It is time to add a final verse to an Ode to Nancy Pelosi, she has done such a great job, in her own words: “So you want me to sing my praises? Is that what you’re saying? Well, I’m a master legislator. I am a strategic, politically astute leader. My leadership is recognized by many around the country, and that is why I’m able to attract the support that I do.”
Oh, Nancy Pelosi, she fondly remembers,
she only lost sixty-three Democrat members.
And it doesn’t compute,
as a leader astute?
Her party is burning, it’s ashes and embers!
When Nancy Pelosi took over power I penned
Ode to Nancy Pelosi, Limerick style.
Since Nancy Pelosi took over the gavel
Was our economy quick to unravel.
She is more than bad,
The worst that we had.
We finally stopped contemplating our navel.
Since Nancy Pelosi took over as speaker
Our job situation has gotten much weaker
All jobs that are lost
Since she got the post
And as for advise, shame to all who still seek her.
For Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader
The Chinese exploiters a life-line did feed her
Our debt load increased
Four trillions at least
We all must this fall go and vote to unseat her
For Nancy Pelosi, known Tea Party hater
Gets scared when the grandmothers start to berate her
75 years ago, today, Dec 26, 1941, three weeks after the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill addressed a joint session of Congress, urging a complete commitment to the war effort. World War II had been raging since September 1939 with the British hanging on by a thread and the U.S. sitting on the sidelines, only offering limited support. After invading Denmark and Norway, Hitler decided to invade the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and France the night of May 10, 1940. This was the moment Britain chose Winston Churchill as Prime Minister.
When he met his Cabinet on May 13 he told them that “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.” He repeated that phrase later in the day when he asked the House of Commons for a vote of confidence in his new all-party government. The response of Labour was heart-warming; the
Conservative reaction was luke-warm. They still really wanted Neville Chamberlain. For the first time, the people had hope but Churchill commented to General Ismay: “Poor people, poor people. They trust me, and I can give them nothing but disaster for quite a long time.”
Excerpt from his speech: “We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, “come then, let us go forward together with our united strength.”
Then came The Battle of Britain, which would have been lost but for Winston Churchill and the Royal Air Force. Winston Churchill and Major general Hastings Ismay were travelling together in a car, in which Winston rehearsed the speech he was to give in the House of Commons on 20 August 1940 after the Battle of Britain. When he came to the famous sentence, ‘Never in the history of mankind have so many owed so much to so few’, Ismay said ‘What about Jesus and his disciples?’ ‘Good old Pug,’ said Winston who immediately changed the wording to ‘Never in the field of human conflict have so many owed so much to so few’
Words change history. Britain fought mostly alone in despair awaiting the inevitable invasion that they were in no way prepared to fend off. But then came Pearl Harbor. When Winston Churchill heard about it and that the U.S. had entered the war he slept soundly that night for the first time since the war started. Summoned to the U.S. he gave an impassioned speech to Congress. It was the day after Christmas, so the seats were mostly empty, but he finished the speech with the famous V sign to roaring applause.
About the Japanese he questioned, “What kind of a people do they think we are? Is it possible that they do not realize that we shall never cease to persevere against them until they have been taught a lesson which they and the world will never forget?” As for the German forces he claimed, “With proper weapons and proper organization, we can beat the life out of the savage Nazi. These wicked men who have brought evil forces into play must “know they will be called to terrible account if they cannot beat down by force of arms the peoples they have assailed.”
That was then. What is happening now is in many ways worse. Germany and Japan were well defined entities, Russia and Iran may be, but the real enemy is the ideology of Radical Islam with a two fold approach in conquering the world, terrorism through Jihad, where the “martyrs” are assured of direct entry to heaven, the other is through “emigration and multiplying.” Normal warfare will not solve this epic battle of the 21st Century. It must be fought with ideology.
Yet the parallels are eerie. Neville Chamberlain came back from meeting with Hitler in Munich with a piece of paper where Hitler promised that after annexing Sudetenland the had no further territorial ambitions. Neville Chamberlain proclaimed “Peace for our time“. That lasted one year.
Obama has “negotiated” a deal with Iran that is much worse. It proclaims to delay Iran’s entry into the nuclear club by 10 years, but does nothing of that sort. Iran can have bombs within six months, and they have the rockets to deliver them. Hitler promised peace, Iran promises that “Israel must be wiped from the Face of the Earth” and “Death to America“. For these promises Obama and John Kerry agreed to abolish the sanctions and give Iran 140 billion dollars, some of it in cash that could be immediately dispersed to their terrorist groups.
Obama’s and Chamberlain’s shame:
Was “Peace for our time” just in name?
