Abdulazeez's yearbook...a self-fulfilling prophecy

(Click to enlarge)

Abdulazeez's yearbook...a self-fulfilling prophecy

Just think how ludicrous this is!

More than half the new driver's licenses issued in California during the first six months of the year have gone to immigrants in the country illegally, the state Department of Motor Vehicles reported Friday.

We have all heard about illegals getting a drivers license but this kicks it up a notch! Lib's in CA won't be happy until they're outnumbered 10 to 1.

Illegals protesting for a drivers license and 

the Libtards are only too happy to give it to them.

(Click to enlarge)

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

Immigrants received 397,000 of the 759,000 original driver's licenses issued in California since the January beginning of a new law aimed at providing licenses to those not legally in the country but who can document their identity and California residency.

"The latest numbers reflect the continued successful implementation of AB 60," said DMV Director Jean Shiomoto. "The DMV was determined to develop a process that would not only meet the stringent requirements of this new law, but also the unique needs of our newly expanded customer base." 

("stringent requirements"…"newly expanded customer base"...for people who shouldn't be here to begin with?) 

Gov. Jerry Brown and other state officials decided to provide licenses to immigrants so they could legally drive to work and school and to improve traffic safety by requiring them to pass the driver's license test and get insurance.

Many more immigrants are in line to receive the specially marked licenses, which do not entitle them to vote or board airplanes.

The DMV reported that it has received about 687,000 driver's license applications from immigrants who are in the country illegally, while 1.4 million people have visited the DMV to ask about the special licenses.

We're probably the only country in the world dumb enough to issue a drivers license to illegals.

Just think how ludicrous this is!

No Americans in IAEA's Iran inspection teams, says Susan Rice

This can't be true. We brokered the deal and no American is allowed to inspect? Surely this new caveat will be the kiss of death in Congress!

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

American investigators will not be part of the International Atomic Energy Agency team inspecting Iranian nuclear sites, inspections that are mandated in a historic agreement signed this week to curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for lifting crippling international sanctions. 

"The IAEA will field an international team of inspectors and those inspectors will, in all likelihood, come from IAEA member states, most of whom have diplomatic relations with Iran. We [the United States] are a rare exception," US National Security Adviser Susan Rice told CNN on Thursday. 

"No Americans will be part of the IAEA team," she emphasized.

"There are not going to be independent American inspectors separate from the IAEA" in Iran, Rice said when pressed on the issue. "The IAEA will be doing the inspections on behalf of the US and the rest of the international community."

IAEA inspectors at Iran's nuclear power plant in Natanz on January 20, 2014 (IRNA/AFP Kazem Ghane)

She did not indicate whether this was a condition placed by Iran for agreeing to the inspections.

The US cut off diplomatic relations with Iran in the wake of the 1979 hostage crisis at the embassy in Tehran, in which 52 Americans were held captive for 444 days. Since the election of the relatively moderate President Hassan Rouhani in 2013, the US and Iran have seen a gradual, if careful, rapprochement, including a phone call between President Barack Obama and Rouhani on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly two years ago.

Iran and the US-led P5+1 world powers signed a deal in Vienna this week aimed at reining in Iran's disputed nuclear program.

The deal allows IAEA inspectors to visit suspect Iranian facilities, though the inspections may only take place some 24 days after a question arises, which opponents of the accord, including Israel, see as a major flaw and a potential loophole for concealing forbidden nuclear work.

But Secretary of State John Kerry insisted Friday that the UN inspectors will have plenty of time to detect any Iranian bid to cheat.

"I can assure you our intelligence community is completely comfortable that 24 days is not enough time for them to be able to evade our technical means, our capacity to observe," he told MSNBC.

Israel, Saudi Arabia and others have slammed the deal for not going far enough to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threshold state. Opponent have also criticized what they deem far-reaching US concessions to Iran, including on inspections and sanctions.

Israel has maintained that the billions that will flow into Iranian coffers following the lifting of punitive measures will go to finance terrorism on a major scale, an argument the US has had some difficulty disputing.

In her CNN interview, Rice said the US thinks Iran will spend the money "on people and their economy which is tanked," but acknowledged that "it is possible and in fact we should expect that some portion of that money would go to the Iranian military and could potentially be used for the kinds of bad behavior that we have seen in the region up until now."

"But the goal was never, and was not designed to prevent them from engaging in bad behavior in the region, they're doing that today. The goal is to ensure that they don't have a nuclear weapon, and therefore when they are engaging in that bad behavior, it's that much more dangerous," she added vaguely.

The deal sets out a so-called "snapback" mechanism to put the old sanctions back in place. It establishes a joint commission which would examine any complaints if world powers feel Iran has not met its commitments under the Vienna deal.

The United Nations Security Council is expected to endorse the 10-year deal next Monday.

The text of the resolution circulated by the United States to members of the council "requests the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency to undertake the necessary verification and monitoring of Iran's nuclear commitments."

The new resolution, when passed, would replace the existing framework of seven sets of Security Council sanctions imposed since 2006 on Iran, enshrining a new set of restrictions.

Once the council receives the IAEA's report on compliance, the seven sets of Security Council sanctions can be repealed.

No Americans in IAEA's Iran inspection teams, says Susan Rice

Barry goes for an end around Congress...AGAIN

Obama's U.N. plan backfires in Congress

Corker should have told Barry something along this line.

This is the last straw. We own the House and the Senate. The minute you try to circumvent Congress by going over our head to the UN will be the minute we file Articles of Impeachment. We’ll drag this out for as long as it takes. You may or may not be impeached. But your legacy as the worse president in history, already etched is stone, will be further intensified with another black mark on your record called impeachment proceedings. 

You make the call.




Think about it. What do these feckless Republicans have to lose? At least stand for something! They could frame it like this... a vote for impeachment is a vote against a nuclear Iran. A vote against impeachment is a vote for a nuclear Iran.

Why impeachment? Because of all his scandals and crimes this buy far is the worse.

1.  It puts America in harms way

2.  No polite way to put it. Barry just fucked Israel

(If you're a Jew and voted for Barry once, let alone twice, you must feel like a complete fool)

3.  Because of this deal he set in motion a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

Barry will never pay the price for this because when the shit hits the fan he'll be out of office blaming his successor.

So make him pay now.

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

President Obama's attempt to outmaneuver Congress and win quick United Nations approval for the Iran nuclear agreement is backfiring on him in Congress, and could further erode support among key players.

Key senators were already outraged that the administration was taking the lead in negotiating a deal and sidelining Congress' traditional role of being directly involved in haggling the finer points of arms control agreements. They were resigned to let the administration handle the negotiations in return for the promise that they would have ample opportunity to review the deal and vote on it.

But Kerry this week moved to exert the maximum global leverage on Congress by circulating a legally binding draft of the deal to the United Nations Security Council. A vote at the U.N. is expected early next week to end the international body's sanctions against Iran in return for Tehran curbing its nuclear program.

He made the move before Congress had received the full documents related to the deal and before the Senate's 60-day review period began. And he even seemed to dare Congress to try to reject the deal, which he said would make the U.S. the non-compliant country.

"If Congress were to veto the deal, Congress — the United States of America — would be in noncompliance with this agreement and contract to all of the other countries of the world," Kerry said earlier this week.

The comments were in stark contrast to Kerry's assurances earlier this year to senators that the administration is not trying to marginalize Congress.

The 180-degree turnabout outraged Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as well as its ranking member, Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., who appeared to be leaning in favor of backing the agreement before Obama's strategy became apparent.

The two emerged from a meeting with Vice President Joe Biden Thursday, and proceeded to call out the administration's efforts to sideline Congress. Corker called the move an "affront to the American people" and Congress, and said he talked to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power earlier in the day and told her the step isn't "prudent."

Cardin echoed that, and warned the administration not to move forward with a U.N. vote on the deal until lawmakers have a chance to review it.

"Acting on it at this stage is a confusing message to an independent review by Congress over these next 60 days," he said. "If the United States is signing onto the United Nations program and later on we're not part of it, what we'll do is inconsistent with the U.N. resolution, so it would be better not to have action on the U.N. resolution."

Still, he noted that any U.N. action next week or during Congress' 60 day-review period wouldn't result in the sanctions being lifted before Congress votes on the resolution. He noted that the U.N. resolution won't take effect for 90 days, pushing any international sanctions relief until October.

The two followed up with a letter to Obama Thursday arguing that any move to get United Nations approval before Congress has a chance to review the deal would break the president's promise to give Congress and the American people a chance to fully review the deal.

"We are deeply concerned that your administration plans to enable the United Nations Security Council to vote on the agreement before the United States Congress can do the same," they wrote.

Cardin's support for the letter is a key sign that Obama might lose some of the Democratic support he'll need to get the deal through the Senate. Republicans are known to oppose the deal, and they also piled on by opposing Obama's maneuver.

The White House tried to do some damage control Thursday afternoon, saying there's nothing in the U.N. Security Council resolution that requires the U.S. to implement the agreement.

"We will not begin implementation of the plan until after the congressional review period is over," deputy press secretary Eric Schultz told reporters traveling on Air Force One.

"… We should be clear about the sequencing here," he said. "We are sending the draft version of the deal to the Security Council immediately for its review and we hope for a quick endorsement."

"We should make clear that the Security Council does not lessen the importance of Congress or its review" of the deal, he said.

But the comments did nothing to stop the outrage among Republicans.

Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., a vocal opponent of the deal, accused the White House of trying to preempt Congress's 60-day review of the Iran deal, and called the move "a breathtaking assault on American sovereignty and congressional prerogative."

"I am shocked that Secretary of State Kerry actually admitted, on the record, that he wants to create a situation where congressional disapproval of the Iran deal would make the United States in violation of the international community," Kirk said.

Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican presidential contender, called the move "absolutely unacceptable," "undemocratic," and said it demonstrates a lack of confidence in the administration's own agreement.

"The president is relying on adversaries like Russia and China to stifle the views of the American people's elected representatives. It's a clear sign that he knows if this deal is reviewed closely by the American people, it will be rejected," Rubio said.

He then pledged to do "everything in my power" to ensure that we reject this deal despite Obama's attempt to silence Congress. "We cannot allow America's security to be outsourced to the United Nations," he concluded.

Barry goes for an end around Congress...AGAIN

"There's no precedent for revoking Cosby's Medal of Freedom"

Guess this didn't apply when he decreed Amnesty for 5 million illegals.

The proof is in the pudding.

Video 129

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

President Obama on Bill Cosby: If you give someone a drug and have sex with them, that's rape

(And when you tell someone they can keep their insurance but they can’t, that’s a lie)

President Barack Obama responded to a reporter's question Wednesday regarding whether he will revoke comedian Bill Cosby's Medal of Freedom.

"I'll say this -- if you give a woman or man, without his or her knowledge a drug, and then have sex with that person without consent, that's rape," Obama said during a White House press conference on Capitol Hill. "I think this country, any civilized country should have no tolerance for rape."

Obama added that there's no precedent for revoking Cosby's Medal of Freedom.

The press conference, which was intended to cover the newly struck Iran nuclear deal comes one day after the U.S. and five other world powers sealed the long-sought and controversial deal.

More than two dozen women have accused Cosby of sexual misconduct in the past four decades, and many alleged that he drugged and raped them. The 78-year-old comedian, who has never been charged with a crime, denied some accusations while declining to comment or respond to the others.

In addition to Cosby's legal woes, a group supporting sexual assault victims is petitioning President Barack Obama to revoke Cosby's Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Promoting Awareness Victim Empowerment launched the campaign Wednesday through the White House's "We the People" website. The group says it is working with women who have accused Cosby of drugging and sexually assaulting them. It's collected about 2,000 signatures in less than a day.

President George W. Bush presented the nation's highest civilian honor to Cosby in 2002, citing his revolutionary portrayal of blacks on television and his interest and dedication to education.

The group's executive director says: "Bill Cosby's name does not belong among this distinguished list."

"There's no precedent for revoking Cosby's Medal of Freedom"