Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘President Obama’

INVASION: Small Town In The SOUTH Has Received MORE Muslim ‘Migrants’ than LA and NYC Combined

waving flagPublished on September 22, 2016

URL of the original posting site: you want

Behold the ‘tolerant’ Left … and their NIMBY policy– exposed!

Since October 1 (the start of the fiscal year), 72 Syrian refugees have been placed in Stone Mountain, State Department data shows. Los Angeles has resettled just 45 Syrian refugees, while NYC has only resettled nine. Syrians aren’t the only refugees placed in Stone Mountain this year. Since October 1, 299 refugees have been resettled in the Georgia town. That’s roughly five percent of Stone Mountain’s July, 2015 population (6,109, according to U.S. Census data). Daily Caller

For context… if they were sending a similar percentage of population to other places that would be:

New York — 420,000 refugees

L.A. — 194,000 refugees

Chicago — 134,780

Portland — 30,472

Hollywood, California — 6,171

Washington DC — 32,944

or… (can you even imagine!) 75 people to Martha’s Vineyard

muslim-obamaRight … like any of THOSE things are going to happen. No, we’ll just tuck them away in some part of flyover country where the big proponents of these policies won’t have to pay for it with their property taxes, policing, where they won’t add language complications to their school system.

According to U.S. Census data, the median income in Stone Mountain is $36,444, well below the national average of $53,482. Stone Mountain has a poverty rate of 22.5 percent, which is significantly higher than the national average of 13.5 percent.

..As previously reported by The Daily Caller, the vast majority of Syrian refugees resettled in Virginia have been placed in low-income high-poverty cities, far away from the wealthy D.C. suburbs. —Daily Caller

obama- Marxist tyrant

DEAR CNN: The AP, In 2004, Said Your Boy Obama Was BORN In This Particular Country

waving flagPublished on September 18, 2016

URL of the original posting site:

If his mouth is open he must be lyingWell THAT’S Weird. If the Birther movement is racist… does that mean that the person who wrote this had it in for Obama? What if that person is … Obama?

Breitbart put this out, taken from the AP, entitled ““Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate” That was June 2004.

“Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.’

“The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.”

As far as we know, Barack Obama never refuted this article.

It’s still out there on the internet. Here’s a screen capture:


Here’s the bottom half of the same article with AP attribution.


And the link to the original.

That’s not actually as weird as the one all the way back in 1991. That was Obama’s publicist. Here’s the quote:

Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet obama-liar4-266x189produced in 1991 by Barack Obama’s then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as “born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.”

The booklet, which was distributed to “business colleagues” in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel.

It also promotes Obama’s anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White–which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Father instead.

If Obama is contradicting himself, the only real question is, which lie do we write of as him cynically manipulating an audience for personal gain?

If his birth in America is valid — as we are led to believe? Why lie about it? Unless playing the ‘foreigner’ card gave him illegitimate access to preferential opportunities or tuition costs. In which case, he is a lying turd who cheated someone more deserving out of … whatever. A Harvard Education, possibly.

Because if That WASN’T a lie… then something else MUST be. That ‘something else’ being his American birth and Citizenship. Which are prerequisites to his presidency.

The quote can be read in context at Breitbart.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon

waving flagReady to Blow

Tuesday September 20, 2016

The Obama/Hillary Counter-terrorism policies are a ticking time bomb for the United States. Included in this is their immigration and refugee vetting policies.

Hillary Counter-Terrorism / Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2016.

More A.F. Branco Cartoons at Net Right Daily.

A.F. Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Do you want America are you really paying attention

QUESTION: Should States Be Able To REJECT Muslim Refugees?

waving flagPublished on September 16, 2016

URL of the original posting site:

The President — whenever it’s HIS agenda — loves telling States to ‘Comply’… but CAN he?

Governor Gregg Abbott doesn’t think so. He’s putting forward legislation to make it crystal clear that they can’t.

The Governor makes some great points for why they should NOT be made to accept these refugees.

ClashDaily has already reported on the problems associated with assimilation in Amarillo. And there are already suspicions that refugees are being deliberately directed into Red States to influence future voting patterns.

Which one is YOUR favorite? Did you catch the part where Abbott said Obama wrote in a waiver that would accept refugees EVEN IF they had given MATERIAL SUPPORT to TERRORISTS???

Why isn’t THAT tidbit on the nightly news?

So… Back to the quesiton: Can States tell the Feds to pound sand?

One commenter put it this way:

“The Constitution gives the Congress the authority to establish conditions for immigration, but nowhere in the Constitution does it empower the federal government to force States to accept refugees from anywhere.”

Is Federalism still alive and well in America? Or has America actually bought into the Big-State Centralization that puts greater power in fewer hands?

Lawmaker pushes to sue Obama for Internet ‘surrender’

waving flagBy Joel Gehrke (@Joelmentum) 9/9/16 Politics Reporter, The Washington Examiner

 URL of the original posting site:

Some groups want the House GOP to sue President Obama over transitioning Internet control away from the U.S. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Some groups want the House GOP to sue President Obama over transitioning Internet control away from the U.S. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

A Pennsylvania Republican and some outside groups want the House GOP to sue President Obama to prevent the transition of the Internet away from U.S. government oversight.

Rep. Mike Kelly filed a resolution Friday that, if adopted, would allow Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to ask a judge to block the Obama administration from proceeding with the Internet transition, which is supposed to take place at the end of the month. Conservative groups and activists asked House and Senate leaders to consider such a lawsuit last month, citing provisions in recent appropriations bills that banned the Commerce Department from spending taxpayer money on the transition.

“The American people’s Congress has prohibited this hasty surrender in law and the administration must follow it,” Kelly, a three-term Republican, said Friday.

Congressional Republicans have been increasingly frustrated with President Obama‘s decision to relinquish federal control over ICANN, the California-based nonprofit that manages the databases that underpin the Internet. Kelly has previously warned that the transition might allow foreign governments to take over the .gov and .mil domains used by the federal government, while several Senate Republicans worry that the proposed alternative would allow authoritarian regimes to censor Internet websites in the United States and around the world.

“Such a rushed transition puts the Internet at serious risk of falling under the influence of bad actors abroad who despise the free flow of information,” Kelly said.

The idea of a transition has been popular in some quarters of the tech community for years, but it didn’t become U.S. policy until President Obama‘s team decided to endorse the proposal in the wake of the Edward Snowden leaks. Foreign governments were outraged to learn the extent of the National Security Agency’s surveillance apparatus and the decision helped mollify some of that anger.

“The trust in the global Internet has been punctured,” Fadi Chehade, then-CEO of ICANN, said following a 2014 meeting with then-Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. “Now it’s time to restore this trust through leadership and institutions that can make that happen.”

Senate Republicans fear that the handoff will allow other countries to dominate, and even censor, the functioning of the Internet.OH HELL NO

“The proposal will significantly increase the power of foreign governments over the Internet, expand ICANN’s historical core mission by creating a gateway to content regulation, and embolden [its] leadership to act without any real accountability,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, wrote in a letter to the Commerce Department last month. “We have uncovered that ICANN’s Beijing office is actually located within the same building as the Cyberspace Administration of China, which is the central agency within the Chinese government’s censorship regime.”

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., wants at a minimum to delay the transition, to allow for further testing, but proponents of the transition say that’s not possible.

“We can’t test extreme emergency measures such as we’ve built over any period of a few months or even a few years,” Netchoice executive director Steve DelBianco argued in a Senate hearing in May. “The notion of a delay simply sends the signal that the U.S. believes that the role we hold is so valuable that we’re not giving it up, and we’ve reiterated to China, Russia and the United Nations that they want to step into those shoes. And that’s the biggest danger of the delay.”

Obama to Bypass Congress and Pretend to “Ratify” UN Climate Deal

waving flagWritten by  Wednesday, 31 August 2016

URL of the original posting site:

Obama to Bypass Congress and Pretend to “Ratify” UN Climate Deal

Photo of Obama with Xi Jinping at the Paris Climate Conference in 2015: AP Images

Amid an illegal plot to “ratify” a United Nations treaty on “climate change” without the constitutionally required advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, Obama is behaving more and more like a tinpot dictator looting kingobamafingerconstitution-300x204what remains of a collapsing banana republic. As part of the effort to defend the unconstitutional scheme to bypass Congress and “ratify” the UN climate regime, however, the White House and its globalist allies are twisting themselves into legalistic and rhetorical pretzels — and setting up the UN scheme for failure. The formal announcement ahead of the upcoming Communist Chinese-led G20 confirms what The New American first reported over two years ago.

The UN, Obama, and Beijing are all hoping to get the agreement “ratified” before or during the G20 meeting in early September, according to news reports. Unlike the U.S. Congress, which Obama knows will not approve his dangerous UN “climate” regime, even the rubber-stamp legislature serving the brutal communist dictatorship enslaving mainland China is getting an opportunity to weigh in on ratifying the so-called “Paris Agreement.” Beijing’s propaganda organs are making a big show out of the fact that the “Standing Committee” of the “National People’s Congress” is deliberating on whether to ratify the controversial UN deal.

By contrast, Obama plans to pretend to ratify it all by himself. Fortunately for Americans, though, by bypassing the proper ratification process, Obama is all-but ensuring that the “climate” treaty, negotiated in Paris last year, will eventually go down in flames. In fact, federal law now officially prohibits any U.S. funding for the UN climate bureaucracy, whether Obama pretends to ratify the UN climate deal or not. The strange turn of events vis-à-vis Obama, China, and the UN follows bizarre comments by former UN “Climate” Czarina Christiana Figueres, who blasted the U.S. political system but said the murderous Chinese regime was doing it right when it comes to battling alleged man-made global warming.

Imperial President ObamaThe blatantly fraudulent “legal argument” being advanced by Obama and the White House is that the UN Paris Agreement is actually an “executive agreement.” Therefore, they claim, Obama can ratify it with nothing more than his pen. In the real world, of course, the UN, the French government that oversaw the negotiations, and practically every government on earth have declared the Paris Agreement to be a “binding international treaty.” Indeed, the document itself makes that clear, with the word “shall” appearing in the text more than 100 times.

Speaking at a White House press conference, though, a “senior adviser” to Obama, Brian Deese, tried to have it both ways. “The president will use his authority that has been used in dozens of executive agreements in the past to join and formally deposit our instrument of acceptance, and therefore put our country as a party to the Paris Agreement,” said Deese, who was in Communist China last week plotting with the regime’s minions on how to impose the UN “climate” scheme on Americans and all of humanity. Obama previously inked a pseudo-treaty on the issue with Chinese dictator Xi Jinping (shown with Obama above), setting the stage for the Paris Agreement.

Settled-Science-600-LAIf the UN’s climate deal was truly a so-called “executive agreement,” whatever that means, the agreement would presumably only bind the executive branch of the federal government, not the United States. Yet, the White House is claiming that this executive agreement will “put our country as a party to” the radical UN treaty. Of course, in the real world, only the Constitution and the other branches of the federal government can legitimately bind the executive branchmuch less the entire country. In fact, aside from defending the Constitution, Obama’s job description is to faithfully execute the laws, not invent them alongside the UN and China’s murderous tyrants.

On top of that, even real treaties that are properly ratified by two thirds of U.S. senators present cannot grant any new powers to the federal government. The Paris Agreement, and Obama’s “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDC) pledges under it, go far beyond the powers delegated to the federal government under the U.S. Constitution. That means the treaty would be illegitimate even if the U.S. Senate were to ratify it, according to the Constitution’s authors and even the U.S. Supreme Court. Without Senate approval, it is basically a glorified but meaningless piece of paper that does not even provide a fig leaf of cover for Obama’s illegal usurpations. 

Obama’s senior adviser, though, apparently thinks Americans are stupid. “That’s a process that is quite well-established in our existing legal system and in the context of international agreements and international arrangements,” Deese told reporters without citing the source of this alleged “well-established process” of dictatorial rule. “There is a category of them that are treaties that require advice and consent from the Senate, but there’s a broad category of executive agreements where the executive can enter into those agreements without that advice and consent.”Leftist Propagandist

He did not say what provision of the Constitution supposedly created a “broad category of executive agreements” that Obama could concoct and impose unilaterally — almost certainly because there is none. It was not clear whether Deese actually believed his own outlandish propaganda, either, but he apparently did say it with a straight face. He also said that Obama and the communist dictator ruling over China had announced earlier this year that they “would seek to formally join the Paris Agreement in 2016,” as if that made it legitimate.

Of course, U.S. senators have already pointed out that Obama’s promises on the issue are a fraud and Solid-Foundation-600-wLogohave no meaning. U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla), for example, who serves as the chairman of the powerful U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and regularly ridicules the man-made global-warming theory as a “hoax,” ridiculed Obama and his “empty promises.” “The problem with international climate change agreements is that they ignore basic economic and political realities and therefore are doomed to failure,” Inhofe said. “When the hype over the signing fades, the reality will set in that the policies President Obama is promising will not last.”

But while the Republican-controlled Congress has put up tepid and in some cases even phony resistance to Obama’s wild plot to ratify a treaty without Senate approval, foreign powers and officials have been egging him on. First, it was French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius of the Socialist Party, which oversaw the UN negotiations in Paris that produced the totalitarian UN “climate regime.” Speaking to African government and dictatorship delegations in Germany, Fabius said “we know the politics in the United States.” “Whether we like it or not, if it comes to the [U.S.] Congress, they will refuse” to approve the UN “climate” scheme, he continued. “We must find a formula which is valuable for everybody and valuable for the U.S. without going to the Congress.”Picture4

After that, UN boss Ban Ki Moon, who now bombastically refers to the UN as the “Parliament of Humanity,” expressed confidence that Obama would ignore Congress and the Constitution in his fake ratification procedure. “I do appreciate President Obama’s strong commitment,” said the UN chief, whose tenure has been plagued by all manner of scandals ranging from child-raping UN troops running wild to the ongoing and systematic persecution of whistleblowers who expose UN corruption and crime. “He knew that, with all this opposition of the Republican Party’s stance, he may not be able to have all this legally — through a legal process. But he also has executive power. He will do whatever he can under his executive power.”Leftist Propagandist

Playing along with Obama’s fraud, the UN and the regime enslaving mainland China are all pretending that if Obama and rubber-stamp Chinese legislators “ratify” the UN deal, it will enter into force and be binding on everyone. They claim that once 55 governments or dictatorships representing 55 percent of human CO2 emissions ratify the scheme, it is all over. “Together, the U.S. and China represent just under 40 percent of global emissions,” said Deese, Obama’s adviser. “So the act of our two countries [sic] joining and when that happens will help move us closer to that goal.” As of now, less than two dozen governments and dictators representing about 1 percent of all man-made gas-of-life (CO2) emissions have signed up.

Still, Obama’s delusions notwithstanding, the Paris deal can and likely will be stopped either by Congress, the courts, or the next president. All the GOP Congress has to do is refuse to fund it. The courts could just strike it down. And a future president could simply tear it up. Indeed, Trump has already pledged to kill the UN “climate” regime upon taking office. “We’re going to cancel the Paris climate agreement, and stop — unbelievable — and stop all payments of the United States tax dollars to UN global-warming programs,” he explained, sending increasingly marginalized climate alarmists and Obama into a tizzy.

Unfortunately for the UN and Obama — but fortunately for humanity — the entire “Paris Agreement” is built on a foundation of lies, deceit, lawlessness, fraud, PR gimmicks, and bluster. Basically, the globalists built their tyrannical scheme on a foundation of quicksand. Already, the overwhelming majority of the U.S. public rejects the man-made global-warming theory. A growing body of evidence discrediting the theory continues to pile up. All that remains is for concerned Americans to continue their efforts to expose and ultimately destroy the UN’s totalitarian “climate” regime once and for all. The future of freedom and prosperity depend on it.

Alex Newman, a foreign correspondent for The New American, was at the UN climate summit in Paris. He can be reached at . Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

DEAR AMERICA: Did TRUMP Do The RIGHT Thing Helping Flood Victims? (Hillary Doesn’t Think So)

waving flagPublished on August 21, 2016

URL of the original posting site:

Hillary stayed away. And Trump showed up with a truckload of aid. Who has the right idea?

  • He sends a tractor trailer filled with much-needed supplies (bought and paid for with his OWN money)
  • He gives a $1.5 million dollar donation to a flood relief charity (using his OWN money)….
  • He asks for ZERO roads to be closed for his visit…
  • He asks for, and receives, ZERO local, state, or other law enforcement to protect him while visiting (he brought HIS own security detail…that he PAID for with his OWN money)….
  • The media gives him 10-seconds of mention, and even then, those seconds were used to besmirch him while extolling the (non-existent) virtues of absent Obama…
  • Tell me again how he went to Baton Rouge as a photo op publicity stunt? I’ve never heard of someone spending a couple million dollars or more – of his OWN money – for a photo op. But I have heard of a liberal spending other people’s money (our tax dollars) to pay for his vacations…and photo ops showing him bowing down to the leaders of other countries. ‪#‎Trump2016 ‪#‎NoMoreLiberals

Ginny Meerman-Lee

Louisiana is underwater. It has been for days. The President is taking a Twitter beating for having “better” things to do. (Like play more golf than Tiger Woods.) Which is odd, since the last disaster this big was during his LAST campaign, where he did the Photo op in New Jersey. Why bother. It’s not like he’s trying to get elected again.

Hillary, on the other hand IS trying to get elected. She went directly to the Liberal playbook. Priority one is visiting donors. Check. Next is taking other people’s time, energy and cash, and apply it to something you want to make happen. Hillary told people to give money to charities who would do the work.

Some 40,000 homes have been damaged, and at least 13 people are dead in Louisiana in what’s been called the worst U.S. storm since Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

In her post, Clinton encouraged supporters to donate to the Red Cross or the Baton Rouge Area Foundation. She also sent the message out in an email to supporters with links to donation pages for both organizations.

“These are our friends, our family members, our community — and they’re counting on us to reach out with open arms right now. This team has done so much for me,” she said. The Hillwarning warning

And Trump?

  • Took heat for showing up with a truckload of supplies, and meeting in person with the people who need it.
  • Trump offered notably restrained remarks as he surveyed the waterlogged wreckage. ‘Nobody understands how bad it is,’ Trump told reporters, after briefly helping unload a truck of supplies while cameras captured the moment. ‘It’s really incredible, so I’m just here to help.’

Trump flew into Michigan later on Friday to address a rally, explaining his appearance in an open-necked shirt and trucker hat by saying he had come straight from ‘a tour of the suffering and devastation in Louisiana’.

‘The spirit of the people is incredible, the devastation likewise,’ he said. ‘Honestly, Obama ought to get off the golf course and get down there,’ he added to cheers from the crowd.Dif-Directions-600-LAb

Which one shows REAL leadership?

All about the vote or a liar Never-Hillary-Egl-sm fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: