Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 7      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #51 

Obama? Rule of Law? Shirley, you jest!

Keith Koffler says the White House could have stayed out of a local matter, as it often does.

Or it could have just said it believed that local officials were enforcing the law and supported that.

But no. Instead, it offered up a treacly blob of sanctimony to express its commitment to "the rule of law" in supporting the jailing of Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis for her refusal to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

No matter that flouting the rule of law has been a hallmark of the Obama administration lo these many years.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked about Obama's thoughts on the Davis matter.

Image40.jpg

"I'm obviously limited in what I can say given the ongoing court activity," Earnest said, which would be news to anyone who followed Obama's opining on the Trayvon Martin matter as the investigation was just getting underway.

"I will just say on principle that the success of our democracy depends on the rule of law," Earnest deadpanned.

"And there is no public official that is above the rule of law. Certainly not the president of the United States. But neither is the Rowan county clerk," Earnest continued, implying guilt on the part of Davis and obviously feeling suddenly less limited in what he could say.

"That's a principle that is enshrined in our Constitution and in our democracy. And it's one that obviously the courts are seeking to uphold."

In case you are getting teary-eyed with patriotic sentimentality at this point, remember that this White House has issued not a peep of concern about that its former secretary of state may have broken federal records keeping and national security laws.

And what's more . . .

•  that it made recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was not in recess;
•  that it effectively put an end to the Defense of Marriage Act by simply deciding it wasn't going to enforce it;
•  and that it tried to enact a wholesale change in immigration laws by refusing to enforce those, too. The matter is now before the courts, which at least temporarily put a stop to it.

The success of our democracy certainly does depend on the rule of law.

Which is why many believe democracy has been imperiled by the Obama administration.

Related:  Kentucky clerk in custody

This thread contains dozens of examples of Obama's complete disregard for the "rule of law."

There is no end to the hypocrisy of this crowd.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #52 
Look, if Muhammed Ali a/k/a Cassius Clay (and President Bill Clinton) can defy the draft order for the Vietnam War and take a stand as a protection for religious beliefs under the 1st Amendment and the U.S. Supreme Court allowed them to do so, we must fight back and use the same logic like Kim Davis.

She is our Rosa Parks of the Civil Rights Movement against this sodomy marriage.

An unjust law is no law at all and is not required to be followed.  Use Civil Disobedience to put an end to tyranny.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #53 

A nation of laws no more

Erick Erickson says when five largely unrepresentative and unaccountable people can decide to impose their moral values on a nation of 330 million, we really are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men.

When clerks in Washington, D.C. can deny citizens access to guns, despite there being an individual, constitutional right, we really are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men.

When Barack Obama can ignore court rulings and bypass Congress on a whim and be cheered for doing so, we really are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men.

When mayors and other leaders can be cheered for ignoring the marriage laws of the nation and issue same sex marriage licenses at a time doing so is prohibited by state law, we really are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men.

When jurors lie to get on death penalty cases to ensure the death penalty cannot be issued and they are heroes for doing so, we really are not a nation of laws, but a nation of men.

So when Kim Davis refuses to issue marriage licenses, she’s just behaving as all the others have done. Only she’s the bad guy because the secular loud voices of the country disagree with her ignoring the law.

But again, we are nation of men, not a nation of laws.

Anthony Kennedy decided to insert his will and morality into the discussion and shut up everyone else. He thought he could shut down the conversation. He only made it angrier.

We are not a democracy, but an oligarchy. And we are not a nation of laws. The republic may continue, but without the moral leadership necessary to bind the leaders and citizens to the same laws.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #54 

Senator catches Obama red-handed violating the law he just signed

Renegade.jpg

Randy DeSoto is reporting that freshman Senator Tom Cotton, R-Ark., found that Barack Obama is already in direct violation of a law he just signed in late May regarding the Iran nuclear deal.

The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act specifically provides that Congress must receive "all nuclear agreement documents, including any related to agreements 'entered into or made between Iran and any other parties.' It expressly includes 'side agreements.' This requirement is not strictly limited to agreements to which the U.S. is a signatory," Sen. Cotton and Rep. Mike Pompeo wrote in a joint op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last week.

Cotton and Pompeo recount that they traveled to Vienna a few weeks ago to meet with officials of the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). There, they learned "that certain elements of this deal are -- and will remain -- secret." They further discovered that those involved with the talks, including the Obama administration, specially allowed the IAEA and Iran to have two side deals.

The first has to do with the IAEA's inspection of the controversial Parchin military complex. The site is a suspected location of Iran's long range missile and nuclear development. The second side deal has to do with what the nation must reveal about its nuclear program to date.

The legislators argue that both are vital issues if the deal will have any chance of success. They also make clear that the administration has been inconsistent in its responses regarding the existence of these agreements and whether Congress will have access to review them.

The two sent a letter to the Obama administration requesting access to all relevant information, so the agreement can be adequately reviewed.

To ensure there is enough time for this review, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, introduced a resolution last Thursday calling for the clock to not start until all relevant "side deals" are made available to Congress, according to The Hill.

His resolution reads, in part:

The 60-calendar day period for review of such agreement in the Senate cannot be considered to have begun until the Majority Leader certifies that all of the materials required to be transmitted under the definition of the term 'agreement' under such Act, including any side agreements with Iran and United States Government-issued guidance materials in relation to Iran, have been transmitted to the Majority Leader.