When Iran gets its nukes
it’s too late for rebukes.
It’s Winston’s and Benyamin’s claim.
The best way to explain Obama’s negotiating behaviour is that he is delusional. All other interpretations are worse. One telltale sign was when Obama told the British to take back the bust of Winston Churchill that had been on prominent display in the Oval Office. He replaced it wirh a photo of himself walking on water.
Obama shows signs he can’t hack it.
The consequence starts to attack it.
Winston Churchill was right,
We must still face the fight.
The bust of old Winston: Take back it!
The final blow came right before Christmas this year. Obama withdrew his support for Israel by abstaining a resolution to condemn Israel’s settlements. This will further destabilize the Middle East making the task of the incoming Trump Administration much more difficult.
It is possible to get fired from the Department of Energy. All you have to do is tell the truth to a Congressional committee. Rick Perry has his work cut out for him.
On the other hand, it sets a precedent that people can get fired from the Federal Government.
Fed scientists cannot get fired
unless they speak truth. Lies required.
In congressional brief
can’t reveal disbelief.
Keep quiet! That’s why they were hired!
Washington Free Beacon,
December 20, 2016 3:00 pm Adam Kredo reported.
A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.
Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging report on Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.
A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.
The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda.
During an October 2014 briefing with senior DoE staff on the Low Dose Radiation Act of 2014, lawmakers heard testimony from Dr. Noelle Metting, the radiation research program’s manager.
Less than a month later, lawmakers discovered that Obama administration officials had “removed Dr. Metting from federal service for allegedly providing too much information in response to questions posed by” Congress during the briefing, the report states.
Congressional investigators later determined that the administration’s “actions to remove Dr. Metting were, in part, retaliation against Dr. Metting because she refused to conform to the predetermined remarks and talking points designed by Management to undermine the advancement of” the 2014 radiation act.
Emails unearthed during the investigation “show a sequence of events leading to a premeditated scheme by senior DoE employees ‘to squash the prospects of Senate support’” for the radiation act, a move that lawmakers claim was meant to help advance President Obama’s own climate change goals.
“The committee has learned that one of DoE’s stated purposes for Dr. Metting’s removal from federal service was her failure to confine the discussion at the briefing to pre-approved talking points,” according to the report. “The committee has also established that DoE management … failed to exercise even a minimal standard of care to avoid chilling other agency scientists as a result of the retaliation against Dr. Metting for her refusal to censor information from Congress.”
The South China Morning Post reported on Thursday that U. S. President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping “are set to jointly announce their ratification” of the Paris Climate Treaty when they meet on 2nd September before the G-20 Summit. This is curious because ratifying treaties in the United States requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate.
Here is the language from Article Two, Section Two, Clause Two of the U. S. Constitution: “[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.”
The article by Li Jing references this curious requirement: “There are still some uncertainties from the US side due to the complicated US system in ratifying such a treaty, but the announcement is still quite likely to be ready by Sept 2,” said a source, who declined to be named.
In China’s Communist Party dictatorship, ratification merely requires their Maximum Leader to say, “So be it.”
Later in the article, Li Jing again tries to explain the inscrutable U. S. methods for ratifying a treaty: “US law allows the nation to join international agreements in a number of ways, including through the authority of the president.”
Lo and behold, the President of the United States can ratify a treaty in the same way as China’s Maximum Leader. He merely has to say the magic words, “So be it.” And it is so. Who knew that President Barack Obama has become our Maximum Leader, or perhaps I should say our dear Maximum Leader?
Of the 725 pages, more than 250 pages were 100 percent redacted, many with “PAGE DENIED” stamped in bold.
Judicial Watch said the new cache includes previously unreleased email exchanges in which former Abedin “provided influential Clinton Foundation donors special, expedited access to the secretary of state.”
Judicial Watch added that in many instances, the preferential treatment provided to donors was at the specific request of Clinton Foundation executive Douglas Band.
Previous releases of Clinton emails have forced the Obama administration to admit highly sensitive State Department information was transmitted over Clinton’s private email server.
On July 7, Charles McCullough, the inspector general of the intelligence community for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, in testimony before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, admitted his office did not have the security clearances required to read the emails transmitted over Clinton’s private email server that Congress was demanding to see.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, generated the response by asking McCullough if he could provide the committee, in a secure format, the classified emails transmitted over Clinton’s private email server.
“I cannot provide a certain segment of them because the agency that owns the information for those emails has limited the distribution on those,” McCullough explained. “They are characterizing them as OrCon, ‘originator control,’ so I can’t give them to even Congress without getting the agency’s permission to provide them.”
“Which agency?” Chaffetz interjected.
