Hannity Guest Goes Ballistic, Rips Out Earpiece Over Charge That Black Conservatives Have ‘No Freedom Of Speech’

This POS Liberal  Leo Terrell is an Idiot. He kept repeating one thing only and could not answer anything with a good answer. He is a classic Liberal Obama Puppet!

Sean Hannity‘s Monday night show got heated… to say the least. Inviting on radio host Leo Terrell andNiger Innis, national spokesperson for the Congress of Racial Equality, the Fox News host sought to debate the media treatment of Dr. Ben Carson, who’s become a conservative hero of sorts since spoke “truth to power” at the National Prayer Breakfast. The panel quickly descended into a chaotic shout-fest, however, with Terrell eventually ripping out his earpiece in frustration.

Since the prayer breakfast and the following remarks about gay marriage, Carson has been “vilified by the left,” Hannity asserted. Beyond those details, the bigger issue, he asserted, is that “if you’re African-American and you’re a conservative, you are vilified. You are demonized, you are called names, you are attacked. That is the ongoing epidemic that goes on. There’s no freedom of speech for African-American conservatives in America.”

“You created a monster!” Terrell told Hannity, wasting no time in getting loud. “You have elevated this guy to 15 minutes of fame.”

The pair shouted over each other until eventually Innis jumped in, serving as the segment’s Calm And Conservative contrast. Deeming Carson a “hero” and credit to the human race, Innis argued we need more Ben Carsons in the political arena.

Later in the segment, when Innis went on to comment on the “litany of horrors” we’ve seen from left-wing speakers, Terrell charged him with being an “apologist” for Fox News and Hannity. To that charge, Innis countered saying he would be more than happy to appear on other networks but there’s “censorship” prevents that.

As Hannity attempted to bring in the Obamas’ Easter sermon controversy into the discussion, Terrell refused, saying he wanted to stay on the topic of Carson. Eventually, at the end of the segment, Terrell took out his earpiece, giving up altogether.

Take a look, via Fox News:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hannity-guest-goes-ballistic-rips-out-earpiece-over-charge-that-black-conservatives-have-no-freedom-of-speech/

PRESIDENT PINOCCHIO: WAPO HITS OBAMA ON FALSE BACKGROUND CHECK CLAIM

The Washington Post's Glenn Kessler has been doing notable work of late when it comes to holding Obama accountable for making false claims. For instance, President Chicken Little was recently awarded all kinds of Pinocchios while running around the country claiming a two-percent cut to a bloated federal budget would doom us.

Tuesday Kessler exposed our fibber-in-chief once again, this time for using a phony statistic that claims 40% of gun sales happen without background checks:

Two months ago, we were willing to cut the White House some slack, given the paucity of recent data. But the president’s failure to acknowledge the significant questions about these old data, or his slippery phrasing, leaves us little choice but to downgrade this claim to Three Pinocchios.

From what I've see thus far in the media, though, this particular fact check has received no traction. Which is odd, because what usually happens after a WaPo fact-check is a flurry of mainstream media activity outing the lie and the liar.

Oh, that's right, that only happens when Kessler nails a Republican. For some odd reason our unbiased, totally objective, not-at-all-liberal media finds it a much bigger deal when some Republican lawmaker wins a Pinocchio than, you know, the President of the United States.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/04/02/President-Pinocchio-Washington-Post-Hits-Obama-On-False-Background-Check-Claim

A Few more FB Post

Andrea Sucks!






 No, this no joke- ovomit has declared April to be a month to teach youths how to be fiscally responsible. What a Joke!

Insane Government Waste and Use of Taxpayer Money

The NRCC is out with its new "waste list" which totals more than $18 billion. So what exactly is the government spending your money on? How about:

-$1 million on a fruit fly sexual attractiveness study

-$1.3 million for old fashioned x-rays of prisoners. x-rays of prisoners

-$1.5 million on designing a video game controller

-$100,000 on taxpayer funded comedy group tour in India

-$547,430 on a dancing robot that connects to an iPhone

-$25,000 funding a course about "How to be happy"

-$145,000 on a sculpture garden

-$25,000 on an Alabama Watermelon Queen tour

-$697,177 on a climate change musical

-$10,000 on talking urinal cakes (just in case the boys need some company or to prevent drunk driving)

-$35 million on an old fashioned trolly car

-$150,000 for a toy exhibit

-$320,000 for robot squirrels

-$1.4 billion in improper food stamps purchases which included alcohol, condoms, junk food and diapers

You can read the entire list here.

We can pay to study the sexual attractiveness of fruit flies and robot squirrels but by all means please, lets cut the working hours for Border Patrol to save some money.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/03/28/insane-government-waste-and-use-of-taxpayer-money-n1551772

A Few More Facebook Post

I thought this was a Joke......











Good One

Some Links of Interest

ObamaCare’s “Family Glitch” Exposed

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/13208-obamacare-s-family-glitch-exposed

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-vespa/2013/03/28/cnns-piers-morgan-falsely-claims-newtown-shooter-was-nra-member

Planned Parenthood Official Endorses Right to Kill Babies Born Alive

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2013/03/29/planned-parenthood-official-endorses-right-to-kill-babies-born-alive-n1553161

CBO: Food Stamp Rolls Estimated to Hit Historic High

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danieldoherty/2013/03/28/cbo-food-stamps-rolls-estimated-to-hit-historic-high-n1551975

OBAMA TRIES TO ASSUME MORAL SUPERIORITY WHILE USING MOTHERS AS PROPS AT ANTI-GUN PRESS CONFERENCE

http://www.tpnn.com/obama-tries-to-assume-moral-superiority-while-using-mothers-as-props-at-anti-gun-press-conference/

Obama Trying To “Nationalize” Elections By Executive Order?

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/03/31/obama-trying-to-nationalize-elections-by-executive-order/

ILLEGAL Immigrants Receive $Billions Yearly via IRS Loophole INCOME TAX

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eQZoXAU7X0&feature=player_embedded

ONE OBAMACARE LAWSUIT COULD KILL OBAMACARE; WHY?

IT CONTENDS THAT THE LAW ORIGINATED IN THE SENATE AND NOT THE HOUSE. UNDER THE ORIGINATION CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION, ALL BILLS WHICH RAISE REVENUE MUST BEGIN IN THE HOUSE. 

Chief Justice made sure to define this monster as a "federal tax" instead of a mandate. So this gave those attorneys who bring this lawsuit their "Aha!" moment to file suit. Perhaps Roberts will be making another ruling on the same issue soon. (WE HOPE!)

Read more for details on Washington Times, link below:
“Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.

A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.

The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation’s attorneys had their “aha” moment.

“The court there quite explicitly says, ‘This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,’” foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the health care act. “Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.”The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss the challenge in November, arguing that the high court has considered only eight Origination Clause cases in its history and “has never invalidated an act of Congress on that basis.”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is expected to rule on the Justice Department’s motion “any day now,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Paul J. Beard.

The challenge citing the Origination Clause isn’t the only lawsuit against Obamacare, but it is the only one that has the potential to wipe out the entire act in one fell swoop. Other claims, notably the freedom-of-religion cases dealing with the birth control requirement, nibble at the fringes but would leave the law largely intact.

In their brief, attorneys for the Justice Department argue that the bill originated as House Resolution 3590, which was then called the Service Members Home Ownership Act. After passing the House, the bill was stripped in a process known as “gut and amend” and replaced entirely with the contents of what became the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

SEE RELATED: Texas leaders stand firm against Obamacare
Using H.R. 3590 as a “shell bill” may be inelegant, but it’s not unconstitutional, according to the government motion.

“This commonplace procedure satisfied the Origination Clause,” said the brief. “It makes no difference that the Senate amendments to H.R. 3590 were expansive. The Senate may amend a House bill in any way it deems advisable, even by amending it with a total substitute, without running afoul of the Origination Clause.”

The brief cites a number of cases in which courts upheld shell bills, but foundation attorneys counter that those rulings involved the Senate substitution of one revenue-raising bill for another.
“Here, by contrast, it is undisputed that H.R. 3590 was not originally a bill for raising revenue,” said the Pacific Legal Foundation lawsuit. “Unlike in the prior cases, the Senate’s gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a bill for raising revenue. The precedents the government cites are therefore inapplicable.”

The Justice Department also points out that the court has allowed revenue bills to originate in the Senate if the money raised was incidental to the bill’s mission.

The Affordable Care Act’s central purpose is to “improve the nation’s health care system,” and it fulfills that goal “through a series of interrelated provisions, many, if not most, of which have nothing to do with raising revenue,” said the government brief.
Mr. Sandefur disagrees. “What kinds of taxes are not for raising revenue?” he asked.

Legal opinion on the matter is split. Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University Law Center professor, said in an article for the Volokh Conspiracy that, “[I]f any act violates the Origination Clause, it would seem to be the Affordable Care Act.”

But Yale Law School professor Jack M. Balkin said the Obama administration has legal precedent on its side, although the lawsuit “may nevertheless become plausible if enough prominent people get behind it and vouch for it.”

“And then, perhaps, Chief Justice Roberts, given a second chance, will change his mind — again,” Mr. Balkin said in an essay for The Atlantic.

Legal scholars agree on one point: The courts haven’t seen the last of lawsuits against Obamacare.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling last June was only the end of the beginning as far as Obamacare litigation is concerned,” Cato Institute senior fellow Ilya Shapiro said at the February forum. “The more we read and the more regulations are promulgated, the more constitutional and other defects are found.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/obamacare-lawsuit-over-health-care-tax-will-test-c/?page=2#ixzz2PFgXKMvX