[jetguyz]

SAS, on 06 January 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

Please get your numbers correct.

It is known that the Democrats control the Senate yes. But the the Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives as of the start of the current Congress.

Thus the actual numbers stand as

Senate - 56 (D) - 42 ® - 2 (Ind) - 0 (V)
House - 192 (D) - 242 ® - 0 Ind) - 1 (V)

The Democrats control the Senate with 53% of the votes while the Republicans control the House with 55.8% of the votes

Thus in a congress of 535 members (consisting of BOTH Senate and House) there are 284 Republicans, 248 Democrats, 2 Indies and 1 vacancy.

So yes Congress as a whole is Republican by sheer numbers alone.

Once again you fail to verify your own source of data and utilise inaccurate information on which you base your arguments. The article you linked is dated Oct 2011 if I am not mistaken. The numbers give above are as of Nov 2010 thus to say Congress is Repulican majority is accurate. I have no idea where you got your numbers from but it is clearly outdated and wrong as of the the current date with regards to the make up of Congress as when the article was printed.

Nope...actually please get YOUR numbers correct.

In the 4 November 2008, elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers in the 111th US Congress. (2009-2011)
Overview - 111th Congress (2009-2011)
Senate: 55 Democrats; 41 Republicans; 2 Independents - Illinois and Minnesota "vacant"
House: 256 Democrats; 175 Republicans

Notwithstanding Dick Cheney ® from 6 January 2009 until 20 January 20 2009 and Joe Biden (D) took over from 20 January 2009 until 3 January 2011.

So yes Congress as a whole is Democrats by sheer numbers alone from the start of Obama Admin....and even you admit that even if I am using the LATEST data (Oct 2011) for the numbers of Congress members the Democrats still out-number Republicans...is it not?

Once again you fail to focus on the real issue that sailor has brought up.
He asked why Congress didn`t impeach Obama given that he committed such violations of Constitutions and involved in several scandals.

Now since Congress majority was from the same party as the president (Dem) at 2009, and since the first 2 years of Obama Admin (2009-2010) , the scandals was not exposed and Obama did not invade Libya in violation of Constitution ...yet...there is NO REASON for Congress to impeach Obama...is there?

And even now, in 2011-2012, Congress would find it hard to impeach Obama since it is still under the majority of Democrat Party.
(as my current data on Congress members shown and which which you admitted).

So once again, it is you who fail to verify your source and fail to focus on the main issue.

[sailor]

jetguyz, on 05 January 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

So why don`t you tell me why the Democrat Congress did not take any action against their own Democrat party president?

Just to annoy you? Or maybe they agree with what he is doing?

If all the "proof" you provided in here was true in even the slightest way, don't you think that even his own party wouldn't take any action, if not for him than for their own good name and future election results???

[SAS]

jetguyz, on 06 January 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

Are you aware that there are 57 Democrats in the Senate and 40 Republicans. There are also two independents who caucus with the Democrats and that the House of Representatives (Congress's other house), there are 256 Democrats and 178 Republicans??

Effectively Obama`s Democrats` Party has control of Congress with 313 Democrats and only 218 Republicans.

.........Altho` the buffoon deceitful president desperately tried to shift the blame to "Republican Congress" in his speech.

So why don`t you tell me why the Democrat Congress did not take any action against their own Democrat party president?

Please get your numbers correct.

It is known that the Democrats control the Senate yes. But the the Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives as of the start of the current Congress.

Thus the actual numbers stand as

Senate - 56 (D) - 42 ® - 2 (Ind) - 0 (V)
House - 192 (D) - 242 ® - 0 Ind) - 1 (V)

The Democrats control the Senate with 53% of the votes while the Republicans control the House with 55.8% of the votes

Thus in a congress of 535 members (consisting of BOTH Senate and House) there are 284 Republicans, 248 Democrats, 2 Indies and 1 vacancy.

So yes Congress as a whole is Republican by sheer numbers alone.

Once again you fail to verify your own source of data and utilise inaccurate information on which you base your arguments. The article you linked is dated Oct 2011 if I am not mistaken. The numbers give above are as of Nov 2010 thus to say Congress is Repulican majority is accurate. I have no idea where you got your numbers from but it is clearly outdated and wrong as of the the current date with regards to the make up of Congress as when the article was printed.

[jetguyz]

One_of_us, on 04 January 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

You ask if "Americans in Denial" is a true obsession?

