Advertisements
Home

Republican Jewish Coalition demands resignation of Democratic leaders with ties to Farrakhan

Leave a comment

H/T Fox News.

The DemocRats mentioned in this article will never resign or condemn Calypso Louie Farraconman(Farrakhan) because he  speaks for them.

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has answered those who denounced as anti-Semitic his recent “Jews are my enemy” quote with another broadside, this time tweeting a video clip where he says “The Jews have control over those areas of government” – in referring to the FBI.

The clip featuring the latest remark was posted to Farrakhan’s official Twitter account on March 7, well after the controversy erupted over the remarks made earlier, at a Chicago event on Feb. 25. Those comments brought new attention to Farrakhan’s links with seven members of the Congressional Black Congress, as well as to Women’s March co-president Tamika Mallory, who attended the Farrakhan event, and posted a photo of herself with Farrakhan on her Instagram feed after the speech.

The controversy sparked calls by many Republicans for Democrats to vigorously denounce Farrakhan’s remarks. Others who quickly condemned Farrakhan’s remarks also asked pointed questions on why much of the media was either slow to report the story, or have chosen to ignore it entirely.

farrakhan tweet 38

Farrakhan tweeted this week: “The FBI has been the worst enemy of Black advancement. The Jews have control over those agencies of government.”

The Republican Jewish Coalition on Tuesday called on the seven members of the CBC members to resign. The coalition’s director, Matt Brooks, told Fox News the Democratic leaders with ties to Farrakhan have been quick to denounce President Donald Trump and the GOP for remarks or actions that they view as bigoted, but overlook blatant racism and anti-Semitism when it comes to Farrakhan.

“There’s clearly a double standard,” Brooks said, then amended that to say “No, there’s a double double-standard. Not only do you get the progressive left wing and more centrist Democrats who aren’t shy about criticizing President Trump or branding the Republican Party as white nationalists or neo-Nazis, but when it comes to condemning Louis Farrakhan, they’re silent.”

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.  (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, file)

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California

The members called on to resign were the subject of a story in The Daily Caller, which reported a review of videos, photographs and other documents revealed the lawmakers have had ties to Farrakhan. They are Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Maxine Waters of California, Danny Davis of Illinois, Al Green of Texas, Barbara Lee of California, Andre Carson of Indiana, and Gregory Meeks of New York.

On Thursday, Meeks tweeted “Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic messages are upsetting & unacceptable. I always condemn hate speech of any kind. Also upsetting that right-wing blogs suggest otherwise & try making this a black vs. Jewish community issue. Still waiting for those blogs to condemn Trump’s racist remarks.”

Sen. Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat who is not among those with ties to Farrakhan, took to Twitter to condemn the Nation of Islam leader and to say that he must be rejected, not courted. “This is unacceptable in a progressive coalition or any political coalition. Anti-Semitism has no place in American society. We must reject this, left right and center.”

Besides Meeks, Ellison has also condemned Farrakhan for his divisive and hostile rhetoric. Davis denounced anti-Semitism, but also praised Farrakhan, according to the Daily Caller.

In a statement on the Republican Jewish Coalition’s website calling for them to step down, Brooks wrote: “Anti-Semitism is unacceptable. Farrakhan is the moral equivalent of a leader of the KKK. If it was discovered that members of Congress had met with the leader of the KKK, they would need to resign. In this case, for meeting with, and embracing, Louis Farrakhan, nothing short of resignation is acceptable from these seven Democrats.”

 

Earlier this week, a spokesman for Ellison, who is the deputy director of the Democratic National Committee, told Fox News: “Rep. Ellison has repeatedly disavowed anti-Semitism and bigotry, since his first campaign for Congress in 2006.”

The spokesman referred Fox News to a 12-year-old statement Ellison made when he came under fire for ties to Farrakhan, in which he said he erroneously dismissed concerns the Nation of Islam leader was anti-Semitic, and said he never shared “their hateful views” of “Jews, gays, or any other group.”

Democratic National Chair candidate, Keith Ellison, addresses the audience as the Democratic National Committee holds an election to choose their next chairperson at their winter meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. February 25, 2017. REUTERS/Chris Berry - RC1CDF70D6E0

Rep. Keith Ellison, Deputy Director, Democratic National Committee

Recently, Ellison again was in the spotlight after the Wall Street Journal reported that he had attended a meeting in 2013 with Muslim leaders where Farrakhan was present. Ellison, who was the first Muslim elected to Congress, said he did not know who would be there and that his decision to go “was not an endorsement of the political views of other attendees.”

