We accept it as a rule around Poor Richard’s News HQ: if Obama has a policy position today, at some point in history he held the opposite position. President Obama has more flip flops than Panama City Beach during spring break.
Here’s the video:
In 2008, then Sen. Obama (D., Ill.) opposed the Export-Import Bank calling it “little more than a fund for corporate welfare.”
A complete position reversal was exposed during a Friday news conference when Obama strongly defended the institution:
“But for some reason, right now the House Republicans have decided that we shouldn’t do this, which means that when American companies go overseas and they’re trying to close a sale on selling Boeing planes, for example, or a GE turbine or some other American product that has all kinds of subcontractors behind it and is creating all kinds of jobs and all of sorts of small businesses depend on that sale, and that American company’s going up against a German company or a Chinese company, and the Chinese and the American — the German company are providing financing and the American company isn’t, we may lose that sale,” Obama argued.
“Why — when did that become something that Republicans opposed? It’d be like me having a car dealership for Ford, and the Toyota dealership offers somebody financing and I don’t. We will lose business, and we’ll lose jobs if we don’t pass it,” Obama continued.
Earlier this week, Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) argued the Ex-Im bank is representative of “crony capitalism.”
Sadly, Obama’s 2008 stance was the correct one: the Export-Import bank is nothing more than a big-government vehicle for crony capitalism.
Even for Nancy Pelosi, today’s display on the House floor was especially insane. During Rep. Tom Marino’s speech, she ran across the House floor to interrupt him after he pointed out that the House did nothing to stop the border crisis under her leadership. After he finished, she chased him down again to berate him.
from ABC News:
In an unusual breach of decorum, even for the divided Congress, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi chased Rep. Tom Marino across the House floor, taking offense at comments by the Pennsylvania Republican during debate on the border funding bill Friday night.
“We don’t have law and order,” Marino began as he wrapped up his comments on the border supplemental. “My colleagues on the other side don’t want to do anything about it.”
“Under the leadership of their former leader, when in 2009 and 2010, they had the House, the Senate and the White House, and they knew this problem existed,” he continued. “They didn’t have the strength to go after it back then. But now are trying to make a political issue out of it.”
Off-mic, Pelosi then seemed to challenge Marino’s assertion that Democrats did not do anything about the issue when they had majority control.
“Yes it is true,” Marino replied directly to Pelosi, who was House speaker in those years. “I did the research on it. You might want to try it. You might want to try it, Madam Leader. Do the research on it. Do the research. I did it. That’s one thing that you don’t do.”
Marino then urged lawmakers to support the border supplemental because “apparently I hit the right nerve.”
After Marino concluded his remarks, Pelosi quickly crossed the chamber, enraged, pointing and sticking her finger in Marino’s face.
She then followed Marino up a Republican aisle, and continued arguing with him. Another Republican member spoke out to tell the chair that the House was not in order, in an effort to halt the bickering.
Here’s video of Morino’s speech in which you can see Pelosi scampering across the House floor to interrupt him:
Pelosi’s office is explaining her bizarre behavior by saying she wanted to point out that under her leadership the House passed the DREAM act (which later died in the Senate). This is utterly laughable because the promise of the DREAM act and Obama’s like-minded executive orders are the primary reason for the flood of illegal immigrant minors flooding across the Southern border.
Supposedly the most articulate orator ever to serve as President: “We tortured some folks.” Some folks? Oh, you mean 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
This has long been Obama’s position, and a position of the left generally — that the three terrorist commanders (aka “some folks”) we waterboarded were unjustly and cruelly “tortured.”
It’s not entirely surprising, then, that he should say this, but the offhanded flippancy of it does surprise.
Also surprising, though it should not be: The left likes to claim that they see the “nuances” and “context” of actions, whereas the right “simplifies” the facts into an easily-understood “morality play.”
Nitwit British alleged comedian Russell Brand just criticized Sean Hannity for calling Hamas “terrorists.” Brand argued that this is “simplistic” as it fails to take into account “the context.”
The context he offers is this: Hamas is weaker, militarily, and is thus forced to do things which “we might perceive” as terrorist actions.
In other words, any group in a fight with a stronger group has the right to kidnap and murder hitchhiking teenagers, because, you know. You can do anything if you’re judged to be the “weaker” party.
I wonder if, when those teenagers were being murdered by Hamas thugs, they felt as if they were the “dominant, hegemonic” power-players in that situation.
But to return to Obama: While the left claims it speaks in “nuances” and with all relevant “context” added — that they are fact and science based (I love science) — note how simplistically Obama puts this.
"We tortured some folks."
