Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Connect with us

News

Arrogant Obama LIVID Over What Just Happened To His Nobel Peace Prize – Guess Who Gets It!

Published

on

Many Americans rightfully questioned the honor that Barack Obama was given in being awarded the most prestigious prize one could receive when he was given the Nobel Peace Prize. With only six given out each year for outstanding contributions for humanity in chemistry, economics, literature, peace, physics, or physiology or medicine, he didn’t seem to fit as the number one contributor in the world for any of these categories. In fact, his actions as the president of America were directly counter to these noble contributions.

Now we know the real reason behind why he was awarded this honor he definitely didn’t deserve, which ex-Secretary for the Nobel Prize Geir Lundestad admitted to, along with who else could have and should have gotten his Nobel Peace Prize instead of this man who worked diligently at creating a deep divide in our country, which even extended far beyond our borders.

In 2009 Barak Obama was given one of the most coveted and prestigious awards a person can receive. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to people who stand out for acts of courage and kindness for humanity. An example of a worthy recipient would be Mother Teresa, who given the award for her selflessness and kindness work with people of Calcutta India. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, she spent over 50 years serving people in the slums of Calcutta.

Barak, however, did nothing like that. In fact, the 2009 Nobel Peace prize has been the most controversial so far. Obama beat out many people who were clearly worthy recipients of the award. Yesterday, Johnathan Turley wrote a scathing article about Obama winning the award and what the ex-Secretary of the Nobel recently admitted.

In Jonathan Turley’s blog post yesterday he wrote, Like many people, I was highly critical of the awarding of the Nobel Award to President Barack Obama in 2009 before he had done anything as president.  Now the ex-Secretary for the Nobel Prize Geir Lundestad has admitted that Obama did not deserve the prize but rather they thought the award would strengthen Obama.  It is a maddening admission that the committee bypassed a list of worthy candidates with proven contributions to humanity to give a boost to someone that the Committee simply liked. That would seem grossly unethical but Lundestad merely acknowledged that it did not seem to work.

As I discussed at the time, Obama beat out various more worthy candidates including Dr. Sima Samar who is an amazingly brave Afghan woman who has risked her life to fight for the rights of women and girls in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  The chairwomen of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission, Samar was the first Hazara woman to obtain a medical degree from Kabul University. She has had to repeatedly flee for her life but has insisted on returning time and time again to treat the poor and fight for women’s rights — in an area where feminists are routinely killed or sprayed with acid by extremists.

For civil libertarians, the comparison of Samar and Obama could not be more striking. Where Obama has repeatedly refused to fight for principle and yielded to politics (in areas like torture, privacy, and detainee rights), Samar has refused to yield on principle — even at the risk of her own life.

While Obama was in office less than two weeks before his nomination, Samar has spent a lifetime fighting for oppressed women in Afghanistan. Geir Lundestad and his colleagues rejected Samar and others because they wanted to boost Obama

In his memoir entitled “Secretary of Peace,” Lundestad admits “No Nobel Peace Prize ever elicited more attention than the 2009 prize to Barack Obama . . . Even many of Obama’s supporters believed that the prize was a mistake. In that sense, the committee didn’t achieve what it had hoped for.” That is Lundestad’s way of explaining a decision that openly ignored the premise of the prize, ignored humanitarians with inspiring records, and gave the leading humanitarian award to someone without single credible claim to that prize.

Barak Obama should have turned down the award, allowing a worthy recipient to receive it. But of course, arrogant Obama would do no such thing.  His presidency is filled with these types of occasions. While his actual award may not go to anyone else, in people’s minds, they don’t acknowledge him as the worthy recipient of it since it was given in vain. We consider the honor to have gone to Samar, or any others, and that respect given to those people for their contributions far outweighs a physical award that everyone feels is grossly underserved.

In 2013 Obama won the NME Hero of the Year Award, again beating out people who actually did something heroic. Barak would be better suited to win an award for his scandals while being the Commander-in-Chief.  He should be recognized for giving the terrorist nation of Iran over a billion dollars or providing guns to Mexican cartels. He could win an award for doing nothing in eight years to remove ISIS or stopping North Korea from terrorizing the world.

The list goes on and on. Barak Obama should have never recieved the Nobel Peace Prize, the world became a much scarier place under his administration. In fact, the current Nobel committee should remove the award from Obama if they have any hope of preserving the honor it carries, which was cheapened by this single, undeserved recipient.

News

Pro-Life Man Uses Tax Time to Protest Government-Funded Abortions. And Just Won!

He’s an American and devout Christian

Published

on

The Internal Revenue Service is one of the most hated entities in America. No American enjoys paying taxes especially since many of those taxes go to pay for and fund institutions many find morally repugnant and vile – institutions like Planned Parenthood for example.

