Friday, May 31, 2013

N.C. Could Soon Find a Way to Penalize Hybrid Owners for All That Gas They’re Saving | TheBlaze.com

N.C. Could Soon Find a Way to Penalize Hybrid Owners for All That Gas They’re Saving

N.C. Could Soon Find a Way to Penalize Hybrid Owners for All That Gas They’re Saving

North Carolina Drivers Could be Fined More for their Hybrids
TOKYO, JAPAN – APRIL 17: Vice Chairman of Toyota Takeshi Uchiyamada poses with Prius cars after speaking to the media on April 17, 2013 in Tokyo, Japan. (Getty Images)
If you’re a Hybrid or electric car owner living in North Carolina, you could end up paying a lot more than you bargained for, according to Charlotte News14.
“One item in the Senate budget calls for drivers to pay an additional fee when they renew their car registration,” the report adds.
The idea is pretty simple: Hybrid and electric cars use little to no gas, meaning the owner pays little to nothing in gas taxes. So state lawmakers are trying to come up with a way to make up for the loss in revenue.
“For hybrid cars the fee would be $50, electric cars the fee would be $100. Since hybrid cars use less gas supporters say the fees would help the state collect that money they lose from the gas tax back in order to fund road projects,” the report notes.
But this may pose a problem to potential Hybrid buyers.
See, one of the benefits to owning a Hybrid or electric vehicle — aside from the supposed environmental benefit — is that they usually come with several purchasing incentives.
Drive a Hybrid? Here’s a carpool lane for you. Drive a Hybrid? Here’s a parking space. Drive a Hybrid? Here’s a tax credit.
But all that could change for North Carolina drivers if the state makes owning a “clean” car as expensive in the long run as owning a gas-powered car.
“[W]hat effect, if any, will it have on potential car owners who are interested in buying hybrid or electric cars, but don’t want to pony up the extra cash,” the Consumerist asks. “It seems unlikely that $50-$100 would make a huge difference in decision-making for anyone willing to spend on a new car, but it could still happen.”
“The old system of collecting money for our roads is outdated. If this is the best way that we can do that then we’re going to be in some trouble for a very long time,” said North Carolina Sierra Club Communications Director Dustin Chicurel-Bayard.
And let’s not forget about the affect it could have on dealerships.
“That would be on the individual buying the car if they felt that that was something they wanted to pay or don’t pay. I don’t know if that fee would necessarily deter someone from buying,” Bobby Murray, Chevrolet General Sales Manager, told Charlotte News14.
Chicurel-Bayard doesn’t like the direction the state legislature is headed.
“We need to look at overall how we raise the money for our infrastructure and find new solutions rather than penalizing people who drive clean cars,” he said.
The House is currently working the budget and the “clean” car tax is only in the proposal phase.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Clinton Writing SHOCKING Book: Monica Lewinsky Child? Obama is an Alcoholic? And More! // Mr. Conservative

Clinton Writing SHOCKING Book: Monica Lewinsky Child? Obama is an Alcoholic? And More! // Mr. Conservative

Clinton Writing SHOCKING Book: Monica Lewinsky Child? Obama is an Alcoholic? And More!

AUTHOR Bookworm
May 29, 2013 10:30am PST
For those of you who always thought that Hillary was lying about everything, you’re about to be proven right. Moreover, the news is going to come from a very unexpected source: Hillary herself.
The National Enquirer, which has stuck very close to honest reporting since getting burned in a long-ago libel suit, reports that Hillary has decided to stop the lies and tell the truth in an upcoming memoir. Simon & Schuster will pay her $25 million for writing the book, which she hopes will inoculate her 2016 presidential run against any future ugly revelations.
According to the National Enquirer’s source, a person who is allegedly one of Hillary’s close friends, “By writing this tell-all, Hillary will settle old scores and get revenge on her enemies.” Those enemies apparently include Barack and Michelle Obama, since pre-publication rumors have it that Hillary will report about Barack’s drinking problem and the Obamas’ serious marital problems. Hillary also plans to attack Valeria Jarrett, who is Obama’s right-hand woman and the person many believe is the real power in the White House.
Hillary also intends to admit what many have known for years, but which her friends and ex-lovers have never confirmed: she’s bisexual and has had lesbian affairs. The National Enquirier smugly notes that the memoir will confirm one of its past reports that a veterinarian who came to the White House to treat Socks, the White House cat, caught Hillary in a steamy (and adulterous) embrace with another woman.
It will be interesting to see whether Hillary addresses the rumors that one of her lovers is Huma Abedin. Abedin is an interesting character, since she is Hillary’s closest confidant and aid; is married to Anthony Weiner, the Democrat politician who sent naked pictures of himself to women; and comes from a family tied closely to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Huma Abedin and Hillary Clinton
According to a source the National Enquirier identifies as a “family insider,” Hillary’s admission that she is a lesbian isn’t a sign that she repents her life of lies. Instead, it’s part of her cold-blooded political calculation:
“Bill and Hillary are the consummate politi­cians, and they realize the LGBT community is a huge voting bloc,” said a family insider.
“They want lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender people behind Hillary in the 2016 campaign. So Hillary’s going to come clean for the votes. She’ll admit that she’s bisexual and has had lesbian relationships.”
Hillary will also admit that, when she suddenly vanished from the scene last December amidst State Department assurances that nothing bad was the matter, these assurances were yet another Clinton lie. In fact, after a fall, she was discovered to have a blood clot between her brain and her right ear, which was putting pressure on her brain. In the lead-up to the diagnosis, Hillary thought she had brain cancer, just as Teddy Kennedy did, and began saying good-bye to friends and families.
Hillary lying to a House investigative committee:

For those who still care about Monica Lewinsky, whose sexual shenanigans with Bill almost lost Bill and Hillary the White House, Hillary will finally talk about her version of those events. According to Hillary’s view of things, Monica got word to Hillary that Bill was in love with Monica and wanted to start a family with him (and that she was even planning on getting pregnant without Bill’s consent). Hillary’s response to this news was to throw up in a White House bathroom.
The book isn’t just about the personal. As part of her attack on the Obamas, Hillary will detail her battles with Valerie Jarrett, “Obama’s brain,” to get a green light on attacking Osama bin Laden. Hillary also plans to detail the fight she had with the White House over Osama’s bloodied, bullet-ridden corpse. Hillary claims that she wanted it returned to the U.S. as proof that he was dead. Obama instead opted for a secret burial at sea (and Hillary promises to reveal the real location) so as not to inflame Muslim sensibilities.
Hillary’s plan is that this book, by telling all her dirty little secrets in advance, will clear the way for a 2016 presidential run since none of her opponents will have any dirt to spill on her. The mere fact that she feels compelled to write this book indicates that the Obamas have already gathered this information and, moreover, that they would have used it if Hillary had looked set to sweep the Democrat primaries in 2008. Releasing dirt on his Democrat opponents as a way to clear the field is, after all, vintage Obama.
Party partisans will no doubt applaud Hillary for her bravery in “coming out” (not that it’s very brave if everyone you care about thinks it’s a wonderful thing to do). It will be more interesting to see how ordinary Americans feel when they discover that the woman seeking the White House has lied to them every step of the way for decades.

