BUSTED: Dem Chair Caught In Bald-Faced Lie On National TV

Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist and Patriot. 

 I’ve begun to tire of her whoppers but they just keep coming, this one is just to classic.

 

Recent up close and personal photo of Debbie Wasserman Shultz, congenital liar.

I would seem doubtful that the dwindling base to which she panders would have the slightest understanding of what she is saying.  Sadly, they vote.

I’m also finding that her new picture is beginning to grow on me.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

  Front porch politics

Bummer. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz attacked The Examiner today on FOX News for ‘deliberately’ misquoting her… But, she didn’t count on them having the audio to back up their report.

Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz claimed on Monday that Israel’s ambassador to the United States had accused Republicans of being “dangerous” to Israel.
Last night on FOX she denied she said it.
It was a bald-faced lie

 

“From where do they come?

Comment by Jim Campbell, Citizen Journalist and Patriot

A safe bet would be the planet Uranus!  At least we know that’s where they keep their heads.

We have come to expect the incomprehensible from DNC chair, Debbie Wasserman Shultz.

Rob Reiner, aka “Meat Head” as Caroll O’Connor dubbed him so well in the TV hit “All in the Family.”

Below Archie displays the best way to talk with a liberal. Grab them by the throat and squeeze until they shut up.

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it, I’m J.C. and I approve this message.

A Shrink Asks: What’s Wrong with Obama?

By Robin of Berkeley

American Thinker

Ok folks, who you going to trust, a recovering liberal psychiatrist from Berkley or me?     Be clear now, she still recovering and probably incapable of using the P word which I’ve suggested may in fact be more appropriate. I’m going to write her and get her take.  You know I will………………………Rational thoughts while observing a national charade, I’m J.C.

So what is the matter with Obama? Conservatives have been asking this question for some time. I’ve written a number of articles trying to solve the mystery.

Even some liberals are starting to wonder. James Carville railed about Obama’s blasé attitude after the catastrophic oil spill. The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd revamped Obama’s “Yes We Can” motto into “Will We Ever?”

The liberal women of the TV show “The View” have expressed sympathy for Michelle Obama’s living with a man so out of touch. Peggy Noonan, hardly a vehement Obama foe,  recently pronounced him disconnected.

Obama’s odd mannerisms intrigue a psychotherapist like me. He also presents a serious diagnostic challenge.

LET US NEVER FORGET THE WORDS OF A LYING PSYCHOPATH

REMEMBER IT TOOK HIM TWELVE DAYS TO SHOW!

Why Are Americans Moving to Mexico?

Mexico Drug War Doesn’t Stop Americans From Moving South of the Border

By SARA MILLER LLANA

MÉRIDA, Mexico

Hey get a jump, they will eventually be owning the US anyway. Rational thoughts while observing the passing charade, I’m J.C.

Bill Engle is outside, sweating in work clothes while he oversees renovations to his colonial house in Mérida, Mexico. It sits on a street dubbed “Gringo Gulch,” a pretty row of baby blue, violet, and mustard facades where expatriates outnumber Mexicans.

Tourists enjoy the beach at the resort city of Cancun, Mexico in this photo taken on June 12, 2009….

Tourists enjoy the beach at the resort city of Cancun, Mexico in this photo taken on June 12, 2009. In towns far from the US border such as Mérida, Mexico’s drug wars seem like another world. In fact, according to a recent survey by the International Community Foundation, violence reduced the frequency or duration of trips to Mexico for only 7 percent of American retirees who live or travel frequently to Mexico.

Graham blasts Axelrod: ‘Tired of this crap’

The Hill

By Eric Zimmermann

Graham continues to befuddle, his voting record is checkered, liked him in the past no longer sure.  Will post some of his votes tomorrow. Random thoughts while watching the passing parade, J.C.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was not happy with David Axelrod’s dismissal of Republican healthcare arguments this morning, calling it “crap.”

It’s RINO Season Lindsey and you just may go down with the useless

Appearing before Graham on ABC’s “This Week,” Axelrod had brushed off Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) criticism of healthcare reform, saying that Brown had voted for a very similar package for his home state of Massachusetts.

“Senator Brown comes from a state that has a healthcare plan that’s similar to the one we’re trying to enact here,” Axelrod said. “We’re just trying to give the rest of America the same opportunities that the people of Massachusetts have.”

That argument rubbed Graham the wrong way.

