Nazi war criminals on Social Security

Lawmakers Seek To End Benefits To Suspected Nazi War Criminals

Thursday, Oct 23, 2014

WASHINGTON (NBC-NewYork/AP) Legislation to stop suspected Nazi war criminals from receiving U.S. Social Security benefits will be introduced soon, members of Congress announced Thursday, the latest response to an Associated Press investigation that revealed millions of dollars have been paid to former Nazis who were forced out of the United States.

A bill crafted by Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania will be offered in mid-November, when Congress returns to session following the midterm elections. House lawmakers said they are working on similar legislation.

The AP’s investigation, published Sunday, has triggered outrage on Capitol Hill, in the editorial pages of newspapers across the country, and from the White House, which said former Nazis should not be getting Social Security benefits.

“It is simply perverse that these criminals have been able to live comfortably abroad thanks to the American taxpayer,” Schumer said.

More at http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Nazi-Social-Security-Benefits-Legislation-Chuck-Schumer-280204092.html

Sometimes things can raise your blood pressure but other things just boil it. Why are these Dems the only faces on this? So they were bribed to leave with Social Security? Pretty outrageous at that. I hope this hasn’t given Barry any ideas.

If they’ve known about this, why hasn’t something already been done?

Buzzwords, adjectives and word salad

One thing notable about the left is their language. They never actually speak directly about something, they call it names.Without saying what their plan is, they declare it “reasonable”. They describe something like playing charades. They want to associate good feelings with whatever their position is. So they use adjectives and describe it in attractive terms. That is usually a dead give away a Democrat is speaking.

And it seems to me the harder they pursue that approach the more Marxist or socialist they are. Their language is also loaded with code words. One cannot miss them, which is the point, they are meant to be obvious.

This is a common tactic on amnesty and illegal immigration, or other issue. You never get the specifics. So you get Nancy telling us we have to pass a bill before you can find out what is in it. Even they will acknowledge they don’t know what is in it before hand. However, they do know all the key terms to describe it. And everyone knows them.

It’s like they are doing an ad for a new Iphone. They cannot tell you exactly what something is but they can tell you how to feel about it. As if as long as you feel the right way about it, the contents don’t matter.

Of course that is just one reason they play that word salad game. There are others like when they attack conservatives or “right-wingers” they want to paint them as bad as they can. So out come the adjectives — from nasty, to bigoted, to hate-filled, to racist.

A friend of mine had several exchanges in the letters to the editor of a newspaper. A Liberal Democrat, who inhabits the pages like his private villa, uses all the typical tactics of the left. The talking points and code words flow like a cheap novel. Almost as if he can’t help himself, he characterizes anyone who disagrees in typical Left-wing vernacular. It definitely is a word salad, you can spot it immediately.

“Welcome to Jonestown — Peoples Temple Agricultural Project ” The Jonestown Institute, http://jonestown.sdsu.edu.

Picture Jonestown and Jim Jones using the term kool-aid for the poison. No wonder the term stuck. A sampling of left-wing dialect might include, but is not limited to, any of the following or combinations.

Fair-minded
Sensible
Level playing field
Reasonable
Fair-share (any hyphenated “fair” word)
Doubling-down
War on women
Fact (used vaguely or as a pejorative)
Sustainable

There’s a larger list of attack words for their opponents. Not to mention their cliches.

Now, on the same language topic, let’s try a little hypothetical. Suppose Congress got Lois Lerner, or other operative, to testify on any scandal. It might look something like this.

Ask any question and they say they don’t know. Let’s begin:
(Q= questioner / A= testifier)

Q: what did you know about …….

A: “I don’t know”

Q: Why don’t you know”

A: I don’t know”

Q: You have to know why you don’t know because…

A: I told you I don’t know.

Q: Look, the rules and law say that in your position you have to know these things, but you say you don’t know?

A: I must not have to know because I don’t.

Q: It’s not possible that you don’t know anything.

A: You are trying to tell me something I don’t know.

Q: I would not do that

A: You just did

Q: All I want to know is what you know about ___.

A: If you want to know what I know, then why do you keep asking me what I don’t know?

Q: But I’m not asking you what you don’t know I’m asking what you do know?

A: I don’t know anything…. and I know what I don’t know.

Q: If you know what you don’t know then you obviously know everything.

A: (blank stare)

Q: You don’t know much do you?

A: Well, I’m sure I don’t know

Q: That just proves it, you do know.

A: I don’t know everything but I know what I don’t know!

Q: See, you do know, and think you know everything. — I yield back…

A: …Do not !!!!!!!!! Stop trying to tell me something I don’t know.

Chair: Shut up ….or you’ll be in contempt !
Now that concludes our job interview, you passed the test.

A: I’d like to exercise my 5th amendment privileges now.

RightRing | Bullright

Sheila Jackson fails truth test

On Wednesday, Congress held a lying contest and Sheila Jackson Lee took first place. No runner-up was mentioned.

Sheila Jackson Lee cries fowl over resolution to sue Obama calling it a veiled impeachment, claiming they never sought impeachment of Bush. But yes, she co-sponsored a bill to impeach Bush in 2008.

Jackson Lee says ‘we did not seek an impeachment of President Bush’ but she co-sponsored ’08 bill

Politifact

As Congress’ August recess loomed, partisan skirmishing reached a crescendo, with the U.S. House approving, on a near-party-line vote, a lawsuit against President Barack Obama on the grounds that he had overstepped his constitutional authority.

Democrats, noting past statements by some Republicans in Congress, raised the specter of the president being impeached, though Republican House leaders insisted that impeachment wasn’t an option.

During the floor debate over authorizing the lawsuit against Obama, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, suggested that Democrats had the moral high ground.

Even though some Democrats had thought that President George W. Bush had abused his authority when he initiated the Iraq War, the House, while under Democratic control in 2007 and 2008, did not impeach him.

The current resolution to authorize a lawsuit, Jackson Lee said in a floor speech on July 30, 2014, “smacks against the Constitution, which says there are three equal branches of government. Therefore, the executive has the right to perform his duties. I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is, in fact, a veiled attempt for impeachment, and it undermines the law that allows the president to do his job. It is a historical fact that President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush because as an executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority.”

A reader asked us to check whether it’s accurate for Jackson Lee to say, “We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush.” So we took a closer look.

Jackson Lee, it turns out, is an imperfect vehicle for making this charge. Here’s the problem: A dozen House Democrats in 2008 did introduce a resolution seeking the impeachment of Bush. And Jackson Lee was one of the measure’s 11 co-sponsors.

The measure in question was H. Res. 1258, introduced by then-Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, on June 10, 2008. The resolution — a 167-page laundry list of criticisms — accused Bush of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” citing numerous “abuses of power” related to his prosecution of the war in Iraq and the fight against global terrorism, among other topics.

If Jackson Lee means to define “we” as the Democratic caucus as a whole, she has a point. The resolution never gained wide support among the Democrats, even though they controlled Congress at the time. The bill died quietly in committee.

Pelosi explained her thinking about the impeachment resolution in a July 2008 interview on ABC’s The View. “I thought that impeachment would be divisive for the country,” she said. “We have to create jobs, expand healthcare, protect the American people and educate our children. And you can’t do that if you’re trying to impeach the President at the same time, unless you have the goods that this president committed crimes.”

Even so, it seems odd to hear Jackson Lee saying “we did not seek” impeachment when she, in fact, was a co-sponsor of a measure that sought precisely that.

When we reached out to Jackson Lee’s office, communications director Michael J. McQuerry said, “the Congresswoman was stating that the Democrats did not try to impeach President Bush over executive orders.”

However, we looked through Jackson Lee’s floor speech and saw no references to executive orders. For that matter, the specific target of the House GOP’s lawsuit — administrative changes to delay the effective date of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate — did not take the form of an executive order, either, although Republicans have been critical of some of Obama’s executive orders more generally.

Further undercutting Jackson Lee’s explanation, the 2008 impeachment resolution she co-sponsored did address executive orders twice:

• It quoted then-Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., saying the Bush administration’s “shroud of secrecy extends to agency rules and executive pronouncements, such as executive orders, that carry the force of law. Through the diligent efforts of my colleague, Sen. (Sheldon) Whitehouse (D-R.I), we have learned that (the Office of Legal Counsel) has taken the position that a president can ‘waive’ or ‘modify’ a published executive order without any notice to the public or Congress — simply by not following it.'”

• Citing a 2007 article from the Washington Post, the resolution said that Mike McConnell, Bush’s director of national intelligence, in a letter to the late Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, “acknowledged that Bush’s executive order in 2001 authorized a series of secret surveillance activities and included undisclosed activities beyond the warrantless surveillance of emails and phone calls that Bush confirmed in December 2005.”

Our ruling

Jackson Lee said, “We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush.” She has a point that neither the House nor a majority of the Democratic caucus sought Bush’s impeachment. However, a dozen Democratic lawmakers did — including Jackson Lee herself. It seems hypocritical of the congresswoman to seize the moral high ground — essentially saying that her party gallantly went against self-interest by declining to seek Bush’s impeachment — when in fact she personally had sought precisely that outcome. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly False.

 
Does she ever stop arguing with reality? And that was in 2008, his last year in offiice. In fact they had a whole series of hearings, which she referred to as “abuse of power hearings”.  And she claimed that the prosecutorial record was even established, to be used to prosecute said “defendant” in impeachment. She was also troubled by the use of “signing statements”.

She said in a hearing on the subject in 2008: (video)

“This is not a personal question. This is a question of protecting the institution of the Constitution.”

She claimed “I do happen to think there is a very firm basis for suggesting  “high crimes and misdemeanors”  via a series of  “abuse of power hearings”.

“Why in the world would we be afraid of allowing this prosecutorial approach to go forward?”

Now she says:

“I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is in fact a veiled attempt at impeachment and it undermines the law that allows a president to do his job. A historical fact: President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush, because as an executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority.”

The operative word she used was “seek”. And yes she did, as did a bunch of her Demodoos.

She was all in and one of the chief proponents for impeaching Bush. Now she can act as if none of that ever happened.  But her great complaint now is about a lawsuit, not impeachment, moving forward in what she fears a veiled impeachment. She was neck deep in an actual process on real impeachment — not some lawsuit over authority in a court.  And it was July of 2008 at the end of his term. Gung ho she was.

Sodium Pentathol will be administered before Sheila’s next speech.

Welcome to Circleville, formerly USA

(no offense to any towns named Circleville.) A little venting, and then some.

Circleville is a place that used to be just called USA, but much has happened to change that. Now its a place where upside down is rightside up, down is up, in is out, and most arguments are shrouded in specious reasoning and circular logic. It’s no longer important to even appear reasonable or rational. Actually, it is vogue to be unreasonable.

Whatever you find fault with, they tell you there is nothing you can do about it and your grievance is the real problem, so don’t worry about it. Your complaints are irrelevant.

But the only way you really know it is Circleville and not the USA is when you dissent from their status quo, or what is happening. To buck the trend is to be outcast. They use all this circular logic to tell you how you are wrong. It doesn’t actually prove anything, it is just supposed to shut you up. Slowly, you will either get used to it or just shut up.

One way or another you will be worn down to agree that up is down and down is up, and even like it — that is the goal. In the meantime, it all seems rather backward and does not make sense. They are confident that one day you will agree or at least stop making waves.

This consensus that runs things is driven by the desires of the “correct” populace who are always looking to evolve a little more. There is no limit to this evolution. (call it forced evolution) However, there is a severe restriction against not changing. Failure to change is now taboo — which will bring all the names down on you such as knuckle-dragger. You are considered the problem, not those bent on changing everything.

The heroes are those like Bill Ayers and traitors, or those deserters in the military they want to build monuments to. Real, traditional heroes are discarded as non-conformists and considered part of the problem. So their hero status is revoked, if it was ever justifiable.

To win is to lose. To lose is definitely winning, such as losing the US which they consider gain. But when you ask, they say “sure America is exceptional”… but so is Guatemala, Honduras, and Cuba, N Korea, Russia, etc. All things are equal, you know, except when they say they aren’t.

The same principles followed Obama into the Oval Office. The scandal-plagued administration rewards those who screw up and, in some cases, deliberately violate the law.(what is the law anyway?) They are celebrated. We have members of Congress with checkered pasts, who not only retain their careers but ascend to higher positions. Alcee Hastings, impeached as a federal judge, is in Congress. The one man who beat Barack Obama in Illinois, Bobby Rush, a black panther, is a beloved political leader.

A cop killer is elevated to MLK status, and turned into an example for school children. The death penalty is considered inhumane, while no compassion is left for real victims. Terrorists of the sixties are given tenured professorships at Universities. They write the curriculum for school children. A tax cheat is put in charge of the IRS. A man who could not pass the security clearance is made president. His attorney general oversees gunrunning in Mexico. And when he is held in contempt, part of Congress stages a walkout crying racism. The president declares Congress irrelevant in his SOTU speech as half of Congress cheer and give him a standing ovation.

Bill Ayers is turned into a teacher, on elementary curriculum no less, and a professor. How many of the 60’s radicals and terrorists just found their way into our government or system? You would think it is planned. Is it just coincidence they landed up there? John Kerry is a double-talking, lying, war protestor and now Secretary of State. Eric Holder sought the pardon on Marc Rich is made Attorney General.(well-qualified) But they aren’t just there, they are hailed as great public servants. Bill Clinton is considered the greatest politician, possibly president — infamous for his conduct. The left will turn criminals into heroes. They turn cop killers into icons, heroes, and teachers. Someone that may not qualify to run for president is hailed as exactly the right choice, unquestioned.

But others without checkered pasts are turned into villains. Koch brothers are the epitome of evil. Mitt Romney is depicted as just a greedy rich guy.(picture Mr. Scrooge with a dog on his car) Now being pro-abortion is to support the dignity of life. And so on.

Terrorism is committed by a worldwide ideology of hatred of America and its history, and the response is to put members of those factions into positions of power in the government. Release some of the worst from prisons because we have no room. Bring in people from the worst criminal countries and give them full government subsidies.Call our enemies in the world our friends and attack our allies for doing the right thing. Try to take money from our allies to give to terrorists and our enemies. Call it the sensible approach.

So it continues with the Constitutional power to impeach Obama. Sure, it might be the correct thing to do but we cannot do what is right or correct anymore, in Circleville. Instead, we must see that he is “not be impeached” — read protect him from impeachment — because it would cause even more harm to the country. It would be bad politically, and the President’s party would gain. It would not be confirmed by the Senate and make a mockery out of the process, thereby the Constitution itself. So now we must make sure it is not pursued. Impeachment is just a fundraising tool to Obama. War to Hamas is a fundraising campaign. Justice is redefined through a Liberal wormhole of social justice. Opaque is clear and clear is opaque.

This is a strange, backwards, upside down place now. Right is wrong, and wrong has become right — not just considered “right” but now considered the moral high-ground. No longer is doing the right thing right, with all the associated costs, but is reprehensible – objectionable.

You see it does not end and these are only some examples. It keeps changing and going so there are constantly new ones. Campaigning on transparency, in effect, means lying and hiding the truth. Debate now means stifling it. Campaign law means campaign corruption. It’s all around. But choose not to accept it? You have no choice, that’s the idea.
Enjoy you’re visit or else.

RightRing | Bullright

One answer to Obama

We are now at a great crossroads, we’ve been here for a while. Now for all Obama’s criticism, rhetoric, and complaints about his favorite whipping post, Republicans, there is one response to it all. We need to hear it echoed from every rooftop to anything he says.

The answer to it all is “Obama, people can’t trust you”. They can’t trust him to enforce the laws now. He won’t enforce the laws we have, but he demands new law. Congress can’t trust him to enforce new legislation. You can’t trust him to uphoild anything, including his word. You can’t trust him to fix a problem.

He’s rewritten his own namesake law so many times, he’s declared others broken, he’s ignored others, he’s refused to enforce still others. And he rewrites what Congress passes to suit his fancy.

So he stands there complaining congress won’t fix something, or won’t send him something, or won’t work with him. The answer is “We can’t trust you, Obama.” There is no good faith or credit there, and the people don’t trust or believe him. That is the response he should get to anything he says or asks.

Now Obama says “we’ve actually got a humanitarian crisis on the border now”.

Is he proud because he caused it?

Crying over spilled borders — pretending to — Obama said:

We now have an actual humanitarian crisis on the border that only underscores the need to drop the politics and fix our immigration system once and for all. In recent weeks, we’ve seen a surge of unaccompanied children arrive at the border, brought here and to other countries by smugglers and traffickers.

Today, I sent a letter to congressional leaders asking that they work with me to address the urgent humanitarian challenge on the border, and support the immigration and Border Patrol agents who already apprehend and deport hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants every year. And understand, by the way, for the most part, this is not a situation where these children are slipping through. They’re being apprehended. But the problem is, is that our system is so broken, so unclear that folks don’t know what the rules are.

Why would they know what the “rules”– Law –is since he’s been playing legislator?

“We can’t trust you !”

“We can’t trust you !”

“We can’t trust you !”

And Congress can’t trust you !

From the Jackson Sun: “Obama’s strategy of division”

Divide and conquer sums up President Obama’s political strategy on immigration: Stop deportations. It will inflame conservatives and appease Latinos.

The more conservatives are angered, the less chance genuine reform will have in the House. And the more Latinos are appeased by the end of deportations, the more they will be drawn to the Democrats.

It’s as skillful a move as any ricochet shot in a pool hall. By widening the gap between Latinos and conservatives — through a deliberate refusal to enforce immigration laws — he hurts the country and helps his party.

The cornerstone of any Republican approach to immigration reform is to prevent a continuing influx of illegal immigrants from abroad even as those who have already arrived are, at least partially, assimilated. Republicans are generally willing to grant those here illegally the ability to work without fearing deportation. But they are not willing to concede a path to citizenship and voting.

All Republicans are concerned that any form of amnesty in the U.S. will only serve to catalyze a heavier flow of foreigners to come here illegally. The recent influx of unaccompanied children from Central America makes this tendency manifest.

The key question for Republicans has always been: Can we trust the administration to seal the border? More>

We know that answer….very well. Just repeat it.
RightRing | Bullright

Obama heads for Constitutional Crisis

Law Prof. Turley: Obama Risks Constitutional Crisis With Executive Action

Monday, 30 Jun 2014 | Newsmax
By Greg Richter

President Barack Obama is acting like “a bad gambler at Vegas” by doubling down on executive actions less than a week after a stinging Supreme Court defeat, says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley.

A defiant Obama promised to take even more executive actions on Monday because Congress has told him it will not pass any immigration reform laws this year.

“If House Republicans are really concerned about me taking too many executive actions, the best solution to that is passing bills. Pass a bill. Solve a problem,” Obama said in a Rose Garden press conference.

Turley, appearing on Fox News Channel’s “Special Report, ” called that “a pretty surprising statement” considering that “the ink is barely dry” on Thursday’s 9-0 decision saying Obama was wrong to have made recess appointments when the Senate had declared itself to be in session.

“For him now to double down makes him look like a bad gambler at Vegas,” said Turley, who agrees with many of Obama’s policies, but has warned of a constitutional crisis if Obama continues implementing those policies by bypassing Congress.

“At some point this is going to cause serious problems for his administration. He’s going to start to lose Democrats,” Turley said. “The president of the United States can’t say the solution to gridlock is you simply have to resolve it on my terms.”

There’s a reason the issues aren’t being resolved, Turley said: “Congress is divided because the public is divided in these areas.”

Turley said the past 10 days have been “abysmal” for the administration.

“He was found to be in violation of the Fourth Amendment on privacy, then another case found him in violation of separation of powers. Now he’s been found in violation of religious rights in the First Amendment” in the Hobby Lobby case, Turley said.

“It doesn’t get much worse than this for a president.”

Read Latest Breaking News – Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/gambler-executive-Jonathan-Turley/2014/06/30/id/580138/

It doesn’t get much worse than this? Just watch.

Flash from Nixon’s past

From the Articles of Impeachment for Nixon:

The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:

  1. making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
  2. withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
  3.   approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
  4.  interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
  5. approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;
  6. endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
  7. disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
  8. making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
  9. endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

Obama: I don’t need no stinkin’ Congress

Obama to Congress: I don’t need new permission on Iraq

By Barbara Starr, Deirdre Walsh and Tom Cohen, CNN

Washington (CNN) — I’ll let you know what’s going on, but I don’t need new congressional authority to act, President Barack Obama told congressional leaders Wednesday about his upcoming decision on possible military intervention in Iraq.

