Pelosi Crazy?

Is Pelosi craz?  Aren't all liberals?

Bishop Daniel Rea

This is my friend Bishop Daniel Rea of the Christian Church of Japan.  Follow the church link and fill out the contact form to inquire how you can help the good Bishop setup a homeless day center for the homeless in Nagoya, Japan.

Bishop Rea doesn't want to just help the homeless but to move the homeless from dependence to independence.  God bless you.

Oriana Farrell Is A Liar

Good Morning America and ABC are a bunch of idiots.

Oriana Farrell who stopped in new Mexico for going 100 MPH on a New Mexico highway back in October 2003 was not treated abusively by police.  There is the full video of the police encounter on Live Leaks.

Her comments on GMA about how she felt like Trayvon Martin is complete nonsense.  Like Skittles Martin who had drugs in his system, guess what?  So did Oriana, I know big surprise, right?

Full Unedited Video Here at Live Leaks

If you watch the actual full video and not some edited version to paint cops as the bad guys, you can clearly see this lady not only endangered the lives of her family, but of other people on the road. The cop was only going to give her a ticket for speeding. He was very professional, and never once tried to yank her out of the car, he definitely should have.

After the first time she ran, then pulled over, once she finally did get out so he could speak with her, she tried to run back to drivers seat, when he stopped her that is when her son got out and started punching the officer.

FYI, it was a responding officer that shot at the van, and if you watch the video closely, he was shooting at the tires. The van was never actually hit, you can see the bullet hitting the ground near the tires as she drives away. Never once did he fire INTO the van.
And that officer lost his job for shooting at her tires trying to slow her down.

The blame is totally on her and the media for spinning a very large lie due to race.

If it was a white woman and family, not a thing would have been said, except, wow look how dumb this lady is, boy they should have tased her.

Any one who watches the entire video and still supports here, are complete morons. Think about it, she could have hit you and your family on your way to the store, or to the movies, or maybe taking your kid to a special birthday dinner, and for what??? Because she didn't want a speeding ticket? Then felt it was okay to drive 100+ miles an hour through town to get her kids to a hotel, when she had an adult passenger and an adult son that could drive her van.

The American public wants to know how much Trayvon Martins mother, Sybrina Fulton, paid you to bring up Trayvons name on GMA this morning?  Every chance she gets she brings up the drug dealing thug and well known local thief. The school police found stolen goods in his locker that he stole from houses around his school they also found bags of pot he was selling!  His mother along with her attorney Benjamin Crump along with Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson, all four of them are race baiters. And Crump is trying to make a big name for him self.  Always has his hands out for money from law suits from dead kids.      

Now the truth does not fit with the Marxist secular progressive humanist cry baby myth that white cops are evil because Montoya is Hispanic not Caucasian, so now what?  Well lets hope the judge in the new trial will now have the ACTUAL video to go by and not the edited media version.            

What Obama Can Do When He Doesn't Give A Damn

What? Me Worry.

Hat tip JD Tuccille

Ah, to be unencumbered by worries or responsibilities. It's that feeling of open horizons known by twenty-somethings with an apartment and a first paycheck, by healthy retirees with topped-off 401Ks—and by second-term presidents who have stopped giving a shit about their own political party's prospects. In an era of expanding executive power, President Obama looks like a guy contemplating a world of interesting possibilities. Even his fellow Democrats seem a bit jittery about just what the man in the Oval Office has in mind.

Timothy Cama at The Hill writes, "President Obama’s election-year plan to win a new international climate change accord is making vulnerable Democrats nervous."

So why don't they just tell the president that any such deal is DOA in the Senate? At least until after the election?

Because Coral Davenport at the New York Times suggests that Obama plans to bypass Congress entirely.

[U]nder the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.
To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path...
American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.

By...umm...creatively building off an existing treaty, the president could unilaterally reach for the green-garbed legacy he covets. He would also confirm the fears of everybody who worries about executive overreach and probably torpedo the chances of at least a few Democrats in battleground states where the economic impact of such a deal would be an issue.

The proposal risks putting donkey party candidates in close races "in front of the firing squad," according to a Democratic strategist quoted by Cama.

But how likely is the unilateral strategy? When asked about such a Senate-bypassing scheme, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest coyly answered, "Because that agreement is not written, it's not yet clear exactly what sort of role Congress would be required to play."

President Obama is likely to follow a similar path on immigration issues. Karen Tumulty and Robert Costa at the Washington Post write:

Both political parties are in a state of high anxiety about the possibility that President Obama will allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the country, fearing that White House action on the issue could change the course of November’s midterm elections.
In the past few days, Democratic candidates in nearly every closely fought Senate race have criticized the idea of aggressive action by Obama. Some strategists say privately that it would signal that he has written off the Democrats' prospects for retaining control of the chamber, deciding to focus on securing his legacy instead.

The White House isn't even shy on the issue. When asked if Obama might "think twice about taking executive action on immigration," Earnest answered, "No...the President is determined to act where House Republicans won't."

A minority opinion among political strategists is that such a move is actually a clever plan to get GOP nativists foaming at the mouth so they hurt Republican prospects. But as reliably batshit as some Republicans can be on the immigration issue, Democrats are certain to suffer, too, from unilateral action on a controversial issue. And the whole idea of a republic based on limited govement power takes a hit when one person follows the "Stroke of the pen. Law of the Land. Kinda cool" approach to ruling a country by fiat.

Note, too, that the wisdom or lack thereof of a unilateral presidential action is irrelevant to the dangers of growing executive power. I would personally agree with some of the president's ideas on easing immigration restrictions. But the problems of a president set free to do as he damned well wishes, on his own, are problems of concentrated power, no matter how it's used.

And President Obama looks like he sees a world of interesting possibilities in using that power.

Obama A Radical Islamist? Some of us knew that already.

Hat tip to the Examiner

Today, a former CIA agent bluntly spoke out that America has switched sides in the war on terror under President Obama. Clare Lopez was willing to say what a few members of Congress have said in private, but declined to say on-the-record.

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy and a Senior Fellow at The Clarion Project, the London Center for Policy Research, and the Canadian Meighen Institute. Since 2013, she has served as a member of the Citizens Commission on Benghazi. Also Vice President of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006, and has served as a consultant, intelligence analyst, and researcher for a variety of defense firms. She was named a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute in 2011.

Lopez said the global war on terror had been an effort to “stay free of Shariah,” or repressive Islamic law, until the Obama administration began siding with such jihadist groups as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates. Lopez believes that the Muslim Brotherhood has thoroughly infiltrated the Obama administration and other branches of the federal government. One of the most outrageous of those appointments is Mohamed Elibiary, a senior member of the Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council. According to a report by the Center for Security Policy, Elibiary supports brokering a U.S. partnership with the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group. Two months ago, a firestorm erupted online after Elibiary tweeted that a “Caliphate” is inevitable and compared it to the European Union.

Ms. Lopez also believes Obama had essentially the same goals in the Mideast as the late Osama bin Laden: “to remove American power and influence, including military forces, from Islamic lands.” The former CIA operative’s perspective affects her prescription for what the U.S. should do about the terror army ISIS, as she called for caution and restraint.

While there has been a sudden chorus of politicians and military experts calling for the immediate elimination of the terrorist army after it beheaded American journalist James Foley last week, Lopez believes the U.S. should have an overall strategy in place before fully re-engaging in the Mideast militarily.Any military action would be further complicated, she told WND, if it were not clear which side the U.S. is on, either in the short term or in the overall war on terror.

Lopez felt it was impossible to understand why the president and some of his top appointees, such as CIA Director John Brennan, who is believed to be a Muslim convert, “consistently seem to apologize for Islam, even in the face of such atrocities as the Foley beheading,” adding, they “take pains to assure the world they don’t think IS, (or the Islamic State, also called ISIS) or whichever perpetrator it was, has anything to do with Islam. How can they possibly believe that genuinely when everything these jihadis do tracks directly to the literal text of Quran, hadiths and Shariah?”

“In any case, and for whatever motivations, there is no doubt this administration switched sides in what used to be called the Global War on Terror,” she said.

A real man, A real dad

Wanna see how a real dad handles things.

Obama A Threat To America

As if anyone with any intelligence had a doubt.

Hat Tip: Daily Caller Full Report

The report is in, and the review of the president’s foreign policy is clear: If there is not an immediate course-reversal, the United States is in serious danger.

In 2013, the United States Institute for Peace, “a congressionally-created, independent, nonpartisan institution whose mission is to prevent, mitigate, and resolve violent conflicts around the world,” was asked to assist the National Defense Panel with reviewing the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The National Defense Panel is a congressional-mandated bipartisan commission that’s co-chairs were appointed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.