Amendment.

Some have been proposed, including replacing the absolute two term limit with a limit of no more than two consecutive terms and giving Congress the power to grant a dispensation to a current or former president by way of a super-majority vote in both houses.


If you don't think that this is a real possibility, think about this, on January 4th, 2013, this year, Rep. José Serrano once again introduced H.J.Res. 15 proposing an Amendment to repeal the 22nd Amendment, as he has done every two years since Bill Clinton was in office.

The Republican controlled Congress will hopefully stop it. But later, who will stop it if that dimwit Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House again? No one.

I believe that President Barack Obama wants to president for more than two terms. I believe he would have loved to control legislation, the media, the armed forces, and be President for life just as Hugo Chavez was down in Venezuela.

I think Barack Obama would love to do what Hugo Chavez used to do as Dictator of Venezuela, simply point at a building and have it taken over by the government -- nationalize everything.


Story by Tom Correa