I just thought I would post some of your TP dirty little out of touch post on Obama polls and how he is not a citizen of this great nation that the TP is trying to destroy. I will now continue to show your stupidity and hypocracy with your hate and racism.

You constantantly like to post your immature statements about Obama not being a citizen of this country. But you continue to tell me that Ted Criz is a citizen because even though he was born in Canada to a illegal father his mother was born in Delaware so that makes him a US citizen.
Now here are the Hypocrites in the TP saying Obama is illegal. His mother was born in Kansas and for you out of touch TP that's in the US just like Delaware.
Now unlike Ted Cruz Obama was born to an American mother in Hawaii. Cruz was born to an American Mother in Canada and his father was an illegal in this country by bribing an agent from Cuba. So what's the difference between Obama and Cruz. Look at Jeb Bushes wife brought to this country illegally by her father who also was an illegally but your right wing hypocrites justify Jebs wife as being legal. So I posted a picture of Obamas mother.

Next you continue to lie about Obama and the national polls so I posted a little article showing how out of touch and full of hate you really are.

I also looked and your AH Boehner bringing this Bibi Netanyahu to speak in Congress and bypass Obama just to try to paint Democrats as Anti American is just a sick attempt to try and get the Jewish vote. But this will backfire on this hate filled TP because your racism shows everytime you open your Mouth it's a desgrace. Obama has sent more aid and military capabilities to Isreal than any president in the history of this country approximately $10 billion in aide. So the fairy tails of the TP just continues. Your racism and hate for our government and country continues.

Steve, what you don't understand--because you lack the mental capacity--is that liberals do have brains which is why we aren't conservatives. The principle philosophy behind conservatism is irrationalism. Now before you freek out thinking I am name calling consider the definition for irrationalism: a system emphasizing intuition, instinct, feeling, or faith rather than reason and holding that the universe is governed by irrational (supernatural) forces. This is why conservatives tend to argue in fallacies because rationalism doesn't support what you believe in. And it is because you argue in fallacies that little if anything you argue is true. For you, it's like a drunk throwing darts at a dart board. Every now in then you will hit the truth but it's luck not skill that causes it to happen.

Now in your case you are also a lunatic so combine that with irrationalism plus your reliance on fallacies and about the only thing you have left is hate speech. I understand this Steve, because I have a brain and am able to, so I don't hold it against you. Instead, I have empathy for you Steve even though you are so far over the edge that for the public and your safety everyone would be far better off if you were institutionalized! So hate away Steve--I understand my crazy conservative friend, I understand!

I Think I'm Going to Be Ill... What Bull-Shit!!! Why is Race an Issue, Because Shes a Negro, or Because Obama is Have White and Half Negro, or Because Holder Was/Is a Black Panther And Radical Negro??? Because Unless They Have a Problem Putting Forth an Equally Qualified White, Latino, Korean or Other Asian Person(s), This Nomination Goes NO Further... F**k You Obama... Don D. [P.s. Now you know why I got out of politics, murder was sounding very good back then, when I was young, dumb and bullet proof, ha ha ha... Talk about "sick-puppy"... D.D.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NEWS FROM THE HILL


Police, Race Emerge as Signature Focus (Issue) for AG Nominee


By Tim Devaney - Feb 8. 2015

As the nation’s top cop, Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch appears likely to make cooling the simmering tensions between police and the black community a signature issue.

Lynch, now in the midst of her confirmation process, is widely expected to become the first African American woman to lead the Justice Department. Her ascension to the high-profile Cabinet post would come amid public uproar over the recent police killings of unarmed black men in New York and Missouri.

Lawmakers and advocates are already looking to Lynch to take a leading role in repairing the damage wrought by the deaths and their fallout, while also moving forward with a host of policy changes initiated by current Attorney General Eric Holder.

"She will be sensitive not only to enforcing the laws of the land, but also to issues that are unique to the African American community, such as police misconduct and the need to reform the criminal justice system,” Rep. G. K. Butterfield, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told The Hill.