The White House meeting sounded more like a listening session for the top Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate about options for helping Iraq’s embattled Shiite government halt the lightning advance of Sunni Islamist fighters toward Baghdad that Obama is considering.
Dick Cheney slams Obama on Iraq

According to a White House statement, Obama went over U.S. efforts to “strengthen the capacity of Iraq’s security forces to confront the threat” from the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) fighters, “including options for increased security assistance.”

Earlier, spokesman Jay Carney spelled out one limit to any U.S. help, saying: “The President hasn’t ruled out anything except sending U.S. combat troops into Iraq.”

While the White House statement emphasized Obama would continue to consult with Congress, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the President “basically just briefed us on the situation in Iraq and indicated he didn’t feel he had any need for authority from us for the steps that he might take.”

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California agreed with McConnell’s assessment, adding she believed congressional authorization for military force in Iraq back in 2001 and 2003 still applied.

More  http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/18/politics/us-iraq/index.html

Go it alone … “And why not, I can do everything by myself, unilaterally?  I got my pen and my phone… and a tee-time.

“I’ll let you know.” Really, why should that have any credibility either, with everything he’s already done? He’s got a border crisis here and he isn’t saying squat about that.

Though they are doing logistical summersaults to disperse them throughout the country. Heck, no one even knows if the Governor of Massachusetts was told what’s going on.

RightRing | Bullright

Impeachment chorus adds another voice

Congressman: House would vote to impeach

And Charles Krauthammer calls Obama’s behavior ‘a high crime’

Bob Unruh  June 17, 2014 | WND

Another member of the U.S. House has joined the conversation about the possibility of impeaching President Obama for illegal activities, confirming his colleagues probably would vote for the move.

The comments come from Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa., in an interview with radio host Gary Sutton.

“We have a president who has taken this to a new level. And it’s put us in a real … position where he’s just absolutely ignoring the Constitution, ignoring the laws, ignoring the checks and balances,” he said.

“The problem is, what do you do? … For those who say impeach him for breaking the laws or not enforcing the laws, you know. Could that pass, in the House? It probably, it probably could. Are the majority of American people in favor of impeaching President Obama? I’m not sure,” he said.

He cited the recent primary election loss for House Majority Leader Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va.

“I think what happened in Virginia is what you’re going to start seeing around the country. … They’re going to look at their specific member of Congress and their own U.S. senator. If they don’t feel you’re standing up for them, they’re going to throw you out and they’re going to send somebody else there.”

He said there never before has been a primary election defeat for a House majority leader.

“There’s a big message here,” he said. “People in Washington better pay close attention.”

The fact that Washington has serious problems was confirmed by Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer.

Referencing the White House claim that IRS emails sought by investigators looking into harassment of tea party and conservatives were “lost,” he said, “These guys are living on a different planet.”

He said computer experts said they are retrievable, but the Obama administration doesn’t want people to see them.

“Nixon lost 18 minutes. Obama now has lost two years of email,” he said. “One thing that people don’t remember, the second article of impeachment for Richard Nixon was the abuse of the IRS to pursue political enemies. This is a high crime. This is not a triviality.”

The Big List

The idea of impeachment has become a daily topic across America recently, and a big list reveals the sentiment.

Jeanine Pirro, host of the Fox News show “Justice with Judge Jeanine,” recently blasted Obama for his “impeachable” handling of various situations.

SEE – long article

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/congressman-house-would-vote-to-impeach/

Good article, my brain can only handle so much truth at once. Where is the momentum?

Benghazi played?

Just when you think you have witnessed the bottom, out pops someone to probe the depths. In this case Lawrence O’Donnell (MSNBC host). It’s really nothing new for him but it does tell you something about modern, socialist progressives.

The other day Krauthammer made a statement that Benghazi, the issue, is about played out. Well, I always appreciate his insight but I cringed when he said it. Sure, he had his reasons but that’s a whole other matter. Along comes the Left to ride that side-car as long and hard as they can. Sort of like the Iraq war. Here’s the clip:

So there I was flipping through the channels Thursday night, and O’Donnell plays the clip as a highlight — but only that particular part. The camera returns to Lawrence who is grinning ear to ear. Facial expressions do say it all, in this case. ‘It’s over, ha ha.’

Whatever you think of Benghazi or him, it said it all about the Left. As insulting as his smiling face is, Benghazi is just about politics to the left. Just as I said many times, everything is only politics to the Left. That’s all it ever was. The four dead Americans, the heroes, the negligence of government response, the lying and coverup, the lack of accountability and responsibility…. only politics matter in the end, beginning, middle, or investigation. All politics all the time.

But soon after they turned their attention to another important real issue, Bridgegate and Chris Christie. So bury Benghazi, but Bridgegate has more legs than a centipede to them.

This comes as the left declared another story dead in the last few weeks: the IRS scandal. But may “Bridgegate” live on in infamy forever. This says all anyone needs to know about the Progressives — or whatever name they call themselves today.

So a pundit makes the gloomy point about Benghazi fading and the left stands up, cheers and jumps for joy. Says all you need to know.

Never forget.

RightRing | Bullright

Holder: what AG got treatment like that?

First, what initiated Holder’s comments was the exchange with (Tx)Rep. Louie Gohmert:

“I realize that contempt is not a big deal to our attorney general, but it is important that we have proper oversight,” Gohmert said. He was referring to the House of Representatives holding Holder in contempt of Congress in 2012 for refusing to release documents related to the Fast and Furious scandal.

