Lawless Obama Administration continues unchained… Where is Congress?

Anyone who has been following my scribbling for the past few years, knows of my disgust at the utter inaction on the part of Congress to uphold its Constitutional Oath. I have posted extensively on Facebook as of late, attempting to get someone, anyone to support impeachment proceedings against President Barack Hussein Obama! So far… Nada! What will it take, short of a revolt to get our leaders to hear us? As one-time Teri O’Brien Show guest David Limbaugh notes in this piece, 

“We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need,” said Obama. “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.”

What other president has ever talked like this?

Let me see …Hugo Chavez, perhaps?

(Editor’s Note: As noted on yesterday’s edition of The Teri O’Brien Show, Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC is trying to mount some opposition to Obama’s lawlessness with H. Res 442. For more information, please check out the link in this paragraph to the Show Notes.)

How to Help Uninsured Americans (from the Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation)

image001

Yesterday’s edition of The Teri OBrien Show highlighted the suffering of families, thanks to the democrats, and the unintended consequenses of the “Obamacare Mandate.” Obamacare supporters have made light of the dangers of Identity theft and financial theft via our own government through rules written into the Obamacare Law, but those threats are real.

Just by coincidence, the Heritage Society addressed the subject of “how to help the uninsured” in today’s edition. Please read it. Brutus

Heritage Foundation is Right: The American People Rose Up to Repeal a Health Care Law Once Before. They Can Do It Again.

Brutus was there for the first TEA Party in Downtown Chicago. It’s time to do it again…

From the Heritage Foundation’s Morning Bell:

The law that promised health coverage for all has so far stripped 3.5 million Americans of their insurance. Meanwhile, fewer than 27,000 people merely “selected” plans—without necessarily purchasing them—on HealthCare.gov.

To date, then, Obamacare keeps creating more coverage losers for every Obamacare “winner.” And many of those “winners” have been dismayed to discover that their trophy coverage is far more expensive than their former plans, or denies them access to the doctors and hospitals they’ve come to rely on—or both.

The White House promises things will improve—but most analysts outside government insist the problems are so severe that a “fix” won’t come for months … if it comes at all.
11/18/2013

The law that promised health coverage for all has so far stripped 3.5 million Americans of their insurance. Meanwhile, fewer than 27,000 people merely “selected” plans—without necessarily purchasing them—on HealthCare.gov.

To date, then, Obamacare keeps creating more coverage losers for every Obamacare “winner.” And many of those “winners” have been dismayed to discover that their trophy coverage is far more expensive than their former plans, or denies them access to the doctors and hospitals they’ve come to rely on—or both.

The White House promises things will improve—but most analysts outside government insist the problems are so severe that a “fix” won’t come for months … if it comes at all.  More here.

No Evidence Dems Can Take Back House?

If conservatives are too lax in their thinking, this may all be a moot point.  Wishful thinking does not win Elections……    Brutus

From Real Clear Politics:

The 2010 midterm election that swept Republicans into power in the U.S. House of Representatives was a mandate to put the brakes on President Obama and his agenda.

Aside from voters also hoping that Republicans would do something – anything – to boost the economy, restraining Obama was pretty much the issue of that election.

It was the second wave election in four years (Republicans were dumped from the majority in 2006). And it had less to do with voters finding Republicans appealing once again and more to do with putting a halt to the Democrats’ overreach.

At the center of that overreach was the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare – which is why many of those elected to office in that cycle and reelected last year have been adamant about repealing it, even at the cost of a government shutdown.

The current CW is that Most Horrible Human Being in History, Sen. Ted Cruz, and “his” government shutdown has done what was previously unthinkable; that is, put the House up for grabs in November 2014.  Like most of the lame blathering of the legacy media, this statement is worthless baloney. The truth is, that given the jeopardy that our nation is in, thanks to the cabal occupying the White House, we need to pretend that unless we work our butts off for the next year, Obama’s democrats will take it all. Complacency is a recipe for even more disaster!

 

Could this be the last and only Sword that kills “Obamacare?”

