Fantasy By Benetton: Feuding World Leaders Get to First Base (EEEEWWWWWW)

From Time:

Hardly a stranger to edgy advertisements, Italian clothing company Benetton continues its penchant for controversy with a new campaign that features images of various political and religious world leaders kissing.
The company’s “Unhate” campaign launched Wednesday, with a mission to combat hatred and “contribute to the creation of a new culture of tolerance.” The Photoshopped images are racy by nature of its pairings, pitting leaders against their supposed political foes. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu locks lips with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, while President Obama gets up close and personal with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, among other pairings.  The Washington Post reports that the ads are inspired by this kiss between Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev and East German communist leader Erich Honecker in 1979.

Perhaps most controversial was an ad depicting Pope Benedict XVI kissing Ahmed Mohammed el-Tayeb, a top Egyptian imam, but Benetton took it down just an hour after the Vatican issued a protest. A Vatican spokesman issued a statement saying the ad was an “absolutely unacceptable use of the image of the Holy Father, manipulated and exploited in a publicity campaign with commercial ends.” Benetton retracted the image and issued its own statement saying the company was “sorry that the use of the image had so hurt the sensibilities of the faithful.”

The company’s advertisements have always pushed the envelope, but the fashion house hasn’t come out with a campaign of this nature in a long time. The WSJ and the Washington Post both seem skeptical about whether its mission is in earnest, or rather just a last-ditch attempt to resurrect the brand. Either way, people are talking.

Read more.

Blue Dog Democrats Break with Obama, Back Balanced Budget Amendment

 

 

The Blue Dog Coalition of moderate lawmakers endorsed a bill put forward by House Republicans to pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

The endorsement puts them at odds with President Barack Obama, whose administration said it opposed such an amendment.

"We do not need to amend the Constitution for only the 28^th time in our nation’s history to do the job of restoring fiscal discipline," the Office of Management and Budget said on Tuesday.

Speaker of the House John Boehner said he was "disappointed" in Obama for opposing the bill — which is certain to fail in the Senate — saying it is needed "to hold back the growth of government and give our economy a chance to grow and create jobs."

The amendment would require a balanced budget, unless three-fifths in both chambers agreed to run a deficit. Raising the debt limit would require the same margin.

“Congress has demonstrated that regardless of which party is in charge, out-of-control spending is a hard habit for them to kick," said Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR), the Blue Dog Co-Chair for Communications, in a statement. "It’s become clear that a constitutional amendment is the only way to force Congress’s hand toward fiscal responsibility."

The Blue Dog Coalition is down to just 26 members, after nearly two dozen members lost their seats to Republican candidates in 2010.

 

Read more.

President Obama's Uncle: Picture Proof ... He's Still Selling 80 Proof

The pictures tell the story ... President Obama's uncle, wheeling and dealing behind a liquor store counter.  So there's no doubt, he's still dodging the deportation bullet ... at least for now.

Onyango Obama was busted for DUI August 24th in Framingham, Massachusetts ...after almost smashing into a cop car.  Immigration officials learned about the arrest, and then discovered the 67-year-old was in the U.S. illegally.  In fact, Onyango was on the receiving end of a 1992 deportation order, but it was never enforced.

While Onyango challenges the deportation order, the pictures show ... he's making a living at the Conti Liquor Store. 

He's due in court tomorrow for a hearing on the DUI charge.

From TMZ.

Obama’s Promise of No Abortion Funding in ObamaCare Just a “Magic” Trick

We knew, and now new information reveals that the White House knew, that President Obama’s Executive Order to prevent abortion funding in ObamaCare is a sham.
In order to gain enough votes to pass ObamaCare, President Obama made a “deal” with a group of supposedly “pro-life” Democrat Congressmen, led by then Congressman Bart Stupak.

The deal was simple, if the group of Congressmen would forego their concern that ObamaCare provided funding for abortions – which it does – and vote for the bill, President Obama would sign an Executive Order which he promised would “ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

It is now clear that the White House knew that this promise against abortion funding was a sham.

In an email exchange with then Solicitor General, now Justice, Elena Kagan, Lawrence Tribe, “senior counselor for access to justice” of the Department of Justice and liberal Harvard law professor, expressed his elation for ObamaCare’s passage and noted that the President’s Executive Order was nothing more than a sham.
Tribe stated, "And with the Stupak group accepting the magic of what amounts to a signing statement on steroids!"

He is exactly right. It was a “magic” trick, slight of hand, intended to fool the American people and Members of Congress into passing this pro-abortion bill.
Neither a signing statement – a written pronouncement by the President when he signs a bill into law – nor an Executive Order has the force of a congressionally enacted law.

As Jay Sekulow, ACLJ Chief Counsel, made crystal clear at the time President Obama proposed this Executive Order:

The Executive Order is problematic on a number of fronts. It is not a legislative fix and does not carry the force of Congressionally-approved legislation. It does not supersede law. It can be rescinded.

And, what should concern everyone: this Executive Order places HHS Secretary Sebelius at the helm of the funding process - a cabinet member who has a long and documented history of supporting abortion.

The fact is the American people won't be fooled. They understand what happened - another Washington power play that ignores what most Americans want.

That Executive Order does not stop ObamaCare from funding abortions because it does not have the effect of a congressionally enacted statute. It is, as Tribe said, nothing more than a “signing statement on steroids.”

Read more here.

SEIU makes early, expected Obama endorsement

WASHINGTON--The Service Employees International Union announced Wednesday it will endorse President Barack Obama in 2012--an early, but entirely expected endorsement from a union bankrolling Democratic-allied SuperPacs.
The endorsement comes before the Republicans even have a nominee, but at least there is no charade about where they stand.
"President Obama shares our vision of a nation that invests in good jobs here at home; where everyone pays their fair share; where access to quality, affordable health care is preserved; and where there is a pathway to citizenship for every immigrant worker," said SEIU International President Mary Kay Henry. "It's a vision that says: Our country does better when we all do better."
The SEIU runs a big political operation to help candidates directly and indirectly. Obama's team will get the help of SEIU controlled phone banks, canvassing and related ground activities.
SEIU is a major SuperPac player. The union gave $500,000 to Priorities USA Action, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's the group founded by formerdeputy White House press secretary Bill Burton and former White House aid Sean Sweeney, who worked for Rahm Emanuel when he was chief of staff.
The SEIU gave $100,00 to American Bridge 21st Century run Rodell Mollineau, a former spokesman forSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Read this story here.

Obama's overlooked white side

A high-ranking member of our family administration, who wishes to remain anonymous, has the audacity to characterize me as "contrary." She has never understood that I am just an early adopter of enlightened views that the masses eventually will embrace.
For instance, I'm still waiting for America to elect our first African-American president. In my view, Barack Obama is just another in the long line of white guys to hold that office. Long before we knew what the prez put on his census form, everyone looked at Obama's dad and considered Barack "black." Well, I find it just as reasonable and a lot more logical to look at Obama's mom and declare him "white."
Why not? This "one-drop of black blood" thing for assigning race is not only old school, it is colonial Virginia old school, which over time has become generally accepted. Both whites and blacks like it because it makes it quick and easy to categorize folks. Black people also find it appealing since we then can claim mixed-race celebrities as one of us. (This can sometimes lead to buyers' remorse, however. In my barbershop, as Tiger Woods' personal problems surfaced, the talk quickly went from, "Our brother, Tiger, has got that golf thing whipped" to "What was that Asian dude thinking?")
Obama missed a lot by not playing his "white race" card. He could have had birthers tied in knots over Kansas instead of Kenya. He could have explained his attendance at the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church by saying he was just doing research on black folks. It also would offer an account for Obama's lame basketball game. And don't give me that, "Well, he certainly looks black." Hello, so does Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, and no one challenges his authenticity.
Maxine Waters, Tavis Smiley and Cornel West are starting to tilt in my direction as they criticize Obama for not being "black enough." Well, duh, maybe the man wasn't black to begin with. What brother do you know who was reared in Indonesia and Hawaii? Even if my man started out certified 100% African, growing up in those two places would have sucked all the black out of him.
OK, so up to now, no one but me considers Obama white. But why isn't he ever referred to as biracial? How can that be overlooked? Americans claiming multiracial identity is burgeoning, with one in seven marriages now multiracial and mixed-race individuals are a population that has increased by roughly 35% since 2000. (Interestingly, the rates of intermarriage are lowest between blacks and whites. Go figure.)
Anyway, the aforementioned critic embedded in my marriage advises, "Enough with the labels" and says that my inverting stereotypes is hardly constructive. Once again, she's right, of course. In truth, no matter how you come at it, there's no excuse for putting people into boxes based on their birth.
I think it is Dr. Seuss who appropriately said: "A person's a person, no matter how" bred (or whatever).

Read this article here.

Obama has a knack for ticking off America's friends

The election of Barack Obama, we were told, would bring new respect and friendship for America in the world.

No longer would we be led by a Texas cowboy ignorant of and indifferent to world opinion. Instead we would have a visionary leader sympathetic to the governments and peoples of the world.

But Obama's best moments in foreign policy have been when he follows the leads of predecessors. In his twice-postponed trip to Australia this week, he will reportedly announce that a U.S. Navy base will be opened there.

That cements ties already strengthened by George W. Bush and previous presidents to the one nation in the world that has fought alongside the United States in every war in the last century.

But domestic politics can trump foreign policy for Obama. He canceled previous Australian trips to lobby the House to pass Obamacare and to respond to the Gulf oil spill.

Closer to home, crassly political ploys have angered the governments and peoples of our two geographical neighbors, Mexico and Canada.

Only domestic politics can explain two of the Obama administration's most controversial moves: exporting illegal guns to Mexico and balking at building an oil pipeline from Canada.

The export of guns to Mexico was the whole point of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Operation Fast and Furious.

Why ever would our government do such a thing? Conservative commentators have argued that the administration wanted to use evidence of deaths caused by guns illegally exported from the United States to spur demands for gun control laws here.

Democratic leaders have done that before. In 2009, Obama claimed that "more than 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States." That claim was echoed by Hillary Clinton and Sens. Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein.

But the statistic was bogus, as FactCheck.org concluded. The 90 percent refers only to guns Mexican authorities submitted to the U.S. for tracing. The actual percentage of U.S. guns used in Mexican drug wars is unknown but is clearly far lower.

We don't know for sure why the ATF and Justice Department embarked on Fast and Furious. Officials are keeping mum. But no one has come up with a more plausible explanation than the charge that it was intended to make a case for gun control at home.

In any case, Mexican citizens and government officials are understandably incensed. But maybe not as incensed as Canadian citizens and government officials are over the Obama administration's decision to punt until after the 2012 election the decision on whether to allow the Canadian firm TransCanada to build an oil pipeline called Keystone XL from Alberta to Oklahoma and Texas.

This was a crass political decision if there ever was one. The policy arguments for blocking the pipeline, first proposed in September 2008, are pathetically weak. Environmentalists claim that Canadian oil sands production will release too much carbon dioxide. But if we block the pipeline, Canada will keep producing the oil and sell it to China.

Concern is also expressed that the pipeline will somehow pollute the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska. But pipelines are the safest way to transport oil, and we've been building them for decades without polluting aquifers.

What is undisputed is that the Keystone XL pipeline would create a lot of jobs in the United States -- 20,000 directly and more indirectly, the Canadian firm says -- and will provide us with about 7 percent of our imported oil.

That would be a big plus for energy independence. It would mean that we'd get more oil from a friendly neighbor and depend less on the Middle East and Hugo Chavez's Venezuela.

On this one Obama even stiffed his usual allies, labor unions that are eager for pipeline jobs, and sided with the environmentalists who staged Occupy-type demonstrations outside the White House earlier this month.

To make points with them he was quite willing to snub Canada, with whom we have shared the longest unfortified border in the world for more than a century.

A president who showed respect and friendship for the governments and peoples of other nations would not have connived in the smuggling of guns into Mexico and would not have blocked the import of oil from Canada.

But, on these and other foreign policy issues, we don't have such a president right now. We have a presidential candidate with a negative job rating desperate for re-election.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/11/obama-has-knack-ticking-americas-friends#ixzz1dpNPGIyl

Solyndra Was Asked to Delay Layoff News Till After Midterms, Memo Says

WASHINGTON — The Energy Department asked the Solyndra solar equipment company to delay an announcement about impending layoffs until after last year’s midterm elections, according to a memoby the Republican staff of the House subcommittee that will call the energy secretary to testify Thursday about a government loan to Solyndra.

The Republican memo quotes from an e-mail written by a staff member at Argonaut, a venture capital firm that was a major investor in the company, that says of the Energy Department, “They did push very hard for us to hold our announcement of the consolidation to employees and vendors to Nov. 3rd.” The midterm election was Nov. 2.

“Oddly they didn’t give a reason for that date,” the committee staff quotes the e-mail as saying. The e-mail itself was not released, and no government e-mail requesting a delay has been found.

A spokesman for the Energy Department, Damien LaVera, asked about the e-mail, did not dispute the report, which he said referred to the timing of a press release. But, he added, “as the 180,000 pages of documents that the Department of Energy turned over to the committee indicate, the department’s decisions about this loan were made on the merits, based on extensive review by the experts in the loan program — and nothing in this Republican committee memo changes that.” The memo makes two other points that, if confirmed, would support the Republicans’ position that the $535 million loan guarantee was rushed through and handled badly.

One is on the question of how the government gave away its place as first creditor in line in case of a liquidation. Federal law requires that when the government is owed money, it is the first creditor. But as Solyndra’s financial situation worsened, the private investors came forward with a new $75 million loan, and under an agreement that the Energy Department consented to, that debt became “senior” to what was owed the government.

Republicans on the committee argue that before approving the arrangement, the Energy Department should have referred the question to the Justice Department.

Energy Department officials have said in testimony that while the law requires the government debt be senior at the time the loan is made, it allows more senior debt to be incurred later. And letting Solyndra borrow more money from other sources increased the possibility that it would survive and earn revenues that could pay back the loan, the officials said. (They turned out to be wrong; the company ran out of money at the end of August, and is now being liquidated.)

According to the Republican staff report, the Office of Management and Budget, part of the White House, initially believed that the loan modification would cost the government money and was not permissible, but later changed its mind. The reason for the turnaround was not made clear in the Republican memo.

The memo also referred to a news item carried by Dow Jones newswires on July 7, 2009, when the company and the department were in the late stages of negotiations over the loan guarantee, in which Energy Secretary Steven Chu is quoted as saying that the Solyndra loan guarantee was imminent, and that “the loan is theirs, as soon as they get the additional capital that’s required by statute.”

But according to the Republican memo, a staff member in the Energy Department’s Loan Program office wrote in an e-mail that he had “no idea” where Dr. Chu got information about an increase in equity, but that “the conclusion that ‘the loan is theirs’ doesn’t help our negotiations.”

Obama’s catastrophic pipeline cop-out

The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline offers nothing but promise: tens of thousands of desperately needed jobs, and a big step toward ensuring North American energy security.

But last week, promise gave way to politics when U.S. President Barack Obama punted on the pipeline permitting decision, delaying it until after the November 2012 election. The Wall Street Journal called the decision a “Keystone Cop-Out.” I have gone a step further and called it a catastrophic cop-out, one with certain economic and diplomatic consequences. The decision on the KXL permit was expected before the end of this year and elected officials from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to a bipartisan mix of members of Congress rightly called it a “no-brainer.” After all, what could be easier than supporting energy exported from a steadfast friend, an ally in the war on terror, and a country deeply committed to environmental stewardship?

What could make more sense than approving a project that means 20,000 new jobs in the U.S.? These jobs come as the United States is struggling to recover from a deep recession, with unemployment continually exceeding nine per cent. Add to this that only last month, the president’s own White House Jobs Council cautiously supported the KXL project, and the environmental impact statement found the pipeline would not cause undo harm, KXL approval seemed not just an easy decision, but an obvious one.

So what turned common sense on its head?

Environmental radicals in the U.S., which include the various “Occupy” protesters and Hollywood hipsters, stung by a series of environmental disappointments the last two years, decided the KXL pipeline was their cause célèbre.

Back in 2008, they had high hopes, with a brand new president and a Democratic Congress, that their environmental wish list would at last be granted.

But that’s not what happened. Instead, environmental groups have been dealt several setbacks. A climate change bill passed the House by the smallest of margins in 2009, only to die in the Senate and with it the promise of legislatively mandated cap and trade. More recently we are seeing scandals involving the administration favouring multi-million-dollar loans to renewable energy companies like Solyndra, only to see them file for bankruptcy. With a sputtering economy, Americans put environmental concerns on the back burner and Congress, likewise, has had no appetite to pass legislation that could be deemed “anti-jobs.”

As a result, the more strident environmentalists were demanding a victory and what was a “no-brainer” pipeline project approval, became a “no way!” for a portion of President Obama’s base who demanded tangible proof of his fidelity to their cause. Then with Nebraska expressing concern over the project and seeking an alternative route to avoid areas in the Sand Hills the state fears would be vulnerable to a spill, the administration had a hook on which to hang the delay.

So now the U.S. State Department is reviewing that alternative route and conveniently, a decision has been postponed until 2013. The permitting process that usually takes 18 months will now take 54 months. That’s a long time to wait on jobs — especially those “shovel ready” jobs the president says he wants to create. Talk about infrastructure! The KXL project is a 2,700-kilometres-long, $7-billion investment. That represents a whole lot of shovels.

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Obama+catastrophic+pipeline/5715471/story.html#ixzz1dpEs28d2

Key Obama Backer Slow to Raise Cash

Earlier this year, Bill Burton left the White House to help create a pro-Obama fund-raising group with a goal of raising $100 million, aiming to mimic the success of recent Republican efforts.

So far, he's falling short.

Many of the Democratic Party's biggest donors aren't planning to support his organization, either because they're unhappy with Mr. Obama or disillusioned with politics in general. There's also this fund-raising fact of life: Wealthy donors are more likely to open up their wallets to defeat a sitting president than to protect one.

Mr. Burton's group has spent less than $1 million on advertisements this year, while the leading pro-Republican organization has spent more than $20 million.

Mr. Burton, a former spokesman for Mr. Obama, said in an interview that potential donors don't always know who he is, which means he has to use meetings for introductions, not strictly for pitching.

Arthur Lipson, owner of hedge-fund management firm Western Investment, has donated more than $500,000 to Democratic causes in the past decade, according to public records. He hasn't heard from Mr. Burton, but an outreach probably wouldn't be worth the effort. "I will definitely not donate to Obama in any way, shape or form," said Mr. Lipson, who objects to deals the president has made with Republicans.

The Burton group's struggles have caught the attention of Obama re-election campaign officials, who privately say they aren't counting on its support.

Democrats in 2004 and then Republicans in 2010 dramatically expanded a new, loosely regulated form of political fund raising—making it the fastest-growing source of election spending.

American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, founded with the help of former White House aide Karl Rove, are the largest of the GOP-affiliated groups. They spent more than $70 million in 2010 and helped Republicans win control of the House. Their cash narrowed the financial advantage Democrats have held in recent years, in part due to support from labor unions.

Mr. Obama and the eventual Republican nominee for president are each expected to raise about $750 million for the 2012 race. As a result, these outside groups could tip the balance.

What are known as 501(c)4 outside political groups don't have to disclose their donors, but are limited in how much of their funds can be spent directly attacking or supporting candidates. Donors who give to a related category known as 527 groups know that their names must be disclosed, but 100% of their money can be used to directly attack or support candidates.

Mr. Burton is sticking by his prediction that his two groups, Priorities USA and Priorities USA Action, will raise and spend $100 million. The Rove-related groups could spend as much as $300 million on 2012 races for White House and Congress.

"We won't be able to match Karl Rove dollar for dollar," Mr. Burton said. "But we have no doubt that we will have the resources necessary to be a countervailing force."

In 2010, Democrats and the White House sharply criticized these outside groups, charging them with undermining the legitimacy of elections by not revealing their donors.

Republicans have noted the change of tune. "Last year, Obama sanctimoniously railed against nondisclosing groups, and this year his brazenly hypocritical operatives started one for him," said Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS.

Mr. Burton, in response, said he didn't want to let "the issues and candidates we care about [get] overrun with hundreds of millions of unanswered dollars."

His biggest hurdle will be lackluster interest from wealthy liberals. Of the $200 million donated by them in 2004 to back Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, nearly $40 million came from Wall Street financier George Soros and Peter Lewis, chairman of Progressive Insurance Co. This election, neither plans to play a major role.

Mr. Soros plans to mostly donate to organizations promoting liberal policies, such as Media Matters, a group that criticizes conservative media outlets. A Lewis spokeswoman said he has "refocused his efforts on rebuilding the progressive infrastructure and modernizing marijuana laws."

Giving is often about relationships, said Michael Fleming, a political advisor to major Democratic donor David Bohnett. "You are more likely to regularly contribute [to an established organization] than to a brand new political enterprise where they have to introduce themselves and explain what they do," he said.

Mr. Burton's group is trying to motivate donors by focusing on Mitt Romney as if he were already the GOP nominee, hoping donors will contribute now. The group recently spent $100,000 on an ad titled "Mitt Romney's America." And Mr. Burton has been reminding donors of 2000 to warn against complacency.

Steve Rosenthal, a Democrat operative who was involved with the 2004 campaign, predicted donors would start writing checks once the Republicans select a nominee. "Fear is a great motivating factor," Mr. Rosenthal said. "Once they see a clear and present danger, Democratic donors should respond in a pretty big way."

Read here.