“You don’t want to go there, buddy! You don’t want to go there, okay,” said an angry Holder.

“I don’t want to go there?” Gohmert responded.

“You should not assume that that is not a big deal to me,” Holder said.

 

So Holder went right out to publicly protest it. Here is Holder pleading his, and Obama’s, unprecedented victim status to Al Sharptons’ National Action Network.

Holder on Gohmert exchange: ‘What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? — Daily Caller

“I’m pleased to note that the last five years have been defined by significant strides and by lasting reforms,” said Holder at the conference of black activists, before improvising “even in the face, even in the face, of unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly, and divisive adversity.”

“If you don’t believe that, if you look at the way, forget about me, forget about me, if you look at the way the attorney general of the United States was treated yesterday by a House Committee, it had nothing to do with me, forget that, what attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

He added, “What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?”

Sure you’re the ONLY one…and its just because you’re black. (do I have a bridge for you)
Hey Eric, how about Gonzales or John Ashcroft, and Bush just for starters? Gonzales was practically burned at the stake. The difference is Republicans went after Gonzales too.

Now Holder complains about unprecedented treatment to the same groups on the Left that railed against Gonzales for firing US attorneys, calling for his resignation & impeachment.

All you have to do is research the Gonzales firing of the federal prosecutors and you’ll find the hearings, and press coverage.

Dems didn’t get up and walk out in protest of the treatment Gonzales received, and neither did Republicans. Dems piled on and, more importantly, the Republicans didn’t protest. Instead, some Repubs joined Schumer and those on the left calling for his resignation.

That isn’t ancient history. For Holder to act as if he was the only guy to get this “treatment” from congress is alternative reality.
 

Open Congress .org / Schumer:

    Calls for A.G. Gonzales to step down
    In March 2007, Sen. Schumer called for the resignation of Attorney General Gonzales. Among his reasons that he cited were lack a respect for the “the rule of law and the Constitution”, specifically, the Bush administration U.S. attorney firings controversy, and the recent scandals surrounding “FBI’s illegal snooping into people’s private lives”

How about Keith Ellison on impeaching white Cheney:

“It is beneath his dignity in order for him to answer any questions from the citizens of the United States. That is the very definition of totalitarianism, authoritarianism and dictatorship.”

“If Libby gets pardoned,” Ellison said, “then he should not have the cover of the Fifth Amendment. He’s going to have to come clean and tell the truth. Now, he could get Gonzales-itis, you know, with 71 lapses of memory within a two-hour period.”

“Gonsales-itis”….sounds pretty racist.

But Ellison also compared Bush to Adolf Hitler in one rant, following Dick Durbin’s lead.

Ellison also compared Bush and 9/11 to how the Reichstag fire was used “as pretext to impose police powers” – presumably with his trusty Attorney General spreading the fire.

After all Eric Holder has done to subvert justice, he is the last person who can claim victim status. He’s like the school bully crying that he’s being bullied. He claims to be “advancing the cause of justice”. And by any relative comparison, he is a whining, elitist radical.

More next post
RightRing | Bullright

Obama’s Biggest Lie

You might wonder, “which one?”. Well, there are many to choose from like ObamaCare, “if you like your plan you can keep it”. Notice Harry Reid can call all the victims liars, but yet can’t defend the central lie to Obama’s signature issue of his residency.

Or maybe the one about “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, period.

Or maybe it is one of the related lies that ObamaCare is going to reduce the debt. Or maybe it is where he said we will save 2500 a year per family on healthcare.

Or maybe it was that string of yarns about Benghazi, claiming he called it terrorism before blaming an obscure video.

Or the recent declaration of not a smidgeon of corruption in IRS.

No, even those whoppers and others still do not rise the level of the biggest lie. But it is not even well hidden. It’s blatantly obvious in front of the public every day.

His oath is the big lie. To “faithfully execute the office“… and “to the best of my ability“. He he has broken both parts, which is the central premise of it. It makes the oath his biggest lie yet. Oh, maybe we will find something to rival it, but it will be tough to find something that central and important.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

To the best of his ability, he defies the Constitution. The only thing he is willing to defend is himself and his political interests. He stood in front of a joint Congress in the SOTU and boldly declared he would circumvent Congress to a standing ovation. How much more defiant can one be? Since he had done exactly that countless times already, there was all the more reason to take him seriously.

Even Georgetown’s Jonathon Turley took issue with his conduct, in a hearing(3hr) in December.

“In fairness of Milbank, I was indeed arguing that President Obama had violated the Take Care Clause and was placing himself above the law in these instances.” – Turley said of his Decemnber testimony.

Five years into his residency, he announces to the nation that Congress is irrelevant. They applaud him. Turley later also expressed his reaction to that.

I think that we’ve become a nation of enablers. We are turning a blind eye to a fundamental change in our system. I think many people will come to loathe that they remained silent during this period.

TURLEY: I’m afraid this is beginning to border on a cult of personality for people on the left. I happen to agree with many of President Obama’s policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do.

And I think that many people will look back at this period in history and see nothing but confusion as to why people remained so silent when the president asserted these types of unilateral actions. You have a president who is claiming the right to basically rewrite or ignore or negate federal laws. That is a dangerous thing. It has nothing to do with the policies; it has to do with politics.

