You are here: Home / Floyd Reports

Floyd Reports

floydreportslogo2 Floyd ReportsWelcome to the new home of FloydReports.com. Enter for conservative commentary, conservative videos, and conservative news from veteran political expert Floyd Brown,  President of the Western Center for Journalism. If you are a subscriber of FloydReports.com, you will still get the same great content to your inbox, just at a new home. The blog’s move to WesternJournalism.com will allow it to have greater reach and a more powerful server. Please take a look around, and if you have any comments, please use our contact page to reach us.

 

Forgerygate, Or How The US Was Tricked: The Conclusion Of Operation Sideshow

April 30, 2012 by 14 Comments

obama speech 7 SC Forgerygate, or How The US Was Tricked: The Conclusion of Operation Sideshow

Part 11: Conclusion

Facts and nothing but the facts with documents that have been deemed forgeries by a credible Law Enforcement Agency of the State of Arizona

A press gaggle had been hastily called on the afternoon of April 26, 2011 to debut Obama’s newly found long-form birth certificate for the next morning, the 27th.  This briefing was done “old school” with the press corps being barred from using any audio or video recording of the event forcing them to use only pen and paper for any notes.  This practice was extremely rare within the James S. Brady press briefing room and was usually only followed when they were on Air Force One or Two or other secure locations for security purposes.  We do not have to guess the motives of the president’s agents at this gaggle, they were being deceptive.

The complicity of the State of Hawaii and several officials in their guarded and misleading statements from the Health Department and the Attorney Generals office had started in 2008 one week before the general election.  The changing of the name of birth certificates or certifications (COLB) sometime in 2009 is another reason to doubt their veracity.  Their duplicitous statements regarding the ability to receive a true and certified copy of an original document and impeached by the requirements of the State of Hawaii Homelands Heritage Agency itself, to require only the long-form birth certificate prior to sometime in 2009.  Hawaiian Statute §338-18 refutes all the hyperbole of the officials in this matter as it was only “departmental policy” of the Health Department and not “law” as these officials continually stated.  This corroborates the statements of Mile Zullo from the Maricopa County Sheriff’s office about Hawaiian officials being complicit at least at some level; by their own deceptive statements, they have in essence self-impugned their own credibility.

We have the contradictory comments and actions of Neil Abercrombie the Governor of Hawaii who vowed to release Obama’s birth records in December of 2010 and by late January 2011 had retreated from all of his previous statements.  However, on Tuesday January 18, 2011 he stated to the Honolulu Star-Advertiser that Obama did not have a hospital-generated long form birth certificate and the official record only consisted of a “unspecified notation or listing“.  Four short months later on April 27, 2011 the Governor makes a press release of his own in conjunction with Obama’s “sideshow” message and tacitly intimates that Obama has a hospital generated long-form birth certificate.  It is signed by Dr. David A. Sinclair who had conveniently died in 2003 as evidenced by the now fraudulent and discredited document posted on whitehouse.gov.  This  forgery had been substituted for the official “certified certificates of live birth” he received on the 25th through his personal attorney.

The long-form birth certificate is so poorly forged that it claims Obama’s Father’s race classification as “African” when the National Center for Health Statistics of the Public Health Service used the official term “Negro” to denote a person of color in 1961.  All States and Territories were required to use the National Center for Health Statistics race classifications by federal law in the collection and reporting of vital statistics.  Pencil mark notations are seen on his long-form certificate, and was a national reporting requirement from the National Vital Statistics Division which required data be taken from certain birth certificates for statistical analysis.  The oddity about Obama’s certificate is that is was only required on “even” numbered documents, his forged document is numbered “61 10641″ an “odd” numbered document so it would not have had these penciled-in notations for data collection.  On it’s face it is a fraudulent document without any type of analysis needing to be performed.

Officials of a credible law enforcement agency of the State of Arizona has leveled charges of forgery and fraud and that “probable cause” of a federal crime exists over Obama’s latest “Certificate of Live Birth” and his Selective Service Registration card.  Without having one, he could not have been elected to federal office.  Investigators also found that Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) microfiche records for the week of Aug. 1st thru 7th of 1961 from Hawaii were missing at the National Archives in Washington.

Selective Service Administration officials have refused as of March 28, 2012  to permit examination of Obama’s original  Select Service Registration card to court approved forensic examiners of Maricopa County Sheriff‘s office investigators.

Alabama State Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker filed a concurrence in denial of a mandamus petition over a request for an original copy of his long-form birth certificate be filed with the State in the Courts Order dismissing the petition.  This statement lends credence that Obama’s fraudulent birth documents would have significant evidentiary value of forgery and fraud in the proper forum though was made in a failed ballot challenge from Alabama.  Justice Parker is referring to the findings by Maricopa County Sheriff‘s office in his concurrence.

We have so many questions and odd facts surrounding our president they are worth noting and discussing here:

His adoption records by Lolo Soetoro is another unanswered question which would sully the nativity narrative from his book Dreams from my Father and destroy his claim to citizenship.

It is also the little things: not showing any reverence for the National Anthem, when the flag is raised, every child is taught this from an early age, much less the exclusive education Obama received.

The ability to recite with almost perfect intonation the Muslim call to prayer after being absent from Indonesia a Muslim Nation for 36 years is baffling and astounding since he was only 10 years old when he left.  However, the reporter may not know how it should sound, given this then Obama is definitely a Manchurian candidate and belies a deeper story about his past that is unknown.

Obama tells a journalist about his Muslim faith, then is quickly corrected by the journalist as being a Christian, this is definitely something one does not make a mistake about, which is it?  Believing that there are 57 States in our Nation, he lived in the 50th State, why does he not know this.

The little details seem so difficult for him.

Canadian Talk Show Host, Ezra Levant, characterized the servile bow to the Saudi Prince in April 2009 as he commented:

“Americans Bow to No One, they are not of a Monarchy, much less a deep servile bow to the Saudi King.”

(Note: you should listen in its entirety to this commentary)

Our State Department throughout the years has created unique diplomatic protocols to recognize our distinction as a “Constitutional Republic” and not a Monarchy.  We take fealty to the Constitution not a Man or Woman of Royal Heritage as a Nation that believes in self-rule and the Rule of Law, we bow to no one.  Powerful people with ties to a Saudi Prince purportedly paid for his Harvard education and put his “deep servile bow” in perspective.

An employee of the TAC Corporation was cooperating with the FBI in 2008 over a passport data breach of Obama’s records which was managed by John Brennan, he was an advisor to Obama‘s campaign at the time.  Mr. Brennan then became a National Security advisor to Obama effectively ending any inquiry into his part in the matter.  The poor employee was murdered in cold blood under mysterious though fortuitous circumstance for Obama and Mr. Brennan.

Summation and Conclusion

I have given an honest due diligent effort to research this issue and have used the words, deeds and actions of the players in this matter to impeach their statements and call into question their motives for their behavior.   The only record of the release of the forged “certificates of live birth” on April 27, 2011 is the transcript produced by the White House.

It appears a bait and switch of the forged document was substituted for the real certificates Obama physically received in fact on April 26, 2011, as this is only statement regarding it’s authenticity made by him “no matter what we put up.”  We are also lacking any statements from Ms. Corley; the president’s personal counsel on what it is that actually resides on whitehouse.gov.

The very real possibility that he does have a long-form birth certificate by affidavit and is now more than likely the reason to continue to secret all his records in the State of Hawaii and elsewhere is more than plausible; it is most likely as PROVEN by Governor Abercrombie.

We have been shown a simple method for anyone to ascertain that the president’s long-form birth certificate is a forgery by simply printing two copies from whitehouse.gov and matching the type between two lines of text.  Nick Chase developed this method, I encourage everyone to use his method and prove it to yourself.

Obama’s aides, officers and agents created a false narrative and media style negative hype campaign with “Operation Sideshow” with the sole objective and purpose to place a forged document on a federal government website.   The news media agencies in this nation should be investigating these grave matters to find out who has perpetrated any possible wrongdoing, by and against the individuals named in this investigation.

The unwillingness of Congress and the Courts to investigate and prosecute this matter is baffling and disturbing as the Constitution appears to be a dead document to all our branches of Government, except of course to the people, as in “We the People.”  To do otherwise only mocks the rule of law and openness in government and calls into question our natural and unalienable right to a free and open press and our many Constitutional guarantees and treats our citizens as subjects and not free Men and Women to determine our own destiny.

We are a free and able people that deserve Obama’s respect and admiration as he works for us, as we certainly do not work for him.  Furthermore, this travesty of credibility of our president robs the American people of the dignity of our heritage as a Nation founded on self-rule and the rule of law with no one being above the law, not even our President!

Operation Sideshow is Mission Accomplished (the White House and Press Connection)
Part One
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four

Operation Sideshow the Hawaii Five-O Pineapple Express (the Hawaiian Officials Connection)
Part Five
Part Six
Part Seven
Part Eight

Operation Sideshow is Mission Accomplished (the Evidence & Conclusions)
Part Nine
Part Ten

Part Eleven

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Obama Mocks Constitutional Eligibility To Be President At White House Correspondents’ Dinner

April 30, 2012 by 24 Comments

Like a tell in poker, Obama always jokes about his own guilt.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: ,

Arizona V. United States: Reading The Tea Leaves Of Oral Argument

April 30, 2012 by 2 Comments

US supreme court building SC 236x300 Arizona v. United States: Reading the Tea Leaves of Oral Argument

On April 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Arizona v. United States, involving the constitutionality of the State’s effort to combat illegal immigration. In one sense, it was a rematch between former Solicitor General Paul Clement, arguing for Arizona, and the current Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, contending for the United States. The two had squared off just a month before in United States v. Florida, the battle royale over the constitutionality of the ObamaCare mandate requiring everyone to purchase health care insurance prescribed by the federal government.

In each case, the justices, by their questions and comments, appeared to disfavor the Obama administration’s position. In the ObamaCare case, several justices expressed concern that, if the individual mandate were to be found constitutional, it would dismantle the federal system, rendering the Tenth Amendment reservation of powers to the States and the people a dead letter. Now, in the Arizona immigration case, several justices expressed concern that the Obama Administration’s claim of “exclusive power” to regulate immigration would have a similar impact on the independence and sovereignty of the 50 states.

The issue arose early in the oral argument, even before the solicitor general could make his claim of exclusivity. Justice Scalia kicked off, asking Mr. Clement whether he would concede “that the State has to accept within its borders all people who have no right to be there, that the Federal Government has no interest in removing … and the State has no power to close its borders to people who have no right to be there.” Remarkably, Mr. Clement did not answer the justice’s inquiry with a firm no, prompting Justice Kennedy to inquire: “Can we say, or do you take the position that a State must accept within its borders a person who is illegally present under Federal law?” This time Mr. Clement answered: “I think my answer to that is no.” But he did not back up his answer with either reason or conviction, resting Arizona’s case on the sole ground that the state has the constitutional right to help the federal government to enforce federal law.

In contrast, General Verrilli boldly rejected Mr. Clement’s basic argument that the Arizona immigration law was nothing more than the state “aid to Federal immigration enforcement,” when as a matter of fact, “Arizona is pursuing its own policy of attrition through enforcement and that the provisions of this law are designed to work together to drive unlawfully present aliens out of the State. That is something Arizona cannot do because the Constitution vests exclusive –”

Before General Verrilli could finish his sentence, Justice Sotomayor asked him to “answer Justice Scalia’s earlier question…whether it would be the Government’s position that Arizona doesn’t have the power to exclude or remove … from its borders a person who’s here illegally.” Given the opportunity to finish his sentence, General Verrilli stated: “It is our position [that] the Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the national government.”

In response, Justice Scalia jumped back into the fray, noting, first, that the constitutional grant of exclusive authority is over “naturalization which we’ve expanded to immigration”:
But all that means is that the Government can set forth the rules concerning who belongs in this country. But if, in fact, somebody who does not belong in this country is in Arizona, Arizona has no power? What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?

Undaunted, General Verrilli pressed forward, asserting that “the Framers vested in the national government the authority over immigration because they understood that the way this nation treats citizens of other countries is a vital aspect of our foreign relations.” Citing the import/export provision in Article I, Section 10, Clause 2, Justice Scalia fired back:
The Constitution recognizes that there is such a thing as State borders, and the States can police their borders, even to the point of inspecting incoming shipments to excluded diseased material.

Thereafter, Justice Scalia and General Verrilli would clash several times, with the general sticking to his claim of national exclusivity over immigration as essential because of “significant real and practical foreign relations effects,” culminating in the general’s calling attention to “Mexico['s] central role in this situation,” to which Justice Scalia retorted: “So we … have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico. Is that what you’re saying?”

No doubt, Arizona’s cautious approach was dictated by its decision not to challenge what Justice Scalia described as what “we’ve” — that is, the Court — read into the Constitution concerning the power of Congress over immigration.

Our firm filed two amicus curiae briefs in the Supreme Court in this case supporting Arizona — one last September at the petition for certiorari stage, and one this February on the merits. Our clients on these briefs are U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation, Policy Analysis Center, Institute on the Constitution, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, English First, English First Foundation, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Oklahoma Representative Charles Key, and Wyoming Senator Kit Jennings.

Our amicus brief in support of Arizona did what Arizona chose not to do — explain the Founders’ original constitutional plan.

First, we pointed out that the federal government’s power over immigration is not among those enumerated in the Constitution, but one that has been grafted onto the “naturalization” power by the Court as a power “inherent in sovereignty, and essential to preservation.”

Then, we argued that as a nation of dual sovereignty each State, like the national government, has the same inherent power of sovereignty, including the power of self-preservation.

Third, we noted that while the national government’s power was supreme in the regulation of its international boundaries, the States’ internal boundaries remained in the power of the States.

Finally, we observed that, with respect to a state’s internal boundaries, Article IV, Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment expressly limited each state’s power as applied to citizens of other states and citizens of the United States, but not with respect to citizens of foreign nations.

Justices Scalia and Kennedy’s questions seemed to track our brief’s line of reasoning, asking whether Arizona had the power to exclude aliens who are not legally in the country. If so, then Arizona’s policy of enforcement by attrition is perfectly permissible, General Verrilli’s claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

If Arizona has retained its inherent sovereign authority to defend its internal borders, except as specifically limited by the Constitution, then not one of the four contested provisions of the state’s immigration law is preempted by federal law.

First, the overall purpose of the law is constitutional in that it is predicated on an incontestable “interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws … to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.” Such unlawful presence threatens the integrity of Arizona as a political and economic community, enhancing the risk of voter fraud and decreasing economic opportunities for Arizona citizens and their fellow Americans.

Second, sections 2(B) and 6 are designed to aid federal immigration enforcement, and are in harmony with federal statutes as written by Congress. Such provisions are not subject to pre-emption because Arizona’s priorities may differ from those of the executive department of the federal government. Pre-emption can never be based upon the discretionary policies of enforcement, as the Obama administration has argued here.

Third, section 3 of the law simply makes it a state crime not to comply with the federal law requiring all aliens to carry an alien registration card. This is not at all different from the state duplicating federal law prohibiting bank robbery. Furthermore, the State has a sovereign interest in identifying whether a person is a U.S. citizen because the Fourteenth Amendment provides that every resident of the state who is a U.S. citizen is, by definition, a citizen of the state.

Fourth, section 5(C), which imposes penalties on illegal aliens seeking employment in Arizona, is consistent with the exercise of its police power to preserve Arizona jobs for those persons who are lawfully part of the state’s economic and political community. While the federal law only penalizes employers of illegal aliens, Arizona’s interest in preserving jobs for persons lawfully in the state is necessary to preserve the public fiscal and the economic vitality of business within the state.

If the Arizona case is decided according to the measure of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence in this area as argued narrowly by Arizona, the decision could be very much in doubt. However, if the case is decided based on the Founders’ plan for a robust role for the states and a limited role for the federal government, the decision should uphold the Arizona law.

Herb Titus taught constitutional law for 26 years, concluding his academic career as founding dean of Regent Law School. Bill Olson served in three positions in the Reagan administration. They now practice constitutional law together, defending against government excess, at William J. Olson, P.C. They can be reached at wjo@mindspring.com or on Twitter @Olsonlaw.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , ,

Obama Reveals His Contempt For U.S. Gun Dealers: Tales From Fast And Furious Part 5

April 30, 2012 by 5 Comments

Obama Files has discovered a recording from 2007 of then-Senator Barack Obama ranting against U.S. gun dealers, blaming the Virginia Tech massacre that had occurred a few months earlier on ‘unscrupulous’ gun dealers, and throwing in for good measure gun dealers being responsible for the rampant gun violence in Chicago’s public schools.  This sheds light into the Obama Administration’s program to demonize and falsely blame U.S. gun dealers for arming the Mexican drug cartels, while at the same time ‘encouraging’ them to hand over thousands of  weapons to individuals that they knew were planning on transferring them over the border. Operation Fast and Furious becomes not a ‘botched’ gun-walking program, but a perfidious plan to disarm America by demonizing and punishing U.S. gun dealers for simply obeying the law.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: ,

The US Is About To Catastrophically Implode From Debt

April 30, 2012 by 3 Comments

Here is a video which shows how desperate the fiscal situation is in America. Our useless leaders fight over scraps on the Titanic as we head into the night.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With:

Crucify All EPA Bureaucrats Whose “Philosophy” Is Based On Ideology And Emotion—Others Will Behave Better

April 30, 2012 by 1 Comment

EPA Crucify SC Crucify All EPA Bureaucrats Whose “Philosophy” Is Based On Ideology And Emotion—Others Will Behave Better
The revelation of the EPA’s “philosophy” used in their regulation of oil and gas companies—“crucify” and “make examples” of, just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience—provides proof of what many have known: policy decisions are made on ideology and emotion rather than fact, sound science, and economic or human impact. For this, we should all be grateful to Al Armendariz, EPA Administrator for Region 6. His honesty, in a 2010 video made public on April 26, allows us all a glimpse behind the shroud.

Armendariz has been making, according to Senator James Inhofe, “comments specifically intended to incite fear and sway public opinion against hydraulic fracturing.” In Thursday’s hearing, Inhofe says Amendariz frequently claimed a “danger of fire or explosion.” Inhofe cited the Parker County Texas case as the “most outrageous.” There, in 2010, Armendariz’s region issued an Emergency Administrative Order against Range Resources—overriding the Texas state regulators who were already investigating the claim that hydraulic fracturing was contaminating well water. “Along with this order, EPA went on a publicity barrage in an attempt to publicize its premature and unjustified conclusions,” Inhofe said.

The Emergency Administrative Order was dropped earlier this month, but was done, as Inhofe called it, by “strategically attempting to make these announcements as quietly as possible.”

Both the EPA and the White House are trying to distance themselves from the Armendariz comments. Cynthia Giles, the EPA’s assistant administrator in charge of enforcement said, “Inevitably, some will try to imply that the unfortunate and inaccurate words of one regional official represent this Agency’s policy. Rest assured that they do not—and no honest examination of our record could equate our commonsense approach with such an exaggerated claim.”

Yet, history shows that the Armendariz model is used more frequently than most would believe. Decisions are often made on ideology and emotion rather than fact, sound science, and economic or human impact. Those decisions are often walked back—making the future look more like the past. Two current examples include the decision to use “timid” approaches toward preventing malaria in Africa and Germany’s environmentalist-appeasing, post-Fukushima decision to shut down their nuclear plants.

More than 100 years ago, the source of malaria was determined to be the bite of the mosquito—rather than the “bad air” as previously assumed. As I chronicle in the DDT chapter of my book Energy Freedom, DDT had nearly eliminated malaria in the western world when the ideology and emotion of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring led to the ban of DDT—despite the faulty science, and detrimental economic and severe human impact. Since DDT was banned in 1972, malaria has become Africa’s largest killer. In the West African country of Sierra Leone, malaria accounts for more than 40 percent of outpatient mortality and is the top killer of children under five. Since the seventies, prevention has focused on “protecting people rather than halting mosquitoes: bed nets and drug systems prevail. Now the authorities want to return to eradication.” The new strategy calls for the indoor residual spraying of insecticides such as DDT, bendiocarb, and the newly reformulated chlorfenapyr. Indoor spraying pilot projects have shown success. In areas where the spraying has taken place, for the first time, malaria is no longer the top killer of children under five. Dr. Samuel Smith, manager of Sierra Leone’s malaria control program, reports that “a combination of spraying and bed nets has a better impact”—making the future look more like what worked in the past.

Imagine the lives that could have been saved in Africa if DDT was dealt with using fact, sound science, and economic or human impact rather than ideology and emotion.

In Germany, the future could look more like the past as well. Following the Fukushima nuclear accident, a decision was made to shut down 8 of its 17 nuclear reactors with the remainder being phased out within a decade—before their life expectancy is over. Critics of the Merkel administration, say it “never formulated a coherent strategy for switching to new forms of energy or for upgrading the country’s electricity grid.” The decision was motivated by ideology and emotion rather than fact, sound science, and economic or human impact.

One of the closed plants is Unterweser, located in the town of Kleinensiel. Maik Otholt, a Kleinensiel resident expressed his frustration with the decision: “Our facilities were serviced every year; they’re in perfect shape. Nothing ever went wrong. And so now what are we doing? We’re buying nuclear energy from France. Their plant is just over the border. And now we’re buying that expensive electricity. It’s crazy.”

To make up for the loss of electricity from the nuclear plants, Germany is now, as Maik Otholt said, importing nuclear-generated power. Before the closures, Germany had electricity to spare and sold it to other countries. Additionally, Germany is building or modernizing 84 power plants—and more than half of those will be run on fossil fuels including many on coal. The use of coal-fueled electricity generation has angered the very same environmentalists who cheered the nuclear plant closures.

Addressing Germany’s increased use of coal, Stefan Judisch, chief executive of RWE Supply & Trading, said, “If we were to replace (nuclear) baseload with renewable energies and gas, then electricity would become expensive.”

While environmentalists are touting the ideology of a carbon-free future, Germany has to face a reality that is far from a carbon-free future—making it look more like the past.

As the anti-fracking ideology and emotion continues to climb, remember the philosophy of Al Armendariz who punished to “ensure obedience” and the EPA’s “publicity barrage in an attempt to publicize its premature and unjustified conclusions.” In Texas, as well as Wyoming and Pennsylvania, the EPA has had to walk back the accusations as the science didn’t support them—but by then the public had already been swayed by the fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Don’t let ideology and emotion shape America’s energy future. It needs to be based on fact and sound science with consideration for the economic and human impacts.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Was Philly Ground Zero For Voter Fraud Within The Obama 2008 Campaign? Part 2

April 30, 2012 by 3 Comments

The second part of our video series where we explore how the Obama campaign stuffed the ballots in Philadelphia, as revealed in the Stratfor WikiLeaks email dump last week.

We expand on our discussion and address one of the major problems of how exactly the Obama camp stuffed ballots when most voting is done with electronic voting machines. We found that many precincts had voting machines that malfunctioned, whereby emergency ballots were used in lieu of the machines. If the malfunctions were orchestrated, then, once the emergency ballots were turned in, they could then be altered and/or replaced with a fraudulent ballot for Obama. Of course the problem then becomes, how did the Obama camp instigate polling workers to commit fraud? Obama Files has exclusively discovered something that would make this not only quite easy, but likely.

Produced by Obama Files.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: ,

Three Reasons You Shouldn’t Vote For Obama

April 30, 2012 by 7 Comments

Obama+golfs 300x200 Three Reasons You Shouldnt Vote For Obama
1.   This administration’s sense of entitlement: 

Obama has played over 100 rounds of golf since becoming president.  He has taken or sent his family on more vacations than we can count.  He has no concern about the fact that he does this on the taxpayer’s tab.

The General Services Administration threw a $823,000 party in Las Vegas.  It is as if the ‘gods of the marketplace’ believe they deserve these extravagant parties, as if they are perks that go along with the job.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta charges the American tax payer $32,000 weekly as he jets to California for the weekend.

This administration approved a ½ billion dollar gift to Solyndra before it went bankrupt.  When Solyndra went bankrupt the cost was passed on to the American taxpayer.

2.  This administration’s belief that they are above the law:

The U.S. Justice Department approved the sale of guns to the Mexican drug cartels knowing these guns would be used against innocent people.  Obama has no conscience regarding the sanctity of life.  He once said he would rather murder the unborn child of his daughter than punish her with a baby.

The president, who promised to unify us and bring us together,  is suing the state of Arizona opposing the laws the residents of that great state approved that were designed to protect its innocent citizens from illegal immigrants who might have criminal intent.

Illegal immigration is a federal crime.  This president sends a message that some crime is acceptable and he gets to decide which ones!

Obama is attempting to strong-arm the Supreme Court to support a most unconstitutional measure in Obamacare that would force Americans to purchase something against their will.

3.  This administration’s aura of dishonesty

If the president has nothing to hide, why spend $2 million to cover up his past.  Where are the papers he wrote in college?  Where are his grades from Harvard?  Where are all the classmates or girlfriends who should be lining up for their 15 minutes of fame because they took a class with Obama?

Obama said he was the one to unify us but when have we been more polarized.  He is quick to stir up racial tension when given an opportunity.  He promotes class welfare.  I know, the press wants us to think he has an I.Q. of over 200.  Does it not seem he was lacking in judgment and wisdom when he made a judgment about his professor friend at Harvard before the facts were in and had to hold a beer summit to fix his blunder.  I don’t really see the resemblance of the president with Trayvon Martin.  Obama again became involved in an issue before the facts were in.

Why so much controversy about his birth certificate?  If there wasn’t something to hide, would this president not have cleared that up long ago?  I don’t want proof that Barack Obama, Sr. is his father. I want proof that Frank Marshall Davis was NOT his real father.

I’m tired of being told what to believe when the opposite is usually true.  Michelle Obama recently attempted to reinforce the messianic traits of her husband.  She boldly declared that he has “brought us out of the darkness and into the light.”  Uh, no, Michelle, that would be Jesus, not Barack!

Memo to Michelle:  He ain’t the Messiah and this ain’t the light!

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Eric Metaxas At 2012 National Prayer Breakfast Takes On Abortion

April 30, 2012 by 1 Comment

Eric Metaxas the author of biographies on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and William Wilberforce, talked to the National Prayer Breakfast sharing a courageous and important message about false religion, human depravity, poverty, slavery, and abortion. He delivered a sharp rebuke with wit and laughter. But most importantly he courageously speaks—in front of pro-abortion Obama, Biden, and Pelosi—about the unborn @24:20. Can one know the unborn are human persons apart from knowing God, regardless if God exists or not? He speaks directly about abortion again at @24:51.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With:

Chris Matthews Calls GOP Party Of “Grand Wizards”

April 30, 2012 by 9 Comments

Thanks to the Media Research Center we have this video of Chris Matthews coming unhinged and accusing the black former Chairman of the GOP of being a member in a party made up of the KKK. This would be outrageous if it didn’t make Matthews sound like and idiot.

Host Chris Matthews: “How does this guy [Mitt Romney] go from hard right, severely conservative, to this new regular mainstream character he’s portraying himself as?…He ran as a full mooner, Michael. You know, he was saying ‘There’s no such thing as science.’… How can he go from Flat Earth, ‘I don’t believe in evolution,’ to all of a sudden I’m teaching biology?… It certainly was in the Grand Wizard crowd over there, okay?”
Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele: “Wait, I resent that! No. Come on, what is this ‘Grand Wizard’ nonsense? Are you saying that we’re Ku Klux Klan?”
Matthews: “Okay, I’m just saying, the far right party.”
Steele: “Give me a break! Don’t go there with me on that.”

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: ,