It’s personal – note of discontent…. aka “friends”

On hurling invective, insults …and shooting the moon.

It has become personal now. Politics has become personal, very personal.

Brainy Quotes:

“When people start hurling insults at you, you know their minds are closed and there’s no point in debating. You disengage yourself as quickly as possible from the situation.” — Judith Martin

That is usually good advice. However, there are times you cannot just ignore it.

Normally that is the case, but these are not normal times. Nor are the politics normal. As for the people, let’s see how “normal” they are? Who knew how abnormal it can get?

Prelude

A good friend and blogger was recently the target of a drive by that made little sense to me. At first, I chalked it up to spilling vindictive insults at someone for the sake of it. The question was why? This is not a tedious back and forth but a street level synopsis. I don’t often go into personal matters but one must make exceptions when necessary.

Though when someone uses you as an example of their perceived problem with the political climate, it warrants your attention. First, a couple things to keep in mind: what is said on a blog post and what is said in comments and conversation are different. IOW, when someone makes a person or group of people the target of their wrath in a post, singling you out, it is on a higher level. When comments include their wrath it is a lesser degree. That’s how I quantify it anyway.

I’ve said before “on this blog I don’t claim “no bias” and do not provide or guarantee a politics free or politically correct zone.” So there is no hypersensitivity about a person’s feelings, including mine. Sometimes in criticizing others it reflects on our own shortfalls.

Friends, to example….to straw men

From the piece found here at Pesky Truth.

“This is just one example of how the rift between Trump supporters and Cruz supporters has come between people who used to be friends. We all called ourselves “conservatives” and supposedly believed in the same smaller government, lower taxes, strong military and so on. But then the 2016 presidential election intruded. People chose sides. That’s normally not a big deal, but this time it’s different – very different.”

Choosing political sides is one thing choosing friends another. Choosing is the operative word. We define ourselves. Like Cruz’s lines,”Donald said” this or that and “this is who Donald is.” But who is Ted? That’s the problem. Who knew it was controversial?

What drew me to the article on a blog I occasionally read in the first place was the title. It was about “what happened to people who USED to be our friends?” So there I am ignorantly reading an article when it references a good friend of mine sort of indirectly, at first. I expected from the title maybe it was a self-reflective thing. It was anything but. It was a slash and burn (IMO) about certain people he personally called into question.

People talk about “feeling the Bern,” but I was really feeling the burn.

The author was someone I even associated with as a contributor at another site. I thought I’d call him a friend, as others. That’s where it gets dicey… ‘I thought.’ I allow that rarely people agree on everything. Sometimes, as the quote above says, you just disassociate with others. So there are times when we should back away from the keyboards; and then there are times when we should take to the keyboard.

So it was to my surprise when I read the piece that skewered a friend as his “example,” along with her associates and participants, as “farm animals”. Later in one one of his comments he labeled them, presumably myself included, as flawed.

Here are some selected excerpts to his piece.

“The Trumpanzees have taken on the demeanor of Donald Trump. They lie, disparage, insult and ridicule Cruz supporters as if we were *ignorant rubes who couldn’t tie shoes without help.” – [*remember that, it returns]

Straw men have invaded the internet, everywhere, even among “friends”.

“I just happened to stop by one of the blogs that I used to think of as a “friendly” site. I thought that we were friends and I can recall commiserating with her when her husband passed away….

…but some of the miscreants that she’s gathered around her look like a Who’s Who of the Animal Farm.”

So we are called names. Trumpanzees: or anyone not digesting Cruz, as delivered. Then the farm animal reference. And we’re flawed, according to his comments. Might as well say flawed farm animals.

“Why would someone show only a reference to Cruz having made only ONE truthful statement?”

His piece was complete with a pasted part of her article and the date. Then he took issue with it and said

“You’ll also note that they provide no LINK to the PolitiFact site (so you can’t immediately verify the statement).”

He went on about her post without linking to it. So he put obvious links to his referred content but couldn’t bother to link or pingback the article he based an entire piece on.
Fair? I digress. This would notify the person that: one, he used their material; two that he did a subsequent attack. One set of ethics for others, another for him.

Then he took issue with what she put up.

“ the point here is that you shouldn’t use something like this unless a comparison to your candidate comes off looking good. “ / “Isn’t it only FAIR to COMPARE the two gentlemen?” / “Why would someone show only a reference to Cruz having made only ONE truthful statement?”

See, the thing about a blog is the author writes or includes what they want, it’s that simple. Unless he is trying to employ some “fairness doctrine.” He is citing a fairness standard?

