Differences Between Barack Obama & Richard Nixon: Nixon NOT a Communist, Did NOT Have Drones!

By John W. Lillpop



Reporter Bob Woodward’s recent tete-a-tetes with the Obama administration stir unsettling memories from 40 years ago when then-President Nixon was desperately seeking to keep his Watergate crimes, and the cover up of same, from the national media, including Washington Post reporters Woodward and Carl Bernstein.

Although Obama and Nixon are diametrically opposite in many ways, (party affiliation and ideological bent), the two share many unflattering similarities.

Both are or were:

Lawyers who regard the law as a legitimate means for sustaining tyranny, rather than as a tool for finding truth and bringing about justice;

Skilled at using lies and distortion to support spurious ideological premises, and to unfairly tarnish political enemies;

Dangerously paranoid;

Obsessively secretive and non-transparent;

Not above using “Enemy Lists” to track debts of revenge owed to adversaries.

Woodward’s revelation that he was “threatened” by the White House sounds eerily Nixonian and brings to mind Nixon’s use of the IRS and other government agencies against those with the temerity to oppose his tyranny.

As reported at the reference, Woodward really sounds frightened:

Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a "very senior person" at the White House warned him in an email that he would "regret doing this," the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester.

"It makes me very uncomfortable to have the White House telling reporters, 'You're going to regret doing something that you believe in,'" Woodward said.”

On the other hand, there ARE major differences between Barack Obama and Richard Nixon: although that listed below does not tend to reassure the wary:

Richard Nixon, though a despicable and corrupt politician, was NOT a communist and did NOT have access to drones!

Maybe Tricky Dick was not so bad after all?


Reference

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-woodward-obama-sequester-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2#ixzz2ME3FGlr7

An Intelligent Way to Address Sequester, Deficit Crises: Deport Illegal Aliens!

By John W. Lillpop

Economic Armageddon is forecast to decimate America on March 1, this coming Friday. Its called sequestration, and President Obama, father in denial of the phenomenon, along with duly- elected members of Congress, are all in a bloody dither at the very thought of reduced federal spending.

Or, reducing the growth in spending to be more exact!

Amazingly, Obama and Congress act as though sequestration is is a newly discovered peril, unknown to the best and brightest until last week! Like the god-awful meteorite that ripped into Russia, sequestration is, according to our delusional politicians, a complete surprise that catches us all unprepared.

The inconvenient truth is that this end of times event is a bloody can of worms that has been kicked down the road so often that the worms have evolved into deadly cobra snakes with the capacity to undo civilized society as we know it.

Even more outrageous, is the fact that this latest money mess, is all about the munificent sum of $85 billion dollars.

While it is true that $85 billion dollars IS a lot of money, consider this: Barack Obama’s reckless disregard for financial common sense results in an annual deficit of approximately $1.2 trillion dollars, or about $100 billion a month—no small amount of red-ink!

In other words, the $85 billion savings that would accrue as a result of imposing the sequester would be gobbled up, and then some, in one month by Obama’s feckless spending orgy.

Budget deficits generated during the other 11 months would simply be added to the $16.5 trillion dollar revolving credit account that Obama has with the Chinese! In the name of your grand-children and their grand-children!

Still, Obama and Congress blame Europe, GW Bush, the Japanese earthquake and tsunami, and each other for the bankruptcy of the American dream. No one is at fault, and no one will be held responsible.

Ignoring the American people, it’s a “win-win” for Obama and the Congress!

Given the chaotic state of the nation’s finances, one wonders why it has not dawned on one, or more, of the elitist intellectuals in whom the American treasury is entrusted to take note of the fact that America shells out more than $100 billion per year (after taxes) to support illegal aliens.

Invading criminals who should not even be here cost American taxpayers more than $100 billion a year! HELLO!

Details concerning this outrage can be found at reference 1, which is summarized, in part, herewith:

“(Washington, D.C July 6, 2010) A new study released today by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates that illegal immigration now costs federal and local taxpayers $113 billion a year. The report, The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers, is the most comprehensive analysis of how much the estimated 13 million illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children cost federal, state and local governments.