While doing some random reading, ol’ Brutus ran across this very important and interesting item about a little known, but completely legitimate, legal theory that could be the sword that kills Obamacare, which has demonstrated that it’s not just a bad law. It’s a completely unworkable one.  I hope I wind up on this Jury!!!!! From The Progressive Review:

The fully informed jury movement has been in the news and the subject of badly misinformed journalism. The following article, which appeared in the Progressive Review in 1990, explains this important issue: William Penn may have thought he had settled the matter. Arrested in 1670 for preaching Quakerism, Penn was brought to trial. Despite Penn’s admitting the charge, four of the 12 jurors voted to acquit. The judge sent the four to jail “without meat, drink, fire and tobacco” for failing to find Penn guilty. On appeal, however, the jurors’ action was upheld and the right of juries to judge both the law and the facts — to nullify the law if it chose — became part of British constitutional law. It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, but you’d never know it listening to jury instructions today almost anywhere in the country. With only a few exceptions, juries are explicitly or implicitly told to worry only about the facts and let the judge decide the law. The right of jury nullification has become one of the legal system’s best kept secrets. Now a remarkable coalition has sprung up to challenge this secrecy as undemocratic, unconstitutional and dangerous. Though organized by libertarian activists, the Fully Informed Jury Amendment movement includes liberals and conservatives, Greens, drug decriminalization advocates, gun owner groups, peace activists, both sides of the abortion controversy, helmet and seatbelt activists, alternative medicine practitioners, taxpayer rights groups, environmentalists, criminal trial lawyers and law professors. Organized by Larry Dodge and Don Doig, both of Helmville, Montana (population: 26; elevation 4300′), FIJA seeks to require that juries be informed of their nullification rights. Informed jury amendments have been filed as an initiative in seven states and legislation has been introduced in the Alaska state legislature. Merely raising the issue of nullification can make prosecutors nervous, for it takes only one person aware of the right in order to hang a jury. In Washington, DC, where the concept was discussed in connection with the Marion Barry trial, a local television station reported that the US Attorney was worried that a jury might nullify the law in that case. The joke in DC was that Barry was campaigning, but only for one vote, that of a single juror. The specific charges against Barry revolved around his use of drugs and a growing number of people are coming to accept the argument that drug use or addiction should not be a criminal offense. Further, many DC residents were concerned about the prosecution’s heavy-handed pursuit of the mayor. Despite the refusal of courts to inform juries of their right to nullify, American juries have periodically exercised it anyway. In recent years, some peace protesters have been acquitted despite strong evidence that they violated the law. In the 19th century northern juries would refuse to convict under the fugitive slave laws. And in 1735 journalist Peter Zenger, accused of seditious libel, was acquitted by a jury that ignored the court’s instructions on the law. Those who have endorsed the right of a jury to judge both the law and the facts include Chief Justice John Jay, Samuel Chase, Dean Roscoe Pound, Learned Hand and Oliver Wendell Holmes. According to the Yale Law Journal in 1964, during the first third of the 19th century judges did inform juries of the right, forcing lawyers to argue “the law — its interpretation and validity — to the jury.” By the latter part of the century, however, judges and state law were increasingly moving against nullification. In 1895 the US Supreme Court upheld the principle but ruled that juries were not to be informed of it by defense attorneys, nor were judges required to tell them about it. Stephen Barkan, writing in Social Problems (October 1983), noted that the attacks on nullification stemmed in part from juries acquitting strike organizers and other labor activists. And in 1892 the American Bar Review warned that jurors had “developed agrarian tendencies of an alarming character.” Read more here.

More Gun Violence in Chicago’s Back (of the) Yards (and of course it’s the “Guns,” Right?)

Well it didn’t take long…

A warm night, “Midnight Basketball” and a large congregation of “probable” gang members enjoying a night of “B-Ball” in front of their audience of Parents, Girlfriends, and Kids.   A rival gang member with a gun, probably obtained through one of our Government’s ATF gang assistance programs like Fast and Furious. Note to Superintendent Garry McCarthy: We are still awaiting the name for the ATF gunrunning scandal involving illegal firearms entering Illinois via Evansville, Indiana. Police Superintendent McCarthy never mentions this minor detail, as he rails against the 2nd amendment rights of law-abiding Illinois gun owners. Maybe it has something to do with his handlers?
Gun violence on Chicago’s South Side is nothing new. “Black on black” gang shootings are so commonplace that they are often reported as just a footnote, if reported at all.  But shootings involving a child victim are the exception. These horrible events have Chicago’s politically charged news pundits all frothing at the mouth, or even, dare I say it, “gleeful” at times.  Chicago politicos get excited about the opportunity to get their mugs on TV, but after they’ve exploited the latest tragedy for their own cynical political reasons, they quickly lose sight of the perpetrator and focus instead on the weapon.  Has anyone read the FBI’s Annual Uniform Crime Report?   It clearly states that more people are killed with hammers than assault style weapons (something that cannot yet be proven without the actual gun).  So when Superintendent McCarthy took the opportunity to predictably jump to the conclusion that the cause of this latest shooting is “guns,” he revealed his rabid anti-Second Amendment beliefs, and insulted the intelligence of those of us who know that this neighborhood is a case study in the family breakdown that results in violent crime.
What frosts ol’ Brutus the most is the lack of interest in a Government gunrunning scandal designed to abolish the Second Amendment!!!  That and a willing accomplice on Chicago PD who will not examine all the facts and evidence before opening his pie hole!

Attorney for Benghazi Whistleblower: 400 US Missiles Stolen In Benghazi

Have we found the reason for the Benghazi cover up?

If Joe DeGenova, is correct, what happened in Benghazi makes previous US government gunrunning look like smuggling water pistols. Is this the reason that the Benghazi survivors are being secreted away in government safehouses, given new identities, and hidden from Congress? From The Freedom Outpost: 

Mark Thomspson, one of the Benghazi whistleblowers who testified before Congress earlier this year, acquired the services of Joe DiGenova as his attorney. DiGenova has now come out and said that he’s been told that some “very ugly people” had stolen upwards of 400 surface-to-air missiles and that the Benghazi annex played a key role.

“I do not know whether [the missiles] were at the annex, but it is clear the annex was somehow involved in the process of the distribution of those missiles,” said DiGenova in an interview Monday with Washington’s WMAL.

WMAL reports:

How did DiGenova get this information?  He told WMAL that ever since he and his wife and law partner, Victoria Toensing, (Editor’s note: Victoria appeared onThe Teri O’Brien Show on May 12, 2013 to discuss her representation of another Benghazi whistleblower, Gregory Hicks) began representing the Benghazi whistleblowers last spring, they have been contacted by several people eager to share information about what really happened the night of September 11, 2012, when four Americans were killed in the Consulate attack, including U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens.

“This information comes from a former intelligence official who stayed in constant contact with people in the special ops and intelligence community,” said DiGenova, “and it is pretty clear that the biggest concern right now is that 400 missiles, which have been diverted in Libya and have gotten into the hands of some very ugly people. And they are worried, specifically according to these sources, about an attempt to shoot down an airliner,” he added.

 

From The Daily Mail:

‘We have learned that one of the reasons the administration is so deeply concerned’ is that ‘there were 400 surface-to-air missiles stolen, and that they are … in the hands of many people, and that the biggest fear in the U.S. intelligence community is that one of these missiles will be used to shoot down an airliner. 400 missiles, surface-to-air missiles, taken from Libya.’
Asked if the missiles are now ‘in the hands of al-Qaeda operatives,’ DiGenova replied, ‘That is what these people are telling us.’

From The London Telegraph:

Up to 35 CIA operatives were working in the city during the attack last September on the US consulate that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, according to CNN.
The circumstances of the attack are a subject of deep division in the US with some Congressional leaders pressing for a wide-ranging investigation into suspicions that the government has withheld details of its activities in the Libyan city.
The television network said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.

 

Is it time for a Select Committee in Congress to get to the bottom of what really happened in Benghazi on 9/11/12? What say you?