But what we’re seeing now is the usurpation of authority that’s unprecedented in this country. “

O-jump suit
So you would think this biggest lie would be taken pretty seriously, getting quite a reaction. But it seems to be ignored. The one lie that needs addressed and ties to the other things he’s done, all the scandals, to the office and public, to the job itself. But the one everyone in Washington seems to willfully ignore.

To believe Obama now “requires the willing suspension of disbelief”.
“This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”

Rogue tyrants and dictators get resolutions and sanctions for their behavior. What response has Obama’s central lie gotten? If they are just waiting for the next one, we’ve already seen the biggest lie, upon which others are built.

If this isn’t the biggest one yet, then what is?

JAMES MONROE, MARCH 4, 1817, INAUGURAL ADDRESS:
“It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty.
Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found.
The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin.”
[- Bill Federer — www.americanminute.com ]

RightRing | Bullright

Dr. files terrorism complaint w/ Congress against Obama

Egyptian Doctor Files Terrorism Complaint With U.S. Congress Against Barack Obama

The Egyptian media is reporting that Dr. Sadek Raouf Ebeid has filed a complaint with the U.S. Congress accusing Barack Obama of using U.S. tax dollars to fund Terrorism in Egypt.

February 27, 2014 — Western Journalism

Editor’s note: This video was originally posted, edited, and subtitled by shoebat.com.

The charges brought against Malik Obama by Dr. Sadek Raouf Ebeid and his attorney in Egypt have now been brought to the attention of tens of millions of Arabs.

Above is a short clip from a 10 O’clock news broadcast by El-Qahera wal Nas (Egypt and its people).

As it turns out, Dr. Ebeid is now based in Tempe, Arizona, right in our back yard. He has been demanding for some time now that Congress investigate Obama and his brother Malik over their heavily documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, as well as Obama’s use of taxpayer dollars to fund terrorism in Egypt.

To get more details about Dr. Ebeid’s concerns, read his personal letter to House Speaker John Boehner.

H/T to Pepp

Lucy, someone has some ‘splaining to do on Obnoxious-care

GOP Refer Constituents’ Obamacare Queries Back to Administration

Sunday, 16 Jun 2013
Newsmax

By Audrey Hudson

The Obama administration has failed to let Republicans in Congress know how Obamacare will affect their constituents, forcing lawmakers to essentially push the call-forward button on questioning phone calls flooding their offices.
While congressional offices in Washington focus on passing laws, it’s up to the thousands of district offices all over the country to help voters navigate Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs.
Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah says he already has dedicated staff members to deal with the new healthcare law but will have to use the Obama administration to handle the overflow of phone calls.
“I’m sure there will be an uptick in that, but all we can do is pass them back to the Obama administration. The ball’s in their court. They’re responsible for it,” Chaffetz told The Hill.
A recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll shows a majority of Americans and two-thirds of those uninsured still aren’t sure how Obamacare will affect them.
“Given that we come from Kansas, it’s much easier to say, ‘Call your former governor,’” said Republican Rep. Tim Huelskamp, referring to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, the former governor now overseeing the Obamacare implementation.
Some Republicans are prepared to go the extra mile for their constituents, despite their disdain for the new law that takes effect in January.
Republican Rep. David Schweikert of Arizona says he plans to hold town meetings to help small businesses and individuals prepare for all of the new regulations.
“We’re going to play them absolutely straight,” Schweikert said. “We’re going to invite some experts, and they’re going to explain what is going to help and what is going to hurt.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obamacare-republicans-constituents/2013/06/16/id/510171

In essence, Obama and Democrats now expect Republicans to be sales agents for OabamaCare, walk constituents through it, and explain it. It’s absurd.

They could not get one vote for ObamaCare from Republicans and yet push off responsibility to explain(read sell) it to their constituents. That’s like forcing the critic of snake oil to get on stage and show people how it works.

Anyway, all those questions are going to tax the congressmen’s offices to the limit.

While they should refer questions to the administration, don’t expect results.  The administration will not answer them either, they’ll push it off on others. It’s what big-government elitists and bureaucrats do. Kick the can is their game.

And we know because neither Obama nor Democrats have been able to explain or defend OhamaCare thus far — as the costs continue to soar. Their response now is “its the law of the land“. All they wanted was to force it down people’s throats so they had no choice, and to say “its the law”. Once you buy the car, the salesman is not interested in hearing about the problems with it.(he’s working on his next sale)

Egocentric Obama and Chicago

Nevermind that the war room and world headquarters of this regime are really in Chicago.
So is the basis of practically everything, especially style. DC is just the satelite office. The bigest import under Obama is Chicago politics.

March 11, 2013 – American Thinker

The Chicago Roots of President Obama’s Leadership Style

By Michael Bargo Jr.

Speaker Boehner and the Republican House are frustrated that they can’t get President Obama or Senate leader Reid to compromise with them.

The regular rules of order in Congress are that the committees hold hearings, both parties have input into the writing of legislation, and eventually the Senate and House leaders have a conference to come to mutually agreeable terms. This conference report results in a bill that is submitted to the president for signing.