I didn’t plan on going into the political nuance of what the author had in mind. The insult and invective was my focus here. You might note his title started with “what happened to people who USED to be our friends?” What of them?

Finally, in closing he refers to the ignorance of us, and or, Trump supporters. Apparently, it is open season, who knew. I’ll have to check the regulations.

“The most satisfying thing about this is that the readers of Pesky Truth know the TRUTH, those that frequent that other blog don’t. They’re so pumped full of Trump’s lies they’re oblivious to the truth – let’s let them stay that way – after all, “ignorance is bliss,” so they’ll remain blissful in their ignorance.
Garnet92.”

Again, I am not parsing politics. I’ll do my own politics in other posts. The personal assault was the subject. So we’re flawed, weak, miscreants, farm animals, and chimpanzees crossbred with Trump supporters. So add ignorant or ignorance to the list.

BTW: the same guy did one of his lengthy trademark satires, if you are so inclined. I did wonder exactly who he had in mind in the hog farm, redneck, hillbilly saga?

Links to politi-fact sites but he can’t bother to ping his central source.

And what of the friends part? I guess not. No problem.

RightRing | Bullright

Prophecy

Now you can take or leave what he says, I’m not confirming it, but he has a pretty good summary of this nation over the years. He makes a good case about our condition.

(midway it gets pretty good)

CBS goes off script… what’s in a legacy?

(Photo credit: Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images)

Who is the worst president since WWII?

BySteve Chaggaris | CBS News –July 2, 2014

As if President Obama doesn’t have enough to worry about running the country day-to-day, now his legacy can be added to his laundry list of concerns.

Mr. Obama edges out former President George W. Bush as the worst president since World War II, American voters say, according to a new Quinnipiac Poll released Wednesday.

Thirty-three percent chose Mr. Obama as the worst among the 12 presidents since Harry Truman, with 28 percent choosing George W. Bush and Richard Nixon tallying 13 percent. In 2006, Mr. Bush led the pack with 34 percent over Richard Nixon at 17 percent and Bill Clinton at 16 percent, much higher than the scant 3 percent who currently think Clinton is the worst.

But his legacy was always a top concern. I don’t see how he can add what was his driving force, even if tarnished by all visible recognition.

When asked who the best president is since World War II, 35 percent of American voters chose Ronald Reagan, 18 percent picked Clinton and 15 percent selected John F. Kennedy. Only 8 percent said Mr. Obama was the best since World War II and George W. Bush barely registered on the “best” list with 1 percent.

To add insult to injury for Mr. Obama, more voters say the country would be better off if 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won the election. Forty-five percent feel America would be better off with a President Romney; 38 percent said the country would be worse off. – CBS

What’s amazing is how he helps make Clinton look good. The ridiculed Nixon is way down on the list. But he did resign. There’s a hot tip for Obama’s legacy concerns. If he doesn’t care about the resurrecting Russian Union, Iran’s nuclear breakout, or the new caliphate formed in the Middle East, then how significant is his legacy, relatively speaking? However, I’m sure his golf game has improved, since he didn’t have one before.

It seems to me that some of the stragglers who still think Obama is a good president also think we’d be worse off with Mitt Romney, with nothing to base that on. Yet they cannot seem to find their hand in front of their face.

Win, lose or draw straws

Obama is under the gun. You’d think to hear him talk that conservatives and Republicans are his biggest opposition. Not so according to the Supreme Court’s decisions.

He lost a series of decisions.

Lawyers said the government traditionally averages about a 70 percent winning percentage before the high court. Its advantages are so great that the Justice Department’s chief Supreme Court attorney, the solicitor general, is dubbed the “10th Justice.” — WT

“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,” said George Washington law professor Johnathon Turley.

He suffered a blow on the union decision. The Massachusetts decision on abortion clinic protest restrictions was roundly defeated. While those were not Obama himself it was a defeat for the left. He is the most pro-abortion president we’ve had.

In fact, according to Washington Times, Obama has been “winning just more than a third of the cases in which it was involved.”

But during the 2012-13 term, which began in October and ended Wednesday, the court rejected Mr. Obama’s arguments on property rights, affirmative action, voting rights and other issues.

“Despite some notable victories, the Obama administration has had an unusually poor batting average at the high court,” said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor at UCLA. “Like last year, the Obama administration lost more cases than it won.”

As he is also getting smacked from other places on the world stage — Putin and Russia, polls on his own foreign policy, the Middle East caliphate crunch, the immigration crisis — he dismisses those, yet portrays himself as a victim of Republicans in Congress.

