Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) Calls Benghazi Special Committee: ‘It’s a Hunting Mission for a Lynch Mob”
I think the Democrats protest too much …
On Sunday during CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, liberal Senator Dianne Feinstein D-CA) called the House Select Committee on Benghazi is “ridiculous.” and said … “I think it’s a hunting mission for a lynch mob.” However, the American people overwhelmingly think different from Di-Fi as 67% support the creation of a Benghazi Special Committee and 51% believe the Obama Administration knowingly lied about blaiming a video tape for the terror attack for political purposes.
Full transcript HERE.
For Democrats, its all about protecting Hillary Clinton’s back side at this point for 2016.
Hey Liberals, Remember When Sarah Palin Predicted in 2008 That If Obama was Elected President, Putin and Russia Would Invade Ukraine … SHE WAS RIGHT!
HEY AMERICA, HOW’S THAT “HOPEY-CHANGEY STUFF” WORKING OUT FOR YA?
Remember in 2008 when then GOP Vice Presidential nominee said during a campaign rally in a Reno, Nevada, “After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.” Palin was mocked profusely for her comments by the Left and the liberal MSM. Flash-forward to present day … GUESS WHO WAS CORRECT? Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is now saying “I told you so” from her Facebook page following reports of a Putin – Russian “military invasion” in the Crimean area of Ukraine.
Um, I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did …
Yes, I could see this one from Alaska. I’m usually not one to Told-Ya-So, but I did, despite my accurate prediction being derided as “an extremely far-fetched scenario” by the “high-brow” Foreign Policy magazine. Here’s what this “stupid” “insipid woman” predicted back in 2008: “After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.”
With special thanks to JWF, they found this liberal gem from the past where Sarah Palin was mocked for her foreign policy comments regarding what would happen between Russian and Ukraine if Barack Obama was elected in 2008.
Palin helpfully offered four scenarios for such a crisis, one of which was this strange one:
After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama’s reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia’s Putin to invade Ukraine next.
As we’ve said before, this is an extremely far-fetched scenario. And given how Russia has been able to unsettle Ukraine’s pro-Western government without firing a shot, I don’t see why violence would be necessary to bring Kiev to heel. Watch the upcoming parliamentary elections in December to see if Moscow gets the pliable new government it wants.
So where are all those Democrats, Libs and liberal media types with their apologies? Doesn’t it just crush liberals that Sarah Palin was more correct on Russia than their Obamamessiah.
Remember When Barack Obama Ridiculed Mitt Romney During 2012 Presidential Debates about Russia … ‘1980s Are Calling to Ask for Their Foreign Policy Back’ … How Do Those “Rose Colored” Glasses Fit There Barack?
Yet another reason why you don’t elect, let alone reelect SNARK or a Campaigner is Chief …
Remember when Barack Obama made the snide, wise-a$$, ridiculing comment during the 2012 presidential debates to GOP candidate Mitt Romney regarding Russia and that the 1980′s want their foreign policy back? And everyone thought Obama was so cute making such a witty comment. So what do you think of Obama’s comments now as Russia and Vladimir Putin have invaded Ukraine. Just curious America, how’s that “Hopey-Changey” stuff working out for ya? Where is your
Moses Obamamessiah now? By the way Barack, how do those rose colored glasses fit?
Fox News’ Bret Baier opened a segment of his show Friday night by flashing back to an October 2012 presidential debate where President Obama ridiculed Republican presidential nominee Romney about his concern over Russia’s “geo-political” threat.
“You said Russia. Not Al Qaida. You said Russia,” Obama said regarding biggest threats. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the cold war’s been over for 20 years.”
Mitt Romney’s intelligent, powerful and correct retort was as follows:
“Russia, I indicated, is a geopolitical foe … and I said in the same paragraph I said and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin …”
Is it any wonder why at this moment so many Americans wish that had a do-over of the 2012 presidential election and they would not vote for Barack Obama. He has been wrong and an epic failure on everything in be domestic and foreign policy. What else would you expect but snark from an individual who was completely unqualified to be president?
Barack Obama Campaign Bundler Noah Bryson Mamet Nominated as Ambassador to Argentina Even Though Has Never Been to the Country or Speak Spanish
What a joke, Don’t Cry for Me Argentina … Obama Style. What else would you expect from a community organizer and a “Campaigner in Chief”?
Remember when Barack Obama campaigned that he was going to change the way things were done inside the Belt Way? Well you can forget that as Barack Obama is rewarding one of his campaign blunders with an ambassadorship to Argentina. Noah Bryson Mamet bundled more than $500,000 for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign and is now being rewarded for his fundraising. There is just one problem, the man who is supposed to represent the United states in Argentina has never been to the country. UNBELIEVABLE. One would think, as echoed at Slate, with the current state of affairs in Argentina, “delicate times, probably opportune times for a diplomat with years logged in South America”.
The Buenos Aires Herald reports, Mamet, who would be replacing Vilma Martínez after her term ended on July 4, is a veteran Democratic fund-raiser and consultant who has no evident experience with Latin American issues.
Sen. Marco Rubio shows his disbelief that the nominee for Ambassador to Argentina has never been there
Presidents often award diplomatic posts to campaign donors and fundraisers, but Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., suspects that Obama’s choice of ambassador to Argentina — a man who bundled more than $500,000 for President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, but who has never been to the country — is in over his head.
“Have you been to Argentina?” Rubio asked Noah Mamet during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing Thursday.
“I haven’t had the opportunity yet to be there,” Mamet replied. “I’ve traveled pretty extensively around the world, but I haven’t yet had a chance [to visit Argentina].”
Rubio implied that Argentina is too important a country to be entrusted to a campaign donor rather than a professional, as is the case with some other diplomatic posts. “I don’t view this appointment as one — I think this is a very significant post,” he said.
UPDATE I: This nomination by Barack Obama gets worse, if possible. In the VIDEO below the US State Department spokesperson does not even know if the nominee for the position to be an Ambassador in a Latin American country speaks Spanish. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! How could you not know this? Is it any wonder how the Hillary Clinton lead State Department botched Benghazi?
“I don’t have his personal biography in front of me.”
This presidency cannot end soon enough!
Barack Obama, the Divider in Chief: Obama Blames Racism Rather than Poor Job Performance For His Lower Approval Ratings
Once again Barack Obama cries racism instead of taking responsibility for his poor job performance … Obama plays the race card yet again.
In an interview with The New Yorker, Barack Obama blamed racism for his falling job approval and popularity numbers. Racial tensions is the reason why his popularity among white voters has waned within the past two years, are you kidding me? Sorry, but this man is a despicable human being and a poor excuse for a president who would continually try to divide a country between races and blame racism for his poor job as president. Disgusting!!! Obama thrives off of using the race card. This is why you never elect a community agitator as president.
Of course Obama could not look at the obvious to determine why his popularity among white voters has fallen in the past couple of years. Certainly it has nothing to do with the on going disastrous economy and Obama’s failure to create jobs. Also, it has nothing to do with Obama’s lies to the American people regarding Obamacare and that you could keep your insurance plan, if you liked it. It has nothing to do with other scandals like IRS-gate, Benghazi-gate and NSA-gate, where Americans no longer consider Obama trustworthy. And of course his failure in foreign policy has nothing to do with it either.
A note Barack Obama, when one is given the benefit of the doubt and then fails miserably on all aspects of their job, including their signature piece of legislation, you are deemed a failure and lose the support of the people.
President Barack Obama said that racial tensions may have softened his popularity among white voters within the last two years, according to a story posted on the New Yorker magazine’s website today.
“There’s no doubt that there’s some folks who just really dislike me because they don’t like the idea of a black president,” Obama said in the article by David Remnick, appearing in the magazine’s Jan. 27 edition.
“Now, the flip side of it is there are some black folks and maybe some white folks who really like me and give me the benefit of the doubt precisely because I’m a black president,” Obama said in his most direct comments on how race has affected his political standing since he’s been in office.
By the way, it is not just white voters where Obama has fallen badly in the polls. Barack Obama is down 23 points with Hispanics as well. Is that racism too? So are all of the following from the chart below racist too … they all have lower Obama approval numbers than 2012, including Blacks, Hispanics, Non-whites, women, men, Independents, moderate Democrats … pretty much everyone.
Chart from Gallup.com
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Names Barack Obama the Political Loser of the Year of 2013 … “Feels Like the 7th or 8th Year of His Presidency”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has lost that thrill running up his leg … Hey Mathews, How’s that “Hopey-Changey” thing working out for ya?
Friday morning on ‘The Morning Joe,’ Matthews named Barack Obama the political loser of the year for 2013. How painful must that have been for Chris Matthews to say, rather than acting like a school girl with a crush and a thrill running up his leg. Maybe Mathews just hadn’t enough coffee that morning and had a moment of weakness where he was actually telling the truth. Many liberals are going to have an introspective in evaluating Barack Obama and the failure that has been his presidency as his poll numbers near the 30′s. How difficult will it be for Chris Mathews, the rest of the liberal MSM and Democrats to admit … he [Obama] is not the one they were waiting for.
“Terrible year for the president. I mean, it’s terrible,” he said.
Joe Scarborough agreed that it has been a “terrible year” for Obama after there was “so much hope” following his second inauguration.
“There’s another piece of it which you’re subtly getting at,” Matthews continued. “It’s not just that it’s a bad year in terms of the rollout. There’s an erosion in interest. It feels like a very long presidency now. It feels like the seventh or eighth year of a presidency. It doesn’t feel like the fifth.”
JOE SCARBOROUGH, HOST: Let me ask you losers, political losers of the year?
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Terrible year for the president. I mean, it’s terrible, this…
SCARBOROUGH: Can you go back a year? One year ago, the president was getting ready for his second inauguration. So much hope. This has been a terrible year. [American voters buyers remorse for if the election was today, Obama would have been run out of office in an epic landslide].
MATTHEWS: There’s another piece of it which you’re subtly getting at. It’s not just that it’s a bad year in terms of the rollout. There’s an erosion in interest. It feels like a very long presidency now. It feels like the seventh or eighth year of a presidency. It doesn’t feel like the fifth. There wasn’t that rejuvenation that comes with re-election. There wasn’t any, certainly he was never going to get a honeymoon from the other side, but there was no sense of wow. And I think that’s hurt him a lot.
Seventh or eighth year of the presidency … are you kidding … IT FEELS LIKE THE 7th or 8th TERM OF OBAMA’S PRESIDENCY!!!
Hmm, I Don’t Remember Obama Saying the Following … Obamacare Architect Zeke Emanuel Says, “If You Want to Pay More For An Insurance Company that Covers Your Doctor, You Can Do That”
Can you imagine how the 2012 Presidential election would have turned out if Barack Obama had told the truth and said, if you like your healthcare plan and doctor, you can pay more to keep them?
Barack Obama said to pass Obamacare and to get reelected, “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it, PERIOD! Well, we all know that was a lie. Guess what else was a lie, keeping your doctor if you liked them and paying less. The latest misrepresentation coming to light has to do with individuals being able to keep their doctors. Obama stated, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” But of course that was another Obama lie. Obamacare architect Zeke Emanuel said on Fox News Sunday as he was dodging Chis Wallace’s questions to keeping one’s doctor, “the president never said that you were going to have unlimited choice of any doctor in the country that you want to go to.” Well, that was never the question.
It’s not that simple. In order to participate in health-insurance exchanges, insurers needed to find a way to tamp down the high costs of premiums. As a result, many will narrow their networks, shrinking the range of doctors that are available to patients under their plan, experts say.
“Many people are going to find out that the second part of the promise — that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor — just wasn’t true,” says Gail Wilensky, who directed the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs under President George H.W. Bush. Factcheck.org labeled the promise “misleading,” noting that while the law doesn’t contain provisions designed to force people to pick new doctors, a switch may be inevitable for some. “The President simply can’t make this promise to anyone,” the site wrote.
Unbelievable, the gall of these people that they are now passing Obamacare off as a choice. The government is forcing people to buy an insurance that they say is okay or face a tax (penalty) and that is a choice? Individuals were perfectly fine with the coverage and doctors they had, but the government as now made it a choice that Americans must pay more to keep the very choice that they already had. ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!!
The host, Chris Wallace: “President Obama famously promised, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Doesn’t that turn out to be just as false, just as misleading, as his promise about if you like your plan, you can keep your plan? Isn’t it a fact, sir, that a number, most, in fact, of the Obamacare health plans that are being offered on the exchanges exclude a number of doctors and hospitals to lower costs?”
Zeke Emanuel: “The president never said you were going to have unlimited choice of any doctor in the country you want to go to.”
Chris Wallace: “No. He asked a question. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Did he not say that, sir?”
Zeke Emanuel: “He didn’t say you could have unlimited choice.”
Chris Wallace: “It’s a simple yes or no question. Did he say if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?”
Zeke Emanuel: “Yes. But look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that. This is a matter of choice. We know in all sorts of places you pay more for certain — for a wider range of choices or wider range of benefits.The issue isn’t the selective networks. People keep saying, Oh, the problem is you’re going to have a selective network–”
Chris Wallace: “Well, if you lose your doctor or lose your hospital–”
Zeke Emanuel: “Let me just say something,” said Emanuel. “People are going to have a choice as to whether they want to pay a certain amount for a selective network or pay more for a broader network.”
Chris Wallace: “Which will mean your premiums will probably go up.”
Zeke Emanuel”They get that choice. That’s a choice they always made.”
Chris Wallace: “Which means your premium may go up over what you were paying so that, in other words –
“Young Invincibles” Turn on Obama in a Major Way … Harvard Poll: Millennial’s 18-29 Year-Olds Says 54% Disapprove of Obama’s Job Performance, 61% Disapproved of his Handling of Healthcare & 57% Disapproved of the Affordable Care Act
Millennial Buyers Remorse …
OUCH … 18 to 29 year-olds are in revolt against President Barack Obama, how he has handled his job, healthcare and Obamacare itself!!!
Hey Mr. President … the millennial’s just are not that into you anymore now that they know they truth and they have been lied to and used. Couple the healthcare lies with the NSA spying scandals and the youth that so supported Barack Obama in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections now learn that there is nothing “Hopey-Changey” about Obama. He is the same old, same old lying politicians. Maybe even worse. According to a new Harvard IOP poll, among the 18- 29- year olds currently without health insurance, less than 1/3 say they’re likely to enroll in the exchange. 13% say they will definitely enroll, 16% say they will probably enroll; 41% say they are 50-50 at the moment.
- 54% Disapprove of Obama’s Job Performance
- 61% Disapproved of his Handling of Healthcare
- 57% Disapproved of the Affordable Care Act
- 44% said they think the quality of their health care will get worse
The Millennials actually now look more like the rest of the voter electorate.
The trend is daunting for the White House but not necessarily surprising,” said Pew Research Center Director Michael Dimock.
“Younger folks are part of Obama’s base … but the rollout confirmed concerns that were already in their minds.”
A poll released Wednesday by Harvard University’s Institute of Politics found that more than half of 18- to 29-year-olds disapprove of ObamaCare and believe it will raise their healthcare costs.
Even more troubling for the administration is that less than one-third of uninsured young people said they plan to enroll in coverage.
Without a large number of young, healthy people in the insurance exchanges, it could create a “death spiral” of high premiums that could threaten the long-term viability of the marketplaces.
The White House appears to recognize the growing threat, and is making outreach to younger people a major focus of its ObamaCare relaunch.
The president began the effort on Wednesday with a youth summit at the White House where he urged audience members to spread the word about the new healthcare exchanges — and think hard about their own health risks.
CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley: Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) & Rep. Rogers (R-MI) Both Say America Is Less Safe From Terrorism Today Than It Has Been in Recent Years … What Happened to Obama’s Claim “Al-Qaeda is on the run”
Looks like Americans were told another lie, I thought President Barack Hussein Obama told us that Al-Qaeda was on the run and on the road to defeat?
This Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, were in complete bipartisan agreement that the United States is less safe from terrorism today than it has been in recent years. Remember when Barack Obama ran on the reelection sound byte that “Al-Qaeda was on the run and on the path to defeat”. Hmm, too bad this president is all about campaigning to win an election and not about leading to defend America against its enemies.
Americans shouldn’t feel safer today than they did before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the leaders of the Senate and House intelligence committees said Sunday.
The country now faces a larger number of threats from splintered terrorist groups and more complex weapons than when the U.S. began combat operations in Afghanistan in 2001, the lawmakers said on CNN’s State of the Union. At the same time, the nation’s spy programs–which can help foil terrorist plots–are under heavy scrutiny that could ultimately lessen their effectiveness.
“The threat is higher today and we’re probably less safe,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said.
His counterpart in the Senate agreed.
“I think terror is up world-wide,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.). “There are new bombs, very big bombs…and more groups than ever.”
Sen. Feinstein said advanced weapons make it easier to bring a bomb onto an airplane and make it harder to track possible threats.
CROWLEY: The big question that’s always asked, are we safer now than we were a year ago, two years ago? In general?
FEINSTEIN: I don’t think so. I think terror is up worldwide, the statistics indicate that, the fatalities are way up. The numbers are way up. There are new bombs, very big bombs, trucks being reinforced for those bombs. There are bombs that go through magnatometers. The bomb maker is still alive. There are more groups that ever and there’s huge malevolence out there.
CROWLEY: So congressman, I have to say, that is not the answer I expected. I expected to hear, oh, we’re safer. Do you agree?
ROGERS: Oh, I absolutely agree that we’re not safer today for the same very reasons.
So the pressure on our intelligence services to get it right to prevent an attack are enormous. And it’s getting more difficult because we see the al Qaeda as we knew it before is metastasizing to something different, more affiliates than we’ve ever had before, meaning more groups that operated independently of al Qaeda have now joined al Qaeda around the world, all of them have at least some aspiration to commit an act of violence in the United States or against western targets all around the world.
They’ve now switched to this notion that maybe smaller events are okay. So if you have more smaller events than bigger events, they think that might still lead to their objectives and their goals. That makes it exponentially harder for our intelligence services to stop an event like that.
CROWLEY: Because essentially one person can do a small event.
CROWLEY: So, one of the things that the senator said was that there is more hatred out there, more – and why is that? (read more HERE)
How’s that post Iraq looking these days? How’s that claim of the defeat of terrorism looking today? How’s that talking with the Taliban in Afghanistan, the very enemy we looked to defeat, for a troop withdrawal looking these days? How is Libya looking? How about Syria? This is what happens when you put a community agitator, presidential novice in the White House.
WAPO OP-ED: End Presidential Term Limits … Let’s Have a King Again Instead … We Should Have Senate and House Term Limits
End presidential term limits, are you insane? We should implement US House and Senate term limits as well.
In what might be one of the most foolishly thought out premise, NYU history professor Jonathan Zimmerman inked a WAPO oped titled “End presidential term limits,” suggesting that the 22nd Amendment limiting presidents to two terms of office should be repealed as a way to assuring a more effective presidency and protecting democracy from a leader without fear of voters’ wrath. Why is it so important now, because Barack Obama is president? Hell, it’s not like he follows the US Constitution now, watch him run for a third term anyhow and call those oppose racists.
Sorry, but if our countries first president, George Washington, thought multiple terms was a bad thing, that is good enough for me. As it was Washington had to be talked into a second term. Ending term limits was wrong when it was discussed by Republicans during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, it was wrong when Democrats brought it up with Bill Clinton and it is still wrong with Barack Obama. The office of the President is bigger than any one man, that includes Obama. There is a reason why America fought a War of Independence against King George and it was not to replace one tyrant with another.
In 1947, Sen. Harley Kilgore (D-W.Va.) condemned a proposed constitutional amendment that would restrict presidents to two terms. “The executive’s effectiveness will be seriously impaired,” Kilgore argued on the Senate floor, “ as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the executive cannot run again.”
I’ve been thinking about Kilgore’s comments as I watch President Obama, whose approval rating has dipped to 37 percent in CBS News polling — the lowest ever for him — during the troubled rollout of his health-care reform. Many of Obama’s fellow Democrats have distanced themselves from the reform and from the president. Even former president Bill Clinton has said that Americans should be allowed to keep the health insurance they have.
Or consider the reaction to the Iran nuclear deal. Regardless of his political approval ratings, Obama could expect Republican senators such as Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and John McCain (Ariz.) to attack the agreement. But if Obama could run again, would he be facing such fervent objections from Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)?
Probably not. Democratic lawmakers would worry about provoking the wrath of a president who could be reelected. Thanks to term limits, though, they’ve got little to fear.
Nor does Obama have to fear the voters, which might be the scariest problem of all. If he chooses, he could simply ignore their will. And if the people wanted him to serve another term, why shouldn’t they be allowed to award him one?
Nothing to fear eh, what would you call the approval rating in the 30′s and the panic that Democrats are presently experiencing? Also, Zimmerman says, “If he [Obama] chooses, he could simply ignore their will.” Just curious, when did Barack Obama or Democrats ever care about the will of the People?
That being said, not only should the 22nd Amendment not be repealed, there should be term limits for Senators and House members as well. As a matter of fact there should be a limit as to how many years that some one can serve in over-all political life. These people need to understand who they work for and the laws they pass will eventually effect them too. That does not happen in today’s politics.