Dan Calabrese, writing for CainTV, called into question the whole premise of the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, noting it runs contrary to the Constitution. Congress has a way to approve treaties–and it is not by majority vote in both Houses, which the president can veto. "It's called treaty ratification, and it requires two-thirds of the Senate. For congressional Republicans to give Obama an alternative [only requiring him to sustain a veto] to that is one of the most mind-blowingly stupid things I can ever remember them doing. And that's saying something."

"Renegade" really is Obama's Secret Service code name.

The Secret Service knew who and what Obama was in 2009!


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
snowyriver

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #55 
Ted Cruz is no more a "natural born citizen of these United States than obama. Two wrongs do not make a right. If Ted Cruz was 1/2 the patriot he claims he would remove himself from the presidential race.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #56 

The Republic as prey

Scott McKay is reporting that last Friday, Sen. Ted Cruz made the most significant break with a party leadership in modern memory when he called Republican majority Leader Mitch McConnell a liar over a clandestine deal the latter had made with Democrats to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.

Cruz's war of words with McConnell has an element of strategy to it -- he's without question positioning himself as the anti-establishment GOP hopeful among the "serious" candidates in the 2016 field -- but he's also expressing sincerely and widely held concerns that the Republican Party is powerless to stop the Obama administration's compound abuses of power through the choice of McConnell and John Boehner.

The GOP leadership in both houses of Congress has perfected something Ace of Spades appropriately called "Failure Theater" back in March -- namely, that all of the attempts to move a conservative agenda forward or even to stop the Obama administration's various power grabs don't just fall short but are intended to do so while presenting the duped voters back home with a "Well, we tried" shrug.

As a result, there is no repeal of ObamaCare afoot despite countless meaningless votes to kill it. Nothing was done about a patently unconstitutional executive amnesty scheme until a courageous federal judge in Texas finally blocked it. Nothing was done to stop Obama from getting unprecedented authority in the arena of foreign trade. The inability to stop a catastrophic nuclear deal with Iran was pure Failure Theater -- in fact, the Republican-led Senate actually passed legislation to make it more difficult to stop the Iran deal.

And with the successive demonstrations of Failure Theater, in which the conservative base and the few members of the House and Senate who do attempt to honestly represent it make a demand for a strong stand on an issue only to see that stand watered down and frittered away through meaningless votes or worse, what ought to be a lame duck administration has become even more aggressive in arrogating power to itself beyond any grant in the Constitution.

Two examples stand out of recent vintage.

In the case of the IRS and its scandalous attempts to persecute conservative activists, this month it was revealed that not only was the tax agency conspiring with the Justice Department to illegally share millions of pages of tax information in an effort to launch a prosecutorial fishing expedition aimed at punishing Obama's political enemies in advance of the 2012 election, but it was systematically performing IRS audits of conservative donors it found from lists obtained in the records of conservative-leaning 501[c]4 organizations.

Considering that one element of the impeachment charges filed against Richard Nixon was the attempted abuse of the IRS, the Congressional reaction to this information -- which wasn't released to the public until Judicial Watch was able to pry it loose with a Freedom of Information lawsuit -- ought to be to dismantle the agency. Congress has the power of the purse, after all; just defund the IRS completely until a special prosecutor is named to go after everyone involved in the targeting scandal.

Yes, but this can't be done, say our betters in the leadership, because Obama won't cooperate and will veto any spending bills that don't include full funding for the IRS and every one of his other governmental priorities (including Planned Parenthood, which we will get to shortly).

Precisely. And why is this the end of the conversation? Because Boehner and McConnell both pledged never to cause a government shutdown again, a pre-emptive surrender that has signaled to Obama that he will win every fight he wants to simply by finding ways to make policy around Congress. This surrender was born out of the myth that the 2013 government shutdown over ObamaCare "damaged" the Republican Party, something widely discussed as axiomatic in Washington despite the fact the party gained eight Senate seats and a few seats in the House in the 2014 elections.

The voters who entrusted the GOP with its current majorities have noticed Failure Theater and do not approve, which is the primary explanation for the current Donald Trump boomlet and the Republican Party's progressive downturn in approval despite the unpopularity of this president.

The arrogance of the administration has taken a dramatic upward trajectory ever since the shutdown was taken off the table late last year.

The Obama administration's lawlessness reached a pinnacle last week after videos of Planned Parenthood executives discussing the sale of body parts from aborted fetuses began to surface. The videos, shot by the Center for Medical Progress, a pro-life group following the proven drip-drip-drip media model perfected by James O'Keefe during his 2009 ACORN takedown, should have the same catastrophic effect on an even bigger target collecting some half-billion dollars in federal funding per year.

In the Senate, amendments to de-fund Planned Parenthood were filed but not passed. Meanwhile, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who was confirmed thanks to 10 Republican Senate votes, announced she would be launching an investigation as a result of the videos… into their producers.

So when evidence of illegal activity by a constituent organization within the Democratic Party's constellation is produced, this administration investigates the whistleblower -- and does so in broad daylight.

Nothing is done about it.

