WHY THIS WILL BACKFIRE

Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler are officially delusional. And I say that as a Christian who prays for his enemies and blesses those who curse me. I have been doing a lot of praying and blessing lately…

With a grin that is both giddy and sardonic, Nancy handed the Senate a document that might as well have been a ‘how-to’ manual on the care and feeding of unicorns.

Hate is a funny thing. Consider Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner. No matter how many Acme anvils fall from the sky—no matter how many bombs blow up in his face—no matter how many times he falls to earth leaving coyote-shaped craters, he never learns, and the chase must go on.

Consider Lev Parnas—the October surprise that came in January, a witness who evokes all the sympathy and excitement that the second Darrin did on Bewitched. It was so, so typical. We’ll wait until the last minute and drop this on them! Step right up ladies and gentlemen—we finally have the smoking gun; we have the proof we yearned for. Will it finally stick this time? Will we catch our prey? (Cue the anvil).

What keeps them going? We know it can’t be facts. This is the Democrat version of the movie Cats.  Audiences kept waiting for the movie to make sense, instead it just got cringier and cringier.

Then there was the week that the impeachment investigation ended. The gleeful ‘gang of three’ skipped joyfully in the halls, only to be told Trump’s approval rating had risen. They were crestfallen, but then the opiate of hate kicked in again. And their collective delusional grins returned.

But you say, “Mario haven’t you heard the things that CNN, Rachel Maddow, NBC and a galaxy of other experts are saying? Yes. I have. But can you find a single person, one who doesn’t hate Trump, who is neutral, and who is saying that this fake news propaganda is any kind of a threat to Trump?

Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler are taken in by their own arrogance. They still believe they have something on Trump. They still believe that this impeachment hoax is going to stop him. What they have encountered instead, is a law of physics: Every action has an equal reaction. The nastier they get, the greater the blow-back is going to be.  Because they’ve got nothing.

 

Something I discovered about Satan by reading the Bible. You can tell the devil about the lake of fire. You can tell him to his face that all his schemes will ultimately fail on a grand scale, but he will never believe you. The Democrats who are in his company need to beware, because they have fallen prey to the same kind of denial.

The stage is set for another big backfire. Don’t you dare fret over reports that say, “Irreparable damage has been done to the President.” That hollow statement is right up there with, “Socialism works.”

Here is the real outcome: America will get sick of the unfairness and the nonsense. The President will not be removed from office. His base will become more hardcore. The nation will give the Left the same scolding that Ricky Gervais gave at the Golden Globes “Nobody cares what you think. You have no right to tell anyone about anything.”

Instead of strengthening their position, Nancy, Adam and Jerry are about to evoke the last emotions you ever want to get from the American voter: Pity and scorn. God bless America!

Obama is doing it out of revenge

Illegals-are-illegal copy

“To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell’s heart, I stab at thee; For hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee.”   -Captain Ahab in Moby Dick

 

Obama is doing it out of revenge.

By Mario Murillo

Listen to me America.   You must wake up!  What is a man of God if he does not warn when the Lord tells him to speak out?  tonight is the eve of a great misery.  I hate to bear evil tidings but everything within me tells me I must warn you.  Obama is obsessed with hurting us in that way that Captain Ahab was obsessed with killing the whale Moby Dick.

He knows it will bitterly divide the nation.  He knows that it will destroy an already fragile economy. He knows it will take jobs away from black people.  He knows it will overwhelm all social agencies.  He knows it will increase crime.   In short, he knows that there are few things he could ever do that would hurt the nation he swore to protect as much as what he is about to do…but he will do it anyway and make no mistake, he is doing it to hurt you and those you love.

Obama is about to bring upon us the most preventable disaster in our history.  He is not doing it for humanitarian reasons.  He is doing it completely out of spite and revenge.

adult-illegal-immigrants

He is vicious, full of rage and will take his revenge.  He will eviscerate the Constitution.  He will do whatever he can to hurt us now that we rejected him.  The midterm elections enraged him because the opposition voted against his policies and his own base, disillusioned with him, stayed home.  It was the final humiliation for an utterly narcissistic president.

So with one sweep of his pen he will take his revenge on you and your children.  He will create an illegal law to legalize 5 million illegal immigrants.  He will tell the world to just sneak in here and take our dwindling resources. He will take the money of hard working Americans and give it to 5 million people who are illegally here.

jmOneNationUnderSocialism 001

He is bringing upon you and your children the most preventable disaster in our history.  He is not doing this for humanitarian reasons.  He has proven that he does not care about illegal immigrants.  From 2008 till 2010 Democrats had control of the House, the Senate and the White House and did nothing.  They could have passed comprehensive immigration reform but they did not, he did not.

He can wait but he won’t.  He is only interested in illegal immigrants now because they can hurt those he hates.

He can give the new Congress a chance but he won’t. To the last he will rage against us, to the bitter end he will show malice and depraved indifference.

Wake up my friend!  It is time for the entire church to become one voice of righteousness in America.  Time is up, what we do we must do right now.

White House in Denial: President Obama Is Costing Democrats Control of the Senate

White House in Denial: President Obama Is Costing Democrats Control of the Senate

The administration insists that vulnerable Democrats should have supported him more. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

October 29, 2014 White House officials are preemptively spinning a midterm defeat, and they’re using their own fantasies to do it. They’re starting to blame candidates for not supporting President Obama enough. As a top White House official told The Washington Post‘s Karen Tumulty, “He doesn’t think they have any reason to run away from him. He thinks there is a strong message there.”

This is pure delusion: Obama is the main reason Republicans are well-positioned to win control of the upper chamber next Tuesday. And Democrats’ biggest strategic mistake in this election is that most candidates didn’t run away far and fast enough. Given the president’s rock-bottom approval numbers in the many Republican-friendly Senate states that Democrats needed to win—as well as the reality of a worsening political environment for the party as early as last winter—that distance was a downright necessity. But a host of Senate candidates failed to create it, and the party is likely to pay the price in Senate seats.

Some candidates bought the White House’s view that the president’s problems were temporary, or only a problem in the most conservative of states. Others naively thought they could pivot away from the president’s problems in hope of individualizing the races and focusing on their challengers’ vulnerabilities. Several understood that moving to the center could risk alienating a base that they needed to turn out, given the party’s much-vaunted Bannock Street ground game. But as the candidates win only weak support from outside the most committed Democrats, those assumptions deserve to be reevaluated. Now, more than ever, it’s clear that individual Democrats could use some clear brand separation from President Obama.

In the traditional swing states such as Colorado and New Hampshire, Sens. Mark Udall and Jeanne Shaheen didn’t think they’d have to break with Obama all that much. After all, they presumed, the Republican Party’s brand was in even worse shape than the president’s.

And in the conservative states held by Democrats, senators tried to have it both ways without telegraphing their differences starkly enough. Simply calling for unspecified fixes to a deeply unpopular health care law, for example, wasn’t sufficient to keep enough disaffected white voters on their side. And while most red-state Democrats tweaked the president for delaying construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, those in the Senate were telegraphing their impotence by not being able to persuade the president otherwise.

Benghazi Massacre Blog copy

An outright rebuke of President Obama wouldn’t have been viable in several Republican states, such as Georgia, Louisiana, and North Carolina, where high turnout among African-American voters is a necessity for Democrats to hang onto the seats. But in ruby-red states where white voters make up a sizable share of the population, Democrats should have been doing their best Joe Manchin impersonations early on.

In Kentucky, Alison Lundergan Grimes was a fresh face who wasn’t burdened by controversial votes in Congress. She benefited by running against Mitch McConnell, whose personal ratings were weak and who faced problems on his right flank, spending all spring fighting off a tea-party primary challenger. But Grimes prioritized appealing to the Democrats’ deep-pocketed donor class above winning over disaffected up-for-grabs voters in her home state. It would have been a defensible strategy, if the political environment in 2014 was more favorable for Democrats. After all, she was one of the Democrats’ most successful fundraisers, and she became a national party star overnight. But her attempts to appease both the party base and more-conservative voters in her state has become painfully awkward. On coal, an issue that’s a political no-brainer in Kentucky, Grimes spent far too much time trying to forge a middle ground between the base and her constituents. McConnell actually lost eastern Kentucky’s coal country to a wealthy Democratic businessman in 2008; that same region could comprise his margin of victory in 2014.

obama_burning_const_ft-520x311

In Arkansas, Pryor seemed content to rely on his strong family name and sharp attacks against Rep. Tom Cotton’s very conservative voting record as a substitute for actively challenging the president. Obama’s approval ratings are as poor in Arkansas as anywhere in the country. And Pryor began the race ahead, hoping to translate his personal likability into votes. But he’s been caught in his own pretzels when asked about the president’s performance on key issues, most recently fumbling a basic question on how he’d grade Obama’s handling of the Ebola crisis.

Even in bellwether Colorado, Udall’s playbook of attacking Gardner almost exclusively on abortion rights and contraception has demonstrated its limits. He boasted a bipartisan brand that he forged in his first Senate race in 2008, but he’s squandered it with a deeply negative campaign. He entered the race with the ability to make a persuasive case over his independence: He’s run to the president’s left on criticizing NSA surveillance and immigration reform. If he was more assertive on energy issues—unequivocally backing the Keystone pipeline and being more outspoken in support of fracking—he could’ve played more to the center-right voters, as well.

obama-holder-wh-photo

But Udall’s reluctance to distance himself from Obama hasn’t helped in a state where the president’s approval numbers have cratered since his last election. By focusing on wedge issues, the freshman senator has cocooned himself as the candidate of the liberal base, and given himself little credibility to distance himself from the president. When Udall said that the last person the White House “want[s] to see coming is me” at a September debate, he was received with laughter. But if he had played his cards differently, it didn’t have to be that way.

To be sure, in a nationalized election, even those who break from an unpopular president often fall victim to his political problems. The biggest victims in the 2010 wave election were House Democrats in conservative districts, most of whom voted against the president’s health care law. Their opposition did little to help them. But in Senate races, where candidates’ personal brands play a bigger role, there’s more opportunity to create space. Manchin, after all, comfortably prevailed in West Virginia in 2010 after (literally) shooting the president’s cap-and-trade legislation. Rep. John Barrow of Georgia may survive yet another tough election, thanks to a savvy ad campaign branding himself as a uniquely conservative Democrat. But few of the red-state Democrats on the ballot this year have even attempted the Manchin/Barrow approach. (Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska comes closest, and he looks to be in the best shape of the bunch.)

Obamacare poison

This year’s midterms are shaping up to be a referendum on President Obama’s management, giving anxious voters an opportunity to express their frustration about everything from the president’s handling of health care, growing terrorism threats, an Ebola scare, and a broken immigration system, among others. It’s far from an election about nothing. Democrats should have recognized that the president was falling out of favor with the public and inoculated themselves a long time ago. Instead, many bought the White House’s spin, and are at risk of going down with a sinking ship.

Senate vote a stinging defeat for Obama

March 05, 2014, 08:17 pm

Senate vote a stinging defeat for Obama

By Alexander Bolton and Ramsey Cox

Getty Images

The Senate rejected President Obama’s nominee to lead the Justice Department’s civil rights division on Wednesday in a stunning 47-52 vote in which seven Democrats abandoned their leadership.

The vote was all the more remarkable for the five Democrats in tough reelection races this year who voted in vain to move Debo Adegbile’s nomination forward.

mumia

The vote was a stinging defeat for the White House that showed President Obama is politically out of step with some centrist Democrats heading into the midterm elections.

Obama labeled the vote a “travesty” based on “wildly unfair” character attacks.

“Mr. Adegbile’s qualifications are impeccable. He represents the best of the legal profession, with wide-ranging experience, and the deep respect of those with whom he has worked,” Obama said. “As a lawyer, Mr. Adegbile has played by the rules. And now, Washington politics have used the rules against him.”

blog insert Jan 25

Adegbile was the director of litigation for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund when it worked to commute Abu-Jamal’s death sentence. Faulkner’s widow, the Fraternal Order of Police and Republicans argued this should disqualify him from the Justice job, while supporters warned a rejection would set the ominous precedent of holding a lawyer accountable for a client’s behavior.

Democratic Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), John Walsh (Mont.), Chris Coons (Del.) and Bob Casey Jr. (Pa.) voted to block Adegbile, while several Democrats in tough reelection races, including Sens. Kay Hagan (N.C.), Mary Landrieu (La.) and Mark Begich (Alaska), voted to advance him.

Every Republican voted against the nomination, forcing Reid to secure the support of at least 50 members of his 55-person caucus. Vice President Biden presided over the vote and would have been available to break a tie, but his vote was not needed.

It was the first time a nomination has gone down since Democrats changed the Senate’s filibuster rules to require simple majority votes on many procedural motions.

The Republican National Committee immediately pounced, highlighting the votes by Hagan, Landrieu and Begich.

John Boehner, Tom Graves

“Vulnerable Democrats running in 2014 just voted to confirm a radical nominee whose positions on civil rights, religious liberty, voting rights and the second amendment are far outside the mainstream,” RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) insisted the vote was not a sign that Obama is losing support among Senate Democrats.

“The vast majority of Democrats voted to confirm him so I don’t think it says anything about the president,” said Reid, who switched his vote from “yes” to “no” in a procedural move that allows him to bring the nomination up again for a future vote.

Reid argued that Adegbile was being smeared by charges of guilt by association. The Democratic leader noted that as a young lawyer, he himself represented unsavory characters pro bono.

Democratic leaders immediately faced questions about whether it was wise to schedule a vote without knowing for certain the nominee could attract enough support.

“These 2014 Democrats can’t be happy with their leadership over the Adegbile vote. They all walked the plank while others got to vote ‘no,’ ” said a Senate GOP leadership aide.

A senior Democratic leadership aide said the White House and Adegbile were informed that he might fall short of the 50 votes needed to advance his nomination but both wanted to roll the dice and proceed.

The aide said Reid had little choice about whether to schedule the vote or not, arguing that floor action was inevitable once Obama made the pick because the assistant attorney general in charge of Justice’s civil rights division is such a high-profile position.

“There’s no scenario in which we would not come up for a vote,” said the aide. “That decision was made when he was nominated.

“We don’t avoid tough votes,” the aide added.

Abu-Jamal has long been a cause célèbre in leftist political circles who argue his case exposed racism in the criminal justice system — he even has a street named after him in Paris. But Republicans say he was an unrepentant cop killer and noted there was overwhelming evidence he shot and killed Faulkner at point-blank range.

harry

GOP senators claimed Adegbile’s record of “left-wing advocacy” would further politicize the Justice Department.

The choice of Adegbile split civil rights and law enforcement groups and put Democrats in an awkward position of having to pick a side.

“It was a tough one because you had the NAACP on one side and police officers on the other so people voted the best they could given the circumstances,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who voted for Adegbile.

The votes by Casey and Coons were notable but not entirely surprising given the attention Abu-Jamal’s conviction received in that are of the country.

Casey said the officer’s “vicious murder” more than 30 years ago has “left open wounds” for Philadelphia.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Adegbile’s nomination was a “thumb in the eye of our law enforcement officers.”

“The nominee inserted his office in an effort to turn reality on its head, impugn honorable and selfless law enforcement officers, and glorify an unrepentant cop killer,” McConnell said in a statement. “This is not required by our legal system. On the contrary, it is noxious to it.”

— This story was posted at 12:27 p.m. and updated at 8:17 p.m. 

Court rules: President Obama exceeded his power when he bypassed the Senate.

Second court invalidates Obama appointments to labor board

Published May 16, 2013

FoxNews.com

  • blog insert Jan 25
A national labor board which has long been accused of making union-friendly decisions was dealt another blow Thursday, after a second federal appeals court found President Obama exceeded his power when he bypassed the Senate to appoint its members.The ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia once again threatened to upend the National Labor Relations Board’s decisions. And it has the potential to stall the board entirely, as well as challenge other federal agencies that have similar appointees.For now, the Obama administration has tried to disregard the court decisions — it has already appealed a similar ruling, from a Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., to the Supreme Court.In the 2-1 decision from the Philadelphia court, judges said Obama had no constitutional authority to install attorney Craig Becker to the labor board in 2010 while the Senate was adjourned for two weeks.

This is what’s known as a recess appointment. But the court said that under the Constitution recess appointments can be made only between sessions of the Senate, not any time the Senate is away on a break.

“If the Senate refused to confirm a president’s nominees, then the president could circumvent the Senate’s constitutional role simply by waiting until senators go home for the evening,” Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote in a 102-page decision.

The administration argues that such an interpretation would invalidate hundreds of recess appointments made by presidents over more than 100 years.

But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, emboldened by the decision, said Thursday that the ruling challenges Obama’s “unprecedented power grab.

“It’s time for the unlawfully appointed nominees to step down,” he said.

Both rulings have threatened to throw the labor board, the Consumer Financial Protection Board and other federal agencies with recess appointees into chaos. If they stand, hundreds of decisions by these agencies could be thrown out.

Obama has made 32 recess appointments during his presidency, nearly all of which would be considered invalid under the interpretation of these courts. The rulings could also threaten the recess appointments of previous presidents. President George W. Bush made 141 such appointments in eight years.

The ruling, incidentally, came as a Senate panel considered a slate of five nominees for full terms on the labor board. Senate Republicans said Thursday they would oppose two of the nominees — Sharon Block and Richard Griffin — because they currently sit on the board as recess appointments.

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, senior Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, said he would not consider Block and Griffin because they refused to step down from the board after the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that they were unconstitutionally appointed. Block and Griffin said they wanted to abide by their oath to serve their country and argued that appeals courts have reached different conclusions about recess powers.

Democrats on the panel accused Republicans of obstructionism because the GOP and its allies in the business community have been unhappy with some of the union-friendly decisions issued by the board during Obama’s administration. Unions warn that unless the nominees are confirmed soon, the board will be unable to function. It only has three members now, and the term of board chairman Mark Pearce expires in August.

A lengthy dissent came from Judge Joseph Greenaway Jr., who was appointed by Obama and joined the court in 2010. Greenaway said that under the majority’s decision, the recess appointment power “is essentially neutered and the president’s ability to make recess appointments would be eviscerated.”

The case was brought by New Vista, a New Jersey nursing and rehabilitative care center that argued its nurses were supervisors who were not allowed to form a union. The labor board ruled in favor of the union and New Vista appealed. The company argued that the board did not have enough validly appointed members to reach a decision because Becker was not a valid appointee.

The labor board has five seats and needs at least three sitting members to conduct business. At the time of the New Vista ruling, it had the minimum of three, but one member was Becker, the recess appointee.

Becker is no longer on the NLRB, but the current board also has only three members, two of whom are Obama recess appointees. More than a hundred companies have appealed NLRB decisions this year arguing that the board does not have enough validly appointed members to conduct business.

Obama’s Gangster Government Operates Above the Law

obama_angry_2012_8_6

Obama’s Gangster Government Operates Above the Law

By Michael Barone – February 14, 2013

Presidents’ State of the Union addresses are delivered in the chamber of the House of Representatives in the Capitol. The classical majesty of this building where laws are made symbolizes the idea that we live under the rule of law.

Unfortunately, the 44th president is running an administration that too often seems to ignore the rule of law.

“We can’t wait,” Barack Obama took to saying after the Republicans captured a majority in the House and refused to pass laws he wanted. He would act to get what he wanted regardless of law.

One example: his recess appointments in January 2012 of three members of the National Labor Relations Board and the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled unanimously that the NLRB recess appointments were unconstitutional.

The decision, written by Judge David Sentelle, noted that the Constitution speaks of “the recess,” not “a recess,” and reasoned that it could only be referring to the recess between annual sessions of Congress.

Obama, like many presidents before him, interpreted the phrase as referring to any recess during which Congress is not in session. But he went one step further.

When Harry Reid became Senate majority leader in 2007, he started holding pro forma meetings of the Senate every three days and stating that the Senate was not in recess. George W. Bush, who had made recess appointments before, stopped doing so.

Bush took the view that, since the Constitution says that each branch of Congress makes its own rules, the Senate was in session if the Senate said so. Obama took the view that he would decide whether the Senate was in session. Who cares what the Constitution says?

As Sentelle pointed out, Obama’s view would entitle the president to make a recess appointment any time the Senate broke for lunch. “This cannot be the law,” the judge wrote.

Critics of his decision argue that under it the recess appointment power would be vanishingly small. But under Obama’s view, the Senate’s power to advise and consent could effectively vanish.

The Framers contemplated that the Congress would take long recesses (as for many years it did) and that it could take months for senators to return to Washington to act on appointments.

It’s plausible that the Framers would have considered recess appointments unnecessary in an era of jet travel. It’s not plausible that they would have approved of getting rid of the Senate’s power to vote on appointments altogether.

Meanwhile, decisions of the NLRB and the CFPB are in legal limbo, pending a Supreme Court decision. Hundreds of thousands of people and are affected and millions of dollars are at stake. There is a price for not observing the rule of law.

There are other examples. For several years, the Obama administration has refused to obey a law requiring the president’s budget to be submitted on a certain date. As Budget Director, Treasury nominee Jack Lew refused to obey the law requiring him to issue a report in response to the trustees’ report on Medicare.

During the 2012 campaign, the Pentagon told defense contractors not to inform employees that they may be laid off if the sequester took effect as required by the WARN Act.

They were even told that the government would pay any fines for not complying. What law authorizes that?

Similarly, Health and Human Services has stated that the federal government can fund health insurance exchanges run by the feds for states that refuse to create their own exchanges. But nowhere does the Democrats’ hastily crafted Obamacare legislation say that.

In spring 2009, we got our first glimmers of this modus operandi. In arranging the Chrysler bankruptcy, administration officials brushed aside the rights of secured creditors in order to pay off the United Auto Workers.

University of Pennsylvania law professor David Skeel pointed out that this violated the standard rules of bankruptcy law established, interestingly, during the New Deal.

“We have just seen an episode of gangster government,” I wrote at the time. “It is likely to be a continuing series.”

It looks like that’s one prediction I got right. This president, like all his predecessors since Woodrow Wilson started delivering these speeches in person, looks magnificent in the temple where laws are made. But he doesn’t seem to consider himself bound by them.

Mario’s note:

I believe that gangster government can be stopped. I don’t believe we are nearly as liberal as they claim.  Has America truly become left wing or is it an Obama/media/fraud driven mirage? I am skeptical because many of the sources reporting this leftist transformation are also the ones who crusaded for these changes. And as I said in an earlier blog, there were many things about election night that did not pass the smell test.

Laugh at me if you want but the real force behind all of this is “OUR ANCIENT FOE” as Martin Luther called him.  Satan hates American Exceptionalism because of its unmatched record of sending the Gospel to the world and for protecting Israel.  Satan’s agenda for the world requires the removal of the American firewall.

No matter how you wish to spin it, the “New America” under Obama will not preach the Gospel to the World the way she once did and she is stepping away from Israel. For Lucifer it is Mission accomplished.

It is hard for me to believe that a majority of our youth were that bamboozled.   What the giddy liberal youth who were fooled do not get is that by voting against the things that made our nation great they are making bankruptcy  inevitable.  They literally voted against their own future.

The point is that we have suffered far more than a political loss; we have suffered a supernatural attack.  I am deriving a strange hope from the ashes of that fact.  Since it was a supernatural attack, it will mean that God must bring us a supernatural counter attack.

Hear me when I say this:  There are millions of Christians praying for revival.  God will hear them.