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

qstarnews.com

Is Barack Obama the narcissist-in-chief?

By

 Dean Chambers


Do we now have the most self-centered, narcissistic, manchild president ever in history? This might be saying a lot since some are cynical enough to believe that one has to be at least somewhat narcissistic to want to be the President of the United States, much less be an entirely unqualified candidate that got elected as our first true affirmative action candidate for president. But before getting too far on a tangent let's look at this narcissistic thing.
Wikipedia says, “Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity. This condition affects one percent of the population. First formulated in 1968, it was historically called megalomania, and is severe egocentrism.”
Is Barack Obama preoccupied with issues of person adequacy, power, prestige, and vanity? I would say there is no doubt. His whole time as a child being allegedly unsure of who he was, and admitting to using drugs to take those issues off his mind, clearly show awareness of his own perceived inadequacy. As for power, clearly he wants to rule the world and control everything. And prestige, he takes credit for everything that he thinks goes well. As for the vanity, that too most likely.
Symptoms of this disorder, as defined by the DSM-IV-TR, include:
Takes advantage of others to reach own goals
Expects to be recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments
Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others
Envies others and believes others envy him/her
Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence
Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others
Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior
Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealistic

Let's take each of those one at a time. Does the president take advantage of others to reach his own goals? Does he breath?
Does he expect to be recognized as superior and special, without superior (or any) accomplishments? He did accept the Nobel Prize for doing nothing but just getting elected (by cheating) president.
He certainly does expect constant attention, he's on television all the time, he's the most over-exposed president ever. He expects admiration and positive reinforcement all the time. There is no doubt about that.
This president clearly envies anyone with more political skills than he has, such as Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. And there is no doubt that he believes most others in politics envy him or should envy him. After all, he got elected president without being remotely close to being qualified to run for the office. He also thinks he was slick enough to somehow get that scholarship for non-U.S. students (which explains why he once claimed to be born in Kenya) then re-invented himself as a U.S. citizen born in Hawaii to run for president. He really thinks he can scam his way into whatever he wants. Classic narcissist.
Is he preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, and intelligence? He thinks he's been a great success as president even though in actuality he's been an epic failure. Enormous attractiveness? Remember his ridiculous “eye candy” comment as a guest on The View? As for power, that's been covered, he wants to rule the earth. Don't be surprised if he, as ex-president, attempts to run for general secretary of the United Nations and work toward the socialist dream of worldwide government. And don't forget, this president thinks he's the most intelligent character on earth, let alone in the room or in the country.
President Obama definitely lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others. It has been said that many observed this when Obama was informed of the negative consequences that would confront many as a result of enacting ObamaCare, and Obama had no concern over that. When informed of how many middle class families would be crushed bh his tax increases, he didn't show any concern over that either. He truly doesn't care who is hurt or damaged or even destroyed as a result of putting his socialist policies in place.
Is this president arrogant in attitudes and behavior? Not only is this true, many have suggested he's the most arrogant president in history.
Lastly, we know he has unrealistic expectations of special treatment. And we as a country gave him special treatment, we graded his failure as president “on the curve”
The article in Wikipedia also points out, “NPD is comorbid with mood disorders, eating disorders, substance-related disorders and four personality disorders: antisocial, borderline, histrionic and paranoid, according to a user-uploaded open source Community Video.”
What this means is someone who is narcissistic is also likely to have these other issues. Without commenting on the others, we know from his books and other information that Obama has a history of drug abuse including marijuana, cocaine, and probably other drugs. I wouldn't suggest an eating disorder unless he's reacted to his obesity-obsessed wife and gone so far to off the deep end the other way to end up with Orthorexia nervosa. He does seem to fit the pattern of that person at the office everyone has known one of, that appears to live off of coffee and cigarettes alone and hardly eats any real food. Given the extremism of Michelle Obama in her crusade against over-eating, that might be possible. If you had to put up with her you might subsist on coffee, cigarettes, and cocaine too.

Attorney General Holder to be Investigated For Potential Perjury | JHPolitics

Attorney General Holder to be Investigated For Potential Perjury | JHPolitics

Attorney General Holder to be Investigated For Potential Perjury

If NBC’s news report about Attorney General Eric Holder personally approving a search warrant that targeted FOX News reporter James Rosen is accurate, he may face perjury charges. The Hill is reporting that the House Judiciary Committee is intent on investigating whether the Attorney General broke the law, and it seems pretty cut-and-dry:
The House Judiciary Committee is investigating whether Attorney General Eric Holder lied under oath during his May 15 testimony on the Justice Department’s (DOJ) surveillance of reporters, an aide close to the matter told The Hill.
The panel is looking at a statement Holder made during a back and forth with Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) about whether the DOJ could prosecute reporters under the Espionage Act of 1917.
“In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material – this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy,” Holder said during the hearing.
However, NBC News reported last week that Holder personally approved a search warrant that labeled Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen a co-conspirator in a national security leaks case.
If the committee finds that the NBC News report directly conflicts with Holder’s statement, they can go after him, and they may actually get some help from the press. Whereas the mainstream media would normally paint this as a Republican witch hunt, they’re more likely to rally to the truth since it involves the press being targeted.
Either NBC got their report entirely wrong, or Holder lied after being sworn in before Congress. If it’s the latter, he should be prosecuted, and has no business being the nation’s top Law Enforcement official.

The Impeachable Offense

The Impeachable Offense


The Impeachable Offense

Muslim Brotherhood gift SC The Impeachable Offense
The Muslim Brotherhood in the White House! White House tours apparently compromised their free run of the place! Where is the impeachable offense?
Arif Alikhan – Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Mohammed Elibiary – Homeland Security Adviser.
Rashad Hussain – Special Envoy to the (OIC) Organization of the Islamic Conference.
Salam al-Marayati – Obama Advisor and founder Muslim Public Affairs Council (and its current executive director.)
Imam Mohamed Magid – Obama’s Sharia Czar – Islamic Society of North America
Eboo Patel – Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships
Some of these terrorists go back to the first month of BHO’s first reign of terror, er … first (mis)-administration … all very bad guys.
Let’s not forget Hillary’s significant other in the State Department – Huma Abedin and her ties to the Egyptian MB where Christians are being persecuted and murdered.
This is where the impeachable offense comes in. The man and his minions solemnly swore to protect and defend the Constitution. He has been actively enabling the imposition of Sharia Law to replace the Constitution that anchors our freedom. With Sharia must come conversion to Islam as the religion of the United States and the world.  Some already have an idea who would be the coveted Supreme Caliph.
Accompanying him to impeachment should be every judge that has ruled for the imposition of Sharia on a local basis, for every public, military, and diplomatic official who is actively forcing this other half of the culture of death on us. This should include any official who swore on an early version of the Constitution that preceded the Bill of Rights. They have spent American blood and treasure to remove “inconvenient” Muslim dictators who tolerated Christians and Jews while abandoning the people in the Middle East who looked to us to set them free.
The culture of death has two halves: Islam is a theocracy embracing imposed death or slavery for infidels, and “progressivism” with its complete disdain for the sanctity of human life at all stages, even to sexuality. These too are ultimately incompatible with a predictable outcome.
Statesmen in 1950 were taking into account that the temporal power of Islam may return on a broad scale (and with it, the menace that it may shake off a West that has ceased to be Christian and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world power.)
I used to think Iran getting a nuclear weapon was the “100th egg.” Today, I’m almost convinced the “100th egg” is the United States of America under Islamic rule. Who else could lay waste to the world in the hands of evil men and women?

The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Activist Saves Colorado From Massive Tax Hike

The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Activist Saves Colorado From Massive Tax Hike

Activist Saves Colorado From Massive Tax Hike

OK, it may be slightly overstating the case, but Coloradoans owe Matt Arnold and his organization, Clear the Bench Colorado, a huge debt…not just of gratitude, but perhaps even a few dollars of contribution.
On Tuesday (although it was accidentally leaked briefly Monday evening), the Colorado State Supreme Court ruled 4-2 in a case known as Lobato that the state’s current education system is constitutional, thus preventing an economic disaster here in Colorado. According to the state Attorney General, if this verdict had gone the other way, or if it had even been a tie vote (which would have upheld the lower court’s erroneous ruling that the education system is currently unconstitutional), “the state would either have to raise taxes by at least 50 percent or have to devote 89 percent of the general fund budget to K-12 funding, crowding out things such as Medicaid, unemployment assistance, transportation, public safety (including the State Patrol, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation and our prison system) and Higher Education, to name just a few.”
The lower court judge, Sheila Rappaport, might as well have been an agent of the teachers union since, as the Supreme Court noted, she “Adopt(ed) the Plaintiffs’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law almost verbatim” after two prior courts had ruled against the plaintiffs.
So why should we thank Matt Arnold who, after all, is not a judge or justice?
Because his nearly single-handed efforts to shine a spotlight on what was the most lawless, partisan state supreme court in the nation (yes, worse than California’s) had much to do with the resignation of two of the court’s worst justices.
I’ll never know whether the swing vote in this case, Brian Boatright, had visions of Matt attacking him in advertisements with facts going into the next judicial retention vote. I hope that Justice Boatright voted the way he did because he knew it was the right thing. And in any case I thank and congratulate him.
But the bigger thanks and congratulations must go to Matt Arnold and Clear the Bench Colorado without whom we would likely now be facing the biggest tax increase in state history. It goes to show the power of one highly motivated citizen. I hope Matt’s efforts and results inspire similar action in other states around the nation where judges have tried to make themselves super-legislators.

Monday, May 27, 2013

U.S. District Court Issues Fascinating Opinion on Presidential Qualifications

U.S. District Court Issues Fascinating Opinion on Presidential Qualifications

U.S. District Court Issues Fascinating Opinion on Presidential Qualifications

Published on May 24, 2013, by in General.
 
On May 23, U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England issued a 23-page opinion in Grinols v Electoral College, eastern district, California, 2:12cv-2997. The subject is presidential qualifications. The lead plaintiff, James Grinols, was a Republican presidential elector candidate in 2012. The plaintiffs had filed the case last year, to stop the California presidential electors from voting for President Obama.
The decision carries a comprehensive list of all the lawsuits on this subject filed in the last five years; there appear to be twelve such cases. The opinion also has a comprehensive survey of decisions that wrestle with the subject of whether a presidential candidate, or a candidate for presidential elector, has standing to challenge the qualifications (and hence ballot placement) for a competing candidate. The decision concludes by saying that plaintiffs’ only remedy is to either work for the impeachment of the President, or to persuade Congress to appoint a special prosecutor concerning forged birth documents, or to work for a Constitutional Amendment to more clearly define “natural-born citizen.”

Conservative States Flourish As Liberal States In Deep Recession // Mr. Conservative

Conservative States Flourish As Liberal States In Deep Recession

Conservative States Flourish As Liberal States In Deep Recession

AUTHOR Kristin Tate
May 23, 2013 4:28pm PST
Here are the best US states in terms of jobs and economic growth in the last decade: Texas, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, Idaho, Arizona, Alaska, Montana, and Washington.
What do most of these states have in common? Why, they’re all Republican states (with the exceptions Nevada and Washington). Now, here are the worst US states in terms of jobs and economic growth in the last decade: Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, Illinois, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, California, Missouri, and Wisconsin.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to find the common thread: those ten are Democrat states (with the exceptions of Missouri and Ohio).
So, conservative states have more job growth than liberal ones. Big surprise… Not!
Texas in particular greatly outperformed every other US state on jobs and growth over the last ten years, according to the new report by the American Legislative Exchange Council. Michigan came in dead last. The obvious difference between the two states? Texas is a very conservative state while Michigan is sickeningly liberal.
Furthermore, the data from this report shows that overall, Republican states greatly outperformed Democrat ones on jobs and economic growth. As a result, many people have recently flocked to red states. The rankings were based on many public policies like tax rates, worker compensation costs, minimum wage rules, union laws, government jobs, and debt. ”States with lower taxes and less regulation outperform those that pursue Keynesian-style public policies,” Jonathan Williams, who is a co-author of the study and director of ALEC’s Center for State Fiscal Reform.
Vix_Politics_RepublicanElephantVSDemocratDonkey
President Obama frequently said on the campaign trail that lowering taxes and reducing regulations would improve growth and prosperity. This new study completely debunks such statements, by finding the states with lower taxes and less regulations generally outperformed those with high taxes and heavy regulation.
Unfortunately, most liberals will look at this new data and not connect the dots — they refuse to acknowledge that their wasteful fiscal policies and overregulation hinder economic growth and job creation. Obama (according to his budget plan) would add over $335 billion in federal spending over four years and raise taxes by nearly $1 trillion during the next decade. Not to mention, the president has pursued countless regulations in the private and public sector (Wall Street and health care to name a couple).
Good grief. Will liberals ever wake up and acknowledge this evidence?

