Thread: Obama ~ Calling everyone who doesn't vote his way are ENEMIES that NEED TO BE PUNISHED!

Election's Big Result: Expect More Washington Gridlock
by: David Lightman McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — America's voters sent strong signals Tuesday that they're tired of Washington's endless partisan bickering, but lawmakers aren't likely to show that they get the message anytime soon. Instead, they're bracing for ugly partisan showdowns over government spending and health care.

Republicans won control Tuesday of the House of Representatives, and appeared headed toward gains in the Senate. GOP candidates are adamant they're being elected to shrink government and roll back major Obama administration initiatives.

Congressional Democrats — their moderate ranks dramatically thinned on Tuesday — are going to be dominated by liberals eager for government to do more to ease the nation's economic pain. As a result, "We're not about to get what people want," said Maya MacGuineas, the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group.

Instead, we're likely to get partisan gridlock.

The confrontational tone was clear from the GOP winners Tuesday night — "there's a tea party tidal wave and we're sending a message," proclaimed Kentucky Senator-elect Rand Paul. It was equally clear in the "Pledge to America," the campaign guidebook from Republican members of the House of Representatives, which rails against "an arrogant and out of touch government of self-appointed elites."

The pledge's centerpiece is a punch aimed squarely at the Democratic gut: It calls for repealing this year's healthcare overhaul, extending permanently all Bush-era tax cuts and imposing budget discipline by rolling back most domestic spending to 2008 levels.

President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress won't go along. Forecast: gridlock.

That's not what Americans want. By 77 percent to 22 percent, registered voters want Republicans to work with Obama to get things done rather than stand firm to the point of gridlock, according to the latest McClatchy-Marist poll. Nevertheless, gridlock's coming to Congress — at least for the opening months.

Still, there are two glimmers of hope that compromise eventually could emerge. One is that as 2012 elections loom, lawmakers will remember the voters' clear mandate from Tuesday. "Voters are saying they want something different. They're tired of a lot of the bickering," said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which conducts the McClatchy-Marist poll. The other catalyst for comity could be unforeseen events that frighten lawmakers into action. MacGuineas predicted that the partisan bile would ease if global financial markets resume reeling, for instance, once they see that Congress is unable to make serious dents in the budget deficit or the national debt.

For the moment, though, there's little optimism that politicians will heed the voters. The first clash, over extending Bush's tax cuts, will begin immediately. The tax cuts expire at the end of this year. Obama and Democrats want to extend only those affecting the middle class, while Republicans and many centrist Democrats want to extend all the cuts, including those for the rich. The impasse should be "relatively simple to resolve," said Burdett Loomis, professor of political science at the University of Kansas, Those decisions will be made during the old Congress' lame-duck session that begins Nov. 15, when Democrats will still control both chambers and centrists will still be influential. Still, the debate will be rancorous and set a tone for battles ahead.

Another sign of the times could be evident next month when the bipartisan deficit reduction commission issues its report on Dec. 1. Any recommendation needs 14 of 18 members' consent to be sent to Congress for votes. The commission was created as a way for warring politicians, led by out-of-office elder statesmen, to make tough decisions about changes in Social Security, Medicare and other political untouchables.

Even if the commission recommends strong steps however, winning congressional approval of them will be difficult, as Democrats are sure to resist changes to Social Security and Republicans to refuse tax hikes. Many lawmakers just campaigned on those stands, and compromising them now in the name of long-term fiscal discipline would ask more sacrifice than most politicians are likely to muster. "Republicans have been pretty much in lockstep, and will probably continue to do so," on taxes and other major pledges, said John Geer, a political science professor at Vanderbilt University.

Two other consequential tests appear likely to arise early in 2011.

One will involve fiscal policy. The current debt ceiling of $14.29 trillion is likely to be exceeded early next year. Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., who's likely to become the House majority leader, wants to tie any new debt-ceiling increase to major spending cuts, setting up a showdown with Democrats over priorities. The other early 2011 battle line is framed in the GOP's pledge: "We will immediately take action to repeal this (new health care) law."

Trouble is, several popular provisions of the new law are already in effect, and polls show some parts are overwhelmingly popular, even if the law as a whole is not. Democrats will fight against repeal of their signature achievement of Obama's first two years, and most have long opposed the health-care ideas that Republicans want most, such as damage-limits in medical malpractice laws. That will leave Republicans to pick away around the edges. "A lot of people who have health insurance really believe Obamacare will make their costs go up and quality go down. I don't think you stop it as much as you start picking at the things that are unpopular," said Merle Black, professor of politics & government at Emory University in Atlanta.

