Barack Obama

U.S. Will ‘Degrade and Destroy’ ISIS Militants, Obama Says

Isis fighters parade through Raqqa

Isis fighters parade through Raqqa is Syria. Photograph: AP

NBC News

President Barack Obama vowed to “degrade and destroy” the Islamist militant group behind the beheading of a second American journalist. “We will not be intimidated,” Obama told reporters during a visit to Estonia on Wednesday. “Those who make the mistake of harming Americans will learn that we will not forget and that our reach is long and that justice will be served.”

Obama said that Americans were “repulsed” by the slaying of Steven Sotloff by Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) militants, adding that such “horrific acts only unite us as country.” He also vowed that the U.S. would continue to lead the battle against “the kind of barbaric and empty vision that [ISIS] represents.” He said that mission would “take some time but it is going to get done,” adding: “We will degrade and destroy [ISIS] so that it is no longer a threat to Iraq, the region and United States.” A video showing Sotloff’s beheading surfaced days after the journalist’s mother pleaded with ISIS for mercy. Its release followed the murder of James Foley, who had also been held hostage by the Sunni extremists. The president said that Sotloff “deeply loved the Islamic world” and had risked his life traveling in the Middle East to “tell the story of Muslim men and women demanding dignity. ” He added: “Steven’s life stood in sharp contrast to those that murdered him so brutally.”

Watch video report here…

IN-DEPTH

The Magical President doesn’t exist: What the left must really do to defeat the wingnuts

The Magical President doesn't exist: What the left must really do to defeat the wingnuts

Barack Obama (Credit: Reuters/Jim Young)

Progressives need to pay attention and read this ASAP.  Kudos to Salon‘s Joan Walsh for putting this out there…

Salon – Joan Walsh

The myth of a president who can solve our problems alone is inane. The big task right now? Rescue these midterms

Labor Day marks the traditional kickoff to election season, and all Democrats can say for themselves about the coming midterms is: Things look bad, but they could be worse. Republicans will almost certainly gain Senate seats, and could very well take it over, though their chances diminish every time we hear new audio of Mitch McConnell and his GOP cronies sucking up to the Koch brothers at their last retreat. But traditional low midterm Democratic turnout could make McConnell the Senate majority leader in January nonetheless.

This political season opens against a backdrop of profound pessimism, captured in an August Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll that found that 71 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. The president’s approval rating is at an all-time low, but so is that of congressional Republicans. Even worse, the two big stories dominating the end-of-summer headlines – the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. and the rise of ISIL – only deepen the political gloom, because they reflect two enormous American problems that are coming to seem almost unsolvable: profound and persistent racial injustice, and the shape-shifting chaos that is Iraq.

These problems are particularly vexing for people who subscribe to the Magical President theory of politics — which includes too many of us, including me sometimes – because those are two issues Americans thought we’d “solved,” or at least responsibly addressed, by electing our first black president, who’d famously opposed the “dumb” Iraq war and promised to end it. Now race relations are arguably worse than when Obama took office, and so is Iraq, and this is a rare case where you can fairly say people on “both sides” blame the president — mostly wrongly.

Cornel West is now slipping deep into Maureen Dowd territory: a formerly incisive, moderately influential social critic (a genuinely important one, in West’s case) driven to cruelty and irrelevance by Obama hatred. The National Journal’s Ron Fournier is a consistent proponent of what some deride as the “Green Lantern” approach to the presidency: If only Obama would justlead, our problems would solve themselves, though Fournier doesn’t stoop to channeling Abraham Lincoln or Aaron Sorkin when he criticizes Obama. But even fair and sober observers are frustrated with some of Obama’s moves.

You can certainly criticize the president on the margins – I have, and I’m sure I will again. Personally, if I worked for him, I’d probably have suggested not golfing after his moving statement on journalist James Foley’s execution, and not equivocating as much in his Ferguson remarks, which Michael Eric Dyson fairly laments. But those are issues more of stage management than statecraft.

Still, even for people who respect Obama, it’s hard to see us mired in what feels like ancient, intractable conflict in both Ferguson and Iraq. It hurts. Yet I would argue (after having been demoralized about both issues) that the unrest in Ferguson is in fact a kind of social progress: Within hours of Mike Brown’s awful shooting a network of new and seasoned activists came together to demand justice, pushing both Gov. Jay Nixon and the president to take action to rein in abusive local cops and drive the investigation into what happened.