I don’t see a lot of context there. I don’t see the context that one of these three men was Khalid Sheik Mohammad, Osama bin Ladin’s then number two, the man who quarterbacked the 9/11 terrorist operation that slaughtered nearly 3000 people, and the man with the contact information for terrorists who would revisit that same tragedy upon us again, if permitted to.
No mention that this process, waterboarding, has no permanent or even short-lasting effects at all, or that it is used on our own troops in order to prepare them for the treatment they will receive at the hands of enemy captors.
But no — in Obama’s formulation, “We tortured some folks.”
I do mean it when I say “read the rest.” Ace’s analysis of the left’s selective moral outrage is spot on.
Another sad, sad case of brutality from the out-of-control NYPD. The NY City Medical Examiner has ruled that Eric Garner’s death was a “homicide.”
The city medical examiner has ruled the death of Eric Garner, the 43-year-old father whose death in police custody sparked national outrage, a homicide, saying a chokehold killed him.
The medical examiner said compression of the neck and chest, along with Garner’s positioning on the ground while being restrained by police during the July 17 stop on Staten Island, caused his death.
Garner’s acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity and hypertensive cardiovascular disease were contributing factors, the medical examiner determined.
There was no immediate comment from the NYPD. A spokesman for Richmond County District Attorney Daniel M. Donovan said his office had been contacted with the cause and manner of Garner’s death but was waiting for the official death certificate and the autopsy report to be issued while its investigation was continuing.
Here’s video of Garner’s arrest where it is clearly seen that officers choked him until he passed out and died. Garner can be heard repeatedly saying, “I can’t breathe! I can’t breathe!”:
Police had stopped Garner for allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes. Think about that. The New York City Police killed this man over some cigarettes because the government didn’t get their cut.
Obama’s signature law is the hit with the American people Democrats thought it would be. As more and more of the law’s provisions go into effect, few and fewer people are happy about it.
from Kaiser Health:
After remaining steady for several months, the share of the public expressing an unfavorable view of the health care law rose to 53 percent in July, up eight percentage points since last month’s poll. This increase was offset by a decrease in the share who declined to offer an opinion on the law (11 percent, down from 16 percent in June), while the share who view the law favorably held fairly steady at 37 percent, similar to where it’s been since March.1 Republicans continue to be the group with the strongest opposition to the law, but the increase in the share with an unfavorable view between June and July was similar across the political spectrum and different demographic groups.
Those who are unhappy with the law overwhelmingly want to see the law repealed and not simply amended to “improve” it (not that you could actually do anything to improve such a monstrosity). 61% of poll respondents who said they opposed the law want to see it repealed in its entirety.
Good Lord! What do you even do with news like this? We’ve known for a long time that Joe Biden is a dirty old man, but for crying out loud!
from Washington Times:
Vice President Joseph R. Biden has a secret love — skinny-dipping. A new tell-all book about Secret Service agents and the presidents they protect describes just how much they dread protecting the vice president, in part because of his penchant for going naked.
The book, “The First Family Detail,” by Robert Kessler, quotes numerous unnamed Secret Service agents giving out juicy details about the supposed “hidden lives” of presidents, both present and past, and the other politicos they protect.
Mr. Biden is shown to care more about his “regular guy” tag than about his official duties as second-in-charge of the country, the New York Daily News reported. He’s also cast as such a regular guy, that he can’t wait to get in the water without clothes.
“Agents say that, whether at the vice president’s residence or at his home in Delaware, Biden has a habit of swimming in his pool nude,” Mr. Kessler writes, the New York Daily News reported. “Female Secret Service agents find that offensive.”
Does anybody have a pill I can take to help me forget this?
Remember that creepy “Green Police” ad that aired during the Super Bowl a couple of years ago? It seems that kind of insanity has actually come to pass for a couple in North Carolina.
When Jennifer Brinkley saw a line of law enforcement vehicles coming up her driveway last Tuesday she didn’t know what to think. “I haven’t done anything wrong.”
The Homeland Security agents were not there to take her away, they were looking for illegally imported Land Rover Defenders. Brinkley had bought one via the internet last year and had invested more than $60,000 into the rare vehicle.
She thought she had checked it all out and she legally owned it. “They popped up the hood and looked at the Vehicle Identification Number and compared it with a piece of paper and then took the car with them,” she said.
It turns out that in recent years some importers have changed the VIN number to comply with import regulations. All vehicles coming into the United States must meet strict safety and emissions standards. Land Rover Defenders, for the most part, do not meet the standards.
But a quirk in the law does allow the importing of vehicles 25-years-old and older regardless of whether the standards are met. There have been cases in recent years where importers have changed the VIN to make the vehicle appear older and thereby allowing it to come into the United States.
Defenders, even ones 25-years-old, will sell at a premium in America. Brinkley says she bought the vehicle online and has been trying to reach the seller but unsuccessfully.
This is a prime example of the kind of of "civil asset forfeiture" that has prompted Sen. Rand Paul and a bipartisan group of Senators to sponsor a bill that would roll back law enforcement’s authority to seize assets without due process.
The couple in North Carolina has only been given 35 days to appeal the confiscation of their car. They haven’t been accused of any crime, but their car has. They also haven’t been given any opportunity to make sure their car meets the required safety and emissions standards. Instead, the Feds have stolen their property, and it’s highly doubtful they’ll ever get it back.
Civilian volunteer groups on the southern border are beginning to speak out about the horror they encounter on a daily basis. Ranchers in a single Texas county have found over 250 bodies since 2012 when Obama issued the “Deferred Action” executive order to prevent deportations of foreign minors living in the US illegally.
from Daily Mail:
Dead bodies of illegal immigrants are turning up in south Texas as Central Americans pour across the U.S.-Mexico border, and a veterinarian who ranches cattle 70 miles from ground zero has the photos to prove it.
Dr. Mike ‘Doc’ Vickers of Brooks County, Texas showed some of the grisly images to MailOnline, all of them far too grotesque to publish unedited.
One picture shows a corpse propped up against a tree near his ranch in Brooks County, his eyes missing and dried blood cascading down his shirtless body.
'This guy, obviously, had to lay down up against that tree, and that's where he died,' Vickers says in interview footage provided exclusively to MailOnline by documentary filmmaker Chris Dugard.
Falcons native to the Rio Grande river valley ‘plucked his eyes out before he was dead,’ the animal doctor concludes. ‘He bled out through his eyes, which tells me that he was probably in a coma but they were eatin’ on him before his heart stopped beating.’
Vickers, 64, told MailOnline on Wednesday that since 2012 his organization, the Texas Border Volunteers, has counted 259 dead bodies in his native Brooks County alone, including those of children.
'And we're probably only finding 20 per cent of them. A lot of people die out here.'
'We find a hell of a lot of women,' he said. 'Three of the last ones who have died on my ranch have been women. We found a dead 12-year-old boy on my neighbor's property.'
Some have the good fortune to find Vickers and his crew.
'We've rescued some small children, quite a few,' Vickers recalled. 'One boy, 11 years old, was left behind 8 or 9 miles off the highway. He had no idea where he was.' The border volunteers gave him water and arranged for U.S. Border Patrol agents to pick him up.
'I've seen families out in my front yard under a tree,' he said, 'with little bitty toddlers with them.'
The group of about 300 amateur patrolmen go out in teams of up to 40 armed men at a time for 4- to 5-day patrols, reporting to Border Patrol agents and Texas Rangers on where the immigrant traffic is heaviest.
In nine years of scouring south Texas, no shots have been fired.
Having seen the horror first hand for the last two years, Vickers puts the blame squarely on Obama’s shoulders for creating the crisis by refusing to enforce immigration law.
"All this blood we see out here is on Obama’s hands."
There are your ordinary police brutality stories, and then there are the ones that make you want to beat your head against a wall. This one is the latter.
from San Jose Mercury:
Tyler Harney was riding in a car that was stopped by police on Aug. 3, 2013, according to a lawsuit filed Monday in U.S. District Court. When two officers allegedly pushed him face forward against a squad car, apparently to arrest him, he began to convulse uncontrollably as a result of a seizure disorder.
"Rather than immediately provide assistance to plaintiff, he was forced to the ground by the officers, face first," Harney’s San Francisco-based attorney, David Helbraun, wrote in the 15-page complaint.
"An officer put his knee forcefully against plaintiff’s back and neck. One officer pulled and twisted back on plaintiff’s right arm, and continued to do so, saying, ‘stop, or I’m going to break your arm,’ or words to that effect. The officer then did in fact severely break plaintiff’s arm."
The Los Altos Hills resident was taken to Stanford Hospital to be treated for fractures to his left humerus bone. He was later booked into county jail, where sheriff’s deputies allegedly “exhibited deliberate indifference” to his medical needs. More specifically, his injured shoulder was not correctly immobilized and he did not receive the proper pain medication.
According to the suit, Harney was deprived of his state and federal constitutional rights “to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, to be free from wrongful government interference with his freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association, and to be free from bodily restraint and harm from personal insult and injury to personal relations.”
The suit maintains that Harney did not commit the crimes he was arrested for: battery on a police officer and resisting or obstructing a police officer. “At all material times, plaintiff acted peacefully and lawfully, never threatened any person, and never interfered with any police officer.”
Notice that there is no indication of why he was pulled over in the first place. All of the charges stem from his seizure, and the officers’s idiotic assumption that this man’s medical emergency was somehow a crime.