This isn't about politics anymore. We are now beyond the question of what will work in the next election cycle. What is at stake now is the future of the American republic and constitutional governance -- because if Congress cannot be relied on to put a stop to rampant lawlessness and corruption at the highest levels within the executive branch, the government as a whole no longer has the moral standing to put a stop to lawlessness anywhere.

The whole system begins to break down when the public ceases to consent to be governed. The Obama administration has driven us to that point, and the weak GOP leadership has all but broken the opposition party through multiple showings of Failure Theater.

Amid this, Cruz has declared his war on McConnell which might turn him into the standard bearer for the conservative movement in the 2016 presidential cycle, or lead to his irrelevance in his current position until new leadership is found in the Senate at some future time.

In the meantime, Obama plots his next offensive against the limits of federal power, knowing there is nothing his timid, flaccid opponents in Washington can do to stop him.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #57 

Obama says if Congress blocks his Iran deal he'll ignore their will and sign it anyway

Terresa Monroe-Hamilton is reporting that Barack Obama is saying that if Congress doesn't play ball on approving the Iran deal, he might just go ahead and do it anyway. That violates the Constitution and the law. Technically -- legally-- he can't do it. Oh, but he will. Notice how Kerry sidestepped the issue? If Obama does this and isn't made to answer for it or stopped, that's the end of our Constitutional Republic and the actual beginning of a dictatorship. Even if a conservative is elected in 2016, by then $150 to 200 billion will have gone to Iran, effectively arming our enemies for our destruction. Obama has gone rogue and we must reign him in -- legally and physically if need be.

Image5.jpg

From TheBlaze:

Following a White House meeting, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) seemingly suggested this week that Barack Obama might be prepared to go "beyond what's allowed by law" to push through the Iran nuclear deal.

The Hill reported Wednesday that Sherman said Obama appeared ready to ignore Congress if members don't sign off on the deal. The comments came after the president invited top Democrats to the White House to give them a personal presentation on the Iran deal.

"The main meat of what he said is, 'If Congress overrides my veto, you do not get a U.S. foreign policy that reflects that vote. What you get is you pass this law and I, as president, will do everything possible to go in the other direction,'" Sherman said, according to The Hill.

"He's with the deal -- he's not with Congress," the California congressman added. "At least to the fullest extent allowed by law, and possibly beyond what's allowed by law."

According to The Hill, Sherman suggested Obama may just refuse to enforce the law.

Sherman, who has appeared skeptical of the deal, previously grilled Secretary of State John Kerry about whether the administration would follow the "law" if Congress moved to override a veto to block the deal.

At the time, Kerry ducked the question, saying he was "not going to deal with a hypothetical."

When you eliminate impeachment as a possibility and both sides of the political aisle are complicit in a Marxist agenda, you get this type of behavior. Obama is a narcissist with delusions of grandeur and a pen and a phone. Of course he won't obey the law… he'll flaunt it whenever he can get away with it. If leaders won't go along with him, he'll blackmail them or use leverage of some sort against them to get these so-called leaders to see things his way. This type of bowing before our enemies such as Iran, Russia and China will get millions of Americans killed. Obama knows and doesn't care.

This is treason you are watching unfold in the Oval Office.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #58 

The "Rule of Law" in America is in tatters

TatteredFlag.jpg 

John R. Smith says we are no longer a nation under the "Rule of Law." The "rule of man" now prevails, as we are more and more governed by individuals -- elected and appointed -- in the executive branch of government. Too often, these individuals arbitrarily exercise powers belonging to Congress under the Constitution.

It has become the norm in the current administration's playbook to follow a "selective enforcement" policy. President Obama, former Attorney General Eric Holder and Obama's regulators have abused the rule of law, preferring to enforce only those laws they choose to. Enforcement of these laws seem mostly to apply to people who do not share Obama's political positions. In particular, the Department of Justice selectively enforces laws by failing to prosecute those who break laws that Obama disagrees with.

The rule of law has been one of the major contributing factors to America's greatness, and to its worldwide economic leadership in modern times. In fact, the American Declaration of Independence is essentially a document complaining about the decrees of one man against the American colonies: England's King George III.

The rule of law in the U.S. is based on the fundamental doctrine that the individual is sovereign.

Individuals band together and, using due process, make a body of laws agreed to by all. The individual is the master over government, and laws are not issued by some king, dictator or tyrant. The "king" is not the law; the rule of law is king.

The U.S. rule of law is based on principles that safeguard against arbitrary governance, clearly described in our founding documents. Selective enforcement is an absolute violation of the rule of law because it allows persons to decide which laws will be ignored and which will not.

Without question, under Obama, the rule of law is crumbling because executive orders, decrees and regulations issued by his administration are capricious and based both on political currents of the times and the whim of tyrannical individuals with their own agendas. These people choose to both grant and revoke legal rights, placing the targets of their despotism under an arbitrary system of administrative rules written by these same individuals.

Want examples?

  • The Obama administration violated its duty to enforce current immigration laws that require undocumented foreign nationals to be prosecuted;
  • Last year, Obama released 165,900 prisoners arrested for illegal entry and subsequent crimes committed in America;
  • Obama’s attorney general failed to enforce the federal law that prohibits people from knowingly concealing or harboring undocumented aliens;
  • “Sanctuary cities” are permitted to violate U.S. laws by offering immunity from prosecution to illegal aliens, without being punished;
  • The Supreme Court disallows racial quotas, yet Department of Justice zealots call it prejudice and bigotry when lenders in the housing market apply proper business standards to determine if borrowers are creditworthy;
  • Regulators just extorted $25 billion from five banks that used "robo-signers" for foreclosure documents, even though the major portion of the money will go to "homeowners who weren’t affected by the robo-practices" or to "various states," says a Wall Street Journal column;
  • This week, Obama commuted the sentences of 46 convicts, bringing his total commutations to 90, a higher number than the previous four presidents combined. These offenders knew the penalties for their actions when they violated the law;
  • Obama’s attorney general refused to defend the Congressional Defense of Marriage Act;
  • Obama, not Congress, has dictated that the Web must be regulated by the government as a monopoly.

When Obama doesn’t like the law, he turns to the courts, and when he doesn’t like decisions of the courts, he takes arbitrary executive actions. In his administration, the rule of law is being attacked and the rule of man prevails.

The rule of man permits mob rule and tyranny, in which 51 percent of the citizens can loot the rights and property of the other 49 percent. As journalist P.J. O’Rourke puts it, "If enough voters get together and act in concert, they can take away something and not pay for it."

When there’s no law, there is no liberty.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #59 

A reasonable question?

LiberalLogic.jpg



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #60 

Judge Jeanine describes "sanctuary cities" as lawless zones

Declaring that sanctuary cities have become safe havens for criminal illegal aliens, Judge Jeanine Pirro lays blame for the many murders of American citizens by illegals at the doorstep of President Barack Obama.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #61 

Obama defies Supreme Court -- issues final contraceptive mandate

Dr. Susan Berry is reporting that despite repeatedly losing its cases over the ObamaCare contraceptive mandate at the U.S. Supreme Court, Obama's Department of Health and Human Services announced Friday that it will continue to force religious organizations to distribute contraceptives -- including the "week-after pill" -- to their employees.

As a news release at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty states, Team Obama has been handed "multiple losses in contraceptive mandate cases at the Supreme Court," including the Hobby Lobby decision, and cases involving the Little Sisters of the Poor and Wheaton College.

Last week, the Supreme Court ordered the Obama administration not to enforce the contraceptive mandate against Catholic organizations from Pennsylvania, making this case the government's sixth loss in a row at the Supreme Court. Currently, four petitions are before the Supreme Court asking for final resolution of the issue by June 2016.

"The government keeps digging the hole deeper," said Adèle Auxier Keim, legal counsel at the Becket Fund. "Just last week the Supreme Court ordered HHS not to enforce the exact rules they finalized today. But the government still won't give up on its quest to force nuns and other religious employers to distribute contraceptives."

"Especially after the Supreme Court's recent King v. Burwell decision allowed the government to expand its healthcare exchanges, there is no reason at all the government needs religious employers to help it distribute these products," she added.

As Keim observes, the Obama administration has already told thousands of businesses they need not comply with the HHS mandate at all.

"So why is it continuing to go out of its way to force religious objectors, from nuns to business owners, to do something it is more than capable of doing itself?" she asks.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #62 

This is a really, really great question

You’ve likely read by now about the $135,000 fine imposed on the Christian-owned bakery in Oregon that refused to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, as well as the gag order to prevent the owners from discussing the case.

Author, radio and TV host, and scourge of the TSA Dana Loesch is wondering how this sort of punishment reconciles with the existence of sanctuary cities, especially considering their sometimes lethal consequences.

Dana Loesch wants to know why bakeries have to follow the law while sanctuary cities don’t?

 Tweet478.jpg

Tweet479.jpg 



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #63 

Obama's constituents -- savages with cell phones

Daniel Greenfield says race riots usually begin with criminality and end with criminality. They're protests by criminals on behalf of a dead criminal.

PolitiChicks.comThe stores with smashed windows aren't the means to express outrage, but the end. The purpose of criminality is criminality. The police exist so that stores can remain un-robbed and random pedestrians can remain unbeaten. The protests express opposition to that policy by robbing stores and assaulting random white people.

The police were never the problem. The looters and rioters were.

The counterculture has not changed dramatically since the 70's, but it has tossed aside any appearance of idealism. The new counterculture draws in two groups, disaffected upper middle class white youth and lower class black youth. Their goals are purely materialistic, looted iPods and government subsidies for housing, education and anything else they can think of.

Divestment is the common denominator. Neither the white leftist nor the lower-class black rioter is invested in his society. The white rioter is a globalist, the black rioter is an outsider. Neither are invested in the city and country they are busy trashing.

These are the children of the welfare state with little in common except a rejection of the commercial way of life. Neither the entitled white university brat or the posturing ghetto teenager has any interest in working. The businesses they smash are an alien thing to them. Small businessmen do not go about smashing stores. The people who do think of commodities as something they trick or intimidate others into giving to them. And that covers everyone from municipal unions to thugs driving around BMW's.

This lawless materialism is the essence of the welfare state. "Loot as much as you can, or someone else will." If you don't grab government benefits or sneakers in store windows, someone else will. The rich are grabbing, the pols are grabbing -- time to queue up and loot your share. Communism made this way of thinking so commonplace that all of Russia became one black market. And we are not far behind.