Even the ugly situation in Iraq represents political progress, because as painful and outrageous as Foley’s execution was, and as disturbing as it is to see ISIL gain power in Iraq and Syria, the vital debate over what the U.S. can and should do there has actually been strengthened by the existence of intervention skeptics on the left and the right. Obama has repudiated the neocon approach, but he’s still wrestling with Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn doctrine: If you break it, have you really bought it? Certainly, we’ve already paid for it, many times over.

Let’s be clear: There is neither a Democratic nor a progressive consensus on what is to be done there. All we have is a profound skepticism, and I’ll take that over a cynical Cheneyesque certainty, built on lies to the American people. Disagreement, even deadlock, is preferable.

The belief that somehow Obama can lead us out of our summer of misery reflects Magical President thinking. Which leads me back to the rapidly approaching and dispiriting midterms.When I reviewed Rick Perlstein’s “Invisible Bridge,” I noted that the major political difference between the right and left seems to be that when defeated and disillusioned, the right gets back to the nuts and bolts work of electoral politics. The left, or some of it, disintegrates, a flank here promoting direct action over electoral politics (a debate that’s understandably renewed by events in Ferguson); a flank there preaching about a third party; and one over there fantasizing about the perfect left-wing challenge to the mainstream Democratic candidate, like that dreamy African-American senator who opposed the war in Iraq who looked so magical eight years ago. Meanwhile, Republicans count on division on the left, and low turnout by the Democratic base of younger, poorer non-white voters, to help them take back the Senate.

And when they do, Mitch McConnell has promised only more obstruction and gridlock. I should point out, this isn’t just a byproduct of Republican victories, but one of the goals. It’s become obvious in the GOP’s approach to Obama that obstruction is at least partly intended to demoralize the reluctant, occasional voters in the Democratic base. For if there’s no action on those “gosh darn” issues, in McConnell’s words, like a minimum wage hike, student loan relief or extended unemployment insurance, let alone immigration reform or climate change, even after Obama became the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to win more than 50 percent of the vote twice, those of us who say that voting is the most reliable path to social change sound either foolish or dishonest. People say, why bother?

The cause isn’t helped by spineless Democrats who try to blur their differences with Republicans instead of heighten them. Right now Karl Rove is attacking Democratic senators like North Carolina’s Kay Hagan and Arkansas’s Mark Pryor for endorsing Obama’s Simpson-Bowles commission report, which recommended cuts to Medicare and Social Security. But nobody could have predicted anyone would use entitlement cuts as weapons, right? Except many of us did. Again and again.

On the other hand, Hagan, Pryor and also-vulnerable Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana are doing better than expected, either leading their GOP opponents or tied, at least partly because during this election year, they’ve been feistier and more progressive, particularly when it comes to defending the Affordable Care Act. And Kentucky voters may yet make Mitch McConnell pay for sucking up to the Kochs. He shouldn’t be redecorating the Senate majority leader’s office, at any rate.

Democrats have two months to make sure this election doesn’t turn out like 2010 did. It’s not about the president right now, and we shouldn’t wait until 2016 for a new magical president. The kind of thoroughgoing change we need won’t happen in eight years, or even 80. It’s an eternal battle, the constant effort to expand the realm of human freedom to everyone, against the constant crusade by the wealthy to ensure that the trappings of human dignity – education, leisure, family life, childhood itself – are reserved for those who can afford to pay for them. The Kochs and their allies are trying to repeal the 20th century. Progressives can’t just suit up for that battle every four years.

Ted Cruz: ‘Kitty cat’ Obama should be more like ‘Russian bear’ Putin

This is outrageous.  The name calling, the innuendos aimed at the president’s sexuality and/or political “muscle”  is simply unacceptable in a civil society.

What has become of this nation and it’s unabated disrespect for the POTUS?

The Raw Story

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz (R) took a swipe at President Barack Obama’s foreign policy decisions in a speech on Saturday at conservative think tank Americans for Prosperity’s Defending the American Dream summit in Dallas.

According to Business Insider, the Tea Party darling and possible Republican presidential contender for 2016 was enthusiastically cheered by the crowd, who chanted “Run, Ted, run!” and wildly applauded his attacks on the Obama administration.

