The Ugly Truth about Obammy - From Retired Liberal Deocrate Senator.

Democrat Senator Tells The Truth About Obama.

Written by  Mockarena

According to a column from a UK PAPER, (since no one in the mainstream media here would dare to criticize Dear Leader in such a manner), former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey would like everyone to know the truth about Obama.
And it's ugly.

Kerrey said that Obama simply isn't up to the job of "bringing liberals and conservatives to the table to rescue America's slowly choking entitlement programs."
And that was just for starters. Kerrey also said that Obama "had to know he was misleading the audience" during his push for Obamacare.  He said the White House clearly understood the numbers, and that Republicans did a bad job of explaining the Democratic strategy.  (No surprise there - this is why we're always complaining about how much the GOP sucks at messaging.)  Republicans should have said, "Hey - young people - you know why Obama wants you to sign up for healthcare insurance so bad?  Because in all likelihood, you won't need it, which means you'll be paying for everyone else's claims."
Because that's the truth. Obama doesn't care about young people.  He just cares about their votes.  This is why he's Between Two Ferns and best pals with Jay-Z.
Kerrey didn't stop there.  He said that the worst lie Democrats told about Obamacare is that "everybody deserves high quality, affordable healthcare."  He said, "Excuse me? Uh - I don't know if you've heard about the bell curve? If I've got 1000 doctors, 100 are great, and 100 are not so good.  It's impossible! And affordable?  Forget about it."
Kerrey also said that one of Obama's biggest mistakes was pushing Obamacare at ALL when the country was still so economically fragile.  He said, "I wouldn't have done health care.  I think the big mistake was to say, 'Whew! We've got the stimulus done, okay, the economy's going to come bouncing back in 12 months - let's do healthecare.'  Only the economy didn't come bouncing back. We're teetering on the edge of going out of business through most of 2009, and I think you need to just keep driving, driving, driving on the economy, and make it as bipartisan as possible."
Yeah.  Obama basically did the exact opposite of that, which is why our economy still sucks monkeyballs.  (Sidenote to hypersensitive liberals:  If you think "monkeyballs" is racist in that context, it's because YOU ARE RACIST.)
Kerrey understands that fundamentally, entitlement programs mean we're "robbing from the future to pay for the past. And we're shoveling more and more money to people over the age of 65."  Why more people don't understand this very basic concept, I have no idea.
Kerrey said the only way to break the congressional roadblocks is to have a real president, which he acknowledged we simply don't have.  And part of Obama's problem is that he has an "inflated sense of Americans' appetite for programs to correct what the White House calls income equality, through new taxes and other income-shifting initiatives that transfer wealth from the rich to the poor."  Kerrey said, "After the 2012 election, what the president needed was somebody to say, 'Mr. President, I'm thrilled you won.  You stand for all the things I support.  But honestly, you won this election because you sucked less than Romney.'"
OUCH. All the way around, even.

Obama Knows Where Benghazi Terriors are but Refuses to Arrest Them.

Written By : Ashley Herzog
April 5, 2014

Well, this is enraging. Rep. Mike Rogers, the House Intel Committee Chair, says Obama knows where the Benghazi terrorists are hiding, but refuses to go after them because of his “kinder, gentler approach” to terrorism.

v

He revealed this information to Time Magazine this week.

We have numerous people that we know participated in the Benghazi attacks affiliated with al-Qaeda that are still on the battlefield. We have the capacity to get them but there’s no planning to get them. We have other serious al-Qaeda threats that normally we would take off the battlefield, but because of this Administration’s more kinder, gentler approach we have not done that.

As the saying goes, the more things change around here, the more they stay the same.
Also see: An Interview With Warren Farrell, The Author Of “Why Men Are the Way They Are.”

 

Dana Loesch Completely Destroys Harry Reid In Video Teaching People How ‘To Internet’

Dana Loesch:  Hysterical

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) suggested on Wednesday that the latest delay of

ObamaCare’s individual mandate was because some Americans just aren’t “educated on how to use the Internet.”
Thursday, conservative radio talk show host and Blaze TV personality Dana Loesch not only responded to Reid’s most recent lame defense of ObamaCare, but absolutely skewered the Majority Leader in the process.
The snark couldn’t be funnier. Yeah, you gotta watch this one.

Another One Bites The Dust: This Democrat Governor Won’t Run On ObamaCare Either

Courtesy of The Blaze (Click full-screen to enlarge video)

Going To Jail in America for Praying to Jesus Christ !! AMEN !!

Jesus Christ

‘Willing to Go to Jail’: Politician Delivers Passionate Speech About God Before Defying Judge’s Order and Uttering a Christian Prayer

Mar. 28, 2014 8:51am Billy Hallowell 

Just two days after a U.S. district judge issued a preliminary injunction barring sectarian prayer at government meetings in Carroll County, Md., commissioner Robin Bartlett Frazier ignored the order and opened Thursday’s budget meeting with an invocation referencing Jesus Christ.
The Carroll County Times reported that Frazier “seemed near tears” when she openly voiced her dissatisfaction with the injunction, which was signed Tuesday by U.S. District Court of Maryland Judge William D. Quarles Jr.

“I’m willing to go to jail over it. I believe this is a fundamental of America and if we cease to believe that our rights come from God, we cease to be America,” she said. “We’ve been told to be careful. But we’re going to be careful all the way to communism if we don’t start standing up and saying ‘no.’”
The prayer Frazier delivered was one she said was written by President George Washington (though some historians later rebutted that the nation’s first president wasn’t truly the author).
Regardless, the text mentioned Jesus more than once, which is a violation of the judge’s order that commissioners not use “the name of a specific deity associated with any specific faith or belief,” Reuters reported.
Watch Frazier’s speech and prayer below:


Jesus Christ
The judge’s injunction follows the filing of a lawsuit in May 2013 by the American Humanist Association and several residents, claiming that the sectarian invocations posed a violation of the Establishment Clause.
As the Carroll County Times reported, sectarian prayers are halted until the judge makes a determination in the lawsuit against Carroll County.
“Commissioner Frazier spoke at length in brazen defiance of the federal judge’s order,” said Bruce Hake, a plaintiff in the case who attended Thursday’s meeting.
Monica Miller, one of the lawyers for local plaintiffs, wrote a letter Thursday claiming that she will not seek contempt charges against Frazier over this violation, but that if sectarian prayers continue, the politician won’t be so lucky in the future.

“Of course, it’s entirely possible that the commissioner wishes to become a public martyr of sorts for Christianity, a celebrity upon whom religious sympathizers can bestow admiration and encouragement,” Miller wrote. “If that’s the case, and if she therefore ignores both the court and this warning, she will no doubt get her wish.”

(H/T: Reuters)
–
Featured image via Shutterstock.com

Other Must-Read Stories

 

 

• Glenn Beck Says He Nearly Lost His Mind When He Heard CNN's Christiane Amanpour Say This
• Bill Maher Tricks Guests With 'Racist' Paul Ryan Quote That Was Actually Said by Michelle Obama - The Reaction He Gets Is Priceless
• Self-Professed 'Bible Scholar' Makes Explosive Allegation About Jesus That He Believes Could Rock the Christian Faith to Its Core 

Trey Gowdy puts Obama on Blast 2x on the Senate Floor - EPIC

Greatest American Hero, Fighting for us in Washington DC where Lawlessness is the order for the day.  These guys have no soul and sell out everytime they are sent to represent us and now we have a way to fight back and that is the Tea Party and Trey Gowdy.  The two speeches he gave are absolutely epic and call obama on everything he has done and in my opinion is putting up a pretty damn good argument for impeachment of mr. barry hussein obama.

Speech #1

Speech #2

high crimes and misdemeanors in presidential impeachment

Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

by Jon Roland, Constitution Society

Sick Bias Radio

The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.
Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.
Perjury is usually defined as "lying under oath". That is not quite right. The original meaning was "violation of one's oath (or affirmation)".
The word "perjury" is usually defined today as "lying under oath about a material matter", but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is "violation of an oath". We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter "j" is the letter "i" in Latin.

periurium, i, n,, a false oath, perjury.

periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. iuro, avi, atus, are, to swear, take an oath.

iurator, oris, m., a swearer.

iuratus, adj., sworn under oath, bound by an oath.

ius, iuris, that which is binding, right, justice, duty.

per, ... IV. Of means or manner, through, by, by means of, ... under pretense of, by the pretext of, ....

By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy.
When a person takes an oath (or affirmation) before giving testimony, he is assuming the role of an official, that of "witness under oath", for the duration of his testimony. That official position entails a special obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and in that capacity, one is punishable in a way he would not be as an ordinary person not under oath. Therefore, perjury is a high crime.
An official such as the president does not need to take a special oath to become subject to the penalties of perjury. He took an oath, by Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, and lying at any time constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr erred in presenting in his referral only those offenses which could be "laid at the feet" of the president. He functioned like a prosecutor of an offense against criminal statutes that apply to ordinary persons and are provable by the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". That is not to say that such offenses are not also high crimes or misdemeanors when committed by an official bound by oath. Most such offenses are. But "high crimes and misdemeanors" also includes other offenses, applicable only to a public official, for which the standard is "preponderance of evidence". Holding a particular office of trust is not a right, but a privilege, and removal from such office is not a punishment. Disablement of the right to hold any office in the future would be a punishment, and therefore the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" would apply before that ruling could be imposed by the Senate.
It should be noted, however, that when an offense against a statute is also a "high crime or misdemeanor", it may be, and usually is, referred to by a different name, when considered as such. Thus, an offense like "obstruction of justice" or "subornation of perjury" may become "abuse of authority" when done by an official bound by oath. As such it would be grounds for impeachment and removal from office, but would be punishable by its statutory name once the official is out of office.
An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge, to be able, in Starr's words, to "lay them at the feet" of the president. It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs. The president's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors. It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision. He is not protected by "plausible deniability". He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.
Therefore, the appropriate subject matter for an impeachment and removal proceeding is the full range of offenses against the Constitution and against the rights of persons committed by subordinate officials and their agents which have not been adequately investigated or remedied. The massacre at Waco, the assault at Ruby Ridge, and many, many other illegal or excessive assaults by federal agents, and the failure of the president to take action against the offenders, is more than enough to justify impeachment and removal from office on grounds of dereliction of duty. To these we could add the many suspicious incidents that indicate covered up crimes by federal agents, including the suspicious deaths of persons suspected of being knowledgeable of wrongdoing by the president or others in the executive branch, or its contractors.
The impeachment and removal process should be a debate on the entire field of proven and suspected misconduct by federal officials and agents under this president, and if judged to have been excessive by reasonable standards, to be grounds for removal, even if direct complicity cannot be shown.

1938 German Gas Chamber Exposed or Turn your Guns Over.

If a Picture is worth a thousand words then this picture has to be worth at least a thousand words with years of pain and emotion turmoil.  Do not forget how this began, Liberal Progressives wanted to protect you from yourself and others by taking your guns away from you.