Well, the semester is almost over. I’ve decided that I like Gas Tungsten Arc Welding probably best. I have, oh, about 8 whole hours at it. It’s definitely tricky. But much quieter, cleaner and not as noisy as the other types of welding, plus it provides the strongest Welds.
39″But you have a custom that I release someone for you at the Passover; do you wish then that I release for you the King of the Jews?” 40So they cried out again, saying, “Not this Man, but Barabbas.” Now Barabbas was a robber.
Before county prosecutor Bob McCulloch had even announced that the grand jury had found no probable cause to indict Wilson, Think Progress editor Judd Legum posted a video featuring two legal analysts suggesting that the prosecution had tainted the jury by allowing them access to all the evidence in this case. That’s correct: Legum insisted that McCulloch had “rigged the grand jury” by allowing them to deliberate on all the evidence available to prosecutors rather than just a narrow set of facts.
This claim was dutifully repeated by those in the mainstream press who sympathized with the violent demonstrators.
“Many of us said we would be absolutely shocked if there was an indictment because he rigged the system to get the results he wanted,” ubiquitous legal analyst Lisa Bloom alleged in an appearance on MSNBC.
“I’ll bet you his two assistants did not ask for an indictment,” criminal defense attorney Mark Geragos theorized on CNN in an evidence-free condemnation of McCulloch’s conduct. “He showed exactly what his predisposition was.”
“This was a foregone conclusion,” Geragos added. “This was a rigged game. This is exactly the result he wanted.”
If you asked the average left-leaning pundit, it was not merely McCulloch’s nefarious efforts to exonerate Wilson that were to blame for the outbreak of vandalism and property destruction in Missouri on Monday night. It was also his conduct while revealing the grand jury’s verdict.
Speaking for nearly one hour, McCulloch disclosed the painful, granular details over which the grand jurors poured. He itemized the mountains of misinformation which investigators had to comb through, including a number of “witnesses” to the crime who did not see what they thought they saw – an indication of the deleterious impact of saturation media coverage. McCulloch patiently sat through questions asked of him by reporters, including fatuous, self-serving nonsense like one submitted by a journalist who asked for McCulloch’s thoughts on the fact that there is “not a single law in the state of Missouri that protects and values the life of” Brown.
If all that sounds rather deferential to the concerns of the press and the assembled protesters outside of where McCulloch was speaking, you’re not former White House advisor and CNN host Van Jones.
“The way that McCulloch was tonight was very, very provocative,” Jones insisted. “And you saw the crowd react to McCulloch’s tone.”
“I think they made a big mistake by waiting so late,” he added. “I think McCulloch missed a huge leadership opportunity to be a uniter tonight. I think McCulloch’s tone was very divisive tonight, and here we are.”
Oh, well, here we are. Point A to Point B, all due to the fact that the prosecutor spent nearly an hour laying out the facts of a criminal case and delayed that announcement long enough to allow those in Ferguson and around the country time to bunker down before the inevitable violence erupted. What a scoundrel.
Demonstrators angered by at the grand jury decision in the Darren Wilson case took to the streets in 90 cities from coast to coast Monday night, snarling traffic, chanting slogans condemning police and waving signs in support of slain black teen Michael Brown.
In New York City, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., Boston and Chicago, thousands of people led marches screaming, ‘Hands up! Don’t shoot!’ that has become a rallying cry in protests over police killings across the country.
The protests around the country were largely peaceful, but several demonstrations were marred by foul-mouthed verbal attacks on police and arrests.
What we are witnessing is nothing less than a Gangster uprising. The African American culture is by and large one of idolization and worship of violent criminals, this violent behavior on their part is the inescapable result of a culture that assaults education, honestly, moral, ethical or virtuous behavior and instead glorifies and rewards violent criminal behavior.
But do not make the mistake of thinking that that is all this is about. This my friends, is nothing less than a loaded gun pointed at the head of America with the none to subtle threat, Impeach Barack Obama, and we’ll burn America to the ground. Wake up and smell the burning rubble America. The Fifth Column Treasonous Media, the Whitehouse and the Department of Injustice set these wheels in motion very much on purpose to prevent anyone from even remotely considering Impeaching his Imperial Majesty Barack Hussein Obama the first.
That’s right folks, wake up and smell reality. Barack Obama Grubbered you, betrayed you, and did so with the full knowledge and willful assistance of his fellow Democrats, the Mainstream Media and the GOPe. America, you have been screwed, blued, tattooed and sold on the slave market.
Go sit in the corner, suck your thumb, rock back and forth and keep repeating to yourself, “It can’t happen here, it can’t happen here” Sorry sucker’s it not only can, it already has happened here. It has happened here because you were to much of a coward to stand up and defend the Constitution of the United States of America when it needed defending. You bent over, grabbed a bottle of KY-Jelly lubed your ass up and said, come and get it.
Well… Here it is… This is what you voted for when you decided that the US Constitution could only be defended when it was convenient or when it looked like you might win. Riot’s in over 90 cities, riot’s because a white police officer was not charged with murdering a violent criminal thug who attempted to kill him.
Yes, the crowds are indeed shouting, “Give us Barabbas” a violent thug of a criminal. What we have just witnessed was nothing less than Black America selling their soul to the devil to set Pumpkinhead on their enemies. You can bet the devil has a very special place reserved in hell for them, not that that will do America any good.
Sundance over at “The Conservative Treehouse” has done the research. What he has dug up is, well, disturbing to say the very least. If you really want to know what the controversy regarding Benghazi is about, you need to read what Sundance dug up. It puts a whole new level of understanding not only on what happened, but even on why.
The second comment in the comment section asks perhaps the most important question regarding this entire scandal. The question has a potentially foreboding answer to it.
August 9, 2014 at 7:06 am
There is something that I don’t understand. You were able to get all of this information and put the puzzle together and publish this piece out into the universe for all to read. But somehow, Trey Gowdy’s investigation can’t dig into this because of the secret covert nature of the operation? “…no venue to discuss Intelligence operations in public sunlight.” But it is all right here. It already is public.
The actions taken by Darrell Issa thus far have proven to be worse than useless, will Trey Gowdy be any more on the side of the American People, because Darrell Issa sure as hell wasn’t. Issa just helped with the coverup, will Trey Gowdy do likewise?
Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger just released a report designed to look like the final report by House Intelligence Committee, it’s not, it’s written by only two members of the House Intelligence Committee and is a 100 percent whitewash coverup designed to protect Rogers, Ruppersberger and about a dozen other senior politicians and policy makers.
As to why Mike Rogers would co-author an obvious whitewashing like this, Breitbart’s Jonathan Strong has the answer to that…
One of the top Republican congressional staffers on the Benghazi investigation founded a consulting firm comprised of numerous former Clinton aides and a former CIA director accused of lying to Congress about the attack, Fox News reported Monday.
J. Michael Allen is the founder and managing director of Beacon Global Strategies. He previously served as the staff director for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, chaired by GOP Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan and perhaps the most important panel investigating Benghazi.
Allen’s new business partners at Beacon include:
Philippe Reines, a dyed-in-the-wool Clinton hatchet man who worked for Clinton from 2002 until founding Beacon
Andrew Shapiro, a former top State Department official (under Clinton) and senior policy adviser to Clinton
Josh Kirshner, a former top State Department official under Clinton who also worked for her as a Senate aide in 2006
Ashley Woolheater, who previously led a team “responsible for crafting and executing the strategic media goals of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton” at the State Department
Jeremy Bash, a former chief of staff to Leon Panetta at the Defense Department and CIA under President Obama
Julianne Smith, a former top aide to Vice President Joe Biden
Sarah Davey, a former aide to Michelle Obama who helped craft the “Let’s Move!” initiative
Meredith Steen, a low-level Democratic aide who interned for Democrat James Moran
Eight colleagues. All Democrats. Four worked in senior positions under Clinton, the other three at the Obama White House.
The Fox News report by Catherine Herridge notes that one month after Allen interviewed Morell about the Benghazi attack in May 2013, Beacon approached him to hire him. Allen was then one of the most senior GOP officials on the issue and Morell the deputy director at the CIA.
A representative at Beacon told Fox that no conflict of interest existed because Morell was approached to be hired after he had already conducted the interview.
There is only ONE Constitutional Remedy for Obama’s Executive Amnesty, and filing a lawsuit against the POTUS is not it. This is not Rocket Science, and, yes, having built Satellites for Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman I do know the difference between Rocket Science and the US Constitution. The only Constitutional Remedy for Obama’s Executive Amnesty is found here, in the United States Constitution.
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
If John Boehner and Mitch McConnell chose any other path in opposing Obama’s Executive Amnesty, then said path is every bit as unconstitutional and illegal as Barack Obama’s.
MR. AMAR: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the subcommittee.
My name is Akhil Reed (sp) Amar. I’m — (name inaudible) — professor of law at Yale Law School, where I have taught constitutional law for the last 13 years. I have written three books and close to 100 articles on general topics in constitutional law.
In 1996 my student Brian Colt (sp) and I co-authored an article explaining that a sitting president is constitutionally immune from ordinary criminal prosecution, state or federal, but is of course subject to ordinary prosecution the instant he leaves office, a prospect that can obviously be hastened by impeachment. Today I’ll try to summarize my reasons for continuing to believe this.
The issue, as I understand it, concerns not Bill Clinton, the man, but the institution of the presidency. The rules laid down by the framers apply equal to Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives. I never asked Brian Colt about his party affiliation and we drafted our article before the 1996 elections, not knowing who would be president thereafter and not knowing when this momentous question would next be on the national agency.
In analyzing this and other constitutional questions, I often try to reserve existing partisan polarities in my mind, so as to arrive at a result and reasoning process un-tinged by current political preference. I would invite the senators and the administration to do the same thing. Constitutional law shouldn’t be partisan.
The position Brian and I put forth — that a sitting president may only be criminally tried in this court, the Senate, sitting in impeachment, and can be criminally tried elsewhere only after he has left office — has a very distinguished and bipartisan pedigree:
It’s the position put forth in passing in two Federalist Papers, Numbers 69 and 77.
It’s the position clearly taken by both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, men who disagreed about many other things, who both risked their lives to fight against monarchy and who both deeply believed in the rule of law.
It’s the position clearly set forth in the first Congress by Senator Oliver Ellsworth (sp), a Philadelphia framer, the author of the Judiciary Act of 1789, and later chief justice of the United States.
It’s the position that makes the most sense of the analysis of the great Justice Joseph Storey (sp) in his landmark 1833 treatise on the Constitution.
It’s the position articulated in the Supreme Court as early as 1867 by Attorney General Stan Berry (sp) and the traditional position of the Justice Department.
It’s the position taken 25 years ago when Richard Nixon was president by two of my own teachers at Yale Law School, Robert Bork and Charles Black. In the symposium in which the Amar-Colt article appeared, our views were largely in sync with of most — but not all — but most, of the other participants, including my distinguished friend Terry Eastland.
Apart from those points about history and tradition, my basic constitutional argument is more structural than textual, sounding in both separation of powers and federalism. Other impeachable officers — vice presidents, Cabinet officers, judges, justices — may be indicted while in office. But the presidency is constitutionality unique. In the president, the entirety of the power of a branch of government is vested. And so the language of impeachment in the Constitution sensibly means something different as applied to presidents on the one hand and other officials on the other, an analogy that may be helpful to the members of this subcommittee.
The Constitution gives the Senate the power of advice and consent as to both Cabinet officials and Supreme Court justices. But these words sensibly mean different things in these two contexts. Constitutionally, Cabinet officers are members of the president’s team, justices are not. Thus, the Senate historically gives more deference to the president’s nominees when Cabinet officers who will leave when the president leaves are at stake than when justices who will be in place for life are involved.
The same words, “advice and consent,” must be understood in different ways when they interact with different clauses or different structural implications. So, too, with the Constitution’s words concerning impeachment.
Let’s begin structural analysis by pondering the following hypothetical, which implicates federalism as well as separation of powers. Could some clever state or country prosecutor in Charleston, South Carolina, have indicted Abraham Lincoln in March 1861 and order him to stand trial in Charleston? If so, there might well be no United States today bringing us all together. I believe the Constitution gave Lincoln immunity in this situation, so long as he was in office. The president is elected by the whole nation and no one part of the nation should have the power to undo a decision of the whole. This is the kind of structural argument exemplified by John Marshall’s classic opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland.
What’s true of state criminal prosecution is also true of federal criminal prosecution. Here, too, we cannot allow a part to undo the whole. Any one federal grand jury or federal petit jury will come from only city, be it Charleston or Little Rock or the District of Columbia. The president is elected by the entire nation and should be judged by the entire nation. His true grand jury is the House, his true petit jury is the Senate, and the true indictment that he is subject to is called an impeachment.
What’s more, any effort to indict him by an independent counsel would also violate the Constitution’s Article II appointment clause.
Let me make clear, by the way, that Kenneth Starr, the man, is my friend. I admire him and respect him. Nothing that I say here should be understood as a personal criticism.
Counsel Starr is, constitutionally speaking, an inferior officer; that’s the words of the Constitution itself. He was never as counsel confirmed by this body, the Senate of the United States. Were he to claim the power to indict a sitting president, it would be impossible to argue with a straight face that he is simply some inferior officer. It would be breaking with the historical and traditional approach of the Justice Department. And even if you think he’d be right, you cannot say that he would truly be inferior. He would be claiming for himself the power to imprison the chief executive officer. This power is awesome. It is anything but an inferior power that can be vested in an inferior officer.
This issue, of course, did not arise in the 1988 Supreme Court case, Morrison v. Olson (sp), since the president in that case was not a target. And remember, Richard Nixon was only named an indicted co- conspirator.
Since Morrison, the Court has been even more strict in insisting that the word inferior be taken seriously in the Appointments Clause, as evidenced by the 1997 case, Edmund (sp) v. United States, which I have not heard discussed in any of these conversations. Any indictment of the president by counsel Starr would in my view plainly violate the teaching of Edmund.
Let me conclude by making clear that, of course, no man is above the law. Once out of office, an ex-president may be tried just like anyone else and that day of reckoning can, of course, be speeded up if the House and the Senate decide to impeach and remove.
Moreover, since a sitting president’s immunity (sounds ?) in personal jurisdiction, it may well be waive-able. And if so, political pressure may be brought upon a president to consent to be tried in the drunk driving case or something else. The question is not whether a president is accountable to law and to the country, but how, when and by whom.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my formal testimony. Perhaps later on, I would be grateful to have a chance, just a minute, to express a disagreement that I have with one thing that you’d said that I think, actually, in my view, is a mistake as a matter of constitutional law. But I don’t — I’d be happy to reserve that for later on.
In short, it comes down to this, because Barack Obama is acting in the official capacity as POTUS he enjoys constitutional immunity, he may not be sued, nor indited on criminal charges for actions taken in his official capacity as POTUS. The only Constitutional remedy for abuse of authority by a sitting President, is to Impeach him and remove him from office. Which, is precisely what
Article 2, Section 4
The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Was included in the United States Constitution for.
One of the most preeminent concepts behind Marxism is, that the average person is far to stupid to be allowed to decide anything relevant about how their nation, or even their own life is run. Tragically, regardless of how many time the democrats prove that they are Marxists, the American people by and large refuse to believe that that is what they are. It’s not that the American people are stupid, it’s just that they cannot believe that the Democrat Party would betray the United States Constitution and wholeheartedly embrace a political ideology that has so thoroughly been proven not to work.
Here is another one of those examples of the Democrat Party saying right out in the open that they believe that the American people are too stupid to govern themselves, and therefore need to be deceived in order for a program that, according to the Marxist Democrats, Americas simply cannot live without.
The Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor later admitted that the law was designed in a deceptive manner in order to prompt the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office to score it in a manner conducive to passage. “This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber said. “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies.”
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” he added, essentially endorsing the opaque practices used by Democratic legislators to create and pass the behemoth health care reform bill. If it sounds like he’s congratulating himself and his fellow Democrats for pulling one over on the American people, you’re not imagining things.
“Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass,” Gruber went on to say.
In short, what Jon Gruber is saying is, the only way we could get Obamacare passed, was to flat out lie about it. While bad enough in and of itself, Gruber added insult to injury by asserting that it was the fault of the American people that they are so damned stupid that we had to lie to them to get Obamacare passed.
What Gruber is conveniently not reminding people of, is that the American voters did not approve of Obamacare, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi used the most deceitful political tactics conceivable to get Obamacare passed. They took a completely unrelated Bill passed by the house, removed everything in it, put Obamacare in it, then passed in in the middle of the night using a parliamentary procedure known as reconciliation.
At the time of it’s passage, 70 percent of the American people opposed Obamacare. It was so opposed by the American people that elected Democrats had to shut down their phone lines and lock their constitutes out of town-hall meetings just to avoid hearing what their constitutes thought of Obamacare. More importantly, and a lesson obviously lost on the Democrat leadership, (or perhaps they just didn’t care) when the 2010 mid-terms came around, the Democrats suffered the worst political defeat in the nations history, well, at least the worst political beating in American history until the 2014 mid-terms, when they once again suffered the worst political defeat in American political history.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Jon Gruber should perhaps be the face of the democrat party, the party that knowingly and willingly lies to it’s constitutes because they honestly believe that you are to stupid to make the right decision, and then, once they have lied to you, rather than admitting that they lied, blame you for your being to stupid to vote correctly.
That’s right folks, the official party line of the Democrat Party is now, “Call it the stupidity of the American voter” or, Yea, you’re Stupid America.
Ok, so, yea, I went back to college to get an AA in Welding Technology. Last time I went to college, way back in the early 80’s, I took my schooling very seriously, I carried a 32 unit per Semester load and held a GPA of 3.97.
Now I am taking a 12 unit load and holding on to a 3.28 GPA. The difference however, is my homework…
Yea, my homework the first time around was, well, nothing like this. This time I’m doing all of the crazy stuff I didn’t do the first time I went to college.
Under Barack Obama, the democrat party has suffered it’s worst mid-term losses in American history. First in 2010, and now in 2014. yet Barack has made it crystal clear he has no intention of moderating his political agenda or moving to the center as Bill Clinton famously did. This amusing clip from Back to the Future seems appropriate for the situation.
Now, before we all get crazy giddy because of last nights results, please bear in mind that the GOPe is called the Stupid Party for damned good reasons. After the 2010 mid-term rebuke of Obama’s policies, the GOPe leadership did more to further Obama’s agenda then the democrats who narrowly managed to hold their seats did. John “Bonehead” Boehner and Mitch “The Turtle” McConnell managed to stab the Republican base in the back at every single turn. Make no mistake about it, last nights results were not a result of hard work on the part of the GOPe, but a repudiation of Barack Obama’s Socialist/Marxist agenda.
The GOPe Leadership will no doubt to their very best to once again screw it’s base and the American people. After all, they know what is best for America, and according to them, what is best is a slower more incremental adoption of Barack Obama and the Democrat party’s Socialist/Marxist agenda. So, yes, you can count on John “Bonehead” Boehner and Mitch “The Turtle” McConnell doing everything in their power to pass amnesty for 30 million new Democrat voters. Keep racking up unsustainable debt, never holding the Obamanation Administration accountable for “Operation Fast and Furious”, Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the NSA Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations, oh and don’t forget, John “Bonehead” Boehner and Mitch “The Turtle” McConnell will also do everything in their power to ensure that Obamacare in never repealed either in whole or part.
Yea, that is exactly what you have to look forward to under the leadership of John “Bonehead” Boehner and Mitch “The Turtle” McConnell. If the results of last nights election are to have any meaning at all, then the leadership of the House and the Senate need to change hands from John “Bonehead” Boehner and Mitch “The Turtle” McConnell, they may get elected as Republicans, but you can damned well be sure that they are really Democrats wearing Republican clothing.
Ted Cruz has suggested that he will challenge Mitch “The Turtle” McConnell for control of the Senate, that would be the best possible outcome from this mid-term. The question now is, which congressman should wrest control of the House from John “Bonehead” Boehner? Personally, I can think of no better person to be House Majority Leader than South Carolina’s Trey Gowdy.