“Back in Washington there’s a diet that is now very, very popular,” Cruz quipped. “It’s called the Obama Diet. Works very, very well. You simply let Putin eat your lunch every day.”

Cruz further riled up the crowd by taking aim at the Affordable Care Act — also known as “Obamacare.”

“In the year 2017, a Republican president in the Rose Garden is going to sign a bill repealing every word of Obamacare!” he crowed.

He went on to belittle Obama’s decision not to commit thousands of ground troops to containing the spread of radical Islamic group ISIS in Iraq and its neighbor Syria.

“(A)ll across this world America has receded from leadership,” Cruz complained. “Look at Russia right now. Sadly, the state of the world is the Russian bear is encountering the Obama kitty cat.”

“You know what? The United States of America has never been a kitty cat,” he went on. “The reason Putin feels no fear to march into his neighbors, the reason why our allies up and down Europe are terrified of what’s next is because this president, as he puts it, is leading from behind.”

Obama, Cruz said, should position “anti-ballistic missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic.”

Watch the full speech, embedded below via Business Insider:

 

Obama vs. Bush: Who Took More Presidential Vacations?

Just an FYI for holiday family gathering discussions…

The Huffington Post via FactCheck.org

Q: Is it true that George W. Bush took more vacation days than Barack Obama?

A: Yes. Before his two-week trip to Martha’s Vineyard in August, Obama’s count was 125 full or partial days and Bush’s total at the same point in his presidency was 407.

FULL ANSWER

Our inbox is chock full of questions about who took more vacation days, Obama or Bush. (The short answer: Bush. The long answer: There’s no such thing as a true non-working vacation for the president.)

The recent barrage from our readers coincides with Obama’s 15-day family vacation on Martha’s Vineyard — he returned to the White House on Aug. 24 – which occurred during major news events including the beheading of a U.S. journalist by Islamic militants and protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after a police officer shot and killed an unarmed 18-year-old black man. The vacation also occurred during the funeral of Maj. Gen. Harold J. Greene, the only general officer killed in Afghanistan.

Obama faced criticism for being on vacation during these times, but those types of complaints are nothing new — either to Obama or presidents in general.

Readers may recall the criticism directed at Bush for the August weeks spent at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Others may remember Democrats chastising President Dwight Eisenhower for spending time on the golf course.

We last dealt with the who-took-more-vacation question in January 2010, at which point Obama had spent 26 days on “vacation” during his first year in office, fewer than the first year totals for Presidents Bush, George H.W. Bush or Ronald Reagan. Our numbers are all courtesy of CBS News White House Correspondent Mark Knoller, who has covered every president since Gerald Ford and tracks the commander in chief’s travel.

But, as we noted then, presidents never fully escape from the job. Knoller told us he doesn’t consider these days away from the White House real “vacation” days. He said then in an email: “I have long held the view that a US president is never really on vacation. The job — and its awesome powers and responsibilities — is his wherever he is and whatever he’s doing.”

Bush officials called the Crawford ranch the “Western White House” to emphasize the days there involved plenty of official business, and Obama’s recent Martha’s Vineyard break included several presidential statements and two days spent back at the White House in the middle of the “vacation.” Presidents may clear brush or hit the links, but they are never actually off the clock.

Still, much is made of these presidential vacation days — and how to count them. Knoller doesn’t include visits to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland often used to host foreign leaders. On Aug. 8, the day before Obama left for Martha’s Vineyard, Knoller tweeted that Obama had spent 125 full or partial days on vacation, and at the same point in Bush’s president, he had spent 381 days at his Texas ranch plus 26 days at his parents’ home in Kennebunkport, Maine, for a total of 407.

When we emailed Knoller on Aug. 26, Obama was up to 140 days by his count. Bush’s total for his two terms in office is 533 days, which includes 490 at the ranch and the rest at Kennebunkport. For comparison’s sake, President Bill Clinton’s total is 174 days, and Reagan hit 390 (349 at his ranch and 41 in Palm Springs), according to Knoller.

Adding in Camp David visits would bring Obama’s total to date to 223 (that’s 83 days at Camp David) and Bush’s total for his entire time in office to 1,024 (491 days at the presidential retreat). Note that Obama still has more than two years in office to narrow the gap.