This victim status is highly convenient and critical to his overall strategy. Portraying himself as a victim allows others to play the race card. At a time where he continues to make good on his threats of unilateral action, in spite of getting a smack down from SCOTUS, he now promises even more executive action ahead.

So painting himself the victim is convenient — act like a victim while staging an attack. Democrats encourage unilateral action, and Sen. Durbin says Obama will “borrow power” from Congress on immigration.  Rep. Luis Gutierrez said Tuesday that President Barack Obama has the power to “heal” undocumented immigrants. But what will heal the US?

The “Executive pen” never runs out of ink. And we don’t seem to run out of tolerance.

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.

Poor pitiful Obama…pathetic

Obama’s ‘woe is me’ attitude

By Michael Goodwin \  (excerpt)
June 29, 2014

Facing a horrific expansion of terrorism in the Mideast, a meltdown of public support at home and major rebukes by the Supreme Court, the president remains fixated on No. 1.

“I’m finding lately I just want to say what’s on my mind,” he told a Minneapolis audience Friday, and then ticked off a series of complaints about — surprise — Republicans.

“They don’t do anything, except block me and call me names,” he said. “If they were more interested in growing the economy for you and the issues that you are talking about instead of trying to mess with me, we would be doing a lot better.”

He wasn’t finished: “The critics, the cynics in Washington, they’ve written me off more times than I can count. But cynicism doesn’t invent the Internet. Cynicism doesn’t give women the right to vote.”

There you have it: the presidential mind in Year 6. Don’t cry for Argentina — cry for me!

Great article. Read full

 

What about the entire nation of Obama’s victims? What of the poor pitiful citizens of the country he victimized. But we are supposed to feel sorry for him? All that he has done to benefit himself at the public trough, and yet seems so miserably unhappy.

Enjoy the song in honor of the real victims and this country.

I have the solution. Since he is such a victim, let’s stop it and impeach him now. Save him and ourselves further angst and insufferable damage. Save him from his mental torture, paranoia and further instability, for his own good.

Then explain to him that no matter what he believes, this is not about him. I know that is quite hard for his brain to fathom, since the world revolves around his existence.

The truth is this is about the office of the Presidency, not you Obama, and about the future Presidents to come – be they black, white, orange, male or female. It’s about the preservation of America. That will be a shock to you that there is something in this world bigger than your ego.

Do Obama a huge favor…and we will be blessed for it.

RightRing | Bullright

A limitless proposal

Wow, I must have missed this op-ed back last fall, but it really is stunning.

Obviously there are some who would actually support removing presidential term limits. The idea sounds as bad as it really is.

“End presidential term limits” By Jonathan Zimmerman November 28, 2013

“Nor does Obama have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all. If he chooses, he could simply ignore their will. And if the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?”

What preposterous thinking. Obama would somehow be accountable to people if he could run again, when he was never accountable for the last 6 years. He ignored the will of people in his first term.

Oh right, he feared the voters so much in 2012 that they made up a story that Benghazi was caused by a video — all for an election. More of that, you say? You want more?

Right: more crony appointments, more fundraising bonanzas, and more feeble promises from a compulsive liar so he can run again? What nonsense. Obama wanted a Camelot presidency, and instead gave us a Carter nightmare on steroids, and a residency of pain. This would be better or fixed if he could just run again?

Oh, bad enough that we have Hillary in the breach for 2016. Just to suffer through her candidacy will be torture. It will suck the oxygen out of every corner of the country. But this guy advocates Obama 3.0.

Hold your horses because he went on to say:

“That was the argument of our first president, who is often held up as the father of term limits. In fact, George Washington opposed them. “I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public,” Washington wrote in a much-quoted letter to the Marquis de Lafayette.”

A couple problems with that: this is a guy who caused more scandal and problems than any of the others. He repeatedly put us in intentional emergency situations, to inject or force his solution. I doubt Washington was referring to that. He did not foresee our inability to throw out a guy for ignoring the Constitution and abusing his power. And he presumes good men honor ethics and consider the good of the country. In that scenario he would step down for another. We don’t have either. This particular man is not “deemed universally most capable of serving the public.” He never was – people ignored that too. He added:

“Washington stepped down after two terms, establishing a pattern that would stand for more than a century. But he made clear that he was doing so because the young republic was on solid footing, not because his service should be limited in any way.”