Davis, the Illinois congressman, said in a February interview with the Daily Caller that Farrakhan is an “outstanding human being” and said he sees the minister on a regular basis. Days later, Davis’s office released a statement denouncing anti-Semitism as being “antithetical to everything I believe and everything that I work for on a daily basis.”

Reactions to the call for resignations has varied, even among groups sharing similar views on many important matters.

In Jewishpress.com, writer David Israel argued that while Brooks was right to denounce Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, he should not call for the resignation of lawmakers who have been pro-Israel, and are crucial congressional allies to Jews.

“Their Jewish voters and their Jewish colleagues in the Democratic party are entitled to an explanation about those Farrakhan meetings,” Israel wrote in Jewishpress.com, “but in politics, meeting a man, disturbing and loathsome as he may be, is not the same as endorsing his views. Pro-Israel Democrats have had enough trouble finding allies within the Black Caucus in Congress to face the Palestinian and BDS threats, to name just two.”

BDS refers to the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign that says Israel is responsible for violations of Palestinian rights and international law.

But Brooks rejected the contention lawmakers should be given a pass for “breaking bread with Farrakhan” because of other ways they can be useful to constituents.

“These [lawmakers] are leaders of the Democratic Party,” Brooks said. “If that’s enough for [David Israel], then why isn’t there the same standard when they criticize Donald Trump and other Republicans are who friends of Israel?”

“None of these Democrats went into those meetings with Farrakhan not knowing who he was,” Brooks said. “At some point they made the decision that they were going to go ahead and meet with him.”

The Republican Jewish Coalition on Tuesday called on the seven members of the CBC members to resign. The coalition’s director, Matt Brooks, told Fox News the Democratic leaders with ties to Farrakhan have been quick to denounce President Donald Trump and the GOP for remarks or actions that they view as bigoted, but overlook blatant racism and anti-Semitism when it comes to Farrakhan.

“There’s clearly a double standard,” Brooks said, then amended that to say “No, there’s a double double-standard. Not only do you get the progressive left wing and more centrist Democrats who aren’t shy about criticizing President Trump or branding the Republican Party as white nationalists or neo-Nazis, but when it comes to condemning Louis Farrakhan, they’re silent.”

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.  (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, file)

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California

The members called on to resign were the subject of a story in The Daily Caller, which reported a review of videos, photographs and other documents revealed the lawmakers have had ties to Farrakhan. They are Reps. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Maxine Waters of California, Danny Davis of Illinois, Al Green of Texas, Barbara Lee of California, Andre Carson of Indiana, and Gregory Meeks of New York.

On Thursday, Meeks tweeted “Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic messages are upsetting & unacceptable. I always condemn hate speech of any kind. Also upsetting that right-wing blogs suggest otherwise & try making this a black vs. Jewish community issue. Still waiting for those blogs to condemn Trump’s racist remarks.”

Sen. Brian Schatz, a Hawaii Democrat who is not among those with ties to Farrakhan, took to Twitter to condemn the Nation of Islam leader and to say that he must be rejected, not courted. “This is unacceptable in a progressive coalition or any political coalition. Anti-Semitism has no place in American society. We must reject this, left right and center.”

Besides Meeks, Ellison has also condemned Farrakhan for his divisive and hostile rhetoric. Davis denounced anti-Semitism, but also praised Farrakhan, according to the Daily Caller.

In a statement on the Republican Jewish Coalition’s website calling for them to step down, Brooks wrote: “Anti-Semitism is unacceptable. Farrakhan is the moral equivalent of a leader of the KKK. If it was discovered that members of Congress had met with the leader of the KKK, they would need to resign. In this case, for meeting with, and embracing, Louis Farrakhan, nothing short of resignation is acceptable from these seven Democrats.”

Advertisements

Obamaphone expands to Obama-Internet, with little thought of cost, abuse

Leave a comment

This is from The Washington Times. 

When will this spending madness end?

With a gutless nutless Congress and Obama in the White House it is unlikely to stop.

Remember the Obamaphone?

“Everybody in Cleveland have got Obamaphone, keep Obama as president, you know?” said Michelle Dowery, an Obama supporter at a 2012 Mitt Romney event, which went viral at the time. “He gave us a phone, he’s going to do more. … You sign up, you on food stamps, you on Social Security, you got no income, you got disability.”

“The typical Lifeline subsidy is $9.25 per month,” Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai, explained in the National Review. “But those who live on lands designated as ‘tribal’ receive $34.25 per month, whether or not they are Native Americans. You might not think that this is a big deal, but here’s the rub. The FCC currently treats virtually all of Oklahoma as tribal land. So, for example, a non–Native American living in Tulsa is eligible for $300 more per year in phone subsidies than a low-income person in East Los Angeles or Appalachia.”

Politico reported the Republican commissioners were close to striking a deal with the democratic controlled FCC to cap the program’s spending at $2 billion and include reforms. However, at the last minute Democratic Commissioner Mignon Clyburn backed out due to political pressuring. The new program passed 3-2 on partisan lines.

Ms. Dowery must be thrilled.

The Old Man & the Marine

Leave a comment

This was in my email box.

 

One sunny day in January 2017, an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he’d been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, “I would like to go in and meet with President Obama.” The Marine looked at the man and said, “Sir, Mr. Obama is no longer President and no longer resides here.” The old man said, “Okay,” and walked away.

The following day the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, “I would like to go in and meet with President Obama.” The Marine again told the man, “Sir, as I said yesterday, Mr. Obama is no longer President and no longer resides here.” The man thanked him and again just walked away.

The third day the same man approached the White House and spoke to the very same U.S. Marine, saying, “I would like to go in and meet with President Obama.” The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man and said, “Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here asking to speak to Mr. Obama. I’ve told you already that Mr. Obama is no longer the President and no longer resides here. Don’t you understand?”

The old man looked at the Marine, smiled and said, “Oh, I understand. I just love hearing it.”

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, “See you tomorrow, Sir!

Theodore Roosevelt and the First Presidential Car Ride

Leave a comment

This is from Mental Floss.

car_primary

IMAGE CREDIT: MILLERCENTER.ORG

Because Teddy Roosevelt was a man of adventure who loved to experience new things, he experienced a lot of presidential “firsts.” He was the first president to ride in a submarine (and pilot it, apparently), the first to have a telephone in his home, and the first, presumably, to have a dojo in the White House. And he was the first sitting president to take a public car ride, which happened 113 years ago today.

Roosevelt’s predecessor, William McKinley, was the first president to ride in a car, but Roosevelt was the first to make it part of his official presidential duties when he toured Hartford, Connecticut in 1902. The New York Times reported that Roosevelt was quite pleased with the “handsome Victoria automobile,” finding it to be an effective way to shake a lot of hands in a short period of time.

At least, that’s the snippet he gave the press. In private, Teddy the Rough Rider was less than impressed. “Motor cars are a trial, aren’t they?” he wrote in a letter to a friend in 1905. “I suppose that ultimately we will get them into their proper place in the scheme of nature, and when by law and custom their use is regulated in proper fashion their objectionable features will probably be eliminated; but just at present I regard them as distinct additions to the discomfort of living.”

Though he may have preferred real horses to horsepower, cars would continue to play a part in Roosevelt’s career. He chose to ride in a carriage for his 1905 inauguration, but here he is riding in an “objectionable” motor car in Fort Sheridan, Illinois, in 1917:

10 Things Revealed About the Nixon White House

Leave a comment

This is from Mental Floss.

What will history say about Barack Hussien Obama?

The things Obama is doing now makes Richard Nixon look like a piker.

Nixon was correct about Kennedy and the 1960 election.

k4h3j4kj3h

Image Credit: Getty Images

Tim Weiner, author of One Man Against the World, writes of Richard Nixon, “He wielded power like a Shakespearian king.” Nixon’s story is well known—the tragedy of a “great, bad man” who, while fighting wars and subversives, would begin spying on—and lying to—friend and foe alike. Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize winner, is a master researcher, delving into source documents to reconstruct histories with nuance and insight.

The Nixon White House delivered an unprecedented trove of material. Practically everything was recorded, and accounts from all of the key players would eventually be delivered through grand jury testimony, diaries, and minutes from White House committees. “The result,” he writes, “is that every quotation and each citation herein is on the record: no blind quotes, no unnamed sources, and no hearsay statements.”

The book is an extraordinary look at how the personal, political, and historical meld together and influence the way power is wielded at the highest echelon. Here are ten things One Man Against the World reveals about Richard Nixon and the presidency.

1. NIXON THOUGHT KENNEDY STOLE THE 1960 ELECTION.

Nixon narrowly lost the 1960 election to John F. Kennedy, and believed “to his dying day” that the presidency had been stolen from him. Fourteen thousand votes in three states would have made the difference. He returned to California where he proceeded to lose the 1962 gubernatorial election by three times as many people as had voted against him for the presidency. When he conceded defeat for the governorship, drunk, he famously told the gathered press, “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.”