“I can’t say that in an open hearing sir,” McCullough replied.
“So you can’t even tell me which agency won’t allow us, as members of Congress, to see something that Hillary Clinton allowed somebody without a security clearance, in a non-protected format to see. That’s correct?” Chaffetz responded, in obvious disbelief.
McCullough responded that he could not tell the committee in an open hearing even what the emails were about, let alone reveal their specific contents.
“I don’t want to violate that, but the concern is it was already violated by Hillary Clinton,” Chaffetz told the IG. “It was her choice, and she set it up, and she created this problem, and she created this mess. We shouldn’t have to go through this, but she did that.”
“This is the segment of emails that I had to have people in my office read-in to particular programs to even see these emails,” McCullough responded. “We didn’t posses the required clearances.”
“So even the Inspector General for ODNI (Office of the Director of National Intelligence) didn’t have the requisite security clearances?” Chaffetz pressed, seeking to clarify McCullough’s statement.
“That’s correct. I had to get read-ins for them,” McCullough said.
“Wow,” Chaffetz said. “Unbelievable. What a mess.”
It is now less than one hundred days left of Obama’s reign.
He will finish with a barrage of executive orders: Regulation frenzy like the finale of a fireworks display.
The thing with regulations is that they can be undone by his successor, and that is why this election is so important. All his political appointees will be replaced by new ones.
Obama is doing what he can to make his regulations permanent by having his political appointees promoting only hard core progressives to the top career positions in every department. Previous presidents have relied more on promoting the most qualified candidates to these positions. This will make it so much harder to change the direction of the bureaucratic inertia. Bureaucrats, once given power, are loath to relinquish it.
Should Donald Trump win the campaign it is therefore of utmost importance he chooses department heads that are capable of fighting the bureaucratic behemoth. Luckily, the Republican bench of candidates is deeper than ever.
Should Hillary be elected, regulations will become even more stifling and will increase crony capitalism, which depends on favorable regulations to prevent competition. This will time cause an economic gridlock.
This leads to verse 91 of the Obama impeachment song (as if sung by President Barack Hussein Obama to the tune of “Please release me, let me go”)
The oath of Renunciation and Allegiance taken by all aliens as they become U.S. naturalized citizens, no longer aliens, is not to be taken lightly.
Lately, and without changing of the law, the promise to bear arms and perform combat duty on behalf of the United States or perform non combatant service in the armed forces have become optional. It used to be, and the law clearly states you can only opt out of combatant service, and so only for religious belief and training reasons.Without congress changing the law, this is unconstitutional.
This leads to verse 90 of the Obama impeachment song (as if sung by President Barack Hussein Obama to the tune of “Please release me, let me go”)
The oath of Renunciation and Allegiance: “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
The law allows changing “on oath” to “affirm” and the omission “so help me God”.
When it comes to bearing arms the law is quite specific:
INA: ACT 337 – OATH OF RENUNCIATION AND ALLEGIANCE
Sec. 337. [8 U.S.C. 1448]
(a) A person who has applied for naturalization shall, in order to be and before being admitted to citizenship, take in a public ceremony before the Attorney General or a court with jurisdiction under section 310(b) an oath
(1) to support the Constitution of the United States;
(2) to renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which the applicant was before a subject or citizen;
(3) to support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
(4) to bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and
(5) (A) to bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law, or
(B) to perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law, or
(C) to perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law. Any such person shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) through (5) of the preceding sentence, except that a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is opposed to the bearing of arms in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) through (4) and clauses (5)(B) and (5)(C), and a person who shows by clear and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that he is opposed to any type of service in the Armed Forces of the United States by reason of religious training and belief shall be required to take an oath containing the substance of clauses (1) through (4) and clause (5)(C). The term “religious training and belief” as used in this section shall mean an individual’s belief in a relation to a Supreme Being involving duties superior to those arising from any human relation, but does not include essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code. In the case of the naturalization of a child under the provisions of section 322 of this title the Attorney General may waive the taking of the oath if in the opinion of the Attorney General the child is unable to understand its meaning. 1/ The Attorney General may waive the taking of the oath by a person if in the opinion of the Attorney General the person is unable to understand, or to communicate an understanding of, its meaning because of a physical or developmental disability or mental impairment. If the Attorney General waives the taking of the oath by a person under the preceding sentence, the person shall be considered to have met the requirements of section 316(a)(3) with respect to attachment to the principles of the Constitution and well disposition to the good order and happiness of the United States.
The requirements have been loosened so much that it is now automatic to wave requirements 5A, 5B, and making national importance in clause 5C mean nearly anything. This circumvents the intent and purpose of the oath.