Precisely. We don’t have that situation. And he is not leaving us better off. That’s the point. He wants to make us worse off and force himself as the only cure. I don’t think Washington correctly factored in the abuse of that power. An honorable man would know when to walk away. And at least Nixon resigned. Unfortunately, what we have here is the poster boy for term limits. (much how they thought of it when they passed it)

Ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/end-presidential-term-limits/2013/11/28/50876456-561e-11e3-ba82-16ed03681809_story.html

RightRing | Bullright

When the law becomes the problem

Now, Boehner appears to be taking some action to file a lawsuit against Obama’s abusive pen and actions. We’ll see. However, it highlights some of the issues involved. Whatever the point is in the suit. Now the SCOTUS weighed in but to Obama it doesn’t matter.

We are a nation of laws, not men. Obama has been deciding which laws he will follow or won’t. Name them: immigration, border control or defense of marriage act, etc.. He feels those laws are wrong or faulty.

The odd thing is Leftists will never complain about too many laws. That is not a problem for them. No matter how much you try to convince them, they will refuse to accept it. Yet they single out which laws they want to follow as the prescription or answer to bad law. (they get to decide what is bad)

So they can ignore whatever they perceive as bad laws. They will justify it by twisted logic. But agree that we need less laws not more? That is contrary to their ideology.

Now we are back to hypocrisy. You’d think someone who singles out many laws, approved through Congress, as wrong or irrelevant, would realize there could be a limit to making laws. But their answer will always be to create another law to fix the bad one.(or problems)

Obama set the precedent that if you don’t like a law, just ignore it. Of course people don’t have that option because we are not above the law. (like staffers in ObamaCare)

Now Boehner proposes this unprecedented step of suing the administration for his abuse of power. But we already have a Constitutional prescription for the disease — this abuse — called impeachment. Instead, he proposes these aerial gymnastics. It’s sort of like swatting flies in a room with open windows and doors.

RightRing | Bullright

Dems busting an illegal immigration move

Democrats: No bluff, Obama will go it alone on immigration

By Mike Lillis – 06/26/14 | The Hill

The Obama administration is “not bluffing” in its intent to take executive action on immigration policy if House Republicans don’t act soon, top Democratic leaders warned Thursday.

President Obama has delayed any potential changes to his deportation policy to allow House GOP leaders time to bring legislation to the floor this summer. But if the Republicans don’t act in July, the Democrats say, unilateral changes by Obama are inevitable.

“We’re at the end of the line,” Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said Thursday during a press briefing in the Capitol. “We’re not bluffing by setting a legislative deadline for them to act.

“Their first job is to govern,” Menendez added, “and in the absence of governing, then you see executive actions.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) piled on. Noting that a year has passed since the Senate passed a sweeping immigration reform bill with broad bipartisan support, he urged House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to bring a similar bill to the floor.

“I don’t know how much more time he thinks he needs, but I hope that Speaker Boehner will speak up today,” Durbin said. “And if he does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration.”

The remarks come a day after Boehner announced his intent to push legislation allowing the House to sue Obama for what the Republicans say is a habitual inclination to overstep his constitutional authority.

“When there is a failure on the part of the president to faithfully execute the law, the House has the authority to challenge this failure,” Boehner wrote Wednesday in a memo to House lawmakers.

Boehner did not name specific examples of alleged overreach, but Republicans have long been up in arms over Obama’s 2012 program allowing some high-achieving illegal immigrants brought to the United States as kids to stay in the country and work without fear of deportation.

Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the third-ranking Democrat in the upper chamber, said Boehner and other Republican critics of Obama’s executive actions have “a very good antidote” for their fears: “Put a bill on the floor.”

“He’s, like, shooting his parents and then throwing himself on the mercy of the court as an orphan,” Schumer said. “Pass a bill, and that won’t happen.

“If they don’t bring any bill to the floor, the president has no choice — on a humanitarian basis and on a policy basis — to act where he can on his own,” Schumer added.

Boehner on Tuesday said the current influx of immigrant children across the southern border will only make it tougher to pass legislation this year. The Speaker blamed Obama for the crisis.

“The president’s making this harder and harder every day for us to try to deal with this in a responsible way,” Boehner told reporters in the Capitol. “We’ve got a humanitarian disaster on the border. Most of it, at the president’s own making, in my opinion, and so it makes our jobs much more difficult because of the actions he’s taken or not taken with regard to the border.”

Some immigration reformers have been hopeful that the recent shake-up in Republican leadership, which will have Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) soon replacing Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) in the majority leader spot, could lead to action on immigration reform this year.

But McCarthy on Sunday seemed to throw cold water on that notion, telling Fox News that he plans to do “nothing about immigration until we secure the borders” — a sharp change from January, when he promoted “legal status” for illegal immigrants “that will allow you to work and pay taxes” without fear of deportation.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday that he spoke with McCarthy on Wednesday, urging the incoming majority leader to bring an immigration bill to the floor.

Hoyer did not reveal McCarthy’s response.

 

Right on the heels of being slapped down for executive abuse, Dems and Obama go to their self-created border crisis and abuse of executive authority, demanding even more of it. Their statements  say it all.

Just as planned: he created this illegal surge, swamping the borders, and now uses it as an excuse for his executive pen, even as they prepare a suit against his overreach abuse.

The Credibility Deficit

New polls say that this president has plummeting approvals on his foreign policy. Michael Barone describes the nuances here.

Booking a tee-time, seeking advice on brackets, or planning next va-k? What diff does it make?–(WhiteHouse.gov Flickr)

(6/17/14) The most recent Pew Research Center poll conducted for the Council on Foreign Relations shows that 52 percent of Americans — the highest percentage in the last 40 years — think the U.S. should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along as best they can on their own. Evidently they don’t want to see America being, in the old phrase, the policeman of the world.

Barack Obama seems to be following the polls, yet more and more voters express disapproval of his foreign policy — 50 percent in a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, with only 41 percent approving, a new low in that survey.

But history tells us something else about Americans’ attitudes. They have understood, no matter how little they want to be bothered or to see their fellow citizens suffer casualties, that Americans have a stake in what goes on beyond our borders and across the seas.

More National Review

Ask Churchill about frivolous voters. They decided not to punch his ticket in 1945, in pursuit of domestic programs. Churchill had been beloved seeing them through the war. Still admired as a hero, they replaced him with Attlee opting instead for a welfare state.

Obama has been the beneficiary of the whimsy of voters, when it suited his fancy. He’s been fortunate in that, based on nothing but his rhetoric and sound bites. He fashioned himself to fit even against other liberal contenders. Of course, Obama wants legend status without being a legend — only in his mind.

But Obama would represent the Chamberlain faction of appeasement. All that is ancillary, only to show that there is a public perception no matter what Obama seems to think. So far everything has been one way, his. The recess appointment decision verified that.

So he recognizes public opinion when it suits him, when it doesn’t he doesn’t need it. The quintessential tyrant. Now it seems any of his credibility is being challenged, from all sides. The empty suit has a design flaw, and it’s showing.

Now he once again calls scandals phony, a fabrication of Washington.

Obama’s latest rhetoric is designed to blame public disgust and cynicism he created in the White House on everything else in Washington. Since his Supreme smack down, he needs to blame anyone. These are his issues, policies, and his economy; yet he is projecting all the blame on others. Then adds he will take more action on his own.

USA Today

“They’re phony scandals that are generated,” Obama said. “It’s all geared towards the next election or ginning up a base — it’s not on the level. And that must feel frustrating, and it makes people cynical and it makes people turned off from the idea that anything can get done.”

Obama did not specify what he meant by “phony scandals.”

Obama was a little more specific when he spoke at a congressional campaign fundraiser Thursday night, saying lawmakers should focus on people like the working mother with whom he had lunch that afternoon.

“We talk about phony scandals,” he said, “and we talk about Benghazi, and we talk about polls, and we talk about the tea party, and we talk about the latest controversy that Washington has decided is important — and we don’t talk about her.”

That SCOTUS decision was not a “controversy” you created, it was abuse of power.

But don’t talk about all those victims you left in your wake, Obama, by your administration. All those IRS victims, all the VA victims, the Benghazi victims, or still countless others you blame for the condition of the country, when it is you that is directly responsible for the malaise. What about the whole country of victims you created?

Plus he has no credibility or trust to start with… and no ‘good faith’ credit.

RightRing | Bullright

Obama smackdown 9-0

Supreme Court rebukes Obama on recess appointments

By Robert Barnes June 26 | Wa Post

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that President Obama exceeded his constitutional authority in making high-level government appointments in 2012 when he declared the Senate to be in recess and unable to act on the nominations.

Obama made appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) at a time when the Senate was holding pro forma sessions every three days precisely to thwart the president’s ability to exercise the power.

“The Senate is in session when it says it is,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the court, stressing that if the Senate is able to conduct business, that is enough to keep the president from making recess appointments.

But the court stepped back from handing Obama — and those who will follow him in the Oval Office — a more substantial loss. A bare majority of the justices upheld, in theory at least, the president’s ability to make recess appointments when the Senate is indeed on extended break, saying history weighs in favor of a broad power.

Obama wanted to have a legacy, and instead he is leaving a giant stain.

Obama actually showed he could unify SCOTUS in a unanimous decision that he over-stepped his power and authority. That’s something.

Although Breyer said the court hesitated to “upset the compromises and working arrangements that the elected branches of government themselves have reached,” it is the lack of such cooperation that brought the dispute to the court for the first time in the more than 200-year history of the Constitution.

Court “hesitates to upset”…. SCOTUS has a function. . What “working arrangement”? Neither word applies to POTUS. Lack of cooperation is a huge understatement. They heard the same State of Union speech we heard. It was they who handed him a victory in ObamaCare using verbal gymnastics. Now Breyer and SCOTUS take exception !?!

RightRing | Bullright

Nose for the job…

Ooh ooh, that smell…

Birds of the feather flock together.

RightRing | Bullright

Summer of Scandal

Well, it’s the beginning of summer. It’s always a special time in the changes of the season. Unless you are a climate change cultist.

But it is a great season. Some of us have been waiting for months for it, after a winter of discontent. Previously, Biden dubbed it “the summer of recovery’. Then we needed a recovery from the non-recovery.

So I thought thought this year should be labeled “the summer of scandals”. Maybe there could be theme barbecues? You know throw another one on the grill, can’t have enough. Declare it scandal-palooza.

We’re almost up to a scandal a week. There are so many scandals that you could get lost on which is more import, or which one to talk about. Is it Benghazi, NSA, fast and furious, the IRS, Gitmo-gate? Or maybe it’s the outing the CIA chief in Afghanistan?

So many to choose from. Is it the flood of illegal aliens across the borders, and dispersing them around the country? Or will it be the VA scandal, still gathering steam? Maybe its ObamaCare? Obama’s executive rewrite? Is it “I didn’t know”-gate? The executive order Dream Act? Or how about the Dep of Injustice and ever-contemptible Holder? Or the new EPA roll out in the war on energy? Or will it be I got a pen and a phone. Or could it be Obama’s denials that there are any scandals? Or maybe the Muslim Brotherhood insurgency in this administration? Or maybe it’s those recess appointments with no recess. Or administration suits against Christians like Hobby Lobby, or the Catholic nuns? Or everything surrounding his secretive records and election to office, to the non-transparency of now? One thing that you cannot be anymore is shocked .

But it would be pretty hard not to talk about any of them. Which brings us to the lamestream media. I anticipate in the next few weeks Barry has a meeting with the press, you know, to give them a little direction. What is increasingly difficult though is not talking about any of it, which is the predicament the media is in.

Maybe some are so stymied by it all that they can’t talk about any of it. They could be one of those that when mentioned in conversation h/she says: “oh, I don’t follow that stuff.” That’s always a good reply.

We can just call any that disagree deniers. But at some point, we are going to need a recovery from scandal. That seems far away. It all reminds me of Paine’s piece:

“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” — “The Crisis” by Thomas Paine, 1776

And he said:

There are persons, too, who see not the full extent of the evil which threatens them; they solace themselves with hopes that the enemy, if he succeed, will be merciful. It is the madness of folly, to expect mercy from those who have refused to do justice; and even mercy, where conquest is the object, is only a trick of war; the cunning of the fox is as murderous as the violence of the wolf, and we ought to guard equally against both.

Enjoy the summer of scandal. Don’t get a sunburn.

RightRing | Bullright

The Schizophrenic Presidency

How is it that a man who assumed the office as commander-in-chief be willing to declare the whole nation a battleground, yet be unwilling to do battle anywhere else?

“We are not a red America, we are not a blue America” … no, now we are a black and blue America.

Obama recommends talking abroad. But at home he declares the debate is over that an election and its results answered every question for the next four years.

How is it he calls for diplomacy overseas and practices raw power of political force here?

How can he lecture us to talk with our enemies across the pond, but he can’t speak with critics here?

Why do they apply all these terms about “fighting” and “winning” here, but he does not even want to use the word terrorist outside our borders? He calls his political enemies names and extremists, even terrorists, but not Islamist terrorists’ attacks overseas. But when there is a real terrorist attack here, he calls it “workplace violence”.

They talk about social justice in everything they do, while trying so hard to obfuscate justice in our government, or derail accountability of government officials.

Why do folks who say we must be weaned off the Middle East oil fight tooth and nail to keep us from developing our own resources at home?

Why does a regime advocate guarding and securing borders of foreign countries but pursue the opposite policies at home?

Why is promoting same-sex marriage around the globe a human rights issue, and priority, but promoting traditional marriage in this country considered taboo? Why is there no “defense” for traditional marriage, but never enough laws for defense of same-sex marriage, or LBGTQ agenda?

Why is “over population” a huge problem but illegal immigration and border failure are not.

How can they stand with Palestinians and condemn Israel for human rights abuse, while ignoring the rockets lobbed into Israel? Why do they want to take aid and support for Israel away, while funding Muslim Brotherhood and bringing them into top levels of this government?

Why did a man ashamed of the country want so badly to be president of it? Why does his “change we can believe in” require his changes and our belief?

How is it a man can be charged to secure an defend a country that he does not fully believe in?

2.- a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements.

RightRing | Bullright

Money to Central America

WH To Give $250 Million In Taxpayer Dollars To Central American Countries To Help Repatriate Illegal Alien Minors

Weasel Zippers — Daily Mail

 
Nickarama | June 20, 2014

Payoff for services rendered…

If the idea is to discourage them from coming, isn’t paying off their governments likely to precipitate the governments encouraging this to happen again?

Via Daily Mail:

The White House announced $254.6 million in new aid for Central American countries today.

The money will go toward returning unaccompanied minors who travel to the U.S. illegally to their families and fostering youth centered programs in their home countries, the White House said this afternoon.

The assistance to the governments of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras announced today is in addition to the $130 million in aid the U.S. already provides those countries in economic assistance.

The U.S. has also decided to begin detaining families at the border instead of giving them court dates and releasing them.

The new aid package and the illegal immigration crisis at the U.S. border will be the subject of Vice President Joe Biden’s meetings this afternoon in Guatemala with senior representatives of the Central American countries.

Keep reading…

http://linkis.com/shar.es/lftpw
 

Not much I could say to that… extortion, shakedown anyone?

“Nobody believes you”

“…That’s your problem”, Paul Ryan tells IRS Commissioner, John Koskinen.

And that’s the problem we have with so much of the administration.

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?

Hillary’s choices, what difference does it make

Hillary has a new book. Didn’t she have books before? (aka., ‘it takes a village of socialists’; ‘uncomfortable with history’; ‘history on life support’) They act as if its some new insight. It’s called “hard choices”. She really dug deep for a title. Bush had a book called “Decision Points”. Sound similar? It could just as well be called ‘soft choices’, ‘no choices’, or ‘political choices’. Dare I say “wrong choices”? Look at all the fun Libs had attacking Bush’s book.

Ironically, Hillary as an authoritative source “requires the willing suspension of disbelief”, as does Obama. The Left complains about Republicans’ succession of candidates running the next person in line. This is Hillary’s turn. Damn the person who gets in her way.

Her book is only posturing. Except “Hard Choices”? Pulease! Her lack of wanting to make choices….and maybe that’s hard. (Let’s start off with a lie) What she supported she’s against, and what she was against she is really for, for now. It is “the evolution of a candidate.” Maybe that would have suited the title better? One thing Hillary should be noted for, her inability to make hard choices.

Like Jay Rockefeller, she supported the Iraq action it was convenient until it wasn’t. But she was hoodwinked. How abut Benghazi? Why do they like to emphasize what they are not good at? — Obama on foreign policy and budget issues.

She says one major accomplishment was restoring US leadership in the world. I always appreciate Liberals talent for revision. It never stops. Want to know their position on something? After the fact they’ll tell you. That’s leadership. Hillary declares she helped clean up Bush’s mess. But who cleans up Hillary’s messes? Now in her wisdom of reflection, she says:

“The most important thing I did was to help restore America’s leadership in the world. And I think that was a very important accomplishment. We were flat on our back when I walked in there the first time.

“We were viewed as being untrustworthy, as violating our moral rules and values, as being economically hobbled. And we had to get out there and once again promote American values and pursue our interests and protect national security. Because of the eight years that preceded us — it was the economic collapse, it was two wars, it was the war on terror that led to some very unfortunate, un-American actions being taken. That was my biggest challenge. It was why the president asked me to be secretary of state.”

Yea, values like abortion, appeasement, and leaving no Islamist behind, spying on angela Merkel’s cell phone, gun running to Mexico, rewriting immigration law from the Oval Office, getting an ambassador and three Americans killed and secretive arms running, lying about it, ignoring security threats in Libya (Obama’s war), supporting terrorists and thugs in Egypt. Values like that.

