Get Adobe Flash player


2016: Obama’s America — MUST-SEE MOVIE!

2016 Obama’s America takes audiences on a gripping visual journey into the heart of the world’s most powerful office to reveal the struggle of whether one man’s past will redefine America over the next four years. The film examines the question, “If Obama wins a second term, where will we be in 2016?”

Across the globe and in America, people in 2008 hungered for a leader who would unite and lift us from economic turmoil and war. True to America’s ideals, they invested their hope in a new kind of president, Barack Obama. What they didn’t know is that Obama is a man with a past, and in powerful ways that past defines him–who he is, how he thinks, and where he intends to take America and the world.

Immersed in exotic locales across four continents, best selling author Dinesh D’Souza races against time to find answers to Obama’s past and reveal where America will be in 2016. During this journey he discovers how Hope and Change became radically misunderstood, and identifies new flashpoints for hot wars in mankind’s greatest struggle. The journey moves quickly over the arc of the old colonial empires, into America’s empire of liberty, and we see the unfolding realignment of nations and the shape of the global future.

Emotionally engaging, 2016 Obama’s America will make you confounded and cheer as you discover the mysteries and answers to your greatest aspirations and worst fears.

Love him or hate him, you don’t know him.

Locations and Showtimes — Begins Friday August 24th

  • Carmike Theater – Fort Wayne:  3930 East DuPont Road (east of I-69 – South side of Dupont)
    Show times – 1:00 PM, 3:15 PM, 5:30 PM, 7:45 PM, 10:00 PM
    Admission – First three showings – $ 5.50, Last two showings – Up to $ 9.50.  Senior Citizens admitted for $ 5.50 at all showings.
  • Coldwater Crossing – Regal Theater – Fort Wayne:  211 W Washington Center Road(west of Coldwater)
    Show times – 1:50 PM, 4:40 PM, 7:15 PM, 9:40 PM
    Admission – 1:50 PM Showing – $ 7.00 for everyone.  Last three showings – $ 9.25 for adults, $ 7.00 for children.  Senior Citizens admitted for $ 6.50 at all showings.
  • Jefferson Pointe Rave Theater – Fort Wayne:  4250 W. Jefferson Blvd.
    Show times – 12:55 PM, 4:25 PM, 7:05 PM, 9:25 PM
    Admission – First two showings – $ 7.00.  Last two showings – $ 9.00.  Senior Citizens admitted for $ 6.50 at all showings.

Obama’s Top Six Gas Price Myths Busted

From The Heritage Foundation:

The same Washington press corps that hammered President George W. Bush relentlessly when prices were still well under $3 a gallon—well before the $4 a gallon peak, which lasted only six weeks in 2008—have given President Obama a pass thus far on the recklessness of his energy policy.

In fact, in the first two years of his presidency, as gas prices steadily rose to over $3 a gallon, the press corps never asked the President about gas prices in any of his press briefings. Even when he called a press briefing specifically on gas prices last month, he was asked only one question on the subject, which was historic in itself, being the first question on gas prices of his presidency.

According to the Media Research Center, in the past year, just 1 percent of stories related to oil prices or the Gulf oil spill on the network evening news even mentioned the President’s energy policy.

President Obama has been more than happy to feed the media alternative narratives. But the myths created in the White House don’t stand up to scrutiny.

Myth #1: Speculators Are to Blame

Ah, speculators. Nobody worries about pesky market investors when gas prices are rising from $2 to $3, but when prices hit $4 they are the only people to blame. But the economics of supply and demand don’t back up the argument.

Heritage energy expert Nick Loris explains: “Speculators could marginally increase the price of gasoline if it led to oil inventories building up while sellers waited for higher prices—but even then it would be only in the short run, because businesses have to unload these inventories.” And those inventory build-ups do not appear to be happening.

The Cato Institute’s Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren explain: “While crude inventories in the U.S. are increasing, they always increase at this time of year, and this year’s increase is well within the normal range. More important, gasoline inventories are decreasing and decreasing much more rapidly than normal. Hence, there’s no evidence that speculators are reducing the supply of crude or gasoline through increased storage.”

Craig Pirrong, a finance professor at the University of Houston who specializes in commodity prices, told Fox News: “This is a transparently political fishing expedition that insinuates that fraud or manipulation is distorting oil prices without providing even the flimsiest factual basis for such a suspicion.”


