Obama falling screensaver,

Way to much fun!!!! If he gets stuck pull his foot

http://media.y8.com/system/contents/13365/original/Falling_Obama.swf

Christian Singer Walks Out on Grammys After ‘Satanic’ Performances

Katy Perry conducts bizarre witchcraft ceremony during event
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
January 27, 2014
Popular Christian gospel singer Natalie Grant walked out of the Grammys after witnessing a series of performances that even the mainstream entertainment media admitted were occult in nature.

(1 of 2) We left the Grammy's early. I've many thoughts,
most of which are probably better left inside my head. But I'll
say this:
— Natalie Grant (@NatalieGrant) January
27, 2014

I've never been more honored to sing about Jesus and for Jesus. And I've never been more sure of the path I've chosen.
— Natalie Grant (@NatalieGrant) January 27, 2014

Grant, who was nominated for two Grammys last night, tweeted her excitement upon arriving at the event but soon made it clear that she left early because what she witnessed conflicted with her Christian beliefs, stating, “We left the Grammy’s early. I’ve many thoughts, most of which are probably better left inside my head. But I’ll say this: I’ve never been more honored to sing about Jesus and for Jesus. And I’ve never been more sure of the path I’ve chosen.”
Although she remained coy on the exact circumstances, Grant was probably referring to Katy Perry, who was surrounded by demons as she danced around an upside down broomstick before being encircled by fire during a performance of her song “Dark Horse”. Perry wore clothing bearing an illuminated Knights Templar cross.
Even E! Online tweeted that Perry’s performance resembled “actual witchcraft”.

Um, did we just witness actual witchcraft during Katy Perry's #Grammys performance?
— E! Online (@eonline) January 27, 2014

Christian music website BreatheCast complained that Perry’s performance was “filled with satanic imagery and witchcraft.” Viewers also expressed their shock at the occult overtones of the show.

I'm like 99% sure Katy perry just summoned satan during her performance
— Chantal Herrera (@Chanteeezzy) January 27, 2014

Now all the little girls that look up to Katy Perry will worship Satan
— gomila (@_gomila) January 27, 2014

Just when I try to brush the illuminati off here comes Katy Perry with Baphomet everywhere??
— Josie Stokes (@josie_stokes) January 27, 2014

However, Grant could also have been offended by the mass gay wedding ceremony which took place during a performance by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis.

Not to be outdone, Beyonce and Jay-Z attempted to up the ante by performing a risqué duet which provoked fury from parents who complained that the spectacle was too explicit for children. Jay-Z’s acceptance speech, during which he said, “I would like to thank God… a little,” also prompted claims that the rapper was invoking the Illuminati.

The International Business Times reacted by claiming that Perry, Beyonce and Jay-Z’s antics were merely an example of the Grammys, “trolling Illuminati conspiracy theorists.”

Watch analysis of how the Grammys were yet another ceremony to the entertainment industry’s occult leanings below via Mark Dice. Katy Perry’s best efforts at summoning Beelzebub appear at the end.

Backdoor Amnesty: Deportation Cases Closed by 'Prosecutorial Discretion' Up Almost 70%

---

by Edwin Mora 24 Jan 2014 

More immigrants facing deportation in immigration courts across the nation are having their court cases closed because of Obama’s prosecutorial discretion policy, researchers at Syracuse University found. 

Meanwhile, the number of removal proceedings initiated in immigration courts by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency has dropped since the new policy was implemented.
In fiscal 2013, immigration courts cited the exercise of “prosecutorial discretion” (PD) as the reason to dismiss 16,306 cases. 
That is a 68 percent increase from the 9,684 cases that were tossed in 2012 for the same reason.  
In total, from October 2011 when Obama’s discretion policy was implemented through December 2013, there were 28,983 PD-related closures in immigration courts across the U.S.  
The number of deportations proceedings initiated in immigration courts by ICE has also dropped since Obama’s discretion policy was implemented.  
In fiscal 2013, ICE initiated 190,277 removal proceedings in immigration courts, a 21 percent drop from the 239,504 in fiscal 2011, the year prior to the beginning of prosecutorial discretion.  
Overall, the number of ICE removals has also dropped ten percent in 2013.
ICE deportations went from a record high of 409,849 in fiscal 2012 to 368,644 last year. 
As a percentage of all cases closed, the number of prosecutorial discretion closures in court is also on the rise.
In fiscal 2013, 8.5 percent of all case closures were based on prosecutorial discretion, up from 4.7 percent the previous year.  
Some immigration courts reported that prosecutorial discretion resulted in almost three out of every ten cases closed.   
“The Seattle Court led the nation with 29.8 percent PD closures. The Tucson court was in second place with 26.0 percent PD closures, while the Los Angeles Court was third with 23.7 percent. Rounding out the top five were the Omaha Court at 23.1 percent and the Phoenix Court at 20.7 percent,” according to the Syracuse University analysis.  
Houston saw one of the lowest percentages of case closures based on Obama’s policy.
Syracuse University researchers found that “Houston was at 1.7 percent PD closures, New York City 3.7 percent, Chicago 5.0 percent, and Miami 6.3 percent.”
The prosecutorial discretion closures mentioned in this report only refer to those cases that actually make it to court. Some immigration cases are dealt with administratively by the Obama administration.  
John Morton, then-Obama’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement director, first announced the prosecutorial discretion policy in an October 2011 memo. 
The new policy directed immigration enforcement officials to exercise “prosecutorial discretion” in deciding which illegal aliens to remove from the U.S. 
According to the memo, the purpose of the policy was to remove the worst criminal offenders while allowing other aliens such as those who were brought into the country as children to remain in the country. 
One purpose of the policy is to reduce a backlog of cases in immigration courts, according to the White House.
However, Syracuse University found that the policy is also being used to deal with new immigration court cases. 
The White House has extended the use of prosecutorial discretion to immigration law violators who are military veterans and the spouses of active-duty military personnel.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/01/24/Backdoor-Amnesty-Immigration-Court-Cases-Closed-Based-on-Prosecutorial-Discretion-Up-By-Almost-70

Five things to watch in Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address

January 24, 2014, 06:00 am

By Ian Swanson

President Obama hopes to push the reset button on his second term Tuesday when he delivers the State of the Union address to Congress and a primetime television audience.
Retaining the Senate counts as Obama’s top political goal for the year, and much of his address will be given with that in mind.

ADVERTISEMENT

But it would be wrong to see the Senate majority as Obama’s only political objective.The White House is determined to add to Obama’s political legacy after a lost year in which the administration failed to capitalize on the president’s resounding reelection win.
Here are five things to watch for on Tuesday.

1.     How hard does Obama attack the GOP?
There is little doubt that Obama will use Tuesday’s election-year address to highlight differences between his party and Republicans.
The White House desperately wants to keep the Senate in their party’s hands, since seeing it fall to Republicans would force it to just play defense for Obama’s last two years in office.
As a result, Obama wants to use the State of the Union to highlight his vision for the nation, and contrast it with his opponents' visions. Expect plenty of moments where Democratic lawmakers rise to their feet while their GOP counterparts sit on their hands.
Yet Obama also needs to work with Republicans if he is to have any hope of adding to his legislative legacy.
Immigration reform remains the administration’s top priority, and it is still possible it can get done before Obama leaves office.
Promising signs, from the administration’s point of view, include Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) hiring of the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Rebecca Talent to work on immigration reform, as well as House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) comments this week that he would support immigration reform that provided legal status, though not citizenship, to the nation’s illegal immigrants.
Slam the GOP too hard, and Obama puts at risk any slim chance of working with Republicans on immigration, trade or other issues where they might be able to deal.
Go too light, and Obama would give up a valuable opportunity to contrast the GOP and Democratic brands and to excite his political base.

2.     How much will be recycled.
In his 2013 address, Obama called for a vote on gun control legislation and passage of immigration reform legislation. He wanted to raise the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 per hour, and see Congress pass new cybersecurity legislation.
None of that got done, opening the possibility for plenty of recycling in Tuesday’s speech.
Gun control seems the least likely to be a repeat. It’s not an issue that would help Democratic Senate candidates or incumbents running in Alaska, Arkansas, South Dakota, West Virginia or Montana.
Plenty of recycling can be expected with the other issues, particularly immigration. In fact, it will be curious to see just how much of the speech Obama focuses on changing the nation’s immigration laws, and whether that becomes the centerpiece of the speech.
And Obama, in a sense, is already recycling a theme. He says this will be a “year of action,” which sounds strikingly familiar to an earlier theme of “change can’t wait.”

3.     How will Obama handle ObamaCare?
The last year ended brutally for Obama as a victory in the shutdown showdown with Republicans was eclipsed by the healthcare law’s tortuous rollout, which had Democrats for a time wondering if the bad news would end.
Obama will surely talk about the healthcare law in the State of the Union, but how many paragraphs and minutes it gets will be something to watch.
Too little time will lead to headlines about Obama downplaying his signature achievement, but it seems unlikely the president will want his speech to be dominated by healthcare. That sets up a bit of a dilemma for the speech-writing team.

4.     What will be this year’s surprise?
State of the Unions are lengthy, laundry-list speeches that draw out an administration’s goals across a broad field of subjects. Much is pre-determined, from the first lady’s guest list to the color of the president’s tie.
Yet there are often surprises and unscripted moments.
Last year, Democrats were surprised by Obama’s call to raise the minimum wage.
In 2004, observers were surprised by something President George W. Bush didn’t mention: a U.S. mission to Mars. In a speech at NASA a week earlier, Bush had laid out the mission as a goal, and it seemed to be quickly abandoned when it wasn’t mentioned at all in the State of the Union a week later.
One of the most memorable moments from Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address was when Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was seen shaking his head and mouthing the words “not true” as Obama ripped into the court’s decision unwinding limits on corporate contributions to campaigns.
The unscripted moment cast a light on Obama’s difficult relationship with the court, and became context for much of what followed, including the justice’s 5-4 ruling that ObamaCare was constitutional in 2012.

5.    How will Republicans respond?
Republicans have decided the highest-ranking woman in the House GOP leadership will give the GOP response to Obama.
It’s a speech that has a difficult recent history, as several of the ambitious politicians who have delivered it have stumbled in recent years.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s 2009 performance was panned when he came across as hokey and amateurish, while Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) was lampooned in 2013 for repeatedly drinking bottled water to parch his cottonmouth.
Picking Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.) highlights the GOP’s determination to close a gender gap with Democrats that has hurt the party in the last two election cycles.
It’s something at the top of the Republican agenda when it comes to the midterms, too.
Many Republicans blame tone-deaf comments by GOP Senate candidates as costing the party winnable races. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s comments on Thursday about Democrats offering free birth control because they think women can’t control their libidos just stirred the pot further.
McMorris Rodgers’s job will be to present a different GOP face to the nation.
http://patriotupdate.com/2014/01/five-things-watch-obamas-2014-state-union-address/ 

Yet Another Reason to Worry About Obamacare: Property Seizures?

Jan. 24, 2014 2:18pm Fred Lucas

Obamacare requires everyone to have health insurance. In more than half of the states in the country, that comes through an expansion of Medicaid, the joint federal-state program for the poor. Under a 1993 federal law, states can recoup the costs of Medicaid by seizing the property of deceased Medicaid recipients.

Protesters for the Expansion of Medicaid stand in front of the State House as the first day of the Alabama Legislature on Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2014, in Montgomery, Ala. (AP/Butch Dill)

With the vast expansion of who can enroll in Medicaid under Obamacare, that could mean significantly more property. Though The Washington Post called it “scary but improbable,” the newspaper reported there are people who are concerned about it and that the federal government has not rejected it out of hand.

Before the expansion, it was an option rarely used, so there’s little national data. But in Oregon, from July 2011 to June 2013, the state snatched $41 million in assets from about 8,900 people, the Post reported.

“If you’re receiving a public benefit and the state is trying to support you, you should give back if you are able,” Judy Mohr Peterson, Oregon’s Medicaid director, told the Post in explaining the reasoning.

But Oregon’s Medicaid office opted to change its approach so people would not be afraid to sign up for expanded Medicaid.

“We needed to take another look at heath insurance coverage from the point of view of it not being a public benefit that’s voluntary,” Mohr Peterson said.

Aaron Albright, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said they “recognize [the] importance of this issue and will provide states with additional guidance in this area soon.”

The Post found two people who were eligible for the expanded Medicaid but were afraid to do so.

“I was leaning toward not getting Medicaid, because there is somewhat of a stigma,” said Steve Olin, 60, a former copy editor from Eureka, Ill. “Then, when I heard about the estate recovery, I was really sure.”

A 54-year-old former lawyer from New York City, who requested anonymity, owns an $850,000 apartment in the city that she hopes to leave to a family member.

“I don’t want my assets to be raided after my death,” she said. “The idea that someone can come after my house after I die — I just can’t do it.”

The Medicaid expansion under Obamacare is for people earning 138 percent of the poverty level, or $15,900 for an individual with no dependents.

Out of a concern over exploding Medicaid costs, Congress passed a law in 1993 that states must try to recover money from the estate of people who used Medicaid for long-term care. It further gave states the option to target the estate of all Medicaid recipients for any benefits they received after routine care.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/24/yet-another-reason-to-worry-about-obamacare-property-seizures/ 

Why Did the Benghazi Story Change?

Amy Payne

January 17, 2014 at 6:30 am

Comments Off

Share

The truth about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, is finally coming out.
An explosive intelligence report made public this week revealed that officials knew it was a terrorist attack that killed four Americans on September 11, 2012—and they knew right away. It also revealed that the lapse in security was preventable, based on intelligence the U.S. already had about the area.
These new answers are unsettling.
“Every step of the way, the White House’s response to Benghazi has been appalling,” said Heritage expert Helle Dale, who has followed the tragedy closely from the beginning.
The most shocking revelation, as Dale described it:

The country’s top military commanders clearly understood the assault on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, was a terrorist attack from the moment the first reports came in, just 15 minutes after the assault began on September 11, 2012.

This news is shocking because the Obama Administration aggressively pushed the story that the violence was a protest against an anti-Muslim video that had simply gotten out of hand. “As a result, there was no attempted military rescue or response, and false information was peddled to the American people to shift the blame,” Dale explained.
“This testimony indicates beyond any doubt that the narrative of the Benghazi tragedy was changed within the White House. The question remains why and by whom.”
Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton added insult to grave injury when she was questioned a year ago about the distinction between a protest and a terrorist attack. Her infamous response, “What difference, at this point, does it make?” showed an Administration entangled in the mess of its own making.
The difference Clinton downplayed at that time is crucial, because “the same White House that declared victory in the war against terrorism and pulled U.S. military assets out of Libya also failed miserably to take responsibility for its own miscalculation,” Dale said.
Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) told The Foundry this week that Members of Congress were “misled”—just like the American public. “It’s just outrageous that the Administration thought they could get away with blaming the cause of Benghazi on a false story.”
The American people—beginning with the families of those who were killed—deserve to know why the Administration denied what was apparently known. Our military and intelligence personnel around the world also deserve a full accounting, because they continue to enter dangerous situations every day.

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/01/17/benghazi-story-change/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=&utm_content=&utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_content=readthis&utm_campaign=saturday140125

Save Yourself Before the Cops Can

By cdmichel | Published January 23, 2014

We now have interesting proof that disarming citizens facilitates deadlier mass shootings.
Extensive media coverage of “mass shootings” in America has created the myth that these events are on the rise, and that an “assault weapon” ban, expanded background checks and greater attention to the mentally ill will curb a rampaging epidemic. Instead, according to James Alan Fox, author and criminology professor at Northeastern University, mass shootings have remained stagnant over 34 years, averaging 20 a year, and few were committed by the type of psychos portrayed in the media.
“Public discourse is grounded in myth and misunderstanding about the nature of the offense and those who perpetrate it,” he writes in the journal Homicide Studies. “Without minimizing the pain and suffering of the hundreds of those who have been victimized in recent attacks, the facts clearly say that there has been no increase in mass shootings and certainly no epidemic.” See http://tinyurl.com/q4gdx6j for more on this.
Meanwhile, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has released a study of Active Shooter Events from 2000 to 2012. By searching the media for events where someone has shot multiple people in a public place, the FBI documented many things, including what should be intuitive facts; force prevents murder, and victims are victimized by “gun free” (aka: victim disarmament) zones.
To be clear: the FBI study measures “active shooter events” (ASEs). The Fox study measures “mass public shootings” (MPSs). These are different things, and readers need to understand the difference. ASEs are increasing, MPSs are not. The difference is body count. ASEs can have zero dead, MPSs need at least four dead.
The number of ASEs has been increasing since the Columbine Massacre of 1999. Gun availability has nothing to do with it. It seems Columbine’s homicidal maniacs put into the minds of the mentally fragile that fame (and perhaps a perverse form of immortality?) can be achieved by blasting away at your perceived enemies before committing suicide. Since then, the number of ASEs has been rising, as have the number of people shot and killed in such events. Sad.
But studying how people survived those events has led the FBI to recommend actually defending yourself from active shooters … that is, if you cannot avoid the situation (something victims often have no control over) or deny the active shooter access to your location (over which victims often have no control, but landlords and school administrators may).
The question is how best to defend yourself against the crazies. The FBI study shows that having a gun is the most effective way. In this study, the FBI tallied how ASEs ended, creating a series of ladder charts showing outcomes before and after police officers arrived.
What is lost in these charts is that:

1. Victims terminate attacks far less often than police
2. When they do, they risk their own lives by physically subduing the shooter
3. But the police do it most often by shooting the attacker

This is common sense, at least to anyone other than gun ban lobbyists claiming that legislative civilian disarmament is “common sense.”
There is a staggering disparity between effectively ending rampages and the added risk victims encounter by not having the right to armed self-defense. Police stop almost twice as many ASEs as do victims. Police use guns to stall mass homicides 72% of the time, while victims who fight back use their bare hands 82% of the time. This begs a question: were citizens allowed to be armed in their work places, schools and movie houses, could and would they intervene more often, and as successfully, as police?
It’s likely that they could, since there is essentially zero time lag for a victim’s response, whereas police have a significantly delayed response time.
Currently, victims wait-out the attacker 67% of the time. As we saw with Sandy Hook, this can result in a lot of dead innocent people. Conversely, police forcibly stop 60% of ASEs (in which they arrive in time) by shooting the attacker in 72% of interventions. If victims had a similar 70%+ effectiveness rate, fewer people would die. More common sense.
But until politicians wise-up and let victims protect themselves where they work, study and play, victims will remain victims. Sadly, there’s no true common sense in that political thinking.
http://www.calgunlaws.com/save-yourself-before-the-cops-can/

New Virginia Attorney General Drops Defense of Gay Marriage Ban

"This man only took office 1 month ago, he should be fired for stating that he will not hold the law. As a matter of fact, you should be put in jail because it is duty to uphold the existing laws not try to change them create new ones" Jason Price

By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS and TRIP GABRIEL

January 23, 2014

Asserting that Virginia had too often been on the “wrong side” of justice on civil rights matters, the state attorney general asked a federal court on Thursday to invalidate the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, calling the law unconstitutional and oppressive.
The move by the attorney general, Mark R. Herring, a Democrat who took office early this month, was the first indication of how consequential last November’s elections in Virginia, in which Democrats won all three top elected positions from Republicans, may turn out to be. Mr. Herring, a former state senator, narrowly defeated Mark Obenshain, a Republican state senator.
The decision to drop support for the gay marriage ban was an abrupt shift from the positions taken in the past by the state’s socially conservative elected officials, and put Virginia on a path to be the first Southern state to allow same-sex marriage. Republican officials swiftly denounced the decision, calling for Mr. Herring’s resignation.
At a news conference in Richmond, Mr. Herring said the ban violated the 14th Amendment right to due process and equal protection, an argument that has been the basis of successful legal challenges to same-sex marriage prohibitions in other states.
“I cannot and will not defend a law that violates Virginians’ fundamental constitutional rights,” Mr. Herring said. To do so, he said, “would be a violation of the law and my oath.”
Mr. Herring cited legal cases in which he said Virginia’s leadership had failed its residents by arguing against school desegregation in Brown v. the Board of Education, interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia, and women’s admission to the Virginia Military Institute, a state-supported military college, in United States v. Virginia.
“Too many times in our history, our citizens have had to lead the way on civil rights while their leaders stood against them,” Mr. Herring said. “This will not be another instance. It is time for the commonwealth to be on the right side of history and the right side of the law.”
The chairman of Virginia’s Republican Party, Pat Mullins, said in a statement that Mr. Herring had turned the issue into “a political farce.”

The Daily Journal of the United States Government Presidential Documents Executive Orders

The Daily Journal of the United States Government

Presidential Documents

Executive Orders

---

The President of the United States manages the operations of the Executive branch of Government through Executive orders. After the President signs an Executive order, the White House sends it to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR). The OFR numbers each order consecutively as part of a series, and publishes it in the daily Federal Register shortly after receipt.

https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-orders 

Obama Executive Order Has Added $10.2 Billion in Costs to Economy

Obama Executive Order Has Added $10.2 Billion in Costs to Economy

BY: Elizabeth Harrington, Washington Free Beacon
An executive order issued by President Barack Obama that was designed to “cut red tape” has added $10.2 billion in regulatory costs to the economy, according to a new report.
Tuesday was the third anniversary of Executive Order 13563, prompting the American Action Forum to examine the effects of the order. It was intended to reduce “redundant, inconsistent, or overlapping” regulations.
The order was hailed as “unprecedented” by the president and former Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) administrator Cass Sunstein. However, Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at American Action Forum, found that the action was hardly unique and has had the opposite effect of its intended purpose.“Has Washington actually cut red tape? On net, final rules from Order 13563 have added more than $10.2 billion in costs, mostly from new regulations labeled as ‘retrospective,’” Batkins said. “Final rules have cut 7.9 million hours of paperwork, but Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act have easily outpaced those deregulatory gains.”
The “deregulatory measures” resulting from the executive order actually add over $10 billion in costs to the economy. For example, a final rule imposing energy standards for transformers carries a $5.22 billion cost to comply and 58,320 hours of paperwork.
Taken with the proposed regulations under the executive order, the total burden to the economy would reach $13.7 billion.
President Obama promised that the order would reduce paperwork in a January 2011 Wall Street Journal editorial.

What me Worry?