posted by Jerry Long at The American Thinker..

Jerry’s comment:

This guy was photographed at Hobby Airport in Houston while waiting for a flight. He was getting a “thumbs-up” and applause from most of the crowd.

Yahoo News (AP) comes out of left field on Friday with a story about “Big Butt” hitting the Democratic campaign trial as the “stardust pixie!” This story is hilarious. You should read some of the comments about this.. I can barely post this article while laughing..

By NANCY BENAC (this lady is nuts - Gibbs must have given the idea for the story to her)

Excerpts from the story:

WASHINGTON – She’s not a political animal, Michelle Obama is the first to admit.

Yet with an e-mail here and a kind word there, the first lady has dipped her toes into the political waters of the midterm elections.

And Democratic candidates are hoping there’s lots more to come this fall.

With her sky-high popularity — Mrs. Obama’s favorability numbers easily outdistance her husband’s — plenty of Democrats would love a sprinkle of the first lady’s stardust.

Already, she’s demonstrated an ability to be helpful even without making overtly political appeals.

Earlier this summer, the first lady promoted her “Let’s Move” campaign against child obesity at a series of events in Nevada, where she stood side by side with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is in a difficult re-election campaign.

While her trip was not officially a political outing, the first lady’s visit had to be good news for Reid, whom she called “one of my favorite people in the world.”

“Presidents can’t do anything if they don’t have a good team, and Senator Reid is part of that team,” Mrs. Obama said at one event.

Look no further than Pinkie Thompson, a Democratic activist who heard Mrs. Obama speak at a women’s forum in Reno, for a testimonial about what the first lady can do with a crowd.

“Her presence filled the room for me and I just thought she was a remarkable person in person,” Thompson says. “She’s really very in-the-moment, very present with those around her, and that’s a powerful ability. Everybody can’t do that.”

ENOUGH.. THIS STORY IS ALL B***SCHITT

Go read some of the comments.. I don’t think I saw one comment agreeing with the author..

Cartoon of the Day:

Note: Sorry folks, I know I sound terrible but this “I hate America” bitch deserves everything that is said about her..

One thing is certain if you lead a life of crime. Their is no loyalty among thieves if the law has you cornered. Mr. ‘Better-than-thou’ Obama doesn’t hesitate to climb on board when he sees an opportunity to slam someone. Of course Rangel needs slamming but I suspect he never figured Obama would be the ZERO to turn on him.. NO such luck! The Commander-in-Thief chimes in:

I think Charlie Rangel served a very long time and served– his constituents very well. But these– allegations are very troubling, Obama told Comrad Harry Smith in an interview to be aired on the “Early Show.”

And he’ll– he’s somebody who’s at the end of his career. Eighty years old. I’m sure that– what he wants is to be able to– end his career with dignity. And my hope is that– it happens.

source..

Comment by American Grand Jury:

Hey, Mr. Usurper.. your turn is coming.. when you finally hit the garbage pit I can see lots of people clapping for you to retire in prison, “without dignity!”

PS: Did you get the part about being 80 years old.. number one on the progressive hit list for population control: remind the seniors of their place in Obama’s Amerika!

By Laurie Kellman

WASHINGTON — Calls for Rep. Charlie Rangel’s resignation rained down on Capitol Hill late Friday from House Democrats who said more than a dozen ethics charges against the 20-term lawmaker showed a disregard for the rules and undermined the public’s confidence in Congress.

The calls came as Democrats headed home for their monthlong recess wrestling with how to handle the tax and disclosure charges against Rangel back in their districts as election season loomed. Republicans, meanwhile, raced ahead with plans to make Rangel the face of corrupt Washington under the rule of Democrats who had vowed to clean up Congress.

For his part, Rangel met with perhaps his staunchest supporters, members of the New York state delegation, in the stately Capitol parlor named for the Ways and Means Committee that he headed until March.

A House panel on Thursday made public for the first time 13 charges of misusing his office and tax and disclosure violations against Rangel, 80, as it opened the trial phase of the ethics proceedings against him.

Either conditionally or outright, Democrats calling for Rangel’s resignation included Rep. Walter Minnick of Idaho, Betty Sutton of Ohio, John Yarmuth of Kentucky, Zack Space of Ohio, Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona and Mary Jo Kilroy of Ohio.

Comment by American Grand Jury:

This is hilarious.. the Democrats will eat their own if it draws attention away from their own criminal lives.

That about does it for Rangel.. he is just another snake in the pit now! Let the feeding frenzy begin..

By Publius Huldah

Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction…

“Original” jurisdiction means the power to conduct the “trial” of the case (as opposed to hearing an appeal from the judgment of a lower court). You all know quite well what a “trial” is - you see them all the time on TV shows: Perry Mason, Boston Legal, The Good Wife, etc. Witnesses testify and are cross-examined, etc.

The style of the Arizona case shows quite clearly that the named defendants are:

State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer,
Governor of the State of Arizona, in her
Official Capacity, Defendants.

Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than you do.

See where it says, “State of Arizona”? And “Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official Capacity”? THAT (plus Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2) is what gives the US Supreme Court “original Jurisdiction”, i.e., jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case. THAT is what strips the federal district court of any jurisdiction whatsoever to hear this case. Judge Susan R. Bolton has no more authority to preside over this case than do you (unless you are a US Supreme Court justice).

In Federalist No. 81 (13th para), Alexander Hamilton commented on this exact provision of Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2:

…Let us now examine in what manner the judicial authority is to be distributed between the supreme and the inferior courts of the Union. The Supreme Court is to be invested with original jurisdiction, only “in cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which A STATE shall be a party.” Public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. All questions in which they are concerned are so directly connected with the public peace, that, as well for the preservation of this, as out of respect to the sovereignties they represent, it is both expedient and proper that such questions should be submitted in the first instance to the highest judicatory of the nation. Though consuls have not in strictness a diplomatic character, yet as they are the public agents of the nations to which they belong, the same observation is in a great measure applicable to them. In cases in which a State might happen to be a party, it would ill suit its dignity to be turned over to an inferior tribunal….[boldface added, caps in original]

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder filed the case in a court which is specifically stripped of jurisdiction to hear it!

So! Counsel for the State of Arizona should consider:

1. File a Petition for Removal before federal district court Judge Susan R. Bolton demanding that the case be removed to the Supreme Court on the ground that under Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2, US Constitution, only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct the trial of this case.

2. If Judge Bolton denies the Petition for Removal, file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus in the Supreme Court asking that court to order Judge Bolton to transfer the case to the Supreme Court.

A Petition for Writ of Mandamus is an old common-law “extraordinary writ”: It asks a court to ORDER a lower court or other public official to something which it is its duty to do. In Kerr v. US District Court for Northern District of California (1976), the Supreme Court said, respecting the propriety of issuing writs of mandamus:

….the fact still remains that “only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power’ will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy.”…(para 13)

When a federal district court judge presides over a case which the Constitution specifically prohibits her from hearing, and even issues a ruling enjoining the enforcement of a State Law, then that federal district court judge usurps power. She is specifically stripped - by Art. III, Sec. 2, clause 2 - of jurisdiction to preside over the case against the STATE of Arizona and against THE GOVERNOR of the STATE of Arizona.

For procedures for filing the Petition for Writ of Mandamus, see Supreme Court Rule 20.

Article IV, Sec. 4, requires the federal government to protect each of the States against invasion.Not only is the Obama regime refusing to perform this specific Constitutional duty - it seeks to prohibit the Sovereign STATE of Arizona from defending itself! This lawlessness on the part of the Obama regime is unmatched in the history of Our Country.

OK, counselors - Go for it!

by Ed Lasky

Barack Obama seems to have a pattern of using ceremonial or stately events as opportunities to ambush and humiliate people. This behavior is unpresidential and reveals a vindictive streak that makes Richard Nixon look like Mister Rogers.

A few examples of Obama’s taking pleasure in administering public pain to others:

During the State of the Union Address, he chose to direct his ire at the justices of the Supreme Court, located in the front rows. After the Supreme Court issued a ruling in favor of the First Amendment regarding political speech, Barack Obama famously chose to dress down the black-clad justices before the entire nation — miscomprehending the law and the ruling in a fit of (un)presidential petulance. The embarrassing spectacle was prompted by a view that the court’s ruling may make it easier for opponents of the president and Democrats to make their views known to the public.

Regardless of Obama’s pique, it was wrong on so many levels that it earned a rebuke from the Supreme Court historian, who had enthusiastically voted for him. The noted historian said it “was really unusual in my mind to see the President going after the Supreme Court in such a forum.” That is change for you. He predicted that justices may refuse to attend in the future because “you don’t go to be insulted. I can’t see the Justices wanting to be there and be insulted by the President.”

Their appearance was a mark of respect for the government of the United States, broken into three branches but united in the goal of helping fellow Americans. Barack Obama did not reciprocate the respect — and demeaned himself (though his narcissism and his cheering section entourage would shield him from such self-reflection) and the dignity of the office by needlessly ambushing the most august institution of the land.

He seems to have a penchant for ambushing financial executives, too — or people he calls “fat cats” — after he cashes their campaign checks. But he does like to tag people with labels.

While purportedly holding a meeting to work with financial executives to help stabilize financial markets, Barack Obama could not resist taunting them with the threat that “I’m the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks.” That was not why they came to a meeting supposedly called to work together to resolve problems in the financial sector.

He did the same with doctors, though. He co-opted the American Medical Association to get them on board for ObamaCare and then blasted doctors for, among other sins, taking kids’ tonsils out because doctors are greedy.

While meeting with a Democrat wavering on casting a yes vote on ObamaCare, he chose not to engage him with reasons, but instead belittled him in front of others by telling him, “Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.” Was this form of public emasculation really necessary? No…but Obama has the itch, and it must be scratched.

He chose to snub a variety of foreign leaders, including then-British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, with whom he denied a diplomatic meeting during a visit (a snub that may have hurt Brown politically at home). Also, Obama walked out of a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to have dinner with his family — and refused a photo-op, joint news conference, or proper welcome, to boot. Both were democratic leaders, yet Obama bows to dictators such as the Saudi King and has a hug for the thug from Caracas. The ambushing of Netanyahu may have had a goal of also hurting him with voters in Israel, who treasure their relationship with America. The ambush did not work. Israelis don’t like being ambushed — they have had plenty of experience with such treatment. The public rallied to Netanyahu after the disgraceful treatment meted out to him by Barack Obama.

Can we forget the lack of graciousness when Obama told John McCain during the health care summit that he convened, supposedly in the spirit of comity, that “the election is over”?

Was it necessary to allude that racism led Boston policemen to confront Obama’s friend, Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, over what appeared to be a breaking and entering? For all the nation to see, he slurred Boston policemen as racists. Why?

In the hands of this president, the bully pulpit is used not to persuade and convince, but to bully into a public pulp those he considers his foes. At a groundbreaking for a car battery plant funded by “stimulus money” that was located in the district of Republican Congressman Peter Hoekstra (who opposed the stimulus), Obama could not resist the urge to try to humiliate Hoekstra, who also was at the opening.

There are some folks who want to go back — who think we should return to the policies that helped to lead to this recession,” Obama said later in his comments honoring a new advanced battery factory being built by the company LG Chem. “Some made the political calculation that it’s better to obstruct than lend a hand. They said no to the tax cuts, they said no to small business loans, they said no to clean energy projects. It doesn’t stop them from coming to ribbon cuttings — but that’s OK.”

This was not the first time he chose to turn a celebration into an ambush, a party into a shooting gallery.

The president was flying to Peoria to appear with the CEO of Caterpillar at a plant. Obama told reporters that he had spoken to the CEO, who he said assured him that he was going to rehire laid off employees as soon as the stimulus bill was passed. This was a surprise to the CEO, who, after the Obama appearance at the plant was over, was asked by the reporters about this so-called pledge. He stumbled over the issue — who wants to publicly call the president a liar? But the CEO said that Obama’s statement was not true, and there were no plans to rehire people. He was ambushed by Barack Obama.

So was Republican Congressman Aaron Schock, whose district encompassed the plant. Obama invited Schock along on Air Force One for the trip. In his speech, Obama singled out Schock for another Obama ambush, telling his audience to visit with Schock and encourage him “to do the right thing for the people of Illinois.” In this case, Obama’s ambush killed two birds with one stone — a rare sign of efficiency on the part of our competency-challenged President.

The body count of Obama’s ambushes will grow in the years ahead. How does this help to bring about the civility that Obama preaches should be part of our civic discourse? Of course, it doesn’t. Hypocrisy is Obama’s trademark. His style of ambushing and humiliating people is a sign of something deeper and darker in Obama’s psyche, in his emotional makeup. He is vindictive and enjoys the spectacle of belittling people in front of others and in front of cameras.

The milk of human kindness does not flow in this man’s veins, but rather something bitterer — a type of personal poison that he enjoys spraying on others.

This does not dignify the office or the man. But he doesn’t seem to care, and the courtier press that covers him with glory doesn’t, either.

source AP..

WASHINGTON — The recovery lost momentum in the second quarter as growth slowed to a 2.4 percent pace, its most sluggish showing in nearly a year and too weak to drive down unemployment.

Weaker spending by consumers, less growth coming from companies restocking shrunken stockpiles and a bigger drag from the nation’s trade deficits were the main factors behind the second quarter’s slowdown.

The recovery has been losing power for two straight quarters. That raises concerns about whether it will fizzle out. Or worse, tip back into a “double-dip” recession.

The economy began to grow in the third quarter of last year after having suffered the worst recession since the Great Depression. And in the following quarter the economy’s growth surged at a 5 percent pace, the high water mark of the rebound.

Much of the expansion was driven by the government’s massive $862 billion stimulus package of tax cuts and increased spending. Also, companies helped energize growth with a burst of spending to replenish inventories that were cut down during the recession.

Now, as those forces are fading, concerns are growing as to whether the private sector can boost spending and investment enough to keep the recovery afloat.

Consumer spending, usually the lifeblood of economic activity, slowed in the second quarter. Such spending rose at an anemic 1.6 percent pace. That was down from a 1.9 percent pace in the first quarter and was the weakest showing since the end of last year.

The 2.4 percent growth rate logged in the April-to-June quarter was slightly less than the 2.5 percent pace economists were forecasting. It was the weakest since a 1.6 percent pace in the third quarter of last year, when a record streak of four straight losing quarters came to an end.

With the economy growing at a subpar speed, the 9.5 percent unemployment rate is not expected to fall.

It takes about 3 percent growth in gross domestic product just to create enough jobs to keep pace with the population increase.

Comment by American Grand Jury:

This Obama economy really sucks.. the only good news is that these low numbers will really hurt the Democrats in the coming election.

Speaking of the coming election:

by Rick Moran

A new Fox News poll has the good news:

With less than 100 days until the midterm elections, American voters would give the edge to Republicans by an 11 percentage-point margin if the Congressional election were today. Yet a majority doesn’t think a Republican takeover of Congress would lead to positive change.

A Fox News poll released Thursday finds that if Americans were heading to the voting booth today, they would back the Republican candidate in their district over the Democrat by 47-36 percent. Two weeks ago the Republicans had a slimmer 4-point advantage (41-37 percent).

As has been the case all year, Republicans continue to be more interested in the upcoming election. Thirty-six percent of Republicans are “extremely” interested compared to 23 percent of Democrats.

Despite the Republican edge on the generic ballot question, voters have mixed views on how things would change if the GOP gained control of Congress. Thirty-eight percent think there would be no real change. Thirty-seven percent think it would lead to change for the better, while 21 percent say it would change for the worse.

Officer who refused orders from Obama chain of command seeking birth records

by Bob Unruh

A decorated Army officer who faces the possibility of years in jail because he refused orders from the military chain of command under Obama, citing the president’s refusal to prove his authority to issue orders, is asking to see evidence that Obama is eligible for the Oval Office.

The request comes from Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who earlier posted a video challenging the military to bring him to trial on charges he refused to deploy to the Middle East in an effort to force the revelation of Obama’s birth documentation.

The Army responded by filing charges against him and rewriting a performance evaluation to condemn him for his efforts.

But now Lakin, who is aided by the Safeguard our Constitution website, is asking for a deposition in Hawaii with the records-keeper of the Hawaii Department of Health – and the production of all of the state’s records concerning Obama.

The controversy stems from the Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, which states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.” .

A number of challenges and lawsuits have been based on the constitutional requirement, some alleging Obama does not qualify because he was not born in Hawaii in 1961 as he claims. Others say he fails to qualify because he was a dual citizen of the U.S. and the United Kingdom when he was born, and the framers of the Constitution specifically excluded dual citizens from eligibility.

Complicating the issue is the fact that besides Obama’s actual birth documentation, he has concealed documentation, including his kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, files from his years as an Illinois state senator, Illinois State Bar Association records, baptism records and his adoption records.

Now Lakin is facing a court-martial and as part of his defense wants the information from the state of Hawaii. According to the American Patriot Foundation, Lakin’s request was submitted to his commanding general. He seeks approval for the Hawaii deposition – an on-the-record statement – regarding Obama’s birth records.

“The records Lakin seeks have been the subject of intense interest ever since the closing days of the 2008 presidential campaign when a document appeared on the Internet purporting to be a certification that Hawaii’s Dept. of Health had records showing he had been born in Honolulu,” the foundation confirmed.

Since then, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the head of that agency, has made public statements on the subject, but has refused all requests for copies of the actual records in the department’s custody. Recently, a former Hawaii elections clerk has come forward saying that “he was told that the department’s records showed Obama was NOT born in Hawaii.”

“The United States Constitution requires that a person be a ‘natural born citizen’ to be elected to the presidency. If Mr. Obama was not born in Honolulu as he has claimed, then he is unlikely to be a ‘natural born citizen.’ An examination of the records kept by the Hawaii Dept. of Health are an essential first step in ascertaining Mr. Obama’s constitutional eligibility to hold the office to which he was elected in 2008,” the foundation said.

The issue of the Hawaii records has been a volatile point in the argument. The state of Hawaii has gone so far a to approve a law that allows the state to ignore repeated requests for documentation about Obama’s birth.

The state’s governor, Linda Lingle, just months ago told a New York talk-show host that it was an “odd situation…”

“This issue kept coming up so much in the campaign, and again I think it’s one of those issues that is simply a distraction from the more critical issues that are facing the country…”

Comment by American Grand Jury:

Hey Lingle, it is much more than an “odd situation.” This is the biggest criminal cover-up in the history of the United States..

I would say that BO is trying to avoid any and all eligibility lawsuits like they are the plague!

Obama holds hands with a woman convicted on drug charges.

Usurper Obama posed with a Charlottesville resident at a White House event on July 19. Court records show she’s been found guilty of two crimes and now the White House says…

source..

OMB nominee got $900,000 after Citigroup bailout

Obama’s choice to be the government’s chief budget officer received a bonus of more than $900,000 from Citigroup Inc. last year — after the Wall Street firm for which he worked received a massive taxpayer bailout.

The money was paid to Jacob Lew in January 2009, about two weeks before he joined the State Department as deputy secretary of state, according to a newly filed ethics form. The payout came on top of the already hefty $1.1 million Citigroup compensation package for 2008 that he reported last year.

source..

Comment by American Grand Jury:

These bozos in the WH wouldn’t know the difference between a criminal and choirboy. I will bet you 80% of the freaks running the show in the BO Administration have some kind of shady coverup or crime attached to their past.. many of them are perverts, tax-dodgers and communists.

What goes around comes around. Obama is the “biggest” cheat of them all. How many times did he say, “I wasn’t born in Kenya.. that is some kind of a mistake.. don’t worry, the coverup has been taken care of.. we spent a lot of hard-earned tax-payer’s money buying off the judges and courts..”

Then he has the gall to say of African-Americans, “We [ie, they] are sort of a mongrel people.”

Forgive me.. the MOST popular clown in America speaks and the press, liberals and socialists slobber all over themselves. To them, it is all about fun and games: “Let the ‘good times’ roll baby.. we own the White House now!”

Obaa, Obaa, Obaa-aaaa-ma!

By Curtis Frantz

In general, low self-esteem and a lack of self-love are the basis for the ideology of liberals.

Liberals are those who would use government to reduce the freedoms of some people to provide benefits for others. Liberals argue for fairness and equality for all people, but neither is possible. Other than identical twins, all people are genetically different, and without exception, each has unique life experiences that are interpreted differently. We are necessarily and naturally unequal in a worldly sense. (If “all men are created equal” in a Godly sense, nothing more needs to be done to ensure it.) Liberals, progressives, socialists, fascists, communists, and statists seek similar means to the same end. They want control of an expansive, intrusive government using taxation, regulation, and takeover of private property and businesses to achieve an earthly equality — an equality that is unnatural, unhealthy, and unattainable. This irrational political ideology is rooted in psychological shortcomings.

The U.S. Constitution correctly identifies the purpose of government as protecting the freedoms of its people. Being free is the natural state of all lifeforms. Soldiers risk their lives and die fighting for freedom…not equality. The Statue of Liberty welcomes those “yearning to breathe free.”

Having an internalized sense of being less than others drives a desire for equality. The liberal’s internal motivation is: “If we are all the same, I can’t be less.” From a practical perspective, making people or situations equal involves punishing the successful; which can be a welcome expression of jealous anger for those with low self-esteem.

Having low self-esteem makes freedom something to fear. Freedom means being free to succeed or fail. For those with a low sense of self, the expectation is that one’s failure is inevitable. Freedom is not desirable under those conditions.

Liberals’ personal problems become a societal problem when liberals try to address them by requiring changes to the lives of others. They seek a government with extensive power and reach that can limit freedoms and penalize success so that we seem to be more equal. It’s as if I were to address a problem of poor posture by requiring everyone else to slouch. The adequacy of self-love or self-esteem one has is not determined by comparison to others. It is not measured by net worth, which government can adjust. Whether one has healthy levels of self-love and self-esteem is determined by personal physiology and psychology. No matter how much government can disrupt the lives of its citizens, it cannot make anyone love or esteem themselves more or make anyone happy.

What liberals really need — greater self-esteem and self-love — government is completely powerless to provide.

Read more here: The American Thinker..

Comment by American Grand Jury:

Interesting article.. all true!