Hundreds try rushing border toward Calif. port of entry

"Yes we can!" they yelled, as if on a holy mission to invade a country they have no right invading. Hundreds of illegal aliens, mostly from Central America, others from who knows where, tried to rush into the U.S. border entry in San Ysidro, California in what appears to be a major test of our resolve and ability to uphold the Constitution.

This is exactly what it is: our upholding the law and trying to be fair to those who honestly need refugee status and be fair to those who have waited patiently in line to gain legal entry into the best country on the planet.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials suspended northbound and southbound vehicle and pedestrian crossings at the San Ysidro port of entry, and tear gas needed to be deployed from the U.S. side to keep the migrants from illegally entering the country. This is why they are known as "Border Protection" not "Border Crossing Guards."

Mothers and fathers who selfishly brought their kids along on the journey, had to deal with their yelling and screaming from the mayhem of the alien charge toward America.

But overall, most of the migrants were working-age men who refused job offers in Mexico.

Fox News learned early Sunday via an organization for Pueblo Sin Fronteras, [Town Without Borders], the group helping organize the invasion from Central America, that members of the caravan were planning to attempt crossing the port of entry at San Ysidro later in the day.

Several U.S. Border Patrol helicopters were flying low overhead near the Mexican side of the border.

In anticipation of the planned migrant effort, U.S. authorities said they had deployed additional personnel to the San Ysidro port of entry on Sunday, including Air and Marine agents.

Mexico's incoming government denied reports Saturday that it had struck a deal with the White House to keep asylum-seekers in Mexico while their claims are processed through U.S. immigration courts.

President Trump again threatened to close the entire southern border if no deal could be reached between the two counties.

On Saturday, the first episode of caravan-related violence directed at U.S. authorities was reported by U.S. Border Patrol in Arizona, as a 31-year-old 
Honduran genius, who apparently split off from the caravan, threw rocks at agents and at a helicopter after setting a tree on fire.

The prospective deal between the U.S. and Mexico was seen as a way to dissuade thousands of Central American migrants from seeking asylum in the U.S., a process that can take years. The legal requirements for claiming asylum is a tough hurdle to get over and generally requires applicants to show a specific risk of persecution based on factors such as race, nationality, politics or religion.

Trump administration officials views the vast majority of asylum claims as fraudulent or legally insufficient, and are taking measures to reduce the backlog of asylum claims that they say are often used by migrants to gain entry into the U.S. and disappear into the country as their claims are adjudicated.

Early Sunday, Trump wrote on Twitter that it would be "very SMART" for Mexico to "stop the Caravans long before they get to our Southern Border" to avoid future logistics challenges at the border. He did not use his usual exclamation points to make his point.

There were signs last week that Mexico got the president's message. Mexican immigration agents on Wednesday detained almost all of the Central American migrants on a fourth caravan that recently entered Mexico seeking to reach the U.S.

Mexico's National Immigration Institute said that 213 migrants were detained and taken to a processing center. Those found to lack proper documents may face repatriation to their home countries.

Other administration officials sounded notes of optimism despite the apparent confusion on how to handle the migrants.

Liberals say: "Let them all in, unless they plan to vote Republican."

Conservatives say: "Let them follow the laws of our nation and apply for entry the right way."


Hello fellow conservatives. Please click the "Follow" button in the margin to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet

Seattle progressives want to punish success

The immoral left

Progressives believe in equal outcome. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity. 

Progressives believe if I have ten dollars in my wallet and they only have one dollar in theirs, I somehow screwed them out of their money. If a person is wealthy, progressives see him/her as evil.

But if a person starts off poor, which is a good person to a progressive because the person is somehow a victim of someone rich, but then this person works hard, earns a decent  amount of money and then becomes wealthy, at what point did this person become a 'bad person'?

The Seattle City Council unanimously approved an income tax on their wealth residents Monday--this will be legally challenged before you can say, "Where are your papers, comrade?"

The progressives (aka leftists) are calling for a 2.25 percent tax on total income above $250,000 for individuals and for married couples filing jointly above $500,000.

"Seattle should serve everyone, not just rich folks," Carissa Knipe told the council before the 9-0 vote, saying she makes over $170,000 per year. Lucky for her she isn't affected by the socialistic proposal.

She clearly doesn't understand that she has the absolute right to pay more tax than required, or give money to the less fortunate, as she wants others to do. "I would love to be taxed," the 24-year-old from Ballard lied. The crowd of socialist tax supporters applauded her, none of whom are likely to be directly shelling out any dough.

