REPUBLICAN LEADER RUSH LIMBAUGH JUST CAN'T GET A BREAK

[flounder]

Megyn Kelly Fox News wants to be paid to have sex. see for yourself ;




http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-5-2012/extremely-loud---incredibly-gross

Sorry I don't have time for your so called comedy in light of what the left is doing to this country.

don't tell me that, tell your rebulican friends that got us in this mess...

 

[Larrry]

you are FLOUNDERING

 

[Steve]

Megyn Kelly Fox News wants to be paid to have sex. see for yourself ;




http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-5-2012/extremely-loud---incredibly-gross

I watched it.. and Jon Stewart said and insinuated the "exact" same comments as Rush did only towards Megan Kelly's maternity leave..

but took it one step further...

so now we have two wrongs.. and yet you tout his vulgar comments as valid. Why?

 

[Tam]

Megyn Kelly Fox News wants to be paid to have sex. see for yourself ;




http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-5-2012/extremely-loud---incredibly-gross

Flounder I couldn't watch you're little video but all I had to know is it was Jon Stewart. :roll: He is right in the same class as Maher and Letterman with the leftard hatred of anything Conservative. :roll:

 

[okfarmer]

When comedians are looked to for current event information, there is something very wrong there.

But, how else are you going to sell it?

 

[Steve]

When comedians are looked to for current event information, there is something very wrong there.

But, how else are you going to sell it?

it says alot for the liberal agenda when their spokespeople are foul mouthed comedians and late night talk-show hosts... :? :shock: :???: :?

 

[Tam]

Megyn Kelly Fox News wants to be paid to have sex. see for yourself ;




http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-5-2012/extremely-loud---incredibly-gross

Sorry I don't have time for your so called comedy in light of what the left is doing to this country.

don't tell me that, tell your rebulican friends that got us in this mess...[/quote]

Flounder answer this
Which party had control of the Congress during the last of the Bush Administration?
Which party had a filibuster proof control on the Senate and Majority in the House for the first two years Obama was in the White House?
Who has control on the Senate now?

Face it the Dems, no matter how hard they try, can not claim they are inoccent in making the mess the US is in. OH you and they can try blame it all on the Republicans but then there is no morals in that party so that is no big surprise. Everyone knows the Congress has the power to pass SPENDING BILL and since the Democraps have taken control of spending they have put spending on hyper speed. BTW if you think raising the taxes on the rich is going to fix the Democrap Spending habits, they can tax them 100% and never affect the deficit the Obama Administration has tacted onto future Generations of tax payers. SO DO EVEN GO THERE :roll:

 

[Larrry]

The thing that bothers me about obama is how he disregards the power of Congress and does what he wants by his orders.

 

[Tam]

When comedians are looked to for current event information, there is something very wrong there.

But, how else are you going to sell it?

it says alot for the liberal agenda when their spokespeople are foul mouthed comedians and late night talk-show hosts... :? :shock: :???: :?

The Comedians are willing pawns in the Liberal game. They can say crap that nobody else can because they know the Powers they are speaking for will excuse what they say BECAUSE THEY ARE COMEDIANS. :roll:

 

[Tam]

The thing that bothers me about obama is how he disregards the power of Congress and does what he wants by his orders.

Oh he doesn't just disregard the powers of the Congress He has been known to disregards the courts too. :wink:

It is all about the Grand Master Dicator Obama. All else might as well GO HOME so he doesn't have to wait so long to enact his real agenda through recess appointments and recess executive orders. The man needs to be impeached for what he has done to the US.

 

[Anonymous]

The thing that bothers me about obama is how he disregards the power of Congress and does what he wants by his orders.

Oh he doesn't just disregard the powers of the Congress He has been known to disregards the courts too. :wink:

Tam- would you fill me in on which SCOTUS rulings he has disregarded.... :???:

 

[Mike]

The thing that bothers me about obama is how he disregards the power of Congress and does what he wants by his orders.

Oh he doesn't just disregard the powers of the Congress He has been known to disregards the courts too. :wink:

Tam- would you fill me in on which SCOTUS rulings he has disregarded.... :???:

She didn't say "SCOTUS", Einstein............... :roll: :roll: :roll:

And SCOTUS ain't the only court in town. There's been plenty of times he's disregarded the courts..........