There have been discussions for decades about defunding Planned Parenthood but insofar as any real action to do so, there has not been much, if anything, has actually been done. Many people justify the payment of our income taxes by due to the necessity of infrastructures like roads, bridges, and hospitals. There are also services like the fire department or the public library to consider as well. However, there are also other darker, more morally reprehensible things such as the wholesale murder of the unborn bought and paid for via Title X tax funds that support entities like Planned Parenthood as the largest abortion provider in the country and also as a purveyor of human fetal remains.

Michael Bowman is an American and a devout Christian and he is taking a stand. Tired of empty promises and no action Bowman cited his Christian faith as a legal defense against the government in a felony tax evasion case and actually won the first round in court!

According to the Daily Mail

“Michael Bowman told U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman on Thursday that he is not a tax protester and considers himself a true patriot, but refuses to give a dime of his money if its allocated to fund government subsidized abortions.

Mosman noted in his ruling that prosecutors failed to prove Bowman tried to conceal or mislead the government by keeping a low bank account balance so tax collectors couldn’t garnish his account to pay taxes, according to The Oregonian. 

‘Not everything that makes collection efforts more difficult qualifies as evasion,”  the judge added Wednesday.

Bowman said that he has refused to pay federal income taxes since 1999, arguing that the government must make accommodations for his strongly held religious beliefs.

‘I’m not a tax protester. I love my country. I have a duty to my country. I have a duty to my conscience,” the 53-year-old contract engineer from Columbus City.

US federal prosecutors say that Bowman has failed to submit a timely or accurate tax return since 1997.

In retaliation for his perceived crimes, the IRS levied Bowman’s bank account in January of 2012 as well as garnishing his wages in an effort to pay what the government states he owes. Bowman states he then began to make the necessary adjustments in how he conducted his financial transactions.  He chose to cash his checks and receive the cash from an entity other than his bank as well as keeping a low bank statement from January 2010 to January 2014 in an effort to circumvent the IRS and their collection efforts.

 

Assistant U.S Attorneys Donna Brecker Maddux and Rachel K. Sowray wrote in their original criminal complaint against Bowman – “Defendant’s altered bank behavior removed his income from the reach of taxing authorities and allowed him to avoid payment of assessed taxes.”

The indictment against Bowman states he owes $356,857 to the federal government in back taxes along with significant penalties accumulated from the years of 2000, 2001, 2008 and 2009, along with his failures to pay his income tax to the IRS from 2012 to 2014.

Except Judge Mossman did not see things in quite the same way as the prosecution, noting that they failed to prove Bowman in any way attempted to conceal or mislead the government by keeping a low bank balance. Bowman’s attorney argued before the court that it was not a crime to deposit a check and to subsequently withdraw that cash from a bank account especially given that all checks were disclosed to the IRS through his employer.

Defense attorney Matthew Schindler states – “Like a player collapsing as they lose Twister, the government has reached too far forward and stretched way too far back. Cashing a check at your own bank, made out to you, representing income contemporaneously disclosed by employers through 1099 and W-2 forms to the IRS is not ‘handling one’s affairs to avoid making records.”

Mossman agreed with the defense and wrote in his rendering of the legal decision – “Just cashing checks is not evasion.”  However, Mossman ruled that the case would be dismissed without prejudice which means the government can, in turn, reopen the case against Bowman and refile the charges against him in court if they should choose to do so. The prosecution has stated that the government will need to deliberate on whether they will choose to prosecute the case a second time and then will assess if they plan to move forward. Bowman still currently faces four separate counts of willful failure to file tax returns which would be a misdemeanor for each count.

Continue Reading

News

US Boxer Wears ‘America First’ Border Wall Shorts To Fight Mexican Opponent

He made quite the political statement

Published

on

A Patriotic American pro-boxer made quite the political statement for President Donald Trump and his signature campaign promise to Build The Wall on the border between the U.S. and Mexico in an effort to stem the tide of the illegal alien invasion which has been going on for the past 30 years.

With thunderous applause, Rod Salka stepped into the ring with Francisco Vargas during Golden Boy’s ESPN event in Indio, California. Salka, who is an American, was sporting brick-patterned trunks in red, white and blue, with his waistband reading, “America 1st.”

The left of course cheered as Vargas, a Mexican by “heritage” and a Pennsylvanian by birth, also known as “El Bandido” beat Salka in the sixth round. Salka’s trainers stopped the fight at the beginning of the seventh round.

Deadspin reported on the fight:

“Vargas dominated the fight, sending Salka to his knees with an uppercut in the fifth round, and then landing a series of punches in the sixth round that opened a cut around Salka’s left eye. Salka never made it out of his corner for the seventh round, as his trainers stopped the fight.