But the president doesn’t seem to follow the old established rules. He wants the speaker to visit the White House, meet with him and his inner circle, and, particularly with regard to issues of spending, sign an unconditional surrender.

Analysts have seen this as proof of Obama’s totalitarian ambitions or an inflated political ego. Others characterize it as a sure sign that he is pursuing socialism.

While the president’s behavior can be used to support all of these descriptions, the real answer may be none of these. Those who seek to understand President Obama may benefit from studying the governing tactics of Chicago’s Mayor Daley I. These have been thoroughly described in biographies of Daley. //…

Once these recommendations “arranged” by Mayor Daley became law, the City Council then became “little more than an advisory body.

The fawning news media have not discussed this power-grab. Budgets reveal “who gets what,”vi and Obama doesn’t want the public to know the details.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/03/the_chicago_roots_of_president_obamas_leadership_style.html#ixzz2NFDc3c8x

American Pharaoh is a good name for it. ‘Chicago does DC’; it is like Daley on steroids.

Wiki-Bio:
“[Valerie Jarrett] was Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Richard Daley, during which time (1991) she hired Michelle Robinson, then engaged to Barack Obama, away from a private law firm.” And Obama even had Bill Daley as chief of staff for a stint.

It is nothing short of Chicago expanding its operations to Washington. Remember the guy who was going to cleanup Washington politics and bring transparency? “Give us that good ol’ Chicago transparency.” Now we got the rebooted campaign rerouted through Chicago’s outfit, and the brownshirt network coming to a street corner near you.

Spendaholics Anonymous

Obama Fiscal Cliff

The biggest issue of our time is the debt and our budget problems. Now imagine a president comes out and says I will not negotiate?

In the campaign, Obama gave us lectures about what he would do to work with others and compromise. It was just talk though. Now he says he will not negotiate over the debt ceiling. In fact, what he wanted was unilateral power to raise the debt ceiling by himself. Screw what the people say or what congress wants. He wanted to usurp the power unto himself.

President Not is  laying out his campaign once again.

My name is Barack Obama, and I’m chief of spendaholics. There is nothing anyone can do to stop me. I will not listen; I will not negotiate; I will not stop spending as I want to.

Huff Po reports

While Obama insisted he was “very open to compromise” in future talks, he emphasized he would not negotiate with Congress over the debt limit.

I will not have another debate with this Congress over the debt ceiling,” Obama said.

 

(Newser Jan 2, 2013 ) – It seems lawmakers on both sides of the aisle can agree on one thing: They don’t deserve a raise. The Senate’s fiscal cliff bill contains a single sentence provision that will stop Congress from getting a scheduled cost-of-living salary bump, Roll Call reports.

President Obama had issued an executive order raising pay for all federal employees, including a $900-a-year bump for Congress, but lawmakers in both houses had pledged to vote it down, the Hill reports, with some wanting to prevent raises for the rest of Washington as well.

“At a time when our country is facing record debt and trillion dollar deficits, the last thing Washington should do is reward itself with a pay increase,” Rob Portman said in a New Year’s Eve statement. Michele Bachmann took it a step further and drafted a bill preventing congressional raises in 2014.

 

As Krauthammer said Jan 4:

Sure, he’ll pretend to care about deficits, especially while running for re-election. But now that he’s past the post, he’s free to be himself – a committed big-government social Democrat.

As he showed in his two speeches this week. After perfunctory nods to debt and spending reduction, he waxed enthusiastic about continued “investments” – i.e. spending – on education, research, roads and bridges, green energy, etc.

Big spending is back in vogue — with no apologies He’s probably busy making out his Christmas wish-list for next year.

The return of Obamastein: the cliffhanger sequel

 

Obama’s thought process: I think I’ll attack Republicans like I dd the Supreme Court and call them names… just before I mention my sterling bipartisan record.

WSJ: Obama Threatened Boehner With Using Inauguration, SOTU Address To Blame GOP

 

By Philip Klein

President Obama has threatened House Speaker John Boehner that if no deal is struck on the “fiscal cliff,” he will use his Inaugural address and State of the Union speech next month to blame Republicans, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Excerpt From The Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. Boehner that if the sides didn’t reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.

At one point, according to notes taken by a participant, Mr. Boehner told the president, “I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?”

“You get nothing,” the president said. “I get that for free.”

Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/obama/2012/12/22/wsj-obama-threatened-boehner-using-inauguration-sotu-address-blame-gop#ixzz2FwBbs83w
 

 
What better place to plot it than in Hawaii? It will be the first attack on Capitol Hill from Hawaii — he’s so full of firsts.

Can’t draw a crowd, Mr President?

Dateline: May 11, 2012

Place: Reno, Nevada

Obama makes speech in couple’s GARAGE… and even they say they might not vote for him

 By Nina Golgowski

In what could be a disastrous photo opportunity for the President’s campaign, Mr Obama spoke to a handful of people in the crucial swing state.

The president’s 15 minute address outside the home of Paul and Val Keller on Friday afternoon, drew a small audience of neighbours and supporters – though even his hosts said they were not sure if they would vote for him in the coming election.

‘So, I need all of you, and everybody who’s watching, to push Congress on their to-do list. Nag ’em until they actually get it done. We need to keep moving this country forward,’ he said.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143321/Obama-makes-speech-couples-GARAGE–hosts-vote-him.html#ixzz1vLxRmsw2