Deciding how to count these “vacation” days can create some confusion. CNN recently listed a count of 879 days for Bush and 150 for Obama, numbers that came from a Washington Post “Outlook” piece on “Five myths on presidential vacations.”(Myth No. 1: “Presidents get vacations.”) The 879 figure, it turns out, is from March 3, 2008, at which point Bush had spent that many days at the ranch and Camp David (but it doesn’t include days in Kennebunkport). The numbers are in a 2008Washington Post piece and attributed to Knoller.

If readers want to make an apples-to-apples comparison, the best solution is to use Knoller’s figures as of August 8, cited above: Bush, 407; Obama, 125. But the numbers say more about how many days the presidents spent away from the White House than they do about how much time the presidents spent not working.

House Candidate Called Female Senators “Undeserving Bimbos in Tennis Shoes”

Hagedorn for Congress/Facebook

During the run up to the mid-term elections for 2010 some GOP candidates made so many controversial statements that they were simply deemed un-electable by most politcal analysts.  Their constituents felt the same .  They included Senate candidates Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell, and Joe Miller of Alaska.  All were sidelined because of public faux pas and simply not knowing enough about politics to get elected.

Looks like the 2014 mid-term races might have a few crazies as well…

Mother Jones

Statement was from Jim Hagedorn’s old blog, “Mr. Conservative,” is a ticking time bomb.

Republican congressional candidate Jim Hagedorn could face a major obstacle in his race to unseat Minnesota Democrat Tim Walz: conservative blogger Jim Hagedorn.

Hagedorn, the son of retired congressman Tom Hagedorn, was a surprise victor in last Tuesday’s GOP primary. But he brings some serious baggage to his race against Walz, a four-term incumbent. In posts from his old blog, Mr. Conservative, unearthed by the now-defunct Minnesota Independent, Hagedorn made light of American Indians, President Obama’s Kenyan ancestry, and female Supreme Court justices, among others, in ways many voters won’t appreciate.

Hagedorn deleted many of his old posts prior to his 2010 run for Walz’s seat—he lost in the GOP primary. But some of his writings can still be found via the Internet Archive or in screenshots taken by the Independent. These were not mere juvenile ramblings, either: Hagedorn was a Treasury Department official at the time.

“Turns out half-aunt Zeituni is an illegal alien from Kenya who has illegally contributed money to her half-nephew’s campaign, which should make Americans half-pi$$ed,” he wrote in a typical missive during the 2008 election cycle. “The migration from Barack Obama’s second country to the United States during the next four years is going to look like a low-budget remake of Eddie Murphy’s hit comedy ‘Coming to America.'”

Hagedorn also reveled in the type of gay innuendo you may have heard in high school courtyards in decades past. (Kids these days know better.) He referred to former Wisconsin Sen. Herb Kohl as an “alleged switch-hitter” and a “packer.” Former GOP candidate Mike Taylor, the target of a homophobic attack ad during his campaign against then-Sen. Max Baucus,came out even worse: “[T]he ad really bent Taylor over with rage and caused him to go straight to the bar and get lubricated,” Hagedorn wrote. “It must have taken all Taylor’s power to refrain from fisting…err…using his fists on Max Baucus, or at the very least ream him inside and out.”

In an entry on the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, which ruled that state bans on sodomy were unconstitutional, he wrote: “Butt (sic) never have winners lost so dearly. The Court’s voyage into uncharted, untreated cultural bathhouse waters was designed to offer a gentle push from behind…to generate a small skip forward for the pink triangle class…to throw them a bone, so to speak.”

Lest anyone challenge his bona fides, Hagedorn wanted to make abundantly clear he was a straight white male. “Senator McCain’s campaign was all but flat lined before he brought the feisty Caribou Barbie into our living rooms,” he wrote in 2008. “Which reminds me, on behalf of all red-blooded American men: THANK YOU SENATOR McCAIN, SARAH’S HOT!”

Not all female politicians were viewed as favorably. In a 2002 post, Hagedorn referred to Washington Democratic Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray as “undeserving bimbos in tennis shoes.” Former Bush White House counsel Harriet Miers, he wrote in 2005, had been nominated “to fill the bra of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.”