If compromises surface, they'll likely show first in the 100-member Senate, where 60 votes are needed to cut off debate and at least a smidgeon of bipartisanship has long been essential to success. Even there, though, experts aren't optimistic. Many veteran dealmakers are gone — in the past two years, the Senate has lost Robert Byrd, Edward Kennedy and Joe Biden, and is about to lose Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan and George Voinovich — legislative craftsmen all.

Those who remain grew more timid in recent months as voters punished compromisers in party primaries. Still, said some analysts, maybe new conciliators will re-emerge over time as 2012 elections get closer and lawmakers are reminded of the public's loud message Tuesday. "People weren't voting for solutions," said Nathan Gonzales, political editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. "They were expressing their dissatisfaction."

I heard she is out on her ass!!! The gods have finally answered.
Now we have two more years to get rid of Obama. And nothing shocks me as far as something he says. Everytime he opens his mouth crap comes out. lol
At least in Iowa we got rid of our dead weight governor!!!

Homeland Security reveals hundreds of words that could put you on their online watch list
By Zach Epstein | BGR News – 10 hrs ago

Social networks like Twitter and Facebook are among the thousands of sites monitored for suspicious activity by the Department of Homeland Security, and the government agency was recently forced to tip its hand. As part of a freedom of information request made by watchdog group Electronic Privacy Information Center, DOHS recently published a list of hundreds of words and terms it watches for on social media sites. Some are obvious, such as Al Qaeda, terrorism and domestic nuclear detection, while others are potentially a bit more innocent such as Mexico, social media and burst. Innocent or not, the wrong combination of the terms published in this list could result in a user’s online activity being monitored by DOHS — and if they don’t like what they see, users could end up being watched more closely. A spokesperson for the government agency called the list a starting point used to maintain situational awareness of natural and man-made threats, rather than an endgame.

http://news.yahoo.com/homeland-secur...163002456.html

Revealed: Hundreds of words to avoid using online if you don't want the government spying on you (and they include 'pork', 'cloud' and 'Mexico')
Department of Homeland Security forced to release list following freedom of information request
Agency insists it only looks for evidence of genuine threats to the U.S. and not for signs of general dissent
By Daniel Miller PUBLISHED: 04:32 EST, 26 May 2012 | UPDATED: 12:46 EST, 26 May

The Department of Homeland Security has been forced to release a list of keywords and phrases it uses to monitor social networking sites and online media for signs of terrorist or other threats against the U.S.
The intriguing the list includes obvious choices such as 'attack', 'Al Qaeda', 'terrorism' and 'dirty bomb' alongside dozens of seemingly innocent words like 'pork', 'cloud', 'team' and 'Mexico'.
Released under a freedom of information request, the information sheds new light on how government analysts are instructed to patrol the internet searching for domestic and external threats.

The words are included in the department's 2011 'Analyst's Desktop Binder' used by workers at their National Operations Center which instructs workers to identify 'media reports that reflect adversely on DHS and response activities'.
Department chiefs were forced to release the manual following a House hearing over documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit which revealed how analysts monitor social networks and media organisations for comments that 'reflect adversely' on the government.

However they insisted the practice was aimed not at policing the internet for disparaging remarks about the government and signs of general dissent, but to provide awareness of any potential threats.

As well as terrorism, analysts are instructed to search for evidence of unfolding natural disasters, public health threats and serious crimes such as mall/school shootings, major drug busts, illegal immigrant busts.
The list has been posted online by the Electronic Privacy Information Center - a privacy watchdog group who filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act before suing to obtain the release of the documents.
In a letter to the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Counter-terrorism and Intelligence, the centre described the choice of words as 'broad, vague and ambiguous'.

They point out that it includes 'vast amounts of First Amendment protected speech that is entirely unrelated to the Department of Homeland Security mission to protect the public against terrorism and disasters.'

A senior Homeland Security official told the Huffington Post that the manual 'is a starting point, not the endgame' in maintaining situational awareness of natural and man-made threats and denied that the government was monitoring signs of dissent.

However the agency admitted that the language used was vague and in need of updating.

Spokesman Matthew Chandler told website: 'To ensure clarity, as part of ... routine compliance review, DHS will review the language contained in all materials to clearly and accurately convey the parameters and intention of the program.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1wJt1y2gg

If you take a bridge to get to target in a snow storm to buy twister, you're in trouble buddy!

In the same way they targeted donors to Republican rival Mitt Romney for attack, http://www.barackobama.com/truth-tea...omneys-donors/ the Obama Campaign’s fraudulent “Truth Team” website http://www.barackobama.com/truth-tea...20120817_jk_tt has singled out several patriotic groups of military heroes, calling them a “cadre of conservative groups” and “operatives” who are trying to “swiftboat” the President.

They are in fact, retired military heroes opposing Obama’s reelection because of the damage his administration is doing to our National Security.

Big Government reported: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2...o-Enemies-List

Several veterans’ groups have spoken out against the Obama administration’s habit of taking credit for the Osama bin Laden raid and leaking military secrets for political gain–so the Obama campaign is trying to shoot the messenger.

The charge made by the Obama campaign is that the veterans’ groups are “Swift Boat 2.0”–referring to the group that launched a series of ads (never refuted) in 2004 contesting claims by then-Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry about his war record. Left-wing groups aligned with the Obama administration have even gone so far as to call the U.S. Navy Seals “gutless” for their participation in criticism of Obama.

Ryan Zinke, a member of the Montana state Senate and a U.S. Navy SEAL from 1985 to 2008, told Breitbart News: “It’s a sad time for America when a President has to resort to bully tactics, intimidation, and misleading personal attacks against anyone who dares to speak out and be heard. The good thing is Americans have a long history of defeating tyrants.”

Juan Williams, filling in for Bill O’Reilly, last week, characterized critics of OPSEC veterans as “the far left”. OPSEC is one of the groups the Obama camp has targeted on the Truth Team website. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPgZJ...layer_embedded

I wonder if Williams would be willing to characterize the President of the United States member of “the far left” as he has joined their shrill voices by adding Special Op heroes to his enemies list?

The groups targeted by Obama:

Special Operations Speaks: http://specialoperationsspeaks.com/index.php/en/

Mission Statement:


We, as veterans, legatees, and supporters of the Special Operations communities of all the Armed Forces, have noted with dismay and deep alarm the recent stream of highly damaging leaks of information about various aspects of America’s shadow war in the overall War on Terror. Our principles are the same as when we were in active service — Duty, Honor, Country.

Our goals are:
•To emphasize the pressing need for the nation and its representatives to understand the value of our Constitution and actively support a return to its application in all phases of government;
•To illuminate the failed operational security environment of the Administration and to provide the public with accurate information about these repeated releases of highly classified information;
•To restore accountability in government and with it the trust in our government that We The People deserve and demand.

Special Operations for America: http://soforamerica.org/

Mission Statement:

•Special Operations for America (SOFA) is committed to a strong and independent military that is capable of defending America’s freedoms and interests.
•SOFA is dedicated to restoring strong leadership to the Office of the Commander-in-Chief and those senior officials appointed by the President.
•SOFA believes in American exceptionalism along with leadership that does not minimize American greatness or politicize military achievements for personal gain.
•SOFA pledges to accurately address issues that affect our military and those core threats to National Security.
•SOFA will identify and provide accurate information on policies that harm or discredit our national security and those who bravely protect us.

OPSEC. http://opsecteam.org/mission.html

Mission Statement:

STOP the politicians, President Obama and others, from politically capitalizing on US national security operations and secrets!

EDUCATE the public on the importance and necessity of Operational Security in today’s environment.

To Do Nothing is not an option as that allows the special operations and intelligence capabilities to be degraded, and paraded around like a show dog…ACTION IS REQUIRED NOW!

Veterans of a Strong America http://www.veteransforastrongamerica.org/

America is safe – when America is strong.Veterans for a Strong America is a non-partisan action organization dedicated to educating the public, members of Congress and the Executive Branch about our 5 Step Mission to make America Strong:
•We must grow the world’s strongest, most robust economy and cut spending in order to reduce the National Debt
•We must strengthen and modernize America’s Military so that no adversary will even contemplate a challenge to our security and safety
•We must Implement a common-sense national energy policy that will power America into the 21st century
•We must re-build our intelligence community in order to prevent another 9-11
•We must design a legal framework that allows America’s law enforcement agencies to prosecute terrorism on a global battlefield

Veterans for a Strong America’s response to the Truth Team hit piece: Obama names Veterans for a Strong America and others as Enemies of the Statist http://www.veteransforastrongamerica...f-the-statist/

SEE ALSO
The Blaze: Obama and the Politics of Treason: http://www.theblaze.com/contribution...cs-of-treason/

President Obama has dismissed and derided the former military and intelligence officers who believe his administration passed out sensitive national security information for partisan gain. In a press conference yesterday, he said of the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund and similar groups—“I don’t take these folks too seriously.”

Unsurprisingly, the White House has been quick to attack the men behind these accusations instead of explaining to the American people that this administration has not leveraged defense secrets for positive press reports. The best Obama was able to muster in his defense yesterday was “this kind of stuff springs up before election time.”

***

Though we will likely never find out the source of the leaks, President Obama appears more upset about them as a political liability than a possible threat to our national security. That alone is cause for concern.

Fox Nation: Communist Party Endorses Obama For 2012 http://nation.foxnews.com/president-...ses-obama-2012

Ataaaaack Waaaaatch…..


UPDATE: Weasel Zippers: Navy SEALs Slam Obama Over “Condescending And Belittling” Comments…
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/08/22/n...ling-comments/


http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2012/08...-enemies-list/