The Great Divorce

This could be a long piece but it doesn’t need to be. Democrats and the left cannot attack Trump on his actions as president. So they attack him for his words.

They want to impeach him for his words and what he says. That would require separating Trump’s words from his deeds, which will take what I call the Great Divorce. The left looks petty playing this word police game. And what hypocrisy that is.

Right Ring | Bullright

Coming to a head of Deep State collusion

So this is what our partners in British press are up to?

No holds Barred: Trump and his troops push for imperial presidency

With his compliant attorney general, the man in the White House is taking aim at the constitutional balance of powers. — [I think they misspelled ‘competent’ AG.]

/….

Congressman Jared Huffman of California said: “It’s a smokescreen, obviously an attempt to change the subject like everything else he does. I almost don’t want to dignify it because it’s so preposterous that any time someone investigates Donald Trump or disagrees with Donald Trump they are being treasonous or they need to be locked up.

“This is a slippery slope to a banana republic if this is where we’re heading. And I think most Americans get that. You just don’t call for your political enemies to be investigated and jailed in the United States,” Huffman said.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/may/19/william-barr-donald-trump-robert-mueller-congress

Imperial what? It doesn’t seem too imperial to me. An Imperial Congress, maybe.

Yet that is exactly what Democrats and the left are doing, and have been doing since even before the election — having their political enemies investigated. Just that we were not to know the depths of this incestuous cabal. Odd to hear British press complaining after allies there were also involved. Pointing the finger back at Trump has gotten a bit old.

And if that were not enough crazy talk for you, consider Nancy Pelosi’s broad smear attack (wrap-up smear) on Trump, saying he “is engaged in a coverup.” She followed that projection by claiming Trump is crying out for his impeachment. If impeachment can swing by the seats of their pants, they even plan to blame Trump for their impeachment scheme.

So, right on cue they are outraged Trump pulled the trigger to declassify documents and have AG Barr, with investigators, look into the real charade and coverup that started the whole cabal. And guess what? It wasn’t Trump that did that!

Last but not least, a congresswoman also said that “we cannot do our job in congress unless we can hold the president accountable.” Accountable for what, their plot and coup?

Now refusing to do their own job in the House, they want to blame that on Trump too.

Right Ring | Bullright

Whistling Past The People

The Democrats are so crazy now that they don’t know what fate awaits them. And maybe they don’t care either. They’re so captive to hatred they think everyone is.

They’ve worn out the language, impeachment is all that is left. They can’t show that they were bluffing. They want to be taken seriously. So they have guys like Ted Lieu and Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler out to score political points, to do the dirty work.

Boy are they about to score some points. Only they don’t know or understand the people. They’ve been so disconnected from the people so long that they could not know.

These Democrat hacks are all dug in on their partisan turf and they’ve exhausted all their veiled threats and now it is time for action. That is the part the people will pay attention to… the actions. When they pull the trigger, they actually believe all the people will be right there with them, but they won’t be.

See, the people never saw the cause for impeachment or the phony investigations from the beginning. Only Dems never figured that out. They assumed people would follow them.

I’ve heard the callers on CSPAN lines. They aren’t all with the Democrats. And Dems are not making a great case for what they are doing. Only that they have had these scorched earth plans all along and they are determined to carry it out. Tom Steyer’s apostles.

At that point people are going to say, “wait a minute!” They’ll think with all the big problems we have and a broken southern border with a broken Congress that won’t do anything about it; with all our critical issues right now; and “this is what your number one priorities are? Count me out!” Then they will think: “I’m not going to be a party to it and you aren’t going to use my sacred vote to do it.”

Now have I got the people figured or what? I could always be wrong but I really don’t think so. I bet people will see all this as a miscarriage or misapplication of justice, and turn tail saying “this is not our agenda.” They’ll think “we the people actually do have a full agenda we voted for. Where is that, what happened to it?”

I think it is about to get pretty interesting and the people do have a last word. If this is what government wants to spend all their time and our resources on, it is insulting. The people also want to hear the other side of the story. Up until now it has been one sided. And the other side of it has all the juicy real stuff people care about. They want to hear it, and when they do…..this impeachment talk is going to look pretty silly.

Right Ring | Bullright

Hillary’s Deep State Of Denial Surfaces Again

On September 17, 2018, Hillary went out to complain about her favorite topic.

