Tag Archive: Ted Cruz

 photo FamilySurvivalProtocolColliseumBannergrayscale900x338_zpsb17c85d0.jpg


‘It’s not even a close call’: Ted Cruz insists the Middle East was a safer place when dictators Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi were alive

  • The presidential candidate, 44, said US should focus on its own security
  • Said Middle East was more secure when Iraq and Libya dictators were alive
  • Cruz said Libya was now a ‘chaotic war zone ruled by radical Islamic terrorists’

Ted Cruz believes the Middle East was a safer place before the US helped to overthrow tyrants Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, it has been reported.

The Texas senator, a Republican presidential candidate, said America should focus on its own security rather than toppling dictators abroad.

He said it was ‘not even a close call’ when asked whether the Middle East was more secure when Gaddafi and Hussein were dictators of their respective countries.


Ted Cruz believes the Middle East was a safer place before the US helped to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, it has been reported

Ted Cruz believes the Middle East was a safer place before the US helped to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, it has been reported

Cruz said the toppling of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had shown the US has not learned lessons from history

Cruz said the toppling of the Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had shown the US has not learned lessons from history

In an interview with MSNBC, Cruz told Joe Scarborough: ‘Now, what has been a mistake – and we’ve seen a consistent mistake in foreign policy – is far too often, we’ve seen Democrats and a lot of establishment Republicans in Washington get involved in toppling Middle Eastern governments.

‘And it ends up benefiting the bad guys. It ends up handing them over to radical Islamic terrorists,’

He described Syrian president Bashar Assad as a ‘monster’ but warned that ISIS extremists would sweep further across the country were he to be overthrown.

He said: ‘My view, instead of getting in the middle of a civil war in Syria, where we don’t have a dog in the fight, our focus should be on killing ISIS. Why? Because ISIS has declared war on America. They’re waging jihad.’

 photo FamilySurvivalProtocolColliseumBannergrayscale900x338_zpsb17c85d0.jpg          Global Community Report Banner photo FSPLogoGlobalCommunityFulloldworldmapbckgrnd_zps43d3059c.jpg




Published on

Why the Gulf States, the Kurds, the Turks, the Sunnis, and the Shia Won’t Fight America’s War

President Barack Obama addresses the nation from the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, Sunday night, Dec. 6, 2016. In a rare Oval Office address, Obama vowed the United States would overcome a terror threat that has entered a “new phase” as he sought to reassure Americans shaken by recent attacks in Paris and California. (Photo: Saul Loeb, AP)

In the many strategies proposed to defeat the Islamic State (IS) by presidential candidates, policymakers, and media pundits alike across the American political spectrum, one common element stands out: someone else should really do it. The United States will send in planes, advisers, and special ops guys, but it would be best — and this varies depending on which pseudo-strategist you cite — if the Arabs, Kurds, Turks, Sunnis, and/or Shias would please step in soon and get America off the hook.

The idea of seeing other-than-American boots on the ground, like Washington’s recently deep-sixed scheme to create some “moderate” Syrian rebels out of whole cloth, is attractive on paper. Let someone else fight America’s wars for American goals. Put an Arab face on the conflict, or if not that at least a Kurdish one (since, though they may not be Arabs, they’re close enough in an American calculus). Let the U.S. focus on its “bloodless” use of air power and covert ops. Somebody else, Washington’s top brains repeatedly suggest, should put their feet on the embattled, contested ground of Syria and Iraq. Why, the U.S. might even gift them with nice, new boots as a thank-you.

Is this, however, a realistic strategy for winning America’s war(s) in the Middle East?

The Great Champions of the Grand Strategy

Recently, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton openly called for the U.S. to round up some Arab allies, Kurds, and Iraqi Sunnis to drive the Islamic State’s fighters out of Iraq and Syria. On the same day that Clinton made her proposal, Bernie Sanders called for “destroying” the Islamic State, but suggested that it “must be done primarily by Muslim nations.” It’s doubtful he meant Indonesia or Malaysia.

Among the Republican contenders, Marco Rubio proposed that the U.S. “provide arms directly to Sunni tribal and Kurdish forces.” Ted Cruz threw his support behind arming the Kurds, while Donald Trump appeared to favor more violence in the region by whoever might be willing to jump in.

The Pentagon has long been in favor of arming both the Kurds and whatever Sunni tribal groups it could round up in Iraq or Syria. Variouspundits across the political spectrum say much the same.

They may all mean well, but their plans are guaranteed to fail. Here’s why, group by group.

The Gulf Arabs


Read More Here

NBC News

White House: Health care penalty deadline to be delayed by up to six weeks

The President released a video Tuesday night rallying supporters of Obamacare and encouraging citizens to enroll in Obamacare via methods other than their website, which is being criticized for its design and structure.

