Site Content

Impeachable Offenses, Impeach 44 

In the wake of Donald Trump’s stunning White House victory, radio host Rush Limbaugh wasted no time attacking President Obama and Democrat policies Tuesday, calling Trump’s win “a total repudiation” of Barack Obama’s presidency.  “It was a total repudiation of the Obama presidency and every aspect of it. It was a total repudiation of the Democrat Party by the people I always describe as those who make this country work,” Limbaugh said during his post-election analysis Wednesday. “It’s a full repudiation of Obamacare(DemocrapCare) . It’s a full repudiation of OWEbama economics.”

1) Nearly Doubling The National Debt: Let’s see, what was it that Barack Obama said about our debt back in 2008 when he was trying to convince Americans to vote him into office?  2) Unleashing The Genie From The Nuclear Weapons Bottle In The Middle East: 3) Facilitating Illegal Immigration: 4) Encouraging Racial Polarization: 5) Losing A War We Had Already Won In Iraq: 

9) Obama committed numerous impeachable acts. In 2014, Andrew C. McCarthy, former Assistant US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, laid out 7 impeachable crimes committed by Obama, some of which I listed above. They were:

A- The President’s Willful Refusal to Execute the Laws Faithfully and Usurpation of the Legislative Authority of Congress.

B- Usurping the Constitutional Authority and Prerogatives of Congress.

C- Dereliction of duty as Commander-in-Chief.

D- Fraud perpetrated against the American people.

E- Obama’s illegal immigration policies.

F- Justice Department’s alleged failure to execute the laws faithfully.

G- Undermining the constitutional rights of the American people.

I’m sure that over the course of the next couple of decades, there will be volumes written about how Barack Obama was by far the worst president in American history, but I don’t have the time or space to list them all here.

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: It’s a good thing the left(Democraps) loves the poor---they’ve made so many of them. The left often invokes the name of the poor. They claim to do so much of what they do to help the poor. But it appears they just want their votes. Leftist policies to help the poor have been routinely shown to fail the poor because they worsen the families of the poor. And the family, by God’s design, has been repeatedly been shown to be the key to upward mobility.

Obama’s magic pen was busy in his last days signing pardons and granting clemency to drug dealers, terrorists, and traitors alike. If you destroyed lives, Barack Obama wanted to set you free. Setting aside the idea of drug dealers, it’s the release of traitor Bradley Manning and terrorist Oscar Lopez Rivera with which I have a problem.   Former President Bill Clinton sold a pardon to fugitive tax cheat Marc Rich, who’d fled the country rather than face justice. 

As with Obama, Clinton and his party never faced voters’ judgment of their actions because they were taken after the election. That is why there should be a change in the process, not the power, when it comes to the president’s ability to pardon and free prisoners.  The Constitution should be amended to limit the window of time in which a president can exercise this power.  Should a president win a second term, this power is restored immediately. If they should lose, it shall not return until their successor assumes office.”

Owebenedict.  On Dec. 17, 2014– exactly 48 hours after Obama announced his new Cuba policy, convicted Communist murderer/spy Gerardo Hernandez was released and flown first-class to Cuba.  For months prior to the Obama-Castro deal that released the Communist murderer, the families of the Americans he murdered were repeatedly assured by Obama’s State Department. that no such shameful  deal would ever take place.Often they made this promise face to face with the grieving families, as documented in this video where Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen confronts Obama’s State Department. with their bald-faced lies and relentless treachery against U.S. citizens. Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony has got nothing on this. 

(Owebenedict & democrap’s so smart diplomacy, meanwhile China develops more dangerous weapons) In what defense officials say represents a dramatic shift in Beijing's nuclear strategy at a time of growing tensions with the United States, China tested a new version of a long-range missile with 10 warheads, The Washington Free Beacon reported on Tuesday.   The test of the DF-5C missile is significant, because it demonstrates that China is boosting the number of warheads in its arsenal and could alter the strategic balance, especially as it strives for a second-strike capability.  Two officials familiar with reports of the missile test said it was carried out last month and was monitored closely by U.S. intelligence agencies.


Site Content

Additional Information 

Tell Congress: IMPEACH Obama!

Fact: The Obama administration has withheld plenty of materials requested in House Oversight Committee subpoenas regarding, for instance, the IRS scandal, the Benghazi scandal and the ObamaCare debacle.  Has Obama been "making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States"? Well, if you liked your health plan were you able to keep it?  Has Obama caused "income tax investigations to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner"? Ask the Tea Party groups seeking the tax-exempt status that were harassed by the IRS during the 2012 presidential campaign, and are still being persecuted.  Has the federal government conducted "electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office"?  Only under Obama has the U.S. government conducted bulk collection of law-abiding Americans' communications records, spurring even liberal Democrats to join with Republicans on comprehensive legislation to stop the practice.

All of the above quotes are excerpted from the three articles of impeachment that were hanging over Richard Nixon's head when he resigned from office in 1974.  Now, how high was the impeachment bar for President George W. Bush?  On June 11, 2008, with Democratic nominee Obama looking well on his way to Pennsylvania Avenue, the Democratic-controlled House voted 251 to 166 to send no fewer than 35 articles of impeachment — 167 pages — to the House Judiciary Committee for consideration.  Not a single Democrat voted against the measure, and 24 Republicans, including some as prominent as Ron Paul of Texas and Peter King of New York, voted for it.  Here are some of the charges made to remove from office the last Republican president, followed by a reminder of their familiar ring in the Obama era:

• "Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign" — ObamaCare? Benghazi?

• "Misleading Congress and the American People" — ObamaCare? Benghazi?  Syria?

• "Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars" — Trillion-dollar stimulus? ObamaCare?

• "Detaining Indefinitely and Without Charge Persons, Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives" — Is Gitmo still open?

• "Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran" — Appeasing Iran's terrorist government?

• "Creating Secret Laws" — Clinton-appointed federal Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle ruling in December that the Obama administration is engaging "in what is in effect governance by 'secret law'"?

• "Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment" — Judge John D. Bates, then chief FISA court judge, ruling in 2011 that NSA bulk email collection violates the Fourth Amendment?

• "Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens" — Obama forcing Verizon to turn over customers' call records?

• "Failing to Comply With Congressional Subpoenas" — Obama's stonewalling the House Oversight Committee's subpoenas on virtually everything?

• "Tampering With Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice" — IRS targeting of Tea Party? Attorney General Eric Holder dropping Black Panther voter intimidation?

• "Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare" — the House on Friday passing a measure to spare doctors from ObamaCare's looming Medicare pay cuts?

• "Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the U.S." — Obama routinely failing to attend intelligence briefings? 

On Monday, a Center for Immigration Studies report found that in 2013 the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, or ICE, released violent criminals, including murderers, rapists, kidnappers and drug dealers.

The offenders were among the 36,007 criminal illegal aliens released last year who committed 87,818 crimes, including 15,635 for driving while intoxicated.  Get “Impeachable Offenses: The Case to Remove Barack Obama from Office,” autographed, at WND’s Superstore, at a special price just today.  The statistics shows ICE released illegals jailed for 9,187 dangerous drug infractions, 426 sexual assault convictions, 303 kidnapping convictions, 193 homicide convictions, 1,317 domestic violence convictions and 1,075 aggravated assault convictions.  Last year, it was widely reported ICE, a section of the Department of Homeland Security, freed from prison 622 criminal immigrants, including 32 with multiple felony convictions.

The Obama administration initially blamed the controversial move on the budget sequester cuts.  However, the releases were just the tip of the iceberg, documented Klein and Elliott in “Impeachable Offenses,” which was published last August.

The authors cited ICE documents that state more than 8,000 criminal illegal aliens were released between fiscal years 2009 and May 2011 alone.  A full chapter in the book documents other ways Obama circumvented Congress to enact immigration reform, possibly violating the U.S. Constitution and committing potentially impeachable acts. 

I have prepared these updated formal Articles of Impeachment as a Constitutional lawyer. They are in proper legal form and all allegations are provable. They will be sent to Congress.

Michael Connelly


Site Content

Impeach 44


Sign the Petition to Impeach Him Now! 

a new poll indicated nearly half of Americans believe Obama has “gone too far” in expanding his power, and one-third of all voters believe he “should be impeached and removed from office.”


Site Content

Impeach 44!

a stunning new poll shows that President Obama has passed George W. Bush in unpopularity, despite the liberal Democrap media’s continued adoration of the 44th president.   According to The Washington Examiner: Angry and frustrated voters are planning to use the midterm elections in one month to tell President Obama they oppose his agenda, the highest “no vote” percentage in the last 16 years measured by Gallup. 

Jefferson’s words understandably resonate with patriotic Americans disgruntled by Obama’s repeated and tyrannical derelictions and abuses of power  The language of the American Declaration of Independence marks this as the point at which the people’s right to resist tyranny becomes a natural obligation. It was the standard the founders of the United States articulated and upheld when they revolted against the tyranny initiated by certain enactments of King George III, which they enumerated in the Declaration.  The impeachment provisions of the U.S. Constitution give people the means and opportunity to substantiate the morally reasonable basis for their stand in defense of liberty.  Clearly, therefore, even if a stubbornly tyrannical Senate minority prevents conviction, as a matter of practical fact the process of impeachment makes an indispensable contribution to the moral cause of liberty. In light of this, have you joined the Pledge to Impeach mobilization? If so, are you doing everything you can to encourage others you can influence to do likewise? In these last weeks before the November elections, the duty involved grows more imperative with every passing day. .

Site Content

Additional Information 

On Saturday, the South Dakota Republican Party passed a resolution to impeach Obama at their convention.  Delegates voted 191-176 in favor of the resolution, which states that the President has, “violated his oath of office in numerous ways”. That is almost an understatement at this point.  The resolution states three clear instances which really have South Dakota Republicans ticked off; namely, the release of five high-ranking Taliban terrorists in exchange for the traitor Bowe Berghdal, the ‘if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance’ lie of the century, and recent EPA regulations on power plants.  (Read More: Petition To Impeach Obama For “Aiding and Abetting the Enemy” Taking Off 

Sign the Petition to Impeach Him Now! 

a new poll indicated nearly half of Americans believe Obama has “gone too far” in expanding his power, and one-third of all voters believe he “should be impeached and removed from office.” 

Only two U.S. presidents, Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998, were impeached by the House. Both were acquitted in the Senate, where a two-thirds vote is necessary to convict and remove a president from office. The Senate vote on Johnson was one vote short of conviction. The poll showed that nearly four out of five Americans, 79 percent, feel that impeachment should only occur if there is evidence that the president has committed a serious crime such as treason and bribery.
But nearly one in five Americans, 18 percent, think a president should be impeached to "express dissatisfaction" with his policies.

Site Content

Additional Information

The Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama


In the nation's history, there is simply no precedent for an American president so wantonly ignoring federal law.

January 28, 2014


U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz

From The Wall Street Journal:

Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the president's persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat. On Monday, Mr. Obama acted unilaterally to raise the minimum wage paid by federal contracts, the first of many executive actions the White House promised would be a theme of his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

The president's taste for unilateral action to circumvent Congress should concern every citizen, regardless of party or ideology. The great 18th-century political philosopher Montesquieu observed: "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates." America's Founding Fathers took this warning to heart, and we should too.

Rule of law doesn't simply mean that society has laws; dictatorships are often characterized by an abundance of laws. Rather, rule of law means that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men. That no one—and especially not the president—is above the law. For that reason, the U.S. Constitution imposes on every president the express duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

Yet rather than honor this duty, President Obama has openly defied it by repeatedly suspending, delaying and waiving portions of the laws he is charged to enforce. When Mr. Obama disagreed with federal immigration laws, he instructed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the laws. He did the same thing with federal welfare law, drug laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Read more

Site Content

Additional Information 

Frank de Varona, a journalist, historian, author of 21 books and the only Hispanic in the U.S. who has written four books on Barack Obama, warned the president was attempting to remake America into something akin to Third World countries.

De Varona has personal experience with police states and dictatorships. At age 17, he participated in the Bay of Pigs invasion in a failed attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro and eradicate communism. Following the failed invasion he served 30 years in a Cuban prison.  “We’re very close to being a police state,” he said. “He [Obama] is a communist as well as a closet Muslim.”

“He has made us a superpower in retreat. A superpower has to be respected by our allies and feared by our enemies. We are neither, unfortunately.”  “We moved here because America still is the best country in the world. We didn’t come here looking for socialism. We don’t want to find another Hugo Chavez here. That’s the reason we escaped and moved from our countries. It’s up to you to make sure they know that we are Christians and conservatives.”  “If they don’t hear the news from you they will never know what is going on in the country. They need to hear from you what the tea party is all about.”

Site Content

Additional Information 

Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states, “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

This powerful legislative check on executive and judicial wrongdoing is reserved for the most egregious offenses against the U.S. Constitution and the republic.

During the debates of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, James Madison explained the requirement for impeachment: “[S]ome provision should be made for defending the community against the incapacity, negligence, or perfidy of the chief magistrate. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers.”

In the Federalist Papers (No. 65), Alexander Hamilton wrote that a president should be impeached for “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself.”

WND assembled a bipartisan panel of top constitutional experts to evaluate 12 popular arguments for impeaching Obama.

You asked for it! Sign the petition urging Congress to impeach President Barack Obama. 

Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’, Illegally conducting war against Libya, Benghazi-gate, Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act  etc… 

Site Content

Additional Information

In October 2008, after Russia's invasion of neighboring Georgia brought foreign policy back to the forefront of a heated campaign, Palin told an audience in Nevada:  "After the Russian army invaded the nation of Georgia, Sen. Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next." What she could see and what President Obama to this day can't are the consequences of appeasement and that the Cold War and all contests between free men and tyrants are not misunderstandings that can be dealt with by hitting a "reset" button, but are necessary resistance by free men to tyrants who would snuff all freedom out.  Palin foresaw a weak president who would bow to world leaders as he was apologizing to them for American excess. President Obama would go on to cave to Russian pressure and betray our NATO allies on missile defense, promising Russia's leaders he would have more "flexibility" to bend to their will after his reelection.  We can't party like it's 1773."  Leftist know-it-alls and mainstream media talking heads insisted that 1776 was the correct year, when in fact Palin was right: The Boston Tea Party she referred to — a protest of British oppressive taxation that led to the creation of the grass-roots namesake movement — happened on Dec. 16, 1773.  As our own Andrew Malcolm pointed out in a June 2011 piece in the Los Angeles Times, Palin was also right when she said Paul Revere, the famous midnight rider, also warned the British that the Americans were coming.  "Less known, obviously," Malcolm wrote, "is the rest of the evening's events in which Revere was captured by said redcoats and did indeed defiantly warn them of the awakened militia awaiting their arrival ahead and of the American Revolution's inevitable victory."  Now it's the Russians that are coming, seeking bases around the world while filling the vacuum President Obama has created. As President Ronald Reagan might say, once again there's a bear in the woods.  Was Sarah Palin right on both Ukraine and President Obama? You betcha. 

Site Content

Additional Information 

As he has several times since the crisis began, Obama, the former community organizer, telephoned President Vladimir Putin, the former KGB colonel. Obama reminded the Russian he'd broken international law.  As if such pathetic plaints could move a single hair on the heads of Putin, Josef Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Bashir al-Assad or any other villain on the world stage.  Obama naively views the world as he would like it to be, responsive to his words, wishes and pieces of paper. Not as it really is, a cold, calculating place responsive to three forces--power, money and those with the nerve to use them.  Spawned in the dark, corrupt world of Chicago politics and intimately familiar with his own orchestrated public lying, Obama's surprise at this international conduct would be laughable, had enough gullible, inattentive Americans not elected him--twice. Remember in the final presidential debate of 2012 when the smug incumbent reminded Mitt Romney the Cold War was over?  “A few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia. Not al Qaeda. You said Russia. The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”   (Scroll down for that video clip. Full video of that Oct. 22 debate is here, via C-SPAN. The Obama remark comes shortly after the nine-minute mark.)  But here's a serious problem: Appearances do matter in diplomacy. In 2008 Obama didn't interrupt his vacation for days to denounce Russia's partial takeover of Georgia. Upon taking office, Obama reversed President Bush's diplomatic punishments. Obama was also late denouncing Iran's deadly crushing of its green revolution.  As protests and tensions mounted in Ukraine and Obama blabbed about consequences, what did his administration do? It announced profound defense cuts, chopping the U.S. Army to pre-World War II levels, the Navy to World War I levels and grounding the A-10, the combat aircraft specifically designed to kill Russian tanks.  As Crimea's polls opened for Russia's phony referendum, what did Obama discuss in his weekly remarks? New regulations on overtime pay. As Russian troops tightened their armored grip on Crimea, what did Obama do? Did he send a pair of U.S. ships into the Black Sea to show a presence and unity with Ukraine? Did he impose economic sanctions? Did he cancel American participation in this summer's G-8 summit in Sochi?  No, he took a long golfing weekend in Florida. 

Site Content

Additional Information 

There's the illegal-alien aunt ... the supposed-to-be-deported uncle with a DUI ... the brother living in poverty in a slum ... the brother who's best chums with the Muslim Brotherhood ... Now THIS relative has surfaced, and he's saying things the White House does not want to hear.   Dr. Milton Wolf has a problem with a member of his family: He says his second cousin, Barack Obama, may just be “the worst president in history.”  Now the doctor is on a mission to win a seat in the U.S. Senate and undo some of the damage caused by his kin.  His goal? Repeal Obama’s signature legislation, Obamacare, and replace it with a system based on conservative principles.  Wolf, 42, is a diagnostic radiologist who runs to the right of incumbent Republican Sen. Pat Roberts in the Kansas GOP primary. He admits he didn’t know he was related to Obama until 2008 and didn’t meet him until they were health-care policy adversaries in 2010. Wolf said being related to a president would be a great experience if Obama weren’t so far left in his ideology.  “Of course, who wouldn’t be honored to have a president in your family and sit on the front row of history? We’re related,” he said. “Of course, I remind people you cannot choose your family. Barack Obama is the worst president in our lifetimes, if not in our history. He has been a disaster. It’s nothing personal, but his policies have been disastrous in America.  “It’s mostly because he either doesn’t understand or has forgotten what America is all about. The American idea itself is about individual liberty, limited government and free-market values,” he said. “When we have embraced those, we have become the most prosperous and powerful nation in history. And when we abandon those, we suffer. We have suffered under Barack Obama.”

Site Content

Additional Information 

During the 1920s, U.S. homeownership increased more than during the previous 30 years. After the Great Depression, housing took off again. The homeownership rate increased from 44% in 1940 to 62% in 1960.  Fannie Mae and the Federal Housing Authority existed during this second boom, as did the Department of Veterans Affairs for part of that period.  But they were mere bit players. As late as 1968, the year that Fannie officially became a GSE, all government-backed mortgages never accounted for more than 6% of the market in any year. At those levels, it's hard to say the market wouldn't have functioned without government backing.  Government backing in general, and Fannie and Freddie in particular, continued playing a relatively minor role in the market until the S&Ls crashed in the 1990s. Within a fairly short period of time, the GSEs — with their line of credit at the U.S. Treasury (among other advantages) — began to dominate the market.  For over two decades, federal policies have encouraged consumers to take on more and more housing debt — and induced private lenders to give it to them by reducing their risk of loss.  The GSEs and their beneficiaries tout these policies as encouraging home ownership for everyone, but all the GSE system actually encourages is mortgage ownership. That is, it encourages borrowing large sums of money  So the government's solution was to socialize the costs of that risk. But that doesn't make the risk disappear; it merely shifts it to taxpayers. That's the core of the GSE model and it's what brought the system down.  Rather than let banks hold loans for 30 years, Fannie Mae bought the banks' mortgages, then packaged them into securities. These were then sold on Wall Street, under the pretense that this was getting investors to share in the risk.  Taxpayers are the ultimate "fall guys" under this system.  But the scheme has bred three large interest groups who, predictably, are lobbying hard to revive some form of the GSE system.  Banks loved the GSE model because they could earn fees for processing mortgages and then offload the risk. Realtors liked the process because it made banks want to sell more mortgages. (Collecting more fees with virtually no risk is a pretty good business model.)  And then there's Wall Street. Investment bankers and traders eagerly participated because the GSE system let them buy and sell billions in securities that featured the same government backing as U.S. Treasuries but with higher payoffs.  All of these groups still want their government guarantees, so they promote the notion that these pledges are necessary for widespread homeownership.  After the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. homeownership rate settled at 65%. This is essentially the same as the rate was in the mid-1990s — before the great GSE expansion.  It's also basically the same as in 1968, when Fannie Mae became a GSE.  But while ownership rates didn't increase, mortgage debt did. Adjusted for inflation, mortgage debt increased nearly sixfold, from about $1.8 trillion in 1968 to roughly $10 trillion in 2013.  Compare those figures to the post-World War II era.  From 1950 to 1968, the homeownership rate climbed from 55% to 64%, yet debt on the same class of single-family homes increased just fourfold. During that period, the U.S. government — through all of its agencies — never backed more than 6% of all mortgages in any year, yet the homeownership rate soared while the rate of the debt increase was only about two-thirds that of the GSE period.

Site Content

Additional Information 

Exposing Deceit: A Greenpeace co-founder testified in Congress on Tuesday about global warming. What he said is hardly what anyone would expect.  Patrick Moore came off as a raving denier.  "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years," said Moore, who was testifying before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee's Subcommittee on Oversight.  "If there were such a proof, it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists."  Moore is somewhat famous for leaving Greenpeace, a large environmentalist organization that grew from a small activist group he belonged to in 1971 while earning his doctorate in ecology. He quit in 1986 because it had become too political and strayed away from the science he believed was its institutional strength.  Moore didn't hold back in his Senate appearance. He quickly zeroed in on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and strongly scolded it for claiming there is a "95-100% probability" that man "has been the dominant cause of" global warming. Those numbers, he said, have been invented.  He also characterized the IPCC's reliance on computer models as futile; told senators that history "fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming"; and noted that "during the Greenhouse Ages," a period that precedes our fossil-fuel burning civilization, "there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and subtropical from pole to pole."  Moore further crossed the line of accepted climate change discourse when he insisted "that a warmer temperature than today's would be far better than a cooler one" and reminded lawmakers "that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way" temperatures "will go next."  Current Greenpeace members might think of Moore as a traitor. We'd say he's more of a bold truth-teller.

Site Content

Additional Information 

A British newspaper is reporting President Obama’s high-school marijuana dealer whom he thanked in his yearbook for the “good times” was beaten to death by his homosexual lover after fighting over flatulence and drugs. The Daily Mail reports that Raymond Boyer, known as “Gay Ray” to Obama and Obama’s  pot-smoking “Choom Gang,” was bludgeoned to death with a hammer by his gay lover seven years after selling narcotics to Obama and his friends.  Boyer’s paramour, Andrew Devere, a male prostitute, listed numerous reasons for slaying the surfer and unemployed chef.  Among them were the fact that Boyer constantly put Devere down, made him beg for drugs and would often break wind in his face.Boyer died at the young age of 37, and his demise was effectively the opposite of the productive lives of the young men to whom he provided illicit drugs.“Since getting high with Obama and his private school educated friends he lost his job as the manager of a local pizzeria and ended up on welfare living above a car repair shop,” the Daily Mail reports.  The details of Boyer’s end were unveiled in mitigation by Devere, who received a lifelong prison term for the murder.  The Daily Mail reports:Appeal court documents from 1991, uncovered for the first time by MailOnline, reveal Devere killed Boyer on New Year’s Day 1986 because: Boyer was killing a friend of his by supplying that friend with drugs; Boyer embarrassed Devere and put him down in front of other people; Boyer had developed a habit of farting in Devere’s face; Boyer once attacked Devere with a knife, slicing Devere’s finger; Boyer made Devere beg for drugs.  Finally, the documents say the last straw came on the morning that Devere killed Boyer when the victim had refused to give Devere money to buy medication to soothe the murderer’s sore throat.  Obama himself has been open about taking drugs as a youth, and recently indicated his belief that smoking marijuana was no worse than drinking alcohol.  But look what happens when you legalize alcohol and it becomes pervasive and for some people destructive, plus now marijuana-dope is much more powerful and like gay marriage (polygamy, bestiality, incest, pedophilia etc.) it will open the door for calls wanting other drugs legalized.

Site Content

Additional Information 

DOPE:   it apparently doesn’t register that pot use lowers the IQ of young people. A massive, four-decade study published in 2012 by the National Academy of Sciences, titled “Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife,” followed more than 1,000 subjects from birth until age 38! The researchers’ core finding? Repeated marijuana use by teenagers lowers their IQ – permanently.  Yet, according to a 2010 study by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, over 22 million Americans use illegal drugs, comprising marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants and prescription-type psychiatric and opioid drugs used without a prescription. And of those, fully half admit to driving on the public roadways under the influence of drugs!  As revealed in a recent report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in one recent year “approximately 27,000 unintentional drug overdose deaths occurred in the United States, one death every 19 minutes.”  “Prescription drug abuse,” announced the CDC, “is the fastest growing drug problem in the United States.”  The skyrocketing rate of drug-overdose death rates “has been driven,” says the report, “by increased use of a class of prescription drugs called opioid analgesics” – drugs like hydrocodone (brand names Norco, Vicodin), hydromorphone (Dilaudid, Exalgo), oxycodone (OxyContin, Percocet) and morphine (Astramorph, Avinza).  It is well documented that most perpetrators of school shootings and mass murders in our modern era were either on – or just recently coming off of – psychiatric medications, most commonly antidepressants. Hundreds of other criminal cases are documented here. 

Site Content

Additional Information 

In a recent interview with The New Yorker, President Obama referred to today’s al-Qaeda fighters as the “jayvee” team.

“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a jayvee team puts on Lakers uniforms that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” he said.  This shows that the Administration’s wishful thinking about al-Qaeda isn’t over. Obama and his fellow officials seem to think if you say something enough times, it will become true.  Before Benghazi, they claimed al-Qaeda was defeated and on the run. Four dead Americans later, this was proven false.  Then the President said we “cannot stay at war forever.” Again, a nice sentiment, but in the real world, war doesn’t end until both sides stop fighting.

the decision by the Obama administration and the Democratic Party to withdraw American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan is indefensible.  Let's begin with Iraq.  Here is how the front-page article in a recent edition of USA Today began:  "When the last U.S. combat troops departed Iraq in December 2011, they left behind a defeated al-Qaida and an Iraq where traditional rivals Sunni and Shiite Muslims were sharing power in the world's only Arab democracy.  "Two years later, al-Qaida has seized major cities where hundreds of U.S. troops died while fighting alongside their Iraqi brethren. The population once freed by the U.S.-Iraqi alliance has now watched those same jihadist insurgents return to command the streets and impose their will."  As a result of the U.S. withdrawing its troops at the end of 2011:

In 2013, 7,818 Iraqi civilians were killed, higher than the 2008 toll of 6,787 (United Nations figures).

In 2010, there were approximately 10 car bombs per month; in 2013, there was an average of 71.  In 2008, the American people elected as president a man dedicated to bringing the troops home.  Discussing Iraq last week, White House spokesman Jay Carney said:  "The president made a commitment to end the war in Iraq. He fulfilled that commitment."  The language Carney used is instructive. The president made a commitment "to end the war."  That is how Democrats see abandoning countries to mass death: the "war ends."  All the death, torture and fighting that take place because Americans have withdrawn don't really matter. For the Democrats and others on the left — the self-proclaimed compassionate folks — the amount of suffering caused by America withdrawing its troops is just not important.  This began with the withdrawal from Vietnam. By 1972, when the Democratic Party nominated George McGovern, it had, for the first time, ceased being a liberal party. It had been taken over by the left, and remains so until this day.  Forced by the Democrat-controlled Congress, the U.S. abandoned Vietnam in 1975. On April 30 of that year, the last American helicopter left Saigon, leaving our Vietnamese allies to be "re-educated," tortured and murdered — and all the Vietnamese to be enslaved by a Stalinist Communist regime.  After America left Vietnam, about 2 million South Vietnamese were sent to re-education camps, of whom about 165,000 died, between 100,000 and 200,000 were executed, 50,000 died performing hard labor in "New Economic Zones," and another 200,000 to 400,000 Vietnamese died fleeing Vietnam (the "Boat People").  Hmong Genocide  The same month the last American left Vietnam, the Communist Khmer Rouge ("Red Cambodians") under Pol Pot took over Cambodia and proceeded to murder about 2 million, or about one out of every three or four Cambodians.  Eight months after the Americans left Vietnam, Communists took over Laos who then proceeded — with the help of the Vietnamese Communists — to engage in genocide against the Hmong population.  Meanwhile about 3 million additional people fled Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.  But for the left, the "war ended."  Having lived through all that, I recall only silence from previously vociferous anti-war protesters about the mass murders that followed the American withdrawal from Vietnam. The campuses were quiet, the intellectuals were quiet, the Democratic Party was quiet. Read More At Investor's Business Daily:   Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook 

Site Content

Additional Information 

On Wednesday, I added up Obama’s margin in a few key states, to get a sense of just how agonizingly short the Romney campaign finished from 270 electoral votes.

Some of those straggling precincts have reported, and so here is an updated set of numbers, according to the results this morning on the New York Timesresults map:

Florida: 73,858

Ohio: 103,481

Virginia: 115,910

Colorado: 113,099

Those four states, with a collective margin of, 406,348 for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. 

Had Romney won only 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes. 

Obama’s margin in some other key states:

Nevada: 66,379

Iowa: 88,501

New Hampshire: 40,659 

Look at the counties-- this is a common sense oriented country.  We are being hijacked and we being self destructive.  We need to return to Biblical God pleasing living spiritually, financially, physically, intellectually and emotionally…in all living.

Site Content

Additional Information's%20real%20villain 

Graft: Ex-New Orleans Democrap Mayor Ray Nagin's conviction on corruption charges leaves little doubt the Katrina disaster would never have unfolded as fatally as it did had there not been Democrat’s Third World-style mismanagement in that city.  A federal jury on Wednesday found Nagin guilty of bribery, fraud and money-laundering during his two terms as mayor of New Orleans from 2002 to 2010.   Nagin led a chorus of Democrat boos over the Bush administration's handling of the 2005 hurricane, which took more than 1,500 lives and left tens of thousands homeless. But his record of corruption lends credence to Republican arguments that local Democratic officials in Louisiana were to blame for the post-storm debacle.  Indeed, a confidential and independent report commissioned by the Defense Department found that "corruption and mismanagement within the New Orleans local city government diverted money earmarked for improving flood protection."  The leaked 2005 report, which was commissioned by the Office of Secretary of Defense as an "independent and critical review" of what went so wrong, details how taxpayer money earmarked for flood control was diverted "to other, more vote-getting, projects."  On Nagin's watch, public funding was spent on Mardi Gras parties, marinas and gambling operations instead of levee maintenance. Had it not been for the failure of the shoddy levees protecting New Orleans from flooding, Katrina wouldn't have killed as many or caused the damage it did. The National Hurricane Center ruled in December 2005 that Katrina was a mere Category 3 when it slammed ashore the Gulf Coast.  "Past local city mayors and state governors gambled that the long-expected Big Killer hurricane would never happen," the report said. "That bet was lost with Hurricane Katrina."  In other words, the mayor, who was so critical of President Bush for not doing more to prevent the disaster and help New Orleans after the levees broke, even demonizing him as a heartless racist, was mismanaging funds and operations that could have reinforced the levees and saved lives. Instead of building up the levees, he was building up his own personal fortunes.  Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook 

A jury convicted former DEMOCRAP New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin Wednesday on 20 of 21 federal corruption counts, including bribery, marking a stunning fall for the feisty official who gained a national profile following Hurricane Katrina. 

The 57-year-old Democrat, who “ led” his city through the aftermath of the 2005 storm, was found guilty of charges that he accepted bribes, free trips and other gratuities from contractors in exchange for helping them secure millions of dollars in city work while he was in office. He will remain free on bond while he awaits sentencing. 

One reason federal troops did not arrive in New Orleans faster in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was fear of the way seizing control of the situation from an incompetent, hysterical, female Democrat governor might have been perceived.  To seize control of the mission, Mr. Bush would have had to invoke the Insurrection Act, which allows the president in times of unrest to command active-duty forces into the states to perform law enforcement duties. But decision makers in Washington felt certain that Ms. Blanco would have resisted surrendering control, as Bush administration officials believe would have been required to deploy active-duty combat forces before law and order had been re-established. While combat troops can conduct relief missions without the legal authority of the Insurrection Act, Pentagon and military officials say that no active-duty forces could have been sent into the chaos of New Orleans on Wednesday or Thursday without confronting law-and-order challenges.  But just as important to the administration were worries about the message that would have been sent by a president ousting a Southern governor of another party from command of her National Guard, according to administration, Pentagon and Justice Department officials. “Can you imagine how it would have been perceived if a president of the United States of one party had pre-emptively taken from the female governor of another party the command and control of her forces, unless the security situation made it completely clear that she was unable to effectively execute her command authority and that lawlessness was the inevitable result?” asked one senior administration official, who spoke anonymously because the talks were confidential.

Nearby Plaquemines Parish had ordered an evacuation a day earlier.  Before the storm hit, Amtrak ran equipment out of the city. With rooms for several hundred evacuees, they offered the spots to the city. Officials declined, so the train left with no passengers.   Within four days of Katrina’s landfall on Monday, Aug. 29, 2005, then-President George W. Bush signed a $10.4 billion aid package and ordered 7,200 National Guard troops to the region. A few days later, he requested — and Congress approved — an additional $51.8 billion in aid. 

Obama Voted Against Bill That Would  Have Waived Stafford Act for Katrina  NiceDeb/

The federal government’s alleged unequal treatment of disaster victims, vis-a-vis the Stafford Act, was one of the central themes of then Senator Obama’s poisonous race-baiting speech   What’s happening down in New Orleans? Where’s your dollar? Where’s your Stafford Act money? Makes no sense! Tells me that somehow, the people down in New Orleans they don’t care about as much!”  As it turns out, that just 10 days prior to Democrat Sen. Obama’s speech there was a vote in the US Senate on HR2206 -- The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery & Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007. That House Resolution amounted to a $6.9 billion appropriation to the Gulf Coast which would waive the Stafford Act.  Sen. Obama voted against the legislation. He was one of just 14 Senators to vote against appropriating $7 billion to Katrina relief with no strings attached. And then he went to Hampton and said the federal government doesn’t care about black people...  A clearly agitated Mark Levin covered the story on his show (listen here).

Site Content

Additional Information

Delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte today booed, jeered and shook their fists when the chairman at the time, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, declared that an amendment to the party’s platform – adding a mention of God – had been adopted.  It took him calling for the vote three times before he could make the declaration that in his opinion, the ayes made up two-thirds of the vote.  After the first vote, which sounded like a dead heat between the yes and no votes, he said, “In the opinion of the …. Let me do that again.”  The second vote sounded the same, and Villaraigosa looked offstage for help and advice.  A woman is seen coming up behind him, and says, “Let them do what they’re going to do.”  On the third vote, Villaraigosa was prepared and launched into the statement that in his opinion, two-thirds of the voters said “aye,” apparently without considering the volume of the voice vote.  Shaking fists and jeers followed erupted even as he was speaking.

The platform of the party drew nationwide astonishment just a day earlier when it failed to even mention God. It also failed to mention Jerusalem. The amendment, proposed by former Gov. Ted Strickland, chief of the platform committee, added the notation that Americans were encouraged to reach their “God-given potential.”  It also recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

‎In fact, however, Obama’s position on Jerusalem as the capital of Israel has been a point of contention. White House spokesman Jay Carney pointedly refused to state that Jerusalem is, in fact, Israel’s capital when confronted by White House reporters, including WND’s Les Kinsolving, about the issue.

Radio host Michael Savage said the scenario could be the turning point in the 2012 presidential campaign.  “This is a big moment,” Savage said. “America is disgusted with this Democrat party of atheists and America haters.”

Site Content

Additional Information 

A slurry of algae with the right heat and pressure can produce crude oil in one hour. 

The Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has succeeded in producing crude oil in an hour and is now working on making the process run continuously for rapid production. The process is actually faster than an hour, Science Daily reports: In the PNNL process, a slurry of wet algae is pumped into the front end of a chemical reactor. Once the system is up and running, out comes crude oil in less than an hour, along with water and a byproduct stream of material containing phosphorus that can be recycled to grow more algae.