Barack Obama Slams Trump Building a Wall During Rutgers Commencement Speech … As the White House Builds a Higher Fence (VIDEO)
BARACK OBAMA THE HYPOCRITE IN CHIEF IS AT IT AGAIN …
Isn’t this amazing and oh so typical, as Barack Obama tells a graduating class at Rutgers University during a commencement speech that building walls doesn’t change anything. Oh course this was a backhanded slap at Donald Trump by Obama. Could you be any more small? And more of a hypocrite? The liar in chief was back at it again trying to tell millennials that building a wall to keep illegals out was a bad this as the White House is currently constructing a taller fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to keep people out. Shocker. Obama claims walls don’t solve ills, really?
President Obama used his commencement speech at Rutgers University to tear into Donald Trump’s trade agenda, his Muslim ban, and his planned wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.As he did at an address at Howard University earlier this spring, the president went straight after Trump’s most controversial policies after the usual bromides hailing graduates and name-dropping their favorite greasy spoons and watering holes.
‘The world is more interconnected than ever before. And it’s becoming more connected every day. Building walls won’t change that,’ Obama said.
‘To help ourselves, we’ve got to help others, not pull up the drawbridge and try to keep the world out,’ Obama said.
Obama never mentioned Donald Trump by name but he clearly advised against believing in the Republican candidate’s campaign platform. Obama stated, “The world is more interconnected than ever before. Building walls won’t change that.” Obama also said that ignorance is not a virtue and not knowing what you’re talking about shouldn’t be viewed as telling it like it is. It should be viewed as a rejection of responsible thought.
The White House fence is currently 6 feet tall, this one goes to 11.
But wait, Obama slams Trump for wanting to build a wall to protect the United States borders and sovereignty, as the White House is getting its fences raised 5 feet in order to keep trespassers out. Imagine that, higher and stronger fences do work. So it is okay for the White House to have a higher fence to keep people out, but it is not okay for the United States of America to have the same. First they installed spikes on top of the fence and now plan on making it taller. Hmm, anyone see a double standard here?
The U.S. Secret Service plans to raise the height of the White House security fence by 5 feet and add a new concrete foundation to reduce the risk of fence-jumpers, according to a copy of an agency report obtained by the News4 I-Team.
The agency, along with the National Park Service, said it intends to begin building a “taller, stronger” fence to protect the White House grounds by 2018.
And from the Right Wing News comes more Obama hypocrisy when it comes to walls …
But, seriously, what about walls? Obama lives behind a big fence, one which the Secret Service wants to make bigger. Five feet bigger. And the security for the fence, an attempt to keep the world out, includes armed security, many with sniper rifles.
Apparently, walls work, because Team Obama is funding a wall on the Tunisia/Libya border to stop the flow of Islamists. There’s also partial funding for a wall in Jordan. And supposedly one in Niger to stop Boko Haram.
Senate Republicans State No Hearings & No Votes for Obama’s Supreme Court Pick Just Like Joe Biden Stated in 1992
SORRY DEMOCRATS, THE REPUBLICANS ARE JUST DOING WHAT JOE BIDEN HAD PREVIOUSLY SAID THE DEMOCRATS WOULD DO TO GEORGE H.W. BUSH …
Washington, DC is full of hypocrites and this time the Democrats are about to eat a great big hypocrisy sandwich. Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced with the solidarity and united front of Republicans that there would be no hearings and no votes for any Supreme Court justice nominee until Obama is out of office. Obama, Biden, Schumer and the rest of the Democrats can all claim that they are outraged and this is a disgrace to the process, but they are all on record in the past of saying and doing the same thing. Actually in 1992 Biden stated as the head of the judiciary committee, “The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling hearings on the nomination, until after the political campaign season is over.” As opined at Hot Air, Democrat Chucky Schumer is at a loss for words when trying to spin Biden’s comments. That’s a first.
We are going to hold the spineless McConnell and Senate Republicans to Mitch’s recent comment … There will be a political revolution if he goes back on these words.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told a group of staunch House conservatives there isn’t “a snowball’s chance in hell” that he will back down from his opposition to confirming a Supreme Court justice before a new president is elected.
Senate Republicans on Tuesday united behind an official position on how to deal with President Obama’s expected nominee to replace the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia: no hearings, no votes and no new justice until Obama is out of office.
“Presidents have a right to nominate, just as the Senate has its constitutional right to provide or withhold consent,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a morning floor speech. “In this case, the Senate will withhold it.”
That declaration was underscored after McConnell held a closed-door meeting with Republicans sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee. All 11 GOP panel members subsequently signed a letter pledging not to hold hearings on any replacement for Scalia until a new president is inaugurated.
Their decision not to act, they said, was “based on constitutional principle and born of a necessity to protect the will of the American people.” But Republican senators have also been emboldened in recent days by past statements from Democratic senators arguing against confirming the judicial nominees of Republican presidents in election years.
In particularly heavy rotation Tuesday was Vice President Biden’s 1992 suggestion, made when he was a senator and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, that the panel ought to “seriously consider” not holding hearings on an election-year Supreme Court nominee.
Joe Biden Said in 1992 that a President Should Not Name a SCOTUS Nominee “Once the Political Campaign Season is Underway”
EVEN BARACK OBAMA’S VP SAYS THAT OBAMA SHOULD NOT APPOINT A SCOTUS NOMINEE ONCE THE POLITICAL SEASON HAS STARTED …
Check out the VIDEO below where in 1992 Sen. Joe Biden says that a president should not nominate a SCOTUS once the political season is underway. Hmm, just how hypocritical is this White House? Barack Obama has previously filibustered previous SCOTUS nominees, but now talks a different game when the shoe is on the other foot. So did Senate Democrats. So does his VP. Biden literally stated that he not only did not want the Supreme Court Justice vacancy filled, but he also did not want the Judiciary Committee to even hold hearings on a nomination. Well how do you like that? Biden wanted President Bush to decline from making a nomination altogether. Boy aren’t the two hypocrites in the White House singing a different tune these days.
Game, Set and Match … Obama gets no say in who the next SCOTUS will be. According to Biden’s own words, if allowed, “we will be in deep trouble as a an institution.”
But when he was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in June 1992, Biden suggested Democrats should “seriously consider” not holding confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court nominee put forward by President George H.W. Bush if a justice were to retire in the final months of the presidential election year.
“The Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling hearings on the nomination, until after the political campaign season is over,” Biden said in a floor address on June 25, 1992, about reforming the Supreme Court confirmation process.
We all knew that one day Joe Biden would put his foot in his mouth with all of his crazy comments. Who knew that it would be one regarding the appointment of SCOTUS nominees and would knee cap Barack Obama. As Hot Air opines, thanks Joe!
How do you spin this if you’re the White House? I guess by focusing on the calendar. Biden said this in late June, several weeks after Bill Clinton had effectively clinched the Democratic nomination. The claim here will be that when Biden said “once the political season is underway,” he meant the general election, not the primary. But there’s no reason to draw that kind of line. The possibility that the next president will fill Scalia’s vacancy is already affecting votes in the process of choosing that president. All we can do now is let the process play out. Thanks, Joe!
“Historically, this has not been viewed as a question,” Mr. Obama said last week. “There’s no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off years — that’s not in the constitutional text.”
But in a speech on the Senate floor in June 1992, Mr. Biden, then the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said there should be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” The president should follow the example of “a majority of his predecessors” and delay naming a replacement, Mr. Biden said. If he goes forward before then, the Senate should wait to consider the nomination.
“Some will criticize such a decision and say that it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it, but that would not be our intention,” Mr. Biden said at the time. “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.
“That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me,” he added, “we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”
Mr. Biden’s speech came to light on Monday as the White House said Mr. Obama was poring through a thick binder of potential nominees, with an eye toward deciding on his pick within weeks. It quickly became fodder for Republicans who have suggested that the president should wait to name a successor to Justice Scalia, or that the Senate should delay considering one.
Two Faces of Democrat Chucky Schumer … FLASHBACK: In 2007, Schumer Called For Blocking All Bush Supreme Court Nominations (VIDEO)
The lying, duplicitous, double-talking Democrat Chucky Schumer was against lame duck presidential SCOTUS appointments, before he was for it …
So Schumer was all for the status quo of the balance of power of the SCOTUS in 2007, why not now? Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer took to the Sunday talk shows to state that the Republicans had no right to block Barack Obama from appointing a new SCOTUS following the sudden death Justice Antonin Scalia over the weekend. Scumer was appalled that the GOP would do such a thing. REALLY? It was just in 2007 while GWB was in his final 18 months of his presidency that Schumer stated the exactly same thing. The hypocritical Schumer vowed not to confirm any justices for the remainder of Bush’s term in office. But of course this is different, because an Obama nominee would be a liberal ideologue.
“We should not confirm any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court except in extraordinary circumstances … Considering the Constitutional harm and dramatic departures that are in store if those few are joined by one more ideological ally … I will do everything in my power to prevent one more ideological ally from joining Roberts and Alito on the court.”
Now all of a sudden Schumer is whining and crying a river of obstruction when they , namely he, stated to do the same. Schumer stated in his ABC interview, we Democrats didn’t do it. REALLY?
During a Sunday morning appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer decried the intent of many Senate Republicans to prevent President Barack Obama from appointing the successor to deceased Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.
But less than a decade ago, Schumer advocated doing the same exact thing if any additional Supreme Court vacancies opened under former President George W. Bush.
Almost immediately after Scalia’s death was announced Saturday evening, Republican lawmakers and presidential candidates began arguing the appointment of his successor should be left to the next president. Schumer lamented this outlook as pure obstructionism.
Hmm … Schumer claims the Democrats have never done this before … can you say BORK?
HYPOCRISY ALERT: Hillary Clinton Boarding Private Jet Just Hours After Launching Her Global-Warming Push and Stating It is One of the Most Urgent Threats of our Time
More from the liberal Democrat Hillary Clinton playbook of do what I say, not as I do, I am more important than you …
Hypocrisy Alert from the never transparent and untrustworthy Democrat presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. Not less than one hour after Hillary Clinton lectured Americans and put forth her vision to solve global warming through an aggressive carbon cutting plan in Iowa, she got on a private jet, with a carbon footprint the size of Iowa and flew off. You see, after Hillary told us what she was going to inflict upon all of us, her heiress got a an aircraft, a Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour. Hmm, isn’t that exactly the thing that she just got through lecturing us that shouldn’t be done? But of course Hillary Clinton and her spin doctor minions would have you believe, she is just one of us little people and wants to represent you.
What Difference Does It Make that I Continually Lie Through My Teeth?
Clinton said during her speech, that global warming is one of the most urgent threats of our time, and we have no choice but to rise and meet it.” REALLY? Just curious Hillary, if its such an urgent threat of our time, what the hell are going doing boarding a private, jet fuel guzzling plane? Oh, there are different rules for you? One would think that if they are going to be so brazen and put forth such a myth as global warming is an urgent threat, they would at least walk the walk.
Just hours after Hillary Clinton unveiled her presidential campaign’s push to solve global warming through an aggressive carbon-cutting plan, she sauntered up the steps of a 19-seat private jet in Des Moines, Iowa.
The aircraft, a Dassault model Falcon 900B, burns 347 gallons of fuel per hour. And like all Dassault business jets, Hillary’s ride was made in France.
The Trump-esque transportation costs $5,850 per hour to rent, according to the website of Executive Fliteways, the company that owns it.
And she has used the same plane before, including on at least one trip for speeches that brought her $500,000 in fees.
On Monday the Democratic presidential front-runner announced the details of her initiative to tackle climate change, calling it ‘one of the most urgent threats of our time.’
But shortly afterward, a videographer working with the conservative America Rising PAC spotted her at the private air terminal in Des Moines.
Mark Levin Radio Show: Hillary Clinton & Harry Reid Were Not Always for Open Borders for Illegals … “Adamently Against Illegal Immigrants” … “No Sane Country Would” Reward Illegals
NO ONE POINTS OUT THE HYPOCRISY OF THE LEFT LIKE MARK LEVINE …
During yesterdays Mark Levine Radio Show (July 7), conservative talk show host Mark Levine not only spoke the truth about illegal immigration, self-deportation and how illegals are responsible for breaking up their own family. The below VIDEO is a must listen. Levine brings up some hot button topics that of course today’s Republican politicians try and avoid like the plague.
Harry Reed used to be one of the most aggressive, anti-immigration, anti-illegal immigration Senator. Levine used some past Harry Reed comments where Reed says, “no sane country would offer rewards for illegals.” Imagine that. I guess the United States today has become an insane country with Reed’s premise. So what happened to change Reed’s mind, power? The comments from 1993 Harry Reed sounds like, well, it sounds like Donald Trump.
Listen at your own risk, Can you handle the truth?
IT TURNS OUT THAT HILLARY CLINTON WAS DONALD TRUMP ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION BEFORE DONALD TRUMP …
Everybody is piling on Donald Trump these days for what he said about illegal immigration, but why is it that no one is questioning Hillary Clinton’s hypocrisy and stance on illegals? From a February 2003 interview on the John Gambling show comes the following anti-illegal immigration comments courtesy of your Democrat front-runner candidate for US President. Hillary said, “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants.” Hold the phone. I thought Hillary for for illegals? Hillary Clinton went on to say, “Certainly we’ve got to do more at our borders” and “people have to stop employing illegal immigrants.” Really? This from the presidential candidate who know has never met an illegal she didn’t like. CAN YOU SAY FLIP-FLOP and HYPOCRISY.
So what’s different now Hillary, could it possibly be that we now exist in a world of ethnic politics? Think about what she said above, Hillary is not only against illegal immigration, she is against the illegal immigrant. And Hillary is not just against illegal immigrants, she is “ADAMANTLY” against them! She also stated that we need to do more at our borders and the inference is to building a wall to keep illegals out. But now Hillary is for open borders and let all the illegals in. And she wonders why no one trusts her. This woman has never said an honest thing in her life. Every word, every phrase and eery sentence is contrived to see how it would help her politically.
ARE YOU KIDDING ME … OBAMA GOES GOLFING ON THE LUSH GREENS IN PALM SPRINGS IN THE MIDST OF A DROUGHT IN CALI?
Could Barack Obama be more of an uncaring, elitists hypocrite? It is well documented that this man has some type of mental obsession when it comes to playing golf as he has provided some of the worst optics of any president, especially rushing to play golf following his address to the nation the day after video of James Foley being beheaded by ISIS. Now, in the midst of California’s terrible drought, where water restrictions are in place and people are being fined for the over-use of water, the Golfer in Chief headed to Palm Springs to play golf for the weekend. ARE YOU JOKING? As the Washington Times aptly states, it is par for the course! Obama swoops into drought-ravaged Calif. for golf weekend.
Where is the liberal LEFT and the environmental-wackos losing their minds over this? Their beloved Obamamessiah playing golf on the biggest waste of water going? Image if he were a Republican what the hue & cry would be. Honestly, he just doesn’t care and the rules do not apply to King Obama. He would tell you to sacrifice, but not for thee.
With four fund-raisers and an awkward reconciliation with the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, behind him, President Obama returned to a beloved golf oasis here for a weekend getaway with friends.
This time, though, was different. A punishing drought has raised questions about whether such oases can survive, and about the president’s weekend here.
The vast emerald green courses in the area are watered by a disappearing Colorado River and an underground aquifer that has fallen about 55 feet since 1970.
While environmentalists generally support the president, some grumbled that he needed to take up a new hobby or indulge it someplace else.
“President Obama needs to take a mulligan and rethink golfing in Palm Springs in the middle of a drought,” said Erich Pica, the president of Friends of the Earth, using a golfing term that refers to a do-over after a bad shot. “It takes copious amounts of water to maintain a golf course, and it just sends the wrong message to the people of California just as they are being asked to cut back on water use.”
Meanwhile, on Father’s Day, Michelle Obama, Sasha and Malia were no where to be found as they were in Europe. Another fantastic optic.
HYPOCRITE: Billionaire Progressive George Soros May Finally Participate in Shared Sacrifice and Pay His Outstanding $6.7 Billion Tax Bill
DON’T YOU LOVE IT WHEN PROGRESSIVE HYPOCRITES TELL YOU ABOUT YOUR SHARED SACRIFICE, BUT THEY DO JUST THE OPPOSITE …
Remember the cry from Warren Buffet in stop coddling of the super-rich? George Soros, the “Godfather of the Left” and the world’s 27th wealthiest person, has according to Breitbart, allegedly used tax deferral to prevent paying any taxes on $13.3 billion profit. However, according to an Irish regulatory filing by Soros, he will soon be enjoying the shared sacrifice of paying a 50 percent tax that will wipe-out a quarter of his net worth. This means that he will finally be paying his “fair share” and participate in what progressives say we must do, participate in “shared sacrifice”. Kind of makes you wonder why the IRS and their Hench-men harass the little people, but folks like Soros and his ilk walk scot-free.
Come on George, if its good for everyone else and you claim all must pay their fair share, how come you have tried to avoid paying yours?
No little people, I get to play by a different set of rules because they let me and I can
Congress closed a lucrative loophole in 2008 used by U.S. hedge fund managers to avoid paying income taxes for fees and profits. Congress gave these corporate elites until 2017 to pay accumulated taxes on all pre-2009 deferred income.
Warren Buffett in August 2011 called on the U.S. government to “stop coddling the super-rich.” Buffett pointed out he pays less of his income in taxes than his secretary does. He added that the rich should pay higher taxes for the sake of “shared sacrifice,” and suggested that most of his wealthy friends “wouldn’t mind being told to pay more.”
When the liberal website Salon launched the Patriotic Billionaire Challenge to ask the 400 richest Americans if they approved of “The Buffett Rule” to raise taxes, only Georges Soros and 6 of the other uber-wealthy responded positively.
But just before Congress had closed the “hedge fund loophole” in 2008, Soros transferred assets to Ireland—a country that was seen as a refuge from paying taxes under the new U.S. law. The recent Irish regulatory filings, according to Bloomberg show for the first time the “extent Soros’s almost $30 billion fortune—he ranks 23rd on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index—came from finding ways to delay taxes and reinvesting the money in his fund.”
As a New York-based money manager, Soros would be subject to a federal rate of 39.6 percent; combined state and city levies totaling 12 percent; and an additional 3.8 percent tax on investment income to pay for Obamacare, according to Andrew Needham, a tax partner at the law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore.
When has the government and the IRS allowed “We the People” to wait 10 years to may back taxes owed?
George Soros, a self-made billionaire investor who has made calls in the past for higher taxes on wealthy Americans, may soon be getting his wish. According to Bloomberg, years of deferred income could leave him owing $6.7 billion in taxes.
It appears that Soros has put to use a loophole that has allowed him to defer taxes on fees paid by his clients and reinvest them in his fund. Irish regulatory filings reveal that the investor, through his firm Soros Fund Management, has amassed $13.3 billion using this mechanism.
How? In 2008, George W. Bush signed U.S. legislation closing a loophole that allowed hedge fund managers to set up parallel offshore funds as a way to defer taxes. The Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated in 2008 that the new rules would generate roughly $25 billion in revenue, including $8 billion in 2017 — the deadline for managers to pay accumulated taxes.
Just before all of this took place, Soros incorporated a new company in Ireland called Quantum Endowment Ireland. His Quantum Endowment transferred delayed fees and certain other assets to the new company.
Quantum Endowment Ireland is subject to a 25% corporate tax, in theory; however, its status as an Irish Section 110 company allows it to issue profit participation note and pay out earnings as distributions to note holders. In other words, it hasn’t had to pay much.
Fox News Reporter Leland Vittert Confronts Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake as Al Sharpton Prevents Freedom of Speech
I KNOW HE WORKS FOR MSNBC, BUT ISN’T AL SHARPTON A MEMBER OF THE MEDIA … WHAT’S UP WITH THIS PREVENTING THE MEDIA FROM TALKING TO A PUBLIC OFFICIAL?
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake owes everyone an explanation as to her disastrous handling of the Baltimore riots. However, AL Sharpton does not seem to think so. Instead, he is protecting her backside. Talk about hypocrisy and double standard. Watch the video below and see Al Sharpton, a member of the MSM who receives a paycheck from MSNBC, actually prevents a member of the media from asking questions of Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. the so-called Reverand Al Sharpton is running cover and playing body guard to embattled Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake. HUH? Fox News reporter Leland Vittert is shoved out of the way as he tried to do what the media’s job is to do and that bis ask public officials questions and hold them accountable to the people. The Fox News reporter tried to get clarification from the Baltimore Mayor as to whether she gave the police the order to stand down and “Let Them Loot, It’s Only Property”.
Make up your mind Al, either you are a civil rights activist or a member of the media, you can’t be both. As for MSNBC, there should be no question, he should be let go immediately as t is obvious that Sharpton has no objectivity and does not even pretend to.
Who thinks Al Sharpton would be treating a white Mayor this way of a city where a black man was killed in police custody?
Fox News reporter Leland Vittert was shoved out of the way when he confronted Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake as she was walking with Al Sharpton on Thursday.
The reporter received no answers to his questions about the report or riots.
“We can’t we ask questions?” Vittert asked. “We can’t ask questions of a public official?”
As Rawlings-Blake walked silently, Sharpton is seen on video telling Vittert that he will “have the opportunity” to ask questions at an upcoming press conference.
Vittert is later literally shoved out of the way and the tense confrontation ended shortly after.