Tag Archives: Sarah Palin

British actor Sacha Baron Cohen poses as disabled US vet to dupe Sarah Palin during interview

sacha baron choen

Cohen: Ugly man, both inside and out

Only a Hollyweird libtard would think it’s funny to pose as a disabled vet.

Cohen is a Brit with a juvenile sense of humor.

From Hollywood Reporter: Sarah Palin on Tuesday took to Facebook to reveal that she was unknowingly interviewed by comedian Sacha Baron Cohen for his upcoming Showtime series, Who Is America?

The former Republican vice-presidential candidate said she sat down for an interview with Cohen thinking he was a wounded U.S. veteran.

“Yup — we were duped. Ya’ got me, Sacha. Feel better now?” Palin began. “I join a long list of American public personalities who have fallen victim to the evil, exploitive, sick ‘humor’ of the British ‘comedian’ Sacha Baron Cohen, enabled and sponsored by CBS/Showtime.”

She continued: “This ‘legit opportunity’ to honor American Vets and contribute to a ‘legit Showtime historical documentary’ was requested of me via a speakers bureau.”

Palin went on to say that she and one of her daughters traveled across the country to meet with Cohen, who, she says, “had heavily disguised himself as a disabled U.S. Veteran, fake wheelchair and all.”

Out of respect for what I was led to believe would be a thoughtful discussion with someone who had served in uniform, I sat through a long ‘interview’ full of Hollywoodism’s disrespect and sarcasm — but finally had enough and literally, physically removed my mic and walked out, much to Cohen’s chagrin,” Palin elaborated. “The disrespect of our U.S. military and middle-class Americans via Cohen’s foreign commentaries under the guise of interview questions was perverse.”

Palin, who served as the ninth Governor of Alaska from 2006 until her resignation in 2009, then offered a “challenge” to Cohen, CBS and Showtime.

Donate all proceeds to a charitable group that actually respects and supports American Vets. Mock politicians and innocent public personalities all you want, if that lets you sleep at night, but HOW DARE YOU mock those who have fought and served our country,” she wrote, adding, “Truly sick.”

Palin also claimed that “the Cohen/CBS/Showtime production team purposefully dropped my daughter and me off at the wrong Washington, DC airport after the fake interview, knowing we’d miss all flights back home to Alaska.” She added, “I wrote this off as yet another example of the sick nature that is media-slash-entertainment today.”

Palin concluded her Facebook post by letting Cohen know that the daughter who accompanied her to the interview “thinks you’re a piece of ****,” asserting that “every honorable American Vet should feel the same.”

Read Palin’s entire post here. Showtime had no comment when contacted by The Hollywood Reporter.

Palin’s post comes just days after (I think they mean before) the July 15 premiere date for Who Is America? — described by Showtime as “the most dangerous show in the history of television” — was announced.

“Sacha is a comedic genius who shocks you with his audacity, bravery and inventiveness,” Showtime Networks president and CEO David Nevins said of the Borat star. “He is the premier provocateur of our time, but not for the sake of ‘gotcha’ moments. Behind the elaborate setup is a genuine quest for the truth about people, places and politics. Nobody knows how to cause a stir like Sacha Baron Cohen, and it’s going to be fascinating to watch what happens when Who Is America? is released on the world.”

Read the rest of the story here.

Let Showtime know what you think of this stunt. Contact them here.

DCG

This is feminism: Boston professor says women have the right to hate men because “they’ve done us wrong”

suzanna danuta walters

Professor Walters: She must be a blast at parties…

This professor has a 1.8 rating on Ratemyprofessor.com. Some comments about her:

  • “Such a miserable class. You have to take her viewpoint to be viewed as correct.”
  • “Literally the worst class ever. She’s not funny and she thinks she is.”

From Fox News: A university in Boston is distancing itself from a feminist professor who wrote a controversial column earlier this month that some are calling “hate speech.”

In an op-ed for the Washington Post, Suzanna Danuta Walters, sociology professor and women’s, gender, and sexuality studies program director at Northeastern University, said women have every right to “hate men.”