The cost estimates are based on an extensive analysis of federal, state and local spending data. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers examines dozens of government programs that are available to illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children, both legally and fraudulently. The report provides detailed analysis of the impact of illegal immigration on education, health care, law enforcement and justice, public assistance, and other government programs.

The report also accounts for taxes paid by illegal aliens about $13 billion a year, resulting in a net cost to taxpayers of about $100 billion. However, the study notes that government at all levels would likely have realized significantly greater revenues if jobs held by illegal aliens had been filled by legal U.S. residents instead.”

How in the world can any elected official, including The One, who claims to be interested in fiscal responsibility blatantly ignore the savings that could be realized by enforcing existing laws and deporting illegal aliens?

Instead, Congress and the President are engaged in a frantic foot race to see who can get credit for bringing approximately 11 million illegal aliens out from the shadows in order to compete for American jobs and otherwise befoul our wretched economy even further!

Stupidity on steroids: Importing illiteracy and poverty!

In their haste to dole out a trillion dollars to fund liberal pet projects in the name of stimulating the battered economy in 2009, the Democrat-controlled Congress and President Obama failed to address a major domestic crisis that threatens America's homeland security, unemployment crisis, social order, and cultural heritage, and which costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year.

That would be the unchecked invasion of our sovereign land by scores of millions of illegal aliens, mostly from the failed state of Mexico, is ignored and even countenanced by wrong-minded liberal policies. 

Ironically, many of the current social concerns that have liberals wringing their hands could be mitigated, at least partially, by aggressively working to solve the illegal aliens mess.
Concerned about education and overcrowded class rooms?

Removing 11 million invaders would reduce class sizes dramatically, and improve the quality of instruction by weeding out illegals unable to keep up because of language and cultural barriers.

Concerned about overcrowded prisons and jails and the need to spend hundreds of billions to erect even more?

Approximately 30 percent of all inmates are illegal aliens, people who should not even be here to begin with.

Concerned about run away health care costs and the tens of millions whom are uninsured?

Nearly all illegal aliens are uninsured and do not otherwise pay for their heath care, although they somehow manage to send approximately $30 billion a year back to Mexico. Medical services not paid for by illegals are dumped on the backs of Americans who belong here.
Concerned about violent crime, drugs, gangs and the general deterioration of the rule of law?

In addition to the crime of being in America unlawfully, illegal aliens exacerbate crime in this nation.

Concerned about the loss of jobs and reduced standard of living for working Americans?

Illegal aliens undercut American citizens by working for lower wages and without benefits. In effect, they steal jobs from real Americans.

With Democrats committed to spending trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to revive the Obama-jinxed economy, why not fix the illegal alien mess, once and for all, by building a viable border fence and by sending those who have no business being here back to their nations of origin?

Over ten years, the savings would be over $1 trillion dollars. And the rule of law would be sustained, and American culture and language preserved!

Deport illegal aliens and save $100 billion a year—without sequestration!


Reference 1

1http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=23198&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1741

Bob Woodward Exposes Obama “Fib” Regarding Origin of Sequester

By John W. Lillpop

With March 1 just days away and the financial Armageddon known as “sequester” about to kick in, President Obama continues his pathetic attempt to blame Republicans for the quagmire that bears Obama’s personal mark of incompetence, instantly recognizable by the immature, illogical nature of arguments advanced.

Thanks to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, Obama’s latest lying campaign is being exposed.

Woodward’s column is found at the reference and includes the following:

Misunderstanding, misstatements and all the classic contortions of partisan message management surround the sequester, the term for the $85 billion in ugly and largely irrational federal spending cuts set by law to begin Friday.

What is the non-budget wonk to make of this? Who is responsible? What really happened?

The finger-pointing began during the third presidential debate last fall, on Oct. 22, when President Obama blamed Congress. “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed,” Obama said. “It is something that Congress has proposed.”

The White House chief of staff at the time, Jack Lew, who had been budget director during the negotiations that set up the sequester in 2011, backed up the president two days later.

“There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger,” Lew said while campaigning in Florida. It “was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure.”

The president and Lew had this wrong. My extensive reporting for my book “The Price of Politics” shows that the automatic spending cuts were initiated by the White House and were the brainchild of Lew and White House congressional relations chief Rob Nabors — probably the foremost experts on budget issues in the senior ranks of the federal government.

Obama personally approved of the plan for Lew and Nabors to propose the sequester to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). They did so at 2:30 p.m. July 27, 2011, according to interviews with two senior White House aides who were directly involved.

Nabors has told others that they checked with the president before going to see Reid. A mandatory sequester was the only action-forcing mechanism they could devise. Nabors has said, “We didn’t actually think it would be that hard to convince them” — Reid and the Republicans — to adopt the sequester. “It really was the only thing we had. There was not a lot of other options left on the table.”

A majority of Republicans did vote for the Budget Control Act that summer, which included the sequester. Key Republican staffers said they didn’t even initially know what a sequester was — because the concept stemmed from the budget wars of the 1980s, when they were not in government.

At the Feb. 13 Senate Finance Committee hearing on Lew’s nomination to become Treasury secretary, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) asked Lew about the account in my book: “Woodward credits you with originating the plan for sequestration. Was he right or wrong?”

“It’s a little more complicated than that,” Lew responded, “and even in his account, it was a little more complicated than that. We were in a negotiation where the failure would have meant the default of the government of the United States.”

“Did you make the suggestion?” Burr asked.

“Well, what I did was said that with all other options closed, we needed to look for an option where we could agree on how to resolve our differences. And we went back to the 1984 plan that Senator [Phil] Gramm and Senator [Warren] Rudman worked on and said that that would be a basis for having a consequence that would be so unacceptable to everyone that we would be able to get action.”

In other words, yes.

But then Burr asked about the president’s statement during the presidential debate, that the Republicans originated it.

Lew, being a good lawyer and a loyal presidential adviser, then shifted to denial mode: “Senator, the demand for an enforcement mechanism was not something that the administration was pushing at that moment.”

That statement was not accurate.

On Tuesday, Obama appeared at the White House with a group of police officers and firefighters to denounce the sequester as a “meat-cleaver approach” that would jeopardize military readiness and investments in education, energy and readiness. He also said it would cost jobs. But, the president said, the substitute would have to include new revenue through tax reform.

At noon that same day, White House press secretary Jay Carney shifted position and accepted sequester paternity.

“The sequester was something that was discussed,” Carney said. Walking back the earlier statements, he added carefully, “and as has been reported, it was an idea that the White House put forward.”

This was an acknowledgment that the president and Lew had been wrong.

Why does this matter?

First, months of White House dissembling further eroded any semblance of trust between Obama and congressional Republicans. (The Republicans are by no means blameless and have had their own episodes of denial and bald-faced message management.)

Second, Lew testified during his confirmation hearing that the Republicans would not go along with new revenue in the portion of the deficit-reduction plan that became the sequester. Reinforcing Lew’s point, a senior White House official said Friday, “The sequester was an option we were forced to take because the Republicans would not do tax increases.”

In fact, the final deal reached between Vice President Biden and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in 2011 included an agreement that there would be no tax increases in the sequester in exchange for what the president was insisting on: an agreement that the nation’s debt ceiling would be increased for 18 months, so Obama would not have to go through another such negotiation in 2012, when he was running for reelection.

So when the president asks that a substitute for the sequester include not just spending cuts but also new revenue, he is moving the goal posts. His call for a balanced approach is reasonable, and he makes a strong case that those in the top income brackets could and should pay more. But that was not the deal he made.”

Many thanks to Mr. Woodward for sharing the truth with the American people.

Given the fact that Obama has lied about the origin of sequestration, how much confidence should the American people place in the administration stories, varied and inconsistent as they are, about the slaughter of four American diplomats at Benghazi on September 11, 2012?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_print.html

Cardinal Roger Mahony: Jesus-Like “Scapegoat”?

By John W. Lillpop


Cardinal Roger Mahony has been soundly rebuked for mishandling cases involving sexual molestation of children by Catholic priests. His role in covering-up potential criminal behavior is nothing short of scandalous, and has caused him to be stripped of diocesan duties.

In and of itself, the Mahony cover-up is a devastating exposure of the apparent lack of spiritual enlightenment in some quarters of the Catholic Church.

Even worse, however, is the despicable attempt by the “Holy Father” to claim that he is a victim who is being persecuted as was Jesus Christ!

