Sen. Lindsey Graham: House Republican Benghazi Report “Full of Crap”

lindsey graham 450x286 Sen. Lindsey Graham: House Republican Benghazi Report Full of Crap

Sen. Lindsey Graham: House Republican Benghazi Report “Full of Crap”

House Republicans debunking the House GOP Benghazi findings of no cover-up by the Obama Administration isn’t sitting well with Sen. Lindsey Graham. He blasted it as “full of crap.” Who didn’t see this coming? The Republicans are literally fighting each other.  The GOP-controlled House Intelligence Committee released its report on Friday (news dump day) debunking all the nutty conspiracy theories about Benghazi, played over and over on Fox News.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday blasted a House GOP-led investigation that recently debunked myths about the 2012 Benghazi attack.

“I think the report is full of crap,” Graham said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

The House Intelligence Committee released a report on Friday evening, which took two years to compile, that found there was no outright intelligence failure during the attack, there was no delay in the rescue of U.S. personnel and there was no political cover-up by Obama administration officials.
After Graham was asked whether the report exonerates the administration, he initially ignored the question, and then eventually said “no.”

The House Intelligence panel, Graham said, is “doing a lousy job policing their own.”

Graham didn’t clearly pinpoint why he dismissed the report’s findings, but suggested its information was provided by people in the intelligence community who had previously lied to Congress about the attack.

“I don’t believe the report is accurate given the role [former CIA deputy director] Mike Morell played in misleading the Congress on two occasions,” Graham said. Source: The Hill

By the way, Sen. Lindsey Graham is exploring throwing his hat in the ring for the 2016 presidential election. Um, there are no words, but then again, it will be fun to watch the GOP clown car fill up for the presidential election cycle.

Republican Benghazi Investigation Finds No Obama Administration Cover-Up

ambassador chris stevens 450x292 Republican Benghazi Investigation Finds No Obama Administration Cover Up

Republican Benghazi Investigation Finds No Obama Administration Cover-Up

The Republicans quietly put Benghazi to rest after years of accusing the Obama Administration of a cover-up in the terrorist attack that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. The revelation that there was no cover-up came during Friday’s news dump when no-one was really paying attention.

Wall Street Journal:  “A House report on the 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, concludes that the Central Intelligence Agency and U.S. military responded properly and that Obama administration ‘talking points’ were flawed, but didn’t find that administration officials attempted to mislead the public.” “The two-year-long investigation by the Republican-led House intelligence committee is the latest congressional probe to examine the attacks, and its conclusions deflate allegations suggesting misconduct by the Obama administration.”

In other words, the GOP intelligence investigation debunks the party’s nutty Benghazi terror attack theories. Wow, I see why they put this out there on Friday when no-one is paying attention. Of course, some Republican nutcase will still try to use it against Hillary Clinton if she decides to run for the 2016 presidency.

House Republicans Sue Obama Administration Over Obamacare

obama 2 450x450 House Republicans Sue Obama Administration Over Obamacare

House Republicans Sue Obama Administration Over Obamacare (Photo Credit: Donkey Hotey)

Well, that didn’t take long after President Obama boxed the Republicans in a corner by unveiling his executive order on immigration. They filed their long-awaited lawsuit against the Obama administration over Obamacare.

House Republicans filed a long-threatened lawsuit Friday against the Obama administration over unilateral actions on the health care law that they say are abuses of the president’s executive authority.

The lawsuit — filed against the secretaries of the Health and Human Services and Treasury Departments — focuses on two crucial aspects of the way the administration has put the Affordable Care Act into effect.

The suit accuses the Obama administration of unlawfully postponing a requirement that larger employers offer health coverage to their full-time employees or pay penalties. (Larger companies are defined as those with 50 or more employees.) Source: NY Times

Here’s more from John Boehner on the Obamacare lawsuit:

Unlawfully Waiving the Employer Mandate.  The House is challenging the president’s unilateral decision to twice waive the health care law’s employer mandate and the penalties for failing to comply with it without going through Congress.  The president’s actions delaying the employer mandate directly contradict the clear and plain language of the health care law.

Illegally Transferring Funds to Insurance Companies.  The House is also challenging the administration’s unlawful giveaway of approximately $175 billion to insurance companies under ObamaCare.  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the administration will pay approximately $3 billion to insurance companies in FY 2014, and is scheduled to make payments of some $175 billion over the next 10 years to insurance companies under an HHS-based, ObamaCare cost-sharing program even though Congress has never appropriated funds for the program.  The administration is instead unlawfully and unconstitutionally using funds from a separate Treasury Department account – authorized for other purposes – to pay insurance companies and thereby unilaterally altering the structure of the health care law.

Ted Cruz Compares Obama to Roman “Despot” Catiline Over Immigration Plan

Lucius Sergius Catilina 450x259 Ted Cruz Compares Obama to Roman Despot Catiline Over Immigration Plan

Ted Cruz Compares Obama to Roman “Despot” Catiline Over Immigration Plan (Photo Credit: Wikipedia)

Sen. Ted Cruz, who engineered the government shutdown, is spouting off over President Obama’s immigration plan by comparing him to Roman despot Catiline (Lucius Sergius Catilina). Really Mr. Green Eggs and Ham, Roman orations?

“When, President Obama, do you mean to cease abusing our patience? How long is that madness of yours still to mock us? When is there to be an end to that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now?” he said, using the beginning of Cicero’s First Oration Against Catiline.

By substituting Obama’s name for Catiline’s, Cruz compared the president to a figure who sought to violently overthrow the Roman republic.

His speech comes hours before the president is expected to offer temporary legal status to millions of illegal immigrants and reform the immigration system by executive order. Source:  The Hill

I am guessing by Sen. Ted Cruz’s standards, his father, who is an immigrant, should high-tail it back to Cuba. Since he came to the U.S. via trickery.

Here’s more from around the Internet on President Obama’s immigration dare:

Rick Klein: “He’s daring Republicans to offer their sharpest reactions. Everything from government shutdowns to lawsuits to, yes, impeachment will be in the mix, with the driving consensus that the party needs to do something to register its extreme disapproval.”

“He’s daring them to offer and pass a different set of policies. The fact that the substance of the executive order won’t take effect for six months gives the new GOP majority in Congress another half year to do what Congress hasn’t been able to do over the decade immigration reform has been on the agenda.”

New York Times: President Obama “chose confrontation over conciliation on Thursday as he asserted the powers of the Oval Office to reshape the nation’s immigration system and dared members of next year’s Republican-controlled Congress to reverse his actions on behalf of millions of immigrants.”

Adding, “To those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.”

Politico: “Obama directly challenged congressional opponents, declaring his intentions to fight back against any challenges to his authority.”

Wall Street Journal: “This much is clear: President Obama sets off an explosion with his plan to act on his own to change the nation’s immigration practices. What’s less clear is what happens next.”

Obama’s New Immigration Plan Shields Nearly 5 Million Illegal Immigrants

obama donkey hotey 11 450x281 Obamas New Immigration Plan Shields Nearly 5 Million Illegal Immigrants

Obama’s New Immigration Plan Shields Nearly 5 Million Illegal Immigrants (Photo Credit: Donkey Hotey)

President Obama’s immigration plan will shield five million illegal immigrants and shift the focus to undocumented felons, gang members and suspected terrorists. The White House says the president’s plan doesn’t provide a path to presidency. President Obama quoted Leviticus 19:33-34 in his  speech.

Obama will reject claims he is offering a free pass to undocumented immigrants and argue that “the real amnesty” would be leaving a broken system as it is now, according to excerpts of his remarks released by the White House.

“Mass amnesty would be unfair. Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character. What I’m describing is accountability — a commonsense, middle ground approach,” Obama will say.

“If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you’re a criminal, you’ll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up.”

Obama will lay out changes he is making to immigration laws without the consent of Congress. A key element of his plan is to instruct immigration authorities to prioritize expulsion action against gang members, felons and suspected terrorists rather than law abiding undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and residents and others, senior administration officials said.


The changes will offer those who qualify the chance to stay temporarily in the country for three years, as long as they pass background checks and pay back taxes. But they will not be offered a path to eventual citizenship or be eligible for federal benefits or health care programs. And, in theory, the measures could be reversed by a future president. Source: CNN

Never mind the fact that former president Ronald Reagan (1986) oversaw nearly three million illegal immigrants amnesty. President George H. W. Bush expanded on Reagan’s plan a few years later. But never mind the fact that the Republicans did it. How could the first black president have the gumption to do that. This may all backfire on the Republicans as Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and two others are threatening to sue. Um, they are barking up the wrong tree. A court action against Obama is likely to fail. The Department of Homeland Security says President Obama’s executive plan is legal:

Republican leaders who had hoped to focus on corporate tax reform, fast-track trade pacts, repealing the president’s healthcare law and loosening environmental restrictions on coal are instead being dragged into an immigration skirmish that they’ve tried studiously to avoid for most of the last year.

That’s largely because the question of how to handle the estimated 11 million immigrants living illegally in the U.S. bitterly divides Republicans, and the party has been unable to agree on an alternative to the president’s plan.

To many, stark warnings from Boehner and McConnell sound more like pleas to the president to avoid reenergizing the GOP’s conservative wing, whose leaders are already threatening to link the president’s immigration plan to upcoming budget talks. Source: LA Times

As with the Affordable Care Act, the Republicans want to repeal the law, but have no plan to offer. The same holds true on immigration reform. They want to chide the president, even dropping the I-word (impeachment) but have no plan of their own. It’s about to get really ugly in Washington D.C. and my bet is that the Republicans will end up with a black eye and President Obama will prevail. The fact is, the current Democratic Party don’t deserve the votes of blacks and Hispanics, but the Republicans certainly don’t either.

Fox News Geraldo Rivera is praising Obama and slamming the Republicans. Um, I guess he’s the only one at Fox News that feels that way. Here’s an excerpt of his article:

Republicans had it coming. They allowed their House Leadership to be rendered irrelevant by anti-immigration radicals like Steve King of Iowa and Mo Brooks of Alabama. The right-wing herd and its supporting cast of screamers like Matt Drudge and Judicial Watch are indignant because they claim the president won’t wait for the legislative process to work; that what Mr. Obama is doing is unconstitutional, imperial and impetuous.

LOL. The right wing freak-out begins….

President Obama to Address Nation on Immigration Reform

obama donkey hotey 1 450x281 President Obama to Address Nation on Immigration Reform

President Obama to Address Nation on Immigration Reform (Photo Credit: Donkey Hotey)

The heads of Republicans are exploding over President Obama’s imminent executive order for immigration reform that is expected to shield five million illegal immigrants.

Our immigration system has been broken for decades — and every minute we fail to act, millions of people who live in the shadows but want to play by the rules and pay taxes have no way to live right by the law and contribute to our country.

So tomorrow night, President Obama will address the nation to lay out the executive actions he’s taking to fix our broken immigration system. You can watch the President live tomorrow night at 8 p.m. ET at

This is a step forward in the President’s plan to work with Congress on passing common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform. He laid out his principles for that reform two years ago in Del Sol High School in Las Vegas — and that’s where he’ll return on Friday to discuss why he is using his executive authority now, and why Republicans in Congress must act to pass a long-term solution to immigration reform.  Source: WhiteHouse.Gov

George W. Bush’s Regret: Iraq Invasion Paved Way for “Al-Qaeda Plus” AKA ISIS

george w. bush 450x298 George W. Bushs Regret: Iraq Invasion Paved Way for Al Qaeda Plus AKA ISIS

George W. Bush’s Regret: Iraq Invasion Paved Way for “Al-Qaeda Plus” AKA ISIS (Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons)

Former president George W. Bush said his only regret about invading Iraq was that it paved the way for the rise of the Islamic State — ISIS or ISIL. Of course, former vice president Dick Cheney will level the blame for ISIS on President Barack Obama’s footsteps.

President Bush made the comment during a two-part interview with CBS News. He said he thought it was “the right decision” to take military action in 2003 to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

Bush added: “My regret is that…a violent group of people have risen up again…This is “Al-Qaeda plus”…they need to be defeated. And I hope we do…I hope the strategy works.”

In other words, this is the mess he created, but Barack Obama is getting all the blame for not having an ISIS strategy. Um, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney never had a sound strategy in the first place.

Separately, President Bush said that there’s a “50-50″ chance that his brother, Jeb Bush (R), will run for president in 2016, The Hill reports.

GWB: “You know, it’s a lot of speculation about him. I occasionally fuel the speculation by saying that I hope he runs. I think he’d be a very good president. I understand the decision making process pretty well. And I’m– I– you know, I know that he’s wrestling with the decision.”

GWB:  “He knows exactly — you know, the ramifications on family, for example. He’s seen his dad and his brother go through the presidency. I would give it– I’d give it a toss up. I know this about Jeb. He is not afraid to succeed. In other words, I think he knows he could do the job. And nor is he afraid to fail.”


SNL Asks What Would it Take for Obama to Lose Black Vote — Not Even Dreadlocks

snl black voters 450x231 SNL Asks What Would it Take for Obama to Lose Black Vote    Not Even Dreadlocks

SNL Asks What Would it Take for Obama to Lose Black Vote — Not Even Dreadlocks (Photo Credit: Video Screengrab)

SNL asked the big question on its fake black voices talk show, “How’s He Doing?” — what would it take for President Obama to lose support among black voters. They basically said it would take a lot, not even three big, nasty dreadlocks.

The panel defended President Obama on everything and even laughed at a Mitt Romney presidency. The dismissed everything from the Ebola outbreak to ISIS to the White House fence jumper.

The show ended by teasing the discussion topic for the next show:  “Ferguson PD: Guilty or Incredibly Guilty?”

On a serious note, President Obama’s popularity has fallen to some degree with the black community, but it still remains very high, compared to other groups.

GOPer Debbie Dunnegan: I Meant “No Ill Intent” Calling for Obama Overthrow

debbie dunnegan 450x337 GOPer Debbie Dunnegan: I Meant No Ill Intent Calling for Obama Overthrow

GOPer Debbie Dunnegan: I Meant “No Ill Intent” Calling for Obama Overthrow (Photo credit:

Missouri Republican official Debbie Dunnegan said she meant no “ill intent” when she asked on Facebook if the military could overthrow “domestic enemy” President Barack Obama. Um, then you wonder why blacks are up in arms in Missouri. Dunnegan, the Jefferson County Recorder of Deeds, is up for reelection in November. I urge all the black voters in Missouri to vote for her opponent.

According to a screenshot published by Progress Missouri, Dunnegan referred to President Obama as “our domestic enemy.” She wrote in the post, “I have a question for all my friends who have served or are currently serving in our military…having not put on a uniform nor taken any type of military oath, there has to be something that I am just not aware of. But I cannot and do not understand why no action is being taken against our domestic enemy. I know he is supposedly the commander in chief, but the constitution gives you the authority.”

Debbie Dunnegan claims her comments were taken out of context, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. She told the newspaper, “Something innocent and simpe got twisted into a disaster because it’s an election.” She added, “I meant no ill intent toward the president. I meant no ill intent toward anybody.” How so? It’s crystal clear that she is calling for President Obama to be overthrown in a military coup because he is our “domestic enemy.”

Ms. Dunnegan hasn’t read the Constitution, has she? Military coup to overthrow the president? She has been watching way too much TV. It’s clear she hasn’t been reading.

Twitter Sues U.S. Government to Disclose More Surveillance Information

twitter 450x332 Twitter Sues U.S. Government to Disclose More Surveillance Information

Twitter Sues Government to Disclose More Surveillance Information

Twitter announced that it is suing the Justice Department and the FBI over the restrictions placed on its ability to disclose information about the surveillance orders it receives from intelligence agencies violates its First Amendment rights.

Ben Lee, a Twitter vice president wrote in a blog post, “As part of our latest transparency report released July, we described how we were being prohibited from reporting on the actual scope of surveillance of Twitter users by the U.S. government.” “Our ability to speak has been restricted by laws that prohibit and even criminalize a service provider like us from disclosing the exact number of national security letters (“NSLs”) and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) court orders received — even if that number is zero.”

Lee also wrote, “It’s our belief that we are entitled under the First Amendment to respond to our users’ concerns and to the statements of U.S. government officials by providing information about the scope of U.S. government surveillance – including what types of legal process have not been received. We should be free to do this in a meaningful way, rather than in broad, inexact ranges.”

“So, today, we have filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to publish our full Transparency Report, and asking the court to declare these restrictions on our ability to speak about government surveillance as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is already considering the constitutionality of the non-disclosure provisions of the NSL law later this week. You can read our filing with the U.S. District Court of Northern California in PDF form here.”