Sunday, January 31, 2016

Why Is Nobody Nailing Obama For This Huge Bold Faced Lie He Was Just Caught In?

Another Lie from this Idiot that is from his own mouth

President Barack Obama was caught in another lie, this one involving his former secretary of state’s email scandals.
The New York Times reported Saturday that the president had emailedDemocratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton at least 18 times to her private, non-secure server while she serves as secretary of state:
The State Department on Friday said for the first time that “top secret” material had been sent through Hillary Clinton’s private computer server, and that it would not make public 22 of her emails because they contained highly classified information.
The department announced that 18 emails exchanged between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would also be withheld, citing the longstanding practice of preserving presidential communications for future release. The department’s spokesman, John Kirby, said that exchanges did not involve classified information.
However, in May of last year, Obama told CBS News that he’d first learned of Clinton’s use of a private server “the same time everybody else learned it through news reports.
Watch the exchange, via CBS Evening News.
But if you’re a fan of ABC News, and pretty much any mainstream news outlet, don’t expect to hear anything about this reported.
ABC News dedicated a mere one minute 28 seconds to the bombshell revelation that the State Department had uncovered 22 top-secret emails that he been run through Clinton’s private server, according to the Media Research Center. The network didn’t even wave as they sped right by the information about the 18 emails from Obama.
Can you imagine if it was George W. Bush?
This is the same server she claimed was never used to send or receive emails contained any classified information.

BREAKING: Obama Will Be The FIRST President To Visit A US Mosque

Obama is set to speak at a Baltimore Mosque where an Imam condoned suicide bombings. Is this what he meant by ‘fundamental transformation’?
In a public show of support, President Barack Obama will meet with Muslim community members Wednesday in Baltimore on his first presidential visit to an American mosque.
Obama plans to hold talks with Muslim leaders at the Islamic Society of Baltimore, the White House announced Saturday. The visit will amount to a public embrace of Muslims by Obama at a time when public sentiment against them seems to be growing, largely fueled by fears of terrorist acts carried out by extremist groups.
 Obama has largely put distance between himself and U.S. Muslims, opting against fueling the rampant theories that he is a closet Muslim who was born in Kenya, the country of his late father’s birth. Obama is American by virtue of his birth in Hawaii and has released his birth certificate as proof. He also is Christian. But segments of the U.S. population still believe neither to be true.
As such, the visit will come during the final year of Obama’s two terms in office. The White House said he will go to the Baltimore mosque to ‘celebrate the contributions Muslim Americans make to our nation and reaffirm the importance of religious freedom to our way of life.’
In remarks to be delivered at the mosque, Obama ‘will reiterate the importance of staying true to our core values: welcoming our fellow Americans, speaking out against bigotry, rejecting indifference and protecting our nation’s tradition of religious freedom,’ the White House said.
Obama has been outspoken in pushing back against calls by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and others to block Muslims from being admitted to the U.S. over fears of domestic terrorism linked to radical extremist groups.
Read more: Daily Mail
Also, according to Breitbart:
President Obama is set to speak next week at a mosque which was led for over a decade by an Imam who justified suicide bombings in some circumstances and who helped found a mosque with ties to Al Qaeda.
The President will visit the Islamic Society of Baltimore on Wednesday and deliver remarks there, the White House confirmed on Saturday. This will be the first time the President has paid an official visit to a mosque during his seven years as President. However, Obama has toured mosques while on overseas trips.
“The president believes that one of our nation’s greatest strengths is our rich diversity,” White House spokesman Keith Maley said, confirming reports. “As the president has said, Muslim Americans are our friends, and neighbors; our co-workers, and sports heroes — and our men and women in uniform defending our country.”
The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)–which has been declared a terrorist organization in the United Arab Emirates and was named by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation’s Hamas-funding operation–welcomed Obama’s decision.
Read more: Breitbart

Shining A Light On Sociopaths In Politics

Obama.....Hillary? The Scumbags at MSNBC?

There are seven characteristics I can think of that define a sociopath, although I’m sure the list could be extended:
  1. Sociopaths completely lack a conscience or any capacity for real regret about hurting people. Although they pretend the opposite.
  1. Sociopaths put their own desires and wants on a totally different level from those of other people. Their wants are incommensurate. They truly believe their ends justify their means. Although they pretend the opposite.
  1. Sociopaths consider themselves superior to everyone else, because they aren’t burdened by the emotions and ethics others have - they’re above all that. They’re arrogant. Although they pretend the opposite.
  1. Sociopaths never accept the slightest responsibility for anything that goes wrong, even though they’re responsible for almost everything that goes wrong. You’ll never hear a sincere apology from them.
  1. Sociopaths have a lopsided notion of property rights. What’s theirs is theirs, and what’s yours is theirs too. They therefore defend currency inflation and taxation as good things.
  1. Sociopaths usually pick the wrong target to attack. If they lose their wallet, they kick the dog. If 16 Saudis fly planes into buildings, they attack Afghanistan.
  1. Sociopaths traffic in disturbing news, they love to pass on destructive rumors, and they’ll falsify information to damage others.
The fact that they’re chronic, extremely convincing, and even enthusiastic liars, who often believe their own lies, means they aren’t easy to spot, because normal people naturally assume another person is telling the truth. They rarely have handlebar mustaches or chortle like Snidely Whiplash. Instead, they cultivate a social veneer or a mask of sanity that diverts suspicion. You can rely on them to be “politically correct” in public. How could a congressman or senator who avidly supports charities possibly be a bad guy? How could someone who claims he just wants the U.S. to defend some foreign minority possibly be a warmonger? They’re expert at using facades to disguise reality, and they feel no guilt about it.
Political elites are primarily, and sometimes exclusively, composed of sociopaths.It’s not just that they aren’t normal human beings. They’re barely even human, a separate subspecies, differentiated by their psychological qualities. A normal human can mate with them spiritually and psychologically about as fruitfully as a modern human could mate physically with a Neanderthal; it can be done, but the results will be problematical.
It’s a serious problem when a society becomes highly politicized, as is now the case in the U.S. and Europe. In normal times, a sociopath stays under the radar. Perhaps he’ll commit a common crime when he thinks he can get away with it, but social mores keep him reined in. However, once the government changes its emphasis from protecting citizens from force to initiating force with laws and taxes, those social mores break down. Peer pressure, social approbation, and moral opprobrium, the forces that keep a healthy society orderly, are replaced by regulations enforced by cops and funded by taxes. Sociopaths sense this, start coming out of the woodwork, and are drawn to the State and its bureaucracies and regulatory agencies, where they can get licensed and paid to do what they’ve always wanted to do.
It’s very simple, really. There are two ways people can relate to each other: Voluntarily or coercively. The government is pure coercion, and sociopaths are drawn to its power and force.
The majority of Americans will accept the situation for two reasons: One, they have no philosophical anchor to keep them from being washed up onto the rocks. They no longer have any real core beliefs, and most of their opinions - e.g., “We need national health care,” “Our brave troops should fight evil over there so we don’t have to fight it over here,” “The rich should pay their fair share” - are just reactive and comforting catch phrases. The whole point of spin doctors is to produce comforting sound bites that elude testing against reality. And, two, they’ve become too pampered and comfortable, a nation of overfed losers, mooches, and coasters who like the status quo without wondering how long it can possibly last.
It’s nonsensical to blather about the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave when reality TV and Walmart riots are much closer to the truth. The majority of Americans are, of course, where the rot originates - the presidential candidates are spending millions taking their pulse in surveys and polls and then regurgitating to them what they seem to want to hear. Once a country buys into the idea that an above-average, privileged lifestyle is everyone’s minimum due, when the fortunate few can lobby for special deals to rake something off the table as they squeeze wealth out of others by force, that country is on the decline. Lobbying and taxation are replacing production and innovation as the national modus vivendi; parasites are unable to sustain prosperity. The wealth being squeezed took centuries to produce, but it is not inexhaustible.
I suspect most now reading this tend to vote Republican. Republicans say they believe in economic freedom (they don’t), and they definitely don’t believe in social freedom.Compared to the Democrats, they are viewed (correctly) as hypocrites. At least the Democrats are honest about disliking economic freedom. Republican candidates are at once laughable and pathological - it doesn’t matter if Trump,  or Rubio get the nod. They’re all so horrible and embarrassing that I’ve heard they’re even desperately considering recycling Mitt Romney, an empty suit, only marginally better than the previous Republican nominee, the hostile and mildly demented John McCain.
All candidates decry the upper classes, say they love what’s left of the middle class, and want to shower more goodies on the proletariat.
People generally fall into an economic class because of their psychology and their values. Each of the three classes has a characteristic psychological profile. For the lower class, it’s apathy. They have nothing, they’re ground down, and they don’t really care. They’re not in the game, and they aren’t going to do anything; they’re resigned to their fate. For the upper class, it’s greed and arrogance. They have everything, and they think they deserve it - whether they do or not. The middle class, at least in today’s world, is run by fear. Fear that they’re only a paycheck away from falling into the lower class. Fear that they can’t pay their debts or borrow more. Fear that they don’t have a realistic prospect of improving themselves.
The problem is that fear is a negative, dangerous, and potentially explosive emotion. It can easily morph into anger and violence. Exactly where it will lead is unpredictable, but it’s not a good place. One thing that exacerbates the situation is that all three classes now rely on the government, albeit in different ways. Bankruptcy of the government will affect them all drastically.
With sociopaths in charge, we could very well see the Milgram experiment reenacted on a national scale. In the experiment, you may recall, researchers asked members of the public to torture subjects (who, unbeknownst to the people being recruited, were paid actors) with electric shocks, all the way up to what they believed were lethal doses. Most of them did as asked, after being assured that it was “all right” and “necessary” by men in authority. The men in authority today are mostly sociopaths.


One practical issue worth thinking about is how you, as someone with libertarian values, will manage in a future increasingly controlled by sociopaths. My guess is poorly, unless you take action to insulate yourself. That’s because of the way almost all creatures are programmed by nature. There’s one imperative common to all of them: Survive! People obviously want to do that as individuals. And as families. In fact, they want all the groups that they’re members of to survive, simply because (everything else being equal) it should help them to survive as individuals. So individual Marines want the Marine Corps to survive. Individual Rotarians want the Rotary Club to prosper. Individual Catholics leap to the defense of the Church of Rome.
That’s why individual Germans during World War II were, as has been asserted, “willing executioners” - they were supporting the Reich for the same reasons the Marines, the Rotarians, and the Catholics support their groups. Except more so, because the Reich was under attack from all sides. So, of course, they followed orders and turned in their neighbors who seemed less than enthusiastic. Failing to support the Reich, even if they knew it had some rather unsavory aspects, seemed an invitation to invading armies to come and rape their daughters, steal their property, and probably kill them. So, of course, the Germans closed ranks around their leaders, even though everyone at the top was sociopath. You can expect Americans to do the same.
Americans have done so before, when the country was far less degraded. During the War Between the States, even saying something against the war was a criminal offense. The same was true during World War I. In World War II, the Japanese were all put in concentration camps on groundless, racially based suspicions of disloyalty. During the early years of the Cold War, McCarthyism was rampant. The examples are legion among humans, and the U.S. was never an exception. It’s even true among chickens. If a bird has a feather out of place, the others will peck at it, eventually killing it. That out-of-place feather is deemed a badge of otherness announcing that its owner isn’t part of the group. Chicken Autre must die.
Libertarians, who tend to be more intelligent, better informed, and very definitely more independent than average, are going to be in a touchy situation as the crisis deepens. Most aren’t going to buy into the groupthink that inevitably accompanies war and other major crises. As such, they’ll be seen as unreliable, even traitors. As Bush said, “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” And, he might have added, “The Constitution be damned.” But, of course, that document is no longer even given lip service; it’s now a completely dead letter.
It’s very hard for an individualist to keep his mouth shut when he sees these things going on. But he’d better keep quiet, as even H.L. Mencken wisely did during both world wars. In today’s world, just keeping quiet won’t be enough; the national security state has an extensive, and growing, file on everybody. They believe they know exactly what your beliefs, desires, fears, and associations are, or may be. What we’re now facing is likely to be more dangerous than past crises. If you’re wise, you’ll relocate someplace where you’re something of an outsider and, by virtue of that fact, are allowed a measure of eccentric opinion. That’s why I spend an increasing amount of time in Latin America. In truth, however, security is going to be hard to find anywhere in the years to come. The most you can hope for is to tilt the odds in your favor.


WalMart "Absolutely Shafted" Washington DC; Here's How

The Last Paragraph  says it all on the wage hike and the economy

It’s been nearly a year since a grinning Doug McMillon recorded a video message to the world in which he explained that WalMart was set to raise the minimum wage for its lowest paid employees.
After all, McMillon said, “it’s our people that make the difference.”
11 months later, those “people” (the lowly shelf stockers and cashiers) aren’t materially better off than they were before, because handing someone $10/hour instead of $9 is such a small concession that you might as well have done nothing. In other words, $10 is no more of a “living wage” than $9 is.
But while the impact on the retailer’s legions of hourly employees has been minimal, the consequences for the company have been nothing short of dramatic.
As we’ve explained on any number of occasions, you can’t very well just implement an across-the-board wage hike if you’re WalMart without making up for it somewhere. Why? Because the business model runs on razor thin margins and because WalMart is determined to maintain “everyday low prices” which means the cost of the raises can’t be passed on to the consumer.
First WalMart tried squeezing the supply chain by asking vendors to pass along savings to Bentonville and by charging a variety of storage fees. When that didn’t work, the company started firing people and cutting hours. Here’s how that works:
Some of the cuts came at the home office in Bentonville, meaning that the move to put a few extra pennies in the pockets of hourly workers resulted in the loss of hundreds of breadwinner jobs.
Finally, in October, WalMart threw in the towel and announced a shocking guidance cut that prompted the stock to plunge by the most in 17 years.
Earlier this month WalMart doubled down on the wage hike debacle by promising to raise wages for employees higher up the corporate ladder (something we predicted would happen last year). The retailer announced the new wave of raises just days after saying it would close 269 stores and fire 16,000 people.
Apparently, the good folks in Bentonville are oblivious to the connection between the closures and previous wage hikes.
Also oblivious are policy makers who have pushed for wage hikes without thinking through the consequences.
"Washington, D.C., is beginning to look like a cautionary example of what can happen when bastions of liberalism throw caution to the wind in raising the minimum wage," IBD wrote, earlier this month. "The nation’s capital is now losing about 700 jobs a year at restaurants, hotels and other leisure and hospitality sector venues, a sharp reversal from the gain of 2,000 such jobs per year the city was enjoying before it hiked the minimum wage by 27%, first from $8.25 to $9.50 an hour in July 2014 and then to $10.50 in July 2015." Here's more: 
Now, as D.C. employers brace for yet-another minimum-wage hike to $11.50 set for this coming July, Wal-Mart has called off two of the city’s most-prized retail developments.

Wal-Mart said it would close 154 stores in the U.S., mostly small-format locations. But even as the nation’s biggest retailer said it would keep opening supercenters, including 50 to 60 in the coming year, it told District officials that it won’t go forward with plans for two huge stores that were expected to create hundreds of new jobs in one of the city’s poorer sections.

Company officials cited the city’s coming minimum-wake hiketo $11.50 an hour as one of the reasons for its change of heart. Wal-Mart has signaled to investors that its already-narrow profit margins could shrink by one-third as it voluntarily hikes its own base wage to $10 an hour.
DC officials aren't happy. 
“It’s an outrage,” said former mayor Vincent C. Gray, who The Washington Post notes in 2013 completed the handshake deal for the stores. “This is devastating and disrespectful to the residents of the East End of the District of Columbia.”
“I’m blood mad,” D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) fumed.
As WaPo went on to recount, "under the initial deal, Walmart could build stores almost anywhere in the District, as long as it opened two stores in its poorest wards and areas of the city sometimes referred to as food deserts, with few — if any — options for fresh produce and groceries." 
While WalMart apologized and cited its own internal P&L calculations for the decision, officials say the real reason is the rising pay floor. Here's WaPo again: 
Council member Jack Evans (D-Ward 2), head of the council’s finance committee, sat in on the meeting Friday morning with Walmart officials and Brian Kenner, Bowser’s deputy mayor for planning and economic development.

Evans said that, behind closed doors, Walmart officials were more frank about the reasons the company was downsizing. He said the company cited the District’s rising minimum wage, now at $11.50 an hour and possibly going to $15 an hour if a proposed ballot measure is successful in November. He also said a proposal for legislation requiring D.C. employers to pay into a fund for family and medical leave for employees, and another effort to require a minimum amount of hours for hourly workers were compounding costs and concerns for the retailer.
“If I were mayor, I’d get on a plane and go to Bentonville,” Gray said. "We have absolutely been shafted. They should be held accountable.” 
Yes, Mr. Gray, someone should be "held accountable" for the hundreds of jobs poor residents won't get thanks to the city's move to aggressively hike the pay floor. But when it comes towho should be held accountable, perhaps you should ask the city's unemployed if they'd rather have a job with the minimum wage at $10/hour or be jobless with the minimum wage at $11.50/hour.
Once you get your answer, look inward on the whole "accountability" thing.


Melissa Harris-Perry outdoes herself

Here is some more Liberal Stupidity on display. Just shows the classless Hacks they have at Msnbc.

I wonder if MSNBC weekend host Melissa Harris-Perry realizes how many conservative fans she has? There is no figure on the left who better epitomizes the mean-spirited, obsessive, and downright incoherent policies of the progressives than MHP. And to top it off, she is a credentialed academic, with a full professorship and even a research center at a reputable university (Wake Forest).
The list of ridiculous positions taken on air is long and hilarious.
The list could go on and on.
She is also --face it – a drama queen, weeping on air after being called out for mocking the Romney family over the inclusion of a black adopted child in a family photo.   And she has the visual instincts of a master clown:
With a comic oeuvre like this, how does a performer like MHP top herself? It takes some work, but she has done it. 

The Flint water crisis is like the Fugitive Slave Act. And it has something to do with  people being “afraid to open the door to clean water.”
Uh huh.
I guess in her own way, Professor Harris-Perry has developed a Unified Field Theory of American politics. Everything, absolutely everything, is about slavery.
Someday, there will be meetings of the Melissa Harris-Perry Fan Club at the Reagan Library. She is doing a better job of discrediting the Left than anyone since the Gipper.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/melissa_harrisperry_outdoes_herself.html#ixzz3ysBX9QaJ
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | 
AmericanThinker on Facebook

Conservatives need to remember the Constitution in 2016

The overriding message in the 2016 election should be just two words:  “The Constitution!”  After Obama’s Constitution-shredding governance, 2016 is America’s last chance to return the Constitution to its central in American politics. 
America’s Founders had the unique opportunity to build a government from scratch. They had several models from which to choose, such as a British-style monarchy, a communal approach (which almost killed the Pilgrims), or Plato’s elite philosopher-rulers. They chose none of those.
The Founders’ genius was realizing that that all existing government models, no matter their nature (monarchies, theocracies, etc.), invariably had a pyramidal structure, with power vested in the top of the pyramid.  The Founders wanted power at the base of the pyramid, with the people, as they stated in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these end§s, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
 Unlike other so-called revolutionaries who substituted themselves for the rulers they overthrew, the Founders created a true revolutionary paradigm.  They broke governing authority into its constituent parts (legislative, executive, and judicial) and divvied that power amongst three different, but equal, branches of government.  No government branch could act alone.
The theory was that each branch would guard its power jealously, thereby keeping either of the other two branches from becoming dominant.  We know this system as one of “checks and balances.”
As an additional check on government power, the Founders enacted the Bill of Rights, a list of inviolate rights vested in the individual that the government can neither give nor take away.  While the First through Eighth Amendments detail these rights, the Ninth and Tenth hammer home the limits of government power. 
The Ninth Amendment affirms that Americans have more rights than those listed in the Bill of Rights, with unlisted rights presumptively in the People. The Tenth Amendment holds that, unless the Constitution specifically reserves an affirmative right for the federal government or prohibits it to a state, all other rights — the universe of rights, whether or not articulated — belong to the states or to the people within those states.
This extraordinary document makes the United States the exceptional nation it is.  We are the only nation in the world ever, at any time or in any place, that truly places power in the individual. In other modern nations, although citizens may gain some temporary material benefits before their bureaucratically-controlled economies run out of other people’s money, they are as fully enslaved as they ever were in the bad old days.  Our uniqueness is also demonstrated by the fact that we are the only nation in history that, after shedding our blood to free other countries, turns back control to their self-rule, secure in the belief that the benefit we receive from our efforts will come about solely because we serve as their friend and role model.
And then there’s President Barack Obama. . . .
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
— Presidential Oath of Office
Progressives misleadingly claim that Obama has issued fewer Executive Orders than past presidents, including Reagan.  In fact, as of January 2016, in addition to executing 230 Executive Orders, Obama also executed 273 “Presidential Memoranda.”  While Memoranda are identical in effect to Executive Orders, they’re not formally published in the Federal Register. Obama is therefore responsible for a grand total of 430 unilateral executive actions. 
Obama’s unilateral acts also differ in scope from past presidents’ acts. Executive orders are intended to be managerial documents, along the lines of closing offices on December 24. Obama, however, uses them for substantive actions encroaching upon Congress’s purview. 
After Obamacare’s disastrous debut, Obama amended the law to prop it up.  He enacted amnesty, directly contravening federal immigration laws he was unable to pass even with a Democrat Congress.  He entered into a treaty with Iran, freeing billions of dollars for Iran and putting America’s imprimatur on Iran’s continuing nuclear development.  Obama ludicrously contended his “engagement” with Iran wasn’t a treaty, which would require Senate approval; it was a just a “non-binding agreement.”  Most recently, Obama began his unilateral executive push to limit American’s all important Second Amendment rights, something else he could not get through Congress.
These unconstitutional power grabs should not surprise anyone.  During a 2001 radio interviewObama already spoke slightingly about the Constitution:
The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society… [The Supreme Court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. [It] says what the states can’t do to you. [It] says what the federal government can’t do to you, but [it] doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
What conservatives see as the Constitution’s greatest virtue – namely, that it elevates the individual over the government – is something Obama sees as its greatest defect.
Obama’s disdain for the Constitution reappeared when he touted his new limitations on Second Amendment rights:
This is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do. I believe in the Second Amendment. It’s there written on the paper.  It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around, I taught constitutional law and I know a little bit about this.
The Second Amendment is not just something “written on paper.”  It is an inalienable right fed by the blood of every American who has died in liberty’s defense.
When Americans in 2010, 2012, and 2014 rebuked Obama’s overreach by denying him a Democrat Congress, Obama’s response was to dismiss the People’s will:
We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.  And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.

Obama is not the first Democrat to find the Constitution frustrating. Since Wilson, Progressives have championed the bureaucratic state as a way to govern outside of the Constitution.  Under Democrat administrations federal agencies routinely passed regulations with the force and effect of law, effectively voiding the Constitution’s checks and balances.
Where Obama differs from his predecessors is his abandonment of subtlety, incrementalism, and popular support.  He simply launches all-out attacks on the Bill of Rights and the balance of power. Here are just three egregious examples:
(1)  The EPA’s unilaterally designated carbon dioxide as a pollutant, even though a Democrat-controlled Congress’s refused to pass legislation to that effect. 
(2)  The EPA’s implemented cap-and-trade through their new power plant rules, another concept a Democrat-controlled Congress rejected.
(3)  The HHS published rules requiring all health insurance to cover birth control and abortifacients, something that impinges on many American’s religious beliefs and that would never have survived Congress.
Congress bears some blame for Obama’s power grab. During his first two years, a Democrat-majority Congress actively encouraged his “fundamental transformations.” After Americans booted that Congress, though, the new Congress was quiescent when Obama’s encroached on its sphere of interest. The Founders were therefore wrong about one thing:  When the executive branch strengthened itself at the legislature’s expense, the latter did not jealously protect its power; instead, it collapsed.
Obama’s dangerous rule by bureaucracy means that Republican voters in 2016 have a very stark choice facing them:  Do they vote for the candidate who promises to make American great through his charisma, or do they vote for the candidate who promises to make America great by restoring the Constitution to its central place in American governance?  The answer to that question lies within the question itself:  You cannot “restore” America unless you first restore the Constitution to its rightful place in American politics.
If elected, Donald Trump will probably fulfill many of his promises to undo some of the damage Obama has done. The problem is that his free-wheeling stump promises and well-known business history indicate that he’ll carry out his promises the same way Obama did it:  Using executive ukases, manipulating existing laws to his advantage, playing the crony capitalist game, and smearing his political opponents.
Trump’s past statements about Constitutional issues reveal that he used to be a liberal Democrat.  Thus, the pre-primary Trump identified himself as a Democrat on those issues, being wholeheartedly pro-Choice, pro-government land grabs, pro-Obamacare, and anti-gun:
Given Trump’s past disdain for the Constitution, even if he carries out his promises, the cost to America may be too high.  Trump appears set to wreak more of the same havoc on the Constitution that Obama already has.
Ted Cruz is the only candidate who has had a decade’s long reverence for the Constitution. He appreciates that the Constitution is the only document in human history to vest power away from the elite and in each individual, making it a bulwark against tyranny. Moreover, Cruz can clearly articulate his constitutional convictions and is willing to stand by them, even if it means taking on his own party.
Cruz has promised to issue Executive Orders voiding Obama’s extra-constitutional legislative activities, but after that he will return power to the People through their representatives in Congress.  He’ll also reliably nominate Supreme Court justices who understand that American constitutionalism means a limited government tasked with individual liberties.
That this constitutional fealty will appeal to the general public was demonstrated during Cruz’s appearance on Stephen Colbert’s show. When Colbert asked Cruz about gay marriage, the reliably Leftist audience started booing Cruz.  However, after Cruz explained that gay marriage is a decision for the people, not the political anointed, he got a round of applause from that same audience (at 2:58):

Cruz effectively used the Constitution to reassure Progressives that they need not fear his presidency because our constitutional structure prevents demagoguery. Instead, it vests power in the people where it belongs. This is a very appealing, all-American message.
Even if you agree with Trump’s stated goals or his possible effectiveness, you should think twice before you vote for a person who appears to be a vaguely conservative, populist “white Obama.”
Meanwhile, remember that Cruz has long supported the causes that Trump suddenly espouses:  He’s always been for strong national security; a strong military; strong borders; free market, not crony, capitalism; freedom of worship; Second Amendment rights; support for Israel; and enmity to jihadist Islam. Even better, Cruz’s history shows that he’ll govern through, not around, the Constitution. That’s certainly got my vote.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/conservatives_need_to_remember_the_constitution_in_2016.html#ixzz3ysAe6z00
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


'Hope and change' meets 4th-quarter GDP

This is nothing to brag about and is the so called roaring economy the idiots I mean Liberals are bragging about.

We've been focused on lots of issues this week, from Trump to the GOP debate to the Clinton emails to the mess in the Middle East and other things.  
However, there is a big story brewing, and it may be the one that people are talking about at the family kitchen table.
This is from The Washington Post and the fourth-quarter GDP results:
The U.S. economy slowed to a crawl in the last three months of 2015, new government data showed Friday, an indication of how tepid global growth is exposing new weaknesses in the nation’s long and sluggish recovery.
Gross domestic product, a measure of overall output, expanded at a seasonally adjusted rate of 0.7 percent between the months of October and December — just the second time in seven quarters that the nation has registered growth less than 1 percent.
That pace shows an economy that is being driven by steady consumer spending but weighed down by powerful trends in currency market, where the strong dollar is raising the cost of America’s exported goods — everything from cars to iPhones — while trimming profits for manufacturers.
The anemic growth could drive new concerns about the U.S.’s ability to fight off a series of major headwinds, including downturns in China and other major economies. Though the U.S. labor market remains strong, the nation is struggling to push back against two realities: Consumers across the world are buying less, and American products are becoming more expensive for them.

What happens now?   
What a way to celebrate the seventh anniversary of the stimulus.  Go, summer of recovery!

On the political field, this is bad news for Mrs. Clinton, or whoever the Democrat nominee is.  It's hard to blame all of this on Bush, or the guy living in Dallas since 2009.
On the GOP side, it offers the nominee an opportunity to propose a "growth agenda" calling for tax reform and smaller government.
To be fair, we don't know if the fourth quarter was an aberration or the beginning of a recession.  Either way, expect a lot of Americans to be talking about the economy around the proverbial kitchen table! 
Americans may be confused about the emails controversy, but they won't be confused about an economic slowdown!

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/01/hope_and_change_meets_4thquarter_gdp.html#ixzz3ys9hLozb
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Some Negative interest rates links