or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Obama's Unravelling
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama's Unravelling - Page 25

post #361 of 551

 

 

So when we created them we didn't include an OFF switch?

 

http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Pg.-291-Pgs.-287-293-JW-v-DOD-and-State-14-812-DOD-Release-2015-04-10-final-version11.pdf

 

 

 

 

post #362 of 551
Thread Starter 
Curses! Foiled again

Failure of Obama’s Trans-Pacific Trade Deal Could Hurt U.S. Influence in Asia

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/world/asia/obama-trans-pacific-partnership-asia.html?emc=edit_th_20150617&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=682Failure of Obama’s Trans-Pacific Trade Deal Could Hurt U.S. Influence in Asia36041

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/15/world/asia/the-trans-pacific-trade-deal-and-a-presidents-legacy.html?action=click&contentCollection=Asia%20Pacific&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article

Edited by meister - 6/17/15 at 6:24am
post #363 of 551

And to think even Paul Ryan was supporting blind passage of this shit.
post #364 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by meister View Post

I should really set up an official Obama = Loser thread.
Here is the latest reversal of one of his most childish and idiotic gestures:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/churchill-returns-capitol_765691.html?utm_source=Barnes%20Alert%20%20-%2011/01/2013&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=TWS%20Alerts#

Just another hater spewing falsehoods.

" The White House has had a bust of Winston Churchill since the 1960’s. At the start of the Bush administration Prime Minister Blair lent President Bush a bust that matched the one in the White House, which was being worked on at the time and was later returned to the residence. The version lent by Prime Minister Blair was displayed by President Bush until the end of his Presidency. On January 20, 2009 -- Inauguration Day -- all of the art lent specifically for President Bush’s Oval Office was removed by the curator’s office, as is common practice at the end of every presidency. The original Churchill bust remained on display in the residence. The idea put forward by Charles Krauthammer and others that President Obama returned the Churchill bust or refused to display the bust because of antipathy towards the British is completely false and an urban legend that continues to circulate to this day."
post #365 of 551
Thank you for that timely refutation of a post by a madman that no one here took seriously in the first place.


Also, Frankfurt is a great city. One of my favourite bar-restaurants in the world is there, Zu den 12 Aposten, Great traditional German food and excellent beer. Cheers. Prost.
post #366 of 551
I always assumed that the Churchill story was accurate. Obama hates the UK; that's pretty obvious from the dreams of his father. Why else would he give the Queen tapes of his speeches as a gift?

True or not, I'm keeping the Churchill bust thing going as much as possible.

We're Americans in the 21st Century.

Narrative > Truth.

"The ends always justify the means." Saul Alinsky.
post #367 of 551
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post



Narrative > Truth.

"The ends always justify the means." Saul Alinsky.

Yes.. let's not spoil a good story with the truth. Smart guy Obama... knew a long time ago where to go to learn how to win power... "you gotta call Saul"!.

Post 337 BTW.

I'd love to start one on the Clintons going back to the Mena conspiracy days etc ...but all in good time.

Right now my fear is that in the remaining time Obama will irretrievably remake the whole of the US. All down by Executive Order por su puesto.

With only 5 states essentially counting as battlegrounds these days flipping a few red states will make it easy to get permanent Democrat hegemony.

It may be only a couple of elections away I suspect.
post #368 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by meister View Post



I'd love to start one on the Clintons going back to the Mena conspiracy days etc ...but all in good time.

 

Two boys died, Clinton's medical examiner ruled the deaths "accidental" after they allegedly smoked dope and fell asleep on train tracks, and when the bodies were exhumed, it turned out that Don Henry had been stabbed in the back and that Kevin Ives had been beaten with a rifle butt.

 

Clinton did call in two pathologists from out of state to review the work of the medical examiner and state crime lab where the autopsies were conducted. But when the Saline County grand jury tried to subpoena those experts for testimony, Clinton refused to allow it.

 

In 1990, Jean Duffey headed a drug task force in the area and began to piece together evidence connecting narcotics, public officials and the train deaths. Shortly afterward, she was threatened with death and run out of town.

 

“I didn’t understand the power of the political machine back then, but after being persuaded by the FBI to assist in an investigation they opened in 1994, I learned of connections to the CIA, Mena, and drug-smuggling,” she wrote in a recent letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal. “I finally understood; to solve the train deaths case would be to expose the crimes of Mena, and no government agent who has come close to doing either has survived professionally.”

post #369 of 551
Thread Starter 
Can't wait....

Imagine Entertainment is currently getting set to film a biopic of Seal's life entitled Mena. Tom Cruise is set to play Seal, Brian Dennehy will play Bill Clinton, in a cast with Jesse Plemons, Sarah Wright, Jayma Mays and Lola Kirke. Doug Liman will direct with Brian Grazer producing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Seal
post #370 of 551
Valerie Jarrett is a communist. Something we all know of course, but it would have been nice to know before the 2008 election.



https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/06/communism-in-jarretts-family/
post #371 of 551
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

Valerie Jarrett is a communist. Something we all know of course, but it would have been nice to know before the 2008 election.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2015/06/communism-in-jarretts-family/

Obama's early background is suspect. His mother's circle of friends etc. in Honolulu are well known.

Jarrett and her family also had strong ties to Frank Marshal Davis, a big Obama mentor and Communist Party member with an extensive FBI file.
post #372 of 551
Thread Starter 
ADAM FREEDMAN

SCOTUS-care Is Here to Stay

The Supreme Court abandons the rule of law in King v. Burwell.

June 26, 2015 City Journal


This week’s Supreme Courtdecision in King v. Burwell is good news for the Obama administration and terrible news for the rule of law. By a margin of 6-to-3, the Court upheld an IRS rule that supposedly implements the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare—by extending health-insurance tax credits to taxpayers in states that have no health insurance exchange of their own, but rather rely on the federal healthcare.gov exchange. The problem with this rule, as the plaintiffs in Kingpointed out, is that it flatly contradicts the ACA. The statute clearly limits tax credits to taxpayers who use state insurance exchanges, not the federal one. A majority of the Court, therefore, simply rewrote the ACA to make it consistent with the administration’s preferred rule. That’s not the way things are supposed to work in a system in which “all legislative power” is vested in the legislative branch (Constitution, Article I).

The stakes in King were high: 36 states use the federal exchange, and without Obamacare’s tax subsidies, a large number of low-income citizens would be exempted from the law’s individual mandate. The result, according to some critics, was that the individual health-insurance markets in those states would fall into an economic “death spiral” of falling participation and rising premiums. That was a risk that Congress deliberately took.

Obamacare provides two different mechanisms for establishing a health- insurance exchange. A state can establish an exchange under Section 1311 of the Act. And in states that “fail” to establish an exchange, the secretary of Health and Human Services must establish an exchange under Section 1321. When discussing eligibility for those all-important tax credits, the ACA says that they are available only to taxpayers who enrol in a qualified health plan “through an Exchange established by the State.”

Why did Congress limit tax credits in that way? To pressure states into creating their own exchanges (constitutionally, the federal government cannot force states to create health-care exchanges). At the time of the law’s passage, its congressional backers assumed that each state would buckle under and create its own exchange. Of course, that’s not how things ended up. Enter the IRS, which expanded tax credits to all exchanges in order to guarantee the viability of the Obamacare project.

The court’s majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, has a surreal, through-the-looking glass quality about it. The phrase “an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311,” he says, is “ambiguous.” Actually, the phrase is crystal clear, including the word “state” which the ACA defines as “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia.” If anything is unambiguous about Obamacare, it’s that tax credits are available only to those who purchase insurance through an exchange established by one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia.

No matter: the finding of “ambiguity” gives the Court license to interpret the law, rather than simply applying it. In the name of interpreting the supposedly ambiguous language, Roberts looks to the overall purpose of Obamacare which, he decides, is the avoidance of the dreaded “death spiral.” His opinion is peppered with references to “death spirals”—one could almost make a drinking game out of it—and Congress’s desire to avoid them. The specific words enacted by Congress are of little importance, we’re told, if those words threaten “to create the very ‘death spirals’”— drink!— “that Congress designed the Act to avoid.” And so, in order to effectuate the law’s higher purpose, the Court decrees that “an Exchange established by the State under Section 1311” includes “an Exchange established by the Secretary of HHS under Section 1321.” Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said.

The Supreme Court’s decision, and its reasoning, strikes a double blow against the rule of law. First, it ratifies the executive branch’s unconstitutional usurpation of legislative power. When an administrative agency unilaterally rewrites the terms of a statute, it violates Article II’s command that the executive must “faithfully execute” the laws passed by Congress. Compounding the problem, the Court engages in its own power grab—declaring that neither Congress nor the IRS deserve any particular interpretive deference. Rather, “it is . . . our task to determine the correct reading” of the statute—notwithstanding Congress’s plain language. The result in King will embolden President Obama, and future presidents, to ignore the letter of the law when it contradicts their evolving view of the law’s spirit.

Alas, the Supreme Court’s handling of Obamacare is a stark illustration of what results when the judicial and executive branches collude to rewrite the laws passed by the legislative branch. In the first major Obamacare decision, NFIB v. Sebelius, the Court rewrote the Act’s “penalty” clause to make it into a “tax,” thus saving the law from constitutional attack. And now the phrase “established by the State” has been effectively excised from the text.

The result of all this judicial activism is that a law that was sold to the public as creating a system of state-based exchanges with no new taxes has been turned into a system dominated by a federal exchange and enforced via taxes. In dissent, Justice Scalia—joined by Justices Thomas and Alito—rightly accuses the majority of ignoring the rule of law; “that ours is a government of laws and not of men.” Given the judicial makeover of the ACA, Scalia suggests that “we should start calling this law SCOTUSCare.”

Hard cases, according to the cliché, make bad law. But the current Supreme Court has reached a new jurisprudential milestone: it can make bad law out of cases that ought to be easy.
post #373 of 551
Thread Starter 
post #374 of 551
Reflecting on the Steinle murder, I don't know how our leader will ever wash the blood from his hands. He is covered in it. Showering in it.

If you want to make an omelet of future voters, you have to kill a few citizens.
post #375 of 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

Reflecting on the Steinle murder, I don't know how our leader will ever wash the blood from his hands. He is covered in it. Showering in it.
 

 

 

To be frank, I fail to see why the US President should be held responsible for local (city) and state government policies.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Obama's Unravelling