Obama Lie Montage

And this doesn't even scratch the surface.

(There's also a special appearance of a few other liars in this administration)

(If video won't load click post title)

Video 71

Denigrate a great religion? I lie within a lie.

Obama Lie Montage

Almost forgot about this one

Barry tried to pull another fast one when he appointed three people to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 while the U.S. Senate was taking a break from regular business. Of course, it only took 2 years to strike it down. In his l-o-n-g list of lawbreaking this is a speeding ticket compared to the IRS, VA, and Benghazi scandals… just to mention a few.

Supremes strike down Obama recess appointments

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Obama overstepped his bounds when he tried to circumvent the Senate and install his nominees to key positions — but the justices left the heart of the executive's recess appointment powers intact.

In a ruling freighted with constitutional implications, the justices said the president must wait for Congress to break for at least three days before he can use his recess powers, and said lawmakers on Capitol Hill generally get to decide what constitutes a recess.

But it was the way the court ruled — deferring to what it said was long-standing practice — that may have the broader implications. Justice Antonin Scalia, in a stinging opinion, said the court had opened the door to clever lawyers finding yet more ways to expand the president's powers beyond what the country's founders intended.

"The real tragedy of today's decision is not simply the abolition of the Constitution's limits on the recess appointment power and the substitution of a novel frame work invented by this court. It is the damage done to our separation-of-powers jurisprudence more generally," Justice Scalia wrote.

The decision was 9-0, with all of the justices agreeing Mr. Obama overstepped by making recess appointments at a time when the Senate was meeting every three days specifically to deny him his recess powers.

But five of the justices, led by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, said the president should still have broad powers when a recess lasts at least 10 days.

Justice Breyer said the Constitution itself was unclear, but said the practice of the last century show both the president and the Senate have come to a general understanding, and Thursday's ruling essentially ratifies that understanding.

"The president has consistently and frequently interpreted the word 'recess' to apply to intra-session recesses, and has acted on that interpretation. The Senate as a body has done nothing to deny the validity of this practice for at least three-quarters of a century. And three-quarters of a century of settled practice is long enough to entitle a practice to 'great weight in a proper interpretation' of the constitutional provision," Justice Breyer wrote.

While the ruling was a loss for Mr. Obama, it is a win for the executive branch more generally. Indeed, it returns the situation to where it was before Mr. Obama took office, when presidents generally waited for breaks of 10 days or more before using their powers, but other than that had few limitations.

Justice Breyer said the Constitution was unclear, so he said he had to look at what the practice has been. He said the executive branch has had a broad interpretation of its powers for nearly two centuries, and even the Senate has embraced that broad interpretation for nearly 100 years.

The key clause of the Constitution reads: "The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

The problem is that the words "recess" and "session" have several meanings in the Constitution and as used in legislative procedure on Capitol Hill.

Justices were deciding a case stemming from Mr. Obama's efforts in 2012 to name three members to the National Labor Relations Board. He was unable to get quick Senate confirmation so he decided to act alone — even though the Senate was meeting every three days specifically to deny him his recess powers.

Republicans said the recess maneuver was a political stunt. They said two of the nominees Mr. Obama made recess appointments for weren't even sent to the Senate until Dec. 15, and Mr. Obama made his recess appointments just three weeks later — a much shorter period of time than even non-controversial nominees take to wind through the process.

"The administration's tendency to abide only by the laws it likes represents a disturbing and dangerous threat to the rule of law. That's true whether we're talking about recess appointments or Obamacare," said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who led fellow Republicans in joining the suit against Mr. Obama. "I hope the Obama Administration will take away the appropriate lessons. Because the Court's decision today is a clear rebuke of that behavior."

But Senate Democrats — who had used the same three-day procedure to deny President George W. Bush his recess powers — embraced Mr. Obama's move, saying the GOP left them no choice.

Thursday's court ruling tinkers with some of the fundamental balances between Congress and the executive branch, though it falls short of the full-scale upheaval that lower courts — and a four-justice minority of the Supreme Court — said should happen.

Now, Congress and the president will have to work out a new normal for recess appointments, and that could involve the executive testing never-used powers to force Congress to adjourn.

In the near term the opinion will have little effect, because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — possibly anticipation the court's ruling — last year detonated the "nuclear option." That was a bold parliamentary move to change Senate rules and reduce the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster on nominees to just a majority vote, rather than the 60 required to end most filibusters.

That means Mr. Obama can get most of his nominees through without having to worry about a GOP filibuster — though it does make the process more tedious.

But if a future president were faced with a Senate held by the opposite party, the justices' ruling would give those senators exceptional leverage in nominations.

In a statement, Mr. Reid said the court's ruling justifies his use of the nuclear option.

"Without that reform and with today's ruling, a small but vocal minority would have more power than ever to block qualified nominees from getting a simple up-or-down vote on the floor," he said. "Since the November reform the Senate has been confirming qualified nominees at a steady pace and today's ruling will have no effect on our ability to continue ensuring that qualified nominees receive an up-or-down vote."

(What else would you expect from Reid)

Almost forgot about this one

Can’t come across a better video than this!

Obviously the women wanted to whine about so-called Muslim mistreatment. Brigitte sure put her in her place.

 Scary:

If 25% of the world’s Muslim population are Jihadists that’s more than all the armies in the world!

(If video won't load click post title)

Video 70

Can’t come across a better video than this!

New story..with the same familiar ring

IRS Pays Out $50K To National Organization for Marriage Over Donor Info Scandal

"In the beginning, the government claimed that the IRS had done nothing wrong and that NOM itself must have released our confidential information," read a statement from NOM Chairman John D. Eastman"

Sounds quite a bit like Smidgen's opening statement pleading the 5th.

Likewise if Barry and Stedman are truly not involved in the IRS scandal then it would stand to reason they would be involved in getting to the bottom of it…and we all see where that's going. 

Furthermore, I guess the MSM is not going to take action until the IRS starts beheading the TeaPartiers and even then who knows.

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

Behind the scenes

The IRS will pay $50,000 in damages to the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) for illegally leaking donor information to a pro-gay marriage group, it was announced Tuesday.

The Human Rights Campaign posted NOM's 2008 tax return, along with the names and contact information of major donors, on their website during the 2012 presidential campaign. The unauthorized dissemination of such information is a felony.

TheDC broke the story, obtaining NOM's official demand for a federal investigation. Now, an investigation that is part of the civil suit NOM filed against the IRS has found that someone at the IRS did give NOM's confidential tax and donor information to a gay rights activist in Boston. The identity of the leaker is not yet known. (RELATED: IRS Responds To NOM, Is Taking Alleged Leak Very Seriously)

"In the beginning, the government claimed that the IRS had done nothing wrong and that NOM itself must have released our confidential information," read a statement from NOM Chairman John D. Eastman. "Thanks to a lot of hard work, we've forced the IRS to admit that they in fact were the ones to break the law and wrongfully released this confidential information."

Human Rights Campaign's then-president, Joe Solmonese, was also the co-chair of President Barack Obama's re-election campaign.

The $50,000 covers actual costs incurred by NOM while responding to the leaked information, and are not punitive damages. No criminal charges have been filed.

(And they probably never will be)

New story..with the same familiar ring

POLL: Most Americans say Iraq war wasn't worth the costs

Warning:

 Data collection was conducted on behalf of CBS News and The New York Times. So keep a wary eye.

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

I have mixed emotions about this primarily because I supported Bush and thought attacking Iraq and ridding the world of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do. Now that Barry has taken over he is more then willing to allow Iraq to go down the toilet after we spent a trillion dollars and over 4,000 soldiers killed. Most certainly Barry will cover his ass by pulling out the "Bush card". He has made certain overtures to that affect already.

 Imagine the families who have lost a loved one. All for nothing.

But there is something here more consequential then Barry or Bush which is the lack of will of the Iraqi soldier to fight for his own country. I read story after story of Iraqi soldiers abandoning their post, uniforms, and weapons, (that we provided) only to be captured… and in many cases…beheaded. So should we spill more American blood when Iraq won't even defend their own country? I think not. Was Bush, and people like me who supported him, supposed to know    ISIS outnumbered 20 to 1 will in all likelihood bring Iraq back to the day of Saddam Hussein because of a weak an ineffectual army?

This has all the ingredients for another Vietnam. 

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

By Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Anthony Salvanto and Fred Backus

Discussions of U.S. involvement in stemming the violence in Iraq are occurring amid a backdrop of highly negative views of the Iraq war, a new CBS News/New York Times poll out Monday reveals.

Just 18 percent of Americans think the result of the war in Iraq was worth the loss of American lives and other costs of attacking Iraq, the lowest percentage ever recorded in CBS News Polls. Seventy-five percent do not think the Iraq War was worth it, up eight percentage points since 2011 (just before all U.S. troops were removed), and up 30 points since August 2003.

Republicans, Democrats and independents alike view the Iraq war as not worth the costs.

As old sectarian rivalries erupt again in Iraq, some have criticized the removal of all U.S. troops from that country in 2011. Fifty percent think the U.S. should have removed all its troops, while 42 percent think the U.S. should have left some troops behind. Most Republicans think U.S. troops should have remained, while most Democrats and independents think they should have been removed.

More Americans from households with either an Iraq or Afghanistan War veteran think the U.S. should have left some troops behind in Iraq (43 percent), but they agree with Americans overall (20 percent) that the Iraq War was not worth the loss of life and other costs.

Military Options in Iraq

When Americans are asked about a range of military options in Iraq, there is support for some actions, but not others. A slim majority of Americans (51 percent) favor sending military advisers into Iraq to train and advise the Iraqi military and collect intelligence, which President Obama has proposed. Forty-two percent oppose it. There is bipartisan support for this plan.

• Poll: Lagging approval for Obama overall and on Iraq

Nevertheless, four in 10 don't think that will have much of an effect on the violence there. Twenty-eight percent think sending advisers will increase the violence there, while 23 percent expect it to decrease.

In addition to sending military advisers into Iraq, there is public support for using unmanned aircraft or drones to target militants in Iraq - something the president has not ruled out. But there is less support for airstrikes using manned aircraft.

Large majorities (77 percent), however, oppose sending U.S. ground troops into Iraq -- something President Obama has said the U.S. will not do.

Republicans are more likely than Democrats or independents to support the use of drones and as well as manned airstrikes (although most oppose sending ground troops).

Fifty percent of Americans think the U.S. does not have a responsibility to do something about the recent violence in Iraq, while fewer - 42 percent - think the U.S. does. More Republicans than Democrats or independents think the U.S. has a responsibility to do something about the violence, but even among Republicans, 42 percent think that is not the U.S.'s responsibility.

The poll also suggests the public views the situation in Iraq with some futility; most Americans do not think the U.S. can do something about the situation in Iraq. Fifty-seven percent think the situation there is beyond the control of the U.S., including majorities of all partisans.

Two-thirds of Americans have heard or read at least some about the recent violence in Iraq, but just 36 percent have heard or read a lot about it. Those who have been paying the most attention to news about Iraq are more inclined to think the U.S. has a responsibility there and that the President should be doing more about it.

U.S. Involvement in Iraq

Americans express concern that U.S. intervention in Iraq now will lead to a long and costly involvement there. More than eight in 10 are at least somewhat concerned about that, including 54 percent who are very concerned.

Beyond stemming the current violence in Iraq, just 37 percent of Americans think the U.S. has a broader responsibility to make sure Iraq is a stable democracy. Far more - 57 percent - do not think the U.S. has that obligation.

Fifty-three percent of Americans favor the U.S. working with Iran in a limited capacity to resolve the situation in Iraq. Republicans divide on this course of action, but 62 percent of Democrats favor it.

Eight in 10 Americans think what happens in Iraq is at least somewhat important to the interests of the United States, though just a third think it is very important.

Still, many Americans are concerned that the violence in Iraq will lead to a more widespread war in neighboring countries and other parts of the Middle East. Forty-two percent are very concerned, and another 37 percent are somewhat concerned.

Most Americans think the situation in Iraq will impact prices at the pump. Eighty-three percent expect gas prices in the U.S. to go up in the wake of the violence in Iraq. Americans across partisan lines hold this view.

The Threat of Terrorism

Some expect there to be repercussions in the U.S. from the violence in Iraq. Forty-four percent of Americans think the threat of terrorism against the U.S. will increase as a result of the current violence there, but more - 50 percent - think it will remain unchanged. Most Republicans (60 percent) think the terrorism threat against the U.S. will increase, while Democrats and independents are more doubtful.

International Conflicts

Broadly speaking, most Americans (58 percent - including most Republicans, Democrats, and independents) do not think the U.S. should take the leading role among all other countries in the world in trying to solve international conflicts. Support for U.S. involvement in international conflicts has declined since the beginning of the Iraq War, when nearly half thought the U.S. should take the lead role.

This poll was conducted by telephone June 20-22, 2014 among 1,009 adults nationwide. Data collection was conducted on behalf of CBS News and The New York Times by SSRS of Media, PA. Phone numbers were dialed from samples of both standard land-line and cell phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups may be higher Results based on the sample of veterans is plus or minus eight points. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls.

POLL: Most Americans say Iraq war wasn't worth the costs