Think "Mahili".......................................... :roll: for one very recent example.

 

[Anonymous]

Oh he doesn't just disregard the powers of the Congress He has been known to disregards the courts too. :wink:

Tam- would you fill me in on which SCOTUS rulings he has disregarded.... :???:

She didn't say "SCOTUS", Einstein............... :roll: :roll: :roll:

And SCOTUS ain't the only court in town. There's been plenty of times he's disregarded the courts..........

Think "Mahili".......................................... :roll: for one very recent example.

But the court ruled in Obama's favor- and thru Orly the nutcase out of court....

 

[Tam]

Tam- would you fill me in on which SCOTUS rulings he has disregarded.... :???:

She didn't say "SCOTUS", Einstein............... :roll: :roll: :roll:

And SCOTUS ain't the only court in town. There's been plenty of times he's disregarded the courts..........

Think "Mahili".......................................... :roll: for one very recent example.

But the court ruled in Obama's favor- and thru Orly the nutcase out of court....

Yes Oldtimer they rule in his favor right after Obama gives the state $8.6 billion. I find that a little hard to over look since the judge had already told Orly and the rest of them in court that day, they won by DEFAULT. :wink:

 

[Tam]

Then there is this Oldtimer

Feb. 3 (Bloomberg) - - "The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge ruled.

Interior Department regulators acted with "determined disregard" by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.

"Each step the government took following the court's imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance," Feldman said in the ruling.

"Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re- imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government's contempt," Feldman said.

President Barack Obama 's administration first halted offshore exploration in waters deeper than 500 feet in May, after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig off the Louisiana coast sparked a subsea blowout that spewed more than 4.1 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Overly Broad

Feldman overturned the initial ban as overly broad in June, after the offshore-drilling industry and Gulf Coast political and business leaders challenged it.

Almost immediately, U.S. Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar announced he'd find another way to block offshore exploration until the industry beefed up drilling safety and oil-spill response capabilities in reaction to the Gulf oil spill.

Salazar instituted a second drilling ban in July, which was also challenged by an industry lawsuit that claimed the ban was devastating the Gulf Coast economy, which is heavily dependant on deepwater drilling activities. That ban was rescinded in October, before Feldman could rule on its validity.

Feldman later ruled that enhanced drilling safety rules Salazar imposed to permit companies to resume offshore exploration violated federal law, and he struck those down as well. The offshore industry and Gulf Coast interests complained to Feldman that regulators were continuing to block the resumption of drilling activity despite his rulings.

 

[hypocritexposer]

CBS Investigation Set Out To Prove Obama's Birth Certificate Is Authentic, Discovered It A Fraud

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMlPNdeuN3E&feature=share

 

[Tam]

Oh and how can we forget his State of the Union Address where he said he didn't support the Supreme Court Ruling and lied about the ruling openning US elections up to Foreign money.

I guess he wasn't defying the Supreme Court when they said that Foreign money could not be used in US elections when he took money from the Cardona Bros. ANd who are the Cardona bros OH felons tied up in MEXICAN DRUG VIOLENCE. Funny how right after he "reportedly" gave the money back he agreed to supporting his very own Super PAC where donors names don't have to be made public. :?

Hey Oldtimer you are supporting a real legal eagle there. :wink:

 

[Mike]

Pennsylvania judge rules against ObamaCare
BY MICHAEL P. TREMOGLIE

HARRISBURG, Pa. (Legal Newsline) - U.S. District Judge Christopher C. Conner declared that Congress exceeded its authority in passing a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The condition he declared unconstitutional was the mandate requiring American citizens to purchase health insurance.

Conner's opinion was published today in the case of Goudy-Bachman v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 10-cv-763, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania.

"Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution" cannot be applied in this instance, Conner wrote.

The specific issue in this case was whether Congress could invoke the Commerce Clause power.

Conner concluded that Congress cannot compel individual citizens to buy health insurance as a condition of citizenship. He reasoned that the authority to regulate interstate commerce does not list the ability to order a lifetime financial commitment to buy health insurance.

"Without judicially enforceable limits," Conner wrote in his 52-page opinion, "the constitutional blessing of the minimum coverage provision, codified at 26 U.S.C. § 5000A, would effectively sanction Congress's exercise of police power under the auspices of the Commerce Clause, jeopardizing the integrity of our dual sovereignty structure."

 

[hypocritexposer]

Obama impeachment bill now in Congress

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama's authorization of military force in Libya.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/obama-impeachment-bill-now-in-congress/

 

[Tam]

Obama defies the Supreme Court and chills speech
By Jennifer Rubin
The Post reports:

Republican senators are asking President Obama to drop plans to sign an executive order forcing government contractors to disclose donations to groups participating in political activities, saying the White House shouldn't use a company's political history to determine if they're eligible for government work.

A draft proposal on the issue is under review and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said last week that Obama believes taxpayers deserve to know how contractors are spending money they've earned from the government.

"His goal is transparency and accountability," Carney said. "That's the responsible thing to do when you're handling taxpayer dollars."

Many Republicans however believe that the move could allow the White House to muzzle political critics. And now they want to know exactly how Obama would go about reviewing a contractor's political history.

You'd think the ACLU would be all over this one. Imagine if the Bush administration demanded to know contractors' political affiliations as a condition of doing business with the government. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) got it exactly right in a letter signed by two dozen of her colleagues:

Political activity would obviously be chilled if prospective contractors have to fear that their livelihood could be threatened if the causes they support are disfavored by the Administration.

No White House should be able to review your political party affiliation or the causes you support before deciding if you are worthy of a government contract," the senators write in a letter set for delivery [Wednesday]. "And no Americans should have to worry about whether their political activities or support will affect their ability to get or keep a federal contract or their job.

This move is noxious in two respects. First, from the crowd that decried Bush administration executive overreach and a propensity to "shred the Constitution," the administration's use of an executive order as an end-around the Supreme Court's ruling in the Citizens United case is pretty slimy stuff. David Marston and John Yoo explain in a column for the Wall Street Journal:

Having failed to undo Citizens United by legislation, Mr. Obama apparently believes that he can veto the Supreme Court by naked presidential fiat. . .


It shouldn't matter here that disclosure would be the price for doing business with the government. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), the Supreme Court made it clear that a group did not have to give up its right to associate in exchange for some government benefit.


The right at issue here, is, of course, the First Amendment.

And that's the real problem with Obama's approach. He's trying to bully businesses, forcing them to disclose their political activities. What's next, a form that asks "Are you now or have you ever been a dues-paying member of or contributor to Right to Life? Of MoveOn.org?" Marston and Yoo explain:



In NAACP v. Alabama (1958), the court barred Alabama from forcing the NAACP to disclose its members. Those justices would have struck down a similar effort to force the release of the NAACP's financial supporters. They would have rightly viewed it as an infringement of the constitutional right to free association and free speech.

Today President Obama is ignoring the lessons of the civil rights era he claims to revere. According to a draft executive order leaked last week, Mr. Obama plans to require any company seeking a federal contract to disclose its executives' political contributions over $5,000 — not just to candidates, but to any group that might make "independent expenditure" or "electioneering communication" advertisements.

If a small businesswoman wants to sell paper clips to the Defense Department, Mr. Obama would force her to reveal contributions to groups such as Planned Parenthood or the National Rifle Association. These donations are obviously irrelevant to whether she made the most reliable bid at the lowest price. The only purpose of the executive order is to dangle the specter of retaliation (by losing her contracts) and harassment (from political opponents).

Gosh, you'd think all those law school deans out there (the ones who decried the government's ability to push them around and extend recruiting access to the military before the repeal of Don't Ask/Don't Tell) would be livid. But no. The authors underline that point: "Imagine the outcry we'll hear from self-described First Amendment supporters when every professor applying for a government research grant has to disclose his political donations."

The disregard for the rule of law is rather stunning, even for this crowd. But the lack of foresight is even more mind-boggling. Do liberals trust a future Republican administration to implement this edict?

Be careful of what you ask for Oldtimer I did a quick google search for "Obama defies the Courts" and it came up with 11,300,000 results. Would you like some more examples of how your Hero is disregarding the courts? :wink: :lol: