OBAMA CAMPAIGN TEAM ARRIVES IN ISRAEL TO DEFEAT NETANYAHU IN MARCH ELECTIONS

Obama condemns Russia for allegedly interfering in our presidential election.  Look what he did in the election in Israel in January 2015.   OBAMA CAMPAIGN TEAM ARRIVES IN ISRAEL TO DEFEAT NETANYAHU IN MARCH ELECTIONS

 

OBAMA CAMPAIGN TEAM ARRIVES IN ISRAEL TO DEFEAT NETANYAHU IN MARCH ELECTIONS

Just days after the Obama White House accused House Speaker John Boehner of “breaking protocol” by inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress, a team of up to five Obama campaign operatives has reportedly arrived in Israel to lead a campaign to defeat the Israeli Prime Minister in upcoming national elections scheduled for March 17.

The anti-Netanyahu, left wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports a group called “One Voice,” reportedly funded by American donors, is paying for the Obama campaign team. That group is reportedly being led by Obama’s 2012 field director Jeremy Bird.

As Jerusalem Post columnist and putative Knesset candidate Caroline Glick reported on her Facebook page, “Obama won’t meet Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington when he addresses the Joint Houses of Congress in March because of Netanyahu’s visit’s proximity to the Israeli elections. And Obama, of course believes in protocol and propriety which is why he won’t get involved.” And yet, Glick adds, “He’s just sending his 2012 field campaign manager to Israel to run a campaign to defeat Netanyahu.”

For all the harsh accusations of foreign interference currently being leveled against GOP Speaker John Boehner, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer, reports of Obama operatives actively working to unseat a democratically elected leader of a strong U.S. ally is hardly the news it might appear to be.

The Obama White House has aggressively worked to defeat allied leaders it has not liked and to elect or re-elect foreign leaders it does like. As the Times of Israel recently reported, the list of Obama Administration meddling in foreign elections is a long one.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, an Obama Administration ally, was hosted at the White House prior to recent German elections. Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the left wing Labor Party visited 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, not once, but twice prior to British elections. Those were won by Conservative party leader David Cameron, who himself visited Washington last week at Obama’s invitation to lobby the U.S. Congress against adopting a new sanctions measure to help confront Iran’s burgeoning nuclear program. Oddly, that’s the very issue Obama and the mainstream media now roundly condemn John Boehner for involving himself in.

U Michigan Department Chair: We Should ‘Hate Republicans’

U Michigan Department Chair: We Should ‘Hate Republicans’

A professor explains that studies show the GOP is bad.

Katherine Timpf

A University of Michigan department chairwoman has published an article titled, “It’s Okay To Hate Republicans,” which will probably make all of her conservative students feel really comfortable and totally certain that they’re being graded fairly.

“I hate Republicans,” communications department chairwoman and professor Susan J. Douglas boldly declares in the opening of the piece. “I can’t stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legions of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal ‘personhood.’”

She writes that although the fact that her “tendency is to blame the Republicans . . . may seem biased,” historical and psychological research back her up, and so it’s basically actually a fact that Republicans are bad!

Douglas said that in the 1970s she did work for a Republican, Rhode Island’s senate minority leader Fred Lippitt, but she hates them all now because Lippitt was a “brand of Republican” who no longer exists in that he was “fiscally conservative but progressive about women’s rights, racial justice and environmental preservation.”Republicans now, she writes, are focused on the “determined vilification” of others, and have “crafted a political identity that rests on a complete repudiation of the idea that the opposing party and its followers have any legitimacy at all.”

(Apparently, the irony of this accusation given the content of her own article was lost on her.)

Douglas adds that Republicans are really good at being mean because studies have proven that they usually have psychological traits such as “dogmatism, rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity,” and that  “two core dimensions of conservative thought are resistance to change and support for inequality.”

“These, in turn, are core elements of social intolerance . . . which could certainly lead to a desire to deride those not like you — whether people of color, LGBT people or Democrats.”

“So now we hate them back,” she explains. “And with good reason.”

U of M’s anti-discrimination policy forbids “creating an intimidating, hostile, offensive, or abusive environment for that individual’s employment, education, living environment, or participation in a University activity.”

It seems as though, for a student who votes Republican, knowing you had a teacher who assumed you were an intolerant bigot and blatantly advocated for hating you would likely create an “intimidating” educational environment; however, the anti-discrimination policy only protects against discrimination against someone “because of that person’s race, color, national origin, age, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, disability, religion, height, weight or veteran’s status.” (Basically anything except for political affiliation.)

Douglas declined an interview with National Review Online on Tuesday, saying she was “so sorry” but just too “buried with work and meetings today.” She assured that she really did enjoy working with Lippitt in the ’70s.

“[I] think it’s terrible we’ve come to this pass of such extreme mutual animus,” she wrote.

The university did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

Boehner’s brutal speech: “An Affront to the Rule of Law and to the Constitution Itself”

Click to Play

WASHINGTON, DC – House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) spoke on the floor today in support of the House’s efforts to stop President Obama’s unilateral actions on immigration.  During his remarks, he directly quoted each of the 22 times the president said he didn’t have the authority to take this action:

“Let me thank all my colleagues who have worked to put this bill together.  Today I rise – and the House rises – to support and defend our Constitution.

“We do not take this action lightly, but simply there is no alternative.  This is not a dispute between the parties, or even between the branches of our government.  This executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself.

“I appreciate all the efforts of those working to fix our broken immigration system, especially since I’m one of them.  But what we are dealing with is a president who has ignored the people, has ignored the Constitution, and even his own past statements.

“In fact, on at least 22 occasions, he said he did not have the authority to do what he has done.

“To think that the president of the United States studied constitutional law is one thing …. he taught it as well.  But now his actions suggest he’s forgotten what these words even mean. 

“Enough is enough.  By their votes last November, the people made clear they want more accountability from this president.  And by our votes here today, we will heed their will, and we will keep our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”

22 TIMES PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID HE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE UNILATERAL ACTION ON IMMIGRATION
Visit Speaker.gov for the full quotes.

March 31, 2008: “I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to … not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President…”

May 19, 2008: “I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States.”

May 5, 2010: “Anybody who tells you … that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn’t been paying attention to how this town works.”

July 1, 2010: “[T]here are those … who have argued passionately that we should … at least ignore the laws on the books… I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair.”

October 14, 2010: “I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there.”

October 25, 2010: “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. … I can’t just make the laws up by myself.”

March 28, 2011: “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law.”

April 20, 2011: “I can’t solve this problem by myself. …  I can’t do it by myself.”

April 29, 2011: “Some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself.  But that’s not how democracy works”

May 10, 2011: “They wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works.”

July 25, 2011: “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. … But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

September 28, 2011: “We live in a democracy.  You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”

September 20, 2012: “What I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do.”

October 16, 2012: “We’re … a nation of laws. … And I’ve done everything that I can on my own.”

January 30, 2013: “I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law.”

January 30, 2013: “I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law.”

February 14, 2013: “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States.”

July 16, 2013: “I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative.”

September 17, 2013: “My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law…”

November 25, 2013: “The easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. … That’s not our tradition.”

March 6, 2014: “And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore … any of the other laws that are on the books.”

August 6, 2014: “I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers.”

– See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/affront-rule-law-and-constitution-itself#sthash.kj2755W5.dpuf

Mike Huckabee ends talk show, weighs presidential run

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee speaks. | AP Photo
AP Photo

Mike Huckabee ends talk show, weighs presidential run

1/3/15 7:42 PM EST

Updated 1/3/15 8:39 PM EST

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee announced Saturday night that he would be ending his Fox News talk show to gauge support for a possible presidential campaign.

“There has been a great deal of speculation as to whether I would run for President,” Huckabee told his followers on Facebook. “I won’t make a decision about running until late in the spring of 2015, but the continued chatter has put Fox News into a position that is not fair to them.”

Story Continued Below

“I feel compelled to ascertain if the support exists strongly enough for another Presidential run. So as we say in television, stay tuned!” he added.

Huckabee, who ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 and hosted his show for more than six and a half years, had drawn renewed attention by criticizing former secretary of state Hillary Clinton last month after she said “smart power” also means empathizing and showing respect for enemies.

“How can we empathize with terrorists who think nothing of beheading innocent men, women and children?” Huckabee asked in a blog post on his website last month.

The 2016 race is already well underway online.

Even before Huckabee had made his announcement, Rand Paul’s PAC was firing away on the digital front. Just as the Kentucky Republican’s political arm had done when Jeb Bush signaled last month he was weighing a White House campaign, Paul’s team bought prime real estate for any Google searches using the terms “Huckabee record”, “Huckabee announcement”, “Huckabee taxes” and “Huckabee common core.”

“Less Taxes Not More,” read one ad for RandPAC. “We need leaders who will cut taxes not raise them. Join us.”

RandPAC also targeted users tweeting about Huckabee or his announcement with ads.

Huckabee’s leadership PAC, Huck PAC, took in $2.2 million in the 2014 cycle, spending approximately $2 million, with about $500,000 on hand. Huckabee’s daughter, Sarah Huckabee, also runs a super PAC called American Principles Fund. In the 2014 cycle, it raised $1.4 million, spent $1.3 million and had $60,000 on hand.

Huckabee came in a distant second to John McCain in the 2008 Republican primaries. The former pastor turned Arkansas governor started strong, winning the Iowa GOP caucus by 9 percentage points over Mitt Romney.

Three-in-five Iowa caucusgoers in 2008 were evangelical or born-again Christians, but, a week later in New Hampshire, fewer than 25 percent of GOP primary voters were evangelicals. Huckabee finished third in the Granite State, with only 11 percent of the vote.

He then captured his home state of Arkansas, along with Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Tennessee and West Virginia. Despite these victories, McCain secured the necessary number of delegates by early March with a clean sweep of contests in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont.

Even though Huckabee faded quickly in 2008, his win in the Iowa caucuses left a big mark on the electorate that votes in that contest, which is a more conservative and more evangelical group than even other segments of the GOP primary electorate elsewhere.

But his slow strip toward ultimately saying he wouldn’t run in 2012 has left many skeptical of his intentions for 2016. The former Arkansas governor appears to have profited financially from being in the national spotlight — raking in money from paid speeches, for instance, and making expansive use of chartered planes — and many believe he’s unlikely to leave aside a life of relative comfort for a long-shot campaign.

Sources say Huckabee still has paid speeches scheduled in the coming weeks. Huckabee also has a book coming out later this month, titled “God, Guns, Grits and Gravy,” and speculation about a presidential run could add to the hype as he promotes the book.

Any number of politicians have been paid contributors to Fox News, but the cable channel’s policy requires it to sever those ties if that person takes certain steps toward running for office. At times, it has ended the agreements even before the would-be candidate makes a final decision on whether to run.

Huckabee wrote on his Facebook page earlier that the announcement Saturday night would “make news for sure.”

It’s not the first time he has made an important decision public on his show, which debuted in September 2008. In May 2011, Huckabee teased a similar announcement ahead of the 2012 presidential election.

“All the factors say go, but my heart says no,” he told viewers.

 

Did you know that Obama gave illegal immigrants a civil right that you do not have?

President Obama Signs Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act

Did you know that Obama granted illegal immigrants a civil right that you do not have? 

I continually deal with the miracle of changed lives.  When gang members and drug addicts come to Christ, God forgives them, the church forgives them but the government does not.  They still have to pay for their past whenever they apply for a job, seek a student loan.

This is because of a question that is on every application.  As an adult, you must disclose that you have a criminal record.  That record follows you through life.

This affects me on a very deep level.  I know an outstanding young man, who has all of the gifts, discipline, and love for God that will make him a great leader.  He is a model father and husband.

To make matters even more dramatic, he is Latino, born in the United States to parents who went through proper channels.

But like so many who lived in poverty ravaged neighborhoods, he ended up in trouble with the law and now,  many years after he radically repented, he is cheerfully paying off a debt.   His crime record stands.

It is sad but true that criminal records need to stand in order to protect society.  For every good citizen who has truly repented there are dozens who will commit crimes again.

However, when Obama granted amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants he gave them the right not to have to report their crime, a Federal Felony, that they committed by entering the United States illegally.   This felony will not appear on any application for work or education.  They will not have a criminal record for a crime they committed.

At some point, because a natural born American has to keep his crime record, they may be turned down for a job or a loan where an illegal immigrant may not be turned down.  Simply stated, they now have an extra civil right.

We already see this preferential treatment in Obamacare where companies will get a $3,000 rebate for hiring illegals instead of American citizens.

While we are at it, it is insulting to your intelligence when amnesty advocates say “they came here to be good citizens and to escape extreme violence and poverty” .  They committed a crime to get in here and now they are magically never going to commit another crime?

If you, God forbid were unable to leave a violent neighborhood, could you be a squatter in a nicer neighborhood?  Could starving homeless Americans loot a supermarket for food and get away with it?

Oops, the answer to the second is yes, if you are part of a demonstration against racism.

How can we possibly believe that this is some grand benevolent gesture to give people jobs and a future when, Obama has already proven he is a spectacular failure at obtaining those things for Americans?

The unambiguous purpose of amnesty is to allow the Democratic Party to hold on to power.  That is why so many refer to illegals as undocumented democrats.

A new civil right, one you do not have, has been granted to those who came here in violation of our law.  You should be boiling mad, infuriated and fit to be tied…at both parties.

Americans do not trust Obama: The World is on Fire

WASHINGTON, DC – At a press briefing with Republican leaders today, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) took President Obama to task for his recent unilateral action on immigration, saying the president’s overreach has made “it harder for the American people and their elected representatives to trust his word on any issue.”  Following are Boehner’s remarks:

“The American people want both parties to focus on solutions to our still-struggling economy.  This week we’ll pass important legislation to help families with special needs and to prevent tax hikes on millions of families and small businesses.

“The president, on the other hand, has ignored the will of the American people and he’s refused to listen. … His decision to take unilateral action on immigration – action he himself said exceeded his authority – makes it harder for the American people and their elected representatives to trust his word on any issue.

“I said before Thanksgiving that Republicans would fight his unilateral actions.  We’re looking at a variety of options, both for right now and when Republicans control both Houses of the Congress next year.  And we’ll continue to discuss with our members a number of options, in terms of how we will deal with this, in consultation, again, with the members – but no decisions have been made at this point.”

– See more at: http://www.speaker.gov/video/boehner-president-s-unilateral-action-immigration-undermines-americans-trust#sthash.GC9E0IYe.dpuf

TED CRUZ: ‘The World Is On Fire’

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) attacked what he described as “the Obama-Clinton foreign policy” in a wide-ranging speech on Tuesday.

“It’s almost as if the whole world is on fire right now,” Cruz said at a Washington event hosted by Concerned Veterans for America. “Leading from behind doesn’t work.”

As an alternative, Cruz presented his own three-part plan for “reasserting American leadership in the world.” The first step, Cruz said, was making sure the US government again becomes a voice for freedom.

“We should be a clarion voice for freedom. Never underestimate the power of the bully pulpit of America,” Cruz said, citing former President Ronald Reagan’s speech urging the Soviet Union to tear down the Berlin Wall. “One of the most striking and inexplicable aspects of the last six years is the almost complete absence of American leadership speaking out for freedom.”

The second step of the Cruz foreign policy plan is presenting a clear vision for the deployment of US military force. Cruz accused Obama and Hillary Clinton — the president’s former secretary of state and likely Democratic front-runner in 2016 — of being focused on press releases, photo-ops, and “international norms” rather than national security.

“The second critical element is resolutely defending US national security. The singular failure of the Obama-Clinton foreign policy has been a failure to focus on the vital national security interests of the United States,” Cruz said. “If and when we have to [use force], it should be with a clear, stated objective up front. We should go in with overwhelming force and then we should get the heck out. It is not the job of our military to produce democratic utopias across the world.”

 Throughout the speech, Cruz took Obama to task for having a lackluster approach to a whole host of issues including; nuclear negotiations with Iran, the showdown with Russia over Ukraine, the military operations against the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), and backing democratic activists in despotic regimes.

For this third point, Cruz also critiqued Obama’s handling of his own administration. Cruz noted Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel just announced his resignation — the third such departure of Obama’s last six years in office.

“What a failure of leadership at a time when the world is on fire,” said Cruz. “It seems what the administration is looking for is a defense secretary who will follow the orders of a political White House.”

The administration’s failures, Cruz said, were starting to become comical.

“You literally cannot make this stuff up. If ‘Saturday Night Live’ were parodying a hapless, ineffective president, they couldn’t make up things up worse. Look, just a few months ago, Jimmy Carter criticized this president for being weak on foreign policy! Holy cow!” he exclaimed to laughs.

 

Senator predicts a firestorm that could lead to violence

firestorm copy

WASHINGTON — Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn warns there could be not only a political firestorm but acts of civil disobedience and even violence in reaction to President Obama’s executive order on immigration Thursday.

“The country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very serious situation,” Coburn said on Capital Download. “You’re going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy. … You could see violence.”

Coburn, 66, is a conservative Republican but one who has a personal relationship with Obama. They entered the Senate in the same class, elected in 2004, and the new senators from opposite ends of the political spectrum and their spouses immediately hit it off at an orientation dinner. Last year, the president wrote a tribute in Time magazine to Coburn as “someone who speaks his mind (and) sticks to his principles.”

“I really like the guy,” Coburn, 66, told USA TODAY’s weekly video newsmaker series Wednesday. “I thought he’s neat, and I think Michelle’s a neat lady.”

“Instead of having the rule of law handling in our country today, now we’re starting to have the rule of rulers, and that’s the total antithesis of what this country was founded on,” Coburn says. “Here’s how people think: Well, if the law doesn’t apply to the president … then why should it apply to me?”

Though he says both parties deserve some of the blame for Washington’s dysfunction, he argues that the president has the ability to chart a different path. Solid Republican control of Congress in the wake of this month’s midterm elections could make it easier to deal with an issue such as the structural problems associated with the deficit. Making the compromises necessary for that “requires divided government,” he says.

“If I were in his office, I’d say, if you want to have a successful second term, dig down, swallow your pride, get what you can get, compromise on everything you can for the best interests of the country,” he says. “Bring us back together.”