The black community’s trust in law enforcement has been shaken since last summer’s killings of Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

Garner, a 43-year-old from Staten Island, died in July after Daniel Pantaleo, a white New York Police Department officer, applied a chokehold during an arrest. The confrontation and Garner’s death were caught on a video that went viral on the Internet.

Brown, an 18-year-old from a St. Louis suburb, was shot and killed by Darren Wilson, a white Ferguson, Mo., police officer, after a confrontation in August.

Protests and riots broke out around the country after both police officers were exonerated by grand juries.

"Few things have pained me more than the recent reports of tension and division between law enforcement and the communities we serve,” Lynch said last week during her hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"If confirmed as attorney general, one of my key priorities would be to work to strengthen the vital relationships between our courageous law enforcement personnel and all the communities we serve,” she added.


As a black woman with strong law-and-order credentials, Lynch, observers say, would be uniquely positioned to ease strained relations between police and minority communities they serve.

Lynch’s reputation for being a hard-nosed, impartial prosecutor has won her wide support from civil rights advocates, law enforcement, Democrats and even some Republicans.

This will serve her well as she seeks to “resolve the tensions” between law enforcement and the African American community, said Sen. Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

"She has prosecuted those who have committed crimes against police officers, as well as police officers who have committed crimes,” Leahy (D-Vt.) said during her confirmation hearing.

Lynch has earned the trust of civil rights groups by pursing cases of police brutality.

During her time as a federal prosecutor in New York, Lynch went after a police officer accused of sodomizing a Haitian immigrant with a stick in a precinct bathroom.

More recently, she was assigned to investigate the Eric Garner case.

As the “face of law enforcement,” Lynch will have the opportunity to improve public perceptions of police, said Hilary Shelton, Washington bureau director of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

She is also respected of law enforcement for being tough on criminals, including corrupt police officers, said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police.

"The law enforcement community doesn’t stand up to defend cops who have done the wrong thing,” he said.

Pasco said he met with Lynch and is “very impressed” that she does not have any pre-existing judgements about or biases against police.

“I like the idea that she doesn’t concede that the police are necessarily wrong in every situation,” Pasco said.

Lynch promised to "draw all voices” into the conversation about reforming law enforcement and cracking down on cases of police misconduct.

“She has to be a person who brings both sides together, police and the community,” Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, told The Hill.

It’s unclear when the entire Senate would vote on her confirmation, but Judiciary Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) suggested the committee would vote after lawmakers return from their break on Feb. 26.

Some Republicans have come out against Lynch’s nomination. Sens. John Cornyn (Texas) and Rand Paul (Ky.) both said this week they will oppose her nomination and they could soon be joined by other Republicans on the committee, but there’s little they can do to block it.

With broad support from Democrats, Lynch only needs two Republicans to push her through the committee and she has reportedly won over Sens. Orin Hatch (Utah) and Jeff Flake (Ariz.).

If confirmed, civil rights advocates and congressional Democrats hope Lynch will push a series of police reforms to prevent future misconduct by law enforcement.

The Justice Department can threaten to withhold funding from local police departments that do not cooperate, they say.

Better police training could help officers avoid tragic confrontations like those that ended in the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, they say.

All too often, police officers will use excessive force, Shelton said.

The Justice Department could resolve this problem by issuing use of force standards that not only provide law enforcement with better guidance but also make it easier to prosecute officers who cross the line, he added.

“We think the use of force should be a last resort, because police officers should be equipped to deescalate the situation,” said Kanya Bennett, legislative counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Justice Department could also ensure more accountability by requiring police to wear body cameras, Bennett said.

Local police departments should also be required to report the number of arrests, fatal shootings, and the type of force used in these cases in exchange for federal funding, she added.

“That transparency will encourage a greater sense of trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve,” Bennett said.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/01/27/bergdahl-deal-and-us-policy-n1948873

The Illegal Bergdahl Deal: Sordid Details, Troubling Implications

Multiple news sources are now reporting that the US Army is charging Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl -- the American soldier handed over by terrorist hostage takers in exchange for the release of five high-ranking Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay last spring -- with desertion. This comes as no surprise for those who followed the Bergdahl controversy closely; as Katie reminded us earlier, Bergdahl's platoon mates unanimously spoke out against his actions. The evidence of his desertion is overwhelming. Other facts suggest that he may have crossed a line into active collaboration with the enemy. Despite the fact that the military had drawn negative conclusions about Bergdahl's conduct as far back as 2010 and declined to list him as POW, White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice declared that his service was marked by "honor and distinction" on national television. This was part and parcel of the Obama administration's public relations strategy surrounding the entire affair: Wave the flag about a captured American returning home to his family, and hope that the good vibes and emotional images of relieved family members and friends would crowd out the more sordid details -- such as the freed terrorists' long trail of blood and destruction, Bergdahl's alleged crimes, and the manner in which Obama bypassed strong objections from top military and intelligence officials to close the deal. Remember this?

Leaders of the U.S. intelligence community and military were opposed to freeing five senior Taliban commanders in exchange for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl when the White House first began exploring the prisoner swap in 2011 and 2012. The U.S. military wanted to bring Bergdahl home, but releasing Mullah Mohammad Fazl, Mullah Norullah Noori, Abdul Haq Wasiq, Khairullah Khairkhwa, and Mohammed Nabi Omari was seen as too dangerous at the time. James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, according to three U.S. intelligence officials flat out rejected the release of the five detainees, saying there was too high a risk these Taliban commanders would return to the battlefield and orchestrate attacks against Americans. Clapper was not alone. Leon Panetta, who was then the Secretary of Defense, declined to certify that the United States could mitigate the risk to national interests of releasing the Taliban commanders...Current U.S. intelligence and defense officials who spoke to The Daily Beast on Monday say the process for exchanging Taliban for Bergdahl this time was rushed and closely held, in some instances leaving little room for any push back against a policy clearly favored by the White House. “This was an example of forcing the consensus,” one U.S. military official said. “The White House knew the answer they wanted and they ended up getting it.”

The administration has insisted that the Bergdahl swap was not an instance of the US government violating its longstanding policy against negotiating with terrorists, assuring the country that it was a routine prisoner exchange. This assertion is contradicted by the nature of Bergdahl's captors, and the White House's own spin that the plan had to be hatched and executed quickly, without informing Congress (as required by law), because the terrorists had threatened to kill Bergdahl. That's not how routine prisoner exchanges work. Another one of their excuses wilted under light scrutiny. The reality is that the Obama administration has been ideologically hellbent on emptying Gitmo for years, despite Congress' repeated refusals to go along. This scenario offered the president a chance to "get rid of" five dangerous terrorists and dress it up as a happy homecoming story. So the decision was made to (effectively, if not explicitly) negotiate with terrorists, then deny that any such thing had occurred. Now five influential jihadist captains are living comfortably in this "allied" nation, and a probable deserter/collaborator is set to stand trial here at home. Does anyone doubt rumors that White House officials tried to stall the investigation and keep the desertion charges under wraps?

According to Shaffer, the Obama official at the center of these political machinations is the now-infamous Ben Rhodes, of course. News of the desertion charges thrusts the administration's terrorist-releasing policies back into the spotlight, raising fresh questions:

Before he was released from a U.S. maximum-security prison last week, a confessed al Qaeda sleeper agent was offered up in a potential prisoner swap that would have freed two Americans held abroad. The Daily Beast has learned that the proposal was floated in July 2014 to the then-U.S. ambassador in Qatar by an individual acting on behalf of that country’s attorney general. According to two individuals with direct knowledge of the case, the proposition was made shortly after the Obama administration traded five Taliban fighters for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Those fighters were also sent to Qatar, where they’re to remain under government watch until later this year. U.S. officials have said they’re at risk of plotting further attacks against the United States. The proposed swap involving the al Qaeda agent, Ali Saleh Al-Marri, raises troubling questions about whether the Bergdahl trade opened a kind of Pandora’s box, signaling to foreign governments that they can pressure the United States to make concessions on terrorism by trading American prisoners abroad for dangerous extremists held in the United States.

The administration denies that Al-Marri's early release from federal prison -- which we wrote about just last week -- was tied to any quid pro quo. Why should Americans believe that claim?