Now the scary thing is what more tricks she might have learned from Marxist-in-Chief. We’re heading for a trifecta: a combination of Bill Clinton politics, Obama politics, and her own.(triangulation on estrogen) She wants to sell it as a 3rd term for Bill and a continuum of Obama. And throw in some Elizabeth Warren and Al Gore for seasoning.

Obama, now what has not been said about him? Well, now he releases five top Taliban, for one deserter. Make sense? It does to the Liberal mind, which generally runs contrary to all logic. Oh, here’s something that hasn’t been said. Start by remembering the Clintons. Could the Taliban Five be Obama’s bin Laden. I know, he supposedly killed bin Laden. But that’s not the point. These five could be Obama’s bin Laden. Get it now?

Clinton was criticized for failure to get bin Laden. And how about the Cole? Remember the missiles where he just missed him? Everyone asked how he let bin Laden slip away. Yea, now these five are released. What does Zero’s act portend for the future? But Democrats have offered, ‘don’t worry, we can get them, kill them, drone them’. Remember the illusive bin Laden… it wasn’t easy, was it? Barry has no concept of the future or how he will be liable. He can’t even remember the lesson from bin Laden . All that matters to Democrats is the politics of now.

Team Obama finally gets a mastermind of the Benghazi attack, just short of 2 years, and he wasn’t hiding in a cave in Tora Bora. He did as many interviews as Susan Rice. But don’t worry about the Taliban Five, according to Liberals, we can can repeal their right to life on a moment’s notice. It has taken this long to do anything about Benghazi.

Hillary has the same mindset. Election and winning is all that is in her mind. She is practically anointed to begin with. She’s only looking out for anything that might jeopardize that. It’s the same mindset of Obama, “be on the lookout for anything which could destroy you” Self-preservation is job one. Everything else ranks a distant second to that.

Anything that has the potential to bring you down must be attacked, broken, or destroyed. Using Alinsky tactics of course. Show that any criticism flung at you is faulty. And she’s running to be the easy choice for Democrats. The only choice… what choice? She could have written, “How I created the vast right-wing conspiracy”. Foggy Bottom was only dress rehearsal. She could’ve called it “Rewriting History.”

RightRing | Bullright

Leadership failures…and that giant sucking sound

Not what you might think, but the disconnect of leaders 1)to listen 2) to be held accountable to the people 3) their lack of respect for the people.

I showed the leadership disconnect in churches, among clergy and leaders, now its time to connect the dots. The same condition is rotting politics from inside out in the cesspool we call Washington. The similarities are amazing.

Time and again the leaders(for lack of other term) have been out on these margins like space aliens. They make decisions or take positions contrary to the people. We saw it with ObamaCare, we saw it with Benghazi or trade and release of detainees. We see it with border failures and Obama’s executive pen on immigration.

Then we’re told that the “people will like it when they see it”. We still don’t like ObamaCare and don’t like the amnesty they’re cooking up. People didn’t like the porkufest deals to ram ObamaCare through or the whole process they used, or that big-spending spinathon attached to it. And people didn’t like the results any better.

What Americans actually do care about is not on politicians radar. They have operated like Obama playing golf in a crisis, oblivious to the people. When we say rein in spending, Washington says expand spending. Remember Biden said, “we have to spend more to keep from going bankrupt”.

So they are elected and then take a vow to their self-interest and self-preservation. Buying votes trumps listening to voters. But you sort of come to expect as much in Washington. Now that it is business as usual, people just accept it. Aside from all the scandals the administration is engrossed in.

Then they believe they will force their agenda on the people. See the similarities? It’s the same thing in many churches. We’ll tell you what your opinion on this or that ought to be. And if you still don’t agree, too bad, we’ll do it anyway. Pols also have the power of the media in their favor, so you will just get inundated. It’s their way or the highway.

They kindly point out that we are just a divided society now, and that’s where the problem is. The real division is between the people and the politicians. Dream Act anyone? Amnesty? Pipelines or EPA regulations? If you don’t like what they do, they say they will fix the problems — the same ones who created the mess and the same ill will they used doing it.

Leftist politicians are fond of claiming to speak for Americans, things like: “what Americans want” or “what American’s care about”. The same dynamic applies in churches: bishops or de facto leaders claiming to speak for the whole, in name, when it does not align with the people’s priorities.

It all speaks loudly about a giant problem, ignoring the will of people, by an elite “we know better” government and leaders. Both parties participate. We’ve come to expect their business as usual, even as we condemn their “business as usual” model.

RightRing | Bullright