“The American people are getting tired of this crap,” Graham said of Axelrod’s comments. “No way in the world is what they did in Massachusetts like what we’re about to do in Washington.”

The reform package passed in Massachusetts did include a health insurance exchange and individual mandates, similar to what Democrats have proposed on the naitonal level. But Graham said the key differences lie in how the package was paid for and what the secondary effects would be.

“They didn’t cut Medicare when they passed the bill in Massachusetts,” Graham said. “They didn’t raise $500 billion on the American people when they passed the bill in Massachusetts.” That argument rubbed Graham the wrong way.

“The American people are getting tired of this crap,” Graham said of Axelrod’s comments. “No way in the world is what they did in Massachusetts like what we’re about to do in Washington.”

The reform package passed in Massachusetts did include a health insurance exchange and individual mandates, similar to what Democrats have proposed on the naitonal level. But Graham said the key differences lie in how the package was paid for and what the secondary effects would be.

“They didn’t cut Medicare when they passed the bill in Massachusetts,” Graham said. “They didn’t raise $500 billion on the American people when they passed the bill in Massachusetts.”

Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

Threat Level Privacy, Crime and Security Online

Not so fast Mr Constitutional Law Professor, make that senior lecture, ergo, that’s lawyer speak for teaching assistant.  Could it be that the  you, an alleged usurper,  has forgotten if you ever knew it, that under the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is the most basic tenant in our system of justice.  Yes, it’s not codified in the Constitution per se but goes back to English Common Law.

So this may be a stretch Mr. President, but once again you are trying to desecrate the Constitution.  When you find a person guilty then you take their DNA.  You are not above the law Mr. President, you will be eventually be confronted with your failure of your sworn oath to Protect the Constitution of the United States from all enemy’s foreign and domestic.

Shouldn’t your number one focus be on jobs, the deficit, and gutting useless government spending.  That’s right you are not a fan of recent political economic models, put into place that straightened thing relative quickly  ended anxiety, stress,  home foreclosures, unemployment It is doubtful  your ill-conceived plan.  The never have, just raise taxes, and increase the deficit.

One day Mr. President it may be you who is required to give the DNA.  In this case, it makes no difference, the majority of Americans already know you are guilty. Random thoughts while observing the ‘Chosen One’ blind to the terribly obvious, J.C.

Many people believe the people with whom you surround yourself meet the latter definition. Random thoughts

Look Closely, He is not teaching Law, but Community Organizing

Innocent Until Proven Guilty

First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you’re guilty, no matter what. So you’re not innocent unless you’re truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.

The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.  US Constitution on line:

By David Kravets

Wired

Josh Gerstein over at Politico sent Threat Level his piece underscoring once again President Barack Obama is not the civil-liberties knight in shining armor many were expecting.

Gerstein posts a televised interview of Obama and John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted. The nation’s chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, “It’s the right thing to do” to “tighten the grip around folks” who commit crime.

When it comes to civil liberties, the Obama administration has come under fire for often mirroring his predecessor’s practices surrounding state secrets, the Patriot Act and domestic spying. There’s also Gitmo, Jay Bybee and John Yoo.

Now there’s DNA sampling. Obama told Walsh he supported the federal government, as well as the 18 states that have varying laws requiring compulsory DNA sampling of individuals upon an arrest for crimes ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. The data is lodged in state and federal databases, and has fostered as many as 200 arrests nationwide, Walsh said.

The American Civil Liberties Union claims DNA sampling is different from mandatory, upon-arrest fingerprinting that has been standard practice in the United States for decades.

A fingerprint, the group says, reveals nothing more than a person’s identity. But much can be learned from a DNA sample, which codes a person’s family ties, some health risks, and, according to some, can predict a propensity for violence.

The ACLU is suing California to block its voter-approved measure requiring saliva sampling of people picked up on felony charges. Authorities in the Golden State are allowed to conduct so-called “familial searching” — when a genetic sample does not directly match another, authorities start investigating people with closely matched DNA in hopes of finding leads to the perpetrator.

Do you wonder whether DNA sampling is legal?

The courts have already upheld DNA sampling of convicted felons, based on the theory that the convicted have fewer privacy rights. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that when conducting intrusions of the body during an investigation, the police need so-called “exigent circumstances” or a warrant. That alcohol evaporates in the blood stream is the exigent circumstance to draw blood from a suspected drunk driver without a warrant.

Illustration: hibiotech/Flickr

Read More