Myth #2: Price Gouging Is to Blame

Price gouging certainly sounds menacing. Who wouldn’t be against someone “gouging”? But it’s not the reality of markets. As Reuters White House correspondent Steve Holland recently tweeted: “Presidents typically stage fraud probes when gas prices spike. Fraud is almost never found.”

Heritage expert Diane Katz explains: “In the case of oil and gasoline, higher prices induce producers to increase supply—precisely what’s needed to alleviate shortages. But, with the threat of fines and jail time if they charge ‘too much,’ producers will be reluctant to respond to the higher market prices. Consequently, the shortages persist or worsen.”

This type of government price control, via heated presidential rhetoric, usually makes the situation worse, not better—as we saw in the Carter Administration, when artificially low prices caused shortages and gas lines. Yes, consumers need to be protected, but price gouging is not the cause of the high gas prices, and the President knows it.


Myth #3: The Solution Is Alternative Energy

This is President Obama’s favorite line. We simply need to “invest” more in alternative energy. Notice, though, that he never says this action will lower gas prices. Because it won’t. Oil fuels, among other things, our transportation needs, while solar and wind are electricity-generating energy sources. An affordable electric-only car simply does not exist on the market today.

While the President may want to spend billions of dollars subsidizing the costly solar and wind industry, it will not even slightly impact high gas prices. Having an idealistic vision of our energy future is not a short-term solution to the economic pain Americans are feeling.

Several weeks ago, President Obama mocked a man for having 10 kids and told him he needed to buy a (non-existent in the U.S. market) hybrid van. Since that revealing misstep, Obama has backtracked, acknowledging that most Americans cannot afford a new $40,000 vehicle.


Myth #4: The President Wants Lower Gas Prices

If we are to take President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu at their word, they desire higher gas prices in order to wean Americans off of oil. In September 2008, Chu told The Wall Street Journal: “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” which are currently nearly double the price in America. Two months later, the President chose him to be his Energy Secretary.

In June 2008, President Obama was asked by CNBC’s John Harwood if high oil prices “could help us.” Then-candidate Obama responded: “I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment.” In other words, prices need to get higher, but not so fast that it causes political problems.


Myth #5: More Biofuels Will Solve the Problem

The President has called for increased biofuel production. As Loris again points out: “The most popular subsidized biofuel, ethanol, produces less energy per unit volume than does gasoline, contributes to food price increases, costs taxpayers billions of dollars, and has dubious environmental effects.” In fact, a few large oil rigs in the Gulf would replace all of the energy produced by biofuels. The President also fails to mention the 54-cent tariff imposed on cheaper and more environmentally friendly Brazilian ethanol.


Myth #6: There Is Nothing President Obama Can Do About Gas Prices

On April 6, President Obama told an audience, “I’m just going to be honest with you. There’s not much we can do next week or two weeks from now.” There is actually plenty President Obama can do immediately.

He can start issuing drilling permits in the Gulf. Obama’s Department of Interior went nearly a year without issuing a new permit, to the point that a federal judge held them in contempt of court. Obama’s Energy Information Agency projects that these permitting delays are costing us 240,000 fewer barrels of oil a day, along with the billions of dollars in government revenue in royalties. A Louisiana State University study found that at least 19,000 jobs across the nation were destroyed just by the Obama drilling “permitorium.”

He can stop the EPA from imposing costly new regulations on refiners. He can reverse the political EPA decision to stop Shell from tapping into 27 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic Ocean. Simply put, he can send a strong signal to the markets and oil cartels that the U.S. oil industry is back open for business.

As Congressman Dan Boren (D–OK) recently said: “President Obama is completely uninformed about the oil and gas industry. The industry is not made up of just major companies. … For every CEO of a major company, there are literally thousands of blue collar jobs that are affected by his administration’s energy policy. It is a policy that is very inadequate and has left so many on the gulf coast unemployed. Americans are tired of empty rhetoric on both sides and want a real plan. If the President doesn’t want to stand up and be a leader, then his silence would be appreciated from people who are trying to find solutions.”


New Book Claims to Show ‘Obama Is Not Eligible to Be President’

From The Blaze:

The details and the content at this point are shaky. But for now, there’s buzz surrounding a new book claiming to show “Obama is not eligible to be president.”

That claim is part of the subtitle of a new supposed expose by James R. Corsi called, “Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President.”

It’s utterly devastating,” a source close to the publisher told the Drudge Report. “Obama may learn things he didn’t even know about himself!”

The book isn’t due out until next month, but it already has a page on It’s allegedly the product of years of research.

“When Donald Trump said he sent PIs to Hawaii to get to the bottom of all this, he meant this book,” an insider claimed to Drudge.

Recently, prominent conservatives have started to brush aside the “birther” talk. Glenn Beck, who has been speaking out against the movement since 2009, told his radio listeners last month, “Stop with the damn birth certificate!”

On Wednesday, Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann declared the GOP has “bigger fish to fry.”

Obama Has No Budget Plan

From National Review:

Even by the very low standards of Washington politics, President Obama’s budget speech last week was a model of disingenuousness. In fact, to treat the president’s speech as a budget proposal is probably unfair. It wasn’t really a budget plan; it was a campaign speech — long on vitriol, platitudes, and promises, but short on detail. Even so, it’s worth pointing out some of the bigger inaccuracies.

Obama just wants to tax “millionaires and billionaires.” Whenever the president talks about his plan to raise taxes, he sounds as if the only two people likely to be affected are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet. This speech was no different, with the president calling for tax hikes “only on the wealthiest Americans.” After all, the president notes, “Warren Buffett doesn’t need another tax cut.” In reality, however, the president is calling for tax increases on households earning as little as $250,000 per year. While that’s certainly not poor, it’s not Warren Buffett territory, either, especially in places such as New York and New Jersey, which have high costs of living. Moreover, Obama’s tax increase would fall heavily on small businesses that file taxes under individual rates. In fact, nearly half of all small-business income would be hit by the proposed tax increase.

Obamacare saves money. The president says we don’t really need to worry about Medicare’s future liabilities, because his new health-care bill is already saving money in the program. If we need to save a little bit more, we can just double down on Obamacare’s price controls, and everything will be fine. This sort of slides by the fact that even if every penny of Obamacare’s potential savings was realized, Medicare would still face some $45 trillion in future deficits. It also ignores the fact that Obamacare actually uses those theoretical savings to fund other aspects of his health-care bill. But even more important in this context, almost no one in Washington actually believes that those savings will occur. Medicare’s own chief actuary warns that those savings “may be unrealistic.” And the Congressional Budget Office notes “it is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate of [Medicare] spending could be achieved.” In fact, this month CBO raised its estimate of Obamacare’s ten-year cost.

Obama would cut domestic spending. In his speech the president implied that he would cut spending by $750 billion over the next 12 years. While that’s a pretty low bar — less than $63 billion per year, roughly 1.5 percent of federal spending, or about what the federal government borrows every eight days — there’s more than a little smoke and mirrors in the president’s plan. For example, the president includes lower interest payments from deficit reduction as a spending cut. Even more cynically, the president includes something called “reduced spending through the tax code.” In other words, he counts tax hikes as spending cuts. The president claims that his plan includes $3 in spending cuts for $1 in tax hikes. Not quite. In fact, even Obama cheerleader Paul Krugman admits (happily) that the ratio is closer to one-to-one. As for the rest, the recent deal on the 2011 Continuing Resolution shows what the Washington establishment considers to be cuts. Of course, the president does promise that if Congress doesn’t make spending cuts, he will appoint a commission (now there’s an original idea!) with the power to propose more spending cuts or (surprise!) more tax increases.

Obama’s plan balances the budget. While the president talked about the need to “live within our means,” his budget plan doesn’t actually enable us to do so. The president’s plan does not actually balance the budget at any time over the next decade. In fact, it would add as much as $9 trillion to the national debt over that period. In fairness, it should be acknowledged that we are in such a deep hole that Paul Ryan’s plan doesn’t actually get us to a balanced budget either. But, whereas Ryan would reduce the deficit by $6.2 trillion over ten years, the president would cut it by only $4 trillion over 12 years. That’s a big difference. (And, by the way, when did we go from a ten-year budget window to a 12-year one?)

In the end, the president is right about one thing. This is a debate about values as much as budgets. The president wants more spending, a bigger government, and higher taxes. Paul Ryan proposes less spending, a smaller government, and lower taxes. That’s a debate worth having. If only the president had been honest about that.

— Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Leviathan on the Right: How Big-Government Conservatism Brought Down the Republican Revolution.

Barack Obama Is Directly To Blame For the S&P Downgrade

From RedState:

If you have been away for the past twenty-four hours, you missed that for the first time since its founding in 1941, Standards and Poor downgraded our nation’s credit outlook. S&P believes there is a 33% change it will downgrade the nation’s AAA credit rating in the next two years.

For the past year, Democrats have spent freely arguing that their free spending ways did not matter. In fact, Barack Obama’s proposed budget for 2012 increases the national debt to 116% of gross domestic product, even while adding $2 trillion in tax increases.

It is not that budget proposal that became the straw to break the camel’s back.

It was not even his trillion dollar stimulus plan or his multi-trillion dollar stimulus plan than became the straw to break the camel’s back.

In fact, it was Barack Obama’s disastrous speech last week that broke the camel’s back.

As James Pethokoukis noted, Obama’s muddled plan to solve the crisis was “fastened together by the chewing gum and sticky tape of rosy economic assumptions and fiscal opacity.” But more so, it was Barack Obama’s angry words and denunciation of Paul Ryan’s own plan that drove S&P to its conclusion.

S&P said

We view President Obama’s and Congressman Ryan’s proposals as the starting point of a process aimed at broader engagement, which could result in substantial and lasting U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk that Congressional negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the fall 2012 Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the first budget proposal that could include related measures would be Budget 2014 (for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and we believe a delay beyond that time is possible.

Remember, up until the President’s attack, even Democrats on the Deficit Commission were praising Paul Ryan’s willingness to engage the issue “at an adult level.” Everyone expects congressional partisans to take pot shots, but for the President of the United States to have a temper tantrum over it akin to a three year old denied a lollipop? That’s unheard of.

The President’s open hostility to an adult plan while offering no substantive plan of his own was the straw that broke the camel’s back. And because Mr. Obama still cannot deal with the issue as an adult, we will keep heading down this treacherous road.


Senator: Obama May Have Planned Shutdown Last Year With “Malicious” Intent

From RealClearPolitics:

Freshman GOP Senator Mike Lee (Utah) says President Obama’s inability to get a budget passed last year may have been “deliberate.”

“It was either irresponsible on one hand or deliberate and malicious on the other with intention to bring about a sequence of events that would culminate inevitably in a government shutdown,” Senator Mike Lee said on the Senate floor today.

Click this link to see video of Senator Lee.

Obama: I’ll Shut Down the Government and Suspend Military Pay

From Big Government:

Rather than accept a few billion in budget cuts (read rounding error), President Obama has signaled his willingness to shut down the federal government. (Yah!) For those keeping score at home, any government shutdown that happens is on Obama’s plate. He is the President. All on him.

The worst part of this whole debate is the Obama Administration’s decision to hold military pay hostage to the budget debate. For the last few decades, government shutdowns have been guided by an OMB directive issued during the Reagan Administration. Under this directive, military personnel would continue to receive the paychecks while politicians argued about the budget. The Clinton Administration, during the last government shutdown, kept the paychecks flowing.

But, not Obama.

The Obama Administration has overturned the old OMB directive and has decided to suspend military paychecks if there is a government shutdown. No reason to do it…but they have decided to. Reprehensible.

Pat Sajak: A Second Term for Obama? Why Stop There?

From Ricochet:

There’s been a lot of back-and-forth here on Ricochet about whether Barack Obama is likely to be reelected in 2012. I’m not smart enough to figure that one out, but I do know the incumbent has tremendous advantages when seeking another term, and the opposition candidate has a great deal of trouble appearing “presidential” when he’s facing a guy who can campaign from the White House (unless it’s Reagan vs. Carter). And, of course, there’s still a lot of time until the next election, and the variables are just too great to allow for any sort of clear picture to form right now. However, I’m less concerned with 2012 than I am with 2016 and beyond. By that I mean, how long do you think it would take supporters of a victorious Obama in 2012 to begin asking questions about the 22nd Amendment?

That amendment to the Constitution, passed by Congress in 1947 and ratified by the States in 1951, limits presidents to two full terms. Before that time, Chief Executives generally followed the lead of George Washington with self-imposed two-term limits. Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term but failed to get the nomination. Then, of course, came Franklin Roosevelt who was elected four times. Dwight Eisenhower, the first president to fall under the restriction, objected to its passage on the grounds that it automatically made a second-term president a lame duck from day one, and there have been several efforts in Congress to repeal it, but they didn’t get very far. Generally, however, its provisions have pretty much been accepted by most Americans.

But back to a reelected President Obama. Knowing it would take some time for a change to be enacted by the states, why wouldn’t his ardent supporters begin campaigning for repeal right after the 2012 election? The arguments are pretty straightforward: The country survived without it for most of its history. It was just a knee-jerk reaction to FDR’s electoral success. Eisenhower was right; it weakens a second-term president. Shouldn’t the voters have the right to decide who sits in the Oval Office? Repealing a “misguided” amendment isn’t unprecedented; remember prohibition? The President could remain above the fray and suggest it’s up to Congress and then the States to decide the matter.

Just something to think about as you’re dozing off tonight.


The Obama Doctrine: Five Steps from Indecision to ‘Success’

From Big Government:

As Obama’s three simultaneous “Kinetic Military Actions” devolve into blame games and leadership refusals, everyone is wondering about the Obama Doctrine.   What is it, how does it work, and has it been implemented?  Thanks to the famous Powell Doctrine of the early 90’s most associate such statements of principle with war.  However, Obama’s vision is far too lofty to be bogged down solely in military matters.

After all, the mainstream media has made it clear.  The 44th President is nearly omnipotent.  He’s so wise that any strategy he develops will take into account every fluid facet of a constantly changing, globally interconnected, world stage.

That’s not to say that the President would be satisfied with a plan of action that covered international incidents alone.  Problems can arise anywhere – even at home.  So it’s vital that any plan of action be applicable to domestic affairs as well.

With that in mind, allow me to present the Obama Doctrine: Five simple steps that can handle any national emergency, crisis, or disaster.

STEP ONE: Do nothing until doing nothing becomes politically unfeasible.

Jumping into a leadership position too quickly exposes your weaknesses, your paper thin intel, and your lack of experience. Rushing to get a handle on a burgeoning situation may help in the long run, but decisions are hard, success is uncertain, and mistakes are virtually guaranteed.  These will present your “enemies” with ammunition that they will undoubtedly use in 2012.  So, sit back, relax, and allow things to play out for as long as possible.

The American people’s tolerance for inaction will vary according to the situation but a general guidline is: 30 days for a response to a terrorist action, 2-3 months for a natural disaster on home soil.

Remember, most problems, if ignored long enough, will solve themselves or simply go away. If, however, the problem persists, see Step Two.

Read the rest at Big Government.

Another Look at Obama’s Social Security Number

From Jack Cashill:

While out promoting my new book, “Deconstructing Obama,” I have been asked a few times about Obama’s mysterious Social Security number.

Not knowing enough to speak authoritatively, I chose to swim upstream through the data flood and head for the source.

Here I found a no-nonsense licensed investigator from Ohio named Susan Daniels. Widowed at 30 with seven children, Daniels went back to school and eventually emerged as a certified paralegal.

After several years working for others, Daniels got her own license as an investigator in 1995. Since then, she has specialized in litigation support for law firms. Her particular strength has been in researching assets.

By her own admission, Daniels is “good with public records.” She knows her way around databases and has access to many that the public does not.

“I did not like the way things were going,” Daniels says of the country’s drift circa 2009. And so in the best spirit of citizen journalism, she began to investigate Obama on her own.

What she and fellow investigator Neil Sankey unearthed was a nugget that could have ended the career of a George Bush or a Sarah Plain: Barack Obama had been using a social security number issued in Connecticut between 1977 and 1979, a state in which he never lived or even visited at that time in his life.

Read the rest at Jack Cashill.


God Bless America

Find Us On Facebook!

Hot Topics

Random Quote

We might come closer to balancing the Budget if all of us lived closer to the Commandments and the Golden Rule. — Ronald Reagan

Today’s Events


Upcoming Elections

  • No dates present