What kind of people behave this way? Those who have come to think of wealth as an infinite pile from which everyone grabs as much as they can. This is where the ethos of the socialist left and hip-hop comes together. Obama gleefully spending millions on himself and trillions on national giveaways for his donors and supporters is the most obnoxious fusion of this phenomenon.

The angry rioter is a sacred figure in the progressive pantheon of social justice. The shirtless men in bandanas carting away cell phones are so outraged by injustice that they are willing to take to the streets and do what progressive hipsters taking social justice selfies of themselves in souvenir t-shirts plastered with the face of the latest victim of "white supremacism" can only dream about.

The race riot isn't a bubbling stew of outrage out of which wounded souls emerge to cry out for justice. It's a complicated criminal conspiracy in which the perpetrators rarely suffer any consequences.

The rioters aren't outraged, they're usually bored young men, frustrated and lacking in empathy. Many of them have gang ties or a criminal record stretching back to kindergarten.

They're the same people who commit crimes in any other non-outraged context.

PolitiChicks.comThe rest are there to get some attention while providing them with protective coloration. 9 out of 10 people screaming frenziedly while holding up "Black Lives Matter" signs would eagerly scream and hold up "Justin Bieber 4 President" or "Baltimore Loves the KKK" signs if it got them positive attention and a shot at being on television.

Technological savvy melded with barbaric behavior, the 21st century mobile devotee turned raider is a wake up call in more ways than one. These are not mere race riots, they are the self-organization of the end of our civilization.

The classic raid has come to the cities of West, its hallmarks are not frustration but careful planning, followed by a violent rush. They are the reemergence of an old way of life that most people think died with the Vikings.

The law banished the raider back into the dim pages of history, but law depended on a civilization which is now collapsing. Police officers need the support of the public to hold the line. And the left has now openly reverted to its pro-criminal advocacy while elements of the right, particularly those funded by the Koch Brothers, advocate for criminals.

The traditional raider saw himself as part of an outside group. The modern raider has global identities that are at odds with the country he lives in. When he joins a raiding party, it is as a member of one of those groups looting a society whose welfare is of no interest to him.

The left's motives for rebelling are different than those of minority looters. But the end result is similar enough. A disregard for the civilization becomes a disregard for its laws. And that leaves self-interest as the only hedge against anarchy. But what interest do people who do not work for a living have in preserving the businesses of others? None at all. As far as they are concerned, smash a store, it will collect the insurance, and reopen, or another will open up in its place. And even if it doesn't, then so what? It's not "our businesses" anyway.

The commercial tribalism of the rapper who conflates casual violence and criminality with honor follows a pattern of glorifying crime that predates and postdates race, its ubiquity dating back centuries, from the highwayman to the 1920's bank robber, and is almost as socially disruptive and even more contagious.

The narrative is the same. Its idealism and honor covers up the blatant materialism and greed that its lawbreaking enables. And the message is also the same. Civilization's end.

The return of the raider as an instant message enabled gang is a phenomenon at odds with progress. It is a warning that darker times are returning, that while everyone may pack phones that have more processing power in one inch than a room of computers did 30 years ago, the march of progress is moving backward.

But the real purpose of a riot isn't to benefit the rioters. It's to benefit those who incite the riot. The rioters and looters react in response to riot-friendly conditions created from above. If you build the political infrastructure for a riot, the rioters and looters will come.

PolitiChicks.comThe #BlackLivesMatter riots are the product of a new generation of Sharptons, ambitious activists feeding hate, of the New Black Panther Party's obsession with becoming relevant, of the ragged hipster ends of Occupy Wall Street drifting from occupation to occupation, of Muslim agents dreaming of turning African-Americans into a fifth column and of Obama's clumsy efforts to keep on playing community organizer by feeding racial grievances and then pretending to rise above them.

Those who gain from unleashing chaos and violence are not the powerless, but the powerful. Sharpton rose to his important role as Obama's liaison on a trail of bodies. Someone operating here hopes to be the next Sharpton. Meanwhile Obama is playing a perverse fusion of Sharpton and MLK, amping up a bad situation and then telling blacks and whites that they need to rise above it.

As always, the ringleader tries to keep his hands clean while convincing the establishment that he can turn the violence on or off any time he wants to.

Obama exploits the riots he cultivated for his own political ends. The looter at the top is not through looting yet.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #64 

Obama defies judge -- issues nearly 600,000 new Social Security cards to illegals

Warner Todd Huston is reporting that despite the fact that a federal judge has frozen Obama’s un-Constitutional amnesty program as a lawsuit is heard, a Senate panel has found that the federal government has given nearly 600,000 illegals new social security cards so that they can legally get all the benefits available to legal citizens.

In March, Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Ben Sasse (R-NE) asked the government just how many Social Security numbers have been handed out to illegals and the amount has finally come out–a number that has shocked everyone.

Obama imposed his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals plan, also known as DACA, in 2012, and in doing so gave younger illegal immigrants legal protection and the ability to work. More than 600,000 immigrants have applied under the program, and in March, Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) asked how many of these immigrants also received Social Security numbers.

At the time, they thought as many as 90,000 had received Social Security numbers, but Acting Social Security Administration Commissioner Carolyn Colvin said it was several multiples of that number.

"By the end of fiscal year 2014, we had issued approximately 541,000 original SSNs to individuals authorized to work under the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy since its inception," she wrote.