Vargas stated on Salka’s trunks via ESPN Deportes – “Once we were already in the ring, the wall was an extra [motivation] so I gave it everything. Whatever it is I represent Mexico and I feel that wall is against all my countrymen.”

His countrymen? But wasn’t he born in Pensylvania?

Many on the left insanely believe this fight was some sort of commentary on illegal immigration and are stating that Salka’s loss is some sort of referendum in support of sanctuary policies. They were also quick to remind Salka of his attempt to enter the realm of politics in 2016, running as the Republican candidate for District 38 of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives before losing to Democratic incumbent William Kortz II. The district has been notably represented by a Democrat since at least 1969, and the crime and poverty levels all reflect that fact.

Vargas demonstrated exactly the reason why Patriotic Americans take issue with the majority of illegal immigrants and even some legal immigrants. If you were born in Pennsylvania how on earth could you ever call Mexicans “your countrymen?” Of course, you can be of Mexican heritage, but at what time exactly  do you start to consider Americans your “Countrymen?”

But in other news, the awesome update we have about the actual border wall is that since both political parties are against it, the Republicans because of America Chamber of Commerce money and the Democrats because of the need to have more low information voters ready to believe their lies. The President fooled everyone during the last omnibus bill and secured the money to build the wall through military funding.

This, of course, was a huge moment for the president, seeing that the border wall was something he campaigned on passionately during his campaign. And even better is the fact he actually was able to sneak in that funding to be able to keep that promise even though both parties were against it is priceless and typical Trump.

American Military News reports

“President Trump’s statement on Tuesday came after he has made increased comments about immigration and border security in recent days, as a caravan of Central American migrants was heading north through Mexico to reach the U.S.

“Until we can have a wall and proper security, we’re going to be guarding our border with the military,” Trump said on Tuesday.

“That’s a big step,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “We really haven’t done that before, certainly not very much before.”

Currently, U.S. Border Patrol is in charge of patrolling and maintaining the border.

Trump on Tuesday also addressed a caravan of immigrants that was attempting to travel to the U.S. from Honduras.

“I told Mexico very strongly that you’re going to have to do something about the caravans that are coming,” Trump said, adding that the caravan was now “breaking up very rapidly.”

“Mexico has very strong immigration laws. We should have those laws,” the President also said. “We have immigration laws that are laughed at by everybody. We need the wall, we need the protection, and we need to change our immigration laws at the border and elsewhere.”

“The caravan makes me very sad that this could happen to the United States, where you have thousands of people that just decide to walk into our country and we don’t have any laws that could protect it,” he said.

“If it reaches our border, our laws are so weak and so pathetic… it’s like we have no border,” Trump said.

Gutiérrez said that even though both Mexico and the U.S. have a desire for border security, the two countries disagree on how to make the borders secure. He also reiterated that Mexico will not be paying for the border wall.

“A relation like the one between Mexico and the United States needs to have spaces in order to agree to disagree,” he said. “The issue of the wall is certainly one of them, and as my government has clearly expressed already, Mexico by no means would be paying for a wall.”

Continue Reading

News

President Trump Just Donated His Entire 4th Quarter Paycheck To Help Rebuild America!

He’s doing what he said he’d do

Published

on

And once again President Trump is doing exactly what he said he would do during the 2016 campaign.

The very next day after rolling out a major infrastructure plan the White House promptly announced that the President’s fourth-quarter earnings salary of $100k will be going to rebuilding what Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders called ‘our crumbling infrastructure.”

Elaine Chao, who is the Transportation Secretary, and also Mitch McConnell’s wife, was on hand to accept President Trump’s generous donation in the press briefing room on behalf of her department.

Although the president’s donation is nothing compared to what he wants to spend on infrastructure in the coming years it’s still a lot more than any other past president has ever given, especially Democrat presidents in recent past. This donation will go towards the proposed $21 billion infrastructure spending proposal for the fiscal year 2019 which was announced on Monday. But this is only a small part of a proposed larger spending plan that would dedicate $200 billion to infrastructure over the next decade.

Here is more on the proposed Infrastructure spending bill via USA Today:

“President Trump will unveil his long-awaited infrastructure proposal Monday to shift $200 billion over the next decade from other federal programs to pave the way for $1.5 trillion for roads, bridges, waterways and railways.

Trump’s approach is to let Congress negotiate the details. His four objectives are to stimulate new investment, streamline federal permitting, invest in rural projects and improve the workforce, according to four senior administration officials who briefed reporters Saturday.

Spurring construction is broadly popular. But critics are already calling Trump’s approach “fake” and a “scam” for its lack of new revenue and because of its reliance on funding from local governments and private investors.

“This fake proposal will not address the serious infrastructure needs facing this country, so our potholed roads will get worse, our bridges and transit systems will become more dangerous, and our tolls will become higher,” Rep. Peter DeFazio of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in a Saturday radio address.

Trump’s proposal is built on top of existing construction programs with an eye toward encouraging greater local investment, according to senior administration officials. Polls show people would prefer to have projects determined locally, rather than sending their money to Washington, according to the officials.

More about President Trump and infrastructure:

Trump State of the Union: “There has never been a better time to start living the American dream”

States with the riskiest roads, bridges and dams

Dynamic tolls: How highways can charge $40 for driving just 10 miles

Trump and members of his Cabinet will tour the country to point out where construction is needed — and where admirable projects have been accomplished, according to senior administration officials.

A poll administration officials cited from September found 84% of Americans think the country needs infrastructure investment. The Harvard CAPS-Harris poll surveyed 2,177 registered voters.

Groups such as the National Association of Counties, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the U.S. Conference of Mayors issued a joint statement Thursday welcoming Trump’s focus on infrastructure.

Trump’s program will be debated by six committees in the House and five in the Senate. The administration has been conferring with lawmakers since March 2017 on the program, holding 40 meetings with caucuses or other groups to gauge priorities and get feedback, according to a senior administration official.

Congress could still develop its own funding. Trump is open to new sources of revenue, according to senior administration officials.

In 2015, lawmakers patched $70 billion from sources such as a Federal Reserve surplus, Customs and Border Protection fees and the sale of part of the strategic petroleum reserve in order to provide $305 billion for the last five-year highway bill.

The gas tax traditionally funded the highway trust fund. But the tax has remained 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993, and it hasn’t kept pace with inflation as cars became more fuel-efficient.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an influential advocacy group for businesses, proposed in January raising the gas tax 5 cents each year for five years to generate $394 billion over a decade.

“It’s the simplest, fairest and most effective way to raise the money we need for roads, bridges and transit,” Chamber CEO Tom Donohue said.

Under Trump’s budget, the $200 billion in federal funding will be taken from other programs that are cut or eliminated, according to senior administration officials. The precise trade-offs aren’t designated.

Trump’s priorities include $100 billion for incentive funding to match local investments; $50 billion for rural projects distributed as block grants to governors; $20 billion for expanding loan programs and private bonds for roads, waterways and railways; $20 billion for transformative projects with a vision for the future; and $10 billion for federal building projects.

The federal government traditionally provided 80% of funding for qualified highway construction. But Trump’s incentive funding is projected to provide 10% or 20% of a project’s cost to generate $500 billion to $1 trillion in total investment, according to senior administration officials. The loan programs could generate 40 times the federal investment, officials said.

While the federal share would fall, senior administration officials said the change will reduce the reliance on the federal government for a broader variety of worthy projects. Only 28% of all highway construction and only 4% of water projects nationwide get federal funding, the officials said.

Local matching funds could come from sales or property taxes, or user fees. The city of Los Angeles adopted a sales-tax referendum in November 2016 to generate $120 billion over 40 years for infrastructure, which administration officials said could serve as an example for others.

Tolls would be one way to spur private investment in roads or bridges. But they wouldn’t be financially justifiable everywhere.

“This is one of the tools in the toolbox,” Pat Jones, CEO of the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association, said before Trump unveiled his plan. “We believe we need an approach to infrastructure that says, ‘all of the above.’ ”

But shifting the financial burden onto states and local governments, and to private groups, is what drew criticism.

“This is not a real infrastructure plan — it’s simply another scam, an attempt by this administration to privatize critical government functions, and create windfalls for their buddies on Wall Street,” DeFazio said.

Other aspects of Trump’s proposal include:

•Putting a single federal agency in charge of permitting for each construction project, such as the Transportation Department for a highway or the Army Corps of Engineers for a water project. The single review could stop second-guessing and delays from other agencies.

•Giving governors rural grants for greater local control over how money is spent on projects such as broadband.

•Removing training obstacles for workers who don’t attend four-year colleges. The proposal would expand eligibility for Pell grants and allow the transfer of professional licenses from part of the country to another.”

In addition, the White House is saying this spending program would lead to an investment of over $1.5 trillion on roads, bridges, waterways, and railways. Which is something our nation is so lacking at this moment.

Since he took office Donald Trump has donated all his salary back to the US. The National Park Service, The Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services. Not bad considering the current Democrat favorite for 2020, former Vice President Joe Biden, who is no pauper himself increased his charitable donations from 1.5 percent of his income back in 2012 to a whopping 1.87 percent in 2016. But I’m sure since President Trump did this it will never be enough and the left will still find something to criticize him about.

H/T USA Today

Continue Reading

Trending