Writing about now-Sen. John Thune’s race against Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson, Hagedorn turned his razor-sharp wit on America’s most coddled demographic—Native Americans. “The race has been highlighted by a Democrat drive to register voters in several of several of South Dakota’s expansive redistribution of wealth centers…err…casino parlors…err…Indian reservations. Remarkably, many of the voters registered for absentee ballots were found to be chiefs and squaws who had returned to the spirit world many moons ago.” Alleging that fake votes from Indians would provide the margin of victory, he echoed “John Wayne’s wisdom of the only good Indian being a dead Indian.”

Hagedorn may have been joking. (The quip’s real author, General Philip Sheridan, wasn’t.) But American Indians were a favorite punching bag over at Mr. Conservative. In that same post, he referred to Nevada as a land of “nuclear waste and thankless Indians.” What made the state’s Native American population thankless? Hagedorn didn’t say.

Democrats seized on some of the Mr. Conservativepostings during Hagedorn’s brief 2009 foray, prompting him to slip into damage control mode. “I understand that some of the folks on the left aren’t going to like what I write,” he told the Rochester Post-Bulletin. “I poke fun at everybody, including Republicans.”

Although Walz’s district went to Barack Obama by less than 2 points in 2012, the incumbent has faced a string of less-than-stellar opponents. Allen Quist, the GOP’s 2012 nominee, crafted a school science curriculum contending that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. Aaron Miller, the Iraq War vet who was picked to run against Walz at the district nominating convention but lost in the primary, stated that he was motivated to run for office because his daughter had been forced to learn evolution in public schools. And now Hagedorn.

It looks like Tim Walz might be staying in Washington a little bit longer.

Netanyahu Tells U.S. ‘Not To Ever Second Guess Me Again’ On Hamas

NETANYAHU

Israeli Defense Minister, Moshe Ya’alon, left, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, center, attend the cabinet meeting at the defense ministry in Tel Aviv, Israel, Thursday, July 31, 2014. (AP Photo/Dan Balilty, pool) | AP

When the leader of the United States and his political equivalent in Israel don’t like each other…this occurs.

The Huffington Post

Following the quick collapse of the cease-fire in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the White House not to force a truce with Palestinian militants on Israel.

Sources familiar with conversations between Netanyahu and senior U.S. officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry, say the Israeli leader advised the Obama administration “not to ever second guess me again” on the matter. The officials also said Netanyahu said he should be “trusted” on the issue and about the unwillingness of Hamas to enter into and follow through on cease-fire talks.

The Obama administration on Friday condemned “outrageous” violations of an internationally brokered Gaza cease-fire by Palestinian militants and called the apparent abduction of an Israeli soldier a “barbaric” action.

The strong reaction came as top Israeli officials questioned the effort to forge the truce, accusing the U.S. and the United Nations of being naive in assuming the radical Hamas movement would adhere with its terms. The officials also blamed the Gulf state of Qatar for not forcing the militants to comply.

With the cease-fire in tatters fewer than two hours after it took effect with an attack that killed two Israeli troops and left a third missing, President Barack Obama demanded that those responsible release the soldier.

Obama and other U.S. officials did not directly blame Hamas for the abduction. But they made clear they hold Hamas responsible for, or having influence over, the actions of all factions in the Gaza Strip. The language was a distinct change from Thursday when Washington was focused on the deaths of Palestinian civilians.

“If they are serious about trying to resolve this situation, that soldier needs to be unconditionally released as soon as possible,” Obama told reporters. He added that it would be difficult to revive the cease-fire without the captive’s release.

“It’s going to be very hard to put a cease-fire back together again if Israelis and the international community can’t feel confident that Hamas can follow through on a cease-fire commitment,” he said. His comment reflected uncertainty in the U.S. and elsewhere that Hamas was actually responsible for the incident or if some other militant group was to blame.

At the same time, Obama called the situation in Gaza “heartbreaking” and repeated calls for Israel to do more to prevent Palestinian civilian casualties.

Despite the collapse of the truce, Obama credited Kerry for his work with the United Nations to forge one. He lamented criticism and “nitpicking” of Kerry’s attempts and said the effort would continue.

Kerry negotiated the truce with U.N. chief Ban Ki-moon in a marathon session of phone calls over several days while he was in India on an official visit. Kerry had spent much of the past two weeks in Egypt, Israel, the West Bank and France trying to mediate a cease-fire with Qatar and Turkey playing a major role because of their close ties with Hamas.

Those efforts failed with Israel saying it could not trust Hamas and some Israelis and American pro-Israel groups complaining that the U.S. was treating the group — a foreign terrorist organization as designated by the State Department — as a friend.

Late Thursday, however, Israel accepted Kerry and Ban’s latest proposal, despite its reservations. Once the truce was violated, though, Israeli officials hit out at not only Hamas, but the United States and Qatar for its failure.

An Israeli official said the Netanyahu government viewed both Hamas and Qatar as having violated the commitment given to the U.S. and the U.N. and that it expected the international community to take practical steps as part of a “strong and swift response,” especially regarding the return of the abducted soldier.

In a phone call with U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, Netanyahu vented his anger, according to people familiar with the call.

Netanyahu told Shapiro the Obama administration was “not to ever second-guess me again” and that Washington should trust his judgment on how to deal with Hamas, according to the people. Netanyahu added that he now “expected” the U.S. and other countries to fully support Israel’s offensive in Gaza, according to those familiar with the call. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter by name.

They said Netanyahu made similar points to Kerry, who himself denounced the attack as “outrageous,” saying it was an affront to assurances to respect the cease-fire given to the United States and United Nations, which brokered the truce.

___

Sean Hannity: Why didn’t Obama hand over his birth certificate like everybody else?

Republican opinion host Sean Hannity objects to the idea of being forced to see crime scene photos from the Sandy Hook massacre. Photo: Screenshot via Mediaite.

Are they really going down that road again…?

The Raw Story

Fox News host and conservative radio personality Sean Hannity thinks it is very strange that President Barack Obama waited so long to release his birth certificate.

“I actually think at this point the president wants — he loves to be a victim, I’m beginning to notice, a victim of birtherism … I just thought it was strange that he the president didn’t hand over his birth certificate like everybody else,” he said Wednesday on his radio show.

Obama’s campaign released a “certification of live birth” in 2008, which confirmed that the president was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4, 1961. But conspiracies about his birthplace persisted, and Obama released his long-form birth certificate in 2011.

“Now I know the president felt he was uniquely qualified to deal with issues involving the Muslim world because he went to school in Jakarta as a child, a Muslim school, and he said one of the most beautiful things — he said this to Nicholas Kristof at the New York Times — one of the most beautiful sights in the world is Muslim prayer at sunset. He said those things in that interview. It was in Jakarta.”

Hannity noted that Donald Trump claimed he had offered Obama $50 million for his birth records, but Obama never responded.

“This went on forever,” he continued. “I just thought it was odd, not to turn over your birth certificate.”

Some so-called “birthers,” such as Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, continue to believe that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery.

Listen to audio, courtesy of Media Matters, below.

http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/07/30/sean-hannity-obama-claimed-to-be-the-victim-of/200268

Glenn Beck: Obama is fueling impeachment talk because ‘the Black thing is over’

Glenn Beck 072814 [RWW]

The Raw Story

Conservative radio host Glenn Beck accused President Barack Obama on Monday of fueling talks of his own impeachment in order to better position himself on, among other things, the country’s immigration issues, Right Wing Watch reported.

“Who wants it? The president does,” Beck argued. “Because then he’ll be able to say, ‘I demand justice.’ The birther thing is over, the Black thing is over. So now he needs to be able to call for justice.”

Beck complained that conservatives were “losing the PR battle” on the issue of immigration reform and said Obama would try to “change the subject” to allegations of impeachment.

“Do you think anybody in the GOP is serious about impeachment?” Beck asked his staff. “I talk to a lot of the guys who should be the leaders of impeachment, if there was gonna be a leader of impeachment.”

Beck did not name any of the “guys” to which he spoke about the issue. But his remarks came a day after House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) refused to dismiss the possibility of such an action during an interview with Fox News. Other House Republicans like Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) have been calling for Obama’s impeachment since at least October 2013.

More recently, Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin wrote, “it’s time to impeach” in a column for Breitbart.com earlier this month over the influx of several thousand immigrant minors from Central American countries.

 

Watch footage of Beck’s remarks, as posted by Right Wing Watch on Monday, here…

 

 

John McCain Finds a Way to Blame ‘Cowardly’ Obama for MH17 Crash

Sen. John McCain | Screenshot

This simply sounds like sour grapes directed toward Obama supporters, but McCain and his ilk are not saying these things to upset Obama’s base.  Right-wing politicians are trying to stir up their Obama-hating base so they will come to the polls in 2014.  They’ll worry about 2016 after the mid-term elections.

Mediaite

When he appeared on MSNBC and CNN Thursday afternoon, shortly after news broke of the Malaysia Airlines passenger jet that had been shot down over Ukraine, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) warned that if Russia turned out to be responsible, there would be “hell to pay.” But by the time he joinedSean Hannity on Fox News last night, he had turned his outrage directly at President Barack Obama.

“It’s just been cowardly,” McCain said. “It’s a cowardly administration that we failed to give the Ukrainians weapons with which to defend themselves.” He speculated that the Russian separatists who allegedly shot down the plane “may not even have occupied and had access to these weapons, which apparently they got at an airfield,” if the U.S. had intervened earlier in the Ukrainian conflict with Russia.

McCain then told Hannity what he would do in response to the deadly crash:

“First, give the Ukrainians weapons to defend themselves and regain their territory. Second of all, move some of our troops in to areas that are being threatened by Vladimir Putin, in other countries like the Baltics and others. Move missile defense into the places where we got out of, like the Czech Republic and Poland and other places. And impose the harshest possible sanctions on Vladimir Putin and Russia. And that’s just for openers.”

And just like that, the likely accidental shooting down of a Malaysian plane carrying mostly Dutch passengers by Russian separatists in Ukraine is President Obama’s fault.

Watch video below, via Fox News:

Two-Thirds Of Republicans Think Impeaching Obama Would Be Justified

No attribution

First of all…on what legitimate grounds would he be impeached?  Secondly, the Right’s perceived “Obama offenses” are mainly made up lies and a host of deliberate misconceptions…

The Huffington Post

Sarah Palin raised eyebrows last week when she called on Congress to impeach President Barack Obama, but a new HuffPost/YouGov poll shows that the former Alaska governor is not alone. A third of Americans, and two-thirds of Republicans, think Obama should be impeached.

Among all Americans, those saying Congress would not be justified in beginning impeachment proceedings against Obama outnumber those who think it would be justified, 44 percent to 35 percent, while 21 percent said they weren’t sure.

The question drew a huge partisan divide. Sixty-eight percent of Republicans said beginning the impeachment process would be justified, while only 8 percent of Democrats said the same. Independents were divided, 37 percent to 37 percent, while 26 percent said they weren’t sure. Overall, 26 percent of non-Republicans said impeachment would be justified.

Impeachment was described in the poll as “the first step in the constitutional process for removing a president from office, in which possible crimes are investigated and charges are made.” A HuffPost/YouGov poll experiment conducted last year found that support for Obama’s impeachment varied depending on question wording, but that at least half of Republicans said they would support his impeachment no matter how the question was worded.

Obama isn’t the only recent president to face calls for impeachment from members of the other party. A 2007 Gallup poll asked the same question about George W. Bush, and found that 36 percent of Americans, including 58 percent of Democrats, 35 percent of independents and 9 percent of Republicans, said there was justification for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings.

The 1998 impeachment of Bill Clinton also divided Americans along party lines. A 2001 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 77 percent of Republicans and 45 percent of independents, but only 17 percent of Democrats, thought the House of Representatives made the right decision when it impeached Clinton.

The Gallup and ABC News/Washington Post polls were accessed using the Roper Center’s iPoll database.

In the new HuffPost/YouGov poll, 49 percent of Americans said Obama had exceeded the limits of authority placed on the president by the Constitution, while 34 percent said he had not. Eighty-nine percent of Republicans, 52 percent of independents and 16 percent of Democrats said Obama had exceeded the limits of his authority.

The HuffPost/YouGov poll was conducted July 9-11 among 1,000 U.S. adults using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion and church attendance.

The Huffington Post has teamed up with YouGov to conduct daily opinion polls. You can learn more about this project and take part in YouGov’s nationally representative opinion polling. Data from all HuffPost/YouGov polls can be foundhere.

This story has been updated to include the percentage of non-Republicans who said impeachment would be justified.