It certainly is!! We are seeing it here in this new "thread". And it is not the only denial! If you take away all his denials, what is left?

I am glad you brought that up.
Perhaps you should ask yourself, if you take away all your irrelevant off-topic offensive comments in your postings...what`s left?

Bullcrap...that`s what`s left.

[jetguyz]

sailor, on 04 January 2012 - 12:39 PM, said:

No, you're missing the point completely here....

I mean, why doesn't Congress take any action when it is clear that their president is a crook, just like they did with Tricky Dicky????

Are you aware that there are 57 Democrats in the Senate and 40 Republicans. There are also two independents who caucus with the Democrats and that the House of Representatives (Congress's other house), there are 256 Democrats and 178 Republicans??

Effectively Obama`s Democrats` Party has control of Congress with 313 Democrats and only 218 Republicans.

.........Altho` the buffoon deceitful president desperately tried to shift the blame to "Republican Congress" in his speech.

So why don`t you tell me why the Democrat Congress did not take any action against their own Democrat party president?

[sailor]

jetguyz, on 03 January 2012 - 07:02 AM, said:

Is that an obsession for you to claim everything about Obama`s scandals is false yet could not provide even a SINGLE credible evidence to substantiate your "obsession"?

No, you're missing the point completely here....

I mean, why doesn't Congress take any action when it is clear that their president is a crook, just like they did with Tricky Dicky????

[One_of_us]

sailor, on 03 January 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Tell me... when this obsession of yours is all true, than why there was never taken any serious action to remove him from office,(something what in your country is impossible)?

You ask if "Americans in Denial" is a true obsession?

It certainly is!! We are seeing it here in this new "thread". And it is not the only denial! If you take away all his denials, what is left?

[jetguyz]

Quote

The Obama Government Is Watching You
That "foreign" email you received? Be afraid. Be very afraid.

By Michael Coard 1/02/2012

I confess. I was an Obama groupie. In fact, I was the president of the President’s official fan club. To me, he could do no wrong. But then it happened. He did what no elected official should ever do—as far as a lawyer who’s a proud card-carrying ACLU member is concerned, or as far as any patriotic American is concerned. He assaulted (and then shat on) the constitution, particularly on the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth amendments, which provide the right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government, to be free from unreasonable seizure, to be provided with due process of law and a speedy trial, to be informed of all charges, to be protected from cruel and unusual punishment, and to be protected from the deprivation of liberty without the aforementioned due process. Not only did my President agree to the assault, he did it by gleefully proclaiming his support for the indefinitely detaining, U.S. citizen-victimizing, lock-up-without-charging, liberty-eroding National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012, which the House passed on December 14th and the Senate passed the next day.

Just how frighteningly bad is the NDAA? It’s so bad that “The last time Congress passed indefinite detention legislation was during the McCarthy era … (but) President Truman had the courage to veto that bill,” noted Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU’s Washington legislative office. I wish my President had said that. I wish he had said something even stronger, something like, “We’re not a country that runs prisons which locks people away without ever telling them why they’re there or what they’re charged with.” Such profound words. By a lawyer, I’m told. An Ivy League-trained lawyer, they say. A former constitutional law professor, it’s reported. And his name … WTF?! Well, WTF is not his name. His name is Barack Obama, and he said those profound words on June 19, 2007, when he was the politically unrestrained progressive Senator Obama. And he said something quite similar during his January 20, 2009 presidential inauguration when he asked us all to “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” Wow. What a difference two years make.

Section 1021 of Subtitle D of the 1,000-page-plus NDAA gives this President and all future presidents absolute, i.e. unchecked and arbitrary, powers. Specifically, it affirms “… The authority of the President to use all … appropriate force … (which) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain … (certain) persons … until the end of hostilities.” Those persons are defined not only as members of “al-Qaeda” and “the Taliban” but also as members of “associated forces”—whatever the hell that means. Simply stated, it allows a president to indefinitely detain fellow citizens here in America if he or she merely suspects those citizens of “supporting”—again, whatever the hell that means—terrorist activity either directly or indirectly in the past, present or future. And to make matters even worse, Section 4 allows for rendition, leading to barbaric torture by this country’s surrogates, because it permits “Transfer to the custody … of … any foreign country …”