I'm not a lawyer but this seems unconstitutional. There's the sense of inequality in the eyes of the law. A sense of taxation without representation. A sense of highway robbery--the Robin Hood Syndrome.

The only "fair share" is an equal share--a percentage that everyone pays based on their earnings. What could be more fair than that? But socialists (aka Communists) believe the rich should pay a far greater percentage than they pay, if they pay at all.

They were the kids who took your toys in the sandbox.

Hopefully they will be defeated in court.




Tweet

Sanctuary sheriff faces firing for aiding criminal aliens

Travis Co., Texas -- Sheriff Sally Hernandez is facing removal from office for refusing to obey Texas Governor Greg Abbott's order to end "sanctuary city" policies in his state, which aid criminal aliens. Note, the operant word here is 'criminal'. 

Hernandez has rejected Abbott's request to reverse her refusal to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement except in limited circumstances. 

Abbott wrote to Hernandez: "First, you claim you have no legal power to comply with ICE detainers. That proves too much, of course, because by your own admission, Travis County Sheriff's Office will honor some ICE detainers, for example when the alien is charged with or convicted of capital murder. You have the exact same legal authority to honor ICE detainers for capital murder cases as you do for other crimes that you personally deem unworthy of enforcement."

Abbott also pointed out the ICE issues detainers for illegal aliens with felony records--including murder.

He added: " .  .  .  Under your reckless policy, for example, dangerous criminal aliens convicted of felonies like murder, aggravated assault, human trafficking, including child sex trafficking, aggravated kidnapping, including sexual performance by a child or indecency with a child, dangerous gang activities . . . "

Hernandez's non sequitur said that honoring the detainers would make the "community less safe by driving people into the shadows." In other words, by allowing felons and the rest to have sanctuary, we can know where they are when they have a child become a prostitute. And as long as the child isn't murdered, we're all good.

Hernandez contends that state law enforcement can't constitutionally be drafted into service by federal agencies, which is a straw man argument, or a distortion of what Abbott is arguing about.

Abbott is interested in letting ICE remove illegals from the streets who were already arrested by Texas officials for committing serious crimes, not simply reporting them.

Gov. Abbott said "For one, these sheriff offices receive grants from the governor's office and we're cutting off those grants to any sanctuary city in the State of Texas," adding . . .  however, we are in a legislative session and we're working on laws that will #1 ban sanctuary cities and #2 remove from office any office holder who promotes sanctuary cities while also imposing criminal penalties as well as financial penalties."

It seems as if Sally Hernandez is following Obama's lead and only upholding those laws or parts of those laws that she likes.

Not nice!



Tweet

Former Ass't US attorney: "O should pardon HRC"

Ever since Hillary Clinton got bagged for having an illegal private server when she was acting as the secretary of state, a clear violation of the Espionage Act, her loyal supporters are concerned that, with Donald Trump as our next president, she might go to jail. 

A New York lawyer appealed to Lame Duck President Obama Wednesday in a New York Daily News opinion piece to pardon the pear-shaped former so-called secretary of state and other "potential targets" of an investigation into her illegal email server.

Bobby Begleiter, a former assistant US attorney in the Eastern District of New York wrote that the Constitution allows a president to pardon someone who has not been charged with a crime, including espionage which endangers the nation.

In spite of the fact that Trump said he will not investigate the incompetent, arrogant shrew he referred to as "Crooked Hillary," even though his supporters are still chanting "Lock her up, lock her up," Begleiter worries that Hillary can end up in the slammer. 

"I don't want to hurt the Clintons, I really don't," Mr. Trump told 'reporters' at The New York Times, shortly after the election. "She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways, and I'm not looking to hurt them at all." The campaign was vicious."

Bobby wasn't comfortable with Trump's statement. He didn't want to gamble with his woman's freedom, just in case she said something Trump didn't like and changed his mind. Bobby even called it "sideways" to believe that a person who accepted a pardon is admitting guilt.

But if she is innocent, then why does she need to be pardoned? Pardoned from what? For what?

In an attempt to sound learned, Bobby wrote that a pardon for Crooked Hillary could, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, "restore tranquility to the commonwealth."

In a word, Bobby Begleiter is a Clinton apologist and the only tranquility he's interested in restoring is Clinton's fear of being rightfully jailed for treason.

John Crudele, of the New York Post, a fairly far left-leaning paper, wrote that Obama is fast to forgive traitors, felons, deserters and basic scum of the earth--he just didn't say it in those words--and commuted the sentences of over a thousand incarcerated scum. But, he said, Obama doesn't like Hillary very much and the email scandal put him in an "embarrassing" position, which is even more important to him than anything else in the world.

"But the best reason for not giving a pardon is simple: Obama doesn't really know what kind of trouble Hillary might be in. And she would have to admit to things she might not be ready to reveal to get completely out of trouble," Crudele wrote.

I hope Trump doesn't let her off the hook--part of the reason he got elected was due to his tough stance on Clinton and to allow her to skate free of the charges, is a real injustice.


Tweet

Human traffickers say leave now, avoid Christmas rush

Foreign ministers of Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala discussed ways to protect thousands and thousands of migrants trying to sneak into the United States illegally. 

They also warned the U.S. to be ready for a huge surge  in Central American migrants trying to get here before Donald Trump is sworn into office because he has said that he means it when he'll promise to defend the Constitution of the United States. 

President Obama was just teasing.

"We're worried because we're seein a rise in the flow of migrants leaving the country, who have been urged to leave by coyotes telling them that they have to reach the United States before Trump takes office," Maria Andrea Matamoros, the deputy foreign minister of Honduras told Reuters.

Coyotes are people who get paid to smuggle migrants into our country illegally so that they can then receive taxpayer-funded benefits that make liberals feel superior to those of us who see this as a problem.

Guatemala's foreign minister is equally desperate. "The coyotes are leaving people in debt, and taking their property as payment for the journey," he said.

Once the wall is erected, whether it's actually brick and mortar, fencing or manpower, it will be more difficult for illegal immigrants to invade us and we will be able to maintain our sovereignty. 

But coyotes are now offering another option for migrants to enter the United States in spite of Trump's proposed efforts: they plan to parachute illegals into Texas and Arizona using drug cartel aircraft.

Not all illegals are on board with the idea, however. Some have fear of heights and others are simply afraid of jumping out of aircraft.

"AAAAAHHH!!!"

To assuage their fears, "Coyote Mexico" a startup "human transportation" company in San Juan, is offering parachute lesson using a handy video.

People are desperate to come to the United States where they can get free stuff. And those people living in conditions of poverty and crime or who have family already in the US, are the most desperate to come here illegally.

Jose Carlos Manuel Perez, a 29-year-old unemployed former cardboard box dance popper from San Salvador said that he is desperate to come to the U.S. before Trump occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

"There's one thing I'm desperate to do, man, is get my butt out of Salvador before Christmas and get me a free Obamaphone and stuff. Hey, you got a cigarette, dude?"


Tweet

The PC of terror

Maybe what we need to do to enhance our safety against Islamic religious warriors is to break up all the "no go" zones in the EU and go into them with military force. If the terrorists in Brussels are born and raised there and are still being recruited for terrorism, maybe we need to speak with the local imams and mosque worshippers and ask them the right questions.

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, and for presidents to leave what they're doing and come home to lead the country.

In Brussels, the police are not allowed to pursue bad guys after 9:00 pm. It disturbs people, including the terrorists, and we don't want to make them angry because they might do us harm--oh wait--never mind.

We have passed laws that assure our own destruction. The U.S. Constitution was never meant to keep us from providing self-protective techniques in favor of providing terrorists total freedom and privacy. 

Those on the left have developed a system of what is called 'political correctness.' We are to do nothing to offend any group of people, even those who would be delighted to kill us for the sake of their religion or cultural pursuits. 

When these atrocities occur, the first thing a liberal does is to call for more gun control. The second thing they do is to blame their own country.

The latest body count in Brussels is 31 dead (9 Americans) and 230 wounded. And clearly, this is not the end to terrorism nor will it likely be the end of political correctness. 

Even Fox News said that one witness of the attack heard someone yelling in Arabic. What the witness actually said was that the words yelled were "Allahu Akbar!" which is Arabic for "Allah is greater."

Now even Fox News has gone PC.



Tweet

Free Speech: "Uncle ISIS Wants You"

Rep. Martin Daniel (R-Knoxville) sponsored the "Tennessee Student Free Speech Protection Act" and was asked by Rep. John DeBerry Jr. (D-Memphis) whether he would support the right of ISIS to recruit on campus.

What Daniel said in answer to that question gave credence to the notion that the "R" in "R-Knoxville" stands for something other than "Republican." It would be politically incorrect for me to say what I believe it represents.

"Yes," (the mentally challenged) Daniels replied. "So long as it doesn't disrupt the proceedings on that campus. Yes sir. They can recruit people for any other organization or any other cause. I think it's just part of being exposed to differing viewpoints."

When taking an unwavering, suicidal stand based upon a principal that would eventually destroy your right to invoke that principal, you are either an idiot or a jihadist, or both.

Daniel's bill was intended to challenge free speech restrictions being enforced on campuses across America. Its intentions were good--they are meant to uphold our First Amendment rights, I get that.

But with our rights must come exceptions that make sense.

The Supreme Court addressed the issue of "Incitement" and held that "advocacy of the use of force" is not protected when "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to produce such action." 

In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), the Supreme Court held that speech is unprotected if it constitutes "fighting words." That is, speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking violence. 

Threats of violence directed at an individual or group (such as Jewish students, in this case) would be unprotected. An exception would be if the threats are seen as hyperbole, but based on the history of ISIS, a threat of violence would not constitute hyperbole--it's how they roll.

So Rep. Daniel's bill, for all its good intentions, does not legally protect the speech of an organization such as ISIS. 

And Rep. Daniel is most likely an idiot.



Tweet

Bill Duh Blasio

Socialist Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio is blaming random slashing attacks on the success of his gun control efforts. He believes that if he can only get knives and box cutters off the streets too, there would be no crimes committed with weapons.

That is, if only he could get the baseball bats off the streets. 

"If former Mayor Mike Bloomberg can get Big Gulps off the streets," de Blasio said,  "I can get knives and box cutters off the streets too. Just wait and see." 

When a reporter asked, "But what about ice picks, sharpened eating utensils, screw drivers, hammers, garrotes, and anything else that can be weaponized, like say, cars; what about cars?" 

"New Yorkers need their cars to pick up their Welfare checks. You can't deny them their cars," de Blasio said.

The reporter then asked, "What about going back to "Stop and Frisk? Statistically, it proved to reduce crime."

"I am not going to allow a damn cop stop my black son and frisk him."

"Cops don't just stop anyone--they use discretion with the people they stop, and it isn't only black kids. It depends on the neighborhood they're patrolling."

"I refuse to compromise the Constitution. That's an illegal search."

"What about the Second Amendment? Doesn't weapons banning go against it?"

"Get out of my face."



Tweet

What does Trump really believe?

Donald Trump changes his opinions more often than a chameleon changes its cable carrier. When asked about his opinion on bringing in skilled foreign labor for example, his opinion seems to depend upon which TV network the interview is being conducted.

He admits he changed his mind on this issue when questioned at the debate, but you have to wonder if he would have revealed his change of mind if he wasn't asked what his new opinion happens to be.

By the way, politicians call it evolving when they do it, and flip-flopping when others do it.

The Donald even changes the changes of his mind that he has made when he makes additional changes.

 Let's look at some of these multiple changes.

On Obamacare: 

In his June 16, 2015 campaign announcement, he wanted to get rid of Obamacare and "replace it with something much better."
July 29, 2015. On CNN Trump tells Bash, "I want to take care of everybody. You know, you have a group of people that aren't able to take care of themselves." 
Bash: "How are you going to do that?"
Trump: "We're going to have to work out some kind of deal with hospitals where they can get some help, when they are sick, when they have no money and they are sick . . . "
Bash: "How do you do that though?"
Trump: "We're going to have to work out some kind of very, very smart deal with hospitals around the country."

In February 2016,  Trump said he liked the mandate, now he wants to abolish it.

On ISIS: 

Last June 16, at his presidential campaign kickoff speech: "Within our military I will find the General Patton or I will find General MacArthur. I will find the right guy. I will find a guy that's going t take that military and make it really work."

Same interview on O'Reilly Bill asked, "Are you telling me you are going to send American ground troops into Syria?" 
Trump's response was, "Im not telling you anything." 
His secret was kept safe for several minutes until, "I will tell you what my plan will be--you have to go in. You have to go in." 
O'Reilly then asked, "With ground troops?"
Trump: "Well, you  bomb the hell out of them and then you encircle it, and then you go in."
And the interview went back and forth as Trump's opinions changed faster than a speeding bullet.

On immigration: 

July 23, 2015. "The first thing we have to do is strengthen our borders. And after that, were' going to have plenty of time to talk about it."

July 24, 2015. "Work something out so the good ones can stay. If somebody's been outstanding, we try and work something out."

July 26, 2015. "We're going to do what's right; some are going to have to go. And some, we're just going to see what happens."

July 27, 2015. "But the good ones--of which there are many--I want to expedite it so they can come back in legally."

July 29, 2015. On a CNN interview with Dana Bash, she asks, "What about the 'Dreamers'? What about people who came here when they were children, they didn't know what they were doing, they came with their parents who brought them here illegally? Should they have to leave too?"
Trump responded: "They're with their parents? It depends."

On Meet the Press, Sunday, Chuck Todd discussing the 'Dreamers' asked, "You're going to kick them out?"
Trump: "They have to go."

In the March GOP debate, Trump said he would have the military commit war crimes. Specifically, the crimes in question have to do with killing the families of terrorists, and use interrogation techniques like waterboarding and worse.
Trump: "They're not going to refuse me. If I say do it, they're going to do it."

He has since changed his opinion on this.

What I believe we're seeing is a candidate who knows what to say to the audience in front of him but knows little about the Constitution and the law. If Trump is evolving, then he's too much of a neophyte to be running the nation.

If he has a hidden agenda beyond serving his ego needs, than is he any better than a Barack Obama?

Still, if Trump won the GOP nomination, I would vote for him in a heartbeat. When George Burns, in his 90s was asked how it felt to be old, he said something like, "I prefer this to the alternative."

George also said, "When I was young, the Dead Sea was only sick."

I am thinking of the alternative.



Tweet

U. of Mo new chant: "Hey hey! Ho ho! You ain't got no rights no more"

When a leftist wants to protest, s(he) uses the First Amendment of the Constitution for legal backup. When an actual journalist (as opposed to the mainstream media types) wants to record the protest and speak with the protesters, the First Amendment doesn't apply to the situation.

This is what seems to be the case at the University of Missouri, the "Don't Show Anyone State" school campus as protests come in the wake of the resignation of Tim Wolfe, the now former school president.

The fascist students blocked another student journalist from shooting photos on the public quad, obviously in violation of his rights to do so in a public place and at a public university. A Fox Nation  video shows what happened. Another video on YouTube shows the campus fascists telling Tim Tai, a 20-year-old senior working freelance for ESPN that he doesn't have the right to take their photos. Then the leftbots did the "Hey hey! Ho ho Buttfinger Mambo."

They chanted: "Hey hey! Ho ho! Reporters have got to go!" Brilliant and so original. Folks, this is college tuition money circling the drain.

Of course, that's nonsense about the reporter not having the right to photograph these idiots. He is in a public place and because of that fact, he has the right to take photos of anything or anyone in that public place. It's the law. This is America, not the Soviet Union.

Although with the leftists teaching our kids, we seem to be more and more like the old Soviet Union every day thanks to this administration that is doing all it can to be "five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

For a very good article on the rights of photographers, read this article by William Beem.



Tweet

There's Something About Donald

In an illuminating article by Robert Spencer in Jihad Watch, Donald Trump is depicted as an outspoken, somewhat buffoonish person, who has gone after politicians such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham. In fact, Spencer even admits how it's often hard to go after the Trumpster for his attacks on these career politicians, in spite of Donald's "clumsy savaging" of McCain.

On the other hand, McCain showed similarly poor judgment "when he claimed Michele Bachmann's entirely reasonable questions about Huma Abedin's Muslim Brotherhood ties manifested an "ignorance" that "defame[d]" the spirit of the nation."

As Spencer describe it, "So when it comes to John McCain and Donald Trump, it's blowhard versus boor. But that doesn't excuse Trump."

There is no doubt, as Spencer attests to, that Americans are tired of "mealy-mouthed career politicians talking platitudes. They want a real person as president . . . "

So while it's just great that Trump is willing to fling buffalo chips and attack those who caved to immigration issues and followed the herd on the left, the billionaire businessman is not willing to defend freedom of speech when it might jeopardize his businesses in Dubai.

Let's get specific.

The American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI)/Jihad Watch Muhammad Art Exhibit and Cartoon Contest took place in Garland, Texas. The purpose of this event was for Americans to express their First Amendment right to draw a Muhammad cartoon and possibly win a prize. The event was put on by Pamela Geller, a New York City blogger who is also associated with Robert Spencer and has made many appearances with him in the past to discuss issues regarding Islamo-Fascist problems with the religion of peace. 

You might recall how 2 Muslim terrorists tried to enter the event and kill as many participants as possible, but were summarily killed by a single cop with a handgun.

Trump had this to say about Pamela Geller:

"I watched Pam earlier, and it really looks like she's just taunting everybody. What is she doing drawing Muhammad? I mean it's disgusting. Isn't there something else they could be doing? Drawing Muhammad? They can't do something else? They have to be in the middle of Texas doing something on Muhammad and insulting everybody? What is she doing? Why is she doing it? It's probably very risky for her--I don't know, maybe she likes risks. But what the hell is she doing?"

If Trump has to ask these questions, what does that say about his understanding of the Constitution?

Salman Rushdie said of this tendency we witnessed that it is a case where "Fear is being disguised as respect." And he is absolutely right.

Rushdie had a death fatwa issued by an imam of the religion of peace for writing the novel, Satanic Verses, and had gone into hiding for years. He added that if he were threatened for insulting Islam today that "these people would not come to my defence and would use the same arguments against me by accusing me of insulting an ethnic and cultural minority."



But my personal favorite quote is from Dinesh D'Souza.







Tweet

Obama on ISIS: "Baaaaa!" Should he stay or should he go?

"An army of sheep led by a lion is more to be feared than an army of lions led by a sheep" --Alexander the Great

President Obama, as some call him, has been waiting for a military muse to inspire him with a plan to defeat the Islamic State, also known as ISIS. 

The Islamic State has not been waiting for a strategy to defeat the non-Islamic world, they're going at it like an infidel on fire because they have a plan.

So what really gives here? 

Is Obama scared to commit to action? Is he afraid to show American strength against the terror threat? Or does he think America has no right to be the world's bully?

D. All of the above.

As Bill O'Reilly said on the matter, if Obama was merely the CEO of a company, he'd be fired in a heartbeat.

Many people (the ones who have the intelligence not to be liberals) on Twitter and other social media, believe that Obama should to be impeached. In order to know if this can be accomplished, before we all end up praying toward Mecca, we need to understand what it actually takes to impeach a sitting president (or one who doesn't sit but plays golf when he should be leading the country).

The Constitutional Rights Foundation discusses what must be considered to impeach a president, delineating the specific grounds for impeachment and how they are defined. 

In other words, the Constitution states that "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors" can be sufficient grounds to remove a president from office. However, the House and Senate must find that the president has committed one of these acts.

Treason is defined in Article 3 Section 3 Clause 1: 

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Simply put, we would need to actually catch Obama giving Aid and Comfort to the enemies of the United States. Thus, we need to ask ourselves, "Does allowing Iran to continue its nuclear program whereby they will likely develop a nuclear bomb qualify as giving aid to the enemy, since it is clear that Iran sees us as their enemy?" I believe it does, but there's more to make the case for impeachment.

The impeachment process starts in the House of Representatives and then goes to the Senate. First, the House Judiciary Committee holds hearings and prepares articles of impeachment if their findings merit that step.

If a majority votes to approve the articles of impeachment, the House votes on them after a vigorous debate, and if they vote to impeach Obama (in this case) he would have to stand trial in the Senate.

To get him out of office, two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict him whereby he would immediately be removed from the presidency and may also be forbidden to hold government office again.

This process is a political process, not criminal, because Congress does not have the power to impose criminal penalties on Obama. However, criminal courts can take over if Obama is found to be guilty of having committed crimes.

Does the fact that Obama released the Taliban Five constitute treason? Did the release of these known terrorist leaders give aid and comfort to the Taliban? Is the Taliban considered to be the enemy of the United States? If yes to the enemy question, more than two witnesses have seen this take place--in fact, the entire nation is aware of the release.

Another set of questions: 

Was there a connection between the Muslim Brotherhood and the 911 attacks in 2001? 

Did President Obama meet with Muslim Brotherhood members in the White House? 

Did President Obama say: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."? 

Does that quote directly oppose the First Amendment of the US Constitution which gives Americans freedom of speech and expression?

Is it the duty of the president to uphold the Constitution and to support our allies, particularly Israel at this time in history? Is that happening or is Obama supporting those leaders who would see the total destruction of Israel?

Anti-Zionists embrace

I think any fair-minded American would conclude that President Obama has not adequately performed the duties of the presidency as required and has even gone to the extent of being seditious, or treasonous. 

If nothing is done to stop ISIS (and sending 450 "trainers" is not really doing anything that will stop them), we will find ourselves confronting them on our own soil. They will not stop with the Middle East because they follow the Koran and believe that the world must submit to Islam. 

It feels like Obama would rather there be an attack on America than admit being wrong. 

That means Obama rules with his ego, not with America's security and interests in mind.


Tweet

Yemen Embassy: USMC Leaves it Behind

This is treason. This is humiliating and it makes me sick. Asking a Marine to give up this weapon is like asking him to leave his buddies behind, or to cut off his arm. It was originally reported on the Fox News' Kelly File that with the removal of Americans from our embassy in Yemen that Marines were told to leave their personal weapons behind and destroy the firing pins of their rifles. 

The Obama administration is an embarrassment to America and Obama's lies and failures to defend and uphold the Constitution should result in his impeachment and subsequent removal from office.

By the middle of the show, Megyn Kelly learned that this wasn't completely true as the weapons in question were not the individual personal weapons of the troops but the vehicles and other weapons in the arsenal. The two paragraphs above were written during the first half of the Kelly Files and I have since allowed my anger level to come down to earth.

Kerry Now a Muslim Scholar: "Don't worry, be happy"

Our so-called Secretary of State, John Kerry, said that calling Islamic terrorism Islamic terrorism is an "error" that could lose our allies in fighting Islamic terrorism, such as ISIS (better known as the Islamic State because they're Islamic and believe in the Koran, Mohammed and praying in mosques and stuff).

The irony of such an asshat statement is that we are on the cusp of losing our one real ally in the Middle East, Israel, but that seems to be the plan of this Islamic-loving administration.

"This is my IQ"

Don't get me wrong, not all Muslims are terrorists. Most terrorists are Muslim, but that's neither here nor there for Obama and his cronies.

"The Rug" said: "Today we are witnessing nothing more than a form of criminal anarchy a nihilism that illegitimately claims an ideological and religious foundation." Kerry, as you can see from such a claim, is a total asshat himself. He either knows nothing about Islam, is afraid to lose his day job with Obama, or has stayed as seditious as he had been since the Vietnam War.

The communist sympathizer also said that "obviously, the biggest error we could make would be to blame Muslims collectively for crimes not committed by Muslims alone--crimes their faith utterly rejects."

I suspect Kerry doesn't know much about the history of Islam and I'll not go into it in this post as it's too lengthy to add. But in the 1400 years of a religion that was founded on war, grew on war, and recommends war to stay loose and relaxed, Kerry is obviously spouting duck poop.

"Religions don't require adherents to raze villages and blow up people. It's individuals with a distorted and an even ignorant interpretation of religion who do that." What planet is he from? The Koran has more verses (suras) on killing in the name of Allah, than Campbell's has letters for its Halal alphabet soup. Seriously, they've gone Halal on a product line--I boycott them now, but you don't have to stop supporting them.

We have an administration that snubs our allies, courts Iran and barbaric Islamic nations, has Al Sharpton as a spokes racist on racism, has done nothing about the fall of Yemen, supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, allows Iran to build a nuclear weapon, and has ignored the U.S. Constitution. 

What's to worry about?

Tweet

Afghanistan's Time is Almost Up

Obama addressed the nation today and rather than discussing the administration's serious blunder (in other words, screw up), about the fact that they gave away the identity of the CIA Chief of Station in Afghanistan, he revealed to the public along with the enemy, that we will be pulling our troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, and leaving 9800 behind to be outnumbered.

He didn't put it all in those words, of course, but the truth is, with so few troops remaining, they can't be very effective.

The truth is, Obama is an ego-maniacal narcissist, and is hoping to "end the war" in Afghanistan when his Constitutional carnage ends in 2016. This will make him look like he actually knows what he's doing, like he's a real manager and his administration is effective.

Nothing is further from the truth.  Saying you're ending the war is nothing like winning the war, but Obama pontificated that in the 21st Century wars are not ended by signing peace treaties at a table. That's just so World War Two. 

No, wars are ended when Obama says they're ended. For Obama, it matters not how many Americans died there, the only thing that matters is how it will make him look.

With the VA scandal, the CIA scandal, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the Associated Press scandal, James Rosen scandal, NSA, Eric Holder's contempt of court, the Bew Black Panthers, and the IRS scandal, some people are beginning to realize Obama is as competent as Schemp of the Three Stooges.

I believe that's an insult to the memory of Schemp. 

A New York reporter, is captured by Islamist terrorists who demand the release of three Gitmo prisoners in exchange for him. If the president refuses their demands, they plan to behead the reporter and videotape it for the Internet. But the United States doesn’t give in to terrorist’s demands and he has 24 hours before he is to be executed. The clock is ticking . . .                                         

Jihad Joe Soft Cover

click here for ebook version  

My other blog New York Canuck

Tweet

Cool Hand Barry O

When I was a kid, "cool" described a person who could get things done based on his or her ability and finesse. The cool person was the one who was looked up to by his group. The effort at being cool was invisible, which was what made it cool in the first place. A cool person had more confidence than Putin has with Ukraine.

Today, however, "cool" is defined by how you dress, who you know, what music you listen to, and how you speak. It has nothing to do with your ability. Sometimes it even has more to do with the ability of the people you hang out with, like Jay Z, for example, than it does with your own accomplishments.

When we go shopping, we tend to buy from a salesperson we like. Unfortunately, the same can be said about when we go president-electing: we vote for the person we think is likeable or cool; at least liberals do. It has little to do with the person's beliefs, but the way they feel about the guy. Liberals tend to act as if feelings are facts, and when they're not attacking you personally when you try to debate with them, their arguments are based on feelings. It's when you give them facts that they go all ad hominem on you and get all vulgar and red-faced.

Obama comes off as cool. He has a winning, confident smile, hangs out with cool celebrities, and has become a TV personality, which is even more impressive, in his mind, than being an effective president. And let's admit it; he's likeable when he appears on Ellen Degeneres or The View, and his hosts love him--literally. They ask him tough, focused questions and he courageously answers them candidly, then flashes that signature smile. "Yes, Ellen, I do encourage Sasha to bathe every night before bedtime."

President Obama is very cool when he's with admirers, who consist of low-information liberals, high liberals, high low-information liberals, illegal aliens, wind and solar power-producing companies that fail even with tax-payer bailouts, and The View.

The "new cool" sees power as weakness, like the way Obama defined Putin's Crimea grab. Weakness is seen as power, like the restraint Obama showed with Russia's invasion of Crimea. This is how cool liberals operate. It's all about the words, not the facts. Think "workplace violence" with a hearty 'Allahu Akbar' thrown in--that's an example of bending the truth to suit your needs.

Obama needs the American public to see him as cool. We can forgive him for his lack of accomplishments as president. We can forgive his disregard for law and our Constitution. We can forgive him for his clearly-stated lie about Obamacare--c'mon, you know he didn't really mean you could keep your doctor, period--he was only playin' with you. 

If we didn't see him as cool, we would see him as impeached.

In my latest novel, Jihad Joe, a New York reporter is taken hostage by terrorists. If POTUS refuses to release 3 Gitmo jihadists, the reporter will die in 24 hours—they will behead him and show it on the Internet. There is only one way out but the clock is ticking . . .

Jihad Joe: a Novel  Create Space (Amazon) soft cover book edition

Jihad Joe see it here ebook version 

Tweet

Let's Not Hold onto Holder

Why isn't anyone doing anything about Eric Holder and his refusal to uphold the Constitution? After all, that's his job and what he swore he would do. He didn't swear to uphold parts of it, especially those parts that the president also agrees to uphold. He agreed to uphold all of it. Sorry, but you don't get to choose, and you don't get to change the law to suit your purposes. Who does Eric Holder think he is, President Obama? Oh, wait--Obama made the same promise.

FCC Walks it Back, Sort Of

Imagine the conversation: "Don't worry, the reason we're doing this is to put Fox News and those right wing nut bloggers in their place. You can do exactly what you've been doing--the President has no problem with that." 

That might have been the conversation between the FCC with CBS, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, and the New York Times. (You know them: "All the news that's fit to print. ") At least that's a good possibility since none of these "news" media told the story of how the FCC wanted to do a "study" about how the news is gathered. I wrote about this in my previous entry.


When James Rosen was investigated by the Obama administration, these media giants spoke out against it because they saw the real possibility that they could be next. But now they say nothing, acting deaf and dumb (i.e. stupid) about this obvious disregard of the First Amendment. They would have a lot to lose, unless they were told they didn't.

NSA: Redefining Abortion

The National Security Agency (NSA) has violated the US Constitution around a thousand times every year since Barack Obama has been president. An internal audit and a handful of Top Secret documents delineated how the NSA put US citizens under surveillance and foreign intelligence targets within the USA. In order to do this within the law, an executive order and statute are required, neither of which were obtained in the cases cited. There were other violations that were referred to as office typographical errors that resulted in phone call and email interceptions. Oops.

Obamacare and Obama Who Doesn't

The president of the United States pledges an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution is the law of the land. The president has passed a law, the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare as most people know it, and the law, in toto, was scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2014. The midterm elections are also going to be held in 2014 and Obama would like the Democratic party to win more seats in the Senate and the House. People generally don't like Obamacare, and companies like it even less than individuals because they will have to pay for their full-time employees in companies that have fifty plus workers.