“Our Democracy Is In Crisis”

“…republican Party, whose “increasing radicalism and irresponsibility” got the country to where it is and put Trump in the White House.”

“Trump and his cronies do so many despicable things that it can be hard to keep track,” Clinton writes. “I think that may be the point — to confound us, so it’s harder to keep our eye on the ball. The ball, of course, is protecting American democracy. As citizens, that’s our most important charge. And right now, our democracy is in crisis.”

Do try to keep up. We give it our best effort, despite her smokescreens. This is Hillary’s and Democrats’ resistance war on democracy, refusing to accept legitimate election results. Yet she complains about democracy in crisis? She wants to protect democracy?

She has done everything possible in the last 3 1/2 years to destroy democracy.

Now, after the Mueller Report, she couldn’t wait to jump in as Hypocrite of The US — HOTUS –- and self-anointed flame thrower of the Left.

Beginning not the end — media event.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report is only the beginning of a reckoning on election meddling, not the end, and “raises some serious questions,” Hillary Clinton said Tuesday.

If elected officials believe that he did [commit high crimes and misdemeanors] “then I think it is the obligation of Congress to put forward the articles of impeachment,” Clinton said at a … NYC Time 100 Summit, where she called for the full, unredacted report to be released.

Clinton also said the Department of Justice’s stance that a sitting president can’t be indicted benefited Trump.

I think there’s enough there that any other person who had engaged in those acts would certainly have been indicted,” she said.

I think everything points to you, Hillary. How can you deny that? She is guilty of everything they were trying to hang and frame on Trump, and more.

Then she penned a WaPo op-ed of advice on how to respond.

“But it [Mueller Report] is a road map. It’s up to members of both parties to see where that road map leads — to the eventual filing of articles of impeachment, or not. Either way, the nation’s interests will be best served by putting party and political considerations aside and being deliberate, fair and fearless.”

She seems to think revenge is best served hot. There’s the “road map” thing again. Honk if you saw that one coming. It sure is getting a lot of mileage with Democrats. That’s the yellow brick road to impeachment, or whatever you want to see it as. Fair?

“Second, Congress should hold substantive hearings that build on the Mueller report and fill in its gaps, not jump straight to an up-or-down vote on impeachment. In 1998, the Republican-led House rushed to judgment. That was a mistake then and would be a mistake now.”

So keep building your Tower of Babel. Keep ripping and tearing at anything you can.

“Third, Congress can’t forget that the issue today is not just the president’s possible obstruction of justice — it’s also our national security. After 9/11, Congress established an independent, bipartisan commission to recommend steps that would help guard against future attacks. We need a similar commission today to help protect our elections. This is necessary because the president of the United States has proved himself unwilling to defend our nation from a clear and present danger.

It was just reported that Trump’s recently departed secretary of homeland security tried to prioritize election security because of concerns about continued interference in 2020 and was told by the acting White House chief of staff not to bring it up in front of the president. This is the latest example of an administration that refuses to take even the most minimal, common-sense steps to prevent future attacks and counter ongoing threats to our nation.” …/

”It’s critical to remind the American people that Democrats are in the solutions business and can walk and chew gum at the same time.”

We need to protect our elections from you. Your five-alarm fire no one heard.

Does she have some nerve? Lecturing Trump on failures to keep the country safe when Obama was AWOL on all of it. She dithered in the wings. Obama was the president when all this Russia meddling , and Russianeering, went on. Solutions, don’t make me laugh.

Oh, she was a part of it. She and Obama thought they could tie their Russia problem around Trump’s neck and that would be that. Now she wants another commission? How about instead of that, we look into what Hillary, her campaign and the maestro of dark arts, Barry, did about the Russia meddling problem as it happened?

Then look at what his administration officials did to assail the problem. Of course then we will see what Obama’s administration did against Trump – and didn’t do against Russia. Something never done before, aiming the entire intelligence apparatus on Trump.

“We have to get this right. The Mueller report isn’t just a reckoning about our recent history; it’s also a warning about the future. Unless checked, the Russians will interfere again in 2020, and possibly other adversaries, such as China or North Korea, will as well. This is an urgent threat. Nobody but Americans should be able to decide America’s future. And, unless he’s held accountable, the president may show even more disregard for the laws of the land and the obligations of his office.

Beaming from her mount hypocrisy. Get it right, when they made all but certain people, including media, had gotten it all wrong until now? Get the injustice right?

