President Obama 10 days before

coc_2It took former President Obama 10 days from leaving the White House before he spoke out against President Trump’s order to temporarily ban people from seven predominately Muslim countries.

The statement was from a spokesman, and it did not attack Trump directly. Rather it appealed to protesters.

“President Obama is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country,” Kevin Lewis, a spokesman for the former president, said in a statement. “Citizens exercising their constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake.”

It is overly easy to tell that this is Democrat Party writing. Leveling the details: Barack Obama is “heartened by the level of engagement” around the nation. Here is where this gets just a little bullish: “Citizens exercising their constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices…see when American values are at stake.”     CcmKujIWEAAScEQ

As for me, this was written for the child-like mind insofar as it reeks of how democrats are constantly changing the wording, the truth, lying, and prone to changing a subject whenever they are wrong. Example: What Obama and this individual are doing to “American values” is simply incorrect. He conveniently leaves out the right to peaceably assemble, moreover, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I was taught that “to petition” openly means that anyone assembling needs to have a signed permit or petition listing where, when, how, and why the “redress of grievances” would be taking place. Indeed back in the 1970s, any self-respecting protester would apply for a petition first.

There is a debate on how to approach a Trump attack. There is fear that if Obama comes out too early against Trump it could lessen the effectiveness of the message. His team reportedly does not want Obama to be the face of the anti-Trump protests.

“I wouldn’t be opposed if he spoke out,” Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., told Politico. “I just don’t know what effect it would be.” If any! Nothing quite like a person who is largely responsible for the continued heartened by the level of engagement of Ferguson, Missouri, and all the other places that Obama inspired racial animus.

He continued, “In hindsight, I believe it was wrong for Barack Obama to normalize Donald Trump,” he said.

LiarsPolls show Obama left the office both popular and trusted. (What! You must be joking!)He had appeared more cautious about diluting his influence by quickly second-guessing Trump. Doing so could make it easier for Trump to dismiss critiques as predictable partisan nitpicking. And becoming the face of Trump’s opposition could make it harder for the next generation of Democratic leaders to emerge.

Obama said nothing Monday when Trump fired his former appointee Sally Yates, who was serving as acting attorney general. He also won’t opine on Trump’s announcement of a Supreme Court nominee, former White House aides in touch with Obama said. This is sympathetic. Yates should have been fired. Obama should have been impeached.

Obama loyalists said the expressions of opposition aren’t part of an organized campaign. They reported being energized by a series of group text messages, Facebook groups and email chains in which some of the thousands of one-time Obama staffers are sharing their dismay. Then do us all a favor and quit.

What is so hard about allowing the elected President do his job? We all know that it is petty and very, very Democratic Party nonsense that is causing the gridlock, better still, the Monster Truck pile up on the beltway.

bot-flourish

Visas, Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Population Control, Wars, Religions, and Discrimination

Visas, Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Population Control, Wars, Religions, and Discrimination

As faimagesCAJK81ZEr as we see it – “it” being the operative word for the conditions currently going on in the United States – and seriously asking ourselves, “How good for us is all the squabbling.”  I’m not the first person to wonder about the rubbish we, as a nation, have gotten ourselves into; however, I would like to be ahead in the line of who it is that is trying with due-diligence to stop and get out of” it.”

And I will openly admit that I feel that the mainstream media has a firm foothold on how public policy and how American awareness feels about it. Therefore please, allow me to ask you a question and just hopefully we’ll get some responses to this question: “America is in trouble, what we can do to help our current government end this trouble?”

Just some fundamentals for us. Should the government (for whatever reason) continue to have a free give away Diversity Lottery on visas for 80,000 or more people per year?

In this article, it should be made known that at least 50% of all legal immigrants coming to America are awarded entitlements as at their arrival? What does good moral character mean? Do you feel as though so kind of legislation should be made prohibiting these individuals from gaining access to the USA?

And this entire notion of while a person is here in the USA while visiting from Russia, Iran, or Mexico, or anywhere for that matter, who goes into labor gives birth and WHAM! They have got a US citizen in their hands, which in turn makes every member of that child’s family or extended family worthy of receiving entitlements? Is that fair?

Now as for Senator’s: Schumer, Rubio, Graham, McCain, Flake, Durbin, Menendez, and Bennett commonly referred to as The Gang of Eight collectively these 8 senators wrote the first draft of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013, commonly known as “the immigration bill.” As we already know, the House didn’t even look at the Bill so it was basically debunked on release. Did the USA need another Sub-Committee?

scalesDo we need to reevaluate the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 to regain control of our country? Currently, that act is viewed by most not as lifting the limits of immigrants from certain countries as much as with the Kennedy backing it is viewed now to be an act of civil rights legislation and those rights for potential immigrants. From the act itself”

  • It created a seven-category preference system, which gave priority to relatives of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents and to professionals and other individuals with specialized skills.
  • Immediate relatives and “special immigrants” were not subject to numerical restrictions. Some of the “special immigrants” include ministers, former employees of the U.S. government, foreign medical graduates, among others.
  • It added a labor certification requirement, which dictated that the Secretary of Labor needed to certify labor shortages.
  • Refugees were given the seventh and last category preference with the possibility of adjusting their status. However, refugees could enter the United States through other means as well like those seeking temporary asylum. How much has this notion changed?

Even if America is the land of opportunity why do politicians feel it’s necessary to spread that opportunity immediately?

CLOUD finger-illusionsDid you understand what the leader of Iraq meant when he stated, “Death to America and Israel”? Why is it so important to give visas to people who disagree with our way of life? This is confusing to me. “Let their blood run down the streets” is something we hear, beheading innocent individuals is just another thing we see. How long will it be until America shows the fortitude it once had?

Arden V

Whew! I found this to be an Interesting Thought…

Whew! I found this to be an Interesting Thought…

68b3a361d9136bb4d1d858e85765e2289f754d89_jpg_cf“What, only Republican presidents get to nominate judges? Is that in the Constitution? I used to teach constitutional law. I’ve never seen that provision” —  President Barack Obama, in remarks given yesterday at a rally for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in North Carolina.

But wait! There is more — President Obama went on to chide Republican senators for their stance on blocking all future Supreme Court nominations if Clinton wins the presidency, saying, “[T]he reason they said they wouldn’t have a hearing or vote for my Supreme Court nominee, bucking all of American history, was because, ‘We thought the American people should decide the next Supreme Court justice.’ Now they’re saying, ‘Well, if they don’t decide the way we want them to decide, maybe we won’t even do that.’ Eleven years ago, Richard Burr said a Supreme Court without nine justices would not work. Well, what changed?” Senator Burr recently vowed to keep any of Clinton’s Supreme Court nominees from being confirmed. 

However, I do think that Barack Hussein Obama, President, Nah, Cheerleader for Hillary Clinton and bonafide hater of Donald Trump. Upon hearing the bountiful mouth of Cheerleader Barack Obama in both North Carolina and Florida. I am positive that somewhere between Obama’s Justice Department and the Oval Office I’d face arrest charges even if it were telling the truth about this asinine clown.

“[T]he reason they said they wouldn’t have a hearing or vote for my Supreme Court nominee, bucking all of American history,” let’s be telling the truth here Mr. Cheerleader, the entire population of this great nation (with the exception of a few!) voted you in as the first African American president not once but twice pandering to your lies, misrepresentations, and utter bull squat.

arden B

Michelle Obama: Election About ‘Who Will Have the Power to Shape Our Children’

Michelle Obama: Election About ‘Who Will Have the Power to Shape Our Children’

michelleIf anyone did not miss the majority of the Republican National Convention RNC, seriously now, who on earth could be more proud of Mr. Trump’s adult offspring?

Sure I thought it was a little dicey having each one of the Trump clan taking such powerful speaking engagements; however, for me and most of my colleagues were in particular agreement at how well polished, strongly spoken, as well as impeccable adult children that each of Mr. Trump’s children are.

First lady Michelle Obama argued that Donald Trump is no example for America’s children during an impassioned pitch for Hillary Clinton’s candidacy at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on Monday evening.

Well she has indeed proved that she is no smarter than her lying and nontransparent husband is outright.

Obama threw her support behind Hillary, noting “there were plenty of moments when Hillary could have decided that this work was too hard, that the price of public service was too high, that she was tired of being picked apart for how she looks or how she talks or even how she laughs.”

“But here’s the thing. What I admire most about Hillary is that she never buckles under pressure. She never takes the easy way out. And Hillary Clinton has never quit on anything in her life,” she continued. “And when I think about the kind of president that I want for my girls and all our children, that’s what I want.”

Right here with the above statement is what conjures up such discontent inside of me toward these people. Hillary Clinton has shown me as a professional person that she is a masterful liar. That is her easy way out. So please Mrs. Obama, what’s your excuse for Hillary moving on without Bill in their marriage?  1500px-DesertStormMap_v2_svg

Obama reflected on “the story of this country, the story that has brought me to this stage tonight, the story of generations of people who felt the lash of bondage, the shame of servitude, the sting of segregation, but who kept on striving and hoping and doing what needed to be done so that today I wake up every morning in a house that was built by slaves.”

There we go — for what’s it worth, we will never, ever be able to heal from what a small proportion of America’s earliest agrarians have done. And as long as this crap happens we never ever will.

James_Madison_140x190The first lady said she wants “a president who will teach our children that everyone in this country matters, a president who truly believes in the vision that our Founders put forth all those years ago that we are all created equal, each a beloved part of the great American story.”

Lady, you certainly need to put more emphasis into my column. Although you single handedly ignored everything that was written yesterday – which certainly allows me to know where your knowledge level is, however, just a quick question: Do you and what’s his name Barack, Berry or Whatever communicate?

arden B

Caught in the act…trying to use “Special Rights”

How many times have you witnessed us waning on the side of caution when matters pursuant to freedom of speech start getting batted around like a the October Classic in baseball. And in this situation it only gets worse.

Perhaps Rahm Emanuel took his duties as the President’s Chief-of-Staff and really started believing that he was in the know – or in fact believed he was making a difference in his friend’s business of wreaking the entire United States. Bexause in the right scope of things he’s doing the exact same thing to Chicago.

Ladies and gentlemen we are here to offer our little rebuttal of the abuses of the First Amendment. Sure it says, “Congress shall make no law  respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”  That of course is the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. There is also the Freedom of Speech and of the Press that says: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” However, here’s our little, yet extremely important treatise when it comes down to people talking.

It should be remembered quite well that the entire way in which the Amendment is construed is a two-way street. Therefore, let’s each one of us critically think with copious amounts of dedicated reflection before our mouths become unseasoned as it were, lacking both consistency and old fashioned manners. Both Chicago and Boston are deciding to boycott new franchises – of new businesses in their cities – and for what? Because of what a person said? He has the freedom to do that! Or perhaps both of these wing nuts are taking their cues from the White House itself.

Chicago and Boston might want to keep Chick-fil-A out of their cities but that doesn’t mean they have the right to do so, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Chick-fil-A President, Dan Cathy’s, recent comments supporting the “biblical definition” of marriage as between a man and a woman has led to calls by gay rights advocates to boycott the chain. The mayors of Boston and Chicago have recently promised to stop further expansion of the restaurants in their cities. Emanuel weighed in after Chicago Alderman Proco Joe Moreno said he intends to block the chain from opening its second Chicago location because of Cathy’s remarks.

Legal experts said the cities’ push to stop Chick-fil-A doesn’t stand a chance because barring Chick-fil-A over the personal views of its owner is an “open and shut” discrimination case, Fox News reported.

We find it extremely interesting that blurb about an “open and shut” discrimination case. This is precisely where Barack Obama has run into more trouble than he’s worth. We believe that Fox News is maintaining their position that the owner of Chick-fil-A was merely stating an interpretation of what the Bible has already said. It would be appropriate for one to assume that the legal experts at Fox News were implying that the minute that either Chicago and/or Boston are prepared to bring evil to a man for speaking his mind is not only a crime against his First Amendment guarantee; but also it would pare off the polarization and literally bring faction versus faction.

Moreover at issue here is more of a prosecutorial matter against the words a human being used to simply state an opinion – something that both people and the media – have a right to do within reason.
Yet there does seem to be more involved than that of “Biblical definition.” Several of our cohorts are asserting plain and simple foul play by these mayors of Chicago and Boston. Furthermore, they seem to be inciting the choir as it is; what we’re trying to establish is the notion that if something – Anything – that doesn’t serve the liberal agenda or wondering why this or that faction is crying “boycott! and foul play…” certainly gives rise to the notion of whether or not those involved with them are as committed as they would want anyone to know, or otherwise.

“The government can regulate discrimination in employment or against customers, but what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words,” Adam Schwartz, senior attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois, told Fox News. “When an alderman refuses to allow a business to open because its owner has expressed a viewpoint the government disagrees with, the government is practicing viewpoint discrimination.”

Lastly if on the other side of the road, as it were, if a person or group of people merely stated something — along the lines of which these gay rights advocates have initiated —  and fired the first shot do they even think about the ramifications that might, and we mean might, could come to bear on them? And yes! We are suggesting that the extremist liberal right is more than used too receiving “Special Rights” that without reason or otherwise serve to advance their agenda.

Is House Speaker Boehner stalling for some reason..?

The following article is predicated upon this link:

There is yet another reason as to why the House Speaker may be stalling. We know that the US Attorney General is the only person who can legitimately prosecute the President. It appears that one one reason of delay could be that in the event that Obama in fact, is not a citizen of the USA.

 

Predicated upon his mishandling of foreign policy, blaming anyone and everyone known to humankind for his failures in the public policy domain, and almost arrogantly lauding off everything said about his blatantly reckless disrespect and disregard and for the U.S. Constitution, how possible could it be that Barack Obama did knowingly accept or even ordered falsified documentation to support that he is a citizen of the USA? Consider the alternative if in fact, Obama is not a US citizen at all? Consider how collectively with the notion of a potential re-election, Boehner may know or have details that may indeed bury Obama with the assistance of Holder.Now then ask yourselves, what kind of leverage would Holder have in ever seeing to it that the proper justice be served? This is of course if one assumes that Holder himself is trustworthy and honest; moreover, in all instances he is as clean as a whistle.Or what if the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, is playing a similar tune to the House Speaker with the cumulative effect that it just won’t happen without Holder’s input.

Just a thought…like Halle Berry’s character in Swordfish…[just a thought Stanley, just a thought…]

Joy Behar wants to interview and Challenge Conservatives “if they have the balls”

TV personality Joy Behar is attacking Mitt Romney for disagreeing with President Obama’s recent call to hire more firemen and other public-sector workers, saying she would like to see one of his homes catch fire.

“Quite openly we’ve come to expect nothing more than this kind of extremely cheap excrement spewing from Joy Behar’s mouth, says William Blake of The News.

“It is one issue to openly use one’s First Amendment rights under the law, Blake continues; however, for a person working for an elite television network (ABC) to state she’d like to see one of his homes to catch fire is beyond the realm of civility.”

Just for those who care – the heyday of politically motivated “comedians” who couldn’t buy a laugh at the Comedy Club or the Improv for their lack of material – who for the goodness of humankind ought to be relegated out to pasture where they belong.

Maher isn’t funny, or witty, or even intelligent; Stewart is even worse, yet nonetheless is carrying Maher’s jock-strap all the way up to Obama. (Now, that is considering that Maher ever had one.)

But I digress…who on earth does Joy Behar think she is? She also is not funny and has very little, if any, political sense whatsoever.

Worse still is her espousing, “I’d like to see his house burn, one of his millions of houses burning down,” said Behar, a co-host on ABC’s “The View” daytime talk show, in an interview with the website Mediaite . “Who’s he going to call, the Mormon fire patrol?”

So now she’s bringing in her brand of comedy… “One of his millions of houses burning down” and then she, of all people fires away with a religious taunt like, “Who’s he going to call, the Mormon fire patrol?”

How does ABC even tolerate this kind of rubbish? O’Donnell made a comment about “The Donald’s” comb-over hair style and was hit by the door before the show’s end.

Behar, recently hired to work on Al Gore’s cable TV station Current, is a former school teacher who reportedly got started in show biz in the 1980s as a standup comic. Easy enough for us to see that the company she keeps is further testament to who she wants to be including Mr Internet-the sky’s on fire-global warming expert, Al Gore as well as Eliot Spitzer and some other savory types.

Behar explains about her new show that she would like to interview and challenge conservatives to come on her show, “if they have the balls.”