Colvin said her agency did not have any data on how many immigrants might have applied for Social Security numbers who did not get one.

Early in March a federal judge demanded that Obama send his representatives to his courtroom to explain why they think they have the powers to even issue the amnesty and why they lied about what they’ve already done.

He had ordered that all aspects of Obama's amnesty be halted while a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Obama's actions is heard.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #65 

Team Obama's refusal to obey the law is documented in transparency study

L. Todd Wood is reporting that the Associated Press released some numbers today that confirm what most of America now admits about the Obama administration -- the administration is corrupt and does not follow the law. In an analysis conducted by the AP, the Obama administration, more than any time in history, denies Freedom of Information Act requests and is clearly breaking federal law over and over again.

The Associated Press reports:

The Obama administration set a new record again for more often than ever censoring government files or outright denying access to them last year under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act, according to a new analysis of federal data by The Associated Press.

The government took longer to turn over files when it provided any, said more regularly that it couldn't find documents, and refused a record number of times to turn over files quickly that might be especially newsworthy.

It also acknowledged in nearly 1 in 3 cases that its initial decisions to withhold or censor records were improper under the law -- but only when it was challenged.

Its backlog of unanswered requests at year's end grew remarkably by 55 percent to more than 200,000. It also cut by 375, or about 9 percent, the number of full-time employees across government paid to look for records. That was the fewest number of employees working on the issue in five years.

The newspaper also found out that the method the White House uses to report their progress and compliance under the law was flawed. Obviously, they are rigging the game here.

AP goes continues:

The AP's chief executive, Gary Pruitt, said the news organization filed hundreds of requests for government files. Records the AP obtained revealed police efforts to restrict airspace to keep away news helicopters during violent street protests in Ferguson, Missouri. In another case, the records showed Veterans Affairs doctors concluding that a gunman who later killed 12 people had no mental health issues despite serious problems and encounters with police during the same period. They also showed the FBI pressuring local police agencies to keep details secret about a telephone surveillance device called Stingray.

"What we discovered reaffirmed what we have seen all too frequently in recent years," Pruitt wrote in a column published this week. "The systems created to give citizens information about their government are badly broken and getting worse all the time."

Is anyone surprised?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #66 

Confirmed!  Obama's executive actions on immigration are unconstitutional

Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) attended a House Judiciary Hearing and talked to witnesses -- both law professors -- about the unconstitutionality of Barack Obama's royal decree -- to give amnesty to millions in the U.S. illegally.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #67 

Treasury throws unauthorized $3 billion to insurers under ObamaCare, won’t say why

Noah Rothman says that it’s right there in the Constitution:

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

Which is why this latest episode of lawlessness from Team Obama is so particularly galling. "The U.S. Treasury Department has rebuffed a request by House Ways and Means Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, R- Wis., to explain $3 billion in payments that were made to health insurers even though Congress never authorized the spending through annual appropriations," The Washington Examiner’s Philp Klein reported on Thursday.

That’s right. The payments insurers receive, dubbed "cost–sharing subsidies," are designed to offset the costs incurred when they pick up the out-of-pocket expenses for low-income individuals covered by Affordable Care Act plans. If insurers had to cover these costs themselves, ObamaCare would be infeasible. So, the federal government picks up the tab for the newly insured as they go about receiving "free" health care.

There’s just one tiny, unconstitutional problem: Congress never authorized the distribution of those funds. "[B]ut the Department of Health and Human Services, with the cooperation of the U.S. Treasury, made them anyway," Klein reported.

In a Feb. 3 letter to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Ryan, along with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., asked for "a full explanation for, and all documents relating to" the administration’s decision to make the cost-sharing payments without congressional authorization.

In response, on Wednesday, the Treasury Department sent a letter to Ryan largely describing the program, without offering a detailed explanation of the decision to make the payments. The letter revealed that $2.997 billion in such payments had been made in 2014, but didn’t elaborate on where the money came from. Over the next decade, cost-sharing payments to insurers are projected by the Congressional Budget Office to cost taxpayers nearly $150 billion.

Click through to Klein's report and read the whole thing. This pattern of behavior from administration officials staggering in its lawlessness and sets a dangerous precedent.

"A second grader knows that only Congress can appropriate funds. And even though CMS apparently agrees with that, the managers at HHS don’t," The American Thinker’s Rick Moran opined. Unfortunately, unless both the House and Senate order the insurance companies to return the funds -- and President Obama signs the bill -- HHS is going to get away with this."

Apparently, this cost-sharing scheme is one of the issues that is raised in the House GOP’s lawsuit against the White House over the myriad ways in which the administration has bent the law in order, they claim, to enforce it. But the outrage over this incident, or even reportage on it, is limited exclusively to Republican outlets.

One of the better arguments for repeal of the Affordable Care Act is the fact that this law has inured the public to anarchy. The public increasingly believes, and a plurality of Democrats are apparently convinced, that laws passed by Congress should be malleable enough so that the executive branch is not burdened by the dictates of the co-equal and representative legislative branch. What have we gotten ourselves into?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #68 

Obama says his "policy" transcends "the law"

Michael Dorstewitz is reporting that at a Miami meeting sponsored by MSNBC and Telemundo Wednesday where he addressed the concerns of illegal aliens, Barack Obama directed a chilling warning to Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

If they don't heed his executive actions on amnesty, "there will be consequences."

"But what are the consequences?" José Diaz-Balart asked Obama, according to a White House transcript. "Because how do you ensure that ICE agents or Border Patrol won't be deporting people like this? I mean, what are the consequences."

"José, look, the bottom line is, is that if somebody is working for ICE and there is a policy and they don't follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it," Obama said. "So I can't speak to a specific problem. What I can talk about is what's true in the government, generally."

He likened it to the military, and said that military personnel "are expected to follow" orders they're given.

Note:  Servicemen and women are not expected to follow illegal orders -- except, of course, when Barack Obama is giving them.

Obama has lifted all pretenses of following the rule of law. We are now living in a dictatorship and Obama doesn't care who knows it.

And the congressional Republicans make another speech!


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #69 

Team Obama threatens "consequences" If We The People don't fund amnesty

Monument.jpg

George Rasley says that if you thought that the United States of America is "a government of The People, by The People and for The People" banish that thought from your mind, because according to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson there will be "consequences" if Barack Obama's "executive actions on immigration reform" are not funded.

Obama, Johnson and the Senate Democrats have demanded a "clean" Department of Homeland Security appropriation bill. Senate Democrats, now in the minority, filibustered the Department of Homeland Security funding bill with all 46 of their members, reiterating the administration's position that they will not accept anything less than a bill with no limits on Obama's executive amnesty.

The GOP House passed bill bans any fee or fines that would be collected from immigrants intended to pay for Obama's executive immigration order, and to halt funding for Obama's 2012 executive order, known as DACA, which allowed more than half a million young illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children to stay in the country legally.

According to reporting by Kerry Picket of The Daily Caller, even moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine told reporters Obama's executive order is one step too far. "The 2014 order is not even a close call," she said. "It is so broad in its reach that Obama himself said, more than 20 times, that he didn't have the authority to take the kind of action that is included in the 2014 order."

And now Johnson's "gimme the money or else" threat of "consequences" against those who oppose funding Obama's "executive actions on immigration reform" raises the stakes in the debate about amnesty to a new level of constitutional crisis not see since the days before the Civil War.

According to Picket's article in The Daily Caller, Sheriff Justin Smith of Larimer County, Colorado, said his office received a letter about the funding bill from Sec. Johnson Smith that he considered to be a "veiled threat." Smith says that the letter was "addressed to all police chiefs and sheriffs around the country."

Pickett reports Smith wrote on his Facebook page, "His letter made it clear that if Congress didn't send Obama the DHS funding bill that he wanted (rubberstamping Obama's executive amnesty), local and state public safety agencies would not receive federal grants they were counting on because the president would veto the DHS funding bill."

"Let me get this straight -- the president believes he has the authority to nullify federal laws that don't serve his personal agenda, but if Congress dares to exercise its responsibility of controlling the purse strings, he will willingly hold public safety grants hostage just to get his way?"

Pickett quotes Sheriff Smith as saying, "Mr. President, you don't have to love the Congress we elected, but you do have to respect their role as established under the Constitution -and Mr. Johnson, please show some integrity and stop with the threats. Sheriffs don't take kindly to them."

While those familiar with the appropriations process might argue that Johnson's letters and statement are a violation of the Anti-Lobbying Act, 18 USC 1913, that says federal agencies or officials can't lobby for money we have a more fundamental concern.

What does it say about the separation of powers and the constitutional structure of three co-equal branches of government when one branch threatens another?

Johnson's threat has taken the argument over DHS funding beyond the Washington policy arguments of whether DHS should be funded by X billion or Y billion, or even whether or not Obama has the authority to do what he is doing. This is now the Executive Branch of the federal government threatening the legislative branch and the States with "consequences" if the Chief Executive does not get his way.

Jeh Johnson's threat of "consequences" if our representatives do not fund Obama's amnesty is not just political gamesmanship -- it is a threat against We the People who are the "owners" of our government and sent those representatives to our Congress.

And it makes us wonder just where such threats might lead.

Perhaps with Gucci-loafered thugs like Jeh Johnson calling on Senators in the middle of the night to make the "gimme the money or else" threat a little more personal, or Obama simply ignoring other constitutional limits on his power and laws passed by Congress? No one knows.

But one thing is certain; in the 1760s, when a tyrannical executive demanded that Americans fund his actions without representation or consent, and threatened arbitrary and unconstitutional "consequences" to enforce his will upon those Americans, it lit a fire that changed the world. That spirit is not dead yet and, in the face of these threats, its restraint is being sorely tested.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #70 

Boehner is suing Obama


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #71 

Obama’s overreaching executive action

The GOP-led House voted Wednesday to block funding for Obama’s executive amnesty in a 236-191 bipartisan vote -- two Democrats voted in favor of the measure. It was attached to a Homeland Security spending bill, that Obama has already said he will veto if it reaches his desk.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
snowyriver

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #72 
obama is an usurper to our presidency. He has not, probably cannot produce a legitimate birth certificate. The one he has produced shows plainly that he is not eligible to be president. As usurper all he has done is null and void. None can be permanent law.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #73 

Obama is a one-man revolution 

Victor Davis Hanson says  In his "fourth quarter," he feels free to ignore popular opinion, the rule of law, and Congress.

Until now there were two types of peaceful American change. One was a president, like Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan, working with Congress to alter American life from the top down by passing a new agenda. The other was popular-reform pressure, as happened in the 1890s or 1960s, to change public opinion and force government to make new laws or change existing ones.

Barack Obama has introduced a quite different, third sort of revolution. He seeks to enact change that both the majority of Americans and their representatives oppose. And he tries to do it by bypassing Congress through executive orders and presidential memoranda of dubious legality.

Take so-called climate change. Even when Obama enjoyed a Democrat-controlled Congress, he could not ram through unpopular cap-and-trade legislation. Now he promises to reduce carbon emissions through executive orders. He just signed a climate-change "accord" with China, bypassing the U.S. Senate, which by law must approve treaties with foreign powers.

Polls show that a majority of Americans oppose amnesties and want immigration laws enforced. The 2014 midterm elections were a reminder of those realities. No matter. Obama just did what for six years he warned was illegal: bypass immigration law and grant millions exemptions from enforcement through what he once called "a pen and a phone."

For over a half-century, both Democratic and Republican administrations and Congresses have excluded Cuba from normal U.S. relations. The Castro regime once hosted nuclear missiles pointed at the U.S. It sent expeditionary forces around the globe to spread Communism. It executed opponents, and it still locks up tens of thousands of political prisoners. It drove more than a million refugees to U.S. shores.

Obama knew there was neither popular nor congressional support to reestablish normal ties, especially given that the elderly dictators the Castro brothers are soon to pass on. The traditional props for Cuba's failed Cuban economy -- Russia and Venezuela -- now have failed economies of their own.

Easing up on Cuba makes about as much sense as if Reagan had given up on the Cold War in 1981, on the principle that prior opposition to Communism for over a half-century had failed to collapse the tottering Soviet Union.

Obama is said to feel liberated in his revolutionary mode, without worry of either midterm elections or his own reelection. He promises in his "fourth quarter" to enact more executive orders that will radically transform America, despite potential opposition from voters and the Congress.

In part the Obama revolution is linguistic. Words have been reinvented to mask unpleasant reality. Executive orders are "presidential memoranda," to disguise their ubiquity. Costly ObamaCare is an "Affordable Care Act." Treaties are mere "accords" that do not need to be ratified by the Senate. Deportations are redefined to create a false sense that immigration law is enforced. Terrorism is disassociated from its Islamic roots through euphemisms like "man-caused disaster."

In part the Obama revolution is bureaucratic. Old agencies are reinvented for new progressive missions. The NASA director promised to pursue Muslim outreach. The IRS went after political opponents. The actions of Immigration and Customs Enforcement are selective, and predicated on politics that are deemed favorable to the long-term Obama agenda. Whether the Department of Justice under Eric Holder intervened in a case was predicated on race, class, and gender criteria rather than just the legal merits.

In part the Obama revolution is a war to divvy up the nation by race, class, and gender. Differences are all stoked through various made-up wars. Incendiary presidential advisers like Al Sharpton, inflammatory rhetoric such "nation of cowards" and "punish our enemies," and presidential commentary on controversies such as the Trayvon Martin or Michael Brown cases inflame and divide.

After six years of Obama's tenure, his approval rating is just above 40 percent. He has lost more congressional seats during his administration than has any president in over a half-century. His party is in shambles, with historic midterm losses in state legislatures and governorships.

Obama's promised new legislation -- gun control, climate change, ObamaCare -- was either rejected by Congress or passed but found to be both unpopular and nearly unworkable. Positive changes -- such as lower gas prices brought on by new American oil and gas discoveries and innovative new methods of extraction -- came despite, not because of, Obama.

Yet Obama presses on with his unpopular agenda, believing, as did Napoleon, that he alone is the revolution -- intent to ignore popular opinion, the rule of law, and Congress. He assumes that his mastery of the teleprompter and iconic status as the first black president exempt him from congressional censure or outright public revolt.

In the next two years, we will see presidential overreach that we have not witnessed in modern memory.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #74 

Federal Judge says Obama immigration order unconstitutional

Keith Koffler is reporting that in the first court opinion on the issue, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that Barack Obama's immigration actions are an unconstitutional abuse of presidential power.

U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote the opinion in relation to a criminal case he was reviewing. It appears to me he was looking to weigh in the matter, and the opinion may have little practical effect other than to raise awareness that the immigration fiat might be challengeable in court.

According to Fox News:

(Schwab) wrote that the action goes beyond so-called "prosecutorial discretion" -- which is the "discretion" the administration cites in determining whether to pursue deportation against illegal immigrants . . .

Schwab . . . wrote that this "systematic and rigid process" applies to a "broad range" of enforcement decisions, as opposed to dealing with matters on a "case-by-case basis."

Further, he wrote that the action goes beyond deferring deportation by letting beneficiaries apply for work authorization and allowing some to become "quasi-United States citizens."

He also cited Obama's argument that he was proceeding with executive action after Congress failed to act on comprehensive immigration legislation, and countered: "Congressional inaction does not endow legislative power with the Executive."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #75 
Why is this Usurper not removed and locked up?  Who is he working for and why?  That is the question.  Why are these hateful folks trying to destroy USA which has been a beacon for all people to leave the oppression of other countries like USSR, China, etc...
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved