Andrew Klavan: The Obama Conspiracy Conspiracy

The truth is out there, and our skeptical host is on its trail. Andrew Klavan explores the father of all conspiracy theories: The Obama Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy Theory! Is Obama a Muslim? Is Obama Gay? Is Obama the antichrist? It’s time you learned the revolting truth! See the video.

Quote of the Day 03/05/15

“National Socialism is what Marxism might have been if it could have broken its
absurd and artificial ties with the democratic order.”
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) German Nazi Dictator

Impeach or not to Impeach that is the question by The Bear

Does Obama deserve to be “Impeached”? Beyond any doubt, he has violated the Rule of Law some many times you could fill a book and still have some more to count.

I have said several times on this website that I was against “Impeaching Obama” because I was positive that the required 67 votes in the Senate needed to remove him from office where not there and I still believe that is the case.

After the trashing took from the voters in this past mid-term election which was a total repudiation of Obama’s and the Democrats polices you would have thought he would be a little more humble but instead he has become more arrogant and he has shown that he is going to take revenge against the American People. There is no question in my mind that he doesn’t like this country and the people herein, (Rudy was Right!). He know that he has less than 2 years to take this country down and he is moving at warp speed to do so.

The question becomes… “How much more damage can he do before he is gone?” In my opinion, an a lot and the only way to slow him down is by filing “Articles of Impeachment.”

I don’t think we can ever get him removed from office but I believe what the House has to do, if they have the nerve to file “Articles of Impeachment”, which is questionable is to tie up Obama in a legal matter that will break his concentration on doing more damage to the country.

(Note: “Articles of Impeachment” must originate in the House of Representatives and the case for the trial will be held in the Senate and it will take 2/3 of the Senate (67) to vote for removal. Assuming that all 54 Republican Senators vote for removal, you would need 13 Democrats to get to the 67 number and I don’t see that happening.

I think the best approach is tie up Obama with legal matters regarding his defense of Impeachment charges and drag this on as long as they can and run out the clock.

The country has reached a crises point, where unelected officials write laws (FCC), the IRS disobeys laws and millions of bureaucrats make rules and regulations (these are laws) without the approval Congress, the only branch of government authorized by the Constitution to write laws.

How did we reach a situation where the president is the biggest threat to this nation’s survival? Think about that!

Related

Obama Believes He Alone Is The Law In America

Rule Of Law: First, the president issues unlawful executive orders giving illegal immigrants amnesty. Then, he dares an equal branch of government to vote on his orders’ legality so he can veto it. Is he establishing a monarchy?

While speaking at a town hall meeting Wednesday night at Florida International University, President Obama clearly indicated that he believes he is the final authority on law in this country. He will not tolerate dissent.

“If Mr. McConnell, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, want to have a vote on whether what I’m doing is legal or not, they can have that vote. I will veto that vote, because I’m absolutely confident that what we’re doing is the right thing to do,” he told a group organized by Democratic Rep. Jose Diaz-Balart.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily:

Lying About Benghazi Sole Hillary Accomplishment

Scandal: Documents from Judicial Watch show that Hillary Clinton’s closest advisers knew from the onset, before she launched an inflammatory video lie, that Benghazi was a terrorist attack for which Ansar al-Sharia claimed responsibility.

‘Mrs. Clinton, name an accomplishment,” Carly Fiorina, former Hewlett-Packard CEO and prospective 2016 GOP presidential candidate, asked Thursday at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

Last year, when ABC’s Diane Sawyer asked the former secretary of state that question, Mrs. Clinton changed the subject, not even bothering to mention dodging sniper fire in Bosnia.

Nor is she likely to mention Benghazi, a place now synonymous with the failure of the foreign policy she helped orchestrate. Benghazi has become yet another example of why our friends don’t trust us and our enemies don’t fear us.

As we have noted, at 10:07 p.m. Washington, D.C., time on Sept. 11, 2012, Clinton’s State Department issued a statement that read: “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to an inflammatory material posted on the Internet. … Let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

This was the origin of the lie that the Benghazi terrorist attack was caused by an Internet video offensive to Muslims.

It would be a lie Hillary Clinton would repeat to the parents of the Benghazi dead in front of their sons’ caskets when they arrived at Andrews AFB.

It would be repeated by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice on the Sunday talk show circuit and by President Obama no fewer than six times before the United Nations.

This was an all-too-quick and curious assignment of blame that flew in the face of information flowing to the State Department confirming a terrorist attack.

Last Thursday, Judicial Watch issued a press release announcing that on Feb. 11 it had “uncovered documents from the U.S. Department of State revealing that top aides for then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, including her then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills, knew from the onset that the Benghazi mission compound was under attack by armed assailants tied to a terrorist group.”

The documents, obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, make no mention of a reaction to an Internet video.

But they do contain references to an attack for which the al-Qaida-affiliated terrorist group Ansar al-Sharia had taken credit, information available to the State Department before it released the statement implicating a video.

On Sept. 11, 2012, at 4:07 p.m. Eastern time, Maria Sand, then-special assistant to Mrs. Clinton, forwarded an email from the State Department’s Operation Center entitled “U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi is Under Attack” to Mills and other State Department officials, including Joseph McManus, then Clinton’s special assistant.

That email read, in part: “The Regional Security Officer reports the diplomatic mission is under attack. Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well.”

There was no mention of any spontaneous protest beforehand.

Read More At Investor’s Business Daily:

It’s True

Nut and Yahoo