AP Photo/ Evan Vucci

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius seen arriving in the Rose Garden of the White House, Monday.

Amid mounting criticism, the White House said Wednesday that it plans to soften the deadline for when Americans are required to purchase health insurance. The date by when Americans would be penalized for not having signed up for health insurance could be “slid” back by as much as six weeks, administration officials told NBC News.

But it was not immediately clear Wednesday whether the adjustment to a cornerstone of the Affordable Care Act would need to be approved by Congress or could be done by the Department of Health and Human Services administratively.

As the law stands now, individuals are expected to begin the application process via HealthCare.gov by Feb. 15 to avoid a financial penalty when the deadline hits on March 31, since it generally takes a few weeks insurance to kick in.

But under the prospective change, individuals will only be expected to have started enrollment by March 31 to avoid incurring a penalty.

Meanwhile, Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia was already drafting a bill earlier Wednesday to delay the mandate for a year, his spokesman said. And Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, on Wednesday called for an extension of the open enrollment period to allow people more time to purchase coverage; Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas said he supported Shaheen’s  “common sense idea” in a statement.

Other critics of the health care law, including Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., have proposed delaying the individual mandate penalty until six months after the Government Accountability Office certifies that the problem-plagued health care website is working.

And as the Obama administration weighed the changes, the Department of Health and Human Services announced Wednesday that it will hold daily briefings to update reporters on the progress of what President Barack Obama has called the “tech surge” to rectify the hitches and glitches on the troubled health care website.

The daily briefings will start Thursday, just two days after Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said Obama did not know about the health insurance website’s hitches and glitches until after it was launched three weeks ago.

The president was made aware of the glitches as people reported problems “in the first couple of days” in the rollout of the site designed to help people access healthcare as part of the Affordable Care Act, Sebelius said in an interview with CNN that aired on Tuesday night.

Read More and Watch Video Here


File:Ted Cruz by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg

Images Source:  Wikimedia.Org  CC- 3.0 unported

Ted Cruz by Gage Skidmore


NBC News


In face of GOP criticism, Cruz pledges to continue fight against Obamacare


Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, returned home to a heroes welcome on Monday, pledging to a crowd of excited supporters that he would continue his crusade against President Barack Obama’s health care law despite criticism from some members of his own party.

The Texas firebrand began his remarks at a tea party rally in Houston by jokingly acknowledging the ire some fellow Republicans have directed at him after helping to orchestrate a government shutdown that resulted in a sharp drop in the GOP’s approval ratings.

Cruz told a story about how one of his young daughters dismissed the prospects of growing up to work in the Senate with her father because “by then daddy will be dead.”

“I kind of wondered if [my daughter] had been talking with Republican leadership in Washington, if she knew something I didn’t know,” Cruz said.

Despite some moderate members of Cruz’s party questioning his decision to help lead a 16-day government shutdown that resulted in Republicans getting none of their demands, the freshman senator has been heralded by conservative activists for his efforts to defund Obamacare and not cave to outside pressures.

Acknowledging the public and private rebukes by some of his colleagues, Cruz simply said, “Who cares?”

Read More Here


Enhanced by Zemanta


Washington Bureau

  • Published: October 16, 2013 10:39 PM

    Updated: October 17, 2013 10:05 AM

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said he wouldn't try to block the Senate agreement. “There’s nothing to be gained from delaying this vote one day or two days. The outcome will be the same,” Cruz said. “Once again, it appears the Washington establishment is refusing to listen to the American people.”
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said he wouldn’t try to block the Senate agreement. “There’s nothing to be gained from delaying this vote one day or two days. The outcome will be the same,” Cruz said. “Once again, it appears the Washington establishment is refusing to listen to the American people.”J. Scott Applewhite / The Associated Press

WASHINGTON — It might be time for Ted Cruz to get a dog.

Because as the saying goes, if you want a friend in Washington, that’s what you do. And by the time Cruz’s crusade to defund Obamacare finally crashed to a halt Wednesday, the Texas senator had precious few friends left.

The government shutdown alienated colleagues in both parties. It generated fresh animosity toward the tea party and a flurry of recriminations toward Cruz. Voter support for the Republican Party plunged.

And the health care law survived unscathed.

“This is a terrible deal,” Cruz said moments before the deal to reopen the government sailed through the Senate with bipartisan support. He blamed the defeat on colleagues who lacked the political courage to stand with him.

“The outcome could have been different,” he said. “Imagine a world in which Senate Republicans united to support House Republicans.”

Cruz willed himself to the center of the fight. For months, he predicted that Democrats would cave if Republicans stood together to strip funding from the health care law. He dramatized the cause with a 21-hour overnight Senate speech, soaring to unusual prominence for a freshman senator. He refrained from using the risk of a catastrophic default on U.S. debt as leverage. Still, the defeat was so resounding that it left his political future in doubt.

The vast majority of his colleagues repudiated his tactics. Some accused him of promoting himself more than any attainable goals or the health of his party.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, called the last few weeks an “agonizing odyssey.”

“This has been one of the most shameful chapters I’ve seen here,” he said, lamenting damage to the GOP for little gain. “We’re in a hole. We have to dig out. We weren’t going to defund Obamacare, and we weren’t going to keep the government shut down.”

About the only praise flowing toward Cruz on Wednesday pertained to his decision not to stand in the way of the deal Senate leaders hatched.

“At some point, when you’ve reached the end of the road, to then make life miserable for no reason, with absolutely no outcome in sight — then the pendulum swings,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn.

Cruz maintained that he never had any intention of allowing default, though he hadn’t made that clear until he stepped in front of TV cameras, right at the same moment Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell had taken to the Senate floor to unveil the eleventh-hour deal he’s struck with Majority Leader Harry Reid.

“There’s nothing to be gained from delaying this vote one day or two days. The outcome will be the same,” Cruz said, adding that “once again, it appears the Washington establishment is refusing to listen to the American people.”

Cruz and his aides insisted the fight actually paid off. The flaws of Obamacare are now a topic of daily conversation in Washington and across the country, they argued.


Read More Here

Enhanced by Zemanta

File:Capitol, Washington, D.C. USA3.jpg

Image Source  :  Wikimedia . Org
By  Poco a poco


New York Post

WASHINGTON — Senate leaders announced last-minute agreement Wednesday to avert a threatened Treasury default and reopen the government after a partial, 16-day shutdown. Congress raced to pass the measure by day’s end.
The Dow Jones industrial average soared on the news that the threat of default was fading, flirting with a 200-point gain in morning trading.

“This is a time for reconciliation,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of the agreement he had forged with the GOP leader, Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

McConnell said that with the accord, Republicans had sealed a deal to have spending in one area of the budget decline for two years in a row, adding, “we’re not going back.”

One prominent tea party lawmaker, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, said he would oppose the plan, but not seek to delay its passage.

That was a key concession that signaled a strong possibility that both houses could act by day’s end. That, in turn, would allow President Barack Obama to sign the bill into law ahead of the Thursday deadline that Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew had set for action to raise the $16.7 trillion debt limit.

Officials said the proposal called for the Treasury to have authority to continue borrowing through Feb. 7, and the government would reopen through Jan. 15.

There was no official comment from the White House, although congressional officials said administration aides had been kept fully informed of the negotiations.

In political terms, the final agreement was almost entirely along lines Obama had set when the impasse began last month. Tea party conservatives had initially demanded the defunding of the health care law as the price for providing essential federal funding.

Under a strategy set by Obama and Reid, Democrats said they would not negotiate with Republicans in exchange for performing what the White House called basic functions of keeping the government in operation and preventing Treasury from defaulting on its obligations.

A long line of polls charted a steep decline in public approval for Republicans in the course of what Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., pronounced a “shameful episode” in the nation’s history.

While the emerging deal could well meet resistance from conservatives in the Republican-controlled House, the Democratic Leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, has signaled she will support the plan and her rank and file is expected to vote for it in overwhelming numbers.

Read More Here



Will Boehner break the “Hastert Rule” today? The Hastert Rule explained

By | Get In Touch: @lynnsweet | lsweet@suntimes.com Sweet – October 16, 2013 9:19 am

WASHINGTON–In a 2003 speech, then Speaker Denny Hastert (R-Ill.) discussed his House management guidelines that became known as “The Hastert Rule.” The rule calls for a leader not to send legislation to the House floor for a vote unless it has the support of the majority of the majority. On Wednesday, with just hours left to raise the debt ceiling or risk default, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio)–who has been holding fast to the Hastert Rule–has to decide whether to break it.

My column on the role the Hastert Rule played in the runup to the partial government shutdown–Wednesday is Day 16–is HERE. Read the 2003 Hastert speech HERE.

Excerpt: Here is the Hastert Rule background and math:

At present, there are 232 Republicans and 200 Democrats, with three vacancies. If the House Democrats stick together — and so far they have — they would just have to pick off a handful of House Republicans.

While there are not many moderate Republicans — and they are drowned out by their Tea Party colleagues — there are enough to get to 217 votes to pass a bill.

But if Boehner went that route, he would violate the informal “Hastert Rule,” which calls for any legislation first mustering the support of the majority of the majority. The reality is that any measure with provisions to win the backing of 116 House Republicans will not be supported by House Democrats.

Read More Here


The Washington Post
Shutdown Live Updates

Boehner concedes ‘we just didn’t win’

In an interview on a local radio station, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) conceded that Republicans “didn’t win” the current budget debate.

“We’ve been locked into a fight over here, trying to bring government down to size, trying to do our best to stop Obamacare,” Boehner said. “We fought the good fight; we just didn’t win.”

Boehner also said he would “absolutely” allow a vote on the Senate plan even if a majority of House Republicans don’t support the bill.

“There’s no reason for our members to vote ‘no’ today,” Boehner told conservative radio host Bill Cunningham, adding that he expected the government to open again Thursday.

Listen to the  Interview Here


McConnell’s primary foe bashes his ‘surrender’

Not surprising, but worth noting: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) primary opponent, businessman Matt Bevin, is out with a statement denouncing the deal McConnell helped craft

Here’s part of Bevin’s statement:

“McConnell just negotiated the GOP surrender to Harry Reid, leading the charge to give President Obama a blank check and lifting the debt ceiling once again without any spending reforms. Harry Reid has even praised McConnell for his ‘cooperation.’

“After falsely promising that he would fight to eliminate Obamacare ‘root and branch,’ Sen. McConnell has instead given us more spending, more borrowing, and the Obamacare train wreck with exceptions for liberal pet interests.”

Bevin’s primary challenge — which is likely to be well-funded thanks to Bevin’s personal wealth — has long hung over McConnell’s negotiations in the current budget debate. Expect Bevin to keep up this line of attack in the months ahead, as he seeks to be a formidable opponent to McConnell.

See  More  Updates Here


Boehner urges House GOP to support Senate deal


Watch this video

Shutdown deal announced on Senate floor


By Tom Cohen, CNN

Washington (CNN) — Senate leaders on Wednesday announced a deal to end the partial government shutdown and avoid a possible U.S. default, and House Speaker John Boehner urged fellow Republicans to support it while a key GOP conservative said he wouldn’t try to block it in the Senate.

“We fought the good fight; we just didn’t win,” Boehner told a radio station in his home state of Ohio in reference to GOP efforts to dismantle or defund President Barack Obama’s signature health care reforms and extract deficit reduction concessions around the need to fund the government and raise the federal borrowing limit.

The Democratic-led Senate was expected to pass the agreement in a vote expected to take place by 7 p.m. ET on Wednesday night, followed within hours by a vote in the Republican-led House.

Both chambers will have to take special steps to get the legislation passed that quickly, raising concerns that tea party conservatives led by Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas would block or delay it in a final effort to include provisions intended to harm Obama’s signature health care reforms.

However, Cruz told reporters that he wouldn’t mount a filibuster or employ other procedural moves against the agreement. At the same time, he criticized his Senate colleagues for what he called their failure to listen to the American people and said the fight against Obamacare will continue.

National polls conducted since the start of the shutdown on October 1 indicate that while all sides are feeling the public’s anger over the partisan political impasse, Republicans are getting blamed more than than Democrats or Obama.

Boehner and other House Republican leaders told their caucus they would vote for the agreement at an afternoon meeting that participants said ended with a standing ovation for the embattled speaker.

“Blocking the bipartisan agreement reached today by the members of the Senate will not be a tactic for us,” Boehner said in a statement. “Our drive to stop the train wreck that is the president’s health care law will continue.”

News of the deal brought some relief to Wall Street as well as Washington, where the shutdown reached a 16th day with the government poised to lose its ability to borrow more money to pay bills after Thursday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hailed the agreement he worked out with his GOP counterpart Mitch McConnell as “historic,” saying that “in the end, political adversaries put aside their differences.”

Obama praised Senate leaders for reaching a compromise, and urged Congress to act quickly, White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

“As soon as possible is essentially the recommendation we have from here,” he said.

U.S. stocks rose on the news of an agreement, with the benchmark Dow Jones Industrial Average jumping more than 200 points on the day.

Short-term plan

Reid said the Senate deal under discussion would reopen the government by funding it until January 15. It also would raise the debt limit until February 7 to avert a possible default on U.S. debt obligations for the first time.

It includes a provision to provide back pay to furloughed federal workers, leadership and congressional sources told CNN.

In addition, the White House supports a provision in the deal that strengthens verification measures for people getting subsidies under Obamacare, spokesman Jay Carney said.

Carney called the change “a modest adjustment,” and said it didn’t amount to “ransom” for raising the federal debt ceiling because both sides agreed to it and the White House supported it.

The Senate agreement also would set up budget negotiations between the House and Senate for a long-term spending plan.

McConnell fired an opening salvo for those talks, expected to begin soon and continue until December, when he said any ensuing budget deal should adhere to spending caps set in a 2011 law that included forced cuts known as sequestration.

“Preserving this law is critically important to the future of our country,” McConnell said of the Budget Control Act, which resulted from the previous debt ceiling crisis in Washington.

The focus on an agreement shifted to the Senate after House Republicans failed on Tuesday to come up with a plan their majority could support, stymied again by demands from tea party conservatives for outcomes unacceptable to Obama and Senate Democrats, as well as some fellow Republicans.

Cruz, despite being in the Senate, is credited with spearheading the House Republican effort to attach amendments that would dismantle or defund the health care reforms known as Obamacare to previous proposals intended to end the shutdown.

All were rejected by the Democratic-led Senate, and Obama also pledged to veto them, meaning there was no chance they ever would have succeeded.

Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire called the House GOP tactic of tying Obamacare to the shutdown legislation “an ill-conceived strategy from the beginning, not a winning strategy.”

However, Republican Rep. Steve King of Iowa advocated continued brinksmanship to try to change Obamacare, which conservatives detest as a big-government overreach.

“If we’re not willing to take a stand now, then when will we take this stand?” he told CNN’s “New Day,” adding that if “the conservative Republican plan had been implemented five years ago, say at the inception of what is now the Obama presidency, we would have far less debt and deficit.”

Read More Here



Enhanced by Zemanta

Amazing isn’t  it  that  Obama’s Lawyers openly  admitted his Birth Certificate was a fake. That  he  knows he is not a  natural born citizen and yet  here  we are . He was elected for a second term by  people  who obviously could care less  what the requirements for the  presidency are.  He is  protected  at  every  turn my main stream media who still have the  audacity  to  claim conspiracy  theories  as they  snidely   remark “Birthers”.

We  have  gone way   beyond holding government  accountable for the lies and corruption.  The  American people are  complicit. Some due to  their blind and ignorant views that  because this president  is African American anything  is acceptable.  And anyone who opposes him must  be racist, right  ???

Yet  those  who have placed him in the  very  position  he illegitimately  holds claim to be  progressive and tolerant   and  let’s not  forget  so much  more educated  than those who understood   he  was  not  eligible.  Spare  me the  limbic  brain,  dumb redneck  Bull Sh*t. Your need to  be right, your  need  to  have a   Black man  in the  White house  has changed  the course  of this country  forever.   And  contrary  to your hate mongering and  disaffecting   rhetoric the reasons he is and  always  has  been  ineligible has nothing to do with the color of his skin.  Although  your  hate filled  rhetoric has done more  to augment racial tension and  alienation  from discourse in this Nation than  either  the KKK or the Neo Nazis could have  dreamed of.

Those of you  too afraid to stand up and say   he   was ineligible for fear   of being  viewed  as a  racist are  just  as  guilty.  Morality without the   fortitude to  enforce it  or protect it is akin to being  devoid of the same!!

Still  we  hear the   cries of “Birthers”   and ” Racist”  from the media and even from members of the White house itself a week ago Carney   insinuating   that  Sebelius’  fund raising  scheme being questioned  at  the   IRS  scandal press  conference was as  illegitimate  as  the Birther claims  about  the  birth certificate!

Really  ?

And  then  we  have this………..

Bill Maher took to his blog to slam Republicans for their racist hypocrisy concerning Ted Cruz and President Obama’s birth certificates.

Bill Maher took to his blog to slam Republicans for their racist hypocrisy concerning Ted Cruz and President Obama’s birth certificates.

Bill Maher wrote on his blog that,

The Constitution says, “No Person except a natural born Citizen… shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Cruz says he’s eligible to run because his mom was a U.S. citizen, and therefore he’s a U.S. citizen who didn’t need to be naturalized. Great, but then what the hell was that whole Obama “birther” thing about?

Over half of Republican primary voters thought President Obama was illegitimate because they claimed he wasn’t born here. They didn’t give a damn that his mother was. If they don’t have a problem with Cruz running, it’s just an admission that they only care when it involves one of the black countries.

Can you imagine if it’d turned out President Obama wasn’t born in America and had lived the first four years of his life in Kenya? They’d be drawing up the articles of impeachment. Donald Trump would take a victory lap. Then again, he took a victory lap when it turned out he was wrong, which everyone already knew, so maybe he’s just a douche.

But here’s the thing: Ted Cruz is perfectly American enough to be president. His mom was an American citizen. His father became an American citizen. And every memory Ted probably has is from the years he spent in America. Except for when he was at Harvard, which he considers the Soviet Union.

Maher also pointed out that Republicans favor Ted Cruz over Marco Rubio, because Cruz is a openly hostile to other Latinos. The Republican base is in favor of Latino leaders, as long as they embrace the party’s hostility towards their own people.

I mean  Freakkin Really??

So  now since Obama has  been  a  usurper in  Chief it’s  ok  for  Cruz to be one as well if  he  gets   elected?  Is this how the  Constitution   will be  respected  and protected?

What   in the  hell is  wrong with people?  Have  they  lost  their ability  to think clearly?  Or  is critical thinking reserved for only those who went  to  school and learned it?

Is it  the fluoride in the  water ?

The  aspartame in the  soda?

The  chemtrails being sprayed with our  tax  dollars?

  I mean come   on people enlighten me here. Because  honestly there  are many   of you  out  there  moaning about the condition  of  this Nation  and   have  been  part  of the problem from day  one!!!

It  is not ok as long as your  Party  does it!

If  it  is wrong for the  Democrats  then it is wrong for the  Republicans!

Is  that  too hard to understand?

~Desert Rose~


Obama’s Lawyers Officially Admit Birth Certificate is Fake

imagesCAZ3OYIFSusanne Posel
Occupy Corporatism
April 19, 2012

Lawyers for the Obama Administration announced that Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate was a forgery. Under penalty of perjury, the lawyers said they were forced to say that the birth certificate was valid.

A lawyer representing the Obama administration say the birth certificate was knowingly purveyed to fool the American public into believing he was legitimately able to be President.

However, they purport that Obama knows he is not a natural born citizen.

Obama stated at a White House briefing that the birth certificate subject is “irrelevant”. He must think that by dismissing it that he can make it go away.

This invalidates the Obama Presidency and makes him ineligible to be President in 2012.

Pen Johannson, Editor of the Daily Pen, stated in his editorial that this controversy should set off a firestorm of constitutional questions and a legislative controversy of epic proportions.

In New Jersey, a case about Obama’s eligibility has influenced activist to question the President’s legal right to be Commander and Chief.

Alexandra M. Hill, representative defense attorney for Obama made comments that brought the Tea Party members to question the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate.

Nick Purpura of Wall Township, NJ, and Ted Moran of Toms River, NJ, filed their objection with the New Jersey Board of Elections. Purpura and Moran objected to Obama appearing on the June 5 Democratic Primary ballot on two grounds:

• No one knows exactly who Barack H. Obama is, because he has had three different names in life. Furthermore, he has never furnished a true copy of his birth certificate to the Secretary of State. So no one can be sure that Obama was born in the United States.
• Obama’s father was a British colonial subject. He not only was not a naturalized citizen on the alleged date of Obama’s birth, but indeed never sought naturalization. Therefore Obama could never be a natural-born citizen no matter where he was born.

Attorney for the plaintiff, Mario Apuzzo asserts that the birth certificate is the proof of Obama’s citizenship that allows him to be on the ballot in New Jersey.

On April 10, 2012, these lawyers admitted the forgery.

Obama is asserting that the document is a fake and should not be allowed into evidence. And the judge in this case agrees.

By this admission, Barack Obama can be charged with High Crimes and Misdemeanors by lying to the American public about his legitimacy as President. Obama is guilty to criminal activity and blatantly ineligible for Presidency and the electoral process this year.

Without the birth certificate, Obama cannot prove he is a natural born citizen. Where before this development, the Obama administration adamantly asserted that the birth certificate was legitimate; they knowing lied and therefore should be arrested and charged with their illegal actions against the American people.

Grace Wyler and Brett LoGiurato | Mar. 6, 2013, 11:46 PM

Senator Rand Paul took over the Senate floor for nearly 13 hours Wednesday with an old-fashioned talk-till-you-drop filibuster, railing against the Obama administration’s drone policy and holding up a vote on John Brennan’s confirmation as CIA director.

“I will speak until I can no longer speak,” Paul began at 11:47 a.m. Wednesday.

He didn’t end until 12:39 a.m. Thursday, when he closed his marathon speech to thunderous applause.

“I would go for another 12 hours to try to break Strom Thurmond’s record, but I’ve discovered that there are some limits to filibustering and I’m going to have to go take care of one of those in a few minutes here,” Paul quipped.

Although Paul’s filibuster was technically against Brennan’s nomination, his remarks focused primarily on civil liberties issues, offering a scathing critique of the Obama’s administration’s use of unmanned drones, and refusal to rule out military strikes against American citizens on U.S. soil. 

“When I asked the president, can you kill an American on American soil, it should have been an easy answer. It’s an easy question. It should have been a resounding an unequivocal, ‘No,'” Paul said. “The president’s response? He hasn’t killed anyone yet. We’re supposed to be comforted by that.”

Later, Paul warned about the ambiguity over who could be targeted by drones, suggesting that they could have been used against Vietnam War protesters in the 1960s.

“Are you going to just drop a hellfire missile on Jane Fonda?” Paul asked. “Are you going to drop a missile on Kent State?”

Over the course of the day, Paul’s filibuster became a hotspot for up-and-coming Republicans, with a parade of conservative Senators — including Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) – taking the floor to support Paul and relieve him of the podium.

“You’re standing here like a modern-day ‘Mr. Smith Goes To Washington,'” Cruz told Paul admiringly as he began his first question of the day. “You must surely be making Jimmy Stewart smile.”

Ted Cruz Filibuster


In subsequent appearances, Cruz honored the Alamo, recited Shakespeare, and twice cheered up the fading Kentucky Senator with supportive tweets from the outside world (electronic devices are not allowed on the floor).

“You da man. That would be ‘d-a-m-a-n,'” Cruz said, reading off one of the tweets.

Not to be out done, Rubio made two trips to the Senate floor, advising Paul to “drink water” and quoting liberally from  rappers Wiz Khalifa and Jay-Z and “The Godfather.”


Attorney General Sends Brief And Snarky Letter To Rand Paul

……Hearing the letter for the first time on Fox News Thursday, Paul said that the answer satisfies his question.

“HOO-ray!” Paul said, adding that Holder capitulated “under duress.”

During his 13-hour filibuster Wednesday, Paul claimed he would block Brennan’s nomination until the White House answered his question about whether the U.S. could authorize a military strike against U.S. targets…….


And here’s the first letter:


eric holder letter

Sen. Rand Paul

By Tom Curry, National Affairs Writer, NBC News

In an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder defended the Obama administration’s targeted killings policy, even in cases of American citizens who may be on U.S. soil, in some situations where they are planning an imminent attack on the country.

Even as Holder finished his testimony, Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., began a filibuster of CIA director nominee John Brennan as a gesture of protest against the administration’s policy.

Holder told the Judiciary Committee that he expects Obama himself will be speaking about the controversy in the near future.

The attorney general repeated what he had said in a letter this week to Paul, “The government has no intention to carry out any drone strikes in the United States. It’s hard for me to imagine a situation in which that would occur.”

Addressing Holder’s “no intent” statement, Paul later said in his Senate speech, “I frankly don’t think that’s good enough.”

Holder explained in his testimony that for terrorist suspects inside the United States, the government has the ability to arrest them and prosecute them. But there’s little or no feasibility of capture in places such as Pakistan, he said.

The use of drones inside the United States to kill a terrorists planning an attack is, he said, “entirely, entirely hypothetical.”

Attorney General Eric Holder was on Capitol Hill Wednesday morning testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on his agency’s policies from guns to drones. NBC’s Pete Williams reports.

In a lengthy wrangle with Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Holder repeatedly said the use of a drone to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil who wasn’t an imminent threat would not be an “appropriate” use of lethal force, but it took some minutes before Holder said it would also not be constitutional.

Cruz told Holder, “I find it remarkable that in that hypothetical — which is deliberately very simple — you are unable to give a simple, one word one syllable answer: ‘No.’”


Read Full Article  and  Watch Video Here 

With bipartisan aid, Paul filibusters CIA pick Brennan

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

Senate Foreign Relations member Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky. questions Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013, during Kerry’s confirmation hearing before the committee to replace Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.


By Carrie Dann and Kasie Hunt, NBC News

Pledging to speak “until I can no longer speak,” Kentucky Republican Rand Paul on Wednesday launched a filibuster of the nomination of John Brennan to be the next CIA director, getting assists from a half dozen other lawmakers over the course of hours standing on the Senate floor.

The filibuster continued into its eighth hour after Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois objected to Paul’s request that the Senate take up a non-binding sense of the Senate resolution stating that the U.S. government cannot target “noncombatants” with drones on American soil.

Paul objects to what he calls the Obama administration’s lack of clarity over whether a suspected terrorist who is an American citizen can be targeted with a drone strike within U.S. borders.

Arguing that such a resolution would be premature, Durbin instead invited Paul to testify at an upcoming hearing on the issue of drones.

But that offer was not enough for Paul to halt his protest.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., engages in a discussion with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., over the use of lethal force on American citizens on U.S. soil and the nomination of John Brennan as CIA director on the Senate floor on Wednesday.

Hours into his filibuster, Paul acknowledged that Brennan will ultimately be confirmed, saying the lengthy delay is merely a “blip” in his nomination. But he and other participants emphasized that the debate is intended to shine a spotlight on the government’s balance of civil liberties with national security.

Paul spoke solo for over three hours before being joined on the floor by other lawmakers who stepped in to continue the filibuster.

Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah, Ted Cruz and John Cornyn of Texas, Jerry Moran of Kansas, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Marco Rubio of Florida – as well as Democrat Ron Wyden of Oregon — participated.

Over six hours after beginning the filibuster, a visibly tired Paul could be seen eating what appeared to be several pieces of candy in between sentences. At one point, Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., set a thermos and an apple on his desk.


Read Full Article and  Watch Video Here




Rand Paul’s Filibuster Is Picking Up Major Steam With Both Parties

Brett LoGiurato | Mar. 6, 2013, 4:03 PM

Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster of the nomination of John Brennan to be CIA Director has started to gain significant momentum this afternoon, as other prominent Republican Senators and conservative minds have praised Paul’s three-plus-hour long effort.

Around 3 p.m. this afternoon, Republican Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) joined Paul on the Senate floor to join in his filibuster. Shortly after, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) also began taking part.

Finally, to make the filibuster bipartisan, Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon came to the floor to speak.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), one of the GOP’s rising stars, tweeted support for Paul’s filibuster:

is asking a legit question of Holder.Why so hard for them to just give straight answer?Almost like they feel it is beneath them.

773 Retweets 215 favorites

Erick Erickson, the editor-in-chief of the conservative website RedState, urged Rubio to join the filibuster, along with Lee and Cruz. Erickson said it would “cement” the legacy of recently retired Sen. Jim DeMint, who was historically one of the Senate’s most frequent employers of the filibuster technique.

If Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio go give Rand Paul a filibuster assist, Jim DeMint’s legacy will be cemented as a force for change.

209 Retweets 44 favorites


Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden Joins Rand Paul For Historic Bipartisan Filibuster Over Drone Strikes

by Andrew Kirell | 4:29 pm, March 6th, 2013 video

Sen. Rand Paul‘s (R-KY) filibuster of John Brennan‘s CIA nomination just became a bipartisan affair: Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) announced he will join the effort to protest the Obama pick’s appointment by railing against executive overreach on targeted killings.

Several hours into his filibuster effort, Paul’s Republican colleagues in Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) joined him on the Senate floor. But it took nearly four hours for a Democrat to surprise everyone and make the filibuster a bipartisan one.

Shortly before 4:00 p.m. ET, Sen. Wyden announced, via Twitter, that he was heading to the floor to speak out against the president’s executive overreach on targeted killings and the lack of congressional oversight thereof:

Several minutes later, Wyden appeared on the floor and Paul handed off the mic to the liberal Oregon senator.


Read Full Article and Watch Video Here


Ummm,  last  I  heard all the  requirements  to  prove  that  one is a  Natural Born  Citizen  were  thrown to the  wayside for  Barack Hussein Obama.  According  to all that  were  screaming  and shouting  “Racists” and  “Birther” stipulate  that  because  he  was  born in the  USA he is  a  “Natural Born  Citizen”.  Well, well, well…….now  the  ugly  truth  has  reared it  even  uglier  head  and  they are  calling  into  question someone  who was  born  in the   US.   If  one  recalls  Obama only  had  one  parent  that was  a  US  citizen and  yet  he  was  deemed  eligible.   So  what is the  problem?  They screamed  and  kicked  saying that he  met eligibility  standards, but  now  Cruz   doesn’t?  A  bit   duplicitous  is it  not ?

I  do not in  any  way  shape  or  form  endorse  Cruz, however, it seems to  me  this is a  game  of  do as  I  say   and  not  as  I  do .  Hypocrisy  at its  best.  When do the  fun and  games of the  eligibility farce  begin?   I  want a  front  row  seat  to this dance of many  lies 😛

~Desert Rose~


Ted Cruz is shown. | AP Photo

There is some question as to whether Cruz would be allowed to run for president. | AP Photo

By DAVID CATANESE | 1/7/13 11:30 PM EST

Ted Cruz may have the aura of a future presidential contender, but is he even eligible to run?

The newly sworn-in Texas senator and rising Republican star was born in Canada, to a mother who was born in Delaware and Cuban father. That’s triggered a debate about whether he’s eligible for the nation’s highest office — nevermind that he’s been in Congress less than a week.

While there’s no legal precedent for Cruz’s situation, most constitutional scholars surveyed by POLITICO believe the 42-year-old tea party sensation would be OK. But there’s just enough gray area to stoke controversy, as Cruz learned during his campaign for Senate last year.

The U.S. Constitution 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…”

“The question ultimately is, What do we mean by a natural born citizen?” asked Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman.

“The problem is, no one knows what a natural born citizen is,” agreed University of California, Davis law professor Gabriel Chin, who argued in 2008 that Sen. John McCain was not eligible to be president.

The discussion may seem premature: Cruz is still learning his way around the Senate, his first elected office. Yet his appeal to activist and establishment types — and his Latino roots in a party desperately seeking to expand its reach — make for a rare combination in the GOP.

Read Full Article Here