But he wasn’t finished. He spent the next four years “ceaselessly cultivating future campaign supporters: corporate kingpins and foreign rulers, county chairmen and congressional leaders. He was blazing a trail back to power.” He raised $30 million from American donors—then a record amount—and made secret (and Weiner argues, illegal) political overtures to the South Vietnamese government (the war being the dominant political issue of the day). He was set for a comeback, and won the presidency in 1968.

2. HE SENT A SECRET MESSAGE TO CHINA IN HIS INAUGURAL ADDRESS.

GettyImages-2667916

Getty Images

The saying “Only Nixon could go to China” refers to Nixon’s career as a strident anti-communist and Cold Warrior. His overtures were seen as coming from a position of strength, and the visit was a long time in the making. During his inaugural address, he directly addressed the Soviet Union, saying, “Our lines of communication will be open.” The next line was a coded message to the Chinese government: “We seek an open world—open to ideas, open to the exchange of goods and people—a world in which no people, great or small, will live in angry isolation.”

The phrase “angry isolation” referred to an essay on China that he had written for Foreign Affairs, a celebrated journal devoted to foreign policy. In that article, he wrote, “There is no place on this planet for a billion of its potentially able people to live in angry isolation.” The Chinese government picked up on Nixon’s message, and took the unprecedented step of printing the entirety of his inaugural address in the People’s Daily, official newspaper of the Chinese Communist Party. Nixon visited China in 1972.

3. EVEN THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY THOUGHT NIXON’S WIRETAPS WERE “DISREPUTABLE.”

During his time in office, Nixon wiretapped friend and foe alike. He trusted no one and hated leaks most of all. One aide who was wiretapped later wrote, “You cannot square a personal friendship and total trust and intimacy with his authorizing of tapping your phone…you cannot run a government that way.” By 1973, 1,600 people were on the U.S. government’s watch list, including anti-war activists, politicians, and journalists. The National Security Agency’s official history calls the government surveillance “disreputable if not outright illegal.”

4. HE HATED DOMESTIC POLITICS AND WASTED LITTLE EFFORT ON IT.

GettyImages-1445235

Getty Images

Nixon hated domestic politics, which he regarded as “building outhouses in Peoria.” He ordered the assembly of a “Domestic Council,” which would be the local counterpart to the National Security Council. He was eventually told that such a program was impossible because he had never bothered to define an actual domestic agenda. The so-called “war on crime” was useful in that it helped him score political points and expanded wiretapping statutes. He signed the Environmental Protection Agency into law despite believing it to be a capitulation to those interested in “destroying the system.” Domestic politics simply didn’t matter enough to warrant a fight. “This country could run itself domestically without a president,” he said. “You need a president for foreign policy.”

5. HE WAS A PROPONENT OF THE “MADMAN THEORY.”

In 1969, he wanted the secretary of defense to “exercise the DEFCON,” referring to America’s state of military readiness. (DEFCON 5 means things are fine; DEFCON 1 means imminent total thermonuclear war.) DEFCON isn’t an arbitrary shorthand for politicians and the public. Changing its status means shifting military disposition, from moving warships to having pilots ready to leap into their bombers and erase countries from the map. Nixon wanted the DEFCON changed to convince Moscow that he was insane and thus not to be trifled with. This was called the “madman theory.”

6. HE PRACTICED FOR THE END OF THE WORLD.

GettyImages-77651230

Getty Images

Not long after taking office, the president participated in a dress rehearsal for World War III. He was flown aboard the Airborne Command Post, a nuclear command and control aircraft. (Four Airborne Command Posts remain operational today; no single plane can run the apocalypse effectively.) From there, he was walked through what might be expected if nuclear war broke out, and how to order the deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles, and so on. His chief of staff took notes during the rehearsal, writing at the time that the president had “a lot of questions about our nuclear capability and kill results. Obviously worried about the lightly tossed-about millions of deaths.”

7. HE WAS AGAINST EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BEFORE HE WAS FOR IT.

Once the Watergate scandal broke, Nixon fought madly to protect members of the White House staff from having to testify before Congress. To shut things down, he decided to invoke “executive privilege,” which allows members of the executive branch to resist subpoenas and interference from the legislative and judicial branches. Twenty-five years earlier, Truman used that power to keep Congress—eager to find communists—from poring through White House personnel records. One congressman who, at the time, fought bitterly against executive privilege? Richard Nixon. (In fact, the first chapter of his 1962 memoir is devoted to his opposition to it.)

8. HE KEPT THE WHITE HOUSE TAPES BECAUSE THEY WERE WORTH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

The biggest question one might ask about Richard Nixon concerns his famous tapes. Why did he record everything and, more importantly, why didn’t he destroy the tapes once it was clear that they might convict him? Concerning the first, Weiner asserts that Nixon recorded everything as a hedge against Henry Kissinger, his national security advisor and eventual Secretary of State. He knew Kissinger would eventually write a book about working in the White House, and he knew that Kissinger would lionize himself. Nixon believed the tapes would be valuable not only in writing his own memoirs (in which he looks better than Kissinger), but also as a unique resource in and of themselves.

In short, the tapes would be worth millions of dollars. As such, he held onto them until the bitter end. Nixon was no fool, though. Once the sharks started circling, he knew the tapes needed to be destroyed, but there was a problem: who would strike the match? It’s not like the president of the United States could load up a wheelbarrow, cart them to the south lawn of the White House, and start a bonfire. By this time everyone learned of the tapes (New York Post headline at the time: NIXON BUGGED HIMSELF). In fact, nobody could risk destroying them without almost certainly going to prison. And so the tapes remained, and continue to surprise all of us even to this day.

9. NIXON VOWED THERE WOULD BE “NO WHITEWASH AT THE WHITE HOUSE.”

GettyImages-1445218

Getty Images

Not long after Dwight Eisenhower chose him as a running mate in 1952, Nixon was accused of having a political slush fund. Bill Rogers, Eisenhower’s eventual attorney general, investigated and found no wrongdoing. He encouraged Nixon to go on television and defend himself. Nixon followed that advice, and gave what became known as the “Checkers speech,” in which he admits to having only one time in his life taken a campaign gift. Someone on the trail heard that Nixon’s daughters wanted a puppy, and one day a crate containing a dog arrived at the Nixon residence. His daughters were thrilled, and named the dog Checkers. “And I just want to say this right now,” vowed Nixon, “regardless of what they say about it, we’re going to keep it.”

Rogers would later spend four unhappy years as Nixon’s secretary of state. When the president finally discussed Watergate in a national address from the Oval Office, it was again Rogers who encouraged him. In that speech, Nixon famously said, “There can be no whitewash at the White House.” Those guilty, said Nixon, must “bear the liability and pay the penalty.” (He wasn’t talking about himself at the time, but it still worked out that way.)

10. HE RESIGNED IN 1974, BUT THE BUSINESS OF STATE WENT ON.

Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974, after it became clear that the House would impeach him for obstruction of justice in the Watergate investigation, and that the Senate would probably convict. The next day, the White House staff and service staff gathered, and Nixon said goodbye to them in a brief speech. He then walked to Marine One and departed. David Ransom, a foreign service officer, observed from the White House balcony the moment of liftoff. He described it as “almost a haunted scene.” Two men stood with Ransom: the White House chef and the secretary of defense, James Schlesinger. Said Schlesinger, as he emptied his pipe: “It’s an interesting constitutional question, but I think I’m still the secretary of defense. So I am going back to my office.” Schlesinger asked the chef what he was going to do now. “I’m going to prepare lunch for the president,” he said, and went off to prepare a midday meal for Gerald Ford.

10 facts about President George H.W. Bush for his 91st birthday

Leave a comment

This is from the National Constitution Center.

Happy Birthday Mr. President.

GeorgeBushWWII

It’s the 91st birthday of George H.W. Bush, the former U.S. president and former National Constitution Center chairman. So how much do you know about the 41st president?

President Bush had an incredible number of experiences before he succeeded Ronald Reagan in the White House in 1989. After leaving office in 1993, he was one of the most active former presidents ever, making headlines with annual parachute jumps and public appearances.

Here are 10 interesting facts about President George Herbert Walker Bush:

1. Bush came from a political family. His father was Prescott Bush, a U.S. senator from Connecticut and a prominent businessman. Prescott Bush defeated Thomas Dodd (the father of future senator Chris Dodd) in one of his campaigns.

2. Bush was one of the youngest pilots in the Navy. He joined the Navy at the age of 18 after Pearl Harbor instead of heading on to Yale. Lieutenant Bush was shot down while on active duty in the Pacific in 1944. He has the Distinguished Flying Cross among his medals.

3. Bush met Babe Ruth while playing baseball at Yale. He was a captain of Yale’s baseball team during his senior year, and there is a photo of Bush and the Bambino posing together, several months before Ruth’s death.

4. Bush did well in the oil business. After graduating from Yale, Bush went out on his own and entered the oil business. Bush started his own firm in 1951 and gained success over the next 15 years in Texas.

5. Bush quickly became successful in the Republican Party. After winning a seat in the House of Representatives in 1966, Bush was on the fast track in the GOP. But President Nixon asked him to give up his House seat in 1970, in a move that led to Bush losing to Lloyd Bentsen in a Senate race. A grateful GOP gained more respect for Bush.

6. Bush gained a wealth of experience in a few years. How grateful was the GOP? In the 1970s, Bush was the ambassador to the United Nations, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, the U.S. envoy to China, and the director of the CIA—all before 1977.

7. Bush was an academic. During the administration of Democratic president Jimmy Carter, Bush jumped off the fast track for a few years, taught some college classes, and worked with the Council on Foreign Relations.

8. Bush beat Reagan in the 1980 Iowa caucus. Reagan and Bush were top contenders for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980, with Bush taking an early lead in Iowa. But Reagan gained momentum in New Hampshire and won the nomination. In 1981, Bush became Reagan’s vice president.

9. Bush was connected to Martin Van Buren. In 1989, George H.W. Bush became the first sitting vice president to win a presidential election since Martin Van Buren in 1836. The other sitting vice presidents who became president by winning an election were John Adams (1796) and Thomas Jefferson (1800).

10. Bush was also connected to John Adams. When George W. Bush was elected president in 2000, it was only the second time that a father and son had been elected president. John Adams and John Quincy Adams were the first father-son duo.

 

WHITE HOUSE: OBAMA WILL SHUT DOWN GOV’T IF CONGRESS DEFUNDS EXEC AMNESTY

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

The Republicans better do their job and defund this massive scam on immigration.

The Republicans need to speak and let it be known that Obama not the Republicans are causing the shutdown.

https://social.newsinc.com/media/json/69017/28211712/singleVideoOG.html?videoId=28211712&type=VideoPlayer/16×9&widgetId=2&trackingGroup=69017

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest is warning that President Barack Obama would veto any spending bill that prohibits federal funds from being spent to enact Obama’s executive amnesty. That means Obama is willing to shut down the government to preserve his executive amnesty.

When asked if Obama would veto a bill that prohibits federal funds from being spent to enact his executive amnesty, Earnest simply replied: “yes.”

When asked if that would mean Obama is willing to shut down the government if Congress passes a funding bill that would “tie the president’s hands” on executive amnesty, Earnest spun and said, “I actually don’t believe that members of Congress are going to be willing to go along with an effort to shut down the government over the president’s executive action on immigration.” Congress must pass a new spending bill by December 11.

Earnest was not as clear about Obama’s intentions before Obama announced his executive amnesty. On November 20, Earnest was asked, “So you don’t rule out the President signing into law something that would undo the very thing he’s going to announce tomorrow night?” He responded then, “Well, I think that seems–I think we’ll have to sort of evaluate for ourselves what sort of proposals Republicans put forward, so I wouldn’t want to hazard a guess at this point. But it won’t surprise you to hear proposals that are floated like that certainly would not be among the kinds of proposals we’d support.”

House conservatives are reportedly working on legislation that would ensure “no part of any appropriation” could be used to enact Obama’s executive amnesty. Last week, the Congressional Research Service sent a letter to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) reporting that Congress does have the ability to restrict expenditures by an agency.

 

6 Reasons Liberals are Incapable of Governing

2 Comments

This is from Town Hall.

 

 

When you think poor governance, you think liberalism. Barack Obama could fairly be called the worst President in history and one of his biggest competitors for that crown is Jimmy Carter, whose name primarily brings to mind the words “malaise,” “hostage crisis,” and “liberal peanut farmer.” Lyndon Johnson? Other than the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which more Republicans voted for percentage-wise than Democrats, his presidency was a complete disaster.

Some Democrats might point out John F. Kennedy’s time in the White House, but in all fairness, he’d probably have more in common with Republicans like Scott Brown or Chris Christie than he would with liberals today. Bill Clinton could fairly be called a liberal, but after the Republican Revolution of 1994 that came as a reaction to his liberalism, he was so chastened that he spent the last 6 years in the White House banging chicks and trying to fight off impeachment instead of pushing an agenda.

Of course, liberal incompetence isn’t just confined to the White House. Who botched the hurricane preparation for New Orleans so badly that tens of thousands of people were stuck in a city built inside of a geological soup bowl when Hurricane Katrina rolled in? Liberals. Who bankrupted Detroit? Liberals. Why are states like Illinois, Michigan, and California on track to default on their debts in the next few years? Liberals.

Why are liberals so bad at governing?

1) Their political alliances require a lot of corruption: If you boil the political pitch liberals make down to its essence, it’s basically, “Vote for us and we’ll give you ‘free’ stuff and let you do whatever you want.” Of course, somebody has to pay for all of the “free” stuff and as often as not, when you bend the law to let one person do whatever he wants, it gets done at someone else’s expense. You want special privileges for the unions? You have to screw businesses to make it happen. You want gay marriage? Well, then you’ll have to force Christians to violate their religious beliefs to get it. Want to give free contraception away? Then somebody has to pay for it and chances are, people think it’s a dumb idea. Liberals believe in deciding who wins and who loses in society based on political concerns, not merit, and it shows in the mediocrity of their performance.

2) Their close-mindedness keeps them from getting feedback: Liberals live inside a closed feedback loop. Conservative criticism of liberal policies is treated as wrong by default because those of us on the Right are supposedly awful, mean, racist people who hate poor people and puppies. Yet, liberals embrace tribalism to such an extent that they are only allowed to criticize each other for tactics or for not being liberal enough while support for liberal programs is as immutable as religious doctrine. There is no debate of significance on the Left about whether Obamacare is a good idea or whether the government can “afford” to spend more money on any new programs. Even the “moderate” liberals who talk tough about being pro-life or against gun control because they’re in a purple district will always cave on a liberal principle if they’re needed for a crucial vote. This is part of the reason you always hear so much talk about a “civil war” on the Right. Conservatives are open-minded enough to have ferocious, free-wheeling debates about the issues while the drones on the Left aren’t free thinkers.

3) They don’t care if their policies work: Liberalism was not, is not, and will never be about putting the best policies in place to help the most people. If liberals did care about results, they wouldn’t be liberals in the first place. To the contrary, liberalism is all about taking positions that make people feel good about themselves. If a policy bankrupts small businesses all across the country, but makes liberals feel compassionate, they view it as good policy. If a policy tramples over the rights of hundreds of millions of people, but makes liberals feel tolerant, they view it as good policy. If a policy mires tens of millions of people in poverty, but it makes liberals feel like they care, they view it as good policy. When you govern based on how policies make you feel, not whether they work or not, you’re nothing but an oblivious bull running through a china shop because the sound of all the breaking glass makes you happy.

4) Their strategy is centered around amassing government power: If people can take care of themselves, then they don’t need liberals telling them what to do “for their own good” and that just won’t do. So, liberals have embraced big government not because it’s effective at solving problems, but because it’s a good tool to use if you want to control people. Unfortunately for liberals, centralized control of a nation of over 300 million people can’t work. There are too many people, too many professions, and too much complexity for D.C. to handle. Put another way, if you put a genius at cooking in charge of making regulatory decisions for the banking or medical industry, she would be practically guaranteed to hopelessly screw it up because she wouldn’t have the specific knowledge needed to make good decisions. Oh, and guess what? Most politicians and bureaucrats aren’t “geniuses.” A lot of them aren’t that bright at all and many of the ones that are, have the inflated sense of self-esteem that comes from going to a good school and being told, “You’re smart,” your whole life without ever going out in the real world and testing yourself. “Big government” leads to “big disasters” and there was not, is not, nor will there ever be liberals smart enough to change that.

5) They don’t like America very much: Conservatives start with the assumption that America is a great nation that’s worth preserving. Liberals don’t share that assumption. Liberals are like a man that looks at his beautiful wife who took care of him, doted on him, and worshipped him for his whole adult life and thinks, “I bet that somewhere there’s a super model who’d do everything my wife does AND never ask me to take her out to dinner once in awhile. I want a divorce!” When you don’t love this country, when you don’t appreciate the INCREDIBLE economic prosperity and freedom we’ve had, when you feel no gratitude for all of the sacrifices that were made to get us to this point, how can you be trusted to govern?

6) They believe the ends justify the means: Liberals don’t care about rules unless the rules benefit them in some fashion. Of course, rules that are only rules when they benefit liberals are no rules at all. Why should you follow the law if illegals are allowed to break the law with impunity? Why shouldn’t you cheat on your taxes if a tax cheat like Tim Geithner can be Secretary of the Treasury? If Barack Obama can break the law any way he wants, just because he wants to do it, why shouldn’t YOU be able to break the law, too? What this erosion of respect for law and order leads to is a society based on legalism, where people only obey the letter of the law as long as they feel that they won’t get caught. Lies becomes routine, corruption becomes endemic, cover-ups become standard — in other words, the degeneracy of the Obama White House becomes the norm whenever liberals are in charge.

