Unleash The Kraken!!! – Obama Illegal Illegal Immigration Diktat Lawsuit Blazes Forth

Update: Judge “Kraken” Hanen thundered yesterday. There will be more explosions to come. The government lawyers who faced Judge Hanen quivered:

A federal judge threatened Thursday to sanction the Justice Department if he finds that government lawyers misled him about the rollout of President Obama’s plan to shield up to 5 million people from deportation.

U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, visibly annoyed, confronted a U.S. deputy assistant attorney general over previous government assurances on the timing of the program.

He asked why he shouldn’t grant a discovery request for internal federal immigration documents — a request filed Thursday by 26 states that are suing over Obama’s executive actions on immigration. [snip]

At a one-hour hearing in Brownsville, Hanen gave the Justice Department 48 hours to file a motion in response. He said he would then rule promptly on whether to require the government to produce documents concerning applications under Obama’s deferred action program. [snip]

Hanen’s barbed comments left little doubt that he sympathized with lawyers for the 26 states, who said they suffered “irreparable harm” when federal officials granted more than 100,000 applications for deferred action after Obama announced the program Nov. 20. He said government lawyers had assured him that “nothing was happening” regarding the applications.

The outcome of the hearing further delayed the administration’s attempts to resolve the court case and proceed with the immigration program during his last two years in office. The program, one of the president’s signature initiatives, is opposed by Republicans, who control legislatures in most of the 26 states suing, led by Texas.

Hanen said Justice Department lawyers had assured him at a previous hearing that the administration had not begun implementing the deferred-action plan, designed to protect qualified immigrants from deportation for three years.

Like the judge, the states thought nothing was happening,” Hanen said with exasperation. “Like an idiot, I believed that.” [snip]

Hartnett said lawyers immediately notified the court when they realized “we may have inadvertently caused confusion.” Hanen corrected her, asking, “So you waited three weeks to tell me you were doing it?” [snip]

But the judge appeared unconvinced, saying the three-year reprieves were covered by the lawsuit.

When Hanen asked Hartnett whether American taxpayers would ultimately pay for any sanctions imposed on the Justice Department, she offered a noncommittal response.

“Answer my question,” the judge demanded.

“Ultimately, yes,” Hartnett responded.

Angela Colmenero, a lawyer for Texas and 25 other states, said she understood “that this is a big, complex federal program.” But she said the states needed to rely on “additional documents and not just the words” of Justice Department lawyers. [snip]

“The plaintiffs were more than surprised by this disclosure,” she said. [snip]

Hanen asked Hartnett bluntly whether Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson or other senior officials could be trusted on the immigration plan.

“I can trust what Secretary Johnson says … what President Obama says?” the judge asked.

“Yes, your honor, of course,” Hartnett replied.

The Fifth Circuit will not intervene if Judge Hanen orders expedited discovery for plaintiffs regarding Obama’s Justice Department lies. The Fifth Circuit will not want to overrule Judge Hanen if they believe the government lied and further discovery reveals the lies. The case will persist until Obama is out of office. Time is against Obama on this “signature” issue.

In 48 hours the government will respond and then in more ways than one Judge Hanen rules.

—————————————————–

Netanyahu and Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat are once again chasing each other as headlines. Netanyahu enjoyed a spectacular election victory yesterday and tomorrow there is an immigration lawsuit court hearing in Texas. The last time we wrote about the lawsuit against Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat was the day before Netanyahu spoke to the American Congress.

Thus far our predictions and prognostications from 2014 about this lawsuit have been right on target. Hang on to your girdles, fasten your bonnets extra tight, there have been plenty of shocking developments in the lawsuit against Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat for us to discuss (which we will after a brief history of the lawsuit thus far).

The story we have written about thus far regarding Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat started with advice for Republicans from us on how to fight Obama on immigration reform. Soon thereafter Barack Obama issued his illegal illegal immigration diktat in a speech even though he himself had previously warned that such a move would harm the Democratic Party.

Then Bingo. A lawsuit was filed by 17 states. We ruminated on the decisions that led to the lawsuit and why a lawsuit was the way to go because Republicans in Congress would not be able to get the job done. On January 15 a hearing before Judge Hanen was held. We, along with just about everyone else expected Judge Hanen to rule on behalf of the plaintiff states. But, we’ll revise one prediction we made in that article. Now we doubt the 5th Circuit will overturn Judge Hanen’s decision. Why do we reverse that prediction? “Unleash The Kraken”!!!

Judge Hanen is the Kraken. The Kraken has been released!

We thought Judge Hanen would side with the now grown to 26 plaintiff states and we along with many were correct in this easy prediction. But we also thought the Fifth Circuit would reverse Judge Hanen on appeal. We understood the Fifth Circuit was the most conservative district in the nation. But we still thought they would reverse and allow the plaintiffs a quick appeal to the Supreme Court well before the 2016 elections were in full swing and Obama could use that opportunity to attack the Supreme Court – which is what he did on ObamaCare and which Chief Justice John Roberts was terrified of. We figured the Supreme Court will eventually squash Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat. But now we think things are much rougher for Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat. Why? We did not foresee, could not imagine, the astonishing developments that took place in Judge Kraken’s Hanen’s courtroom.

Once both sides filed their briefs in mid January Judge Hanen withdrew to his chambers. Judge Hanen as promised, did not issue a ruling until after January. Judge Hanen worked on his ruling privately and without hurry. Then Judge Hanen struck on February 17.

On the day before Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat was to begin to operate Judge Hanen issued a ruling. It was a Preliminary Injunction against Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat.

As Bibi Netanyahu prepared his speech to Congress, Obama thugs plotted an attack against Judge Hanen’s Preliminary Injunction. Obama’s thugs struck exactly one week after Judge Hanen’s ruling was released. On Monday, January 26, Obama’s lawyers demanded Judge Hanen rule by Wednesday on a Motion they had filed that very same Monday. It was a short notice threat against the judge.

We documented the play by play, brief by brief, sword by sword. Obama’s lawyers threatened Judge Hanen they would file a motion with the Fifth Circuit to remove Hanen’s Preliminary Injunction on Wednesday, two days hence, if Judge Hanen did not himself lift the stay. The 26 plaintiff states asked Judge Hanen for a week to reply to Obama’s thug lawyers. Thrust. Counter-thrust. Then the Judge himself spoke thunderously: Judge Hanen allowed the 26 plaintiff states a full week to file their response to the Obama lawyers. It was Judge Hanen punching Obama thugs in the face. This is what we wrote (predictions included):

Obama tried to thug Judge Hanen. For Obama “thug” is the default play. Judge Hanen knows how to deal with thugs. Contra the claims by Politico, the judge in his order blocked the appeal to the Fifth Circuit.

If Obama lawyers try to ignore the judge’s order and go the the Fifth Circuit. It is our belief that the Fifth Circuit will tell them to wait until Judge Hanen does what he will do. The Fifth Circuit can easily note that the Obama lawyers waited a full week to file their “emergency” so it can’t be such an “emergency”. The Fifth Circuit can note that it is fair to the plaintiffs to give them the same time as Obama lawyers. So wait until Judge Hanen is good and ready.

Judge Hanen? We won’t be surprised if Judge Hanen schedules a hearing in days or weeks to come after Plaintiffs file their motion next Tuesday. Judge Hanen can wait and we believe the Fifth Circuit will wait too. We’ll find out next Tuesday.

Bingo! Bingo! Bingo! We were correct on all points. Judge Hanen will be deliberate and will hold as many hearings as necessary. Judge Hanen will not be thugged. Obama’s lawyers did not file with the Fifth Circuit as threatened and the plaintiff states filed their response.

That’s the story thus far. That’s the sum of our coverage. Now, THE SHOCKING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE OBAMA ILLEGAL ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION DIKTAT LAWSUIT AS WE PREPARE TO WATCH THE KRAKEN RELEASED:



Obama’s thug lawyers prepared for a Sauron style two pronged counterattack against Judge Hanen. First they would issue a new threat, a new deadline against the Judge’s Preliminary Injunction. This was to be followed up with a for-real-this-time filing in the Fifth Circuit to overturn Judge Hanen’s Preliminary Injunction. Second, get a gaggle of states to file a ridiculous brief saying the most ridiculous things to back them up. That was the plan. But the truth is their enemy.

As they prepared the counterattack it turned out that they had been lying to Judge Hanen all along. You shouldn’t lie to a federal judge in a federal court. You might as well kick a Kraken. The Kraken is gonna stomp on your ass. And that is what has happened.

Bear with us as we document the Obama thug lawyer counterattack. First the new threat and the new deadline, as reported by Politico:

Feds press judge to rule by Monday on immigration order stay

The Obama administration has set a new deadline, of sorts, for a federal judge to halt his order blocking President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

In a court filing Wednesday evening, Justice Department lawyers handling the case told U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen that if he doesn’t rule on their stay motion by the end of the day Monday, the federal government could seek to bypass him by seeking a stay directly from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Absent a ruling by close of business on Monday, March 9, 2015, Defendants may seek relief from the Court of Appeals in order to protect their interests,” the DOJ lawyers wrote in their new submission (posted here).

Hanen could be tempted to think that the federal government is crying wolf, since back on Feb. 23, the Justice Department leveled a similar threat to proceed to the 5th Circuit if he didn’t rule on the stay by Feb. 25.

Hanen didn’t rule by then and, in fact, made clear that he’d wouldn’t be ruling until the middle of this week at the earliest. The government’s milestone came and went, with no drive to the 5th Circuit. [snip]

Some legal experts view the stay effort as a longshot, but activists fear that Obama’s immigration actions could lose momentum if they’re on hold for months or longer while an appeal plays out. [snip]

In addition to asking Hanen to stay his ruling pending appeal, the administration asked him, alternatively, to narrow its scope to the State of Texas. Justice Department lawyers said the evidence presented to Hanen was limited to Texas, but lawyers for the states said at least a couple of other states also submitted proof of harm from the Obama executive actions.

The Obama administration has filed an appeal of Hanen’s ruling, but such appeals take an average of nine months to be resolved in the 5th Circuit, which is based in New Orleans. There has not yet been a move by either side in the case to expedite the pending appeal.


Texas v. U.S. – Immigration Case – 5th Cir – U.S. Emergency Motion for Stay.pdf


So the new red line in the sand set by the Obama thugs was Monday, March 9. On March 9 itself, Obama prostitute Greg Sargent reported the next moves by Obama’s thugs:

In the next few days, approximately a dozen states will call on an appeals court to lift an injunction — imposed by a conservative Texas judge — on President Obama’s executive actions shielding millions from deportation, arguing that they support those actions and see them as being in their economic interest, I’m told.

The move could precipitate an argument among the states over Obama’s policies, and will raise a question: If some states have successfully gotten the courts to block Obama’s actions nationwide, what should happen if other states want those actions to proceed? The bid by these states also could make it more likely that the courts lift the injunction and allow his deportation relief to move forward, at least in some states, while the legal battle over them plays out. [snip]

Thus, the latter states will argue that, at a minimum, the 5th Circuit should lift the injunction for them, because they stand to suffer economic harm if the injunction proceeds. They will also argue that Texas is the only state that has demonstrated it will suffer harm, so the injunction nationwide — and on them — is inappropriate. [snip]

In other words, if Texas can halt Obama’s actions on the basis of strong feelings about prospective harm, then other states can now petition to reverse Hanen’s injunction on the basis of economic research that his injunction harms them.


Texas v. U.S. – Immigration Case – 5th Cir – Amicus Brief of States Supporting Motion for Stay.pdf


That’s a ridiculous argument which tries to do a judo flip on the 26 plaintiff states with the argument that they too suffer irreparable harm so “gives us an injunction too please, GOLLEM, GOLLEM”. The DailyKooks will not understand. It’s a clumsy argument (yes, federal judges can file nationwide injunctions) but the states that support Obama indeed filed that garbage right after March 9 came and went without a response from Judge Hanen.

But something else happened on the previous Tuesday, March 3 that UNLEASHED THE KRAKEN. It’s hard to believe that this could happen. But happen it did.

Obama’s lawyer filed their threat on March Wednesday March 4. But on Tuesday March 3 Obama’s lawyers admitted they had lied to a federal judge in a federal court:

When President Obama announced his sweeping unilateral executive action on immigration last November, administration officials stressed that the new edict would not take effect immediately. [snip]

The administration’s schedule shaped the schedule of those challenging the president’s action. On Feb. 16, federal judge Andrew Hanen issued an order stopping the program, noting in his opinion that “the DHS’ website provides February 18, 2015 as the date it will begin accepting applications under DACA’s new criteria, and mid-to-late May for DAPA applications.” Hanen barred the administration from implementing “any and all aspects or phases of the expansions (including any and all changes)” to DACA and also “any and all aspects or phases” of DAPA.

So everyone involved knew the score. Changes to DACA, which had been scheduled to start Feb. 18, were on hold. DAPA was also on hold. And everyone assumed those dates to be accurate. But now, the administration is telling a different story.

In a “Defendants’ Advisory” filed with Hanen’s court late Tuesday, the Justice Department notified the judge that it has already implemented significant parts of the Expanded DACA program, and indeed that it has already granted expanded DACA protections and work permits to “approximately 100,000” people.

In the advisory, which began by claiming the administration has followed Hanen’s order to temporarily stop the implementation of the program, Justice Department lawyers added this:

Out of an abundance of caution, however, Defendants wish to bring one issue to the Court’s attention. Specifically, between November 24, 2014 and the issuance of the Court’s Order, USCIS granted three-year periods of deferred action to approximately 100,000 individuals who had requested deferred action under the original 2012 DACA guidelines (and were otherwise determined to warrant such relief), including the issuance of three-year Employment Authorization Documents for those 2012 DACA recipients who were eligible for renewal. These pre-injunction grants of three-year periods of deferred action to those already eligible for 2012 DACA were consistent with the terms of the November Guidance…Defendants nevertheless recognize that their identification of February 18, 2015, as the date by which USCIS planned to accept requests for deferred action under the new and expanded DACA eligibility guidelines, and their identification of March 4, 2015, as the earliest date by which USCIS would make final decisions on such expanded DACA requests, may have led to confusion about when USCIS had begun providing three-year terms of deferred action to individuals already eligible for deferred action under 2012 DACA.

Led to confusion? That’s an understatement. It also led to the conclusion that the administration has misled not only Judge Hanen but everyone in the United States about the president’s immigration action. [snip]

Despite all the administration talk about a three-month period to begin the new policy, Johnson simply declared the DACA changes effective last November 24. On the basis of his memo, administration officials gave expanded DACA protections to those 100,000 people — a breakneck pace, apparently pursued to get as many changes in place before legal challenges could catch up.

Obama’s lawyers tried to slither pass a monumental lie they themselves told to a federal judge in a federal court. They lied and it is clear they lied not only in a legal brief but openly in court:

Yet in court, administration lawyers claimed that Obama’s changes wouldn’t take effect until Feb. 18. In a motion filed Jan. 14, the Justice Department asked for a two week extension of the deadline to file a brief. “Plaintiffs will not be prejudiced by the two-week extension sought in this Motion,” the administration argued, “because U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) does not intend to entertain requests for deferred action under the challenged policy until February 18, 2015, and even after it starts accepting requests, it will not be in a position to make any final decisions on those requests at least until March 4, 2015.” Even as the government lawyers wrote those words, the administration was racing to grant immediate extended status to as many illegal immigrants as possible.

The day after filing the motion, Jan. 15, Justice Department lawyer Kathleen Hartnett appeared in Hanen’s court to emphasize that there was no problem delaying things for a while because the administration wasn’t implementing the president’s changes.

“In that [motion] we reiterated that no applications for the revised DACA — this is not even DAPA — revised DACA would be accepted until the 18th of February,” Hartnett told the judge, “and that no action would be taken on any of those applications until March the 4th.”

A moment later, just to be sure, Hanen said to Hartnett, “But as far as you know, nothing is going to happen in the next three weeks?”

“No, your honor,” Hartnett said.

“OK,” Hanen answered. “On either?”

“In terms of accepting applications or granting any up-or-down applications,” Hartnett said.

“OK,” said Hanen.

“For revised DACA, just to be totally clear,” Hartnett said.

Hartnett did not mention the 100,000 illegal immigrants to whom the administration had already rushed to grant longer protections and work permits under the president’s order.

In its fess-up advisory to the court Tuesday night, Justice Department lawyers said the administration has now stopped granting three-year deferred status to anyone — even though it maintains it had the authority to do so all along. But the Justice Department said it will not undo what it has already done for the 100,000 illegal immigrants already covered.

Obama’s thug lawyers lied to Judge Hanen in Judge Hanen’s court. Obama’s thug lawyers lied to Judge Hanen in a filed brief as well.

To say the least, there has been a response to the Obama thug lawyers’ lies.

The government’s lawyers essentially admitted that they were disclosing this fact because it was contrary to what they had previously told the court. That has led to a motion by the State of Texas to be allowed to conduct discovery to find out what happened. Here is Texas’s brief in support of that motion. It is damning:

Motion%2520for%2520Early%2520Discovery%25203%25205%25202015


The lies told by Obama’s lawyers delayed and prevented actions the plaintiffs could have taken to block Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktats. Obama’s lawyers lied to plaintiffs’ lawyers. Obama’s lawyers also kicked the Kraken. The Kraken is not happy.

Was it smart of Obama’s lawyers to kick the Kraken in light of the fact that they want the Kraken to rule in their favor or at the very least to issue a ruling, any ruling, so they can move the case forward? Uh, no. You don’t kick the Kraken in the Kraken cave when you want something from the Kraken.

The Kraken has been unleashed:

A federal judge signaled Monday that he has no plans to act soon on the Obama Administration’s request to stay an order blocking President Barack Obama’s latest round of executive actions on immigration.

U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen said in an order issued Monday afternoon that he views as serious claims that federal government lawyers may have misled the court about the implementation of new immigration policies the president ordered in November.

Last week, the Justice Department advised Hanen that the federal government issued new 3-year “deferred action” grants and work permits to 100,000 people between November 24 and when Hanen blocked the Obama moves on February 16.

The group of 26 states whose lawsuit persuaded Hanen to block the Obama immigration actions recently filed a motion calling the federal disclosure “surprising” and asserting that Justice Department lawyers had assured the court that no action would be taken to implement Obama’s new policies until mid-February.

Obama’s moves announced in November expanded eligibility for the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” program and initiated a new program for illegal immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents. However, there was a third part to Obama’s new actions: he extended the “deferred action” period protecting certain immigrants from deportation from two years to three, and authorized the issuance of three-year work permits as well.

Hanen, who sits in Brownsville, Texas, said Monday that he wants a more complete explanation of what happened.

“Due to the seriousness of the matters discussed therein, the Court will not rule on any other pending motions until it is clear that these matters, if true, do not impact the pending matters or any rulings previously made by this Court,” Hanen wrote. He set a hearing on the matter for March 19 and ordered that Justice Department lawyers “be prepared to fully explain to this Court all of the matters addressed in and circumstances surrounding” the notice the feds sent the judge last week. [snip]

Hanen’s decision appears to indicate that he won’t be meeting a deadline of sorts the Justice Department set last week, warning it could move to an appeals court to block Hanen’s original injunction if he didn’t act on a stay request by the close of business Monday.

Whatever slim chance Obama had of getting a ruling from Judge Hanen or the Fifth Circuit just went up in a puff of Kraken smoke.

Judge Hanen will now, as we predicted from the very beginning, commence a series of hearings and discovery proceedings that will last into forever or until Obama is gone from the White House.

The Fifth Circuit? Obama’s lawyers have asked the Fifth Circuit to rule on their motion by March 26. The plaintiff states have until March 23 to respond.

Whatever chance of the Fifth Circuit taking up the appeal filed by Obama’s lawyers is gone. The Fifth Circuit will now wait until Hell freezes over and the Kraken has done his job to completion before they even think about thinking about thinking about even considering to consider the appeal from Obama’s lawyer on Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktat.

The Kraken is not blowing smoke but godly fire:

Judge’s new order makes it harder for Obama to restart immigration moves

After President Obama in November announced plans to shelter millions of people from the threat of deportation, immigration officials wasted no time in carrying them out.

Thousands of young people who had applied for two-year reprieves from deportation instead were given three years free from the threat of being kicked out of the country. About 100,000 applications were approved before last month, when U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen in Texas ordered a freeze on Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

Now, the administration’s disclosure that it approved those applications has added yet another complication, and potentially weeks of more delays, to its attempts to restart the ambitious immigration initiatives. Hanen said in a filing this week that he wanted Justice Department lawyers to “fully explain” why they didn’t mention the three-year permits before last week.

He set a hearing for March 19. [snip]

It’s vital that we get to the bottom of the recent actions by the Obama administration, and this hearing will be key in obtaining the truth about what appears on its face to be the administration’s clear misrepresentation of the facts in this case,” said Cynthia Meyer, deputy press secretary for the Texas attorney general’s office. [snip]

The current wrangling is over what Justice Department lawyers told the judge during recent hearings as scheduling matters were discussed. In January, lawyers said nothing would be happening before Feb. 18.

Last week, government lawyers, “in an abundance of caution,” disclosed to Hanen that they had been granting the three-year permits since November to DACA applicants who qualified under the 2012 rules. The talk of the Feb. 18 date “may have led to confusion,” said the brief signed by six Justice Department lawyers.

Lawyers for Texas and the other states said the actions were “difficult to square” with the lawyers’ earlier statements in the case.

For the administration, the bottom line of the dispute may mean more problems in moving the case through the courts — and more trouble in getting the immigration program in place before Obama leaves office.

Liars lie. Krakens incinerate.

Share

162 thoughts on “Unleash The Kraken!!! – Obama Illegal Illegal Immigration Diktat Lawsuit Blazes Forth

  1. All the immigration action is not in the courts (though we expect a cave here, but hey, if a pig flies for a few seconds just look up in wonder don’t worry that it’s a short flight):

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/is-lynch-nomination-unraveling/article/2561647

    Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s attorney general nominee who once appeared to be on a glide path to confirmation, is now a vote away from losing the job after months of delay, thanks mostly to her views on illegal immigration.

    Senate Republicans leaders have postponed a confirmation vote on Lynch, who was nominated more than four months ago. And each passing day has generated another GOP “no” vote, even from Republicans who typically would be amenable to approving Lynch, who is now serving as the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York and is highly regarded for her legal mind, job performance and personal appeal.

    Among those who are uncertain of Lynch’s fate is Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a staunch backer of Lynch.

    Just a few weeks ago, Hatch told the Washington Examiner Lynch would easily be confirmed by the Senate.

    Now, he’s not so sure.

    “I don’t know,” Hatch said, when asked if Lynch has the votes to pass. “All I can say is I’m for her.”

    The latest Republican rejections came Tuesday from Sens. Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander, both of Tennessee. The two lawmakers have backed Obama nominees in the past, including current Attorney General Eric Holder, who won confirmation by a vote of 75-21.

    Like other Republicans who said they will oppose her, Corker pointed to Lynch’s support for President Obama’s recent executive actions on immigration — specifically, a policy that will allow millions of illegal immigrants to get work permits and some federal benefits.

    Lynch expressed her support for Obama’s directive during her confirmation hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, telling the panel she believes illegal immigrants have a right to work in the United States.

    “I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here,” Lynch said at the Jan. 28 hearing.

    “And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.”

    Lynch’s perspective on illegal immigration has helped to slowly unravel her support in a GOP-led Senate that has grown increasingly angry over Obama’s executive actions.

    “The job of the U.S. attorney general is to enforce federal laws as written, not as the administration wishes they were written,” Corker said. “While I believe Ms. Lynch is an impressive attorney and a committed public servant, nothing revealed during our personal meeting or at her confirmation hearing has assured me that she will be an independent attorney general and refrain from selective enforcement of the law, and therefore I will not be supporting her confirmation.”

    Corker’s decision to vote against Lynch follows other Senate Republicans who might have backed Lynch under different circumstances.

    Like Corker, they point to Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

    Congressional Republicans tried to curb Obama’s immigration directives in a Homeland Security spending measure last month, but they backed down in the face of a potential shutdown of the agency.

    Lynch’s nomination has now become the avenue for the GOP to vent their opposition to Obama’s moves, which they call a form of “executive amnesty,” for illegal immigrants.

    Sen. Alexander, R-Tenn., who also backed Holder’s nomination, told the Washington Examiner he’ll also vote against Lynch. He pointed to Obama’s executive actions on immigration as the reason.

    “It’s an opportunity I have, within the Senate rules, to express my disapproval of President Obama’s executive overreach and I’m going to take advantage of that opportunity,” he told the Examiner.

    Lynch needs just 51 votes to be confirmed. So far, only Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch, of Utah, Susan Collins, of Maine, Jeff Flake, of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, have publicly announced their support for Lynch, although some Republicans are undecided, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski, of Alaska and Kelly Ayotte, of New Hampshire.

    If all 46 Democrats vote in favor of Lynch, then Vice President Joe Biden will be able to confirm her with a tie-breaking vote.

    But some Republicans are hoping one of the four GOP “yes” votes will switch, which would leave Lynch a vote shy of the majority needed to become the next attorney general.

    Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who said he’ll vote against Lynch, has close ties to Graham and may be using his influence to try to get Graham to change his mind on Lynch, suggested a GOP aide. [snip]

    For Lynch, the problem may be that the Senate calendar is working against her, leaving more opportunity for her meager GOP support to diminish.

    Republican leaders postponed a scheduled vote on her confirmation this week because Democrats are blocking a human trafficking bill over contested abortion language. If there is no vote this week, Lynch’s confirmation vote would likely be postponed until mid to late April, thanks to a scheduled two-week Senate recess and plans to take up a budget resolution next week.

    Democrats acknowledge Lynch’s confirmation may be uncertain.

    “There are four Republicans who have said they are for Lynch,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “That’s enough to barely pass her. We hope she’ll pass…we hope she’ll pass.”

  2. thanks, admin. Terrific article laying out the kind of legal battle that will be missed by the media coverage.

  3. Wonderful news, and once again, so very informative Admin. Thank you!

    I remember reading that Obama was going ahead and issuing thousands of amnesty documents, and I wondered WTF?

    Glad to see the pretendKing has been caught with his pants down in front of Judge Kracken.

    Hallelujah!!!

  4. hwc
    March 18, 2015 at 10:15 pm
    thanks, admin. Terrific article laying out the kind of legal battle that will be missed by the media coverage.
    )))))))))))))))))))))))))))Mickey Kaus Quits Daily Caller, After Tucker Carlson Pulls Column Critical of FoxNews’ Soft-on-Amnesty Corporate Positioning
    —Ace

    Here’s another story that makes me very angry:

    A few days ago, Mickey Kaus had an article that I wanted to link, but I didn’t, for some reason.

    The article was something like, How Fox Makes It Easy for Amnesty Supporters in the GOP.

    His claim was this (and it’s hard to argue against): While the issue consuming the conservative movement for two weeks was Boehner’s final betrayal of conservatives (resulting in my own leaving the party and the movement, for that matter), Fox News ran very few stories at all about this.

    I love Megyn Kelly. I think she’s a superstar and deserves to be one.

    And don’t get me wrong — she’s hot. A real smokeshow. Face like an angel and an ass like a young Kiefer Sutherland.

    But I also think she is, as many educated people are, very establishment.

    She assumes that people like me and you are trashy and uneducated. She doesn’t realize that half of us have better education credentials than she does. If you tell her that, she will shrug, and think a different thought–They are still Social Lessers because they believe Crazy Things.

    I still think she’s great, do not get me wrong. But she is Establishment as all get out, and she thinks she’s Supposed to Be Establishment because Law School Degree. Like, she thinks this is something Major, and that no one with such Incredible Achievements could possibly think crude, grassroots-type things.

    I can be a fan while recognizing her limitations.

    Anyway, while all of this was going on, Megyn Kelly chose to do [some large number X] segments about IS, while doing [some very small number Y] stories about amnesty, or the GOP’s lying to its base every two years.

    Which is the sort of position that Rupert Murdoch just happens to Love. He’s very pro-amnesty. So in fact is his paper, the Wall Street Journal.

    Other Fox shows likewise demonstrated a very “meh” attitude on the only thing conservatives were talking about.

    So Mickey Kaus’s point was simple: Fox News — deliberately? — pushes a whole bunch of upsetting stuff on its viewers as a substitute for and diversion away from the issue that was really animating conservatives those two weeks, to wit, the complete victory of the Donor Base Establishment on amnesty, while sticking the knife in the base’s backs.

    As usual.

    Don’t get me wrong: Of course Kelly’s reporting on IS was important. However, when you have five one-hour shows per week to fill, it does strike me that a few of them could be devoted to this amnesty sell-out.

    But Fox gets away with this, because they’re allegedly super “conservative,” and because, who else you got?

    Well, anyway, it was a good column and it made me think and ask some questions, which is of course not permitted in America 2015.

    So Tucker Carlson (a Fox news employee, coincidentally!) pulled the column (that’s why I can’t link it — it exists only in my mind, now) and Mickey Kaus quit.

    “It’s pretty simple,” Kaus said in an interview, “I wrote a piece attacking Fox for not being the opposition on immigration and amnesty — for filling up the airwaves with reports on ISIS and terrorism, and not fulfilling their responsibility of being the opposition on amnesty and immigration…. I posted it at 6:30 in the morning. When I got up, Tucker had taken it down. He said, ‘We can’t trash Fox on the site. I work there.'”
    They just will not permit you to even begin asking the Questions that could result in their defeat.

    I don’t know about you but I am tired of living in a Corporate Hierarchy and a Managed Democracy.

    If I sound like a Radical, it’s because I am.

    Update: Shoutingboy tells me that Kaus has posted the Forbidden Column on his own website, and I believe him.
    _____________________________________
    NEVER
    ______________________

  5. GonzoTx, it is almost impossible to find articles discussing the immigration lawsuit. Other than here, there is not much to read on this important topic. The lack of information is why we stuff as much as we can, risking some people getting bored with the amount of information, into these types of articles. Most blogs, like most Big Media outlets, continue writing what they usually write and ignore this massive development. We tried Google and most of what comes up are AP articles that note there is a hearing and not much else. Kaus has a point on Fox News ignoring this.

    There are some few exceptions to the news blockade such as this good article in the San Antonio Express News:

    http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Immigration-showdown-brews-in-New-Orleans-court-6135800.php

    A hearing in Brownsville this week examining whether the Obama administration misled a federal court may ultimately have no bearing on the outcome of a blockbuster immigration case but could strain relations between the judge and government lawyers.

    U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen could choose to grant a motion for early discovery, enabling Texas and 25 other states suing the government to learn unknown details about the administration’s drive to grant legal protections to millions of undocumented immigrants.

    Conceivably, he could expand his injunction blocking the president’s executive actions on immigration in a way that affects some of the 100,000 immigrants granted deportation reprieves in the months leading up to his ruling, legal experts said.

    “I suppose he could find the government in contempt. But what the implications of that are, I’m not sure. He’s not going to put the president in jail,” said Paul Virtue, who was general counsel in the former Immigration and Naturalization Service working under three presidents.

    But any outcome is likely to be far less significant than deliberations underway in an appeals court in New Orleans, where the Justice Department is pressing an emergency motion to block Hanen’s ruling.

    As lawyers prepared for the hearing in Brownsville, the administration hastened its effort to allow its executive actions to proceed. Contending that Hanen’s Feb. 16 preliminary injunction “is unprecedented and wrong,” Justice Department lawyers Thursday asked the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to decide by March 26 on their request to block the ruling.

    The department also requested an expedited schedule for the government’s appeal, which it hopes to begin as early as March 30.

    Before the flurry, Hanen already has ordered all sides to his courtroom Thursday based on a March 3 “advisory” from the government. That disclosed that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had recently granted three-year deportation reprieves for roughly 100,000 young immigrants who qualified under the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA.

    The original DACA gave some young immigrants here illegally a two-year reprieve from deportation and a work permit, which they could renew. When Obama announced in November that he was expanding DACA and giving work permits to the undocumented immigrant parents of some U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents, he said recipients of both programs, including those who renewed their 2012 DACA permits, would receive benefits for three years.

    The latest dispute hinges on whether a government lawyer misled Hanen by failing to disclose at a January hearing that the administration granted three-year work permits to immigrants who had already received two-year DACA benefits up for renewal.

    The 2012 program was not covered in the judge’s injunction. But a day after the administration’s surprise admission, Texas and its allies turned up in Hanen’s court alleging that the actions had violated assurances from a government lawyer.

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton contends that they would have moved to speed up action in the court in Brownsville had they known of the DACA expansion and perhaps sought a temporary restraining order.

    Even with the main venue shifting to New Orleans, Paxton asserted that “the most pressing issue at hand is the extent to which the Obama administration has already issued expanded work permits to illegal immigrants, in direct contradiction to what they told the district court.”

    The dispute focuses on Justice Department lawyer Kathleen Hartnett’s response when Hanen asked in January whether anything would be happening in coming weeks with regard to applications under DACA.

    “No, your honor,” Hartnett replied, noting that she was referring to “revised DACA.”

    Texas and the other plaintiffs seized on the March 3 disclosure as evidence of deception. They are seeking early discovery into Homeland Security Department operations, which could tie up government lawyers in flurries of motions and perhaps unearth information harmful to the government’s case.

    On Thursday, the Justice Department will refer to a Nov. 20 Homeland Security memo announcing the new policies for deferred action. Among them, the agency declared that on Nov. 24, the two-year period DACA and accompanying employment authorization would be extended to three years.

    In a filing last week, the Justice Department said it regretted the confusion and “in no way intended to obscure the fact” that the Homeland Security Department was operating under 2012 DACA — in line with the Nov. 20 memo.

    In ordering Thursday’s hearing, Hanen referred to “the seriousness of the matter,” sounding sympathetic to Texas and the other plaintiffs. But the outcome is hard to predict.

    This is what we call an unforced error,” said Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law who filed a friend of the court brief in the case on behalf of the libertarian Cato Institute.

    “Once you get into the business of misrepresenting to the court, you’re in a precarious position,” he added.

    The pretty good article ends with sad/sympathetic stories about illegal immigrants.

  6. Admin, I’m so glad and appreciative that you keep us so well informed.

    Just wondering what you believe Judge Hanen’s response will be to the fact that the WH lied? “Misrepresenting to the court” – is that not perjury ?

  7. Freespirit, one funny word: “emails”.

    We think the judge is going to order expedited discovery. This will mean that “emails” will take the spotlight as plaintiffs get permission from the judge to get communications from government departments/lawyers who knew or should have known that the government was lying to the court. This will be step one. Step two might be an expanded injunction regime from the judge.

    Most importantly today will impact the Fifth Circuit decision on what to do about Judge Hanen’s order. If the government lied to the court then the likelihood of Fifth Circuit intervention is greatly diminished and Obama’s illegal illegal immigration diktats are frozen.

  8. Obama will never be big enough for the job of president. All of his talk of inclusion and equality is just some text book rhetoric with a bunch of buzz words. Josh Earnest, speaking for Barack, has the nerve to publicly reprimand the Prime Minister of Israel for accusing his opponents of bussing in Arab-Israeli voters to the polls. Earnest accuses him of “marginalizing a segment of the population”, and says that Barack will be talking to Bibi directly about this. Earnest acknowledges that Barack has not congratulated Netanyahu on his win. How small, petty, and unstatesmanlike is that?

    Oh no, Bibi! You’re in trouble with Barack!!! Whatever will you do? What a joke for Earnest to say that. Just look at the people Barack has marginalized since he’s been in office – All Americans who don’t fit into his pathetically inept little community organizer’s view of the world. He has marginalized cops and placed them at risk. He has marginalized American citizens by supporting the rights of illegals over the rights of Americans. He has marginalized members of all religious groups other than Islam. He has attempted to marginalize Israel.

    The WH is attempting to portray Bibi’s rejection of the two-state solution as justification for the negative, punitive tone Barack has maintained regarding Netanyahu and Israel, in general, from day one. This is a misrepresentation. Barack has always been anti-Israel. Apparently, he is incapable of representing the US – rather than his own personal prejudices – and unwilling to extend basic respect to Israel and Mr. Netanyahu, whom the country has seen fit to elect.
    ______________

    The White House has condemned what it called “divisive rhetoric” in the Israeli election, won by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party.

    The US, EU and UN have also urged him to continue with the two-state solution to the Palestinian issue.

    During campaigning, Mr Netanyahu said he would not allow the creation of a Palestinian state if re-elected.

    He aims to build a new coalition government within two to three weeks, his party says.

    Former US Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, George Mitchell: “Difficult period ahead” for US on two state solution in Middle East
    White House spokesman Josh Earnest said: “It has been the policy of the United States for more than 20 years that a two-state solution is the goal of resolving the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.”

    The US would “re-evaluate our approach” in the wake of Mr Netanyahu’s comments ruling out a Palestinian state, he said.

    On a warning from Mr Netanyahu that his opponents were bussing Arab-Israeli voters to polling stations, he said: “Rhetoric that seeks to marginalise one segment of their population is deeply concerning and it is divisive, and I can tell you that these are views the administration intends to communicate directly to the Israelis.”

    Mr Earnest added that President Barack Obama was yet to congratulate Mr Netanyahu on his win but would do so in the coming days once he had been directed to form a government, as in previous elections.

    (snip)

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31953207

  9. Thanks, for your response, Admin. Damn, today may prove to be pretty interesting. It would be extremely encouraging to see this president held accountable, for once.

  10. Five minutes ago the L.A. Times chimes in:

    http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-immigration-obama-hearing-20150318-story.html

    Why Obama’s stalled immigration plan is back before a skeptical Texas judge

    he Obama administration heads back into federal court before a skeptical judge here Thursday in an attempt to revive the president’s plan to shield up to 5 million people from the threat of deportation.

    U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Texas, who ordered a freeze last month on President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, has demanded that government lawyers “fully explain” why the administration began accepting applications for the program earlier than they had indicated.

    The hearing is one more step in what is expected to be a long legal battle over an issue that has divided Democrats and Republicans and will be a focus in the 2016 presidential campaign. Legal experts predict that the case will ultimately end up before the Supreme Court, but not before delaying a signature executive effort by Obama in the final two years of his presidency.

    The administration wants to move the case along in hopes of prevailing in court and implementing the immigration plan while Obama is still in office. [snip]

    But Hanen ordered the freeze Feb. 16 after Texas and 25 other states sued to halt the program, arguing that Obama had overstepped his constitutional authority by acting without congressional approval. The states also said the immigration plan would impose an unfair financial burden on them.

    On Feb. 23, the administration asked Hanen to lift his own injunction and allow the president’s immigration initiatives to proceed. California, New York, Illinois and 11 other states — many with the highest populations of immigrants eligible for Obama’s program — asked a federal appeals court March 12 to lift Hanen’s freeze, saying the states cannot interfere with federal immigration policy. [snip]

    Those states also argued that Obama’s plan would actually benefit individual states in the form of increased tax revenue from more workers, as well as stronger families. The motion filed by the states called Hanen’s order “unprecedented and wrong.”

    The majority of immigrants eligible for “deferred action” live in those 14 states — 1.5 million in California, 338,000 in New York and 280,000 in Illinois.

    Texas, however, has the second-most eligible immigrants, with 743,000, according to Migration Policy Institute estimates. [snip]

    The current dispute in court in Brownsville is over what Justice Department lawyers told the judge during recent hearings as scheduling matters were discussed. In January, government lawyers said nothing would be happening before Feb. 18.

    This month, government lawyers disclosed to Hanen that, in what they called “an abundance of caution,” the government had been granting the three-year permits since November to DACA applicants who qualified under the 2012 rules. The talk of the Feb. 18 date “may have led to confusion,” six Justice Department lawyers wrote in a legal brief.

    Lawyers for Texas and the other states said the actions were “difficult to square” with the government lawyers’ earlier statements in the case.

    The administration is eager to move on and make its case to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. It has asked the appellate court for a decision on the stay within 14 days and for arguments on the constitutional issues in the case to be held by June.

    But the matter remains in Hanen’s court for now, and lawyers for the 26 states have asked permission to look further into the administration’s actions on the immigration program.

  11. The pretty good article ends with sad/sympathetic stories about illegal immigrants.
    ———
    I am sure that is true.

    But hard cases make bad law.

    And those who place their trust in Obama assumed the risk that they would be thrown under the bus.

    Their problems are not our problems.

  12. In January, government lawyers said nothing would be happening before Feb. 18.

    This month, government lawyers disclosed to Hanen that, in what they called “an abundance of caution,” the government had been granting the three-year permits since November to DACA applicants who qualified under the 2012 rules. The talk of the Feb. 18 date “may have led to confusion,” six Justice Department lawyers wrote in a legal brief.

    Lawyers for Texas and the other states said the actions were “difficult to square” with the government lawyers’ earlier statements in the case.
    ——-
    So what is she going to say.

    I am SOOORRRY Your Honor.

    Reeeeeeeeeeely sorry.

    I was mistaken, misguided, misinformed.

    In the future, I will be circumspect.

    Besides, I went to Harvard, so I rate a pass.

    Court: when did you become aware of the fact that your representation before this court was, to put it charitably, in error—before or after the other side brought this to my attention. And while you are at it, tell me why, given the magnitude of this issue, and the fact that your comments were materially misleading, you should not be held in contempt.

    Oh your Honor, I confess, but do not let my personal failure interfere with the larger picture here, which is to give the big media beloved messiah a legacy, and the dims a lock on future elections, at the expense of the American People. I regret that I have but one legal career to give for the big media beloved messiah, whom I myself was hoping to take to bed.

  13. In order to transmorgify this nation, Obama must exceed the boundaries of the law. Period.

    And here is the problem with that:

    William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

    Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
    William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

    Sir Thomas More: Oh?

    And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

    This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s!

    And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

    Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.

    (A Man For All Seasons, 1966)

  14. Hypocrite that he is, Obama can tell the American People that elections have consequences where he is concerned, but pretend that the Israeli election has no consequences, and he will still find a way to evade the will of the people. The contradictions with this guy are off the map. Yet half the American People cannot/will not see it.

    (Note: The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Obama’s job performance. I think we are at the point where we can declare 47% of the likely voters, officially, brain dead.)

    ———————–

    Israel election: Netanyahu’s win rebuke to Obama, mandate to stay course

    By Douglas E. Schoen
    ·Published March 18, 2015
    ·FoxNews.com

    March 17, 2015: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu casts his vote during Israel’s parliamentary elections in Jerusalem. (AP Photo/Sebastian Scheiner, Pool)

    “Against all odds, against all odds, we achieved this huge victory for Likud. We achieved the huge victory for our people. And I am proud, I am proud for the people of Israel, that in the moment of truth, knew to make the right decision and to choose the real material things over immaterial things,” newly reelected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told supporters Tuesday night.

    And he’s right. Polling on the eve of the election suggested that Netanyahu’s Likud was trailing the Zionist Union by three seats at 22 to 25. The final count gave Likud 30 seats to the Zionist’s 24.

    This is a tremendous turn around that not only gives Netanyahu the mandate to continue to govern as he has, but it is also a clear and obvious rebuke to President Obama.

    For there to be peace in the region, President Obama needs to bow to reality and not deal with the Iranians – and by extension the Syrians – but with the coalitions of the Israelis, Egyptians, Saudis and UAE countries.

    Indeed, Netanyahu came to the United State just two weeks ago against the will of the Obama administration. He knew what he was doing. It was more important to make his case on the controversial Iranian nuclear deal than to win friends in the White House.

    This turned out to be an especially astute move considering that there was little to no chance that Netanyahu could or would win friends in the White House: President Obama had Democrat operatives working for Netanyahu’s opponent in Israel. And Obama has made it clear over his tenure how little his relationship with Netanyahu means to him, putting less effort into the maintenance of the US-Israeli alliance than his predecessors.

    But Netanyahu’s win isn’t just a rebuke to Obama, it also undermines the Europeans who placed a disproportionate emphasis on the importance of establishing a Palestinian state.

    As for the Iran nuclear deal, which is in the final stages of negotiations, Netanyahu’s victory represents a huge point of concern for the future of the deal. Given his position, it’s hard to believe that he will sit silently especially considering his mandate. We should expect to hear more from Netanyahu on the deal in the coming days.

    Further, Netanyahu’s win indicates that his final campaign assertion that he would not accept a Palestinian state could well have made the difference for him. As I wrote above, he was polling behind the Zionist Union up until the polls opened. Nothing changed but his rejection of a two state solution, a position that Western leaders have supported.

    All of this is bad news for the Iran nuclear deal and bad news for efforts to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict on terms that the U.S. has wanted. It also raises the specter of the potential for conflict should the nuclear deal go forward with the Iranians.

    Most of all it means that for there to be peace in the region, President Obama needs to bow to reality and not deal with the Iranians – and by extension the Syrians – but with the coalitions of the Israelis, Egyptians, Saudis and UAE countries.

    The next few days will be telling, but make no mistake about it, this is a central rebuff to Barack Obama, his policies and approach.

    Douglas E. Schoen has served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton. He has more than 30 years experience as a pollster and political consultant. He is also a Fox News contributor and co-host of “Fox News Insiders” Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on FoxNews.com Live. He is the author of 11 books. His latest, co-authored with Malik Kaylan is “The Russia-China Axis: The New Cold War and America’s Crisis of Leadership (Encounter Books, September 2014). Follow Doug on Twitter @DouglasESchoen.

  15. admin
    March 19, 2015 at 11:17 am
    Godzilla does not frighten Japan as much as Michelle Obama frightens Japan:

    Warning: link contains pictures
    ——
    Godzilla with false eyelashes.

    But look at Barack. A bow low enough to split the rear end of his trousers to the leader of Japan. But not as low as the bow he gave to the Saudi King. Which is still not as low as the bow he gives to Soros, as he prepares to suck. Can anyone really know how low he can go? I guess we won’t know until we get there, and even then there is the possibility that he can go lower.

  16. admin
    March 19, 2015 at 11:17 am
    Godzilla does not frighten Japan as much as Michelle Obama frightens Japan:

    Warning: link contains pictures
    ——-
    Those photos should be X-rated.

  17. I would not be surprised if the big media beloved messiah did not lift sanctions on Iran (through the UN) and impose sanctions on Israel (through the UN) as he watches his legacy come to naught. I swear to you, the angry ossified child is emerging from behind the mask as predicted long ago. Even now, he is floating a proposal to make voting in federal elections mandatory, and failure to do so would be subject to a stiff fine. How then can 47% of the public approve of the job he is doing, if they are not, in fact, brain dead? I mean it. Is there any other possibility here? And do not tell me they are too busy. If that were true they would not answer the pollster. We must therefore assume that they know what is going on and they approve of it. Incredible.
    ———–
    http://www.gopusa.com/news/2015/03/19/obama-admin-threatens-netanyahu-with-consequences/?subscriber=1

  18. Admin-

    … The lack of information is why we stuff as much as we can, risking some people getting bored with the amount of information, into these types of articles.

    —-
    Thank God you don’t worry about pleasing those that might get bored.

    I fully appreciate the information and would be in the dark without you Admin!

  19. Our article links to a Josh Blackman article in the section in which the government’s brief to the Fifth Circuit is discussed. The government’s brief is as we termed it “ridiculous” and we cited Blackman to make our point. Today Blackman published a great legal article about ObamaCare and the immigration case both of which are examples of a new type of illegal behavior by Obama that is almost never discussed:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415635/president-cannot-bypass-courts-josh-blackman

    A New York Times op-ed makes an ingenious but frightening argument. In a provocative op-ed in the New York Times, University of Chicago law professor William Baude argues that the president has the power to sidestep the Supreme Court if it rules against him on Obamacare. In King v. Burwell, four Virginians claim they are injured by what they describe as the administration’s illegal payment of Obamacare subsidies. Baude offers an easy way out for the president. “If the administration loses in King,” he suggests, “it can announce that it is complying with the Supreme Court’s judgment — but only with respect to the four plaintiffs who brought the suit.” Baude explains that the Supreme Court’s “formal power” is limited to “order[ing] a remedy only for the four people actually before it.”

    In offering this “Get Out of Jail Free” card to the Obama administration, Baude notes that “the Constitution supplies a contingency plan, even if the administration doesn’t know it yet.” Alas, the Obama Justice Department is well aware of this stratagem to bypass the federal courts — it has thrice plotted this procedural putsch.

    In three high-profile cases, two involving Obamacare and one involving immigration, the Justice Department has openly challenged the power of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions to halt unlawful executive actions. These desperate efforts to interfere with the courts in order to salvage unprecedented assertions of power have flouted the rule of law.

    First, in January of 2011, a federal judge in Tallahassee, Roger Vinson, found that Obamacare’s individual mandate was unconstitutional, and he invalidated the entire law. [snip]

    The Obama administration doubted that a single federal judge could throw a wrench into the lurching Leviathan. In other words, Obamacare was too big to fail. [snip]

    Second, in March of 2014, the administration repeated its claim that a single federal court could not stop Obamacare. The week before oral arguments were to be held in Halbig v. Burwell in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Justice Department submitted a letter informing the judges that they were constitutionally prohibited from denying subsidies to millions of Americans. In short, the government argued that people who were not parties to the suit had a due-process right to be heard before their subsidies were extinguished — as if Obamacare were some sort of constitutionally protected property interest!

    The plaintiffs shot back, incredulous that the government had an “apparent intention to lawlessly flout this Court’s binding order.” In August, the D.C. Circuit ruled for the plaintiffs, and sent the case back to the lower court with instructions to “vacate the IRS Rule” in its entirety — not merely with respect to the named plaintiffs. Again, the Justice Department had questioned the power of a federal court to put the kibosh on an illegal federal action, and the judges emphatically rejected this executive hubris.

    Third, last month, a federal judge in Brownsville, Texas, found that President Obama’s most recent executive action on immigration (Deferred Action for Parental Accountability) was unlawful. The suit, brought by Texas on behalf of 26 states, sought to halt the implementation of DAPA in its entirety. Judge Andrew Hanen agreed, and issued a nationwide injunction. True to form, the Justice Department asked Judge Hanen to reconsider his ruling and limit it to Texas alone, or, at most, to the 26 states that were parties to the lawsuit. The Justice Department argued that “Nationwide injunctive relief is particularly inappropriate in the context of government programs.” In its brief to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the DOJ called Judge Hanen’s order “drastically overboard” and “manifestly excessive” as it “enjoined DHS from implementing the Guidance nationwide, barring implementation in States that do not oppose it and in States that support it.”

    While Judge Hanen has not yet ruled on this motion, it should be denied. If DAPA is unlawful, it makes no sense to allow the government to grant benefits in 24 states. If an immigrant moves from California to Texas after being granted benefits under DAPA, the injuries suffered by Texas cannot be avoided. In these three significant cases, the government’s strategy has become apparent. In the first case, the Justice Department argued that Obamacare was too big to stop, and that a single federal court in Florida could not put it on hold. In the second case, it openly expressed its desire to flout the court’s ruling, on the grounds that a single federal court could issue relief only to the parties before it. In the third case, it claimed that a single federal judge, having found that the secretary of homeland security was acting unlawfully, was powerless to stop him outside his own state — or at least outside the states that were suing. The response has been emphatic: Federal courts, vested with the power of judicial review, can craft injunctive relief to ensure that the executive branch adheres to the rule of law.

    While the Justice Department has, to date at least, limited these arguments to the lower federal courts, there is no logical stopping point. As Baude suggests, why not the Supreme Court? And why can’t the states make the same arguments? Imagine if, after Roe v. Wade, Texas had argued that the right to abortion applied only to Norma McCorvey (better known as Jane Roe), and other states continued to enforce their abortion laws. Or if Alabama finds itself unaffected by the Supreme Court’s upcoming same-sex marriage decision, which involves only bans in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee. These cases are not class actions, which purport to bind non-parties. They sought relief only for specific plaintiffs in these states against what they claimed were unconstitutional laws. If the Justice Department’s reasoning in the lower courts is taken seriously — and if Baude is correct — then the Supreme Court should be treated no differently. The nine justices, Baude argues, have the “formal power” to “order a remedy only for the” parties before it, not the countless other couples awaiting their nuptials.

    The implications of this argument are frightening. The executive branches of the states and the federal government could concoct an infinite number of technicalities to explain why a Supreme Court decision is not binding on them. This breach of the separation of powers would trigger a dangerous race to the bottom, where one state after another would find ways to ignore the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Even if legally correct, this practice should be emphatically rejected, and the Justice Department should cease making this argument. Openly and brazenly flouting the judiciary is a dangerous precedent that should be halted nationwide.

    Obama and the Justice Department need to refresh their memories of Sir Thomas More.

  20. …all I can say is ‘thank you Admin for your thorough research and clarity’

    …you really do your homework…and it is appreciated…

  21. there goes MO again, making clothes out of the curtains…

    why must this woman always pick the loudest, flashiest outfits to wear to these events…does she think we can’t see her…(this is not style it is overkill)

    hasn’t anyone, perhaps a stylist, ever suggested a nice tailored ensemble for high profile events…

  22. This is what I was referring to above:
    ———–

    Obama wants to transform America with mandatory voting

    By Associated Press March 19, 2015 12:25 pm

    WASHINGTON (AP) — They say the only two things that are certain in life are death and taxes. President Barack Obama wants to add one more: voting.

    Obama floated the idea of mandatory voting in the U.S. while speaking to a civic group in Cleveland on Wednesday. Asked about the corrosive influence of money in U.S. elections, Obama digressed into the related topic of voting rights and said the U.S. should be making it easier — not harder— for people to vote.

    Just ask Australia, where citizens have no choice but to vote, the president said.

    “If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in this country,” Obama said, calling it potentially transformative. Not only that, Obama said, but universal voting would “counteract money more than anything.”

    Disproportionately, Americans who skip the polls on Election Day are younger, lower-income and more likely to be immigrants or minorities, Obama said. “There’s a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls,” he said in a veiled reference to efforts in a number of Republican-led states to make it harder for people to vote.

    Statistically speaking, Obama is correct. Less than 37 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2014 midterms, according to the United States Election Project. And a Pew Research Center study found that those avoiding the polls in 2014 tended to be younger, poorer, less educated and more racially diverse.

    At least two dozen countries have some form of compulsory voting, including Belgium, Brazil and Argentina. In many systems, absconders must provide a valid excuse or face a fine, although a few countries have laws on the books that allow for potential imprisonment.

    At issue, Obama said, is the outsize influence that those with money can have on U.S. elections, where low overall turnout often gives an advantage to the party best able to turn out its base. Obama has opposed Citizens United and other court rulings that cleared the way for super PACs and unlimited campaign spending, but embraced such groups in his 2012 re-election campaign out of fear he’d be outspent.

    Obama said he thought it would be “fun” for the U.S. to consider amending the Constitution to change the role that money plays in the electoral system. But don’t hold your breath.

    “Realistically, given the requirements of that process, that would be a long-term proposition,” he said.

    Associated Press writer Darlene Superville in Cleveland and Emily Swanson in Washington contributed to this report.

    Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

  23. It is a tragedy nearly beyond comprehension that Providence, fate, or crass casualty, call it what you will, has failed to provide us with a cast of public leaders capable of resisting and turning back this onslaught by the left.

    The RINO, the DINO and Chief Justice Roberts is what we have got, plus the big media who supports this monster through it all. I shall not scruple to say that these characters have little or no regard for the welfare of this nation, or the Constitutional framework which is essential to that welfare. They care only about their own welfare.

    Corker would be a fine example, but there is some evidence that he may be waking up to the fact that even as he is there to serve his financial and insurance industry donors, the framework in which he hopes to do so–namely the rule of law– is disintegrating before his eyes under this rabid onslaught.

    The ignoranti, unfortunately, lack the ability to differentiate between partisan politics, and mega political moves aimed at changing the electorate and the balance of power between the political class and the governed. That is why 47% of them support Obama, clueless to what exactly it is that they are supporting. Mass culture has planted pictures in their heads from whence there is no escape, other than a pre-frontal lobotomoy.

  24. The hard working citizens get punished. Anyone surprised?:

    http://fusion.net/story/104184/ferguson-home-values-are-plummeting-and-residents-are-feeling-the-pain/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=socialshare&utm_content=desktop+top

    Ferguson home values are plummeting, and residents are feeling the pain

    Down nearly 50 percent since Michael Brown’s death, new data show.

    FERGUSON, Mo. — Peering outside the office window of his tire shop, John Zisser grumbles about the pile of burnt rubble that lies on the opposite corner of a busy intersection.

    “If you come here to my shop and you see that,” he says, as gestures out the window, “is that going to give you a warm, fuzzy feeling like you want to come back here to do business?”

    “Short answer: no, no it’s not,” he says.

    Zisser, 55, has owned and operated Zisser’s Tires in this city since 1987. He says the still-visible damage from the November protests that followed a grand jury’s decision not to indict Ferguson officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of teenager Michael Brown is hurting property owners. His store’s insurance is in the process of being cancelled after it was twice vandalized during the unrest, he says. [snip]

    Zisser is one of many Ferguson residents feeling a financial toll from the months of protests, media attention, and now another high-profile shooting. They’re worried not just about their own situations, but about the city coffers, too. The future of Ferguson, they say, is anyone’s guess.

    “How much money are we going to lose?” Zisser asks. “How much money is the city and the county going to lose in taxes because of this? And how much is the school district going to lose here? They’re the biggest losers.” [snip]

    The average selling price of a home in the city has been on a steady decline since the shooting of Brown last August, according to housing data compiled from MARIS, an information and statistics service for real estate agents. Prior to Brown’s death, the average home sold in 2014 was selling for $66,764. For the last three and a half months of the year, the average home sold for $36,168, a 46 percent decrease.

    The trend has continued on through this year, with the average home selling for only $22,951 so far in 2015. Another negative indicator: in the eight and a half months leading up to Brown’s death, the average residential square foot in 2014 was selling for $45.82. In the eight and a half months since Brown’s passing, the average residential square foot in the city has sold for $24.11. That’s about a 47 percent downtick in one of real estate’s core indicators.

  25. admin
    March 19, 2015 at 3:44 pm
    The hard working citizens get punished. Anyone surprised?:
    ———
    Who would want to buy into that community–other than Sharpton and his NBC media cronies who are keen to produce another astroturf crisis.

    And another and another and another.

    If no one would buy in, then the fair market value of those homes is zero.

  26. “The Justice Department might face sanctions if a federal judge determines its attorneys misled him about whether part of President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration was implemented prior to it being put on hold by the judge.”

    “At a court hearing Thursday in Brownsville, a Justice Department attorney apologized to Hanen for any confusion after the U.S. government revealed 100,000 individuals were granted three-year reprieves before the injunction.”

    Hanen didn’t seem to buy the explanation, saying the three-year reprieves were part of the contested action.” http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_26becc9c-ce4d-11e4-a2e4-bbba8bb3edda.html

    They are still lying.

  27. gonzotx
    March 19, 2015 at 3:53 am

    I love Megyn Kelly. I think she’s a superstar and deserves to be one.

    And don’t get me wrong — she’s hot. A real smokeshow. Face like an angel and an ass like a young Kiefer Sutherland.
    ——————————————-

    How many talking heads get evaluated like this? I mean, by their body parts?

  28. The Age of Fake

    The polls are fake.
    The unemployment rate is fake.
    The stock market is inflated way beyond value.
    The housing market is… who can tell? Fake.

    I think there is a realization that the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer, but there seems to be so much apathy. Only recently have I perceived some rhetoric about killing the 1%. Who needs Billionaires? There has been one poster on the Washington DC Craigslist who has been posting nasty stuff for some time. Now it seems to be spreading to other boards. But those boards are generally worked by the Bobot/Soros crew alot of whom are moderators. But how would that work when Soros is about the most evil Billionaire around? Does he view himself as the only Billionaire who would be left?

    It seems to me that if Americans really wanted to rebel, all they would have to do is stop buying stuff. I have had and had not and I find I really am happy with the simple comforts. The only problem is the excessive cost that is becoming associated with that. Food, clothing, housing, healthcare, education. Simple. I suspect that the real problem is that the elites are not just greedy, they are incompetent. We have some incompetent, gluttonous people running things, here. Fire the Billionaires.

  29. A New York Times op-ed makes an ingenious but frightening argument. In a provocative op-ed in the New York Times, University of Chicago law professor William Baude argues that the president has the power to sidestep the Supreme Court if it rules against him on Obamacare. In King v. Burwell, four Virginians claim they are injured by what they describe as the administration’s illegal payment of Obamacare subsidies. Baude offers an easy way out for the president. “If the administration loses in King,” he suggests, “it can announce that it is complying with the Supreme Court’s judgment — but only with respect to the four plaintiffs who brought the suit.” Baude explains that the Supreme Court’s “formal power” is limited to “order[ing] a remedy only for the four people actually before it.”
    ——————-
    Take a good hard look at this fucking yo-yo.

    He looks like an understudy for Alf Alf in Our Gang Comedy.

    Yale Law School, where the sociological school of law holds sway

    Clerked for John Robert . . . . need I say more.

    He must be on meds.

    Here is the part of his “ingenious but frightening” analysis which I do not understand.

    If a rogue president (like the glue sniffer into the White House) were to undertake such action, what is to prevent him from being impeached, in which case his actions would be null and void? (I’m not as wise as those law professor guys, but strictly between us two. The lady that kissed him and pinched his poke was the lady know as Lou—or maybe it was Godzilla with the false eyelashes.)

    Of course, there is the practical side of it too. What would it take for McConnell to put impeachment On the table–after he was so quick to take it off the table a nano second after the election? Clearly, he is a don’t rock the boat guy, but in this case Obama’s actions would do the boat rocking for him, and my sense is his donors would not like it and would compel him to pursue impeachment.

    Of course, I’m just a guess’n.

  30. The states brought those cases, not just the named plaintiffs, and they brought them on behalf of the millions of citizens in their domain who will bear the financial burden of Obama’s lawless action, which he himself has acknowledged on multiple occasions are not within his powers as president under Article II. There is no way the remedy can be limited the way Alf Alfa suggests. It is a stupid argument and a transparent attack upon the powers of the judiciary. Therein lie the grounds for impeachment.

  31. For what it is worth, I do not expect Lynch to be confirmed as attorney general. The Republican party has breached its commitment to voters with respect to amnesty. Tednado cross examined her closely and proved that she saw no constitutional limitations on what the president can do. After that, if the Republicans confirm her nomination, they will re open the earlier wound with respect to illegal immigration. Also, the dust up over foreign policy, and Obama’s plan to take matters Congress will not roll over for him on to the United Nations may put some lead in the pencils of RINOs. Surely they do not want to antagonize their base any more than they already have. Consequently, I think Lynch is dead man walking politically speaking. We will see if I am right. Now of course, that turkey buzzard McConnell refuses to bring her nomination to the floor, because of the dims will not sign on his legislation to prevent child trafficking. But when he caves on that one, we will see whether my assessment that Lynch will not be confirmed will be tested in the cauldron of politics, and Obama’s serial overreaches which have rendered congress a useless branch.

  32. This, from someone I consider to be the most brilliant thinker of our time:
    —————-

    We have come a long way from Hope and Change. In fact Friedman’s catalog of woes isn’t the half of it. Obama has managed the amazing feat of losing everything and gaining nothing and being despised by every side to boot. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, the Palestinians, Hezbollah-dominated Lebanon, Turkey, Libya — and what used to be called Yemen — have learned one searing lesson.

    There are people who are all hat and no cattle.

    And now he’s managed the impossible. He’s actually on the verge of an open breach with Israel. There’s Russia and China on the periphery, circling like vultures, but let’s leave them out of the reckoning for the moment because if Friedman hasn’t ruined your morning, I’m not about to.

    From a psychological point of view the president has to double down on Netanyahu — hurt him somehow — if only to demonstrate to anyone still interested, perhaps even to himself, that he can bite with his gums in the absence of teeth. But it’s pointless. Even Obama’s revenge is pointless. None of his proposed sanctions against Israel will move the needle in any direction that matters.

    As I pointed out yesterday, the president has no winning hand left. He doesn’t even have the semblance of a game. It’s over.

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/03/18/what-me-worry/#ixzz3Uu0zvR26

  33. How do you put Humpty Dumpty back together again?

    Impossible.

    But big media will pretend otherwise.

    They are in pare delicto.

  34. Obama’s foreign policy has nowhere to go, but he’s prepared to go there with considerable velocity.

    The angry ossified child behind the mask continues to emerge

    As Reagan used to say, you thought this was bad, well. . . . . . . .

    You ain’t seen nothing yet.

  35. “During the heated court hearing Andrew Hanen, a U.S. District Court Judge, said that the apparent violation had made him look like an idiot since he initially believed the U.S. Government.”

    “In a heated court hearing Angela Colmonero from the Texas Attorney General’s office stated that Texas had acted promptly in November 2014 upon learning of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty and had followed all the timelines set forth with a sense of urgency.”

    “This was done to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreparable damage to the state,” Colmonero said referring to the cost that the individuals would bring and to the incentive for further illegal immigration. “You can’t put toothpaste back in the tube.”

    ““The defendant did the exact opposite and gave 100,000 renewals for a term of three years under the expanded DACA,” Colmonero said. “The defendant didn’t inform the court until March 3—15 days after the injunction was filed.” http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/03/19/federal-judge-admonished-doj-over-apparent-deception-i-was-made-to-look-like-an-idiot/

    Put the DOJ lawyers in jail. Disbar them. Lie for the Obama administration to the face of a federal judge and end your career.

  36. And since the media won’t cover it widely, here is another local article describing the ass chewing handed out to DOJ. http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Federal-judge-upbraids-government-lawyers-raises-6146567.php
    “I can trust what the president says?” Hanen pointedly asked a department lawyer. “That’s a yes-or-no question.”
    “In a possible glimpse of how the judge ultimately may rule on Obama’s policies, Hanen questioned why the government’s deferred deportation program had to include benefits, such as driver licenses and work permits for undocumented immigrants.
    “Why can’t you have people come forward without giving them the benefits? We’re basically bribing people to stay in the country illegally,” he said.

  37. Update: Judge “Kraken” Hanen thundered yesterday. There will be more explosions to come. The government lawyers who faced Judge Hanen quivered:

    A federal judge threatened Thursday to sanction the Justice Department if he finds that government lawyers misled him about the rollout of President Obama’s plan to shield up to 5 million people from deportation.

    U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, visibly annoyed, confronted a U.S. deputy assistant attorney general over previous government assurances on the timing of the program.

    He asked why he shouldn’t grant a discovery request for internal federal immigration documents — a request filed Thursday by 26 states that are suing over Obama’s executive actions on immigration. [snip]

    At a one-hour hearing in Brownsville, Hanen gave the Justice Department 48 hours to file a motion in response. He said he would then rule promptly on whether to require the government to produce documents concerning applications under Obama’s deferred action program. [snip]

    Hanen’s barbed comments left little doubt that he sympathized with lawyers for the 26 states, who said they suffered “irreparable harm” when federal officials granted more than 100,000 applications for deferred action after Obama announced the program Nov. 20. He said government lawyers had assured him that “nothing was happening” regarding the applications.

    The outcome of the hearing further delayed the administration’s attempts to resolve the court case and proceed with the immigration program during his last two years in office. The program, one of the president’s signature initiatives, is opposed by Republicans, who control legislatures in most of the 26 states suing, led by Texas.

    Hanen said Justice Department lawyers had assured him at a previous hearing that the administration had not begun implementing the deferred-action plan, designed to protect qualified immigrants from deportation for three years.

    Like the judge, the states thought nothing was happening,” Hanen said with exasperation. “Like an idiot, I believed that.” [snip]

    Hartnett said lawyers immediately notified the court when they realized “we may have inadvertently caused confusion.” Hanen corrected her, asking, “So you waited three weeks to tell me you were doing it?” [snip]

    But the judge appeared unconvinced, saying the three-year reprieves were covered by the lawsuit.

    When Hanen asked Hartnett whether American taxpayers would ultimately pay for any sanctions imposed on the Justice Department, she offered a noncommittal response.

    “Answer my question,” the judge demanded.

    “Ultimately, yes,” Hartnett responded.

    Angela Colmenero, a lawyer for Texas and 25 other states, said she understood “that this is a big, complex federal program.” But she said the states needed to rely on “additional documents and not just the words” of Justice Department lawyers. [snip]

    “The plaintiffs were more than surprised by this disclosure,” she said. [snip]

    Hanen asked Hartnett bluntly whether Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson or other senior officials could be trusted on the immigration plan.

    “I can trust what Secretary Johnson says … what President Obama says?” the judge asked.

    “Yes, your honor, of course,” Hartnett replied.

    The Fifth Circuit will not intervene if Judge Hanen orders expedited discovery for plaintiffs regarding Obama’s Justice Department lies. The Fifth Circuit will not want to overrule Judge Hanen if they believe the government lied and further discovery reveals the lies. The case will persist until Obama is out of office. Time is against Obama on this “signature” issue.

    In 48 hours the government will respond and then in more ways than one Judge Hanen rules.

    —————————————————–

  38. “Like the judge, the states thought nothing was happening,” Hanen said with exasperation. “Like an idiot, I believed that
    ————-
    This is why I love Texans. In my heart, I am one of them.

    This comment is earthy, and it personalizes the matter. This “lie” by the assistant attorney general who works for—yup, you guessed it, Eric Holder left the judge holding the bag, and with good reason, he does not like it. Would you?

    The question can I trust Obama, or his partner in crime-Jehhhhh (no relation to Jebediah—he’s black, Jeb’s a green weenie) is rhetorical. It means, based on the evidence extant, I cannot trust them.

    The answer by the humiliated Holder surrogate “of course (you can trust them), begs the further question: based on what, if not this?

    She would have been better advised to dispense with the guilty demeanor and to prance around the Brownsville courtroom, and warble:

    My heart’s in a pickle, it’s constantly fickle and not too partic’lar I fear
    When I’m not near Obama I love, I love the bot I’m near
    I’m confessing a confession and I hope I’m not verbose when I am not close
    To the kiss I cling to, I cling to the kiss that’s close—Mandingo Holder.

  39. Barack takes his suck-up message directly to the Iranian people. Video at link.
    _____________

    Obama has told the Iranian people that a deal to transform the relationship between the two countries could be within reach.

    “We have the best opportunity in decades to pursue a different future between our countries,” he said in a video message for Persian New Year.

    Six world powers are negotiating a deal aimed at limiting Iran’s nuclear activity, with a March deadline near.

    The president conceded there were still “gaps” in negotiations but was hopeful.

    Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said in an apparent response to Mr Obama’s video it was time for the US and other negotiating countries – China, France, Germany, Russia and UK – to move forward with an agreement.

    “Iranians have already made their choice: Engage with dignity. It’s high time for the US and its allies to choose: pressure or agreement,” Mr Zarif wrote in a message posted on his official Twitter account.

    On Friday, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Mr Zarif met for the fifth consecutive day of talks in Switzerland.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31957265

  40. Why can’t you have people come forward without giving them the benefits? We’re basically bribing people to stay in the country illegally,”
    ————
    A powerful point.

    Bribing with taxpayer money to violate—and make a mockery of our laws.

    On my prior point—on what basis should I trust Obama, he might well ask based on the fact that he did what he said 23 times he did not have the power to do as president? Was Obama lying then, is he lying now, or is he not in fact a chronic and habitual liar?

  41. If somebody walked up to one of the big media heads, or one of their fatuous celebrities like Matthews, cold cocked him and said this is for what you have done to this country by shilling for Obama, I would “of course” deplore such violence, with the same earnestness as the Holder surrogate who assured the court that Obama could be trusted. Nonetheless, I would be hard pressed to say this otherwise reprehensible act was not in some importance sense justified. Lest we forget, that happened to Dan Rather, and I have yet to shed a tear.

  42. freespirit
    March 20, 2015 at 9:49 am

    Barack takes his suck-up message directly to the Iranian people. Video at link.
    ———
    You can see where his career is trending. Unable to achieve his goals through the legislative and judicial process, thwarted now at every turn, even to the point that big media who gave him the protection of the ring, is forced to look at the its hole card and say, should I continue to bet, or get out, he will turn to our enemies and to the UN in an effort to achieve his goals in that arena, but there are limitations. Assume for the moment that he will use the Security Council to lift sanctions on Iran, and force Israel to negotiate with the Palestinians, no one has been able to tell me how the UN can possible enforce the latter commitment–how can the UN force Israel to negotiate for a future state that threatens their security. And while some have suggested that the Security Council will never issue such a ruling, I for one beg to differ. Certainly, the European members are committed to the same goal as Obama, which leaves Russia and China. Would they help Obama isolate Israel. Of course they would, because it would sever the alliance between Israel in the United States, they would be delighted to give Obama the fool exactly what he wanted. Napoleon said it best: never interrupt an enemy in the middle of a mistake.

  43. A lessin on law. 🙂
    ______________________

    Pay attention to his words and the words of others he cites — arbitrary, unilateral, etc. Justice Thomas describes the dangers that the Constitution was written to prohibit, and he traces the roots of those dangers to abuses of the English “rule of law” on which the Constitution was based, but perfected in America to address those abuses. The Constitution corrected several flaws of the English system including limiting the authority of the legislative branch by placing the Constitution – this written law of the land – over all three branches of government.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/a_littlenoted_masterpiece_of_constitutional_scholarship_by_justice_thomas.html#ixzz3UwJHXedh
    Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/a_littlenoted_masterpiece_of_constitutional_scholarship_by_justice_thomas.html

  44. I cannot understand the logic of the O admin, Kerry and the Dims in their quest for this deal with Iran…

    (1)shouldn’t the first negotiating point on the table be to recognize Israel and no longer plan to destroy Israel and the jewish people

    (2) shouldn’t Iran be forced to agree that they will stop being the number #1 sponsor of terrorism in the middle east

    …I would assume this should be the starting point if the admin persists in the folly of trusting people who have laughed and bragged about the gulliability of their opponents in past agreements

    Do not O and Kerry imagine that the Iranians can promise them anything, have sanctions removed, and then take all that money to further terrorize and destroy people, their own included, in their area and the world…

    and what makes O and Kerry believe that once Iran gets their bomb that it will not fall into the hands of those bent on further terrorism…

    does not the sight of people being burned alive and heads being cut off make the O admin consider this might not be the best time to enter into any agreements with Iran…this makes no sense…

    ..what is uncomprehensible to me is how the thin skinned O has now made Israel the enemy and he speaks and reads poems of flowers and spring to the Iranian people…

    …does O not realize that the Iranian people have little power…that they can be stoned to death…their hands chopped off, etc if they challenge their leaders…and that most Iranians are not sympathetic to Israel…

    …anyone who has ever met an Iranian who fled to the USA knows how naive O’s quest is…

    …the way the O admin and Kerry conduct themselves one would think that the whole middle east is honky doiry and everyone recognizes and respects Israel’s right to exist…instead of Israel being surrounded by a large group of barbarians who would like nothing better than to take over Israel and its govt and kill off all the Israeli jews…

    …the ultimate irony is that the O admin is behaving like a dictator…seeking to leave the US Congress out of any decisions and/or debate with any deals made with Iran

    We witness O behaving as if he does not have to answer to anyone, much less a co-equal branch of the US govt…and now seeking a way to bypass the will of the American people and go directly to the UN to execute the plans O wants…

    what is left of the once great Democratic party…wake the hell up…

  45. Sounds to me like the judge is thinkin’ about putting some DOJ lawyers in a South Texas Jail this weekend.

    I don’t have a tribute song to a South Texas Judge, but here’s my favorite song about a South Texas girl:

  46. Judge McKracken needs to be awarded the ‘True American’ Badge of Honor.

    These days, someone is a freakin’ hero if they speak the truth, stand up for the American public and do the right thing.

  47. S:

    The Democrat party has become anti-Israel, with strains of anti-semitism. Hillary has no choice but to “evolve” her thinking on relations with Israel as a former ally of the US.

  48. Friday tunes.

    Judge McKracken is trying to defend our form of the Alamo.

    He has the majority of states behind him, and the majority of citizens depending on him.

  49. Gen. Petraeus slam’s Barack’s “efforts to engineer a diplomatic rapprochement with Iran. Barack asks Americans and Iranians to “trust the negotiations”.
    Why, one wonders, would Americans be inclined to truss either Barack or the Iranians?

    ___________________

    By Peter Foster, Washington and Inna Lazareva in Jerusalem5:48PM GMT 20 Mar 2015

    President Barack Obama’s efforts to engineer a diplomatic rapprochement with Iran came under fire last night when a former top US general in Iraq warned that Iran remained “deeply hostile” to American interests in the Middle East.

    “The current Iranian regime is not our ally in the Middle East. It is ultimately part of the problem, not the solution,” said David Petraeus, the former CIA director and author of the troop surge that temporarily suppressed al-Qaeda in Iraq by 2009.

    His assessment of Iran as a fundamentally malign force in the region is starkly at odds with Mr Obama’s own efforts to broker a nuclear deal with Iran’s leaders that could ultimately presage a strategic realignment of US interests in the Middle East.

    Mr Petraeus warned that Iranian-backed militias now operating in Iraq posed a greater long-term threat to the country’s future stability than the militants of the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

    “Iranian power in the Middle East is thus a double problem. It is foremost problematic because it is deeply hostile to us and our friends,” he said an interview with the Washington Post.

    “But it is also dangerous because, the more it is felt, the more it sets off reactions that are also harmful to our interests – Sunni radicalism and, if we aren’t careful, the prospect of nuclear proliferation as well.”

    Mr Obama is facing intense political pressure both at home and abroad over his intended deal with Iran to curb its nuclear programme, but has made direct appeals to both the US and Iranian public to trust to the negotiations.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/11486268/Iran-deeply-hostile-to-US-interests-in-Middle-East-warns-former-top-US-general-in-Iraq.html

  50. Free

    Why, one wonders, would Americans be inclined to trust either Barack or the Iranians?

    —–
    Another absofrickin’lutely!

  51. Well, the ever gracious and mature Barack finally called Bibi on Thurs to congratulate him, but also to WARN him that he will be reassessing the approach to a peace plan between Israel and Palestine, due to Netanyahu’s comments.

    Mr. Netanyahu responded, “Are you kidding me, you big baby? You’re just pissed because of my historic speech before your congress. And, for all of you talk about fighting racism and embracing inclusivity, equality, and justice you’re prejudiced against Jews (among other groups). So, you reassess till hell freezes over Barack. You draw all the lines your little heart desires in the sand. I have faced tough problems and tough problems. You’re neither.”

    (Of course I made that up. Bibi didn’t say it – But, I’m guessing he didn’t cry or beg Barack’s forgiveness either)

    Well, Barack may be upset with Bibi, but Boehner isn’t. Boehner’s goin’ to see Bibi. Partay!!
    ______________________________

    US House Speaker John Boehner plans to visit Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel.

    Republicans have been highly critical of President Barack Obama over the deteriorating relationship with Israel.

    Mr Boehner’s visit will take place in April, weeks after a clear election victory for Mr Netanyahu’s Likud party.

    During the campaign, Mr Netanyahu vowed not to allow the establishment of a Palestinian state, angering the White House.

    Mr Netanyahu has since tempered those remarks, but the White House still warned there would be “consequences”.

    President Obama called Mr Netanyahu on Thursday to congratulate him on his election victory, but warned him that the US was reassessing its approach to Israeli-Palestinian peace in the wake of Mr Netanyahu’s comments.

    Mr Boehner’s visit will take place at some point during a two-week congressional recess that begins on 30 March, according to Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Mr Boehner.

    “He looks forward to visiting the country, discussing our shared priorities for peace and security in the region, and further strengthening the bond between the United States and Israel,” Mr Smith said.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/31987612

  52. freespirit
    March 20, 2015 at 6:33 pm

    I like your version more than the PC version that is always said and reported, but is never truthful.

    For this very reason, I would love to see Trump as President for at least a week. Trump isn’t good at the PC game, he is a billionaire that shoots from the hip, no matter who he is negotiating with. He and Bibi would make a great team.

    I would love for Hillary to add Trump to her cabinet, as Chief Negotiator and Idea Man for job creation.

  53. I’m with you, Shadow. Trump tells it like it is. I like the new job titles. I remain concerned, however, about whether Hillary will get to have a “body man” – like Reggie Love was for Obama. She needs to seriously consider getting someone good like .. maybe Johnny Depp. Dontcha think?

  54. US House Speaker John Boehner plans to visit Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu in Israel.
    ———
    Pop pop fiz fiz oh what a wuss he is—boner, the most passive aggressive individual in public life, lets a real man like Bibi do the heavy lifting, and once he is sure it worked, then he rushes in to congratulate him, and share in the glory.

    This is a historical moment however: it is the closet Boeher will ever get to confronting Obama—hiding behind Bibi’s trousers.

  55. Lest we forget,

    Presidential Historian Michael Bechloss

    Assured us in 2008

    That Barack Hussein Obama

    Was the smartest man

    To ever set foot in the White House

    Perhaps he can explain

    How a man with a modest IQ of 124

    Can be the smartest man

    To ever set foot in the White House

    In the alternative, if Bechloss

    Was part of that elite cabal

    That gave Obama the Nobel Prize

    For what they expected him to do

    He may wish to reflect on

    What he has actually done

    The sluggish economy,

    The polarization of the races,

    The collapse of our foreign policy

    And other catastrophic deliverables

    Which the big media beloved messiah

    Hath wrought

    And revise his prior opinion

    To conform with reality.

  56. That idiot Keith Ellison, the black muslim leftist congressman from minnesota is running his mouth again. He is now telling us that ISIS is as close to Islam as the KKK is to Christianity. What that infidel fails to realize is that ISIS is the flower of Islam, and he would know that if he ever bothered to read the Koran.

  57. Trump is a boisterous noise machine, who cuts and runs when he hits a roadblock. History has proven as much.

  58. THE COURT: My span of options — my span.
    MS. HARTNETT: Yes.
    THE COURT: Not what y’all can do, but what I can do. I
    mean, I can do nothing on one hand. I can strike your pleadings
    on the other. I mean —
    MS. HARTNETT: I think there’s a third —
    THE COURT: I mean, Judge Ellison in Houston in the
    Tesco Corporation case, I mean, he granted a dismissal with
    prejudice against a person that had — or a company that had won
    a lawsuit.

    MS. HARTNETT: Your Honor, I think that would be wholly
    unwarranted here. For example, I — I think this would be a
    different situation, for example, if the government had been
    implementing the expanded class and giving new people access to
    deferred action during the relevant time period. That did not
    happen. These are all people that would have received two year
    grants anyway under the old criteria. I do think —
    THE COURT: Go ahead, finish.
    MS. HARTNETT: To be constructive, though, I do think
    that if there is a true allegation here of harm that the state
    is facing due to the hundred thousand — I can — it’s 108,081
    grants during the relevant time period. If there was a harm
    that the state is facing from those, the proper course would be
    for Your Honor to receive briefing on the harm and to issue an
    order. And if the order were to require some sort of a remedial
    action on behalf of the government to unwind those three year
    grants, the government of course would — would receive that
    court’s order.
    THE COURT: What about attorney’s fees? Should I order
    attorney’s fees?
    MS. HARTNETT: Your Honor, I would — we would —
    THE COURT: I mean, but that’s —
    MS. HARTNETT: No.
    THE COURT: — certainly an option. Let me ask you
    this. If I order attorney’s fees, who pays it?
    MS. HARTNETT: Well, the United States.
    THE COURT: Well, United States taxpayers pay it, right?
    MS. HARTNETT: Your Honor, I — again, I — we have
    this —
    THE COURT: Well, answer my question. The United States
    taxpayers?
    MS. HARTNETT: Ultimately, yes.
    THE COURT: All right. So that means that the states,
    the people that have already suffered the damage, if there is
    damage, actually end up paying their own sanctions, right?
    MS. HARTNETT: In that respect, Your Honor, yes, but —
    THE COURT: Okay.

  59. I think the Judge is going to rule in favor of the plaintiffs “with prejudice” on the whole shooting match as punishment for the United States lying to him. Wipe his hands of the whole thing and let them duke it out in the 5th Circuit.

  60. France makes O and the US team look like amateurs

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/european-leaders-discuss-iran-nuclear-talks-1426845251

    France Takes Toughest Line at Iran Nuclear Talks

    Negotiations move closer to March 31 cutoff without a breakthrough

    LAUSANNE, Switzerland—France is again adopting the toughest line against Iran in negotiations aimed at curbing Tehran’s nuclear program, potentially placing Paris at odds with the Obama administration as a diplomatic deadline to forge an agreement approaches at month-end.

    President Barack Obama called French President François Hollande on Friday to discuss the Iran diplomacy and try to unify their positions. The presidents “reaffirmed their commitment” to a deal “while noting that Iran must take steps to resolve several remaining issues,” the White House said.

    French diplomats have been publicly pressing the U.S. and other world powers not to give ground on key elements—particularly the speed of lifting United Nations sanctions and the pledge to constrain Iran’s nuclear research work—ahead of the March 31 target.

    Paris also appears to be operating on a different diplomatic clock than Washington, arguing that the date is an “artificial” deadline and that global powers should be willing to wait Tehran out for a better deal if necessary.

    Obama administration officials have said that expected moves by the U.S. Congress to put new sanctions on Iran as soon as next month limit their ability to extend the diplomacy. But French officials took exception.

    “Making the end of March an absolute deadline is counterproductive and dangerous,” France’s ambassador to the U.S., Gérard Araud, said via Twitter after the latest round of negotiations in Switzerland concluded Friday.

    “No agreement without concrete decisions on issues beyond the enrichment capability question,” he said a day earlier, specifically mentioning the need for extensive monitoring and clarity on Iran’s past research work. Western officials believe they included the pursuit of nuclear-weapon capabilities.

    In a sign of France’s determination, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius called his negotiating team in Lausanne on Thursday to insist no deal could be forged that allowed for the rapid easing of U.N. Security Council measures, according to European officials.

    France worries the quick repeal of the U.N. penalties could lead to a broader collapse of the West’s financial leverage over Tehran, according to these officials.

    Paris is demanding Tehran address evidence that it has conducted research into the development of nuclear weapons to get those U.N. penalties relaxed. Iran has for years denied the allegations and some officials fear that forcing Tehran to publicly reverse itself could break the diplomacy.

    Mr. Fabius has served as diplomatic foil in the Iranian diplomacy in the past.

    In November 2013, the former French prime minister said a deal that the U.S. had been negotiating with Tehran in Geneva was a “fool’s game” and didn’t go far enough in limiting Iran’s nuclear capabilities. His comments briefly delayed the signing of an interim agreement that modestly rolled back Tehran’s program.

    Western officials in recent days have stressed that Washington and the other powers negotiating with Iran—France, the U.K., Germany, Russia and China—remain united. Still, Obama administration officials have voiced frustration with France’s public posturing, arguing it isn’t constructive.

    ‘Our nations have been separated by mistrust and fear. Now it is early spring. We have a chance—a chance—to make progress that will benefit our countries, and the world, for many years to come.’
    —U.S. President Barack Obama

    Some U.S. officials privately believe France is seeking in part to maintain strong ties to Israel and to Arab countries deeply skeptical of Washington’s outreach to Tehran. French defense companies have signed lucrative arms deals with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in recent years.

    French diplomats, however, say their strong stance against nuclear proliferation has been a central foreign policy tenet for years. By remaining one of the world’s few nuclear powers, France can maintain an independent role in global affairs.

    Secretary of State John Kerry wrapped up five days of direct talks with his Iranian counterpart, Javad Zarif, in Lausanne without a breakthrough. Mr. Kerry is traveling to London on Saturday to meet with Mr. Fabius and the foreign ministers of the U.K. and Germany.

    These countries will return to Switzerland as soon as Wednesday to resume the negotiations.

    “We’ve had a series of intensive discussions with Iran this week, and given where we are in the negotiations, it’s an important time for high-level consultations with our partners in these talks,” said State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf.

    While U.S., Russian, Chinese and Iranian diplomats have stressed the progress made in the talks, others have been more cautious. One European diplomat said on Thursday: “I don’t think we have made sufficient progress. A lot of issues remain on the table.”

    Wang Qun, China’s senior diplomat at the talks, said Friday there had been “good progress” this past week. “I do see some novelties in this round of negotiations,” he said, adding that both sides had shown “very strong political will.”

    Failure to reach a political understanding on time could firm up political opposition to the negotiations in Washington.

    On Thursday, Senators Bob Corker (R.-Tenn.) and Robert Menendez (D.-N.J.) said the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote April 14 on a bill that would give U.S. lawmakers an up-and-down vote on the agreement.

    U.S. officials initially believed the negotiations could stretch until Sunday. But Iran’s delegation abruptly left on Friday, citing the death of the mother of President Hasan Rouhani. Iranian officials also said they wanted to return to Tehran for the beginning of the Persian New Year, called Nowruz.

    In a meeting with his Iranian counterpart on Friday, Mr. Kerry expressed his condolences for the death of the president’s mother and called for “progress and peace” at the start of Nowruz.

    Mr. Zarif responded: “I hope this new day will be a new day for the entire world.”

    Both sides had hoped to wrap up the talks before the start of the Iranian holiday.

    Mr. Obama also sent a Nowruz message to Iranians on Thursday. He stressed the importance of a deal in potentially opening a new era of cooperation between Washington and Tehran, who have been staunch adversaries since Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution.

    “Our nations have been separated by mistrust and fear. Now it is early spring. We have a chance—a chance—to make progress that will benefit our countries, and the world, for many years to come,” Mr. Obama said.

    ****************************

    …and as Hillary once said “and the skies will open and…etc”

  61. You know you are doing the whole negotiation thing wrong when France is warning you to drive a harder bargain and not cave so quickly…

  62. S
    March 21, 2015 at 2:33 am

    France makes O and the US team look like amateurs

    Poor behavior towards an ally has consequences. To disrespect a national and cultural tragedy such as the Hebdo massacre freed France from the dance of mutual diplomatic behavior. Act like scum and you will be treated as such. The French owe the simpleton boors in DC nothing.

  63. Obama had the White House leak that he would use the UN to spite Israel (Netanyahu), bypass Congress, reward Iran, and generally act the ass by chuming up with China and Russia. He obviously did not consult with permanent UN security council member France. France has just humiliated him by telling him no dice Sparky.

  64. hwc
    March 21, 2015 at 2:30 am
    I think the Judge is going to rule in favor of the plaintiffs

    He is going to grant early discovery which will hold up the appeal in the Fifth. The longer DOJ drags their feet on discovery the longer before an appeal is heard. They will be in a catch 22 of their own making by lying.

  65. From The Federalist:
    ______________

    The Left’s Ugly Israel Freakout

    You know who else came to power by winning an election?
    David Harsanyi
    By David Harsanyi
    MARCH 20, 2015

    After years of ginned-up conflict, Barack Obama has finally found a pretext to change the contours of the United States-Israel alliance. Israel’s policies might not be changing, but the administration will “reevaluate” the relationship, anyway.

    POLITICO reports that Obama may, among other things, stop shielding Israel from international pressure at the United Nations. So Americans can look forward to joining Sudan or Yemen—feel free to pick any autocratic dump, really—in condemning Jews for living in their historic homeland and relying on democratic institutions rather than a consensus at the United Nation to decide their fate.

    So our morally chaotic foreign policy is coming to a predictable climax. At least on this issue. Obama, with no more elections to run, will now use these threats to pressure Israel into compliance on an Iran deal that looks more dangerous every day. That’s not surprising. What is, though, is how self-proclaimed Zionists have co-opted some of the most absurd justifications for throwing Israel to the wolves.

    These rationalizations come in familiar flavors. There’s the tough-love crowd. The notion here is that Democrats are the ones who truly have Israel’s “long-term” interests at heart. And because of a deep and abiding love for the Jewish State, Democrats are obliged to support policies that will set Israel straight. Without the stern guidance of lefty columnists, how can we expect one of the most technologically advanced market economies in the world to remain a vibrant democracy?

    Others argue, and have been arguing for a long time, that the United States has a moral responsibility to distance itself from Israel right now, because the two nations no longer share ideals about freedom and liberalism.

    Support Terror, Criticize Democracy
    And if by “nation” they mean “this White House,” it’s probably true. Here’s a refresher on the administration’s moral calculus these days:

    Out: Standing by the only democratic Middle East ally.
    .
    In: Entering into deals with theocratic terror-sponsoring regimes that will destabilize the entire region, without the consent of the American people.

    Sure, Iran’s top ally may be dropping chlorine gas on civilians, but the real problem in the Middle East is the Israel electorate. “The Price Israel Must Pay: We no longer have a Netanyahu problem. We have an Israel problem”—not a Hamas problem, or Fatah problem, not a random-criminals-shooting-folks-in-markets problem, or a lack-of-a-civil-society-in-the-Middle-East problem, but an Israel problem—writes William Saltean over at Slate. If you turn on Obama—which is the only real “problem” here—there is always a steep price.

    It is true, for many Democrats this is about Israel, not any one politician. But the irrational hatred of Benjamin Netanyahu sure does propel things.

    (snip)

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/20/the-lefts-ugly-israel-freakout/

  66. wbb, you may be right about what Trump does. But, at least what he says is not totally dictated by political correctness

  67. Excellent article by Marc Rubin regarding Obama’s “words, just words” , and the impact of his lies on how he is viewed by both Israel and Palestine.

    _______________

    Obama’s empty threats to Israel.

    Following Netanyahu’s election news outlets like CNN are “reporting” that in a conversation with Netanyahu Obama “warned” that in light of Netanyahu’s pre-election statement disavowing a Palestinian state, that Obama would have to “reassess” the U.S. relationship with Israel.

    This of course carries as much weight s anything else Obama has ever had to say on anything which is nothing.

    The reason the word “reporting” is in quotes is that the content of a private conversation between world leaders only gets “reported” when the White House wants it to and uses the news media like a PR arm. Its for public consumption and is designed to make Obama look tough which as the world has seen in the past is the equivalent of Obama putting his face in the hole of a He-Man cut out at mid west carnival.

    Obama in reality is reassessing nothing because there is nothing to reassess. Netanyahu cares about one thing — security and nothing is going to change that. And that includes another calculated “leak” to the press that Obama is “considering” supporting a UN resolution that supports a two state solution based on pre 1967 borders. Which puts Obama’s face back into the cardboard cut out since, given what happened when the Israelis pulled out of Gaza in 2005, is never going to happen either. And just makes

    What has to be remembered is that it was Obama himself who poisoned the well and destroyed any possibility that he would be able to be perceived as an honest broker between the Israelis and Palestinians in a peace deal and he managed to do that before he was even elected.

    In June 2009 candidate Obama. aware that Florida could be a swing state in the election and mindful of Florida’s substantial Jewish population, gave a speech to AIPAC designed to appeal to that vote that in it’s aftermath, destroyed his credibility forever in the mid east.

    Following his usual pattern of saying whatever he thinks he has to say at any time to anyone anywhere to get what he wants without a shred of conviction behind it, he told the 7,000 Jews attending the conference that he supported a single unified Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel.

    This gave him what he was looking for — a standing ovation from the 7,000 American Jews in attendance.

    But it also showed that not only was Obama not qualifed to be president, he was careless, reckless, shallow, and had no grasp of the seriousness of the job he was pursuing.

    For decades the final status of Jerusalem was to be considered as the last thing on any peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That’s why it was called “final status”. The reason was obvious. It was the single most contentious issue in the negotiations, more than the right of return which is still a non-starter for the Israelis.

    It has always been believed by U.S. negotiators that if a deal could be reached by both sides on everything else, the sides would be more willing to find a compromise on Jerusalem rather than see everything else go down the drain over that one issue.

    Obama’s statement while embraced by Israel and American Jews, blew that idea out of the water for the Palestinians. It essentially yanked the rug out from under their feet before a single negotiation took place under the auspices of a soon to be elected president Obama. At one time, under the arm twisting of Bill Clinton, Ehud Barak had offered Arafat half of East Jerusalem as the capitol of a Palestinain state in order to finalize a peace deal, something no Israeli prime minister had done before or since. Arafat rejected it demanding all of East Jerusalem and launched the Infitada,a series of terrorist attacks that killed hundreds of Israelis. It is not likely any Israeli prime minister will ever offer part of East Jerusalem again but that was still no reason for a presidential candidate to issue a public statement that put an end to Palestinian hopes on Jerusalem or even gave them a negotiating position.

    Within 24 hours of the statement that was the shot heard round the middle east, the Palestinians and other Arab leaders attacked Obama angrily and relentlessly.

    Which led to what has become most typical of Obama. He reneged. Within 24 hours of his being attacked by the Palestinians, he did an about face and claimed the world misunderstood him, that they didn’t fully comprehend the meaning of his words, that what he was actually saying was that he supported a single unified Jerusalem with no barbed wire. And said it with a straight face.

    The fact that there had been no barbed wire in Jerusalem since 1967 when it was taken over by the Israelis in the 1967 war ( initiated by Arab countries and the Palestinians let’s not forget, in an attempt to wipe out Israel) Obama’s assertion was so lame and dishonest, it made ” my dog ate my homework” sound believable.

    The Israeli response to Obama’s reneging and about face was also predictable. From that moment on, before he was even elected, Netanyahu would not trust Obama as far as he could throw a nuclear reactor. And the Palestinians didn’t trust him either. And Obama’s history of backtracking and concessions re-enforced Netanyahu having no faith in anything that Obama would negotiate in a nuclear deal with Iran.

    But it could be said that Obama did manage to unite the Israelis and Palestinians on one issue — their mutual contempt and distrust of him. And its the single biggest reason why Obama has been the most ineffective of any U.S. president in dealing with the middle east peace process, why his relationship with Netanyahu is so strained and why Obama’s current PR attempt with his threat to “reassess” the U.S. relationship with Israel and support a UN resolution to support a return to 1967 borders, a clear threat to Israeli security and something Obama could have supported 6 years ago if he actually believed it, carries as much weight and is taken as seriously as every other statement he has made in the past about anything. It isn’t.

    http://tominpaine.blogspot.com/2015/03/obamas-empty-threats-to-israel.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TomInPaine+%28Tom+In+Paine%29

  68. dictated by political correctness
    ———-
    I agree. That part of him is refreshing. But behind the bluster, and the inherited wealth which give him the position to treat the “little people” imperiously, which he routinely does, and behind the fisticuffs he has reportedly had with other golfers on the eighteenth green at Wing Foot which I was told about by one of the members when he played the course, I sense a narcissist with a big mouth who cannot back it up. Then again, I may be simply reacting to my own frustration at his aborted pursuit of the birth certificate issue, the walk of shame he did over that one with Hollywood peers, his el foldo when he was told that his assertions could jeopardize his show, and my own efforts to point him in a more constructive direction (which went unheeded and unanswered). In the final analysis, Donald is about Donald who is about Donald who is about . . . who else. In that respect, the spitting image of someone we have grown to dislike almost as much as he dislikes us, namely, the big media beloved messiah—that destroyer of worlds.

  69. There is, always has been, and probably will always be that contempt for the middle class, and their supposed Babbittry that is manifested by the elites in a society, if only to convince themselves that they are the superior race, class, cultural village. Clearly, they have the money, but too often money and common sense do not go hand in glove, and it is not uncommon to see, as we do in many members of our elite class, particularly trust fund babies who have no other visible means of support, an inverse correlation between money and common sense. Caroline Kennedy is not alone in that to the manor born attitude and behavior. The attraction of people like this to politics is only natural, because it fans their ego, supports their economic interests and gives them that false sense that their useless lives matter. That same disconnect with common sense can be seen in the over educated elites who are not in the sciences. And, it is absolutely rife in big media where David Ignatius of WashPo (and St. Albans prep school), that bard of current events, whose batting average is below Biden’s, is surely the most conspicuous and deferred to example by his fellow elites. Small wonder we are losing our preeminent stature in the world–it was not destined to last, and Barack Hussein Obama may turn out to be the last nail in the coffin. You can judge the health of a nation by two things: its culture, and the integrity of its elite class. In the late 19th century, and at various moments along the way, we were blessed, whereas today we are cursed with the worst of both worlds.

  70. Mormaer
    March 21, 2015 at 7:33 am

    Obama had the White House leak that he would use the UN to spite Israel (Netanyahu), bypass Congress, reward Iran, and generally act the ass
    ________________

    Because he is one. 👿

  71. Correction: In the late EIGHTEENTH century–the reference being to the founding fathers (and mothers–e.g. Abail Adams, Dolly Madison, the wife of Lighthorse Henry Lee, and mother of Robert E. Lee) of the republic. Where are they today. Bill Gates? Melinda Gates?? Give-me-a-fucking-break.

  72. Looks like an ISIS idea. 😡

    _____________________

    Jefferson Parish Sheriff Newell Normand said a machete-wielding man was shot by an officer and several people were injured in the chaos that followed Friday at Louis Armstrong International Airport.

    According to Normand, a man identified as Richard White -who was not traveling – tried to get past a Southwest Airlines security checkpoint and was confronted by a TSA agent. White produced a can of wasp spray and sprayed the agent, Normand said. As the man continued to fight, he produced a machete and cut one of the agents. Agents chased him toward a deputy, who then shot White, hitting him in the face and chest.

    http://www.fox8live.com/story/28576961/police-on-scene-of-shooting-at-louis-armstrong-airport

  73. When the French are telling you don’t surrender things have reached a pretty pass.

    Full speed ahead big media beloved messiah.

    Let Iran arm itself to the teeth.

    Forget about the guns of August.

    Forget about the build up to World War II.

    Honor the Kellogg Briand Pact outlawing war.

    Make yourself savior of the world.

    And have your big media scribes cobble together

    A legacy based on pure fiction—and lies, lies, lies.

    Which befit a liar like you, Barack.

  74. Jefferson Parish Sheriff Newell Normand said a machete-wielding man was shot by an officer
    ————
    Let us pray the sheriff was not white and the machete wielder black or else we will be treated to another big media spectacle of hands up, raise your machete, but don’t shoot you racist pig. Bring on NBC and CNN who crave this shit, and let them construct a narrative out of thin air and false facts, which conforms with their larger narrative used to control public opinion. Ferguson forever. Right??

  75. I blame Obama for this. 👿
    _________________

    Two 15-year-old Philadelphia boys face murder charges for shooting a man while he walked his dog, firing the final round as he pleaded for his life, authorities said.

    The cold-hearted teens and a 14-year-old boy targeted 51-year-old James Stuhlman for a robbery after they tired of playing basketball, police Captain James Clark told reporters.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/philly-teens-murdered-married-dad-failed-robbery-cops-article-1.2156313?utm_content=bufferedc83&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw

  76. Foxy, Japanese have train service from Tokyo to there. I’ve been and pity the poor people who came for solace on “her” day.
    ==============
    Lisa Colagrossi, Eyewitness News reporter, anchor, wife and mother, has died at age 49.
    Lisa suffered a brain hemorrhage while returning from covering a story Thursday morning.
    http://7online.com/news/remembering-eyewitness-news-reporter-lisa-colagrossi/567503/

    I just watched this woman a day or so ago. Glad she’s not one of the ones I’ve hounded in the past….

  77. Hartnett tries to sound like she is outside the loop and didn’t know material information. She was an associate White House counsel in 2013 so she is still lying.

    I think she’d enjoy a few days in a South Texas jail….

  78. another O foreign policy ‘success story’ gone wrong…

    http://gawker.com/report-u-s-forces-evacuate-yemen-after-al-qaeda-seize-1692857152

    About 100 U.S. commandos, including Green Berets and Navy Seals, have been ordered to evacuate Yemen, NBC News reports. Al Qaeda fighters captured the capital of a southern Yemen province on Friday, while elsewhere ISIS suicide bombers attacked mosques in Sanaa.

    snip

    ***********************************

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/20/four-months-ago-obama-called-yemens-war-on-terror-a-success-now-the-yemeni-government-may-fall/

    video clip is at the link

  79. btw…guess O still has “al-qaeda on the run and decimated”…

    if the dims continue down this path they have lost their soul

  80. Speaking of Hillary’s inauguration, do any Pinkers plan to go to DC the day of the big event? Just thinking ahead.

  81. freespirit
    March 21, 2015 at 6:26 pm

    Free,

    Let’s be careful with that. I called myself planning ahead in ’08. Bumbles and his ilk are planning her second loss and I don’t fully trust the American voters to see AND VOTE FOR the best candidate. As wbb correctly reminds us, the media HATES Hillary and will do everything to stop her. But if we work hard and Hillary does succeed, we should all meet up and give a big F U to both the ilk and the media!!

    Hillary 2016

  82. OMG…and O insists on fighting with Bibi and the duly elected republicans…and democrats in Congress while continuing this farce with Iran

    http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Iran-Ayatollah-nuclear-deal/2015/03/21/id/631703/

    Iran’s Ayatollah Rejects US ‘Bullying,’ Says ‘Death to America’
    3-21-15

    Iran’s top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei repeated the words “death to America” during a speech on Saturday as he voiced mistrust of U.S. efforts to reach a nuclear deal, even as Washington and its allies spoke of real progress and urged Tehran to take “difficult decisions.”

    With just 10 days remaining until an end-of-March deadline for a framework agreement, Iran’s Supreme Leader denounced U.S. “bullying” in the negotiations and repeated Tehran’s denial that it was seeking to develop a nuclear weapon.

    Khamenei, who has the last word on all matters of state, reiterated in a speech that Tehran would not be pressured into giving in to Western demands.

    “What the Iranian people don’t want is imposition and bullying from America,” he said, at one point repeating the phrase “Death to America” after it was shouted from the crowd.

    “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure,” he said “They insist on putting pressure on our dear people’s economy. What is their goal? Their goal is to put the people against the system.

    “They raise the issue of an atomic bomb. They know themselves that we are not pursuing nuclear weapons. But they just use that as an excuse to pressure the Iranian people.”

    He criticized “arrogant” Western countries for what he said was their role in bringing about a halving of world oil prices that has squeezed Iran’s economy.

    Iranian President Hassan Rouhani had struck a more positive note earlier, saying there was “nothing that cannot be resolved.”

    After week-long talks with Iran in Switzerland, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry flew to London to confer with his counterparts from Britain, France and Germany on prospects for resolving the dispute, which goes back more than a decade and has threatened at times to unleash a new war in the Middle East.

    In a joint statement, the foreign ministers said they agreed that “substantial progress” had been made with Iran in key areas, but some important issues remained outstanding.
    “Now is the time for Iran, in particular, to take difficult decisions,” they said.

    British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond told reporters the Western ministers were all in agreement that “we will not do a bad deal that does not meet our red lines”.

    Together with China and Russia, the four countries are trying to a deal with Tehran that would restrict the most sensitive aspects of Iran’s atomic program in return for an easing of international sanctions.

    U.S. ally Israel views Iran’s nuclear activities as an existential threat, despite Tehran’s strenuous denials that it wants to acquire nuclear weapons.

    After 2-1/2 hours of talks in London, the Western ministers said in their joint statement: “Any solution must be comprehensive, durable and verifiable. None of our countries can subscribe to a deal that does not meet these terms.”

    The stress on unity seemed designed to counter the impression of a split between Washington and Paris.

    U.S. officials have privately bristled at France’s outspoken criticism of the negotiating process and its demands for more stringent restrictions on the Iranians. Officials have expressed concerns that the French might block a deal at the United Nations.

    France’s envoy to Washington, Gerard Araud, has been especially vocal, tweeting that setting a March 31 deadline for a framework deal was “a bad tactic” and “counterproductive”. The target date for a full agreement is June 30.

    The full six-power group is due to resume negotiations with Iran next week in Lausanne, Switzerland.

    The West suspects Iran of seeking the ability to produce atomic weapons and the United Nations has imposed stringent economic sanctions on Tehran. Iran says its program is intended only for peaceful purposes, such as medical technology and nuclear energy, and wants the swift lifting of sanctions.

  83. Right, Rock. I guess being cautiously optimistic for now might be best. Later, however, I’m gonna be thinking those positive thoughts and visualizing Hillary in the Oval – and not just as a visiter.

  84. WTF is wrong with Obama? I’m serious. This is getting to the point of absurdity – even for him.

  85. Admin: this excerpt from Noonan’s latest screed:

    Democratic establishment angst is composed of obvious and less obvious elements. Obvious: They worry Mrs. Clinton’s email-gate will linger, and they’re afraid of more scandals tumbling out of the Clinton Foundation closet. They fear the constant regurgitation of old scandals. They’re afraid they’ll have no sway when future embarrassments and controversies come. She’s Hillary, she does it her way, she keeps it close, it’s a tight circle.

    Less obvious: She’s all they have.

    By that I don’t mean there is no one else who can run. It’s a shallow bench, but a bench. I mean that for all her flaws Hillary Clinton is the only major Democrat who can keep the Democratic Party together in this cycle.

    Without Hillary the party will probably lurch left. And if it lurches left it’ll probably lose the general election. Democrats will break up into left-progressives, way-left-progressives, populists of different stripe, older moderates and centrists. The left is no longer passionate about Mr. Obama because he is not left-wing enough. Hillary Clinton holds the party together with her Hillaryness—her popularity with the base, her connection to the Clinton years, her sex. The idea of the first female president in a party increasingly preoccupied with identity and gender politics is a powerful ideological glue.

    Hillary, to the general public, comes across as centrist. In part this is because she is associated with her husband’s ultimate moderation, and in part because she has grown more moderate over the years, at least in the sense of playing ball with various entrenched powers. She is certainly hawkish. Her popularity and persona will keep her party seeming centrist, even if she inches to the left to appease sizable parts of the base, and to show her heart is still with them.

    But I think an untold story of 2016 is that the Democratic establishment is desperate when Mrs. Clinton is in trouble because without her they see a fracturing of their party.

  86. Admin: here’s a relevant excerpt from Noonan’s latest screed:

    Democratic establishment angst is composed of obvious and less obvious elements. Obvious: They worry Mrs. Clinton’s email-gate will linger, and they’re afraid of more scandals tumbling out of the Clinton Foundation closet. They fear the constant regurgitation of old scandals. They’re afraid they’ll have no sway when future embarrassments and controversies come. She’s Hillary, she does it her way, she keeps it close, it’s a tight circle.

    Less obvious: She’s all they have.

    By that I don’t mean there is no one else who can run. It’s a shallow bench, but a bench. I mean that for all her flaws Hillary Clinton is the only major Democrat who can keep the Democratic Party together in this cycle.

    Without Hillary the party will probably lurch left. And if it lurches left it’ll probably lose the general election. Democrats will break up into left-progressives, way-left-progressives, populists of different stripe, older moderates and centrists. The left is no longer passionate about Mr. Obama because he is not left-wing enough. Hillary Clinton holds the party together with her Hillaryness—her popularity with the base, her connection to the Clinton years, her sex. The idea of the first female president in a party increasingly preoccupied with identity and gender politics is a powerful ideological glue.

    Hillary, to the general public, comes across as centrist. In part this is because she is associated with her husband’s ultimate moderation, and in part because she has grown more moderate over the years, at least in the sense of playing ball with various entrenched powers. She is certainly hawkish. Her popularity and persona will keep her party seeming centrist, even if she inches to the left to appease sizable parts of the base, and to show her heart is still with them.

    But I think an untold story of 2016 is that the Democratic establishment is desperate when Mrs. Clinton is in trouble because without her they see a fracturing of their party.

  87. freespirit
    March 21, 2015 at 6:26 pm
    Speaking of Hillary’s inauguration, do any Pinkers plan to go to DC the day of the big event? Just thinking ahead.

    —-
    I hope to go Free and hope to meet up with some Pinkers if possible.

  88. freespirit
    March 21, 2015 at 9:51 pm

    Later, however, I’m gonna be thinking those positive thoughts and visualizing Hillary in the Oval – and not just as a visitor.

    I dream that dream every night. Every night.

    Hillary 2016

  89. Relevant excerpt from Noonan’s latest screed:

    “Democratic establishment angst is composed of obvious and less obvious elements. Obvious: They worry Mrs. Clinton’s email-gate will linger, and they’re afraid of more scandals tumbling out of the Clinton Foundation closet. They fear the constant regurgitation of old scandals. They’re afraid they’ll have no sway when future embarrassments and controversies come. She’s Hillary, she does it her way, she keeps it close, it’s a tight circle.

    Less obvious: She’s all they have.

    By that I don’t mean there is no one else who can run. It’s a shallow bench, but a bench. I mean that for all her flaws Hillary Clinton is the only major Democrat who can keep the Democratic Party together in this cycle.

    Without Hillary the party will probably lurch left. And if it lurches left it’ll probably lose the general election. Democrats will break up into left-progressives, way-left-progressives, populists of different stripe, older moderates and centrists. The left is no longer passionate about Mr. Obama because he is not left-wing enough. Hillary Clinton holds the party together with her Hillaryness—her popularity with the base, her connection to the Clinton years, her sex. The idea of the first female president in a party increasingly preoccupied with identity and gender politics is a powerful ideological glue.

    Hillary, to the general public, comes across as centrist. In part this is because she is associated with her husband’s ultimate moderation, and in part because she has grown more moderate over the years, at least in the sense of playing ball with various entrenched powers. She is certainly hawkish. Her popularity and persona will keep her party seeming centrist, even if she inches to the left to appease sizable parts of the base, and to show her heart is still with them.

    But I think an untold story of 2016 is that the Democratic establishment is desperate when Mrs. Clinton is in trouble because without her they see a fracturing of their party.”

  90. Obama said last night he was going to be remembered as a “good president” by hook or by crook…….well the crook part is right.

  91. Hope you’ve all had a chance to see what Michelle wore yesterday. Meantime,
    —-
    Ted Cruz Is Planning to Take the White House — and He’s About to Pull a Move Th…
    He’s going to skip the exploratory committee and go straight for the jugular. Ted Cruz plans to run for president. The Houston Chronicle broke the news just before midnight Saturday evening, citing senior advisers speaking on the condition of anonymity who said that Cruz, the Texas Tea Party Republican elected to the U.S. Senate in 2012, would pursue the presidency. The announcement would make Cruz the first Republican to officially declare his candidacy. SNIP The senior advisers cited by the Chronicle said Cruz aims to raise some $40 to $50 million, and he will run as an unabashedly conservative candidate, in contrast to the “mushy middle” Republicans he’s criticized in the past. SNIP
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/22/ted-cruz-is-planning-to-take-the-white-house-and-hes-about-to-pull-a-move-that-leapfrogs-the-competition/

    Maybe this will at least tone down some of the latest egregious moves I’ve seen about DC eg Pelosi saving Boehner. which I’ve not read.

  92. Lawmakers: Murder suspect wasn’t deported, despite alleged crimes

    By Mark Hensch – 03/20/15 04:20 PM EDT

    Two GOP lawmakers are demanding a review of President Obama’s deferred action immigration program following revelations that a murder suspect in Charlotte, N.C., was shielded from deportation, despite his alleged gang ties.

    Sens. Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Thom Tillis (N.C.) said Friday they had confirmed the story and called on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to review its policies on deferred deportation applicants with criminal histories.

    The pair asked Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to detail DHS procedures concerning the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

    They contacted Johnson after discovering that Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez, now a suspect in three Charlotte murders, received DACA protection on Dec. 18, 2013, despite an established criminal history.

    Grassley and Tillis found that Rangel-Hernandez was first arrested for misdemeanor marijuana possession in Charlotte on March 30, 2012.

    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) then put him into removal proceedings over his unlawful status, only for those to get dismissed after his DACA request was approved late last year.

    Rangel-Hernandez is suspected of murdering three people in Charlotte late last month. One of the victims in the attack, Mirjana Puhar, was also a former contestant on the reality TV show “America’s Next Top Model.”

    Grassley and Tillis on Friday accused immigration officials with ignoring the criminal danger individuals like Rangel-Hernandez might present American citizens.

    “Furthermore, whistleblowers have alleged that Mr. Rangel-Hernandez’s DACA application was approved although U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had full knowledge that he was a known gang member,” they said in Friday’s letter.

    “This raises serious concerns about USCIS’s review of approval of other DACA applicants and points to potential vulnerabilities in the system,” they added.

    The two lawmakers are seeking information on how DACA requests are approved and what extra restrictions are placed on applicants with criminal backgrounds. They asked that Johnson respond no later than March 31.

    DACA defers deportations for illegal immigrants who entered the U.S. as children.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/236467-lawmakers-murder-suspect-wasnt-deported-despite-alleged-crimes

  93. Ted ineligible?
    What about this?
    Lawyers say Canadian-born Cruz eligible to run for president
    …Last month, Cruz addressed the citizenship issue during a question-and-answer session with moderator Sean Hannity, of Fox News, at the Conservative Political Action Conference. “I was born in Calgary. My mother was an American citizen by birth,” Cruz said. “Under federal law, that made me an American citizen by birth. The Constitution requires that you be a natural-born citizen.”
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/15/lawyers-say-canadian-born-cruz-eligible-to-run-for-president/

    No doubt there will be much air time and ink devoted to the question; and that discussion won’t be over until it is over.
    🙂

  94. A Fitting Tribute to Big Media and their hero . . . . race baiting getting old? Try a little foreign policy failure with your martini—shaken not stirred. Apres le deluge in Yemen—which as become the Spain of the 1930s where Hitler and Stalin surrogates waged a bitter civil war–the prelude to WWII, Obama is neither shaken OR stirred to do anything but go on in his typical thin skinned oblivious state giving the store away to our enemy, attacking our friends, and laying the groundwork for nuclear war between Sunni and Shia factionThat is the bad news. But it is an ill wind that does not bring some good. And it is a very good thing for Obama, big media, Israel, you, I, ISIS, its a small world after all, that he has purchased Magnum’s mansion in Hawaii for the modest sum of 10 million, with a little help from Uncle Tony, and other slimeball donors. A nation that his stupid enough to elect a fuckstick like him deserves what it gets, even if we who saw him for what he is in the beginning, surely do not. If we are going down, we need to all go down together. No gold plated life boats for the elites in this Titanic. It should be a Burkenhead Drill, where they go first–like that one Vanderbilt who was worth a damn and understood that with wealth comes chivalry and obligation. I have often wondered if it was that, or simply ennui with life.
    ———
    Here’s Richard Fernandez:

    There’s no score keeping system in which Obama is making points unless that scoring system is secret and we’re just too dumb to figure it out.

    Losing Iraq, Libya, Yemen; being humiliated by Assad; and having the Taliban call the tune seems to matter not a whit to the president. Like the Black Knight in the Monty Python movie who can endure having his limbs lopped off, these events are apparently costless to the president, who serenely proclaims himself as “winning” every round though nobody knows what the game is; nobody that is, except him.

    Did America just lose everything it gave Iraq? Everything it gave Yemen? Every effort it expended in Libya?

    One gets the sense that Aden could fall to the Houthi tomorrow or Damascus be overrun the week after without shaking his confidence in the least. Whatever happens, Obama is always only one step from some final, invisible victory. He is laboring toward some deal with Tehran, like a pilgrim stumbling toward the Throne of God yet which to unschooled eyes seems like a gewgaw in a box of Crackerjack for which he is being charged an arm and a leg by some canny ayatollahs.

    There must be something there and foreign policy gurus strain their eyes and cudgel their brains trying to figure out what it is. Yet if we cast our eyes forward, it would not be surprising if the day after his stupendous “deal” nothing whatsoever changes except that Tehran goes on cheating. The great roll of drum fanfare will have culminated a low whistle like air being let out of a balloon.

    Was that it? Yup. The one thing we can be certain of is that he would take that lack of evident benefit on the day after with total equanimity, as if surprised to think anyone but rubes should want a material outcome from his diplomacy. Suppose it’s about some act of “becoming” a normal nation? Don’t laugh. Then what? That is why Michael Doran and the rest are having such trouble figuring out the administration’s game plan. Because they think it’s about something. None of them have considered the possibility that its about nothing at all.

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2015/03/22/losing-yemen/#ixzz3V8Yjbbb6

  95. Whatever happens, Obama is always only one step from some final, invisible victory.
    ——
    Well, that says it all-doesn’t it.

    Perhaps this is what Brooks, with his mongoloid grin and reverence for Obama was drooling about in 2008, when he proclaimed Obama to be the second coming of Christ.

    Obama is in a state of semi divine remove, like a monk in a monastery in the dark ages—until the monastery falls to the barbarian hoards, and by then he will be safely ensconced in Fort Magnum on Oahu.

  96. WITHOUT HILLARY THERE IS NO DEMOCRAT PARTY. IT WILL SPLINTER APART INTO FACTIONS.

    THIS LITTLE COCKSUCKER JOSHUA GREEN A COMMIE WHO WRITES FOR THE ATALANTIC, BOSTON GLOBE, SPECTATOR ALL LEFTIST RAGS CLAIM . . .

    HILLARY “NEEDS” A PRIMARY OPPONENT TO MAKE HER A STRONGER CANDIDATE.

    TRANSLATION: FOR THE HARD LEFT, ITS APRES OBAMA LE DELUGE—AND THE ONLY REASON THEY WANT A PRIMARY OPPONENT—-WARREN—-IS BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM CONTINUING WORK, AND A SENSE THAT THEY WILL NOT BE MARGINALIZED. BECAUSE, BELIEVE ME, IF WARREN WINS OR SCORES BIG IN IOWA—WHICH IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY KNOWING HOW STUPID THOSE HICKS ARE, AND HOW CORRUPT THE OBAMA MACHINE IS, THEN IT LENDS CREDENCE TO THEIR CLAIM THAT THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT WILL SURVIVE THE RETIREMENT OF OBAMA, AND REMAINS A DOMINANT FORCE IN THE PARTY. SO AS YOU SEE, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HILLARY NEEDING A PRIMARY OPPONENT TO MAKE HER A STRONGER CANDIDATE.
    ————-

    Democratic establishment angst is composed of obvious and less obvious elements. Obvious: They worry Mrs. Clinton’s email-gate will linger, and they’re afraid of more scandals tumbling out of the Clinton Foundation closet. They fear the constant regurgitation of old scandals. They’re afraid they’ll have no sway when future embarrassments and controversies come. She’s Hillary, she does it her way, she keeps it close, it’s a tight circle.

    Less obvious: She’s all they have.

    By that I don’t mean there is no one else who can run. It’s a shallow bench, but a bench. I mean that for all her flaws Hillary Clinton is the only major Democrat who can keep the Democratic Party together in this cycle.

    Without Hillary the party will probably lurch left. And if it lurches left it’ll probably lose the general election. Democrats will break up into left-progressives, way-left-progressives, populists of different stripe, older moderates and centrists. The left is no longer passionate about Mr. Obama because he is not left-wing enough. Hillary Clinton holds the party together with her Hillaryness—her popularity with the base, her connection to the Clinton years, her sex. The idea of the first female president in a party increasingly preoccupied with identity and gender politics is a powerful ideological glue.

    Hillary, to the general public, comes across as centrist. In part this is because she is associated with her husband’s ultimate moderation, and in part because she has grown more moderate over the years, at least in the sense of playing ball with various entrenched powers. She is certainly hawkish. Her popularity and persona will keep her party seeming centrist, even if she inches to the left to appease sizable parts of the base, and to show her heart is still with them.

    But I think an untold story of 2016 is that the Democratic establishment is desperate when Mrs. Clinton is in trouble because without her they see a fracturing of their party.

  97. Israel: Beware of Obama

    By Michael GoodwinMarch 22, 2015 | 12:23am

    First he comes for the banks and health care, uses the IRS to go after critics, politicizes the Justice Department, spies on journalists, tries to curb religious freedom, slashes the military, throws open the borders, doubles the debt and nationalizes the Internet.

    He lies to the public, ignores the Constitution, inflames race relations and urges Latinos to punish Republican “enemies.” He abandons our ­allies, appeases tyrants, coddles ­adversaries and uses the Crusades as an excuse for inaction as Islamist terrorists slaughter their way across the Mideast.

    Now he’s coming for Israel.

    Barack Obama’s promise to transform America was too modest. He is transforming the whole world before our eyes. Do you see it yet?
    Against the backdrop of the tsunami of trouble he has unleashed, Obama’s pledge to “reassess” America’s relationship with Israel cannot be taken lightly. Already paving the way for an Iranian nuke, he is hinting he’ll also let the other anti-Semites at Turtle Bay have their way. That could mean American support for punitive Security Council resolutions or for Palestinian statehood initiatives. It could mean both, or something worse.

    Whatever form the punishment takes, it will aim to teach Bibi Netanyahu never again to upstage him. And to teach Israeli voters never again to elect somebody Obama doesn’t like.

    Apologists and wishful thinkers, including some Jews, insist Obama real­izes that the special relationship between Israel and the United States must prevail and that allowing too much daylight between friends will encourage enemies.

    Those people are slow learners, or, more dangerously, deny-ists.

    If Obama’s six years in office teach us anything, it is that he is impervious to appeals to good sense. Quite the contrary. Even respectful suggestions from supporters that he behave in the traditions of American presidents fill him with angry determination to do it his way.

    For Israel, the consequences will be intended. Those who make excuses for Obama’s policy failures — naive, bad advice, bad luck — have not come to grips with his dark impulses and deep-seated rage.

    His visceral dislike for Netanyahu is genuine, but also serves as a convenient fig leaf for his visceral dislike of Israel. The fact that it’s personal with Netanyahu doesn’t explain six years of trying to bully Israelis into signing a suicide pact with Muslims bent on destroying them. Netanyahu’s only sin is that he puts his nation’s security first and refuses to knuckle ­under to Obama’s endless demands for unilateral concessions.

    That refusal is now the excuse to act against Israel. Consider that, for all the upheaval around the world, the president rarely has a cross word for, let alone an open dispute with, any other foreign leader. He calls Great Britain’s David Cameron “bro” and praised Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood president, Mohammed Morsi, who had called Zionists, “the descendants of apes and pigs.”

    Obama asked Vladimir Putin for patience, promising “more flexibility” after the 2012 election, a genuflection that earned him Russian aggression. His Asian pivot was a head fake, and China is exploiting the vacuum. None of those leaders has gotten the Netanyahu treatment, which included his being forced to use the White House back door on one trip, and the cold shoulder on another.

    It is a clear and glaring double standard.

    Most troubling is Obama’s bended-knee deference to Iran’s Supreme Leader, which has been repaid with “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” demonstrations in Tehran and expanded Iranian military action in other countries.

    The courtship reached the height of absurdity last week, when Obama wished Iranians a happy Persian new year by equating Republican critics of his nuclear deal with the resistance of theocratic hard-liners, saying both “oppose a diplomatic solution.” That is a damnable slur given that a top American military official estimates that Iranian weapons, proxies and trainers killed 1,500 US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who in their right mind would trust such an evil regime with a nuke?

    Yet Netanyahu, the leader of our only reliable ally in the region, is ­repeatedly singled out for abuse. He alone is the target of an orchestrated attempt to defeat him at the polls, with Obama political operatives, funded in part by American taxpayers, working to elect his opponent.

    They failed and Netanyahu prevailed because Israelis see him as their best bet to protect them. Their choice was wise, but they better buckle up because it’s Israel’s turn to face the wrath of Obama.

  98. http://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported

    snip

    McLaughlin also cited an effort “to organize the [Israeli] Arabs into one party and teach them about voter turnout.”

    “The State Department people in the end of January, early February, expedited visas for [Israeli] Arab leaders to come to the United States to learn how to vote,” McLaughlin said.

    “There were people in the United States that were organizing them to vote in one party so they would help the left-of-center candidate, Herzog, that the Obama administration favored,” he added.

    Already tense relations between Obama and Netanyahu escalated this week after Netanyahu’s pre-election promise to not allow a Palestinian state. He later backed down after White House criticism, though Obama suggested in an interview released Saturday he wouldn’t brush off the comments.

    “They were running an ACORN, Obama Organizing for America-type campaign over there with the digital ads, the billboards, the phones. They were targeting Israeli voters,” Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) said Saturday on Fox News’s “Justice with Judge Jeanine.”

    “I think the president, Tuesday night, felt like he lost,” said Zeldin, who along with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has questioned the Obama administration over OneVoice’s funding and nonprofit status.

  99. wbboei
    March 22, 2015 at 11:59 am
    ————————–
    They have no choice but to say that. Otherwise they would have to admit that Obama is not eligible either.

  100. The perfect answer to a RINO who says I did everything I could to stop Obama, BUT . . . .

    The answer?

    With you, there’s always an excuse, isn’t there?

  101. So then the RINO says

    Okay wise guy–you’ve got all the answers, suppose you tell me what I should have done to stop Obama

    The answer: first of all I am not paid to figure that out–you are. Second, I did not make the promise to stop him–you did.

  102. Re: Cruz

    I imagine that whoever has the most powerful attorneys and the media on their side will win this determination, unless the Supreme Court ever picks it up – which I doubt, as it will surely show that Obama wasn’t eligible.

    My whole life in school we were always told that a natural born citizen, which is what a president must be, is someone born in this country to two citizen parents. Not people who became citizens after your birth (Rubio). Not people who had one noncitizen parent (Obama and Cruz). Not people not born on US soil (McCain was granted natural born status because they said he was born on a American military base in Panama, although apparently that wasn’t actually true).

    In the blurb up thread, Cruz is quoted as having said that he is natural born because his mother was a US citizen. That only makes him a citizen, a dual nationality one that, which I’m also not sure is allowed. But not natural born.

    Cruz’s belief means that Ackmydinnerjacket could impregnante an American woman over there, and that child would be a natural born US citizen. No different.

    Without a Supreme Court ruling, people will keep trying to push the issue. And if we haven’t yet, we will reach the point where they won’t rule because of “precedent” set by our Best President Ever.

  103. Regardless of how far Ted Cruz gets, he has already placed himself to be of great immediate benefit to the Republic, for he has a platform to address subjects that concern him. Ones the American public has little knowledge of due to media compliance. I will be watching him today to see how specific he becomes in his initial address.

    TV is being very kind to him this AM. I guess someone has told them they are thisclose to Pandora’s Box. In my search for 2008 articles recounting how media had the audacity to question McCain’s citizenship without touching Barack, this American Thinker article came up. Maybe some of those here with better skills than mine will want to see it again.

    Articles: Academia Shrugs: Obama’s Citizenship and the Presidency. 1/6/2012.
    By avoiding the contentious question of Obama’s “natural born” eligibility, America’s academic establishment has also stifled discussion on the inextricably related issue of citizenship law in our country, in the greater context of immigration reform.
    The first instance of academia’s cloak-throwing was noted in an American Thinker
    article which described the revision made by Professor Larry Solum to his scholarly paper that addressed Senator McCain’s eligibility, “Originalism and the Natural Born Citizenship Clause.” The original version was published in 2008. Without saying it explicitly in his footnote of explanation, Solum’s revision implied, subtly, that he also supported the eligibility of Obama, with his one citizen parent instead of two — yet Solum did not include citations or references that defended his rationale for the change, nor has he published papers since that discussed this aspect of the issue.
    Solum’s unsupported rewriting was mentioned again in the more recent article, “The Great American Memory Hole.” That column also described the strange and related story of “JustiaGate” — the “mangling” of text and citations, for approximately a three-year period beginning mid-2008, on Justia’s database for 25 Supreme Court decisions that directly cited the particular case of Minor v Happersett. SNIP
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/01/academia_shrugs_obamas_citizenship_and_the_presidency.html

  104. Cruz’ candidacy may also be his attempt to force people to confront the whole question of his citizenship status and eligibility to become POTUS., especially if he keeps talking about it and cites Obama’s status as proof that he is eligible. Big Media will be in the uncomfortable position of deciding whether or not to pursue the story to use against him because of the possible fallout on Obama himself.

  105. wbboei
    March 22, 2015 at 1:57 pm

    Whatever happens, Obama is always only one step from some final, invisible victory.
    ——
    Well, that says it all-doesn’t it.

    ———
    Those are the only battles he wins.

    Pure fantasy.

  106. lorac

    Without a Supreme Court ruling, people will keep trying to push the issue. And if we haven’t yet, we will reach the point where they won’t rule because of “precedent” set by our Best President Ever.

    —–
    Absolutely!

    In a marriage without any sex, the marriage contract can be nullified.

    If the future brings out the truth that Obama did not qualify as a Natural Born Citizen, then what? All his bs executive orders go up in smoke and his pResidential benefits are all nullified?

    He should go to jail, but we all know the race baiters will come out of the woodwork in his defense.

  107. Wbb

    But I think an untold story of 2016 is that the Democratic establishment is desperate when Mrs. Clinton is in trouble because without her they see a fracturing of their party.

    ——-
    The Dim party already fractured in 2008.

    There was no coming together singing and holding hands around the party campfire.

    The only strength of what appears to be the Democratic Party is the media hype that keeps pumping out the lies, smoke and mirrors.

  108. foxy

    Still waiting for my Unicorn. 😯

    —–
    I already forgot about the Unicorn days…

    Yes, reality is really slapping them in the face, again.

  109. Drudge has a Superman symbol (kinda) with an ugly ‘C’ in the middle. It could be for Clinton, but the link is to Cruz.

  110. President Obama’s role during the Israeli elections was larger than reported, according to a pollster for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party.

    “What was not well reported in the American media is that President Obama and his allies were playing in the election to defeat Prime Minister Netanyahu,” John McLaughlin, a Republican strategist, said in an interview on John Catsimatidis’s “The Cats Roundtable” radio show broadcast Sunday on AM 970 in New York.

    “There was money moving that included taxpayer U.S. dollars, through non-profit organizations. And there were various liberal groups in the United States that were raising millions to fund a campaign called V15 against Prime Minister Netanyahu,” McLaughlin said.

    He noted an effort to oust Netanyahu was guided by former Obama political operative Jeremy Bird and that V15, or Victory 15, ads hurt Netanyahu in the polls. McLaughlin said the Israeli leader rebounded after delivering a speech to Congress early this month, prompting more critical ads.

    V15 was viewed as part of a broader campaign to oust Netanyahu. The group was linked to Washington-based nonprofit OneVoice Movement, which reportedly received $350,000 in State Department grants. Money to OneVoice stopped flowing in November, officials said, before the Israeli elections.

    After Netanyahu’s win, V15 co-founder Nimrod Dweck said in an interview with Ronan Farrow aired on MSNBC’s “Jose Diaz-Balart” that “not a single cent” of State Department or taxpayer money had gone to their campaign.

    “These are false allegations and they have nothing to do with reality,” Dweck said.

    McLaughlin also cited an effort “to organize the [Israeli] Arabs into one party and teach them about voter turnout.”

    “The State Department people in the end of January, early February, expedited visas for [Israeli] Arab leaders to come to the United States to learn how to vote,” McLaughlin said.

    http://thehill.com/policy/international/236565-netanyahu-pollster-obama-role-in-election-larger-than-reported
    “There were people in the United States that were organizing them to vote in one party so they would help the left-of-center candidate, Herzog, that the Obama administration favored,” he added.

    Already tense relations between Obama and Netanyahu escalated this week after Netanyahu’s pre-election promise to not allow a Palestinian state. He later backed down after White House criticism, though Obama suggested in an interview released Saturday he wouldn’t brush off the comments.

    “They were running an ACORN, Obama Organizing for America-type campaign over there with the digital ads, the billboards, the phones. They were targeting Israeli voters,” Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.) said Saturday on Fox News’s “Justice with Judge Jeanine.”

    “I think the president, Tuesday night, felt like he lost,” said Zeldin, who along with Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) has questioned the Obama administration over OneVoice’s funding and nonprofit status.

  111. The indefinite postponement of the Lynch confirmation, and her likely rejection by the Senate, should suggest to the brain dead RINO a low risk yet effective strategy to reign in a rogue President. Frightened to death of using their powers of impeachment or their powers of the purse as the framers intended, they could simply refuse to approve any and all Obama federal appellate court nominees for the next two years unless the big media beloved abides by the Constitution. There is no political downside to this tactic other than the back log of cases, and this will be invisible to most voters. Asking Obama to abide by the Constitution is like asking a cat to bark—it is not in his narcissistic nature. For lest we forget he told us 22 times that he did not have the constitutional authority to issue an executive order granting amnesty to illegals, and then, when it was opportune, he did exactly what he denied he had the power to do. There will be more of this in the days ahead. This may not stop him in that dimension, but it will thwart his desire to salt the court with left wing fanatics. Those people will be frozen out, and all their insidious donations to his campaign will have been for naught.

Comments are closed.