The Dreamer Obummer goes to the Wall

It’s okay For Democrats to fundraise off of redacting DACA but it is so wrong to tie future legislation to funding the wall and border security. What a heap of manure.

Now which two of those things are part of the illegal immigration issue?

Obama said Tuesday, after the decision:

“And now that the White House has shifted its responsibility for these young people to Congress, it’s up to Members of Congress to protect these young people and our future.”

“What makes us American is our fidelity to a set of ideals…”

“That’s how, if we keep at it, we will ultimately reach that more perfect union.”

“Shifted responsibility” from the White House? It was him that put it there when it belongs in Congress. He’s completely reversing it and then expects people to believe him.

Those ideals. “Reach our more perfect union”… by illegally making unconstitutional, fiat law? That is not an ideal America stands for. But then the guy who created this mess would have to be so far out there to justify it.

Those “Dreamers” must really be dreaming if they would rather have their status subject to a president’s Unconstitutional, fiat law. That is defending Unconstitutionality.

Obama even knows it. So he is probably laughing real hard to have them all defending his Unconstitutional actions thinking “those morons don’t even know it.”

Once again, here we are dealing with another disaster Obama created — while he is cruising in some yacht, writing revision history standing American rule of law on its head.

I’m tired of the protest crap. Protest this, protest that, boycott this, trying to shut down free speech. And there is one person still at the center of it all, Obama.

One protest sign from Dreamers says “Support DACA Not Walls.” Failure to build a wall helped create DACA. It was lack of border enforcement that caused the problem in the first place. Are these Leftists just mentally-challenged or do they really expect people to believe their contemptible BS? America doesn’t buy it.

Right Ring | Bullright

From the absurd: Isles of Offense

It doesn’t take much, apparently, to offend Democrats. Take Trump’s last EO on travel/vetting from some countries.

Sessions summed up his reaction how crazy it is having the order stopped by “a judge, sitting on an island in the Pacific.” Great, perfect line. Makes the point. Refreshing.

So what is so wrong with that? Nothing. In fact it is right on. That is probably why Dems got rabid about it. You know, that reaction they have to truth. The problem was the line was too good. People might agree.

Immediately the left lashed out with things like, does he know it is a state? Snark aside, they are delirious. The media led news with it as if he said something wrong, like it was a giant gaffe. It was nothing of the sort. It was a truth bomb — that’s what it was. Why they played it up I don’t know. Trying to discredit Sessions makes them look like idiots.

That caused Sessions to rebut their faux outrage:

“I wasn’t diminishing the judge or the island of Hawaii, that beautiful place. Give me a break,” he said.

“I was just making the point that’s very real, one judge, out of 700, has stopped the president of the United States from doing what he believes is necessary to protect our safety and security.”

See article at Washington Examiner

Hidden Problems and National Diversions

How come no one in the media ever talks about the real problem? Press is supposed to be our fourth estate, what keeps the public informed and the national conversation honest. (I know, but that’s the ideal you hear)

The poster child of this is the travel ban that got so much media attention. They decry it as a Muslim ban for one thing. It isn’t. How many Muslims have freely come and gone through America while this supposed Muslim ban was enacted?

Delta also has a major computer malfunction meltdown causing chaos and confusion. No, no one said that, media hardly paid attention to it. Instead, they only called Trump’s Executive Order “chaos and confusion.” So a major airline grounds itself but they are worried about 109 people scrutinized in their travel, from seven selected countries — now that is real chaos and confusion.

Protesters swarm airports causing chaos and confusion while protesting, you guessed it, the “chaos and confusion.” The protests that have gotten all too common. At the drop of a hat, Soros protesters descend. Please, anyone care about the real problems?

I have a suggestion for media and people from these affected countries. If you have a ISIS caliphate operating within your borders, you might need to be on a travel bad. Just saying.

Start with the real problem. Rather than anyone blaming America or the Executive Order; why not blame the real source of the problem? Why can’t they blame the root cause? Islamists, a caliphate and terrorism are the reasons such an order was necessary. They are the source of all the trouble. But they cannot address the fundamental problem.

And the people who are affected by this travel ban should look at the real source of their problem. If we were honest and faced the problem that way, we would realize what the real problem is. We must blame and aim at the radical Islamic terrorists and the terrorist, ISIS caliphate. To blame anything else is just a diversion from the truth. Deal with that problem and the other ones go away. But the left cannot seem to wrap it’s collective mind around that.

How about they go protest ISIS, terrorists, Islamists and Sharia-pushing clerics who created the reason for wide concerns? No, they’d rather blame a plan, they’d rather blame President Trump, blame racism, blame America….or anything but the real cause.

Listen to one of our own about how it is in one of those so-called “banned” countries.

That’s the way it is there. And they have problems with what we are doing in the USA?

The Pundit’s Paradox: Matt Lewis’ dangerous allegory

Normally, I reserve my tit for tat arguments for political elites. In this case, I’ll make an exception. It started with a Matt Lewis article that is getting lots of play on CNN and the lamestream express.

Oh, remember the days of Matt Lewis on Townhall and conservative circles? Anyway, he writes a Moonbat-bait piece and Libs compliment his intellectual acumen for daring to raise all the pertinent questions. They love that.

See the article hereShould You be Afraid of President Trump?

For the first time in my lifetime, however, people seem to be wondering if the system is self-destructing.

This debate was on full display today on Morning Joe when Anand Giridharadas squared off against Joe Scarborough. In case you haven’t been paying attention, Donald Trump’s election and subsequent rhetoric (his baseless suggestion that voter fraud cost him the popular vote, his attacks on media figures and outlets, and his recent suggestion that the penalty for flag burning should be jail or loss of citizenship) has alarmed people like Giridharadas who worry he has the kind of authoritarian tendencies that might flout the rule of law. /…

In the past, there have essentially been two things stopping American leaders from dictatorial powers: Character and the system. Ideally, we would elect the kind of people who would, like Washington, serve two terms and then (voluntarily) go back to the farm. But in the event this did not occur, our system would prevent the seizure of power (anyone who tried would fail miserably—and go down in history as an ignominious figure). It’s worth considering whether (A) Donald Trump’s character or (B) the ability of the system to contain him are adequate safeguards?

Lewis goes on in his intellectual quandary. Though I grant his questions may be real ones, his manner of handling, or explaining, the paradox is not. What I mean is he references Joe Scarborough who intimated ‘checks and balances’ should be enough to deter Trump — or anyone for that matter. Understandable. But Matt fears that may not be enough.

That is the beauty of our whole system; or at least it always was until Barack Obama blew it up and proved otherwise. (…he had a little help) Lewis adds:

These fears are not entirely irrational. According to a study reported in today’s New York Times, “signs of democratic deconsolidation in the United States and many other liberal democracies are now similar to those in Venezuela before its crisis.” For example, “researchers found that the share of Americans who say that army rule would be a ‘good’ or ‘very good’ thing had risen to 1 in 6 in 2014, compared with 1 in 16 in 1995.”

More sanguine observers, such as Joe Scarborough, assure us that the American system (with its balance of powers, federalism, and checks and balances) pits ambition against ambition, thus containing the ambitions of any one strongman.

See, Lewis’ problem predates Trump the politician. But in some ways Trump is made to order for our predicament. Like Joe, Libs refer to checks and balances. (Cue those cartoons for the filibuster.) What about checks to the power? We are lectured on the three branches of government. Matt worries about how anyone can hold Trump accountable? But that is the same problem we already have, unaccountable power.

How have these 3 divided branches or checks dealt with the abuse of power thus far? Now therein is the problem. We finally got down to the ‘who gives a damn?‘ stage in our self-government evolution. We proved that we can allow abuses to go on, in some cases without a whimper of protest. We have the first unimpeachable president in history.

Then we showed Obama that Congress would stand as no opposition to him. The Court did basically the same. Should we rerack the tape of the High Court rewriting and passing Obamacare? Where were all the fretful liberals and nail biters then…or abusees?

The point is profound: we the people found there was no check and balance to Obama. Our greatest hope or guarantee was the two-term limit as the sole check and balance. And we can’t say Republicans did not have a majority to do anything, They did. The one time we stood up to face a government shutdown, we blinked and basically gave Obama what he wanted anyway. And Obama was adept at using those circumstances to his benefit.

To Lewis’ assertion on military power, respect, or possible coupe: well, what would you expect? I mean look what we’ve been through. The trust of the Congress is MIA. This is not the people’s fault. We tried every other means to rein in the power. In fact, it was widely accepted that this was our last chance to right the ship, at the ballot box.

So the fact that Military or police — which he claims are both associated with the right — are considered more credible with the people than our government is not so out of the ordinary. Note that the press/media is on the discredited list as well.

Then came Trump who is no fix-it man. However, he is the best disrupter we could have. The first step to correction must be to break this symbiotic relationship that has avoided any accountability thus far. They worry about accountability now? Where were these people? “Trust and verify,” they say? Nothing with Obama was verified… except that he lied to us often. (Obamacare) After we all knew it, still it meant nothing.

It was not working; people were not held accountable, no one was fired, no one went to jail. We had no active checks and balances to out of control power. At least with the military there are some repercussions for actions. Police have accountability. So the point is this system was busted from we the people’s perspective. We don’t see that in the military.

And it was not a case of party politics. That played a role but is not the enabler. We had institutional breakdown. IRS ran amok in politics and abused its power to target political enemies. No one stopped it or held them accountable. The checks and balances went unchecked and unbalanced. Dep of Justice operated as the Injustice Department.

Now I have no fear that Trump would be granted the same latitude Obama had. That’s not going to happen. Press will not do latrine detail for Trump as they did for Obama. So this is better than what we had. But we got something more, even better. We now have someone who voices the concerns of people. Someone who is on the side of the people — a fighter. (he carried their message through the election) Someone as fed up as they are with status quo. We didn’t have that before. The people had no voice. That matters.

In the end, Matt Lewis postulates that he personally believes democracy is preciously fragile enough that one must presume it could be lost. Well, it doesn’t hurt to be vigilant but it requires action, not hyperbole and inaction. In other words, deeds matter more than theory which is exactly why we elected Trump.

Trump is no savior, but at least he is willing and able to do what others wouldn’t or couldn’t. Yet the critics, overwhelmed by fear, are more worried about what he will do than the cause that brought him to bear and made him essential to our cause.

(Note: Lewis’ book Too Dumb to Fail: How the GOP Betrayed the Reagan Revolution to Win Elections (and How It Can Reclaim Its Conservative Roots) was published in January 2016)

RightRing | Bullright

Stop the Tragedy: Rein in Disaster… before It’s too late

See something say something. Be vigilant, don’t let our guard down.

Words, just words? ..(satire…)

I decided to take a stand. Something has to be done. We have a serious problem in this country and it is only getting worse. If I’m accused of politicizing tragedy, I don’t care. Too soon? Too bad! It is urgent. We can’t wait. This isn’t about gun control, it’s about survival.

Can we now see that when anti-American, racist hacks become armed with unilateral executive power and a pen that really bad things can and DO happen? It’s almost a given and we see ugly results of it unfold time and again. It is a recipe for disaster.

I’m tired of going from one horrific, tragic abuse of power to the next and people asking “couldn’t anything be done to stop it? Shouldn’t we have seen it coming?” Something needs to be done to stop this cycle of abuse. We need to do much more to prevent this from happening over and over. We can do better.

This notion I hear all the time that somehow allowing more of these irresponsible, reckless race pimps, ideologues and hacks more access to that weaponry of power, instead of less, is dumb. It is a phony talking point… and it’s dangerous. We all should agree on that!

I have to admit I, too, once turned a blind eye to this risk. I rationalized that these things probably wouldn’t happen and they would not effect me or my community. Well, those hopes have been shattered along with the hopes of so many others. We believed we were safe. But we bought into the lies.

We have to decide, at some point, if this is the kind of country we want to live in. The background checks have not worked nor been able to prevent this access to the weaponry of power, tragically. It’s time we ask if this dangerous executive power should be accessible? Who needs that kind of power anyway?

It might be time to finally consider removing that powerful weaponry from the hands of those not suited to have it in the first place. And maybe it is time to confiscate this dangerous weaponry before it is further abused or falls into the wrong hands. Some things are far too dangerous for anyone to own or have at their fingertips. We just cannot afford to take that chance anymore. We’ve seen the damage this weaponry of power can do.

That’s right, I’m not afraid to use the “C” word, it’s time for confiscation. We’ve tried everything else and it hasn’t worked. We cannot trust anyone with the means to wreak so much damage on so many people, especially race hacks with sinister intentions. We must remove that weaponry from those who would do us harm.

These legislative loopholes have allowed this abuse to continue and less regulation is not the answer either. These policies are setting us back decades. In fact, we used to have tighter restraints on this weaponry of power, but we have these big organizations out there with lots of money, pushing their own agenda to Congress. Make no mistake, they are powerful and their agenda is dangerous to every man, woman and child in this country.

We must decide if this is the kind of country we want to live in, where these acts — or the threat of them — are “daily fare”? I do not want my family or grandchildren to live in that kind of country, under that threat. They don’t deserve that, nor do we.

We must be stronger than these threats and interests.I don’t want to examine another case in the rear view mirror and say “could have, would have.”

RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s historic achievement: escaping accountability

The liberal-Marxist Left told us how historical Obama’s election was. Four years later they pumped out the same BS. I have a perspective about it all. It may be early yet.

After January 23rd, we will pass the opportunity to impeach or try him for treason. And he’ll have escaped that accountability, in tact. Done. Truth is they were not going to do that, and Obama anticipated as much. It was one thing fixed in Congress they would not do no matter. They were never going to hold Obama accountable.

Given Obama’s massive malfeasance record, if it did happen, imagine what that mountain of case would have been like? And imagine the cost and the time and resources it would take? Look how long it took with Eric Holder, on the IRS commissioner, with Hillary’s emails, or with the Benghazi investigation.

Now considering Obama’s track record, I’m not going to list it all. But I have to give these Leftist radicals credit for one thing. When they do something FUBAR, they do it right. They want to make sure it is beyond all repair.

Do we really need proof? They make sure they commit so many atrocities and abuses that it is hardly possible to keep up or deal with them all, by design. That is part of the insurance policy that you cannot deal with them all. If you did, it would suck up all the time and how many congresses would it take? Look at Obamacare, they lie and use whatever means trying to make it irreversible. It’s true to form of Alinsky tactics, overwhelm your opposition. Then blame them.

So to them this is a beautiful thing having all these conditions in their favor. You would not have enough time or manpower, never mind cooperation. The abuses go on daily. It is the closest thing to King George and the founders as we have seen. Just read the list of grievances in the Declaration. It screams a long train of abuses: “fatiguing” legislative bodies, and “obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws.”

The point is Obama has something to be proud of, when he passes that date, and even now, that he will not have been tried, impeached, even censured for his actions. And how long will it take to correct whatever we can? But so much damage is already done.

When they do something FUBAR, they do it right. They go all the way.
Regardless, we can still be sure that nothing will be done.

RightRing | Bullright

Bathroom policy and cultural identity

As part of the “radical” bathroom policies Obama is forcing down America’s throat, I think it could be time for a new disclaimer.

See, bathrooms may be available to a person depending on who they currently are identifying as. But there is a fly in the ointment.(Okay, it’s loaded but bare with me)

I think we now need to have a disclaimer on each bathroom.

 

Updated bathroom policy

The person — if that is not in question — who uses this bathroom is acting according to his/her/its own preference at the time of usage. However, this bathroom, and the people who supply it, do not assume any responsibility for the sex or gender claim of the user upon leaving the bathroom. If they leave the bathroom and change their mind on their current gender identification status, then this establishment and bathroom is in no way responsible for that decision.

And therefore, we cannot be held liable for the patrons decision to affirm or deny their gender status at the time of usage or after using this facility. Please be advised accordingly.

For other patrons: you use this facility at your own risk and at the discretion, personal risk or offense of other patrons — be they currently identifying with your gender or someone else’s. We are not liable. And should they make a mistake by misidentifying with their ‘appropriate’ gender for any reason, we are not liable for their mistake, failure, or misidentity mishap. And neither are they.

Thank you for your inconvenience during the identity crisis of people throughout the country.

Your cooperation is appreciated,

Gender Identity Crisis Reaction and Intervention Management Team

Please also be advised that gender policy must not be confused with “appropriation of culture,” which is a major societal problem. The conduct of “appropriating” another culture for any reason is still highly offensive and rightfully condemned.

One’s cultural identity is not chosen by an individual regardless of the reasons to do so. Any questions, see the Cultural Identity Awareness Team.

Iran from bad to worse

GOP Failure Theater: the Iran nuclear vote, Cruz-Rubio edition

By: streiff (Diary) — May 8th, 2015 | Red State

Failure Theater. When the GOP talks a good game about opposing Obama’s policies but, in fact, vote to go along with them.

Yesterday the US Senate voted 98-1 to go along with whatever Barack Obama decides to give to Iran. Though the feckless Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has portrayed it as a successful “bipartisan” bill, part of Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)‘s erotic dream of “governing”, in fact it is a huge defeat for our Constitution. By turning the treaty process on its head, by giving Obama carte-blanche to do as he will unless Congress can muster the necessary 2/3 vote to abrogate his actions, the GOP has effectively taken the Congress out of any role in shaping US foreign policy.

This bill, thanks to Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)‘s bipartisanship fetish did not even require the Iran cease supporting terrorist attacks on Americans. Nope, reasoned the addled Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and the big brain types in the GOP leadership, requiring Iran to forego terrorism before we help them get a nuke was just too much. Obama would never stand for it.

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2015/05/08/gop-failure-theater-iran-nuclear-vote-cruz-rubio-edition/

So much for strategy. And Obama is running around complaining about the Republicans? Incomprehensible chaos. Maybe Iran could nickname its program “bipartisan”?

CFACT: Out of Control & Lawlessness

Out of control


CFACT

Friend,

Is our government out of control?

Unelected bureaucrats are seizing control of our energy industry, killing jobs and hamstringing our economy.

No sector appears safe.

CFACT’s Paul Driessen lays out the staggering facts at CFACT.org:

“No one even knows how many Executive Branch agencies there are – estimates range from 60 to 438 – much less how many new rules they implement and impose each year. Officially, [CEI’s Clyde Wayne] Crews says, they issued a staggering 3,554 new rules in 2014, while President Obama signed ‘only’ 226 new laws enacted by Congress. Worse, of the 53,838 (!) formal final regulations included in the Federal Register from 2001 through 2014, only 160 (0.3%) received a ‘cost-benefit’ analysis; we have no idea how the rest affect us.”

Ironically, President Obama is attempting to invoke the rule of law as requiring a vote on his nominee to the Supreme Court.  Yet the Constitution requires no such thing.

“The Constitution is not a living organism,”  Justice Scalia reminded us,  “It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”

Take a look at the full report Paul Driessen has compiled at CFACT.org.

He makes a frightening case.  We need to reduce the size of all this government and get it back under control.

Craig Rucker
Executive Director

 

Read Paul Driessen’s report: http://www.cfact.org/2016/03/23/washingtons-despotic-lawlessness/

Washington is out of control. Legislators, judges and unelected bureaucrats want to control our lives, livelihoods and living standards, with no accountability even for major errors, calculated deception, or deliberate, often illegal assaults on our liberties and on citizens who resist the advancing Leviathan.

These themes animate Republican and conservative politics because they are happening – regularly. [more..]

 

Years back, Fmr jurist Sandra Day O’Connor said that about 85% of SCOTUS cases deal with federal regulations, despite all the public attention certain cases receive.

Hillary rehearses amnesty and comedy

In pandering to Hispanics, Latinos and media, Hillary makes a profound declarative statement on Wednesday:

Pressed by debate moderator Jorge Ramos on who should deported, Clinton said: “I will not deport children. I would not deport children. I do not want to deport family members, either.”

Read: http://nypost.com/2016/03/11/immigration-experts-have-no-idea-what-hillary-is-talking-about/

Children and family members. So did she leave anyone out, like maybe friends of family members and children? Well, who does that leave? How about single people with no family or children here. How about criminals and felons who have no family or children here. It’s just ridiculous, who’s left?

When Hillary was asked about her rogue server, which has caused her all the trouble:

“It wasn’t the best choice. I made a mistake. It was not prohibited. It was not in any way disallowed.”

In an old Laugh-In comedy skit, Edith Ann (Lilly Tomlin) used to crawl into a big rocking chair like a 5 year-old saying something like “no one told me not to … So I did.” Hillary’s point is no one told me it was not allowed (disallowed) so I naturally did it.

But at the same time her Department was sending around notices telling people not to use their private email for official business. Translation: no one told me what I was doing was wrong, so I kept doing it. Duh! You can “bet your sweet bippy.” “And that’s the truth.”

Obama is Sincerely Wrong

We were bombarded by images of Obama and his tears as he said every time I think of those kids in Newtown “it makes me mad.” Then he turns toward the camera to show him wiping his tears. Whatever you thought of his performance, he made it obvious so we couldn’t miss it. (I wondered how much practice it involved)

But such is the news cycle, it took on a life of it’s own. Surely that one will be enshrined in his library one day. Just in case people say he was emotionless or cold, they can have that starring people in the face.

What happened though in the coverage was a consensus formed quickly. Most people came along to say “well, he may have been sincere.” Of course libtards would say he was very sincere and moved.

That started me thinking. Is that the only point, whether he was sincere or not? So he may have been but he was sincerely wrong, too, if so. It’s as if we are supposed to judge his plans and ideas on whether he was sincere — or sincerely crying. Remember they made fun of Boehner for getting emotional. He just can’t control himself, he’s a wreck. But this was Obama so they were righteous tears. (can’t have too many of those Obama tears) And we are supposed to pay attention to those like punctuation marks.

His ideas on gun control are wrong, his motives for doing them are wrong(at least very highly suspect), his use of power is wrong, and his rationale was wrong. But they all want to focus on whether he was “sincere” or not. Sure he believes in his cause and reasons. But whether he is “sincere” or not about them does not change what they are. So the majority of people in media missed that point. Since when do we want someone creating law out of their emotions?

But that is what libs want (and Jeb Bush too). Make amnesty plans on emotions, do Obamacare on emotions. Then say, well no one can deny he was sincere. So no one can deny you were wrong because they cannot deny your emotions. I can’t help thinking that’s just how the WH planned it. We’re supposed to control our borders based on emotions. We’re supposed to run the economy on emotions, and taxes on tears. Policy, education, defense, environment, resources, justice, and even elections on emotions. But hey, they are “sincere” that’s all that matters.

RightRing | Bullright

What we knew on Bergdahl swap

But what will they do about it?

The Hill:

The report said the administration broke a law requiring it to give members of Congress 30 days’ advance notice of any detainee transfers from the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, where the senior Taliban leaders were held.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/262772-house-report-says-obama-officials-misled-public-on-berghdahl-swap

Don’t we just love how they investigate the illegal actions of this administration but then cannot or don’t do anything? So, for the record now, we found he broke the law. But we knew that. Everyone with a 5th-grade education knew he did.

Thanks Congress, that was a real tough call.

Speaking of Justice

With news of the refusal to prosecute Lois Lerner and anyone at IRS of that scandal, on the heels of Hillary sailing through another hearing with barely so much as a sigh, I think the prospect of real justice now in this country is bleak. I mean justice for politicians or those that abuse their government power, or even abuse of government and power itself.

The very next day I see Obama is seeking to end capital punishment in federal cases. And that the Department of [in]Justice is conducting a review, at his request of course. So the new Loretta Lynch seems to be getting quite a workout.

“There are certain crimes that are so beyond the pale that I understand society’s need to express its outrage,” Obama said. “So I have not traditionally been opposed to the death penalty in theory. But in practice it’s deeply troubling.”

He added, “All of this, I think, has led me to express some very significant reservations.”

Chances are DOJ already made a decision not to prosecute Hillary, or appoint a special prosecutor, regardless of investigation results of Hillary’s servergate, likely citing prosecutorial discretion.

Obama is also cranking up his pressure to move Gitmo detainees to mainland US and close the Guantanamo Bay facility. Talks are ongoing as well with Cuban dictators, who want Guantanamo Bay.

The central theme now, especially in view of all Obama’s scandals, is who DOJ will not prosecute? Those are the priority decisions. Funny though how they managed to prosecute General Petraeus. (they make exceptions)

This after already announcing the release of thousands of prisoners this month for non-violent crimes. He’s taken a hands off approach to illegal alien criminals or enforcing law. He’s already issued an executive order to rewrite immigration law.

On May 8th, “Loretta Lynch Confirmed a Dep of Justice Review of Baltimore Police. They had an investigation in Ferguson, and issued their edicts. But note how many of the looters or rioters have been prosecuted. How many rioter/looters have been prosecuted in Baltimore? On a plus, Feds did refuse a Baltimore bailout, so far. I guess reparations do not apply in some cases.

DOJ is not quick to jump into civil rights cases or terrorism when a white person is the inconvenient victim. They don’t seem fast to condemn or react to police shootings.

After the Oregon shooting, Obama has threatened to take gun control measures. We know how he loves his pen. Eric Holder was held in contempt for failure to cooperate with Congress. How far Lynch will go on that path we can only guess, so far.

Now this month DOJ released statements of turning up their efforts against what they call domestic terrorism threats.

New Obama czar will hunt ‘right-wing’ extremists

Americans seen as possibly more threatening than Islamic jihadists
Published: 10/15/2015 a

Just two weeks after it announced a plan to globalize local police departments through the “Strong Cities Network,” the Obama administration has added a new tool in its fight against “violent extremism.”

A new position within the Justice Department – yet to be filled – will focus on investigating lone-wolf domestic terrorists or “extremists.”

The person who heads this new effort will target extremists who plan mass shootings, hold racist, bigoted or anti-government views or see themselves as “sovereign citizens.”

The new position at the Justice Department, dubbed the “domestic terrorism counsel,” will serve as the main point of contact for U.S. attorney offices nationwide and will identify trends across cases, help shape strategy and “analyze legal gaps that need to be closed,” said Assistant Attorney General John Carlin.

It is not clear what Carlin meant by that statement.

Continue reading: http://www.wnd.com/2015/10/new-obama-czar-will-hunt-right-wing-extremists/

But of course, who are the real terrorist threats in their view? Those who oppose them. The DoJ identified white supremacists as the most violent of  domestic terror groups. They worry that they are not putting enough resources or focus on that terrorism threat.

We had another cop murdered in NYC, which escaped mention or statement from Obama. Now a stunning apology statement from the judge who released him, with his lengthy record, months before the murder.

“I know. I am truly sorry,” Nuñez said sadly when a Post reporter reminded her about the 33-year-old cop’s devastated family.

Well, a little late but its another glaring example of the condition of justice under Obama. Lack of mention about cop shootings by Obama speaks volumes when he rushes to the microphone at any other convenient outrage. He’s still worried about the Crusades.

Or just take the first hand testimony of one who has experienced the selective prosecution persecution from the DOJ.

Bernard Kerik writes in a August op-ed:

“I provide this context for one very important reason: The investigation against me didn’t have anything to do with a U.S. Ambassador and three of his staff members being murdered in Libya. It had nothing to do with leaking classified material to unauthorized recipients; it didn’t involve destruction of evidence or the obstruction of transparency in government by maintaining a secret server on which classified correspondence was communicated. It was about false statements or errors and tax charges, which for anyone else would have been handled civilly.”

But if the DOJ has its sights on doing something, or not doing something, it will not be deterred. Special prosecutor statute:

“Stage Two: The “Independent Counsel” Statute (1977-19991)
As a result of Watergate, in 1977 Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act (EGA) which for the first time defined procedures for the appointment of a special prosecutors. Specifically, the Act provided that upon receiving allegations relating to certain “covered persons”, the Attorney General was required to conduct a preliminary investigation. If the preliminary investigation suggested that further investigation was warranted, the AG was required to petition three judge panel established by the statute and known as the “Special Division,” to appoint an “independent counsel.” Several aspects of the Act require further explanation.”

He does have this DOJ theme going. But Obama is more concerned with lighting the White House in rainbows than with real justice. State of justice in America is contemptible.

An ah ha moment on Obama

In a recent conversation I had with Pepp on various topics, I came to a conclusion. I won’t speak for Pepp, she is very capable. It was surrounding Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran (and little Israel thrown in) and Obama’s foreign policy. All that matters is the conclusion which even stunned myself. I’m no fan of Obama or his foreign or domestic policies.

I suddenly realized that, in this volatile world with all that is going on, from Russia to the Middle East, I cannot foresee even the worst things happening in the world, where Obama could take any kind of action, that I could ever support anything big or small that he does using our military. That is a heck of a revelation.

The rule is usually in times of crisis you support the commander-in-chief. But I can’t think of a situation bad enough or simple enough that I could fully support. I am dead serious, though it was a matter of reasoning that out. Sometimes things come out in discussion with someone you wouldn’t realize outside of having that conversation.

There are a number of reasons. I’ll try to outline some of the majors:

A) He would not be trusted and would either throw our efforts or soldiers to the wolves, or under the bus in the situation.(for whatever motives)

B) He cleansed the ranks of many good career generals with experience, knowledge and backbone loyal to their oath.

C) He would not rely on best advice of the Pentagon or those in authority to know.

D) He would change the mission once engaged to some other purpose.

E) He would intentionally change the rules of engagement to suit his ideology.

F) His loyalty to the US cannot be counted on in any situation.

G) He is influenced or led by other interests outside USA’s interest.

H) He’s sided with others, opponents or enemies, while in direct military action.

I) He’s made deals with enemies to the US against our interests and security.

J) He would not be in it to win on behalf of US; other interests take priority.

K) He won’t stand up in the end for US interests or our security.

L) He would overrule or change the plans on a dime himself, for subverted reasons. Everything is fluid, he’s flexible to himself and his political interests.

M) He could and no doubt would undermine our military’s objectives for his own personal reasons, or others. (or his ideology)

O) He does not honor his oath or uphold the Constitution in the US as it is.

P) His words are meaningless anyway, and his credibility is O.

There are probably more. That’s the point. I don’t know of a situation where he or his motives could be trusted to do the right thing if required, and if people depended on it.

So, there is my basic conclusion, tough as it is to think about. Maybe others have already gone through that process. At least some in our military should have walked through the possibilities already. Thus, it is not a matter of trusting our military to do the right thing or be successful. He intervenes in that process into the mission. Intentional failure?

When a lot of people see it the same way, that’s a problem. And when our allies and enemies read it the same way, it’s definitely a real problem

Now I can’t say it would be completely intentional, who can read the diseased mind, but I can say he just cannot be trusted. This, of course, means from the simplest of presidential actions of diplomacy, to treaties, to full-blown military action — anything. That’s mine.

Double standard hernia

If they threw county clerk Kim Davis in jail in Kentucky, then why aren’t all the Obama administration officials in jail for not enforcing immigration law?

And where are all the people telling these officials that they cannot just refuse to follow the law? If they can put a county clerk in jail for that, how much more should they do to Federal Officials who will not enforce the law? So why aren’t officials in sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, in jail for failure to enforce immigration law?

But one clerk can be locked up for not issuing a marriage license. Advocates also decry officials in Texas for not issuing birth certificates to anchor babies. If the governments’ objective was to be inconsistent, and have double standards on law, which is also part of the fourteenth amendment, then it succeeded.

Obama arbitrarily and illegally rewrote immigration law, then had the audacity to complain when a judge ceased their actions.

US Citizenship and Immigration Services:

Update: Due to a federal court order, USCIS will not begin accepting requests for the expansion of DACA on February 18 as originally planned and has suspended implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. The court’s temporary injunction, issued February 16, does not affect the existing DACA. Individuals may continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the original guidelines. Please check back for updates. [emphasis mine]

Now they contend that they are being denied, via court order, the ability to enforce the illegal fiat law Obama created. The problems he claimed necessitate the law were caused by failures to enforce the law. Now they have the audacity to claim “the system is broken” and needs new law. Still a clerk gets jailed for a failure to comply with their “law” — which in reality was a Court decision. See where Obama has put this country?

Obama: family feud over Iran deal

Just like a family gathering or reunion with a little tiff, a little nuclear tiff.

Obama: US-Israel Family Feud Will Abate When Iran Deal in Place

Saturday, 29 Aug 2015 | Newsmax

President Barack Obama is comparing tensions between the U.S. and Israel over the Iranian nuclear deal to a family feud and says he expects quick improvements in ties between the longtime allies once the accord is implemented.

“Like all families, sometimes there are going to be disagreements,” Obama said Friday in a webcast with Jewish Americans. “And sometimes people get angrier about disagreements in families than with folks that aren’t family.”

The president’s comments came as momentum for the nuclear accord grew on Capitol Hill, where lawmakers will vote next month on a resolution to disapprove of the deal. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., became the 30th senator to publicly back the agreement, saying Friday that it was a good deal for America and for allies like Israel.