“You have done us wrong. #BecausePatriarchy,” she wrote.

The university in Boston immediately distanced itself from the oped, saying “hate has no place” at the university.

“The university has more than 1,000 faculty members whose viewpoints span the entire political spectrum,” university spokesperson Shannon Nargi told Fox News in a statement. “Consistent with our unwavering commitment to academic freedom, the opinions of an individual professor do not reflect the views of the university or its leadership. Northeastern is committed to fostering an environment in which controversial ideas can be discussed, debated and challenged.”

Walters wrote that men should just cede their power and responsibility to women.

“So men,” the feminist activist writes, “If you…would like us to not hate you…pledge to vote for feminist women only. Don’t run for office. Don’t be in charge of anything. Step away from the power.”

Walters admits even before President Trump, her edge had been crossed, and urges feminists, instead of taking the high road, “maybe it’s time for us to go all Thelma and Louise and Foxy Brown on their collective butts.”

In a response to Walters’ column, Conor Friedersdorf wrote in The Atlantic that her argument is a “perversion” of feminism, but he believes that even her “most bigoted ideological commitments don’t affect how she treats her students.”

“Group hate,” Friedersdorf writes, “tends to make those who harbor it less able to see clearly, less likely to acknowledge nuance, and less able to improve the world, even as their wrongheaded ideas risk leading others into destructive errors.”

This wasn’t the first time Walters has attacked a group of people based on their identity.

The College Fix pointed out that, while Walters demands people elect women for public office, she told the campus newspaper it shouldn’t endorse a Republican woman.

“Having a Carly Fiorina or a, heaven forbid, Sarah Palin in the White House would set all women back of course, because their agendas are firmly and unequivocally anti-feminist,” she said.

DCG

Ted Cruz is so opposed to illegal immigration that he delivered gift baskets to them in 2014

So you actually believe Ted Cruz when he says he’s anti-illegal immigration?

Did you know that less than 2 years ago, in July 2014, he joined that nutty TV-radio talker Glenn Beck in distributing gift baskets to illegal migrants at the US-Mexico border in McAllen, Texas?

Sarah Palin knows. Last night, at the Milwaukee County GOP dinner in Wisconsin, Palin reminded the audience of just that.

gift bags for illegals, July 19, 2014.

As reported by Erica Ritz for The Blaze, on Saturday, July 19, 2014, Mercury One, the charity founded by Glenn Beck, went to the border in McAllen, Texas “to distribute tractor-trailers full of food, water, clothing and toys to the illegal immigrant children who are pouring into the United States.”

Beck was joined by Dana Loesch, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), Rep. Randy Weber (R-Texas), and later that morning by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Ted Cruz at Mercury One charity giveaway to illegals, July 19, 2014.Ted Cruz gives gift baskets to illegals, July 19, 2014.Ted Cruz & Glenn Beck give to illegals, July 19, 2014.

H/t Market Ticker

See also “Glenn Beck goes homoerotic weird about Ted Cruz“.

~Eowyn

Why are they so afraid of Donald Trump?

The GOP Establishment has gone beyond issuing death threats via “consultants” and “jokes” against Donald Trump. See:

The GOP is now bringing out the big guns:

(1) Mitt Romney

2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has now come out publicly against Trump, although Romney went out of his way to secure Trump’s endorsement in 2012.

At the Washington Ideas Forum on March 2, Romney said he doesn’t think the Republican nominee is “going to be Donald Trump” because the GOP “has historically nominated someone who’s a mainstream conservative and someone who has a foundation in foreign policy that gives people confidence that they can guide the ship of state in troubled waters.” Trump said Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham, and Carly Fiorina are might qualify as a “mainstream conservative”. Since Christie, Bush and Fiorina have all dropped out of the race, that leaves Rubio and Kasich.

(2) John McCain & Paul Ryan

A day later on March 3, as reported by the APRomney intensified his attack, now joined by 2008 Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain and Romney’s 2012 running mate House Speaker Paul Ryan, calling Trump unfit for office and a danger for the nation and the GOP.

McCain called Trump’s statements on national security issues “uninformed and indeed dangerous,” while Romney declared Trump “is not the temperament of a stable, thoughtful leader” and called Trump “a phony” who is “playing the American public for suckers,” a man whose “imagination must not be married to real power.” Romney said that “Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.”

As the AP and under political analysts observe, the GOP is now in a panic because “there is little they see to stop Trump’s march toward the presidential nomination. Party leaders are poring over complicated delegate math, outlining hazy scenarios for a contested national convention and even flirting with the idea of a third-party effort.”

(3) Rush Limbaugh

On his radio talk show on March 2, Rush Limbaugh after outlining three ways to defeat Trump: (1) waiting for Trump to implode; (2) splitting the Republican convention delegates so Trump won’t have the 1,237 needed to secure the nomination on the first vote; and (3) uniting behind Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Limbaugh proposed that the GOP unite behind Ted Cruz as “their smartest move.” But Limbaugh predicted that the GOP “will not do that” and that “Rubio is the desired candidate because that’s where the moneyed people want to go. He’s closer to the establishment, this whole Gang of Eight business.”

So what exactly are the reasons for why GOP elites and conservative pundits so object to Trump? 

(1) A Trump nomination ensures a Hillary victory

That’s the conventional “wisdom”. As The FT reports, many mainstream Republicans believe Trump would struggle to beat Hillary Clinton and are urgently rallying around their man Rubio. Some senior Republicans, e.g., Bill Kristol, are even saying privately that they might consider voting for Hillary if Trump were to end up as their party nominee.

Let me get this straight: The GOP objects to Trump because they think he will lose to Hillary, and so their solution is to vote for Hillary, thereby ensuring precisely what they say they fear — that Trump will lose to Hillary. Does anyone understand their twisted circular logic?

So the question is: Will Trump lose if he goes against Hillary Clinton?

As the following RealClearPolitics chart shows, it’s far too close to call. More importantly, the gap  between Clinton and Trump is closing. (H/t ZeroHedge)

Clinton vs. Trump polling data

Tantalizingly, as reported by the New York Post on Feb. 28, 2016, confidential polling data actually show that in heavily democratic New York, Hillary could lose the presidential election to Trump, even without former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg in the race (Bloomberg is hinting he might enter the race as a third party candidate). Support for Trump is strong even in Westchester and on Long Island, the key suburbs often viewed as crucial swing bellwethers on how statewide elections will turn out.

The polls found that Hillary often had higher negative ratings with voters than did Trump. Some of the polls also found a greater degree of intensity among Trump’s potential voters than among Clinton’s, a finding that mirrors the stronger GOP turnouts that have been registered in the presidential primaries.

It’s not just confidential polling data that find surprisingly strong support for Trump in New York. A recent publicly disclosed Siena College poll of Long Island voters found Trump narrowly beating Clinton among Long Island voters, 41% to 38%, while he was crushing his two nearest GOP primary opponents, Marco Rubio and John Kasich, by 37 percentage points each.

(2) Thoughtful anti-Trump Reasons

I have found two individuals who have articulated thoughtful and thought-provoking reasons for why Donald Trump should give us pause. Both express empathy for the frustrations that so many of us have with the dysfunctional U.S. political system and politics.

Senator Ben Sasse

In an “Open letter to Trump supporters,” Senator Ben Sasse (R-Nebraska), who calls himself not an “establishment Republican” but a “movement conservative who was elected over the objections of the GOP establishment” who is against open borders and will vote for neither Hillary nor Trump if those are the choices, conveys his misgivings on Trump not respecting the U.S. Constitution. (Note: Sen. Sasse, whom Sarah Palin endorsed in 2014, has the 4th most conservative record in the Senate, and the endorsement of Sarah Palin in 2014.) Sasse gives two reasons for being concerned about Trump:

  • Trump’s “relentless focus” on dividing Americans and on “tearing down rather than building back up” our country.
  • Trump is not a Constitutionalist because he seems to think a president of the United States is a king, instead of a servant of the people: “Much like President Obama, he displays essentially no understanding of the fact that, in the American system, we have a constitutional system of checks and balances, with three separate but co-equal branches of government. And the task of public officials is to be public ‘servants.’ The law is king, and the people are boss. But have you noticed how Mr. Trump uses the word ‘Reign’ – like he thinks he’s running for King? It’s creepy, actually. Nebraskans are not looking for a king. We yearn instead for the recovery of a Constitutional Republic…. The president’s job is not about just mindlessly shouting the word “strong”…. No, the president’s core calling is to “Preserve, Protect, and Defend the Constitution…. So let me ask you: Do you believe the beating heart of Mr. Trump’s candidacy has been a defense of the Constitution? Do you believe it’s been an impassioned defense of the First Amendment – or an attack on it?…. I believe a sizable share of Christians – who regard threats against religious liberty as arguably the greatest crisis of our time – are unwilling to support any candidate who does not make a full-throated defense of the First Amendment a first commitment of their candidacy. Conservatives understand that all men are created equal and made in the image of God, but also that government must be limited so that fallen men do not wield too much power. A presidential candidate who boasts about what he’ll do during his ‘reign’ and refuses to condemn the KKK cannot lead a conservative movement in America.”

To illustrate his concerns, Senator Sasse points to these quotes by Trump:

  • “We’re going to open up libel laws and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before.”
  • “When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak…”
  • “Putin, who has killed journalists and is pillaging Ukraine, is a great leader.”
  • The editor of National Review “should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him.”
  • On whether he will use executive orders to end-run Congress, as President Obama has illegally done, Trump said, “I won’t refuse it. I’m going to do a lot of things” and “I mean, he’s [Obama] led the way, to be honest with you.”
  • “68% [of illegal immigrants?] would not leave under any circumstance. I think that means murder. It think it means anything.”
  • On the internet: “I would certainly be open to closing areas” of it.
  • Trump’s lawyers to people selling anti-Trump t-shirts: “Mr. Trump considers this to be a very serious matter and has authorized our legal team to take all necessary and appropriate actions to bring an immediate halt…”
  • Similar threatening legal letters to competing campaigns running ads about his record.

Sasse signed his open letter as “Humbly, Ben Sasse, Nebraska”.

For his part, attorney Jay Gaskill, writing in The Out*Lawyer’s Blog, is troubled by the absence of Trump’s presidential staff, i.e., named policy advisers who may make up the cabinet of a Trump presidency. In Gaskill’s words:

For now, “The Donald” is enjoying a Halo-Effect…. The Halo is always a mirage…. Anyone who has followed “The Donald’s” career knows that he is a very shrewd operator….

Trump is the known, unknown candidate. For most Americans he’s the self-confident image of success, the millionaire (or billionaire?) of Celebrity Apprentice, brazenly charming enjoying the guilt-free glamour of a “self-made” rich man. He is a savvy manipulator with a gift for publicity. And – for most people – he is a likeable character, someone that people like Bill and Hillary liked to be seen with. His glamour is a projected image – a screen….

Whatever policy differences one might have, and whatever the ultimate verdict of history on the Reagan presidency, his presidency proved decisively that a good staff is absolutely essential to good governance. Reagan’s staff was first rate. Bill Clinton’s first term floundered because the former Arkansas Governor had poor staff support.

The contrast between Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump is stark….

“The Donald” appears to be the hollow candidate in the race, the walking, talking mirage, the one POTUS aspirant without experts, without even a detailed policy outline – other than his trademark fogball slogans….

Donald Trump is seeking the highest executive position in the free world, standing on a high wire without a strong policy portfolio, and with no visible presidential staff.  Presumably Mr. Trump thinks he can hire the necessary people at the last minute. One wonders if it has dawned on him yet that he will be legally required to put all his business ventures into a blind trust for the duration of his service. Of course, there are a number of reasons why someone in Donald Trump’s position would want to remain vague and fluid on concrete proposals, and to refrain from identifying specific experts and key staff members – assuming he has yet figured out who he even wants. But most of those reasons (still working on it, not ready yet, having recruiting issues) are no longer defensible.

The real reason to me stems from Trump’s shrewdness.

As soon as a candidate in his position starts to flesh out the prospective governance picture, to color in the lines, to fill the blanks, that candidate will pierce the bubble of unreasonable expectations. And with that “pop,” the fake halo is exposed. Donald Trump will then risk becoming that TV personality and real estate developer guy who wants us to trust him with the future of the United States of America. And based on what? Trump Tower? A few slogans? An honest face?

Former Congressman and House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was a presidential candidate in the 2012 primaries, said he thinks the opposition of Republicans like Mitt Romney is because Trump is “an outsider” who’s “not part of the club,” did not go through the “initiation rites” of “the secret societies” (like George W. Bush’s Yale Scull and Bones?), and is therefore “uncontrollable”. “They have no idea how to relate to him.”

H/t FOTM‘s MomOfIV and bongiornoc

~Eowyn

Obama revives Obamacare death panel

In the national debates/discussion leading up to Congress’ (which was then dominated by Democrats in both houses) passage of Obamacare, aka the Orwellian-named Affordable Care Act, Sarah Palin was roundly vilified by the media for warning Americans about “death panels.”

By “death panels,” Palin meant physicians “counseling” their elderly or terminally-ill patients on end-of-life planning, including “advance directives.” The latter, also known as advance health care directive or living will, is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make decisions for themselves because of illness or incapacity. The concern is that in these counseling sessions with authority figures such as medical doctors and hospital administrators, the patients could be pressured to make decisions contrary to their wishes or well being.

Think that can’t happen?

Think again. See:

Now that Obamacare is a reality, despite Republicans being a majority in both houses of Congress, the Obama administration is reviving the death panel.

Obamacare Alaskan cruise for seniors

Noam N. Levey reports for the Los Angeles Times that “6 years after end-of-life planning nearly derailed development of the Affordable Care Act amid charges of ‘death panels,’ the Obama administration has revived a proposal to reimburse physicians for talking with their Medicare patients about how patients want to be cared for as they near death.”

The proposal from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is contained in a large set of Medicare regulations unveiled on Wednesday, July 8, 2015. 

The new proposal would not require Medicare patients to sign any order or even to talk with their physicians about end-of-life care. Rather, the proposed regulation would allow medical providers to bill Medicare for “advance-care planning” should a patient want to have the discussion. Such a session could include “the explanation and discussion of advance directives such as standard forms by the physician or other qualified health professional.”

The American Medical Association has recommended the Medicare billing change.

Medicare currently provides coverage to more than 50 million mostly older Americans and is projected to grow steadily as baby boomers retire — the same Medicare that will go broke next year, in 2016. according to a 2012 report by the program’s trustees.

Medicare may soon cover “death panels”

The expression “death panel” was coined in August 2009 by former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, during the nationwide debate about the proposed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.

Referring to Section 1233 of HR 3200, the House version of Obamacare, which would have paid physicians for counseling Medicare patients about living wills, advance directives, and end-of-life care options, Gov. Palin expressed her concern that the proposed legislation would create a “death panel” of unelected bureaucrats who would decide whether Americans—such as her elderly parents or her child, Trig, with Down syndrome whom the vicious Left said she should have aborted —were “worthy of medical care.”

Sarah with baby Trig

The Left immediately demonized Palin and derided her claim as the “death panel myth.” Nevertheless, “death panel” instantly became a meme that penetrated through the minutiae of the 906-page long Obamacare legislation, arousing much public concern. As a result, the provision to pay physicians for providing voluntary counseling was removed from the Obamacare law that Congress passed and Obama signed into law in 2010.

But that’s not the end of the story, for Sarah’s “death panel” is back, via Medicare.

In 2010, Medicare added coverage of “voluntary advance care planning” in patients’ annual wellness visit to one of the myriad of regulations on how Obamacare is to be enforced. Altogether, Obamacare regulations are now 30 times longer than the law itself! But bowing to political pressure, Medicare rescinded that portion of the regulation, saying it had not considered the viewpoints of members of Congress and others who opposed it.

Now that Obamacare is (more or less) firmly in place and talk of “death panels” has subsided, Medicare is trying again.

The New York Times reports that next year, Medicare may begin covering “end-of-life discussions” if it approves a recent request from the American Medical Association (AMA), the largest association of physicians and medical students in the United States. One of AMA’s roles is to create billing codes for medical services which are used by doctors, hospitals and insurers. It recently created codes for end-of-life conversations and submitted them to Medicare.

Dr. Barbara Levy, chair of the AMA committee that submits reimbursement recommendations to Medicare, said, “We think it’s really important to incentivize this kind of care. The idea is to make sure patients and their families understand the consequences, the pros and cons and options so they can make the best decision for them.”

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMMS), which runs Medicare, would not discuss whether it will agree to cover end-of-life discussions; its decision is expected this fall. But the agency often adopts AMA recommendations, which are developed in meetings attended by CMMS representatives.

If Medicare adopts the change, its decision will also set the standard for private insurers, encouraging many more doctors to engage in these conversations.

Wanting to avoid situations in which they have to decide for incapacitated patients who have no family or state preference, some doctors already conduct “end of life” conversations for free (i.e., unreimbursed) or shoehorn them into other medical visits.

Experts say if Medicare covers end-of-life counseling, that could profoundly affect the American way of dying. But the impact would depend on how much doctors are paid, the allowed frequency of conversations, whether psychologists or other nonphysicians would conduct them, and whether the conversations must be in person or could include phone calls with long-distance family members. Paying for only one session and completion of advance directives would have limited value, experts say.

Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for the trade association America’s Health Insurance Plans, says some private insurers already are reimbursing doctors for “end of life counseling.” The industry, which usually uses Medicare billing codes, already had created its own code under a system that allows that if Medicare does not have one, and more insurance companies are using it or covering the discussions in other ways, including:

  • This year, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan began paying an average of $35 per conversation, face to face or by phone, conducted by doctors, nurses, social workers and others.
  • Cambia Health Solutions, which covers 2.2 million patients in Idaho, Oregon, Utah and Washington, started a program including end-of-life conversations and training in conducting them.
  • Excellus Blue Cross Blue Shield of New York does something similar, reimbursing doctors $150 for an hourlong conversation and $350 for two hours.

End-of-life planning has also resurfaced in Congress. Two recent bipartisan bills would have Medicare cover such conversations, and a third, introduced by Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), would pay Medicare patients for completing advance directives. 

But few people think the bills can pass.

Dr. Phillip Rodgers, co-chairman of public policy for the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, said, “People are so careful about getting anywhere close to the idea that somebody might be denying lifesaving care.”

As they should!

Burke Balch, director of the Powell Center for Medical Ethics at the National Right to Life Committee, said in a statement that many doctors believed in “hastening death for those deemed to have a ‘poor quality of life.’ ” If Medicare covers advance care planning, he said, that plus cost-saving motivations will pressure patients “to reject life-preserving treatment.”

It is unclear if advance care planning saves money, but some studies suggest that it reduces hospitalizations because many people prefer to die at home or in hospices. Dr. William McDade, president of the Illinois State Medical Society that had asked the AMA to create codes for the discussions, admits that cost-saving can be an “inadvertent” result.

Although “end of life” conversations do not lock patients into decisions and some people later change their minds in a crisis, evidence suggests that those discussions do make a difference. One study found that cancer patients who previously discussed end-of-life preferences with doctors more often received care matching those wishes. Other studies suggest planning lowers stress in patients and families.

What do you think?

Are you concerned that, if approved by Medicare, some doctors and non-physicians might use “end of life” discussions to sway the elderly toward an earlier death?

Once approved by Medicare, such discussions most likely will spread to Medicaid.

I’m always in favor of everyone taking charge of our wellbeing, being maximally informed about our medical condition and prognosis, and thoroughly thinking through our end-of-life scenarios by having a will and advance directives, and appointing a trusted family member with medical power-of-attorney. But I also fear that the federal government’s (via Medicare) institutionalizing “end of life counseling” will be another of those slippery slopes — or the proverbial frog in the slowly-heating pot of water — at which our government has proven itself to be a master.

~Eowyn

Republicans dither while Obama and Mexico conspire in Invasion of Illegals

FingerObama the POS

Not only is the POS not stopping the tidal wave of criminals and unaccompanied minors youths crossing into the United States ILLEGALLY, not only is the POS not deporting the thousands and thousands who are surging across the border ILLEGALLY, not only is the POS not enforcing U.S. immigration laws and enforcing border security, he actually declared the “surge” will continue.

The POS also refused calls for him to visit the border to look at the crisis he himself has caused, saying he has no plan to visit the border.

Then this POS has the nerve to demand from Congress already beleaguered taxpayers $3.7 billion in supplemental funding, half of which he said would help Customs and Border Patrol deal with the “humanitarian crisis” of thousands of unaccompanied children entering the U.S. illegally every week.

But as the Daily Mail reports, only about 3% of the $3.7 BILLION would be dedicated to strengthening America’s southwest border with Mexico.

Mexico

Dave Gibson reports for Examiner that on July 7, 2014, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto and Guatemalan president Otto Perez Molina held a joint press conference to officially announce an agreement to make it easier for those making the illegal journey from Central America to cross into Mexico and then to the United States.

Enrique Peña Nieto & Otto Perez MolinaThe malicious agreement is called the Southern Border Program to Improve Passage, which will provide more protection and even emergency medical care to those making their way north, who will be provided a Regional Visitor’s Card that allows them to remain in Mexico for 72 hours — more than enough time to reach the US/Mexican border by train.

Although the program officially grants the 72-hr Visitor’s Card to only illegal aliens from Guatemala and Belize,  the program will undoubtedly benefit anyone who makes it to the border, which would explain why our Border Patrol stations are currently overflowing with illegal aliens from El Salvador, Honduras, and other places as well. (Chinese have been spotted among the surge of illegals; Muslim prayer rugs have been spotted along the Arizona border.)

The program will also give special protection and even financial assistance to unaccompanied minors youths now pouring across our border.

All of which means:

  1. The surge of illegal aliens into the U.S. will increase even more. Already, 300,000 have surged across the border since this April.
  2. Confirmation what many of us have known all along: The current chaos on the border which President Lucifer  dishonestly calls a “humanitarian crisis,” actually is the result of a collusion — i.e., a CONSPIRACY — between the governments of Mexico, Guatemala and the Obama regime.

GOP

So what is the Republican Party doing about this?

Answer: The GOP elites are dithering, unable to decide whether to impeach or sue the SOB-POS Man of Sin squatting in the White House.

As reported by Adam Chandler for The Wire, on one side are those who call for impeachment, not just because of the federal government’s refusal to enforce border control, but over a litany of issues including Benghazi, IRS, NSA . . . . The pro-impeachment GOPers include Sarah Palin (who said in an op-ed for Breitbart, “The many impeachable offenses of Barack Obama can no longer be ignored. If after all this he’s not impeachable, then no one is.”) and a number of House Republicans — Reps. Lou Barletta (Pa.), Kerry Bentivolio (Mich.), Paul Broun (Ga.), Michael Burgess (Texas), Jason Chaffetz (Utah), Blake Farenthold (Texas), Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and Louie Gohmert (Texas).

Palin and the House Republicans got a quick response from House Speaker John Boehner: “I disagree.”

Boehner wants to take a different route — sue Obama for his use of executive orders. (Arit John broke down Boehner’s lawsuit rationale here.)

Palin’s response to Boehner’s “I disagree” was equally swift: “You don’t bring a lawsuit to a gunfight. There is no place for lawyers on the frontline. Where are the front lines in America? They are our borders.”

And while the Republican elites bicker and dither, President Lucifer is proceeding to destroy whatever is remaining of the America we once knew.

my work here is done

H/t FOTM’s Anon

~Eowyn