Obama Verbally Jousts with an Illegal Transgender

It happened during an embarrassing albeit inclusive gay pride celebration.  In the White House East Room, with a beaming Joe Biden standing at his side, America’s first gay president was mid-sentence when transgender lovely Jennicet Gutiérrez exercised his right to free speech by shouting out in a thick undocumented Spanish accent a list of LGBTQ demands.

Barack Obama, who normally has no problem imposing illegals on the rest of America, was taken aback by the outburst and reminded Mr. Gutiérrez, founder of FAMILIA TQLM, an advocacy group for illegal transgenders, that he was “in his house” and that his attitude was rude and “shameful.”

So wait – you mean the president doesn’t appreciate having to endure the same type of treatment aggressive illegals impose on Americans in grocery stores, on highways, and in taxpayer-funded venues?  And the president really does believe that the White House is literally his house and not the people’s house?

Moreover, does Obama’s shutting down and extraditing Jennicet Gutiérrez also mean that if an illegal disturbs the president’s mojo, despite past statements otherwise, he really does have ways to locate and deport undocumented nuisances from the premises?

Guess so.  But whether he does or he doesn’t, Jennicet Gutiérrez stole the show to make a point.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Hillary’s Claim That She Gave State Department All Of Her Emails Falls Apart

The State Department has revealed that it did not receive emails sent between former Sec. of State Hillary Clinton and a longtime ally, obliterating the Democrat’s public claim that she gave the agency all of her work-related records.

The State Department notified the House Select Committee on Benghazi of the discrepancy on Thursday, the Associated Press reported. The records gap was initially revealed last week when Sidney Blumenthal gave the Committee 60 Libya- and Benghazi-related emails he exchanged with Clinton.

Blumenthal sent Clinton intelligence reports concerning Libya and other nations though he was not a State Department employee. Instead, he worked at the time for the Clinton Foundation and Media Matters, a non-profit group that is allied with the Clintons.

According to the AP, Blumenthal provided nine full emails and portions of six others that Clinton had not given the State Department. They were sent before the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi and included reports Blumenthal sent to Clinton concerning developments during and after the Libyan civil war.

The revelation completely undermines a claim Clinton made at a press conference in March that she “provided all…emails that could possibly be work-related” to the State Department.

She said at the time that her team “went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails.” Clinton gave the State Department 55,000 pages of official emails in December. She said that she deleted all personal correspondence she sent on the email account, which was hosted on a private email server.

Benghazi Committee chairman Trey Gowdy said that the news raises more questions about Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state.

“The revelation these messages were not originally produced to the State Department by Clinton is significant and troubling,” Gowdy said in a statement. “This has implications far beyond Libya, Benghazi and our committee’s work. This conclusively shows her email arrangement with herself, which was then vetted by her own lawyers, has resulted in an incomplete public record.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Why Four Justices Were Against the Supreme Court's Huge Gay Marriage Decision

June 26, 2015 Same-sex marriage is now a right in every state in the country, following ahistoric 5-4 decision from the Supreme Court Friday. The four justices who disagreed with the Court's opinion, authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, each wrote their own dissent laying out just why they believed the majority to be wrong.

Here's their reasoning.

Chief Justice John Roberts

Roberts argument centered around the need to preserve states' rights over what he viewed as following the turn of public opinion. In ruling in favor of gay marriage, he said "five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law."

While Roberts said he did not "begrudge" any of the celebrations that would follow the Court ruling, he had serious concerns that the Court had extended its role from Constitutional enforcer to activist.

"Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law," he wrote.

While, he recognized the decision would be hailed as a major victory for same-sex couples and their allies, he noted they had been set back.

"Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today," Roberts wrote. "Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."

Justice Antonin Scalia

According to Justice Antonin Scalia, today's majority ruling represents a "judicial Putsch."

In beginning his dissent, Scalia wrote that while he has no personal opinions on whether the law should allow same-sex marriage, he feels very strongly that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to decide. He stated he wanted to write a separate dissent "to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy."

"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," Scalia wrote. "But the Court ends this debate, in an opinion lacking even a thin veneer of law."

Via: National Journal

Continue Reading....

The Supreme Court Obamacare RX Leaves Doctors and Patients Confused

WASHINGTON, DC – JUNE 25: People celebrate in front of the US Supreme Court after ruling was announced on the Affordable Care Act. June 25, 2015 in Washington, DC. The high court ruled that the Affordable Care Act may provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court just ruled in favor by a 6-3 margin to uphold the Obamacare authorization of federal tax credits for eligible Americans in the 34 states with federal exchanges.

How did this all begin? The case, King v. Burwell, debated whether or the not the Obama Administration ignored aspects of the law regarding provided taxpayer-funded subsidies to Obamacare purchasers in all 50 states, when the law stated this could only happen in the few states that had set up their own exchange. It’s all quite technical, but the main point is upholding Obamacare further confuses doctors and patients, and we’re left with many other issues that haven’t been firmly addressed.

I advocate for my patients every day and I see their frustration and confusion when it comes to their actual coverage under Obamacare as well as the higher deductible. As a specialist in the field of prostate cancer, I observe three major issues with Obamacare.

1. Narrow Networks: What many patients are unaware of (often until the last minute, or a serious need has arisen) is the massive limitation to the number of doctors, specifically specialists, they are “covered” under. Arguably, patients may find they have no access to the most experienced doctors and surgeons in their respective fields. If you’re someone diagnosed with Prostate Cancer or any cancer, you want the best care and to be in the best hands. Imagine if your insurance limits you from seeing the expert? Obamacare has put into effect extremely narrow networks of doctors, patients have access too, which leads to the question: Is this denying the freedom the patient’s right to choose their own doctor or specialist? The reality is, not every doctor or specialist is going to take every insurance under the sun. With these limitations, Obamacare diminishes the value of experts across many fields.
2. Satisfaction Survey Scores Puts Pressure on Doctors: One of the major issues with regards to Obamacare mandates is the pressure put on hospitals from Medicare, specifically for patient satisfaction surveys. Now, it’s important for me to note that I appreciate all the feedback, good or bad, that my patients give me. It’s not specifically about the direct feedback; it’s about the penalties and variables that affect the patient’s actual survey answers, and the timing of when they’re presented with these surveys. Imagine, you’ve just had surgery, you’re in pain and you ask your surgeon for pain medications. Based on your surgeon’s experience and judgment, he or she believes it’s not the best medication for you at that moment in the process. As the patient, you feel frustrated—and then you’re handed a survey? You haven’t even fully recovered and in that moment you’re expected to judge all the healthcare professionals you’ve worked with. The art of medicine is compromised. I always say, the PSA blood test for Prostate Cancer screening is only as good as the doctor evaluating it. Doctors need to be able to work one-on-one with their patients, without the added pressure of survey scores and ratings that have little insight into the entire patient experience.
3. Quality of Care Rating: The fact is you cannot put a number on quality of care. There are far too many factors and variables that affect one patient’s experience and the quality of care they received from another. The 1-5 star rating mandate from Medicare based on patient satisfaction scores—which stemmed from Obamacare—in April is a cause for concern because hospitals are massive entities. How is it possible to slap a one-digit number on the front door of a hospital, which sums up the rating for the work of thousands of healthcare professionals, along with millions of varied patient cases? It’s simple, we can’t.

Dr. Samadi is the chairman of urology and chief of robotic surgery at Lenox Hill Hospital and professor of urology at Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine. He is a medical correspondent for the Fox News Channel and the chief medical correspondent for AM970 in New York City.

Via: Observer

Continue Reading....

Obama Hails Supreme Court Gay-Marriage Ruling as a Victory: America Should Be Very Proud

President Obama, who opposed same-sex marriage until three years ago, hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling to legalize gay marriage Friday as “a victory for America.”“When all Americans are treated as equal, we are all more free,” Mr. Obama said in the White House Rose Garden. “This ruling will strengthen all our communities. America should be very proud.”He called the decision “a victory for gay and lesbian couples who have fought so long for their basic civil rights.”

SEE ALSO: Wide reactions to Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision

Mr. Obama said during his 2008 presidential campaign that he did not support marriage for same-sex couples. Presidential adviser David Axelrod wrote in a book this year that Mr. Obama took that position only because it was politically expedient at the time.The president publicly opposed same-sex marriage until 2012.In 1996, as an Illinois state Senate candidate, Mr. Obama wrote on a questionnaire that he supported same-sex marriage. But in 2011, then-White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said someone else had filled out the questionnaire, and that Mr. Obama “has never favored same-sex marriage.”Mr. Obama even tried to take a little credit for what he said is America’s shifting attitudes toward gay marriage.

Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading....

Here's how the 2016 presidential candidates are reacting to the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage

In one of the most historic Supreme Court rulings in recent memory, gay marriage is now the law of the land.

Here is how some of the 2016 presidential candidates are reacting on Twitter... 

Hillary Clinton has updated her campaign logo for the occasion...

 

Hillary ClintonVerified account‏@HillaryClinton

Proud.

• RETWEETS29,365
• FAVORITES32,419
• 

7:08 AM - 26 Jun 2015

Jeb Bush believes the states should have made this decision...

“Guided by my faith, I believe in traditional marriage.  I believe the Supreme Court should have allowed the states to make this decision.  I also believe that we should love our neighbor and respect others, including those making lifetime commitments.  In a country as diverse as ours, good people who have opposing views should be able to live side by side.  It is now crucial that as a country we protect religious freedom and the right of conscience and also not discriminate.” 

Bobby Jindal says the ruling will spark an "all out assault" on Christian religious freedoms...

“The Supreme Court decision today conveniently and not surprisingly follows public opinion polls, and tramples on states’ rights that were once protected by the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that.

This decision will pave the way for an all out assault against the religious freedom rights of Christians who disagree with this decision. This ruling must not be used as pretext by Washington to erode our right to religious liberty.

The government should not force those who have sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage to participate in these ceremonies. That would be a clear violation of America’s long held commitment to religious liberty as protected in the First Amendment.

I will never stop fighting for religious liberty and I hope our leaders in D.C. join me.”

Via: Business Insider

Continue Reading....

PEAK NANNY STATE: THE TODAY SHOW AND THE GOVERNMENT TEAM UP TO WARN AMERICANS ABOUT FIREWORKS

Fireworks are VERY DANGEROUS and the Today Show’s “National Investigative Correspondent” Jeff Rossen teamed upwith the government Consumer Product Safety Commission to warn families against killing and maiming themselves and their children with fireworks during Independence Day celebrations.

To illustrate the dangers of illegal fireworks, they decided to blow up a watermelon live on the National Mall.

“This could be your arm, this could be your head!” Rossen warns.

Preach it Big Brother!

“The whole point is we want consumers to leave these type of fireworks to the professionals.” – Chairman of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission Elliot Kaye.

This could be you! warns Rossen, before blowing up a mannequin leaning over a firework.

Via Breitbart

Continue Reading....

Defiant Scott Walker rolls back handgun wait in Wisconsin in first gun-control legislation since church massacre

Gov. Scott Walker is defending the timing of a ceremony to sign two bills loosening Wisconsin's gun laws, saying they were scheduled before nine people were shot and killed last week in a South Carolina church.

Walker also said pulling back on Wednesday's ceremony at the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office 'would have given people the erroneous opinion' the measures 'had anything to do with what happened in Charleston.'

He said the event had been scheduled June 11. The shooting happened a week ago.

+3

Gun rights: One bill Walker signed eliminates the state's 48-hour waiting period on handgun purchases. The other allows retired officers carry guns on school property

Timing: Walker's office announced the bill signing Tuesday, but did not immediately respond to an email asking when it had been scheduled. After June 30, the measures would have become law without his signature

One bill Walker signed eliminates the state's 48-hour waiting period on handgun purchases. The other allows retired officers carry guns on school property.

Walker was joined by Republican lawmakers and families that supported the measures, which had bipartisan support in passing the Legislature earlier this month.

The timing of the bill signing comes amid a renewed debate over gun control and race relations after nine black people were shot and killed during Bible study at a Charleston, South Carolina, church. A white man faces multiple murder charges. 

Walker's office announced the bill signing Tuesday, but did not immediately respond to an email asking when it had been scheduled. After June 30, the measures would have become law without his signature.

Via: Daily Mail

Continue Reading....

[BREAKING Supreme Court delivers win for gay marriage backers, forcing states to authorize same-sex unions all across the United States

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision that gay marriage is the law of the land. 

The landmark ruling, delivered just in time for Pride weekend festivities in San Francisco and New York City, says that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees gays and lesbians must have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. 

The justices also ruled in the issue that has bitterly divided the nation that states without gay-marriage laws on the books must recognize gay marriages performed in other states. 

The decision came on what will be remembered as a seminal date in gay rights history. June 26 was also the calendar date that saw the high court rule on Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 and United States v. Windsor two years ago.

All three majoroity decisions were written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

+2

LET THE STREET PARTIES BEGIN: Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states

+2

OUT AND ABOUT: Supporters of gay marriage ralled Thursday in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., expecting a ruling that came 24 hours later

Tim Kaine, a Virginia Democratic senator and a supporter of broad rights for gays in America, celebrated the ruling minutes after it was read in open court.

'By recognizing the constitutional right of all people to marry the person they love, the Supreme Court has guaranteed that, across the country, same-sex couples will have their relationships treated with the full legal dignity and respect that they deserve,' Kaine said in a statement.

Not everyone in Washington shared his sentiment. Four of the Supreme Court's justices dissented, including Chief Justice John Roberts – and each one of them wrote a separate opinion outlining why.

'If you are among the many Americans – of whatever sexual orientation – who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision,' Roberts wrote.

'Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.'

Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative rock on the court since 1986, wrote his own stinging rejoinder and called the decision a 'threat to American democracy.' 

'Hubris is sometimes defined as o'erweening pride; and pride, we know, goeth before a fall,' he wrote. 'With each decision of ours that takes from the People a question properly left to them – with each decision that is unabashedly not based on law, but on the "reasoned judgment" of a bare majority of this Court – we move one step closer.' 

But the five robed justices who banded together to expand the Constitution's protections of gays and lesbians worded their ruling just as strongly.

'No union is more profound than marriage,' thy wrote, 'for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. ... [The challengers] ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.'

Via: Daily Mail

Continue Reading....

Impeach the 6 justices who upheld health care law, group urges

Here’s one group’s way of stopping Supreme Court decisions like Thursday’s health care ruling: Impeact the six justices who voted to uphold a key part of the law.

“The six U.S. Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold ObamaCare should be impeached for abandoning the rule of law,” said Larry Klayman, a former federal prosecutor who now heads Freedom Watch, a conservative group.

"These six Justices have violated their own long-established rules of interpretation for applying statutes to instead advance their own political objectives or burnish their public persona. Such personal goals corrode the role of the Court. The justices abandoned the rule of law and have become merely a political focus group."

Impeachment of any justice, let along six, is highly unlikely.

Klayman remains insistent. “To preserve the Republic in its last gasps, Congress must impeach these Justices. The U.S. Constitution provides in Article III, Section 1, that "’the Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior.’ It does not give judges a term for life but only ‘during good Behavior.’’

Via: McClatchy

Continue Reading....

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2015/06/25/271193/impeach-the-6-justices-who-upheld.html#storylink=cpy

Our game has been removed from AppStore

As you may have been already informed (Read Facebook link), Apple has removed our game from AppStore because of usage of the Confederate Flag. Ultimate General: Gettysburg could be accepted back if the flag is removed from the game's content.

We accept Apple's decision and understand that this is a sensitive issue for the American Nation. We wanted our game to be the most accurate, historical, playable reference of the Battle of Gettysburg. All historical commanders, unit composition and weaponry, key geographical locations to the smallest streams or farms are recreated in our game's battlefield.

We receive a lot of letters of gratitude from American teachers who use our game in history curriculum to let kids experience one of the most important battles in American history from the Commander's perspective.   

Spielberg’s "Schindler's List" did not try to amend his movie to look more comfortable. The historical "Gettysburg" movie (1993) is still on iTunes. We believe that all historical art forms: books, movies, or games such as ours, help to learn and understand history, depicting events as they were. True stories are more important to us than money.

Therefore we are not going to amend the game's content and Ultimate General: Gettysburg will no longer be available on AppStore. We really hope that Apple’s decision will achieve the desired results.

We can’t change history, but we can change the future.

Via: Ultimate General

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Hannity: Why Stop Selling Confederate Flags If You Can Still Buy Rap Music?

Following the renewed national discussion on the controversy surrounding the Confederate flag,retailers, manufacturers, and many other organizations have all picked up the trend of distancing themselves from it and any related confederate paraphernalia. During his radio show on Wednesday, Sean Hannity questioned if there was any point in removing the flag when there are so many things still on the shelves that he finds offensive.

Hannity hypothetically began to ask whether Walmart or Amazon would still be selling music from rappers like 50 Cent and Snoop Dogg if the Confederate flag will no longer be available. “Why do I say that,” Hannity explained, “because a lot of the music by those artists is chock-full of the ‘N word,’ and the ‘B-word,’ and the ‘H-word,’ and racist, misogynist, sexist anti-woman slurs none of those retail executives would be caught dead using.”

Hannity also brought up the increase in sales the Confederate flag saw on Amazon before it was taken off, and wondered whether rap music would have experienced a similar rush. Hannity then went on to call President Obama a hypocrite for speaking against racism in America after previously inviting music power couple and harsh-language-users Jay Z and Beyonce to the White House.

 

“If it’s okay for Obama’s teenage daughters and people to go into these stores and buy music chock-full of the n-word, the b-word, well maybe we should consider banning that too,” Hannity said. “We’re in the process of banning everything.”

Via: Mediaite

Continue Reading....