As reported in the media:

Los Angeles' retired Cardinal Roger Mahony, who was rebuked last month for his handling of the sex-abuse crisis, suggests he was "scapegoated" in a blog post ahead of two important dates: his Saturday deposition in a lawsuit alleging that the church hierarchy protected a priest accused of molesting children and his trip to Rome to help pick the next pope.

The high-profile "prince of the church" is at the center of an outcry over several scandal-tainted cardinals being allowed to help choose who will succeed Pope Benedict XVI at next month's conclave at the Vatican.

A group called Catholics United started a petition against his attendance at the conclave. And an Italian consumer group requested Rome prosecutors open a criminal investigation into Mahony if he travels to the Vatican, the news agency ANSA reported Friday.

Improbable as that is, it underscores the outrage in some quarters that cardinals whose reputations have been battered by cover-up allegations will have an equal say in who will next lead the world's 1.3 billion Catholics.

NBC News' Vatican expert, George Weigel, said he could not recall similar calls for abstention at other conclaves, but he noted that voting is an obligation under church law and that other "less-than-admirable" figures have attended for more than a millennium.

"If people are looking for a perfect, sinless electorate to choose religious leadership, they should look somewhere else," Weigel said.”

Excuse me, but who in the hell is looking for “a perfect, sinless electorate,” Mr. Weigel?

Is it really too much to ask that Cardinals voting for a Pope to represent Jesus Christ on earth not be involved in covering up pedophilia and other sexual abuses of children?

Jesus himself warned against harming “little ones“ with this admonition, "If any of you put a stumbling block before one of these little ones who believe in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matt 18:6).

It would seem that the least that the Church could do would be to deny the vote to Mahony, so as to not cheapen and ridicule the Conclave and the next Pope.
Furthermore, given the choice between not voting for Pope and being “drowned in the depth of the sea,” Mahony would seem to be undeservingly blessed if his punishment be limited to the former!


http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/23/17057099-las-cardinal-mahony-calls-himself-scapegoat-ahead-of-deposition-conclave?lite&ocid=msnhp&pos=1

Obama Touts Fatherhood As Antidote to Violence; Then Golfs With Party Animal Tiger Woods!

By John W. Lillpop


President Obama went to the war-torn streets of Chicago and argued that gun violence, and other social decay, so prevalent in his hometown could attacked if marriage and fatherhood were promoted more.

As reported at the reference:

President Barack Obama argued that involved fathers, positive role models, and "strong, stable families" are key to reducing violence and it's "not just a gun issue," in a speech he gave Friday in his former hometown of Chicago.

"There's no more important ingredient for success, nothing that would be more important for us reducing violence than strong, stable families -- which means we should do more to promote marriage and encourage fatherhood," Obama said.

Chicago is one of the most violent cities in America, where 40 people were killed by guns in the last month. First Lady Michelle Obama attended a funeral there last week for Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old girl, who was shot dead in a park a week after participating in the presidential inauguration.

"When a child opens fire on another child, there's a hole in that child's heart that government can't fill -- only community and parents and teachers and clergy can fill that hole," he said. "There are entire neighborhoods where young people, they don't see an example of somebody succeeding. For a lot of young boys and young men in particular, they don't see an example of fathers or grandfathers, uncles who are in a position to support families and be held up and respected."

Nobody can argue with the idea that strong families and good fathers are vital to young males struggling to grow up in a confusing world, mad world!

The problem with Obama’s pitch is that his words smack of utter hypocrisy!


Indeed, after delivering his Shout Out to Fathers and Strong Families, the president flew off to Florida for a golfing weekend with Tiger Woods, the last man one with any common sense would hold up as a model of good fatherhood or as an example of a dedicated family man!

There is no doubt that Tiger is a splendid, world-class athlete whose work ethic and tireless commitment to excellence are laudable and worthy of emulation.

Still, immediately after delivering such a powerful call for positive male role models and strong families, golfing with a known adulterer and party animal like Tiger Woods gives Obama’s words an all-too-familiar ring--that of hypocritical double talk!

Also known as "bull excrement"!

http://politix.topix.com/homepage/4622-obama-says-involved-fathers-strong-families-will-help-reduce-gun-violence