8:00 PM tonight Barry declares amnesty.

Tonight Barry by his own admission, and videos to prove it, will break the law exceeding his authority as POTUS to grant amnesty. He will not only bypass Congress but completely disregard the will of American people. The last poll results indicated 74% are against blanket amnesty. Rest assured after tonight Barry will be walking on very thin ice. Especially when you take into account all the other scandals he's involved in.

So where do we go from here?

1. The Supreme Court

I don't know how he's going to convince them this is legit but stranger things have happened. All they would have to do is watch the videos. Barry claimed, "I'm a constitutional lawyer and I don't have the authority to act on my own to grant amnesty." He said it like a twenty times. Pretty open and shut. So who waved the magic wand?

The problem with the SC they seldom fast track anything. It'll be forever before they render a decision. Not to mention who knows what Benedict Roberts may do if it should come down to a tight verdict?

2. Impeachment

Barry thinks he's going to ram amnesty down the GOP's throat like he did ObamaCare. Not this time. The House could get the ball rolling but it's not going to be any easy feat.

As far as the dumbasses in the Democratic senate go they can't even pass Keystone and sure as hell won't vote to impeach Barry. However, January 2015 the GOP owns Congress. Taking this into account and the 74% who are against amnesty could be a petty formidable force. But there are roadblocks. The MSM. You have to remember there are no Woodward's or Bernstein's today. They'll do everything in their power to keep Barry in the WH.

Another major hurdle, and God this one pains me, Joe Biden is now POTUS. No one, including some Democrats, is going to be elated over that. But we can't look at Joe as Barry's "insurance policy" against impeachment. We can't allow this to deter us from the letter of the law. The president, after Barry is gone, is governed by the Constitution whether we like it or not. It doesn't say ...you can't get rid of a conniving liar because his replacement is a brain dead turnip. It is what it is.

Article II of the United States Constitution (Section 4) states that "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."

Did Barry commit Treason.  Treason/Trickery is a form of betrayal. Did he or did he not wait until after the election to declare amnesty?

 Bribery can't say for sure about that one.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors? Just was does that encompass?

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct peculiar to officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, conduct unbecoming, and refusal to obey a lawful order. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for nonofficials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office.

Hell...this reads like Barry's life story! 

But then we have this to contend with...

The power of Congress is the ultimate weapon against officials of the federal government, and is a fundamental component of the constitutional system of “checks and balances.” In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called “managers,” acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate Chamber serves as the courtroom. The Senate becomes jury and judge, except in the case of presidential impeachment trials when the chief justice of the United States presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict, and the penalty for an impeached official is removal from office. In some cases, disqualification from holding future offices is also imposed. There is no appeal.

Barry's toast in the House. But are we going to get 67 votes in the Senate? We have 53 Republican senators going into 2015, 54 if Landrieu goes down in flames, which is highly anticipated. So 13 Democrats have got to cross the line and vote for impeachment. Will they? 

It depends on how much they value their job when confronted with the distain and contempt of the America people tonight once Barry breaks his oath of office decreeing amnesty. 

The scary thing... if he gets away with this it sets a new precedent. What else will he mandate by Executive Order?

8:00 PM tonight Barry declares amnesty.

Democrats block Keystone pipeline, but GOP vows new fight when it takes over

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXjZk_etp8c

This is an interesting development by the Dem's. Americans by a margin of 73% want Keystone passed. Have they learned anything from the last election? Barry can't be reelected (except by executive order) so the Dem's in the senate should be looking over their shoulder. This was their golden opportunity to take the credit. I can hear it now...Today we created thousands of jobs and became more energy independent blah,blah,blah.....

Yes, but Barry would veto it you say? Maybe not. In 2015 when the GOP owns Congress, the Democrats who value their jobs, will be on board to pass Keystone. Perhaps in a veto proof vote. On the other hand if they get say 64 votes instead of the mandatory 67 to override the veto the "party" of no will then reside in the WH.

Related post

 I can see it now... 

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

Senate Democrats blocked a move Tuesday to compel construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, dealing a sharp loss to one of their own, Sen. Mary Landrieu (La.), who had pinned her chances for reelection on approval of the measure.

The vote was a victory for environmental activists who have turned defeat of the pipeline into one of the central symbolic causes of their movement. But Republicans, who will take majority control of the Senate in the next Congress, vowed to return to the fight next year.

On a 59 to 41 roll call, Landrieu’s campaign fell one vote shy of passing legislation meant to force President Obama to approve the nearly 1,700-mile, $7.6 billion project, which would deliver 830,000 barrels of oil a day from western Canada to the American heartland. With just 14 Democrats backing it, Landrieu’s bill fell victim to a filibuster by her own party. All 45 Republicans voted for the measure.

In rejecting the bill, the Senate has granted Obama a temporary reprieve from a difficult decision: whether to side with the environmentalists who have been his staunch allies or with many moderate Democrats who hope to use the issue to win over swing voters.

Already six years in the making, the Keystone fight had become a final rallying cry for Landrieu, a three-term senator facing a runoff election Dec. 6. With her Keystone campaign, she placed a political bet on demonstrating both her clout in Washington and her independence from a very unpopular Obama.


The first thing to know about the Keystone pipeline? It already exists. Here's a breakdown of the pipeline's various parts. (Gillian Brockell, Jhaan Elker and Kate M. Tobey/The Washington Post)

She already faced a steep climb in a conservative state dominated by energy interests, and her task is now even tougher; if she loses next month, Republicans will hold a majority with 54 seats come January, up from their current 45-seat caucus.

“This is for Americans, for an American middle class,” Landrieu pleaded Tuesday evening, moments before the vote, arguing that jobs related to the pipeline would go to rural American communities struggling in the economic recovery. “The time to act is now.”

She then thanked her Democratic colleagues who supported her, including three who lost their elections this month. Once the roll call started, Landrieu stood mostly by herself in the chamber but at one point shared a hug with Sen. Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), one of the defeated incumbents.

Supporters argue that the new pipeline would lead to more efficient delivery of oil into domestic markets, helping secure a reliable source of energy, boosting the national economy and creating jobs tied to the pipeline’s construction. Opponents say it would facilitate the harvesting of oil from the environmentally dirty tar sands in Canada, leading to health risks, and would come online as domestic oil production is already booming.

After the vote Tuesday night, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), set to take over as majority leader, told his colleagues that he would bring up the pipeline “very early” next year.

Before the vote, the White House was careful not to issue a veto threat even as officials made it clear that Obama was likely to invoke one should the measure pass the Senate.

“It certainly is a piece of legislation that the president doesn’t support, because the president believes that this is something that should be determined through the State Department and the regular process that is in place to evaluate projects like this,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest. He added that Obama’s senior advisers have recommended vetoes on “similar pieces of legislation” that have been introduced in the past.


After a 59-41 Senate vote rejecting the Keystone XL pipeline was announced on Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) vowed that the issue will resurface on the agenda of the new Congress in January. (AP)

But, as McConnell made clear, the issue will not disappear. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has also indicated that he will bring up the matter next year, once Republicans control both chambers. Ten of the Senate Democrats who voted yes will be back next year, adding to the 53 or 54 Republicans whose votes McConnell can count on.

That places the likely support for the pipeline in senatorial limbo — enough to pass a bill and send it to the White House, but a few votes shy of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.

That prospect has led some supporters to suggest attaching it to a key spending bill or another must-pass measure, forcing a tougher political choice on the president.

Even some Democrats are open to using approval of Keystone XL as a negotiating chit in exchange for a significant policy concession from congressional Republicans, but it is unclear how receptive White House officials are to that idea.

After the Nov. 4 wipeout for Democrats, Landrieu was thrust into a runoff against Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.). State rules require the winner to reach 50 percent of the vote; Landrieu received 42 percent to Cassidy’s 41 percent, as the remaining votes went mostly to other Republicans on the ballot.

With financial backing disappearing in the face of her long odds, Landrieu made passing the Keystone legislation her last-gasp attempt to show voters back home that she still had influence in Washington.

She had run her general-election campaign boasting of her chairmanship of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a gavel that she predicted would lead to tangible results for Louisiana. Landrieu has been a strong supporter of the oil and gas industry, well before and beyond the Keystone XL fight.

In the wake of the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico from BP’s Macondo well, Landrieu pushed the Obama administration to lift its moratorium on drilling in the gulf. She personally lobbied Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and put a hold on the nomination of Jack Lew to head the Office of Management and Budget, angering Obama.

“I would not be alone in telling you that Senator Landrieu is one of most influential and effective advocates for the industry that we have on the Hill regardless of party affiliation,” said Jim Noe, senior vice president and general counsel of Hercules Offshore, which provides marine support to offshore drillers.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), after years of tangling the chamber in knots when it came to the pipeline, relented to Landrieu last week and allowed Tuesday’s debate and vote, even though he remained opposed to the measure and advised Obama to veto it.

Under a bipartisan agreement, Landrieu was given a single vote on the legislation with a supermajority threshold of 60 votes. Last week, House Republican leaders allowed Cassidy to author and pass an identical measure, making Landrieu’s defeat more politically painful Tuesday.

Landrieu had predicted victory Monday night, telling reporters that she felt “very comfortable” with her ability to hit the magic number.

So as the debate began Tuesday, Landrieu’s biggest opponents — liberals such as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee — were also her biggest supporters.

“Let the record be clear forever: This debate would not be before this body were it not for Sen. Landrieu’s insistence,” Boxer said in her opening remarks Tuesday morning.

Hours later, Boxer reiterated her praise: “Without Mary Landrieu we would not be having this debate.”

Democrats block Keystone pipeline, but GOP vows new fight when it takes over

The Cincinnati Observer

10:46 AM 11/18/2014

By

Moore Jobs

  Philadelphia -   Vice President Joe Biden speaking before the AWLD Adults with Learning Disabilities, which he is a member, stunned the conference announcing in a dramatic reversal he now remembers Gruber.  

(AP Photo/Alessandra Tarantino)

In the mutter of laughter his aides rushed to intervene informing him it was Goober not Gruber on the Andy Griffith Show. 

When reporters called into question Biden's remarks President Obama and Nancy Pelosi had no comment. 

The smoking gun!

You have to wonder after F&F, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, (to name a few) how much longer the MSM can remain compliant. Its pretty shameful when the only source of information from the national networks are the commercials!

Now this:

Yet another video surfaces (not Gruber… Barry) proving both he and Pelosi are liars. 

Remember when they said they he never heard of Jonathan Gruber? 

Barry issued this statement:

“The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed his opinion that I completely disagree with — it is no reflection on the actual process that was run.”

Life after lie after lie and still no response from the news media.

Why do we even have a news media? 

Evidently Democrats don't know what a video camera is because it seems they are completely unaware records are kept.

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

Article from the Daily Caller

Obama: ‘I Have Stolen Ideas Liberally’ From Jon Gruber 

President Barack Obama and a long list of Democrats are now arguing that MIT economist Jonathan Gruber wasn’t intimately involved in writing Obamacare, but yet another video shows Obama admitting that he’s “stolen ideas” from Jon Gruber himself — “liberally.”

Obama spoke at the Brookings Institution in a video posted by the conservative group American Commitment on Monday. The president was touting his policy ideas, which stemmed from what he called some of the “brightest minds from academia and policy circles.”

WATCH:

Video 98

Now that some of Gruber’s more outlandish statements about the health-care law have come to light, Obama has suddenly become less generous about Gruber’s role in authoring the law.

“The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is no reflection on the actual process that was run,” Obama said Monday in Australia.

But Gruber advised Obama’s first campaign in 2006 and went to the White House at least a dozen times while Obama’s been in office, in addition to receiving an almost $400,000 contract to advise on the health-care law.

His comments about a 2009 strategy meeting about Obamacare’s Cadillac tax on high-value health plans at the White House have sparked considerable outcry about the administration intentionally hiding some parts of the law from the public.

“He is like, ‘Look, I can’t just do this,’” Gruber said Obama explained at the 2009 round-table meeting. “‘It is just not going to happen politically. The bill will not pass. How do we manage to get there through phases and other things?’” And we talked about it. And he was just very interested in that topic.”

And in one of the most stark displays, a 2012 release from the Obama campaign itself said that Gruber himself “helped write Obamacare.”

In a press release after a debate with Gov. Mitt Romney, the Obama campaign depicted Gruber as a full-fledged architect of Obamacare in order to take a hit at Romney’s anti-Obamacare rhetoric, as Gruber worked for the Romney administration as well. The release cited a Bloomberg article which quoted Gruber, hailing him as “Jon Gruber Who Helped Write Obamacare And The Massachusetts Health Care Law.”

Gruber was also personally featured in a three-minute Obama campaign commercial which also sought to associate Romney’s health-care plan with Obama’s, as noted by Slate last week. In that 2012 commercial, Gruber’s lauded as a “health consultant to both Romney & Obama administrations.”

The smoking gun!

Who waved the magic wand?

Unless you live in a cave everybody knows Barry is about to break the oath he swore... To preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution by granting amnesty to illegals. The shit is really going to hit the fan on this one! Even the MSM, his trusted ally, may not be able to save him.
If he thought this was a wonderful idea, the American people would just love it, why wait until after the election to make the proclamation?

Declaring amnesty puts Barry on really thin ice. I'm talking impeachment. I brought this up once before and I was told...They'll never impeach the first black president. That was then this is now. An exit poll conducting by Kellyanne Conway's The Polling Company found that three-quarters (74%) of voters believed that "President Obama should work with Congress rather than around Congress on immigration."

So what do we have? In 2015 the GOP owns the House and Senate with 74% of Americans thinking granting amnesty is wrong. Add this to all his other scandals and you would think slam dunk impeachment. It won't be. Within the realm of possibility? Most definitely.

 A montage of Barry acknowledging he doesn't have the authority to grant amnesty. Could he be any more explicit? You be the judge. 

Video 97

Barry to a tee.

Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

George Orwell

Doesn't the rule of law differentiate us from countries such as Venezuela, Iran, Syria, and North Korea?

So how will Barry Chavez suddenly get the authority? Personally I think his lap dog Stedman has a lot to do with it. If you recall  he told lie, after lie, after lie, in the F&F debacle he created. Eventually Stedman ran out of lies and couldn't stonewall the investigation any longer so Issa and his crew could now finally tighten the noose. We all know what happened. Barry came to his rescue claiming Executive Privilege. The problem is you can't evoke Executive Privilege to cover up a crime. Nixon learned that the hard way. We'll never know the total death toll racked up by Stedman. But we do know Barry set him free with no repercussions especially from his other lap dog the MSM. I'm not suggesting Executive Privilege is the same as an Executive Order. Then again... Barry may believe if I could get away with setting Stedman free I could do the same for illegals.  

In the 50's under Eisenhower we were deporting illegals. Now we're importing. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback  

 I wonder what Lou Costello would say if he were alive today:

He can't grant amnesty but now he can? Isn't this the same guy who said you could keep your insurance? 

Who waved the magic wand?