Elena LaVictoire's Library tagged obama →  View Popular, Search in Google

ON, D.C., October 12, 2011 (LifeSiteNews.com) – President Barack  Obama has promised to veto a bill strongly backed by pro-life leaders as a  last-ditch effort to dodge the potentially massive expansion of abortion under  the new federal healthcare reform law.

Majority Leader Eric Cantor announced last week that the  Protect Life Act, H.R.  358, will be considered in the House of Representatives on Thursday. The  measure would amend President Obama’s Affordable Care Act to reflect the Hyde  amendment by prohibiting taxpayer dollars from funding any health plan that  includes coverage of elective abortions. The measure retains Hyde’s exception  for abortions performed due to the child’s conception in rape or incest or to  save the mother’s life.

 

President Obama has vowed to veto the Protect  Life Act

The bill also makes clear that no health insurance carrier may  be forced to provide coverage of abortion in any of its health plans, and  strengthens the conscience rights of health care workers and institutions to  reject abortion training, procedures, or referrals.

In the same way that Ronald Wilson Reagan defined conservatism, and made  clear its home was the Republican Party; Barack Hussein Obama is defining  liberalism, and making clear its home is the Democrat Party.

The biggest impact of the Reagan Revolution was in the south – where millions  of generational Democrats finally figured out they were in the wrong party.

Now, thanks to Obama, Jews are the new southerners.

I don't say this out of extremism or to be gratuitously controversial or even  provocative. It's just that his words and actions lead to the inescapable  conclusion that he is unwilling to curb his appetite for big government. In the  absence of any such restraint, our alarming budget trajectory cannot be  reversed. The debt ceiling may be the last clear chance before the 2012  elections to force meaningful budgetary reforms.

Obama's recalcitrance is rooted in his ideology. He has been working all his  adult life toward the moment that he could transform America into a fairer  place. He's not about to allow an existential threat to the nation get in the  way of his obsession.

I believe in  Las Vegas. I think its best days are ahead of it. But I'm afraid to do anything  in the current political environment in the United States. You watch television  and see what's going on on this debt ceiling issue. And what I  consider to be a total lack of leadership from the President and nothing's going  to get fixed until the President himself steps up and wrangles both parties in  Congress. But everybody is so political, so focused on holding their job for the  next year that the discussion in Washington is nauseating.

And I'm  saying it bluntly, that this administration is the greatest wet blanket to  business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime. And I  can prove it and I could spend the next 3 hours giving you examples of all of us  in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations,  our healthcare costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right. A  President that seems, that keeps using that word redistribution. Well, my customers and the companies that provide  the vitality for the hospitality and restaurant industry, in the United States  of America, they are frightened of this administration.And it  makes you slow down and not invest your money. Everybody complains about how  much money is on the side in America.

You bet and  until we change the tempo and the conversation from Washington, it's not going  to change. And those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do  it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to  say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal  and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America.

The guy keeps making speeches about redistribution  and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, their  holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure  socialists. Everybody's afraid of the government and there's no need soft  peddling it, it's the truth. It is the truth. And that's true of Democratic  businessman and Republican businessman, and I am a Democratic businessman and I  support Harry Reid. I support Democrats and Republicans. And I'm telling you  that the business community in this company is frightened to death of the weird  political philosophy of the President of the United States. And until he's gone,  everybody's going to be sitting on their thumbs.

According to Mark Masnick, if a website embeds a YouTube video that is determined to have infringed on copyright and more than 10 people view it on that website, the owner or others associated with the website could face up to five years in prison.

Read Masnick’s article here. He explains how the new law would expand copyright violations from reproducing and distributing to performing – including streaming video over the internet.

As readers of Infowars.com know, many videos are removed from YouTube after copyright owners complain about infringement. This happens with thousands of news clips every year. Most people are familiar with the now common black box replacing a video that says the video has been removed for copyright reasons.

If enacted, this law will go one step further and turn people who embed a copyrighted video into criminals. It will also set the stage to criminalize linking to copyrighted information — like corporate media news sources — and shut down the alternative media.

It will also make people think twice about putting up all kinds of videos, from news reports to clips from documentaries and other educational material.

It does not take a vivid imagination to realize the political implications of this legislation.

Here is the full text of the bill.

Addendum

It should be noted that outlawing certain activities on the internet is instrumental to the Obama administration’s copyright policy

In March, the White House’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, Victoria Espinel, provided Congress with a White Paper (available for download here), outlining a series of the Obama Administration’s recommended legislative changes to combat online piracy and counterfeiting.

“Significantly, the recommendations include making it a felony offense to stream infringing content and giving Federal agencies wiretapping authority to obtain evidence of criminal copyright and trademark offenses,” David Makarewicz wrote for Infowars.com on March 17.

“Exploiting people’s emotions of fear, envy, and anxiety, is not hope–it’s not change. It’s partisanship. We don’t need partisanship. We don’t need demagoguery. We need solutions”

Ryan also said, “What we heard today was not fiscal leadership from our commander in chief. What we heard today was a political broadside from our campaigner-in-chief.”

“Rather than building bridges, he’s poisoning wells,” the Wisconsin congressman said.

Obama vs. Obama

By Victor Davis  Hanson  

These weird about-faces raise interesting  questions that transcend the current politics of the deficit:

a) Has Obama in his past careers never  been called to account and so reached a point where simply being Obama means  that we are not supposed to apply standards of accuracy, memory, and consistency  to him in the way we do to all others?

b) Or does an absent-minded Obama  carelessly make up things up ad hoc as he goes along, forgetting what he said  earlier, but secure that his hope-and-change delivery of the moment will so  mesmerize the audience that no one will remember or care if at times he ends up  saying exactly the opposite of what he had said earlier?

c) Or is he so blatantly partisan a  politician that he has no principles at all and knowingly says things that are  aimed at appealing to 51 percent of the public at any given moment, and  therefore will always change with public opinion?

d) Or is he so cynical that he understands  campaign rhetoric has nothing to do with actual governance, and so he is allowed  to say something that he knows in advance that he is not bound to follow?

e) Or is he so bored with the trying job  that he feels no responsibility to offer reliable,  consistent governance, and so rashly throws things out and then hastens back to  the more enjoyable PR aspects of the office?

The Obama administration is  developing a "universal Internet ID" program that would watch, track, monitor  and potentially control your activity on the Internet. These "trusted  identities" are being touted as a way to increase  safety and security on the Internet and as a way to eliminate the need for  dozens of different usernames and passwords. But is a universal Internet ID that  is issued and controlled by the U.S. government really a good idea?  Right now, Obama administration  officials are trying to make it seem as non-threatening as possible. They are  insisting that it will not be mandatory. They are insisting that it would be  impossible for hackers to steal the universal Internet identities. They are  insisting that none of our personal information will be gathered or used by  federal agencies. But in light of how regularly the government has abused our  liberties and freedoms in recent years in the name of "security", should we  really believe what they are saying about this new universal Internet ID?

Perhaps to assuage concerns about "Big Brother", the Obama  administration is proposing that the U.S. Commerce Department be the one to  oversee these new universal Internet identities.

But how long do you think it would take for the Department of  Homeland Security (along with several dozen other government agencies) to get  involved in "administering" these "trusted identities"?