Rush: Clintons 2 of ‘biggest phonies’ alive today

Leave a comment

This is from World Net Daily.

The Clinton’s like the Obama’s have blind physcopants that will believe every word they utter.

That is a scary prospect as the Clinton’s and Obama’s are pathological liars.

They’re so cheap, they won’t spend their own money on anything’

Radio giant Rush Limbaugh is calling former first couple Bill and Hillary Clinton hypocritical “phonies” for pretending to be financially struggling while living and sometimes even bragging about their opulent lifestyle.

“I think these are two of the biggest phonies on Earth,” Limbaugh said Monday on his national broadcast. “They always have been. They’re phonies through and through. And I don’t think they’re nice people.”

Since leaving the White House in 2001, the Clintons have reportedly made more than $100 million. Hillary herself has a reported net worth of $50 million and charges a six-figure speaking fee.

In a new interview with Britain’s Observer, Hillary noted, “We pay ordinary income tax, unlike a lot of people who are truly well off, not to name names; and we’ve done it through dint of hard work.”

Earlier this month, Hillary complained to Diane Sawyer of ABC News that she and her husband emerged from the White House “dead broke.”

Rush Limbaugh

Limbaugh remarked, “When Mrs. Clinton said, ‘We’re not well off. We pay ordinary income taxes,’ she’s jealous. She’s envious of people of people who have a lot of money. And $50 million, $100 million in their world isn’t a lot of money. Not among the people they hold dear. They know multi-billionaires. They fly around gratis on their friends’ private Boeing 757s. The Clintons are so cheap, they won’t spend their own money on anything, not even to charter a Piper Cub to get from Chappaqua [New York] to Washington.”

He continued: “They’re out they’re doing everything they can while bragging about their wealth. Now, Hillary complaining about how little they have, and they’re trying to pretend they’re rich, they’re trying to use the same strategies that the uber-rich do to avoid paying taxes – family-planning taxes, estate taxes primarily.

Listen to Rush Limbaugh on the Clintons:

“Now everybody does it, but they are hypocrites! Because they’re the people out there bragging about having the money to pay taxes, and they don’t care when taxes go up. Bill Clinton’s famous for that, privately. This is why they’re phony-baloney, plastic banana, good-time rock-and-rollers. Privately, they’re trying to get out of paying as much in tax as they can.”

Limbaugh concluded, “They get away with it because they are perceived to have such good intentions.”

Specifically regarding Hillary, Limbaugh quipped, “You put a bucket of excrement in front of her, she’s gonna step in it.”

“How can the smartest woman in the world say such dumb things consistently? … How can the smartest woman in the world screw up like that?”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/rush-identifies-2-of-biggest-phonies-on-earth/#Pq5K5gTArfehccos.99

White House: Obama Looking to Act ‘Administratively, Unilaterally’ on Guns

2 Comments

This is from The Blaze.

As Partriots we need to remain vigilant.

 

 

 

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Tuesday that President BarackObama is “always” looking for opportunities to act “unilaterally” again on guns, though he would prefer to work with Congress.

“The president’s goal is to look for opportunities to act administratively, unilaterally using his executive authority to try to make our communities safer,” Earnest said, responding to a question the day that a gunman opened fire at an Oregon high school, killing one student and injuring a teacher. “We’re always looking for those opportunities. But none of those opportunities when they present themselves is going to be an acceptable substitute for robust legislative action.”

Police said the shooter at Reynolds High School in Troutdale, Oregon, was later found dead.

After the December 2012 massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, Obama took 23 executive actions to restrict guns. However, an Obama-backed bill for stronger background checks for gun purchases could not even get enough support to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate.

“There’s no doubt there has been an alarming frequency of tragic incidents of gun violence that are concerning to Democrats and Republicans in Washington but more importantly to people all across the country,” Earnest said. “The question is what can we do to make certain something like this never ever happens again? There are going to be other tragedies. The question I think really facing lawmakers right now is what common sense steps can Democrats and Republicans take to reduce the likelihood of gun violence.”

“And there are some, and they have unfortunately been bottled up in Congress and that is a disappointment to the president,” Earnest continued. “But that’s not going to stop the president from continuing to push for administrative steps that we can take to help reduce gun violence.”

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: