Monday, July 28, 2014

The other two thirds are brain dead





Poll: One third of Americans believe Obama should be impeached


This come on the heels of Barry voted the worse president since WW ll. 







"Nearly eight in 10 say impeachment should be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors," Holland noted. 

OK Compare Nixon to Barry. Who come out on top when it comes to scandals?



Forget about Benghazi, forget about F&F, and all the other scandals except one. The IRS. If this doesn't qualify under "high crimes and misdemeanors" WTF does? We went from "2 rogue employees in Cincinnati" to several head honchos including Smidgen pleading the 5th. Combine this with hundreds of visits from the IRS to the WH coincidently right after the Democrats were slaughtered in the House in 2010 by the TeaParty. Computer hard drives have mysteriously crashed left and right because they were "infected" with the Smidgen Email Virus. But the story has changed yet again. According to the IRS information-technology experts the hard drives were only scratched. (Have you ever had a computer afflicted with a scratched hard drive?) This raises even more questions about potential criminal wrongdoing since the IRS originally told the investigating committee no data was recoverable and the physical hard drive was recycled and potentially shredded. Telling, the IRS investigating the IRS. Why did they refuse to use outside experts to recover the data? 

 What about Stedman? What has he done with this case? Nothing if you  compare it with the Trayvon Martin. What about the FBI? Weren't they supposed to contact the Teapartiers who were targeted? 

A special prosecutor should have been appointed a l-o-n-g time ago. This may go a lot deeper than anyone previously imagined. 


Maybe Pfeiffer planted a seed… but not the one he thought.  

--------------------------------------------------- 




What's the cap on phony scandals before they become real?


According to the poll, 57 percent of Republicans support an attempt to impeach the president.


According to a CNN/ORC International poll released Friday, 35 percent of Americans believe President Obama should be impeached, while the other 65 percent do not want the president to be impeached.


"Anti-impeachment sentiment is roughly where it was for past presidents – 67 percent opposed Bill Clinton's impeachment in September 1998, and 69 percent opposed impeaching George W. Bush when a few Democrats began talking about it in 2006," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland told CNN's politicalticker blog.


"One reason may be that Americans take impeachment very seriously. Only about one in five say that impeachment is a valid response if Congress is dissatisfied with a president's policies or the way he is handling his job. Nearly eight in 10 say impeachment should be reserved for high crimes and misdemeanors," Holland noted.


According to the poll, 57 percent of Republicans support an attempt to impeach the president, while only 35 percent of independents and 13 percent of Democrats support an attempt to impeach the Commander in Chief.


The New York Daily News reported Friday that House Republicans may try to impeach the president over plans to alter the immigration system. The possibility of impeachment was mentioned by senior Obama aide Dan Pfeiffer. The Daily News notes that Pfeiffer may have simply been attempting to encourage Democrats to vote in the 2014 midterm elections.


ORC International conducted telephone interviews with 1,012 adult Americans via telephone from July 18-20. The sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.





Share/Bookmark

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Obama hauls Central American leaders to White House ordering them to stop immigration flood - but they blame HIM for 'ambiguous' policies



Guatemala President Otto Perez Molina, and Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernandez said yesterday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies event that as part of its ‘shared responsibility' for the situation at the border, the U.S. needs to clear up 'ambiguities' in its immigration process



BTW...If he's really trying to put a stop to illegals where's the Mexican president? 



President Barack Obama, second from right, hosts a meeting with El Salvador's President Salvador Sanchez Ceren, left, Guatemala's President Otto Perez Molina, second from left, and Honduras's President Juan Orlando Hernandez.


Isn't he and his predecessors the worse offenders? Furthermore,  aren't illegals from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador traveling through his country to get to the U.S.?



President Barack Obama said Friday that the U.S. could establish a limited refugee program in Central America, allowing people to apply for entry to the country without first making the often-dangerous journey to the U.S. 


Note to self: Illegals morphed once again. They're now refugees.


The White House hopes that such a program would discourage people who don't qualify for refugee status from trying to enter the U.S. on their own.

Really?


 And how do we discourage this behavior? By providing EBT cards, Section 8, voting rights, a drivers license, and according to Hilda Solis “the right to a fair wage”? WOW what a f------  deterrent!

I think the message being sent here is... Hell don't make this dangerous trek to America because we'll provide the transportation and the accommodations.






Think this is a joke? 

Is it a joke Barry is presently engaged in using taxpayer dollars to ship illegals unannounced all over the United States? Does anyone really think they're going to show up for a deportation hearing?


-------------------------------------------------------




President Barack Obama said Friday that the U.S. could establish a limited refugee program in Central America, allowing people to apply for entry to the country without first making the often-dangerous journey to the U.S.


Should it be created, the program would be part of a broader effort to stem a surge in unaccompanied minors and families illegally crossing the border into the U.S. Mr. Obama mentioned the possible program at the White House after meeting with the presidents of the three Central American countries at the heart of the immigration influx, Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.


The White House hopes that such a program would discourage people who don't qualify for refugee status from trying to enter the U.S. on their own.


Mr. Obama discouraged speculation that a new program would be available to a broad swath of Central Americans, saying that there may be some young people who could be given refugee status without leaving their home countries. He noted that refugee status isn't granted based on economic need "or because a family lives in a bad neighborhood" or in poverty.


He said that such a program "would not necessarily accommodate a large number of additional minors."


Administration officials have said that a refugee program for Honduras is under consideration and that it could be expanded to Guatemala and El Salvador. Many of the child migrants in the current surge are coming from Honduras, which in recent years has been gripped by gang violence and has one of the world's highest homicide rates.


U.S. immigration officials have been overwhelmed by an influx of unaccompanied Central American minors. Since the fiscal year began in October, U.S. officials have apprehended more than 57,000 children traveling alone across the southern border. Tens of thousands more people have come in family groups.


Mr. Obama said that in his meeting Friday, he told the Central American leaders that they need to continue working to deter the influx of children to the U.S. and emphasized that children who don't qualify to stay will be sent home.


He said the four leaders discussed how to expedite the process used to determine whether children can stay in the U.S., a process that can take years under the existing system.


Mr. Obama also said that initial reports show their joint efforts to diminish the surge "appear to be paying off," with apprehensions of unaccompanied minors at the Rio Grande Valley down significantly over the last several weeks.


"There may be some narrow circumstances in which there is humanitarian or refugee status that a family might be eligible for," the president told reporters. "If that were the case, it would be better for them to be able to apply in-country rather than face a very dangerous journey all the way up to Texas to make those same claims."


"All of us recognize that we have a shared responsibility to resolve this problem," he said.


The U.S. has set up refugee programs before—in Haiti, Vietnam, the former Soviet Union—but a program in Central America would be the first for a country reachable from the U.S. by land.





Share/Bookmark

Thursday, July 24, 2014

26 minutes vs 2 hours




Arizona governor orders review of execution after inmate takes 2 hours to die



Now... watch what happens.

Remember the botched execution of this guy. 



It took 26 minutes for him to die. 



Barry said it was “deeply troubling” calling for the federal government to review death penalty procedures around the country. He also asked Stedman to conduct a full investigation adding, “Racial bias. Uneven application of the death penalty. Situations in which there were individuals on death row who later on were discovered to have been innocent because of exculpatory evidence – all these I think do raise significant questions about how the death penalty is being applied.”

OK, so what about the guy below who took 2 hours to die?
 Response from Barry and Stedman?




Didn't Barry say something about racial bias?

---------------------------------





26 minutes vs 2 hours


I care about this guy as much as the Black guy... which is zilch. Just like to see a little consistency...beyond the scandals that is.



This undated file photo provided by the Arizona Department of Corrections shows inmate Joseph Rudolph Wood.AP/Arizona Department of Correction


Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer ordered a review of the state's execution process after a convicted double murderer gasped and snorted for more than an hour and a half before his death Wednesday. 


Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne's office said Joseph Rudolph Wood was pronounced dead at 3:49 p.m. local time, one hour and 57 minutes after the execution started.


Wood's lawyers had filed an emergency appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court while the execution was underway, demanding that it be stopped. The appeal said Wood was "gasping and snorting for more than an hour."


In ordering the review, Brewer said she was concerned by the length of time the administered drug protocol took to kill Wood. 


"One thing is certain, however," Brewer's statement continued, "Wood died in a lawful manner and by eyewitness and medical accounts he did not suffer. This is in stark comparison to the gruesome, vicious suffering that he inflicted on his two victims - and the lifetime of suffering he has caused their family."


An Associated Press reporter who witnessed the execution saw Wood start gasping shortly after a sedative and a pain killer were injected into his veins. He gasped more than 600 times over the next hour and 40 minutes.


An administrator checked on Wood a half dozen times. His breathing slowed as a deacon said a prayer while holding a rosary. The 55-year-old finally stopped breathing and was pronounced dead 12 minutes later.


Defense lawyer Dale Baich called it a botched execution that should have taken 10 minutes.


"Arizona appears to have joined several other states who have been responsible for an entirely preventable horror — a bungled execution," Baich said. "The public should hold its officials responsible and demand to make this process more transparent."


Family members of Wood's victims said they had no problems with the way the execution was carried out.


"This man conducted a horrific murder and you guys are going, let's worry about the drugs," said Richard Brown, the brother-in-law of Debbie Dietz, who was 29 when she was killed in 1989. "Why didn't they give him a bullet, why didn't we give him Drano?"


Wood looked at the family members as he delivered his final words, saying he was thankful for Jesus Christ as his savior. At one point, he smiled at them, which angered the family.


"I take comfort knowing today my pain stops, and I said a prayer that on this or any other day you may find peace in all of your hearts and may God forgive you all," Wood said.


The case has highlighted scrutiny surrounding lethal injections after two controversial ones. An Ohio inmate executed in January snorted and gasped during the 26 minutes it took him to die. In Oklahoma, an inmate died of a heart attack in April, minutes after prison officials halted his execution because the drugs weren't being administered properly.


Arizona uses the same drugs — the sedative midazolam and painkiller hydromorphone — that were used in the Ohio execution. A different drug combination was used in the Oklahoma case.


"States have been scrambling over the past many months to find new sources of drugs. They have been experimenting," said Megan McCracken, of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law's Death Penalty Clinic. "These procedures are unreliable and the consequences are horrific."


States have refused to reveal details such as which pharmacies are supplying lethal injection drugs and who is administering them, because of concerns over harassment.


Woods filed several appeals that were denied by the U.S. Supreme Court, including one that said his First Amendment rights were violated when the state refused to reveal such details.


Wood argued he and the public have a right to know details about the state's method for lethal injections, the qualifications of the executioner and who makes the drugs. Such demands for greater transparency have become a new legal tactic in death penalty cases.


The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had put the execution on hold, saying the state must reveal the information. But the Supreme Court has not been receptive to the tactic, ruling against death penalty lawyers on the argument each time it has been before justices.


Deborah Denno, professor of criminal law and criminal procedure at Fordham Law School, said it may be up to Legislatures or the public to bring any change.


"I think every time one of these botches happens, it leads to questioning the death penalty even more," she said. "It will reach a point where the public will question the value of these execution procedures generally, and perhaps the death penalty itself."


Wood's execution was Arizona's third since October and the state's 36th since 1992.


He was convicted of fatally shooting Dietz and her father, 55-year-old Gene Dietz, at their auto repair shop in Tucson.


Wood and Debbie Dietz had a tumultuous relationship during which he repeatedly assaulted her. She tried to end their relationship and got an order of protection against Wood.


On the day of the shooting, Wood went to the auto shop and waited for Gene Dietz, who disapproved of his daughter's relationship with Wood, to get off the phone. Once the father hung up, Wood pulled out a revolver, shot him in the chest and then smiled.


Wood then turned his attention toward Debbie Dietz, who was trying to telephone for help. Wood grabbed her by the neck and put his gun to her chest. She pleaded with him to spare her life. An employee heard Wood say, "I told you I was going to do it. I have to kill you." He then called her an expletive and fired two shots in her chest.




Share/Bookmark

Monday, July 21, 2014

Mexican prison ordeal saps Marine Sgt. Tahmooressi's life savings




I wonder how the Tahmooressi family feels. Barry does a 5 for 1 trade for Bergdahl a soldier who was AWOL at best, a deserter at worse, pays him $200,000 in backpay and another $150,000 for being held captive. Then puts him back on active duty! 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/14/bergdahl-could-get-350g-tax-free-if-cleared-by-army/

BTW... The spin job aside Bergdhal walked away from his post, was captured,  6 guys died trying to rescue him, and he's rewarded with an additional 150,000? 

Compare this to Tahmooressi a decorated veteran who served two tours in Afghanistan.


From Bergdahl to Tahmooressi the entire situation makes no sense. Even trying to look at it from Barry's warped perspective I just can't see what the upside is. You really have to wonder what goes through his mind.   



While Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi was living on a base and eating MREs in Afghanistan and earning a battlefield promotion, his paychecks from Uncle Sam were piling up in the bank.

He dreamed of returning to Weston, Fla., when his second tour of duty ended and buying a new truck, maybe getting a place of his own. At 26, and with a modest nest egg waiting, he had a future back home.

Now Tahmooressi languishes in a Mexican prison, plagued by Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. And the $65,000 he saved in the service of his nation is gone, according to his mother.
"He has already lost all of his life savings."

- Jill Tahmooressi, mother of Marine imprisoned in Mexico

"He has already lost all of his life savings," his mother, Jill Tahmooressi, said. "When this is all over he will have nothing and will be facing an enormous debt."

Tahmooressi has been held since March 31, when he accidentally drove into Mexico at the San Ysidro, Calif., Port of Entry late March 31, after becoming disoriented from poorly lit street signs and being in a position on the road unable to make a last ditch U-turn. He was carrying all of his possessions, including three registered guns – legal in the U.S., but not in Mexico.

If convicted, he faces up to 21 years in prison. But even if he is set free, he will have nothing, his mother fears.

"He's been in jail for three months just for making a wrong turn and now he is broke," Jill Tahmooressi said. "He will walk out of jail a broke man."

Most of the money has been spent on attorneys, Jill Tahmooressi said. The Marine is now represented by Fernando Benitez, a legal star known for defending the mayor of Tijuana on weapons and corruption charges. While the family is confident in Benitez, two prior attorneys did little but send bills, according to Jill Tahmooressi.

She said their first lawyer, Alejandro Osuna, cost her son a prepaid retainer in excess of $10,000, although she declined to be more specific. Osuna was fired after he allegedly suggested Tahmooressi tell a judge at an April 28 hearing that he had never been to Mexico before his arrest, which was not true.

A second attorney, Lamberto Jesus Esquer Dabdoub, charged him $10,000 up front and didn't do anything prior to his firing eight days later because of lack of confidence by the family. Neither attorney ever submitted a shred of evidence to the federal court on Tahmooressi's behalf.

Benitez has yet to submit a bill, but given the case could stretch out for as long as two years, the Tahmooressi family is braced for expenses that could exceed $100,000.

The family of Jon Hammar, another Florida Marine caught at the border with a weapon he declared, told Jill Tahmooressi that in the four months he was in prison before his release in 2012, his legal fees alone exceeded $90,000.

Jill Tahmooressi said her son is shouldering the bulk of the expenses but she is not without her own financial burdens with the case. A nursing director at Miami Children's Hospital in Florida, she said she has already laid out more than $6,000 for travel to be with her son. The time she is taking from work is unpaid.

Jill Tahmooressi said she hasn't sought help because "economically, all of America has been hurting for so long." But three weeks ago, with the help of a California law firm that has been advising her, she established a charitable trust through Campaign Solutions in Washington. The name of the site to make donations for Andrew's defense is www.andrewfreedomfund.com.

But whether kind sympathizers chip in or the Tahmooressis have to go deeper into debt, the distraught mom said she would do whatever it took.

“I will pay any cost, including sacrificing our family home if need be, to pay the bills to Mexico associated with Andrew's release back to the states,” Jill Tahmooressi said.


Where's the POTUS?




Share/Bookmark

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Stedman doing what he does best



New hope for drug convicts

WASHINGTON - Tens of thousands of federal inmates serving time for drug crimes would be eligible for early release under a proposal being considered Friday that would dramatically reduce the nation's prison population over time.

The change is part of a broader rethinking of criminal justice policy that the Justice Department, under Attorney General Eric Holder, has embraced. With an eye toward addressing sentencing disparities rooted in the 1980s-era fight against crack cocaine, the Justice Department has issued new clemency criteria designed to encourage thousands of additional inmates to seek clemency.

------------------------------------------------------


Wasn't it Stedman, who suggested that critics of the Obama administration are motivated by race and referred to America as a "nation of cowards" on race issues?

Wasn't it Stedman, who refused to prosecute the Black Panthers for voter intimidation? Reverse the situation, the KKK intimidated Blacks, he wouldn't have done anything then either…right?





If con's are doing time for wire fraud, insider trading, or money laundering, they can forget about receiving their freedom from Stedman. He's only interested in the 51,000 doing time for drugs. I wonder what is motivation is?

Maybe the same as this:


-----------------------------------------------



By

Eric Tucker, Associated Press


Posted: Sunday, July 20, 2014, 3:01 AM



WASHINGTON - Tens of thousands of federal inmates serving time for drug crimes would be eligible for early release under a proposal being considered Friday that would dramatically reduce the nation's prison population over time.


The U.S. Sentencing Commission, which earlier this year voted to substantially lower recommended sentences for drug-dealing felons, was to vote on whether to retroactively apply that change to prisoners now behind bars.


More than 51,000 inmates would be affected if the commission decides to make the proposal fully retroactive. The commission, an independent panel that sets sentencing policy, has said that sentences would be cut by an average of 23 months and that the releases would start within the year and be phased in over time.


Advocates of the early-release plan say it would cut prison costs - nearly one-half of the federal prison population is locked up for drug crimes - and scale back some of the harsh sentences imposed during the country's war on drugs.


The change is part of a broader rethinking of criminal justice policy that the Justice Department, under Attorney General Eric Holder, has embraced. With an eye toward addressing sentencing disparities rooted in the 1980s-era fight against crack cocaine, the Justice Department has issued new clemency criteria designed to encourage thousands of additional inmates to seek clemency.


Last year, Holder directed federal prosecutors to shy away from seeking mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders.


Though sentencing guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory, judges still rely heavily on them in deciding on prison sentences. The guidelines recommend sentences that factor in the types and quantities of the drugs


The commission in April voted to lower recommended sentences across all drug types, meaning, for instance, that a cocaine package of a given size would now be linked to a shorter range of punishment than before.


That sentencing guideline change - along with the retroactivity - would take effect in November unless Congress intervenes before then, which advocates consider unlikely.


The Sentencing Commission has previously taken aim at guideline ranges, agreeing in 2011 to retroactively change the crack cocaine sentencing scheme for thousands of inmates.


Prisoner advocacy groups have lined up behind the proposal. Prosecutors, including some within the Justice Department, have expressed concern, and federal judges have offered mixed views.


"Even though retroactivity and individualized assessment for all eligible persons is time intensive and administratively burdensome, it is the right thing to do so that we can again ensure that our criminal justice system is fair to all concerned," U.S District Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island wrote in a letter to the commission.


A group of federal prosecutors, the National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, said the move would lead to higher crime and give defendants little incentive to accept plea deals.
------------------------------------------

Currently Stedman is held in Contempt of Congress for a sting of lies so long I've lost lost count. But his most infamous achievement is this.

Articles of impeachment:

On November 14, 2013, Representative Pete Olson (R -TX), along with 19 Republicans, introduced an Articles of Impeachment resolution against Holder for his role in Operation Fast and Furious and other scandals of President Barack Obama’s administration. As of June 2014, there are 26 co-sponsors to the bill.

(Don't hold your breath)








Share/Bookmark