TERRORISM BY GOVERNMENT THUGGERY - courtesy of OBAMA

Note: Currently the EPA decisions CANNOT be taken/appealed to court by the accused-defendant. Right now this small landowner who wants to build a small house is facing $100 MILLION in EPA fines!!!!

by Lyle Denniston Reporter


January 9th, 2012


A weak defense of EPA (UPDATED)



Analysis

With a federal government lawyer conceding almost every criticism leveled at the way the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency compels landowners to avoid polluting the nation’s waterways, the Supreme Court on Monday seemed well on its way toward finding some way to curb that agency’s enforcement powers. Their task was made easier as Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart stopped just short of saying that EPA was just as heavy-handed as its adversaries — and several of the Justices — were saying.

Perhaps the most telling example: when several of the Justices expressed alarm that a homeowner targeted by EPA’s efforts might face a penalty of as much as $37,500 each day of alleged violation, Stewart made it clear that the fine actually might be doubled, to $75,000 a day, although he tried to recover by saying that was only “theoretical,” and that he did not think that EPA had ever taken that step.


The argument in Sackett, et al., v. EPA (docket 10-1062) did not appear to portend a slam-dunk loss for EPA during the first half of Monday’s argument, when the lawyer for an Idaho couple faced quite rigorous questioning about whether the couple had exercised options that might have been open to them to avert the dire consequences of EPA enforcement.

But the tenor of the session changed abruptly as soon as the line of argument chosen by EPA’s lawyer, Stewart, unfolded.

It all came to something of an explosive verbal climax when Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., suggested that the scheme that Stewart had outlined would be considered by the ordinary homeowner as something that “can’t happen in the United States.”

Alito ticked off the situation: the homeowner planned to build a house on a lot, the lot was found to have “a little drainage problem,” the homeowner was soon told by EPA that “you have wetlands,” that steps had to be taken to alleviate the environmental threat, that “you have to let us on your premises,” that every day “you face $75,000 in penalties,” that the homeowner cannot go to court to make a challenge, and that, if there is a court case, it won’t occur “until we choose.”

(UNBELIEVABLE: Justice delayed is justice denied!!!)

(Alan note: Obama proving his Terrorism against America is not just with bombs and bullets!)

Stewart did not dispute the recitation even in that accusatory fashion, and could only answer that such an order from EPA would not have been “the first communication” from EPA to the homeowner, since the agency would try earlier to alert property owners of their obligations under the law.

The argument that a homeowner — or a business firm, for that matter — could face a double penalty was raised early in the argument Monday by Damien M. Schiff, a lawyer for Chantell and Michael Sackett, the Priest Lake, Idaho, couple that has been fighting with EPA for four years over their plans to build a home on a lot they own — a lot that EPA says has wetlands on it. Schiff, continuing his legal team’s emphasis upon the personal plight of a couple supposedly of modest means, said the couple could be fined the maximum — $37,500 per day if they were found to violate federal environmental law itself, and a separate $37,500 if they took actions that violate EPA’s compliance order against them*. Schiff said that EPA had conceded that in its brief in the case.

(Alan note: in other words don't you DARE complain of we'll get you! Obama Chicago style policy and governance!)

It appeared to come, however, as a surprise to the Justices. And, at one point, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., intimated that Schiff was exaggerating the threat to his clients, since, Roberts said, the fine might actually be only $10 a day, not the maximum.

But when Schiff, in answer to the Chief Justice, sought to make a separate challenge to other obligations under the compliance order, even without fines, Scalia suggested that he stay on the fines. “So, you know, sufficient unto the day the evil thereof. We don’t have to consider more difficult cases.”

Indeed, as Schiff’s argument unfolded, he did not appear to be generating much sympathy for clients like his, since much of the argument was a detailed exploration of what processes they might have available to challenge EPA, and the prospect — described by some Justices as rather dim — that they could defeat EPA even if they did have court review of their challenge.

Indeed, as the Sacketts’ lawyer prepared to take his seat, the character of the case had moved well away from his preferred David vs. Goliath contest, into a somewhat dull exploration of administrative law, even though Schiff now and then would bring up again the $37,500 figure and the threat of “ruinous” financial penalty.

Apparently, however, Schiff had gotten the attention of the Justices on the issue of the double penalty, and that prompted Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, as he began his response, to concede the possibility of double penalties. He said it had been put in the EPA brief “as an exercise of our duty of candor to the Court.”

He said it was “theoretical,” not “practical.” When Justice Stephen G. Breyer noted that the compliance order issued to the Sacketts had mentioned only $37,500, not double that, Stewart said that was all that the order needed to say.

Soon, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., said he was confused, asking whether there were double penalties? Stewart said it was a legal possibility, but he knew of no case in which it had been done.

The Justices, though, were now fully engaged on the double penalties, and other members of the Court pressed Stewart on it. Justice Alito, for example, got an admission from Stewart that the government had not adopted a policy to rule it out. “So,” said Alito, “‘it’s more than theoretical.”

And when the government lawyer continued to say double fining had not been done, Justice Scalia remarked sarcastically, “I’m not going to bet my house on that.”

When Stewart tried to defend himself by saying that the Sacketts had not even been aware of the double penalty prospect before reading the government’s brief, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy offered his own sarcastic thrust: “They were getting a good night’s sleep before they read your brief?” The audience laughed.

What had clearly happened, in the opening moments of Stewart’s argument, was that the threatened plight of the Sacketts had come fully into prominence again, and the government was exactly where Schiff had sought to put it: on the defensive. Stewart might have wished that he had chosen another way to open his side of the argument.

But the circumstances actually deteriorated further for EPA and its lawyer.

As Stewart answered other questions about how EPA’s compliance orders actually work, his responses sometimes simply produced more sarcasm. Scalia, for example, said “Well, that’s very nice” when Stewart said the Sacketts had been advised that they could tell EPA if they thought some of its demands were “infeasible.”

Scalia continued: “That’s very nice, when you have received something called a compliance order, which says you are subject to penalties of 32.5 for every day of violations.” ($32,500 was the former maximum penalty per day; it is now $37,500, as other comments during the argument made clear.)

Scalia warmed to the subject, suggesting flatly that the agency had been “high-handed,” demanding things of the Sacketts that simply were not required by the law.

It was Justice Alito, though, who completed Stewart’s embarrassment, with the devastating query that began this way: “Mr. Stewart, if you related the facts of this case as they come to us to an ordinary homeowner, don’t you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thing can’t happen in the United States?”

(Alan note: unless it is the Obamination of the USA)

A good deal of time remained in the argument, but it seemed virtually over at that point. Schiff was obviously pleased; when his time for rebuttal came up, he offered to waive it if the Court had no more questions. There were a few, but there was nothing in them to bail out the EPA’s compliance order.

IS THERE NO END TO OBAMA 'S PLANNED THEFTS & CORRUPTION?

WHILE OBAMA CARRIES OUT THESE THEFTS THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE HE IS A CO-CONSPIRATOR AND  HELPING THESE "ASSISANTS" HE PROTECTS ROB THE USA BLIND!

Can anyone still have doubts that re-electing him is saying bye, bye to America? Read all about it!

TJ Glauthier

An adviser to Barack Obama who played a key role in developing the energy provisions of the so-called stimulus bill has served on the boards of several companies that recently received government funds, including hundreds of millions in "stimulus" money.

TJ Glauthier served on Obama's 2008 White House Transition Team. He is widely credited with helping to craft the energy provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, also known as the "stimulus."

In addition to serving on the boards of major energy companies, Glauthier previously held two presidential appointments during the Clinton administration.

He was the Energy Department's deputy secretary and chief operating officer, the second-highest ranking official.

Earlier, he served in the White House for five years as the associate director for natural resources, energy and science in the Office of Management and Budget.