The looming congressional confrontation has sparked a summer of intense debate between supporters and opponents of the nuclear accord. The deliberations have also divided Jewish Americans, with leaders of many organizations expressing concern about long-term damage to the community.

Read more http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Obama-Iran-Nuclear/2015/08/29/id/672541/

Oh, because we are good family members is why they are opposed to his deal? Yes, if we weren’t so close, Israel wouldn’t be so upset. Then why were Arabs/Saudis so against it?

With just 34 votes, Democrats could block the bill to prevent the Iran Deal. Obama compares it to a family feud. He’s so confident Israel will be right back on board once the deal is lodged into place. What an arrogant soul he is, if he has one. How is it, too, that he can speak for another sovereign country? Yet he used none of that prophetic vision in negotiating the deal. Why, it was to get a deal at any cost. Any deal that is.

But this is his M/O after all: scorched easrth politics at any cost, then assume the opponent will just live with it after he gets his way. The means to that end is lying, early and often.

After lighting the Mid East ablaze, Obama reaches for the marshmallows and says relax, enjoy the show and don’t worry about the effects, it’ll all be good. You’ll get used to it.

One heck of a comparison, Obama

As Obama memorialized, or whatever is is he does, the Hurricane Katrina disaster in New Orleans, it sends a chilling message.

I think there is so much rich irony in the photo-op picture of Obama visiting New Orleans at the anniversary of Katrina. Obama has done far worse damage to the entire nation.(everything he touches)

But there he is offering what I assume is sympathy to people who have been through so much in the past years. Every time I see the Captain of Disaster skipping down AF-1 steps I think of what more damage is he doing now? Can he possibly cause even more damage?

The answer is very disturbing, it’s catastrophic. That’s really heartbreaking.

Illegal surge again knocking on the door

We used to talk about a “surge” meaning troops to Iraq or Afghanistan. But we are having surges here in the US from outside our borders, from places we don’t even know.

Now here we are again, witnessing another surge of illegal aliens. It doesn’t matter where all they are from, they are coming. Heat or not.

DHS admits new surge of illegal immigrant families

By Stephen Dinan – The Washington Times – Friday, August 7, 2015

The country saw another surge of illegal immigrant families crossing the border in July, a top Homeland Security official told a federal court late Thursday as the administration begged a judge not to forbid detention of new migrant mothers and children.

Deputy Border Patrol Chief Ronald Vitiello said the number of illegal immigrant families captured at the border rose in July, bucking a trend and worrying officials who had been expecting the number of families to drop as the heat increases in late summer, just as the number of unaccompanied minors does.

Even worse, the administration fears things may get worse if illegal immigrants hear about Judge Dolly M. Gee’s July 24 ruling all but prohibiting detention of illegal immigrant families.

Read more

So how many more of these surges can we tolerate? Then shipping begins to parts unknown, all done quietly as we debate if there is a problem, what to do. This while we are under siege from sanctuary cities.

“Point: Sanctuary Policies Mainly Protect the Predators”
By Jessica Vaughan July 2015 | Center for Immigration Studies

The Obama administration has made it clear that it will not act against sanctuary jurisdictions. Instead, the president has moved to make the whole country a sanctuary by giving work permits to illegal aliens and drastically scaling back enforcement for all but the most egregious criminal offenders. And he terminated perhaps the most effective enforcement program ever (Secure Communities) and replaced it with a new program that explicitly allows localities to obstruct ICE. (more)

I’m addicted to power

Hello, my name is Barack Obama (I think) and I’m addicted to power.

I came to this meeting to admit my addiction is uncontrollable and I need help. Actually, some tell me that the ones who really need help are those under my power and authority. Well, I have no reason to believe that or any reason to relinquish any power I have over them. See I can’t help it. It is really not my narcissistic personality that is at fault.

It must be the people’s fault. First they elected me, then as I exercised more and more executive power, they continually asked me for more. Why even the Congress applauded my plans to make them irrelevant if I did not get my way. They cheered and people told me they want to see more executive abuse. I tried to inform them that it really wasn’t my style, but they convinced me to take every opportunity I’m given to usurp more power, control, and abuse my authority.

So I am not to blame. It was my genuine desire to take my foot off the throats of the people, and off the neck of America. But it is so enjoyable that I must have more and more. Since that is the wish of the people as well, I admit it is an offer I cannot refuse.

I know they want me to be the permanent King of Amerika, too. I cannot let them down. I just want everyone to know this was not my idea, they made me do it.

Since Power Anonymous is such a small exclusive club, I will continue to come here to keep you abreast of my feelings. It’s what others call accountability. Well, some stragglers see my hunger for power as a problem, for some reason, but I don’t know why? So I am assuaging them by continuing to come to these “therapy sessions”.

Thank you.