A reckoning but she doesn’t want the real truth out. She wants a complete cover up of what she and Obama did to try to undermine our election. Russia couldn’t do what Hillary did. Maybe they should have worried about the Russians instead of trying to use them as hand towels for their plot? Urgent, it is urgent now? Partners in crime.

Right, no one but Americans should decide our elections. And we did! But you couldn’t accept the results. Your plan fell short. So then came the sedition of you and your Deep State allies afterward. You had to keep all the pressure on Trump as a diversion.

Holding Trump “accountable,” for what, winning an election? He didn’t do that. And Americans decided the election not Russia or Putin. But nice try.

Disregard for the laws of the land? You can show no more disrespect or disregard for the law of the land than not accepting the election results. Let’s not even discuss your other careless disregard for laws of the land, your effort to circumvent them, and your egregious obstruction of justice. That is when justice officially died. It was already on its deathbed, but you gave it the last push.

Then you acted as if you were the victim all along, rather than chief offender of lady justice. Your husband on a tarmac meeting Loretta Lynch was yet another sinister highlight on your trail to guarantee that the injustice occurred.

Finally she lectures on:

“A crime was committed against all Americans, and all Americans should demand action and accountability. Our founders envisioned the danger we face today and designed a system to meet it.”

Trump committed no crime here. You did. And that system our founders designed is the electoral college, which you want to abolish. (because you lost an election) Does that make sense? But thanks for reminding us all how fortunate we are you lost the election, even especially with all the Deep State and Obama administration’s help. Oh, and thanks for the helpful impeachment primer. I guess that makes you the expert.

Democracy is under siege, but guess by whom? Do the letters HRC ring a bell?

Hillary slipped into the Deep State of Denial somewhere in 2016 and never returned, only briefly surfacing at opportune times to target her enemies. But her operation secure.

Right Ring | Bullright

Boehner is actually surprised

Who’d have thunk…but he shouldn’t be shocked.

To the latest utterance from Boehner that he is surprised by “‘the boldness of the Iranians’ in exerting their influence”, Alan Keyes takes him to task on his ignorance.

Willfully or not, John Boehner studiously ignored the background and implications of Obama’s coherent, consistent “foreign policy”. (I hedge that phrase to suggest its use in a different sense, one that refers to policies dictated by goals and allegiances foreign to America’s principles and hostile to our material and moral good.) Sadly, I am not surprised to find that Mr. Boehner’s belated recognition of “the boldness of the Iranians” is not accompanied by an honest acknowledgment of the boldness of Obama’s treasonous betrayals of the constitutional self-government of the American people. — Dr Alan Keyes

Read more at http://barbwire.com/2015/04/08/1000-boehners-surprise-is-just-incredible/

It is worth a read, though it is no surprise Keyes has been calling for an impeachment-of-last-resort for Obama. Of course the current realities and laws of probability of that happening, or Boehner bringing it up in his quest for normalcy, are at about zero. The main reason being it is not politically palatable. But I wonder how politically palatable it is to be surprised by Iran’s bold actions or statements? (see Casablanca) Is Boehner living in some alternative reality?

In the event of impeachment, all the dastardly deeds of Obama and his administration would spill out and flood the public conscience. Boehner can’t have that. In his brain, it would not be good for politics either. So basically whatever Obama cares to do, and whatever he brings upon the country, he knows he has carte blanche for whatever he wants. The wicked irony is that all options are on the table in Obama’s scheming world. But Boehner must accept some accountability for those results.

Please note: impeachment has been taken off the table due to lack of public demand.

Dems bust the BS meter

Dems warn backers: Obama could go to prison!

‘Republicans think this is their chance to destroy the president’
WND

A mass email from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Sunday tried to drum up support by warning President Obama is in danger of impeachment, or even worse, jail time.

The email – with subject line “Impeachment? Prison??? – Sign now, stand with President Obama” – claims Obama “took bold, courageous action this week to fix our nation’s broken immigration system,” but now is “under attack.”

“Republicans think this is their chance to destroy the president,” the email reads. “They’re threatening lawsuits, shutdowns, impeachment? One Republican congressman even suggested President Obama be thrown in jail!”

The DCCC then implores Democrats to show they’re “still standing with President Obama” and “have his back” by signing an online petition.

Former Alaskan GOP Senate Candidate Joe Miller noticed the email and posted it on his blog, “Restoring Liberty”:

Read more http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/dems-warn-backers-obama-could-go-to-prison/

H/T to Lafayette Angel (on her blog)

Let’s get this straight, Obama creates a Constitutional crisis (nightmare), not to mention other abuses and scandals, and now they are using that as a fundraiser drive. ‘Party!’

Mike Brown was a street thug and bully turned thief (or vice versa). In his proclaimed victimhood, they parlayed that fame into rioting and looting hundreds of businesses and destroying properties, and a Government shakedown. But smear it with sheen of legitimacy. And now? Now they will want something in return for their latest efforts. It is a cycle. That’s why you do not negotiate with terrorists, they’ll be back looking for more.

Obama is the same as those other radical miscreants. How could you negotiate with him? His theme is creating and using a problem to extort it for gain — be it political, power, or other purpose. There is even the potential chance the gain Obama and the DCCC now seek was the motivation for his action in the first place.

But then the Liberals can turn cop killers into moral heroes and examples for our youth. (Mumia Abu-Jamal) Imagine what they can create with O’s record of behavior?

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.

Obama’s Casablanca problem

The infamous scene from Casablanca is the line “shocked that there’s gambling going on here.” No one could be that naive, it would seem. I’ve said my Casablanca face is wearing thin. How many times can you feign shock when the reality is you should have expected it? It’s tough to remain surprised anymore.

That brings me to the point in this post. Obama’s problem; it’s not necessarily a problem with reality. The problem is his reaction to reality. His perception is a problem.

Now we have a large percentage of people in the US that are not shocked anymore by the scandals, his rhetoric, the conditions and our policies, or even by the condition of the country. People are beyond that, they are in Casablanca now.

We also have a saying: “I’m from Missouri,” the “show me” state. When we’ve gotten to the point where we expect corruption and cannot give politicians any benefit of doubt, much less trust them, then we are in a dark place. But where we are not is the state of denial. At this point, they’d have to show us something, consistently. Obama speechifies about being consistent. He’s consistently wrong.

In denial seems to be where Obama is though. In denial that we are on to him and see through him, that his policies are not the cure he thinks they are. In denial about the causes and effects of real problems. Denial about reality.

The old line on Russia was “trust but verify.” We can’t trust politicians and can’t verify anything….except our reason not to believe them. For some unknown reason this does not seem to bother Captain Denial. He seems to relish that we don’t trust him, just as long as we can’t trust anyone else either. It’s fine with him.

But now he is talking it up by saying the dangdest things to the dangdest people. He asks his base of borderless Brahmas, when they demand he take more executive action and decrease deportation for illegal aliens, “You’re not going to get me impeached, are you?” Does he now see a Constitutional limit on his executive credit card? No, it’s an excuse. He claimed he has lots of other stuff to do too.(and more EOs) He’s reminding them that they brung him to the dance, and need to go home with him at the end. (as Rangel says)

As for the rest of us, in growing numbers, we’re in Casablanca. Nothing he does should shock us anymore. But we aren’t alone, the rest of the world doesn’t believe Obama much either. For a faith-based candidate and a faith-based presidency, that says something.

RightRing | Bullright

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.

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?

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

Case for Impeachment grows … as does Obama’s tyranny

At the very time the case for impeachment and strategy grows, Obama is defiantly escalating his executive order”-war on America. He threatens running executive order end runs around anything in his way, with nothing to fear or restrict him, and hired White House advisers to pursue his objective — an all out assault on our Constitution. He’s long been at war with the Bill of Rights.

But some of his opposition put all their emphasis on the Senate’s ability to convict.

Obama’s regime views Snowden as a traitor and talk continues about what to do with him. While concerned about Snowden, his own actions poking his finger in the eye of the Constitutional republic reveal a different story. One of calculated, deliberate opposition and defiance to the Constitution. So much hypocrisy.

[Daily Caller] “One of the things I’ll be emphasizing in this meeting,” Obama said, “is the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need.”
I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” the president asserted, “and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”
“And I’ve got a phone,” he continued, “that allows me to convene Americans from every walk of life — nonprofits, businesses, the private sector, universities — to try to bring more and more Americans together around what I think is a unifying theme, making sure that this is a country where if you work hard, you can make it.” — See Video

Read more

Did he just say he’d use executive orders on the economy? Jobs by Executive Order.

A very defiant Oval Office Occupant threatening to use more executive power to usurp Congress and/or the will of the people. And promising to dial up whatever support for his executive order power he can. Why not just do that by EO, too?

RightRing | Bullright

Panic: DNC sends Paranoid email Defending Obama from Impeachment Possibility

Dems’ obsession with Impeachment….

pundit from another planet

Patrick Howley reports:  The Democratic National Committee (DNC) sent out a paranoid email Saturday evening urging supporters to vote for Democrats so that Republicans can’t impeach President Obama.

The email, subject line “Impeachment,” was sent to Obama for America supporters, imploring them to contribute to the DNC’s 2014 efforts. “What do these people all have in common?,” the email asked, featuring quotes from Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, Rep. Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan, and Rep. Blake Farenthold of Texas discussing the possibility of impeaching Obama for one of his numerous instances of presidential misconduct.

View original post 159 more words

A job for NSA

Here’s a real challenge for NSA. If you are so good, then check into Obama’s records. How about college records for starters?

You do check on threats to national security, right? Well, that would be Obama, like when he is over talking off-mic to Russian presidents promising “flexibility”.

Oh right, you are busy with that database of everyone’s phone records, and mining internet activity. That does leave little extra time.

Obama’s records are probably the one thing our illustrious “leaker” doesn’t have on his thumb drive.

“Your mission, should you accept it…”

Speaking of self-destructing:
President Obnoxious says he will be leaving office “sometime in the next 3 1/2 years”…

Do you think we can narrow that time frame down a little? No time like the present!
“Targeted”, yea that’s just the word I was looking for.

“Executive Cleanup in Isle One”

Never let a good title go to waste, so I won’t. Not to worry because we do have a mess of presidential proportion. You know it is bad when O’Reilly scolds people about using the word scandal because we just don’t have enough information or know, presumably, “IF” it is a scandal.

By coincidence, at MSNBC Lawrence O’Donnell said the same thing on the same night. Wow, everyone cautioning not to label the presscapade thing a scandal. We have to wait and see. And the IRS thing, at least now they have the report. Barry was saying before its release that “if this happened” (big if, they admitted it) “then there has to be accountability”. Where did I see this movie before? I’m sure I have, several times.

Then over on CNN, Wolf asks congressman Chaffetz if he thinks Benghazigate is an impeachable ordeal that the congressman seemed to be calling for it? Chaffetz corrected Wolf saying we cannot take it off the table. He added that impeachment was not their motivation or immediate objective. Of course that is lost on mainstream media.

To paraphrase them: ‘you mean the door is wide open to impeachment? – Wow!‘ Sure, it always is unless they forgot about our Constitution — that irrelevant ancient relic. For Bush, it was always an option, wasn’t it?

Now the Obama regime has its share of messes. Its like being at the grocery store seeing a couple of separate kids drop a jar on the floor. Whether it was intentional or not does not change the size of the mess. Someone has to clean it up. They may quickly run to the next isle but the mess remains. Hence, the “cleanup” reference.

So the AP story hits them where they live and breathe: in the back channels of the media — where stories are born and die. Having a grand inquisition into their phone records does not thrill them. But its okay when all the questions and heavy-handed government measures are used against the right, say snooping into their tax records, or detailed information about gun owners, or posting addresses of handgun permit holders. Then they overlook the dictocrat measures.

But sum it up, there is a heck of a mess, through how many departments and government? It’s a walking talking scandal from one end to the other. And some hesitate to overuse the word scandal. I will use it liberally. Sure some of it may not be a full-fledged scandal, but so much of it is. Taken together it paints the picture of a government out of touch with the realities around it. In fact, all that seems to matter to this government is politics and the regime’s Alinsky-style tactics, and their appetite to use them to their advantage.

All part of the same strategy, whether it be never let a crisis go to waste, Benghazi, terrorism, the energy problems, the war on terror, or its own duties that people rely on. And along with politicizing all parts of government, he has also scandalized much of it. Now we are cautioned about overusing the word scandal. But isn’t it just Scandalicious?

It is one big mess, and it all summons the president and his spokespeople, frequently, to the podium to make a non-statement about it trying to explain it away. Then, on top of it, we the people always get lectured. (funny how that works)

How many scandals or messes are there? I’ll try making a partial list. I don’t care if some say they aren’t all scandals, they are all symptoms at least of an out of control government that cannot be accountable for its own laundry. They usually have the nerve to turn the blame on the people, or others, as if that solves the problems messes. The word scandal is not an issue with this overwhelming mess.

There is fast and furious – dead officers and dead Mexicans
Gun-running here and in M/E
There is Benghazi
There is the IRS scandal
There is the phone records of AP reporters
There is the justice department — Black Panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia.
There are the green scandals.
There is Solyndra and countless others, daily
there is the GM deal
there is the bailout fallout.
there is the stimulus — or is it stimulae or stim-u-lie
there is the EPA
there is the State Department and its handling of Benghazi
Don’t forget the labeling of the Fort Hood attack workplace violence.
There are his statements like “you didn’t build that” — some might argue they aren’t really scandals, but its all in his presidential excuses or fallout of such statements. And there are a slew of them.
There was the secret service one – pretty amusing one
there were the innuendo investigations of Petraeus and other military officials.
there were the Hagel problems and the Brennan appointment problems.
there is the drone campaign
There is the overall lack of accountability for anything he has done. (a big and important one)
There is the old racism canard… always sprouting new chutes.
There is ObamaCare and ‘pay to play’ (several others nested under the main one)
There is the birth control and contraceptive one — with lawsuits.
There is the “death panel” one and the denial. “”There are no death panels in ObamaCare…”
There is the main argument (and court battle) over ObamaCare “mandates”- states and otherwise
There is the battle over whether ObamaCare uses a tax or penalty
There are his many too radical for prime time appointments.
Selling F-16’s and tanks to Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhoods running Egypt.
Involvement in Arab Spring from beginning
Libya intervention from the beginning
The entire department of energy under Chu (the man is a walking scandal himself)
The Van Jones connection appointment
The statements to Russian Prez to be more flexible after election
The Keystone Pipeline – ongoing
The moratorium and battle of drilling
The sequester concocted by the president. (scandal and micro-scandal)
Telling governmental bodies to make the sequester cuts obvious to people.
The release of prisoners and blaming the sequester
Threatening cuts to border enforcement
The blaming of the sequester for TSA and every other governmental failure:
i.e. “Its the sequester, stupid!”
Fort Hood – workplace violence
Labor department and Boeing
Military pay and benefit cuts
His military cutting agenda
Spending and priorities
War on terror and Afghanistan become overseas contingency operations
Gun Control, handling the shootings in Newtown.
Fiscal Cliff — coming soon to a theatre near you.

Do I think I overused the word scandal, not a chance. The guy scandalizes his own proposals. Obama is one big radical scandal, and the more people that see him and his administration as such, the better for we the people. But don’t lecture US on using the word scandal or pointing out his failures.

Or… maybe its just time to replace the word scandal with the word Impeachment?

The ripe fruit of Impeachment

The growing case for impeachment of Obama

What constitutional experts say about high crimes, misdemeanors

2//10/2013
by Chelsea Schilling — WND 

Should Barack Hussein Obama, the 44th president of the United States, be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors?

It’s not a question yet being asked or debated in the Big Media. But it is a question being addressed by some members of Congress, by an increasing number of pundits by activists on the left and the right – and for more than one or two alleged constitutional offenses.

Some of those who have broached the subject include Reps. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.; Walter Jones, R-N.C.; Trey Radel, R-Fla.; Steve Stockman; former Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas; former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio; Fox News’ Mike Huckabee; former assistant U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy; left-leaning investigative reporter Dave Lindorff; talk-radio host Mark Levin; former House Speaker and presidential candidate Newt Gingrich; author and columnist Pat Buchanan and others.

Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The U.S. House of Representatives has the power to commence impeachment proceedings. If the House adopts an impeachment resolution, the U.S. Senate conducts a trial and determines whether to convict or acquit. If an official is convicted, he or she is removed from the position and may be barred from holding office again. The official may also face criminal prosecution.

Only two U.S. president have been impeached by the House: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. However, both presidents were acquitted in the Senate. President Richard Nixon resigned before the full House had voted on his impeachment.

This powerful legislative check on executive and judicial wrongdoing is reserved for the most egregious offenses against the U.S. Constitution and the republic.

During the debates of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment: “[S]ome provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

In the Federalist Papers (No. 65), Alexander Hamilton wrote that a president should be impeached for “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.”

WND assembled a bipartisan panel of top constitutional experts to evaluate 12 popular arguments for impeaching Obama.

“Congress is not the serf of some lord of the manor in the White House.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/you-asked-for-it-obama-impeachment/#lAuYgv6UEHTvxKsc.99