Everything you wanted to know about Obama's advisers, in "Red Army: The Radical Network that must be defeated to save America."

Glauthier is tied to several energy companies that benefited from the "stimulus" bill he helped to craft.

One such company investigated by WND is GridPoint Inc., where he was appointed to the board in March 2008. GridPoint provides utilities with software solutions for electrical grid management and electric power demand and supply balancing.

The "stimulus" provides $4.5 billion for so-called smart grid projects. GridPoint has benefited from scores of smart grid deals funded by the "stimulus" bill.

The company partnered with the Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation (eTec), Nissan, the Idaho National Laboratory and others in a project to deploy electric vehicles (EVs) and their charging infrastructure in five states. The Energy Department had awarded eTec almost $100 million in "stimulus" funds to support the project.

GridPoint's role in the eTec project was to supply smart charging and data logging capability to utilities located in strategic markets of eTec's program in Arizona, California, Oregon, Tennessee and Washington.

GridPoint also benefited from "stimulus" funds when it recently provided home energy management, load management and electric vehicle management software solutions for a KCP&L's Green Impact Zone SmartGrid Demonstration in Kansas City, Mo. The project was the recipient of stimulus funding.

Additionally, GridPoint helped the Sacramento Municipal Utility District, or SMUD, manage power from its customers' rooftop solar panels.

The Arlington, Va.-based company had landed a contract to help the Sacramento, Calif.-based municipal utility manage renewable power integration, energy storage and home energy management systems. SMUD had won $127.5 million in stimulus funds from the Department of Energy to carry out the project, which also includes deploying 600,000 smart meters in its service territory.

Also, in early 2009, the Energy Department awarded Argonne National Laboratory nearly $2.7 million in stimulus funding for three solar-energy related research projects. In addition, Argonne reportedly shared another $5 million in stimulus funding for projects with GridPoint and other companies and the University of Illinois Sustainable Technology Center.

Besides benefiting from stimulus grants, GridPoint last year won a $28 million contract with the United States Postal Service to install energy management systems in selected post office locations across the U.S.

Glauthier, meanwhile, also had come under fire after Fox News reported the U.S. Navy has purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuel for about $16 a gallon, or about four times the price of its standard marine fuel, JP-5, which has been going for under $4 a gallon.

And HotAir reported last week that Glauthier is a "strategic adviser" to Solazyme, the California company that is selling a portion of the biofuel to the Navy.


HotAir noted Solazyme received a $21.8 million grant from the 2009 stimulus package.

Also, writing at BigGovernment two weeks ago, Whitney Pitcher found that prior to serving as adviser to Solazyme and after his time as part of Obama's transition team, Glauthier served on the advisory board of SunRun, a solar financing company.

In October of 2010, just a few short months after Glauthier joined SunRun's advisory board, SunRun secured a $6.73 million grant from a Treasury Department stimulus program. The company was the ninth largest recipient of such programs through December 2010.

With research by Brenda J. Elliott
Read more: Outrage! Author of 'stimulus' linked to companies it helped http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=377465#ixzz1gZpMjwBH

SUPREME COURT WILL HOPEFULLY FIND ANSWERS TO THESE

Next Spring, probably around March 2012, the Supreme Court of the USA (SCOTUS) will hear the case brought by some 26 States about the Constitutionality of ObamaCare.


Usually allowing ONE hour for arguments the Court will allow FIVE  and a half hours for the ObamaCare hearings!

AND it appears virtually certain that the eligibility of Obama himself to be in the Oval office will be part of the pleadings!

Happening in the middle of Obama's campaign for re-election, matters should be historic and divulge many of his secrets. His only hopes are the two judges he appointed to the Supreme Court, one of whom worked on his behalf in other procedings  before being elevated.


She may have to recuse herself, thus even  the playing field.


=====================================


President 0bama, will you finally come clean on your hidden records? You know, transparency and all. We want to know Why these questions are off limits?


1. The Original Birth Certificate - Yes, the absolute original, examined and certified by three independent forensic experts.


2. Please produce your Columbia University transcripts.


3. Please, your original Columbia thesis paper.


4. Please produce your Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups.


5. Please produce your Harvard University transcripts.


6. Please produce your Illinois State Senate records including your voting record.


7. Please produce your Illinois State Senate schedule.


8. Please produce your Law practice client list and billing records/summary.


9. Please produce the locations and names of all half-siblings and stepmother.


10. Your complete Medical Records (we've only seen the one page summary released so far). Have you had drug tests done? Are you still using coke? Please, your liver function tests to clarify alcohol abuse. Have you had an AIDS test?


11. Please produce your Occidental College Transcripts. Also, any records of student aid received and under what names(s) and nationality.


11. Please show us your Parent’s original Marriage Certificate.


13. Please produce your record of Baptism.


14. Please produce your Selective Service registration records (Did you actually Register for Selective Service?) Also, why does your SS not pass e-verify?


15. Please provide us with schedules for all trips outside of the United States before 2007.


16. Please produce all Passport records for all passports, US and otherwise - before the scrubbing.


17. Can you show us a list of your scholarly articles?


18. Your SAT and LSAT test scores please. Did you even take the SAT and LSAT?


19. What's with no access to your grandmother in Kenya?


20. Please list of all campaign workers that currently are lobbyists.


21. Please produce Punahou grade school records.


22. Why are Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education?


23. Please produce page 11 of Stanley Ann Dunham's divorce decree.


24. Why did you, President Barack Obama, resign from the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?


25. Why did Michelle Obama resign from the Illinois bar after only about four years of practice and where are all of the relevant documents?


Why are these records hidden? Who are you President Obama? Will these records be revealed before November 6, 2012? We the People care about our country deeply and are very concerned about a POTUS who has hidden every scrap of information about his life.


The voting public deserves to know these answers. We have many more questions, but please answer these first to show your transparency and good faith. We'll keep passing this list on until we get some answers.

REPUBLICANS SUCCUMB TO POLITICAL BLACKMAIL?

by Lawrence Sellin (Oct. 22, 2011)
The Republican Party was founded in 1854 on an anti-slavery platform and came to dominate the northern region of the country by 1858

I have received information from multiple sources that Congressional Republicans are fully aware that Barack Hussein Obama is a Constitutionally illegal President and has committed felonies both before and after occupying the Oval Office.

Specifically, Obama is not a natural born citizen and, therefore, has never been eligible for the office of President. In addition, Obama has forged his birth documents and Selective Service registration and uses a Social Security number not issued to him.

The Republican establishment has decided that challenging Obama on those issues will be ineffective and will cause complete havoc in the country.

It is clear to me that Obama and the mainstream media have been thoroughly successful using Saul Alinsky’s Rules 5 and 9 of “Rules for Radicals”:

Rule 5 – “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

Rule 9 – “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”

Republicans are fully intimidated by the Obama campaign and its supporters in the mainstream media with the certainty of being labeled and dismissed as “racists,” “birthers” and right-wing “conspiracy theorists” if they confront Obama regarding his violation of the Constitution and his felonies.

Republicans have also been intimidated by the threat of civil unrest instigated by the Obama campaign and executed by union thugs, left-wing radicals and Black Nationalist extremists.

In both cases, the Republicans have succumbed to political blackmail.

What goes unmentioned in the Republicans’ explanation is that, because of their complicity in the cover-up of Obama’s ineligibility and crimes, they are also vulnerable to political criticism and criminal prosecution.

The Republican strategy, therefore, is to challenge Obama on policy, educate the public and defeat him in the 2012 election.

Good luck with that approach, with the already anointed RINO candidate Mitt Romney and with a party platform of warmed-over platitudes and promises with post-election expiration dates.

In my opinion, regardless of who wins the Presidency in 2012, Obama’s ineligibility and his crimes will never be addressed.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans have too much to lose.

(WHAT WE THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA LOSE IN THE PROCESS APPEARS IRRELEVANT)

Exposure of the Obama fraud and criminal activity would reveal the depth of corruption in the two-party system.

The extent of the deception perpetrated by Obama supporters is mindboggling.

For example, attorney Leo Donofrio has evidence conclusively establishing that, during the run-up to the 2008 election, 25 U.S. Supreme Court opinions referencing Minor v. Happersett (1875), the case which proves that Obama is an illegal President, were sabotaged, then republished at Justia.com, the main resource on the web for all things related to United States Supreme Court holdings.

According to that report, Justia.com CEO Tim Stanley was associated with “Obama For America 2008.”

Instead of instruments to promote the general welfare, the Democrats and Republicans have become the tools of an invisible government, which owes no allegiance and acknowledges no responsibility to the American people.

We have been politically disenfranchised. We have the right to vote, but we have lost control of the government.

James Jackson, representative from Georgia to the First U.S. Congress stated:

“We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government.”

Congressional Democrats and Republicans have stridden far beyond that point and now feel free to ignore our petitions and treat our beliefs with disdain.

Political expediency has clouded their judgment and obscured their view of the danger our country faces.

There are anti-democratic and anti-American forces working aggressively inside the country to bring down our republic. These forces are promoting the interests of nations hostile to the United States, of global financiers and radical Islam.

The work of these forces is facilitated by corrupt or cowardly politicians, radical leftists and by useful idiots oblivious to the fact that they are aiding and abetting American enemies, who will ultimately eradicate our freedom and way of life.

Barack Obama represents the nexus of those treacherous forces.

Nevertheless, Republican leaders are asking the American people to tolerate violations of the Constitution and ignore extensive criminality at the highest levels of government so their party can win the 2012 election.

If the Constitution and the rule of law mean so little to either the Democrats or the Republicans, then what’s the point?

A Republican victory in 2012 may mean the revocation of Obama’s most onerous policies, but will they ever address his ineligibility and crimes?

Having become complicit, I think not.

HIS WORK IS ALMOST DONE! RE-ELECTION WOULD FINISH IT! AND US!



ALMOST DONE - NEED RE-ELECTION TO MAXIMIZE IT


With all the fetid stench of slime splashed down on us by the most corrupt, radical, Chicago ganster administration in our lifetimes, humor has also taken on a new twist. The twist was always there but restrained.

Now more and more people are showing their protest of the “protection racket” the Dept. of INJustice is implementing in many sensitive areas, specially with pro-Islamist bias, even to the extent of breaking the law to protect Moslems and Sharia law while suppressing Christian beliefs and freedoms.

Illegal gun running, or funding terrorists to buy them, refusing to charge and deport criminal even felonious illegals are just a sector. Even overriding Federal judiciary decisions to prevent States from implementing LAWS - puts them beyond Organized Crime and they should be charged with the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Criminal Organization  Act) statutes.

OVER-spending all OUR hard earned money as if it were theirs (free money for them) and crony financing such as the last humongous loan of nearly a HALF BILLION for a green project belonging to Nancy Pelosi’s close relative is pushing Americans to the brink.

Except the most naively ignorant and teat sucking free loaders gorging themselves at the public trough, while contributing little of nothing to the “wealth” being spread around to THEM.

Thus want Obama there to continue their free ride while they do NOT pay THEIR fair share as he insists others should.

As long as he is helping create a Caliphate of which he hopes one day to become the leader, Obama, beyond a desire to be re-elected and continue the destruction he is raining down on America and much of the world, cares nothing about the misery, pain and DEATH he is causing by his proxies like the Moslem Brotherhood he harbors inside  the White House, the Islamic regime of Iran and Syrian myriad deaths of their countrymen.

MOSTLY by some 20,000 Iranian Suppression forces exported to do this in Syria.

The slow and painful awakening of “we the people” is still being thwarted by Obama via his Islamists, Union thugs, oppressive Dept. of Injustice and corrupt Senators, who have just removed any obstacle to riding roughshod over us with their “nuclear option” change of filibuster rules.

The most urgent question appears to be whether when saner Republicans, Independents  (or coming to their senses Democrats) increase their voting presence in the Senate and vote Obama out of office next year will there be anything left to salvage from the rubble he is leaving behind!

Seriously, at this rate, not much of our financial or cultural infrastructure in America will be left - nor in much of the rest of the world.

Hope springs eternal but we are borderline already past the point of rescue! Many waiting for the final axe to fall or simply delaying the inevitable if Obama stays in office.

Having watched this happen in Iran after Khomeini took power (via Jimmuh the ideologue idiot Carter) Obama is a replay with a vengeance in spades. For those old enough to have seen or even read how Communism or the Bolsheviks took over, it’s a virtual replay of that ruthless madness, too.

He has yet to have an excuse to start killing us with any impunity.

DON'T be astonished if that comes to pass if he declares martial law and suspends or cancels elections.

No! Based on his mindsets not  such an overly fanciful  speculation.

Americans have mostly been immune from facing such gut wrenching, lethal and devastating  events and misery inside America so fail to recognize the multiple signs of what Obama is doing to them and the whole world.

Which verges on immature, ideological insanity not someone who wants to improve the world.

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION ALLOWS FOREIGN BORN TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT 2012

By Alex Knott

ALAN NOTE: Eligibility is NOT decided by the FEC nor the Federal Government but by the individual States and by Congress AND there are NO legal provisions nor requirement NOR legal OBLIGATION for ANYBODY, at any level anywhere, to VERIFY a candidate's CONSTITUTIONAL eligibility.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) ruled Friday that a Guyana-born American citizen could file papers and raise money to run for president of the United States. But the agency also told the prospective candidate, Abdul Hassan, that his campaign may not receive federal matching funds because he was not born in America.

The FEC’s unanimous vote allows Hassan — who was born in the South American country in 1974 — to be a candidate, solicit funds and requires him to file disclosure reports for a presidential bid. However, the agency’s decision stopped short of addressing the constitutional issue of whether someone born outside the United States can be president.

Instead, the agency told Hassan he may not receive any presidential primary matching funds by quoting the Constitution, stating “[n]o Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Hassan’s request appeared to put the FEC in the rare role of deciding a large constitutional issue that has only a few intersections with campaign finance law. The two commonly held constitutional requirements to run for president are that the candidate be 35 years of age or older and be a “natural born citizen.”

But FEC commissioners said repeatedly that their decision to define Hassan as a candidate had nothing to do with his birth country. They said that current federal election law allows for someone to be a candidate, regardless of whether they can legally hold the office they seek and that the FEC is not charged with deciding presidential criteria including one’s natural-born citizenship.

(Alan note: is this their escape tactic for avoiding responsibility for allowing Obama, whose eligibility qualification is being challenged in the courts AND NEVER VERIFIED, to run for the White House?)

“This does not mean that he can go and say ‘look the FEC has said that I am a candidate, give me money, I’m official,’” said Republican Commissioner Donald McGahn. “That is not what we do here; we don’t certify you as a candidate. That’s what the states do.”

During Thursday’s meeting, commissioners said they had trepidation about voting for Hassan’s candidacy because of how it might be perceived.

“By saying that it is okay — it does give the impression that we don’t see a problem,” said Democratic Commissioner Steven Walther. “I think that we really need to be cognizant of how this could be misconstrued.”

The FEC’s decision to allow Hassan to go through the initial steps to run for president took place outside of its normal publicly attended open meetings and instead was approved by a tally vote as commissioners tried to reach a consensus.

One of the final sections added to approved opinion states: “Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Commission expresses no opinion on Mr. Hassan’s potential liability arising out of his proposed activities under any other Federal or State law, including any laws concerning fraudulent misrepresentation. Any such issues are outside the Commission’s jurisdiction.”

“For us this is really all about what we are empowered to decide and what we are not empowered to decide,” said Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub. “Nobody is saying that it is fine and nobody is saying it’s okay for this guy to be going out and raising funds.’”

Shortly after Hassan made the request, the FEC signaled that it would decide the technicalities of filing requirements while leaving the broader issue of who can run for president to the judicial branch. In an email to Hassan on July 18, the FEC stated that he understood “that although the Commission can respond to the questions asked in [his] advisory opinion, the Commission cannot make any determination as to whether [Hassan] can, as a naturalized citizen, serve as President.”

The issue was made more contentious by comments and Internet postings by citizens, Tea Party advocates and “birthers,” who continue to press long-refuted claims that President Barack Obama was not born in America. About a dozen of these individuals wrote letters to the FEC stating that Hassan should not be allowed to run for president.

In the face of this opposition, Hassan said before the vote that he believed that the FEC was making the decision in good faith based on the facts. But he added that it would be hard for commissioners not to be “influenced by the political sensitivity of the issue.”

Hassan told Roll Call that his candidacy is not a stunt but rather an effort by a “political junkie” with various legislative interests. “I follow politics closely, but I have never held elected office,” he said. “I would admit that I am not well-known, and I would admit that my chances of winning are not as good as other candidates. That’s obvious.”

OBAMA A LIVING & BREATHING NIGHTMARE

An Israeli news columnist is scorching Barack Obama as possibly the worst U.S. president in history, calling him "a living and breathing nightmare."


Yigal Walt of Ynetnews says Obama "is solidifying his status as the worst president in American history. The leader who promised us a bright future of peace and fraternity is leading the American empire – and the rest of the world with it – into a dark abyss."

"Ever since he settled into the Oval Office, Obama has been hopping from one disaster to the next, making every possible mistake, boosting enemies and disregarding allies while ruining everything he touches in the process," Walt writes.

"The Return of the Great Depression" warns everyone "it is not over. It has only begun" ...

He says Obama was silent when the masses hit Iran's street and threatened to topple the ayatollah's regime.

"Why should he support a struggle waged by freedom-hungry citizens against a radical Islamic dictatorship and chronic human rights violator? And so, a rare opportunity to change the face of a state that today constitutes the gravest threat to world and regional peace slipped away."


Instead, Walt says, Obama buddied up to Syrian President Bashar Assad and remained silent, again, when Assad started butchering his own people.


"For the time being, Obama keeps muttering, Assad keeps murdering, and the world keeps watching and doing nothing," Walt writes.

Obama is also criticized for allegedly eroding NATO in the effort to oust Libya's Muammar Gadhafi.

"And so, the once-intimidating NATO alliance found itself entangled above Libya's deserts for long months in a 'battle of giants' against a state whose army is sometimes reminiscent of a Jenin street gang from a decade ago," says Walt.

 "Now, with Gadhafi's rule finally drawing to an end, the president kindly took time off from his vacation to festively declare that the future is in the Libyan people's hands – while local tribes are preparing for the imminent bloodshed and al-Qaida is reinforcing its hold on the country."

Walt's blistering attack on Obama concludes with a fondness communicated for Obama's predecessor.

"The ongoing disaster called Obama may prompt some of us to apologize to another American president, one George W. Bush," Walt writes. "He was called stupid, incoherent and naive; he was said to understand nothing and know nothing – yet now it turns out that the cowboy from Texas had a much better grasp on reality than his many critics. Even if his motives were at times as naive as Obama's, the former president combined them with an iron fist, immense determination and admirable loyalty to his allies.

"Yet Bush is alread y a distant dream, while Obama is a living and breathing nightmare. Now all that's left is to wait and see whether America's citizens will be able to remove him from the White House before he destroys everything."



Read more: News column: Obama a 'living and breathing nightmare' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=337173#ixzz1W0O4udcU