Obama Is A Putz. When The President Will NOT Recognize The Death Of An Important Man From A Co-Equal Branch Of Government, That Is Deplorable! But That's Our President!

Obama Won't Attend Scalia Funeral

(Getty Images) 

By Greg Richter   |   Wednesday, 17 Feb 2016 05:22 PM

Short URL|

Email Article|

Comment|

Contact|

Print|

    A   A

• 0
  inShare

President Barack Obama and first lady Michelle Obama will not attend the funeral of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday, The Hill reports. 

The Obamas do plan to pay their respects Friday when Scalia's body will lie in repose in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court building, but the funeral on Saturday at Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception will be attended by Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, according to White House press secretary Josh Earnest.

Earnest did not give a reason the Obama's would not be attending the funeral for the Reagan appointee who died Saturday at the age of 79.

Scalia was one of the court's most conservative members, and his unexpected death set off an instant public battle between the left and right, with Democrats insisting Obama should name his own choice to replace Scalia and Republicans vowing not to confirm an Obama appointment with only 11 months left in his term.

Republicans say the next president, who they hope will be a member of their own party, should have the chance to make the nomination. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz is hoping to be sitting in the Oval Office himself on January 20, but has said he will filibuster any Obama nominee while he still has his current job.

The president says he intends to send a nominee to the Senate and urged Republicans to act on it.

The last member of the high court to die was Chief Justice William Rehnquist in 2005. At that time, Politico notes, then-President George W. Bush attended the funeral and also gave a eulogy.

News that Obama would not attend the funeral was just as divisive as the argument over Scalia's replacement, with people on Twitter noting which funerals Obama has attended while in office – and which he hasn't.Talk radio and Fox News host Sean Hannity noted that Obama also did not attend the funerals of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle, Major General Harold Greene and his own aunt Zeinuti Onyango.

Related Stories:

• Dick Morris: Obama Will Name Centrist to Succeed Scalia
• Glenn Beck: God Allowed Scalia to Die to Show Danger of Losing Liberty

© 2016 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Clinton's Emails Get Afghan Killed. Isn't It Time For Charges To Be Brought?

Report: Clinton Email Chain Discussed Afghan National's CIA Ties

BY DEBRA HEINE FEBRUARY 18, 2016

CHAT 17 COMMENTS

(Kevin Lamarque/Pool Photo via AP, File)

According to a U.S. government source, Hillary Clinton chatted about an Afghan spy's ties to the CIA in one of the classified email chains found on her personal, unsecured server.

Such highly sensitive information is considered by members of the intelligence community to be the "crown jewels" of the United States government because if the information is compromised, our national security could be damaged and people could die. In this particular case, the emails may have been referring to a spy who was originally exposed in the New York Times and eventually murdered by the Taliban.

Via Catherine Herridge and Pamela K. Browne of Fox News:

The discussion of a foreign national working with the U.S. government raises security implications – an executive order signed by President Obama said unauthorized disclosures are “presumed to cause damage to the national security."

The U.S. government official said the Clinton email exchange, which referred to a New York Times report, was among 29 classified emails recently provided to congressional committees with specific clearances to review them. In that batch were 22 “top secret” exchanges deemed too damaging to national security to release.

Hillary Clinton in January dismissed reports that her emails contained a high level of classified material. During an interview on NPR, she said that "the best we can determine" is that the emails in question were a forward of a New York Times article on a classified drone program that had been retroactively classified.

"How a New York Times public article that goes around the world could be in any way viewed as classified, or the fact that it would be sent to other people off of theNew York Times site, I think, is one of the difficulties that people have in understanding what this is about," Clinton said.

But as Fox News reported, "confirmation that one of these exchanges concerned a reported CIA asset means the emails went beyond issues like the drone strike campaign."

Based on the timing and other details, the email chain likely refers to either an October 2009 Times story that identified Afghan national Ahmed Wali Karzai, the half-brother of then-Afghan president Hamid Karzai, as a person who received “regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency” -- or an August 2010 Times story that identified Karzai aide Mohammed Zia Salehi as being on the CIA payroll. Ahmed Wali Karzai was murdered during a 2011 shoot-out, a killing later claimed by the Taliban.

While the Clinton campaign claims the government classification review has gone too far, Executive Order 13526, in a section called "classification standards,” says, "the unauthorized disclosure of foreign government information is presumed to cause damage to the national security."

National security and intelligence experts told Fox that "security clearance holders are trained to not confirm or deny details of a classified program in an unclassified setting, which would include a personal unsecured email network, even if the classified program appears in press reports."

“The rules of handling classified information dictate if something is reported in open source [news reports] you don’t confirm it because it’s still classified information,” said Dan Maguire, who spent more than four decades handling highly classified programs and specialized in human intelligence operations.

Clinton should have known better. As secretary of state, she signed at least two non-disclosure agreements on Jan. 22, 2009, and received a briefing from a security officer.

As part of the NDA for “sensitive compartmented information” (SCI), Clinton acknowledged any “breach” could result in “termination of my access to SCI and removal from a position of special confidence and trust requiring such access as well as the termination of my employment or any other relationships with any Department or Agency that provides me with access to SCI."

It is remains unclear how classified materials “jumped the gap” from a classified system to her personal server.

FACEBOOK

64

TWITTER

TWEET

GOOGLEPLUS

SHARE

EMAIL

EMAIL

Predictable Behavior By Two Rouge Nations

Deputy Sec State: 'To Some Extent' Iran's Behavior Worse Since Deal

 

BY BRIDGET JOHNSON FEBRUARY 18, 2016

CHAT 19 COMMENTS

Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif chat as they cross the Rhone River on the Pont de la Machine Bridge while taking a walk in Geneva, Switzerland, on Jan. 14, 2015. (State Department photo)

Deputy Secretary of State Anthony Blinken admitted that in "some places and to some extent" Iran's bad behavior has increased since signing the P5+1 nuclear deal with the sanctions relief windfall.

"Here is what I think is going on," Blinken told PBS' Charlie Rose. "For example we have seen some additional ballistic missile tests that we were taking action against including through the United Nations."

Iran announced in December that it was stepping up missile production in response to a report that the Treasury Department was preparing sanctions in response to two illegal missile tests.

President Hassan Rouhani claimed the move is to "safeguard the country's sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and to combat the evil phenomenon of terrorism and extremism in line with common regional and global interests."

He also said Iran stressed throughout the P5+1 nuclear negotiations that it would "never negotiate with anyone about its defense power, including the missile program, and would never accept any restriction in this field, emphasizing its entitlement to the legitimate right of defense."

"It is crystal-clear that Iran's missile program is not at all a part of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) - also known as the nuclear deal - and this is acknowledged by the US officials as well," Rouhani's decree said. "As repeatedly stated, nuclear weapons have no room in Iran's defense doctrine, and therefore, the development and production of Iran's ballistic missiles, which have never been designed to carry nuclear warheads, will continue powerfully and firmly as a crucial and conventional tool for defending the country."

Last month, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei stressed that Iran cannot trust the "smiles and masks" of the Americans and will be ready to violate the P5+1 deal as soon as the U.S. is perceived to be in violation of its terms. If Iran's recent anger at the proposition of more sanctions is any indication, that "provocation" for Iran to violate the deal could be as simple as penalizing the Islamic Republic for its illegal ballistic missile tests.

Blinken said "we're also seeing that they sustained and in some cases even deep in some of the activities that we profoundly object to from whether it is in Yemen, whether it is in Syria, et cetera."

"But one of the things that is going on is you have a very strong hardline element in Iran that was opposed to this agreement -- a nuclear agreement. And continues to try and throw wrenches in the works," he added.

"For us the nuclear agreement is just that -- a nuclear agreement. It's not about changing the nature of Iran. That would be wonderful if it happens but that is not why we did it. We did it because it was profoundly in our security interests to make sure they couldn't develop a nuclear weapon any time into the foreseeable future."

Blinken again blamed Iran's bad behavior on hard-liners who didn't want the nuclear deal -- "the ones who are most opposed to the agreement, they see it as something different."

"They see it potentially as a Trojan horse that risks polluting and ultimately destroying the very idea of the revolution in Iran," he said.

Blinken added that "the Iranians that we are engaged with are only one part of the system -- and they are the pragmatic elements."

"And it's not that they like us or want necessarily to be close to us. It's that they see the future of Iran and Iran's interests in engaging more pragmatically with the rest of the world," he said.

On North Korea, Blinken said "as of now we do not believe that they have the capacity to marry a small nuclear weapon to an intercontinental ballistic missile and deliver it on to the continental United States."

"But they are getting closer to the day when they are able to do that," the diplomat noted.

Asked if North Korea can hit the United States with an ICBM, sans warhead, Blinken replied, "Yes, possibly, but we don't really know."

"Look, we have worked very hard since this administration came in to put the pressure on and squeeze North Koreans. First we said we're not going to play the same game that everyone has played which is buying the same thing repeatedly from you. You keep trying to say you will do x if we do y. We do y and then you don't do x and then you want to do the whole thing over and again and get more. We are not going to do that," he continued.

"Second, we tried to rally more of the international community to put the squeeze on the North Koreans to make it more difficult for them to acquire technology for their missile and nuclear programs to make it more difficult for them to proliferate and export things to get resources for those programs. we have had some success with that. But the bottom line remains with every passing day they do move forward and get closer."

Makes Sense To Us!!

Scalia Death Guarantees Obama Presidential Run

With the unfortunate demise of Antonio Scalia, the conservative firewall on the Supreme Court is broken and will fall.  It does not matter if a new Justice is appointed by Obama or if the Senate gets the internal fortitude (something that they have not had so far) to hold off all nominations until January, we predict the new Justice will be a  liberal.  This means the era  of original intent has ended and the new era of a "living Constitution" is upon us.

We say this because in either case, Obama will demand that the Court cannot be hamstrung by having only eight Justices, that it prevents the Court from making important rulings and that the Senate is not doing its responsibility of "advise and consent" (mostly the latter) when it comes to the Court.

The death of Scalia removes the one main pillar against the living constitution. He was an orginialist who believed that the meaning of the Constitution was contained in the words and the beliefs of the writers of the document.  We do also.

 The idea that it can mean anything that the new Justices want it to mean, is abhorrent to Scalia and this writer.  Words have meaning and what is currently in vogue should not be the law of the land.

Scalia's death also means that Obama will be able to appoint someone of his ilk to fill the vacancy and to change the direction of the country for decades.  This will have damaging results.

For example, we believe that Obama wants to run for at least one more term and possibly more.  If he is able to appoint and have a new Justice confirmed or if the Senate is able to hold him off, we believe, unfortunately, that any legal action to prevent him from running which will find its way to the Court, will be denied. In the case of a new Justice, they will vote with the man who put him/her on the Court.

If he is not able to get his choice on the Court, then Chief Justice Roberts will vote with the majority in what we believe will be a 5-3 decision that preventing someone from continuing to be President  is--anti-American. We don't limit corporate CEOs from staying past 8 years, why should we do the same for the head of the nation?  As long as the President can get elected, why should he/she be able to maintain that job? The 22nd Amendment would be invalidated on its face.

However, before the Court could rule on this novel approach, someone would have to be able to pass the "standing" issue.  The only two who might would be either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. Either of them could bring suit as they would lose the right to be President if Obama ran again, Would they? Probably, if they were promised something.

Obama will run again, he will get elected again and having the Court stacked as it is or might be will enable this to occur.  Scalia was the firewall, the bulkhead against such a move and would have been able to convince his other Justices that this was not Constitutional. However, the Conservative lion has died and now the inmates will start running the institution.

Conservative Tom

We Have Wondered If Scalia Was Assassinated? Others Do Also. With Scalia Off The Court, It Opens The Door For A Liberal Justice Who WILL Allow Obama To Stay On As President.

MICHAEL SAVAGE: 'WAS SCALIA MURDERED?'

Talk-radio giant calls for 'Warren Commission': 'This is serious business'

Published: 4 hours ago

• 
  
   Print
• Text smaller
• Text bigger

     1.7K

Republish
Reprint

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/02/Warren-Commission.jpg

The Warren Commission

With confirmation that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead Saturday morning with a pillow over his head and his clothes unwrinkled, nationally syndicated talk-radio host Michael Savage called for an investigation on the level of the presidentially appointed probe into President John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963.

“Was [Scalia] murdered?” Savage asked his listeners.

“We need a Warren Commission-like federal investigation,” he said. “This is serious business.”

Savage said an immediate autopsy of the body is needed.

“There was no medical examiner present. There was no one who declared the death who was there. It was done by telephone from a U.S. Marshal appointed by Obama himself,” he said.

In an essay posted on his website, Savage asked what would happen if Donald Trump were in the White House in his final year and the justice was Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“Do you think the left would be screaming that Donald Trump would have no right to appoint anyone to the Supreme Court? Do you think they would be demanding an autopsy and a full federal investigation?”

Listen to Savage’s comments during his interview with Donald Trump:

In an interview Monday with GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump, Savage discussed the implications of Scalia's death.

"We had a razor-thin savior of the conservative, or, shall I say traditional, ways in America, Antonin Scalia, who was found dead under suspicious circumstances," he said. "And now this character in the White House who nobody with a rational mind should trust is trying to railroad Loretta Lynch down our throats ... as his number one choice. Can you believe this?"

Savage said somebody must stop Obama's nomination to the Supreme Court so the choice can be made by the new president.

"And I hope it's you," Savage told Trump.

Savage noted Scalia's role in the Supreme Court's Feb. 9 decision that temporarily blocks Obama administration rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

"Donald, you know that just five, six days before Scalia was found dead with a pillow over his face, he was the lead voice against Obama's attempts to railroad that green gangsterism down our throats, he knocked it out? He was the one who did it."

The 79-year-old Scalia had been on a hunting trip at the Cibolo Creek Ranch in Presidio County, Texas.

Presidio County Judge Cinderela Guevara, who pronounced Scalia dead, said the death certificate will say the cause of death was natural and that he suffered a heart attack.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/02/Justice-Scalia-TW.jpg

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia (Photo: Twitter/Allen West)

She said she decided not to order an autopsy after Sheriff Danny Dominguez concluded there were no signs of foul play, reported WFAA News in Dallas. The Scalia family concurred.

“As part of my investigation, one of the things I did ask the sheriff and the U.S. Marshal: ‘Were there any signs of foul play?’ And they said, 'Absolutely not.' At that time, I still wanted to be careful, and asked them if [Scalia's] physician would call me,” Guevara said.

Guevara said she talked to Scalia's doctor in Washington, D.C., who told her Scalia had been sick and had visited his office Wednesday and Thursday before going on the hunting trip Friday.

According to Guevara, Scalia told his group Friday at dinner he was not feeling well and went to his room early. He then missed breakfast and lunch Saturday and was found unresponsive in his bed.

The owner of the Texas ranch and resort said Scalia died peacefully.

“The judge, when I found him Saturday morning, was in complete repose,” John Poindexter, the owner of Cibolo Creek Ranch in Marfa, Texas, told NBC News. “He was very peaceful in his — in the bed. He had obviously passed away with no difficulty at all in the middle of the night.”

Scalia, who was appointed to the high court by former President Ronald Reagan, was the longest-serving justice on the court, having taken his seat on Sept. 26, 1986.

Related stories:

Michael Savage: 'Was Scalia murdered?'

Firestorm of theories follows Scalia death

Coulter: 10 million extra Trump votes if Senate blows Supreme Court fight

Ginsburg on Scalia: 'We were best buddies'

Holder, Lynch, Johnson for Supreme Court justice?

Click here for reuse options!

Copyright 2016 WND

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/michael-savage-was-scalia-murdered/#JJKWalIQrZZC858d.99