Scientist Corrects Gullible Reporter: ‘Climate Change’ Not Causing More Tornadoes | NewsBusters

Scientist Corrects Gullible Reporter: ‘Climate Change’ Not Causing More Tornadoes

Scientist Corrects Gullible Reporter: ‘Climate Change’ Not Causing More Tornadoes

Matthew Sheffield's picture
Occasionally, we hear from people who believe that liberal media bias isn’t really that big of an issue because most people don’t really trust reporters to tell the truth. While public trust in the media is at an all-time low, that hardly means they lack the power to shape opinion.
A perfect case in point is the notion popularized by environmental alarmist Al Gore that the Earth is experiencing more severe weather events supposedly caused by “climate change.” Like his earlier debunked claims that global temperatures were increasing, this statement is also false. But many people are simply unaware of the facts.
That is understandable given that most people are not interested in keeping tallies of the number of hurricanes and tornadoes. Being uninformed about the facts, they are easily susceptible to having their opinion influenced by the media’s love of disaster coverage and also of extremists like Gore making false claims about severe weather phenomena.
One such person who appears to have been influenced in this way is Los Angeles Times reporter Stacey Lessca. Fortunately for her, yesterday she received some much-needed education during an interview with a scientist working for the National Severe Storms Laboratory. After discussing some of the particulars of the recent tornado that struck Moore, Oklahoma, Lessca shifted her questioning toward environmental orthodoxy (to watch, fast-forward to the 11:20 mark), asking research scientist Robin Tanamachi if there really were more tornadoes happening thanks to “climate change:”
“It seems like there’s been more severe weather, it seems, it just feels like hurricanes are getting worse. Hurricane Sandy ravaged the East Coast. This tornado now has killed 24 people in the town of Moore. Do you think that more severe storms are becoming the norm, and do you think that they are directly related to climate change?”
Tanamachi answered that this was not the case whatsoever and that people who thought otherwise were likely being influenced by the media’s continual reporting on weather events:
Well the statistics don’t bear that assertion out. What we’re finding is that people’s perception is that severe weather has increased. That perception is largely based on media presentation and that an event like the Moore tornado is now broadcast worldwide within moments of its occurence. And so it can seem more local to people than it is.
But as far as the number of tornadoes, we haven’t been able to discern an increasing trend. As far as the number of hurricanes, we haven’t been able to discern a really solid increasing trend with that. So it’s just a matter of people being aware of those events when they occur and being aware of them almost immediately after they happen.
This is not the only issue where the media have influenced the public into believing something that is false. As Geoffrey Dickens noted earlier this month, a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center found that only 12 percent of Americans were aware that gun violence has decreased even though the drop has been quite significant. By contrast, a majority, 56 percent, believed incorrectly that gun violence had increased. This misperception was almost certainly created by the press which has been feverish in its coverage of mass shootings and in its advocacy for anti-gun laws.
Side note: The idea that human wickedness has some sort of effect on climate has long been a staple of some religious thought and it is yet another way in which modern environmentalism is actually similar to a religion. Both Al Gore and your garden-variety End Times lunatic believe that humans are being punished for their sins with more extreme weather events like hurricanes and tornadoes. It is sad reflection on modern society that the former is on his way to becoming a billionaire while only the latter is dismissed as a crank.
Hat tip: Gary Hall.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2013/05/25/scientist-corrects-gullible-reporter-we-are-not-having-more-extre#ixzz2UUp1gYHU

Report: IRS is STILL Targeting Tea Party Groups

Report: IRS is STILL Targeting Tea Party Groups

The IRS is STILL Targeting Tea Party Groups

The official White House position on the IRS targeting the Tea Party is that it “stopped” in May of 2012. But those who have experienced the targeting of their groups are coming forward saying that even this part of the story is a lie. A general rule of thumb these days is to simply reject any official story from the White House — they seem to be lying out of habit as well as to cover their tracks.The American Center for Law and Justice is explaining that at least 10 of the Tea Party groups it represents are still being delayed in their ability to legally be recognized appropriately as 501(c)(4) organizations… even after waiting for two years. Two groups fully gave up — the IRS “won” those battles. Shame.
In the past, groups seeking 501(c)(4) status would usually just need to wait 6 or so weeks. That has grown into several years — but only if you’re a libertarian or a conservative group. Many liberal groups have gone through the hoops and hurdles just fine.
Again, this is not a past scandal. This is political targeting happening right now in America. The IRS is being used as a political tool against those who seek to defend liberty.
There’s probably a reason — the Tea Party and the Liberty Movement are growing, and are often vocal defenders of the anti-IRS movement. The income tax is one of the most destructive economic policies even possible, and people are starting to wake up. The IRS might see its job on the line — either way, its taking a side.
Click here to see why Obama knew and likely ordered the IRS attack on the Tea Party.
The end result shouldn’t just be that people get fired. The end result should be that there will be civil and criminal charges filed after a special investigation.
Election rigging and censorship have absolutely no place in a free society, and politicians who use their power to such ends should be strongly punished. This is true even if it means Obama is eventually found out and prosecuted.
In the end, we agree with Ted Cruz. Abolish the IRS immediately.

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Retired 4 star Admiral Blows Whistle on Benghazi new Evidence

Retired 4 star Admiral Blows Whistle on Benghazi new Evidence

Retired 4 star Admiral Blows Whistle on Benghazi new Evidence

By Doc Vega
A lot has been said and written, but this promises to break the case wide open!
Ambassador Stevens carried through the streets of Benghazi for 5 hours while US media alleged he was being helped to the hospital? More Obama White House lies!
Ambassador Stevens, beaten, raped, and dragged through the streets of Benghazi for 5 hours clearly not overcome by smoke inhalation, while US media alleged he was being helped to the hospital by the good people of Benghazi? More Obama White House lies!
There have been many theories and accusations about the Benghazi fiasco that not only cost Ambassador J. Christian Stevens his life, but the lives of his staff and one Navy Seal body-guard as well. This action which led to a complete conflagration of terrorist attacks against US diplomatic buildings throughout the Middle East and North Africa still remains largely uninvestigated by the government, unprosecuted by AG Eric Holder’s Depart of Justice, and refuses to bring the guilty parties to justice while many know the truth and are not coming forward. Even though President Obama is implicated in this overseas tragedy still the truth has not emerged.
That has all changed. Finally, an authoritative figure with the proper credentials has stepped up to the plate to tell the true story of what did happen without the lies and cover-ups that have so far kept those guilty of murder from standing trial. The admission on the part of this man will likely blow the Benghazi scandal wide open and lead to arrests if we can get our legal system to act as it should. That, however, is a big if.

The story as it truly unfolded
According to a report from the Washington Times, retired 4 Star Admiral James Lyons reveals the entire plot that led to the deaths of Americans in Libya that could have been prevented, who gave the orders, and why events took place as they tragically did. Admiral James Lyons is probably the highest ranking figure ever to intervene in a federal government criminal case, and testify. Thanks to this man’s dedication to his country and the truth, we will finally know the truth and who was responsible.
In his words Lyons says that the attack on Benghazi was a bungled kidnapping attempt to be perpetrated upon Ambassador Stevens. This was to appear to be a hostage exchange for a terrorist prisoner who was to be released in trade for a supposedly captured US ambassador. The trade would have been for Omar Abdel Rahman an international prisoner, known as the Blind Sheikh.
This apparent abduction by terrorists of our ambassador and then negotiated trade for the Blind Sheikh would have been the “October Surprise” that would have elevated President Obama’s flagging popularity and boosted his approval ratings for a re-election. A dramatic prisoner exchange that saved our ambassador’s life However, something went horribly wrong. A cunning and illegal bit of treachery by the Obama White House turned into something entirely different. Obama’s October surprise turned into a carnage orchestrated by the White House itself as the President, Leon Panetta, and CIA Director, David Petraeus watched via a UAV real-time feed as a 7 hour attack on the Benghazi Embassy raged. Reportedly, stand down orders were given several times to different units within striking distance.
A plot of pure deception
With what should have been only a staged kidnapping of Ambassador J. Christian Stevens, instead, Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty refused a stand down order and began doing their job of protecting the ambassador using force. Immediately the well-trained Seals began inflicting heavy casualties upon the terrorists who thought they were merely in a cake walk to abduct Ambassador Stevens without mishap. As a result of the plan going awry, a massive attack arose from the anger of the terrorists who felt they had been betrayed by President Obama. In the aftermath of the battle which saw Navy Seal Glen Doherty killed after the embassy had been overrun along with the ambassador’s staff. Ambassador Steven’s whose body showed up 5 hours later at a Benghazi hospital supposedly overcome by smoke, but as the initial foreign press reports indicated a much different outcome, in fact, Stevens was raped, tortured, and dragged around Benghazi in retaliation for the botched Obama White House plan.If not for foreign press agents, who were there and saw, we would never have known the truth as the sold out leftist media of the US would have hidden this fact to aid President Obama’s campaign efforts.
Obama hands over Libya to Al Qaeda
Was this just a freak occurrence that belies the true nature of dealings in Libya with American diplomatic efforts, just one glitch in normal standard operating procedure? No, according to former Admiral Lyons and many others such as Glen Beck, who have all uncovered evidence that lead to much more sinister deeds being undertaken. Evidence of a working relationship between the US and its alleged terrorist enemies had already delivered Libya to the Al Qaeda terrorist organization through infiltration of the government, media, and general society prior to the rebellion against Muammar Gaddafi that toppled the dictator last year. That the US has worked with Al Qaeda awarding them security contracts for all US embassies and consulates as well as border protection has instead allowed Libya to become a haven for numerous terrorist operators who have automatic access to Libya’s territory to carry out their training. All this with the support and blessing of the Obama administration. This is not only unthinkable, but beyond excuse or rationalization. There should already be indictments for many in the state department, in the DOJ, all the way up to the oval office, yet, so far nothing has been done.
Treason plain and simple
It goes even farther than that. Evidence indicates that Ambassador Stevens was being used as an arms dealer to supply Jihadists in the region to support yet another uprising in Syria. Just prior to the murder of our ambassador, he was trying to locate guns that had been walked across Libya’s border through Turkey to other countries just as the ATF had done in operation Fast and Furious on the border of Mexico. These are not the actions of inexperience or bad intelligence. They are the actions of traitorous intention. President Obama will, no doubt, be linked to these deaths and operations if Congress will only act, and do its duty in prosecuting a treasonous president who is endangering national security.
There is no where else for a Congressional investigation to turn other than naming the conspirators, determining when officials knew, and assembling the evidence that murder was committed on behalf of the White House to silence those who knew and could testify. Through out the Obama presidency over the last four years the administration has master minded operations that have caused numerous controversies and crises, not to mention the deaths of Americans.
When will the GOP take action?
The Republicans have missed opportunities to discredit the President, to impeach Obama in the wake of waging war against Libya without Congressional approval, and allowed executive privilege to  quash subpoenaed demands for evidence on Fast and Furious never released by AG Eric Holder. John Boehner, Speaker of the House, has refused to exercise initiative whenever the GOP could have used much-needed momentum to stem the tide against the incessant assaults against state’s rights, constitutional rights, and the traditional institutions of America. Will the recent damning evidence now uncovered over the Benghazi fiasco thanks to Admiral James Lyons be implemented to convict the President of potential high treason, or will we see yet another case of criminal acts ignored and hidden at the expense of the American people? If you bother to take interest and act as a responsible citizens contact your congressman and demand action!

Saturday, May 25, 2013

Obama’s disturbing poem on man-boy relationship | Fellowship of the Minds

Obama’s disturbing poem on man-boy relationship | Fellowship of the Minds

Obama’s disturbing poem on man-boy relationship

When Barack Obama was a 19-year-old student at Occidental College, he published two poems in the Spring 1982 issue of Occidental’s literary magazine, Feast. One is the cringe-worthy “Underground” about “apes that eat figs.” The other poem, “Pop,” is much more interesting, biographical, and disturbing.
“Pop”
Sitting in his seat, a seat broad and broken
In, sprinkled with ashes,
Pop switches channels, takes another
Shot of Seagrams, neat, and asks
What to do with me, a green young man
Who fails to consider the
Flim and flam of the world, since
Things have been easy for me;
I stare hard at his face, a stare
That deflects off his brow;
I’m sure he’s unaware of his
Dark, watery eyes, that
Glance in different directions,
And his slow, unwelcome twitches,
Fail to pass.
I listen, nod,
Listen, open, till I cling to his pale,
Beige T-shirt, yelling,
Yelling in his ears, that hang
With heavy lobes, but he’s still telling
His joke, so I ask why
He’s so unhappy, to which he replies…
But I don’t care anymore, cause
He took too damn long, and from
Under my seat, I pull out the
Mirror I’ve been saving; I’m laughing,
Laughing loud, the blood rushing from his face
To mine, as he grows small,
A spot in my brain, something
That may be squeezed out, like a
Watermelon seed between
Two fingers.
Pop takes another shot, neat,
Points out the same amber
Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine, and
Makes me smell his smell, coming
From me; he switches channels, recites an old poem
He wrote before his mother died,
Stands, shouts, and asks
For a hug, as I shrink, my
Arms barely reaching around
His thick, oily neck, and his broad back; ‘cause
I see my face, framed within
Pop’s black-framed glasses
And know he’s laughing too.
The poem reads autobiographical — about a young Obama’s relationship with a much older man whom he calls Pop. In his article for WND on March 7, 2012, Dr. Jack Cashill singles out this passage from the poem:
“Pop takes another shot, neat/ Points out the same amber/ Stain on his shorts that I’ve got on mine, and/ Makes me smell his smell, coming/ From me;”
Cashill writes that the most innocent explanation for the “amber stain” on the shorts of Pop and young Obama or “his smell, coming/ From me” is that Pop got the teenaged Obama drunk, and they both spilled whiskey (Seagrams) on themselves. But that interpretation does not explain why the spill is specifically on their shorts and not on their shirts or how Pop’s smell is also on (“from”) Obama.
A marriage and family therapist who blogs under the tag “Neo-Neocon” senses a darker relationship. She writes:
The lines that begin ‘points out the same amber stain…Makes me smell his smell, coming/
From me’ may be describing outright sexual abuse. But perhaps not; we don’t know, and we’ll never know. But there is no question that the poem is describing a boundary violation on several levels: this child feels invaded—perhaps even taken over—by this man, and is fighting against that sensation.
[...] The poem describes a boundary violation that is both physical and mental. The physical is obvious: he is forced to hug the man who repels him, and as he does so he feels himself shrinking. But the violation is mental, too; earlier in the poem, Obama has described “Pop” as a person who has actually gotten into his brain, and whom he wishes to eliminate from it:
as he grows small,

A spot in my brain, something

That may be squeezed out, like a 

Watermelon seed between

Two fingers.
This mental and emotional usurpation of the young Obama is echoed in the last image of the poem, in which the boy sees his own tiny image framed in ‘Pop’s’ eyeglasses.
 The poem describes a struggle against an attempt at identity takeover, a rejection of being reduced to a reflection in the eyes of the stronger, older, more experienced mentor, who has tried to make Obama over in his own image:
I see my face, framed within
Pop’s black-framed glasses
…
The sight is chilling to Obama, who is trying to break free. One wonders if he ever fully succeeded.”

So who was Pop?

There were two older men in teen Obama’s life:
1. His maternal grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, with whom Obama had lived from age 10 to 18 in Honolulu. When Obama was ten years old, his mom, Stanley Ann Dunham, had sent him back to Hawaii to live with her parents while she remained in Indonesia.
2. Frank Marshall Davis, a black long-time friend of Stanley Armour Dunham, whom Dunham had introduced to young Obama to be the latter’s African-American mentor. Davis was a member of the American Communist Party, a writer of poetry and books, including the pornographic novel, Sex Rebel: Black, using the pseudonym “Bob Greene.” Cashill states that there is no doubt Davis wrote Sex Rebel because Davis admitted as much in his memoir, Livin’ the Blues: “I could not then truthfully deny that this book, which came out in 1968 as a Greenleaf Classic, was mine.”
During the presidential campaign season in 2008, I read Sex Rebel, which is out of print, by borrowing the book from the library of the University of California, Berkeley. I therefore can testify from having read the book that Sex Rebel is an account of the unorthodox sexual exploits of a black man “Bob Greene”. Those sexual exploits included marrying a white woman (just as Davis himself did, which was uncommon in the 1960s); “swinging” or wife-swapping with other couples; picking up prospective couples in public parks; sexual orgies; voyeurism; exhibitionism; bisexualism (Greene wrote that “under certain circumstances I am bisexual”); and the seduction by “Greene” and his white wife of a 13-year-old girl named Anne.
(It is the pedophilia that has prompted increasing speculation on the net that “Anne” was actually Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother; and that Frank Marshall Davis had sired Obama. That’s the reason why Obama conceals his birth certificate. This is the subject of a documentary movie that will come out this summer. For more information, go here.)
Joel Gilbert, the maker of the documentary “Dreams From My Real Father,” has uncovered handwritten letters by Davis to Margaret Burroughs, the well-known African-American artist, in which Davis refers to his book “Sex Rebel: Black” as his “thoroughly erotic autobiography.” Davis had a sexual affair with Burroughs which, Davis explains, was included in the novel autobiography. [Read more, here.]
In the introduction to Sex Rebel, an alleged Ph.D. named Dale Gordon goes further. He describes the pseudonymous author, Bob Greene, as having “strong homosexual tendencies in his personality.”
There are those, like Rebecca Mead of The New Yorker, who say “Pop” is a “loving if slightly jaded portrait of Obama’s maternal grandfather.”
But both Jack Cashill and Neo-Neocon point out that Obama, in his memoir Dreams From My Father, called Stanley Armour Dunham not “Pop” but “Gramps.”

There are other reasons pointing to Frank Marshall Davis as “Pop”:

1. “Pop” wrote poetry: Dunham was a life-long furniture salesman whose literary efforts, if any, were confined to making up dirty limericks. In contrast, Davis had written several books of poetry — Black Man’s Verse (1935), I Am the American Negro (1937), Through Sepia Eyes (1938), 47th Street (1948), Awakening and Other Poems (1978).
2. A line in Obama’s poem “he switches channels, recites an old poem/ He wrote before his mother died” also points to Davis as “Pop”. Dunham’s mother died when he was 8 years old, whereas Davis’ mother died when he was 20 and already established as a poet of promise.
3. In his memoir Dreams From My Father, Obama’s description of a seedy and dissipated older man named Frank is strikingly similar to “Pop” in his poem:
“…by the time I met Frank [Obama was around nine years old] he must have been pushing eighty, with a big dewlapped face and an ill-kempt gray Afro that made him look like an old, shaggy-maned lion. He would read us his poetry whenever we stopped by his house, sharing whiskey with gramps out of an emptied jelly jar. As the night wore on, the two of them would solicit my help in composing dirty limericks. Eventually, the conservation would turn to laments about women.
“They’ll drive you to drink, boy,” Frank would tell me soberly. “And if you let ‘em, they’ll drive you into your grave.”
I was intrigued by the old Frank, with his books and whiskey breath and the hint of hard-earned knowledge behind the hooded eyes. The visits to his house always left me feeling vaguely uncomfortable, though, as if I were witnessing some complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men, a transaction I couldn’t fully understand….”
4. Davis fits the “seedy old man” description more than Dunham: Born in 1905, Davis was 56 years older than Obama and would be 66 years old when Obama was ten. Born in 1918, Dunham was 43 years older than Obama and would be a youngish 53 years old when Obama was ten.
Here are some photos I’ve found of Stanley Armour Dunham and Frank Marshall Davis. Decide for yourself which man better fits the physical description of Pop in Obama’s poem: “dark watery eyes”; “ears that hang with heavy lobes”; “thick, oily neck”; “broad back”; “black-framed glasses”.
Stanley Armour Dunham with child Obama (l); Dunham with 19-year-old Obama (r)
Frank Marshall Davis as a young man (l); as an old man (r)
Whether Pop was Davis or Dunham, this much is certain: His relationship with young Obama, as the latter described it in the poem “Pop,” was creepy and disturbingly suggestive of pederasty.
~Eowyn

Friday, May 24, 2013

Best Summary of U.S. Problem by Senator Mike Lee - Victoria Jackson

Best Summary of U.S. Problem by Senator Mike Lee - Victoria Jackson

Best Summary of U.S. Problem by Senator Mike Lee

 
To prevent the next abuse of government power, we need to reduce government power.
.
NATIONAL REVIEW
May 16, 2013
Washington vs. the People
To prevent abuses of government power we have to reduce government power.
By Sen. Mike Lee
The recent scandals that have rocked the White House represent Americans’ worst fears about big government: Your government is spying on you; your government is targeting you; and your government is lying to you. Americans should be outraged, but they should not be surprised.
It would be wrong to view the controversy over the IRS scandal as a typical Republican vs. Democrat squabble. The IRS is a powerful agency that can influence nearly every decision Americans make through its authority to tax and regulate. The IRS grows stronger and more powerful the more the federal government spends and borrows.
Organizations and individuals who promote fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, greater government accountability, and more local autonomy present a threat to the structure that gives the IRS its power. It should not come as a surprise, then, that the culture of the IRS would promote enhanced scrutiny of these groups.
This has nothing to do with what party is in power. That’s why Americans should not mistake this for a battle between Republicans and Democrats. They should understand that it is a fight between Washington and everyone else.
Consider other examples of this fight between Washington and the people. The Associated Press, hardly a right-wing organization, is now a victim of privacy violations and excessive overreach by the Department of Justice. Private companies are being strong-armed by the Department of Health and Human Services to contribute to a “voluntary” fund to promote Obamacare. The administration’s response to the sequester — which cut a paltry sum from Washington’s $3.7 trillion budget — was to punish innocent Americans with long lines at airports and no more White House tours. The Environmental Protection Agency is accused of waiving fees for favored environmental groups but not for right-leaning organizations.
Though the recent examples involve a Democratic administration, Republicans have shown they are just as tempted to abuse the power of government. At its core, the IRS scandal is not the result of one political party attacking another. It is the inevitable consequence of a federal government that has gotten too big and too expensive to control. The federal government’s massive bureaucracy is inherently dysfunctional, corrupt, intolerant, and incompetent — regardless of who is in charge. These are not random incidents perpetrated by bad actors. They are systemic features of the $4 trillion enterprise known as the federal government.
To a certain extent, the president is justified in shifting blame on to others. How could any one person be responsible for everything that goes on in his administration?
Unfortunately for the president, his best defense is the same reason Americans should reject his liberal agenda to make the federal government more powerful, more intrusive, and more involved in the decisions we make. The bigger government gets, the less control the president has and the more opportunities there are for abuse. And that means less freedom and security for the rest of us.
When the IRS can harass tea-party groups, when the Department of Justice can monitor reporters’ conversations, when the EPA can adopt double standards for ideological allies and opponents, when Health and Human Services regulators can openly extort the businesses they regulate — in short, when there is no accountability — we are no longer citizens but subjects.
Conservatives often have a difficult time explaining why we support a smaller, more limited federal government. These scandals make that job a little easier. It’s not that we don’t like government, but we don’t like government intimidating and harassing media outlets, businesses, citizen organizations, or anyone else in the manner these scandals have brought to light.
And we understand that because this kind of corruption and incompetence is inherent in any massive, unaccountable organization, simply passing a new law will not solve the problem. To prevent the next abuse of government power, we need to reduce government power.
Mike Lee is a U.S. Senator from Utah.mike lee

Thursday, May 23, 2013

Another Controversy for the Obama Admin, But CNN Has Barely Reported This One | NewsBusters

Another Controversy for the Obama Admin, But CNN Has Barely Reported This One | NewsBusters

Another Controversy for the Obama Admin, But CNN Has Barely Reported This One


Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services has come under major scrutiny for bypassing Congress and soliciting donations from health executives to help support ObamaCare, yet CNN has barely mentioned the story.

The Washington Post broke the news on May 10 that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had gone "hat in hand, to health industry officials" to support non-profits promoting ObamaCare. Republicans are questioning Sebelius seeking support from the very sector she regulates, and also want to know if she coordinated with the private sector to bypass Congress in getting financial support for ObamaCare. Also, if Sebelius sought donations as HHS Secretary and not as a private citizen, that would violate federal law.
NewsBusters already reported on Monday that the big three networks had basically shelved the story. CBS's Major Garrett did question White House press secretary Jay Carney about it on Tuesday, but Carney scoffed and compared it to the birth certificate controversy.

The story has been mentioned on CNN twice, and only once by a CNN figure. On May 14, senior political analyst David Gergen brought up the news, and on Sunday's Fareed Zakaria GPS, former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein mentioned the story.

Gergen noted on Anderson Cooper 360:
"And there are Republicans who believe that Kathleen Sebelius as secretary of HHS going around asking for money from corporations to fund ObamaCare, when these are the very corporations that she's overseeing in a regulatory way, that that has all sorts of scandal implications. So I think – and especially in a slow news time, you know, it's not a big news time politically but it's a precious moment for the Obama administration. A lot depends on what happens in the next few weeks for him, for his whole second term."
As National Review reported, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) said the fund raising could be a criminal violation if Sebelius is "coordinating" with the private sector "to do something that Congress has refused to do."

In addition, one of the non-profits Sebelius is fund raising for is Enroll America, run by a former Obama administration and campaign worker looking to sign up more Americans for health insurance under the President's law.

Locking Away Potential | Washington Free Beacon

Locking Away Potential | Washington Free Beacon

Locking Away Potential

Congressmen criticize Obama administration’s management of drilling permits
Oklahoma Oil Rigs / AP
Oklahoma Oil Rigs / AP
BY:

The Department of the Interior admitted to Congress on Thursday morning that it could process oil and natural gas drilling applications more efficiently than it does right now during a hearing on the administration’s management of federal property.
“There are opportunities for greater efficiencies,” Tommy Beaudreau, the acting assistant secretary of Land and Minerals Management for the Interior Department, told a subcommittee of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The hearing focused on the Obama administration’s efforts to allow drilling for natural resources on federally owned land.
The federal government approved 7,124 permits for drilling on federal lands in 2007, with an average approval time of 196 days. However, the Obama administration approved only 4,256 in 2012, at an average time of 228 days, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) said.
States can take under a month, and sometimes under two weeks, to issue a permit, multiple congressmen said.
Beaudreau argued after the hearing that states have different regulatory requirements and the Interior Department has to take multiple factors, including multiple uses of federal land, into account when issuing permits.
“That takes time,” Beaudreau said. “That takes public engagement. That takes analysis.”
Frustration about the federal permitting time led Rep. Blake Farenthold (R., Texas) to ask if the department was intentionally sitting on permits in order to delay drilling. Beaudreau assured him the department was not doing that.
Rep. James Lankford (R., Okla.), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care, and Entitlements, showed a map at the beginning of the hearing of drilling locations around federal land in North Dakota. He noted that companies are drilling all around federal land—often right up to the border—but are not actually venturing onto federal land to drill. Lankford argued that the regulatory burden is too high to make it worth it, even though royalty costs are lower on federal land than elsewhere.
Unleashing the resources on federal land would allow “American energy independence and broad economic renaissance,” Lankford argued.
Opening up all federal land to drilling would increase GDP by $127 billion each year over the next seven years and create 552,000 jobs over the next seven years, Lankford said, citing an Institute for Energy Research study.
Subcommittee ranking member Jackie Speier (D., Calif.) argued that issued and unused leases pose a greater problem for the United States than federal land that is closed to drilling.
The Obama administration has been criticized in the past for its reluctance to allow drilling on federal lands. Republican candidate Mitt Romney attacked President Barack Obama during the campaign for the drop in drilling on federal lands under his watch.
The Government Accountability Office issued a report last May asserting that America’s oil shale formations could be equal to the entirety of the world’s proven oil reserves.
The Interior Department is working on a new regulation for hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, on federal lands, Beaudreau said at the hearing.
Lankford wondered after the hearing if the department could handle yet another responsibility, given the inefficiencies that already plague it.

Colorado AG criticizes Gov. Hickenlooper over death penalty decision

Colorado AG criticizes Gov. Hickenlooper over death penalty decision


Colorado AG criticizes Gov. Hickenlooper over death penalty decision

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers. (Denver Post, Kathryn Scott Osler)
Colorado Attorney General . (Denver Post, Kathryn Scott Osler)
Attorney General John Suthers issued an exceptionally strong statement today about Gov. ’s decision to grant inmate a reprieve.
Suthers, a former district attorney, doesn’t usually criticize the other constitutional officers, but he clearly was upset.
“I have an excellent working relationship with the governor and I respect him very much,” Suthers said, in his comments. “Yet it’s been apparent to me that issues of crime and punishment are not his strength. John Hickenlooper is an optimist. He has proven to be uncomfortable confronting the perpetrators of evil in our society.”
Suthers is a Republican, Hickenlooper a Democrat. Here is Suthers’ full statement:
“It’s been my observation over many years that the extraordinary powers we give the president and our state governors is the one place in the criminal justice system where personal philosophy can trump the rule of law. And make no mistake about it — that is exactly what has happened in the case of People v. Nathan Dunlap.

This is a horrible crime in which four wholly-innocent people were brutally murdered. The defendant was eligible for the under Colorado law. The district attorney believed the defendant deserved the . A jury of twelve citizens of Colorado determined that he deserved the . And a plethora of appellate courts have upheld the jury’s decision.
But Governor Hickenlooper simply cannot cope with the task of carrying out the execution of Nathan Dunlap or exercising his constitutional mandate.
Executive authority to modify criminal punishment is part of our constitutional system, and I respect that. However, the citizens of Colorado deserve honesty and the victims deserve finality. I believe the governor’s decision does not stem from anything but his personal discomfort about the death penalty. I also believe that the governor should have been much more up front with the voters when he ran for office if he couldn’t carry out the death penalty.
I have an excellent working relationship with the governor and I respect him very much. Yet it’s been apparent to me that issues of crime and punishment are not his strength. John Hickenlooper is an optimist. He has proven to be uncomfortable confronting the perpetrators of evil in our society. I saw this when I discussed last year’s juvenile direct-file bill with him. He had trouble comprehending that a 16 or 17-year-old is capable of brutal acts deserves adult punishment. I saw it in his na├»ve views about the role of administrative segregation in our prisons. And I’ve heard it in my discussions with him about the death penalty. The governor is certainly entitled to these views, but granting a reprieve simply means that his successor will have to make the tough choice that he cannot.
Fifty-year-old Margaret Kohlberg, 19-year-old Sylvia Crowell, 17-year-old Ben Grant, and 17-year-old Colleen O’Connor all died at Nathan Dunlap’s hand. Bobby Stevens was shot and left for dead. They were the victims in this case and Mr. Dunlap made sure that their voices could not be heard.
The governor, by refusing to make any hard decisions today — whether in carrying out Dunlap’s sentence or conclusively granting clemency — has only guaranteed suffering and delayed justice for the victims’ loved ones for years to come.”