Supporters of the NDAA try to assuage the public’s justifiable fears by claiming that it doesn’t do anything that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) didn’t already do by allowing citizens to be held in military custody. But they’re wrong. In the basically precedent-setting case of U.S. citizen and alleged al-Qaeda member Jose Padilla, who was captured in Chicago in 2002, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the AUMF allowed military detention only because he had spent time fighting this country in Afghanistan. But the NDAA doesn’t limit itself to such suspects from foreign battlefields. Or, better stated, it expands the battlefield to American soil—meaning to American citizens right here inside the good ole USA. By the way, before the Supreme Court could ultimately resolve the constitutional issue, Padilla was transferred to civilian custody, was tried in a civilian court, was found guilty, and was sentenced to nearly two decades in prison. All of this was without the need for a presidential omnipotent “answer to no one” secret military tribunal that serves as judge, jury and executioner. The current civilian system worked well and protected us all.

Thomas Jefferson must be spinning in his grave right now. His warning in 1788 about discarding the law simply because it’s convenient to do so is perfectly timely here: “Why suspend the habeas corpus [or constitutional due process, in the case of the NDAA] in … rebellions? The parties who may be arrested may be charged instantly with a well-defined crime; of course, the judge will remand them. If the public safety requires that the government should have a man imprisoned on less probable testimony in those than in other emergencies, let him be taken and tried … while the necessity continues …” The NDAA’s heavy-handed military intrusion upon the civilian legal system is “both misguided and unnecessary” as stated by retired four-star generals Charles C. Krulak and Joseph P. Hoar in their December 12, 2011 New York Times article. These career military men continued by pointing out that, “Since 9/11, military commissions convicted (only) six but civilian courts convicted 400 (including Padilla).”

The idea of armed and nervous itchy-trigger-finger soldiers rumbling tanks up Broad Street looking for your neighbor’s activist, college-student daughter to question and detain her regarding an email in Arabic (or English) she received from an overseas organization is frightening—and permissible under the NDAA. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

But first, be vigilant. In the words of Jefferson, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” And you can easily pay that price by doing just two things. First, join the ACLU by calling 215-592-1513. Second, express your outrage to the President by calling 202-456-1414.

More here

Related article:
Indefinite detention for terror suspects: Did Obama sell out? (The Week)

[jetguyz]

sailor, on 03 January 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

Tell me... when this obsession of yours is all true, than why there was never taken any serious action to remove him from office,(something what in your country is impossible)?

Is that an obsession for you to claim everything about Obama`s scandals is false yet could not provide even a SINGLE credible evidence to substantiate your "obsession"?

These are FACTS and numerous lawsuits have been filed against Obama, (go check those lawsuits widely available on the Internet) but obviously in the USA, (and in other countries, except Japan) the courts do not have the jurisdiction to accept/hear cases against the Executive Branch. (namely the President). That`s why there are far too few cases of presidents being impeached.

There is always someone being the scrap-goat when scandals about the president gets out.
In this case, Eric Holden would be the scrap-goat for the Fast and Furious Scandals, just as Carol Browner and Interior Secretary Ken Salazarfor the "Draconian drilling moratorium" ...and instead of calling on Obama about the Solyndra scandal since he is the one who approved the Stimulus loan against all advices, George Kaiser was put out to hang....etc

So do you think it is easy to remove a USA president from office?
Do you think it is easy for YOU to remove YOUR Prime Minister Mark Rutte from office?

That`s childish thinking.

[sailor]

Tell me... when this obsession of yours is all true, than why there was never taken any serious action to remove him from office,(something what in your country is impossible)?

[jetguyz]

Let`s recap the past 3 years of the Corrupt Obama Regime......
And yet most of the mainstream media are in denial about all those scandals erupting left and right thru`out the 3 years when that buffoon Obama is in the Oval Office!

Informations about these scandals are widely available and can easily be checked for FACTS.

Only the severely blind would refuse to see the truth and be in denial.

Quote

The Year in Obama Scandals -- and Scandal Deniers

Michelle Malkin – Wed, Dec 28, 2011

With 2011 drawing to a close, it is time to account. As an early-and-often chronicler of Chicago-on-the-Potomac, I am amazed at the stubborn and clingy persistence of President Barack Obama's snowblowers in the media. See no scandal, hear no scandal, speak no scandal.

Dartmouth College professor Brendan Nyhan asserted in May — while Operation Fast and Furious subpoenas were flying on Capitol Hill — that "one of the least remarked upon aspects of the Obama presidency has been the lack of scandals." Conveniently, he defines scandal as a "widespread elite perception of wrongdoing."

So as long as left-wing Ivy League scribes refuse to perceive something to be a scandal — never mind the actual suffering endured by the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, whose death came at the hands of a Mexican cartel thug wielding a Fast and Furious gun walked across the southern border under Attorney General Eric Holder's watch — there is no scandal!

Self-serving much?

Mother Jones' Kevin Drum likewise proclaimed: "Obama's presidency has so far been almost completely free of scandal."

This after the year kicked off in January with the departure of lying eco-radical czar Carol Browner. In backroom negotiations, she infamously bullied auto execs to "put nothing in writing, ever." The previous fall, the White House's own oil spill panel had singled out Browner for misleading the public about the scientific evidence for the administration's Draconian drilling moratorium and "contributing to the perception that the government's findings were more exact than they actually were."

The Interior Department inspector general and federal judges likewise blasted drilling ban book-cooking by Browner and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, who falsely rewrote the White House drilling ban report to doctor the Obama-appointed panel's own overwhelming scientific objections to the job-killing edict.

In February, federal judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana excoriated the Obama Interior Department for defying his May 2010 order to lift its fraudulent ban on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf. He called out the administration's culture of contempt and "determined disregard" for the law.

This spring saw rising public anger over the preferential Obamacare waiver process (which I first reported on in September 2010). Some 2,000 lucky golden ticket winners were freed from the costly federal mandates — including a handful of fancy restaurants in Aloha Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district, the entire state of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's Nevada, and scores of local, state and national Big Labor organizations, from the Service Employees International Union and Teamsters on down. Meanwhile, as The Hill newspaper reported last month, other not-so-lucky Republican-led states seeking waivers, such as Indiana and Louisiana, were rejected.

But it wasn't just Republicans objecting to the president's arbitrary Obamacare fiats. In July, congressional Democrats turned on the monstrous federal health bureaucracy known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board. The constitutionally suspect panel — freed from normal public notice, public comment and public review rules — would have unprecedented authority over health care spending and an expanding jurisdiction of private health care payment rates.

Obama's health and human services secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, faced separate legal questions over her overseer role in a hair-raising document-shredding case when she served as governor of Kansas. In October, a district judge in the Sunflower State suspended court proceedings in a high-profile criminal case against the abortion racketeers of Planned Parenthood. Bombshell court filings showed that Kansas health officials "shredded documents related to felony charges the abortion giant faces" and failed to disclose it for six years.

That same month, Bloomberg News columnist Jonathan Alter gushed: "There is zero evidence ... of corruption. Where is it?"

Alter's declaration of the "Obama Miracle" came just weeks after the politically driven half-billion-dollar Solyndra stimulus "investment" went bankrupt, prompting an FBI raid and ongoing criminal and congressional probes of the solar company funded by top White House bundler and visitor George Kaiser.

As Solyndra and an avalanche of other ongoing green subsidy scams erupted, so did the LightSquared debacle — a federal broadband boondoggle involving billionaire hedge fund managers and Obama donors Philip Falcone and George Soros. In September, two high-ranking witnesses — William Shelton, the four-star general who heads the Air Force Space Command, and National Coordination Office for Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing Director Anthony Russo — exposed how the White House had pressured them to alter their congressional testimony and play down concerns about LightSquared's interference threat to military communications.

The White House continues to block efforts to gain information about the Federal Communications Commission's approval of a special waiver for the company, even as new government tests this month showed that the company's "signals caused harmful interference to the majority of ... general purpose GPS receivers."

The Obama White House closed out the year with Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri demanding a probe of the smelly $443 million no-bid smallpox antiviral pill contract with Siga Technologies — controlled by big lefty donor Ron Perelman. Then there was the small matter of massive voter fraud in Indiana, where a Democratic official resigned amid allegations that "dozens, if not hundreds," of signatures were faked to get Obama on the state primary ballot in 2008.

And while Americans busied themselves with the holidays, White House and Democratic campaign officials were dumping more than $70,000 in contributions from another deep-pocketed contributor — scandal-plagued pal and former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, who oversaw the collapse of MF Global.

All this — and so much more — yet erstwhile "conservative" journalist Andrew Sullivan of Newsweek/The Daily Beast scoffed, "Where are all the scandals promised by Michelle Malkin?"

There's none so blind as those who will not see.

Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM