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.



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

Let’s just all bear the truth here shall we?

President Obama made a renewed call for a mass amnesty on Monday while speaking at the National Council of La Raza’s annual convention. President Obama told the crowd that he would continue to fight for amnesty, but he would need help since he was working with a Congress that is pro-enforcement.

“I will keep up this fight,” President Obama said. “We have a system that separates families, and punishes innocent young people for their parents’ actions by denying them the chance to earn an education or contribute to our economy or serve in our military.” Whew! He was really playing to the crowd on that statement.

Let’s just all bear the truth here shall we? All of this “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” business has been a concocted way to somehow skirt the law; perhaps the better analogy would be “…drive them crazy enough and they’ll change the laws already on the books…”

Which far be it from me that my friends, is precisely the problem. It simply needs to be recognized, flushed, and then it is time to make the subcommittee.
The original Immigration and Nationalization Act since 1790 is available for anyone’s viewing. Furthermore, and this point needs to be brought out and be made of special interest.

In a spritely way of leaving their mark on U.S. History or for some, let’s refer to it as their “legacy” it seems rather apparent that every president including Jefferson has selected the INS Act as their own personal contribution papers. And if one is not aware this great peeve of mine it is in the notion that legislators being the meticulous (almost anal retentive) individuals that they are don’t believe in using new pages of paper – therefore, they amend or add on to the existing Act.

Personally I find a huge problem with this insofar as that is precisely how Washington accounts for seven thousand page bills that have gone unread and are allegedly prepared for voting and signature. Examples of this were seen in the 2010 Healthcare Act.

What most folks don’t understand is that any changes made to that, or any other act, are simply amended in. Therefore, take a moment and think about the “what-if’s” that very well could and do happen every day. What if someone added some particular clause to the bill and then amended it. Making your mark on history? You betcha!
This is the reason why the Senate’s version of the DREAM Act has five different copies that are close to being the same bill. However, when voting time comes around, which one of the five Acts is really being voted on?

This kind of egregious legislating has got to stop now. How could anything get or be reformed when one doesn’t know what it is that they are working on? And this is my predisposition with Barack Obama. He indicates to the National Council of La Raza that he supports amnesty; however, unfortunately amnesty is not viable or even reasonable for 12 million illegal aliens.

In an extensive work-up I’ve been researching and producing is a list of the various bills, acts, and/or changes that have happened to less than one page of INS; I will post as under separate cover some of those findings. Thank you.