Moving on up to the “Big Time”

Can you imagine being paid $400 K for more lies?

He spent two terms lying to us about everything possible, now Wall street has signed on for his B.S.?

 

This week, Barack Jefferson Obama was paid nearly a million dollars for two short speeches.

The payment appears to be for a “job well done.” 

The payment appears to be for a “job well done.”

Under Obama, Wall Street profits soared while Main Street continued to struggle and the gap between the rich and the poor has never been greater.

And those Wall Street profits were primarily financed on the back of Mr. Obama’s history-shattering levels of deficit spending.

Seems there is a great deal of money to be made giving speeches about caring for the poor.

 Too bad he can’t give the money to those he created!

 

Image: Weekend at Barry’s

The first speech he signed up for is a banking summit where he will earn a quick $400,000 speaking and schmoozing with the very people he convinced voters he was against.

The second speech was a 90-minute giggle and nod affair given in front of a roomful of Wall Street media advertisers.

These paid speeches are but the first of many likely to come from the Obama Machine.

Michelle Obama is also being scheduled for similar money-grab speeches in the coming months as well to the very same organizations she railed against when her husband was running for president in 2008.

It appears their conscience has a price and for now, that price is about $400,000 a pop.

 

THE END

Continue reading

When in college we were too busy getting stoned or laid to worry about this nonsense

Perhaps it was the time.

 

We had never heard the term “Snowflake.”

 

If you were a male student you also studied hard enough to avoid the draft.

Courageous Snowflakes Go On Hunger Strike

   Ivy League Academics – Courageous Yale Grad Students

 A group of Yale University graduate students announced Tuesday evening that they would be undertaking a hunger strike to pressure the administration into granting them better union benefits.

The strike is taking place in front of University President Peter Salovey’s home.

“Yale wants to make us wait and wait and wait … until we give up and go away,” the eight members of the graduate student union Local 33 announced.

“We have committed ourselves to waiting without eating.”

 

Yale doctoral students currently earn a stipend $30,000 a year, receive free health care, and have their $40,000 tuition paid in full, according to Yale News.

The university administration said in a statement that they understood the students concerns, but “strongly [urge] that students not put their health at risk or encourage others to do so.”

As it turns out, the hunger strike might not put anyone’s health in peril.

 

According to a pamphlet posted on Twitter by a former Yale student, the hunger strike is “symbolic” and protesters can leave and get food when they can no longer go on.

I didn’t realize how courageous I was as a college student.
At Long Beach State in the sixty’s had this gone on it would have been called a campout!
THE END

Continue reading

Obama’s first 100 days as ex-president: With Obama’s Official Bowing Guide

 

Saturday marks President Trump’s first 100 days as president, but it also marks Barack Obama’s first 100 days as a former president.

 

So how has Obama done?

He’s chalked up his own share of wins and losses.

To sum it up in two words, Obama Sucked!

Obama’s legacy is destined for the graveyard of history.

He tried to turn the United States into a Socialist utopia and failed miserably.

He destroyed wealth, jobs, the military and made our country the laughing stock of the world with his “Bowing Tour,” as one example.

 

Syria uses chemical weapons after Obama said they were gone

An attack by the Syrian government on the people of the Idlib Provence on April 4 killed 89 people.

Early videos of the victims indicated that the weapon was a chemical or nerve agent, and those fears were confirmed by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons just weeks later.

In 2013, the Obama administration and Russia jointly brokered a deal with Syria that called for the destruction of all of the country’s chemical weapons.

In 2014, then-Secretary of State John Kerry said in a television interview that, “We got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out.”

The chemical weapons attack seemed to indicate that wasn’t true, although some still hold out as a possibility that Syria did, in fact, clear out all its chemical weapons only to rebuild their stockpiles at a later date.

Still, no other event in the last 100 days has discredited the Obama legacy as Syria’s chemical attack.

 

News on Iranian prisoners released by ObamaPresident Obama released several prisoners as part of an exchange with Iran, as part of the Iran nuclear agreement.

The prisoners being released “were not charged with terrorism or any violent offenses,” according to the administration.

 

But a recent report by Politico shows that the release of some Iranian-born prisoners as part of the deal was broadly misrepresented by the Obama administration.The new report says, “In reality, some of them were accused by Obama’s own Justice Department of posing threats to national security. Three allegedly were part of an illegal procurement network supplying Iran with U.S.-made microelectronics with applications in surface-to-air and cruise missiles like the kind Tehran test-fired recently, prompting a still-escalating exchange of threats with the Trump administration.”Obama’s questionable $400,000 speech

Obama once said that at some point, rich people have “made enough money.”

But that didn’t stop him from charging $400,000 for a speech on Wall Street that riled up some Democrats, who said it looked bad at a time the party is trying to rebuild from the disastrous 2016 election.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., admitted that Obama’s speech “just does not look good.”

Obamacare survives … for now

One of the few bright spots for Obama is that his signature law, the Affordable Care Act, has not been repealed by Republicans.

Obama sacrificed the re-election chances of numerous representatives and senators when the legislation passed in 2009. But as tough as it was to pass the law, Republicans are showing it may be even harder to get rid of it.

While the law survives, the vital signs for Obamacare are still mixed.

The law is still insuring millions of people, but there are fewer and fewer choices for people in many states, as insurers have pulled out due to lost profits.

The Trump administration has threatened to make it even harder on insurers by not providing cost-sharing subsidies, and Republicans are still angling to repeal the law.

 

THE END

Continue reading

The media’s first 100 days

The media earned the moniker, “Fake News,” for just reason.

 

For the most part, they are too lazy to go out and do the digging to uncover a real story.

They are satisfied with sitting back and throwing their thoughts from a parallel universe in the hopes that they will stick.

 

Reporters are spending the day prattling about how short President Trump has come up in his first 100 days, but why should they have all the fun?

In that same 100 days, a new Morning Consult poll released Friday said that more people are trusting of the White House than the media to tell them the truth.

The poll also said that more than half of Americans think the media are out of touch and that 48 percent think the media have been harder on him than on past presidents.

(The other 52 percent must not recall the time Julie Pace of the Associated Press asked Obama in 2014 if he had a good night’s sleep.)

What’s the opposite of “success?”

Everyone knew Trump, a celebrity businessman with no political experience, would be on a steep learning curve after his surprise win in November so that he hasn’t passed any major legislation in 100 days means nothing.

The press, however, isn’t new to this and it’s done worse in the same amount of time. But even after two years of journalists confessing they “missed something” in Trump’s rise, the national papers, networks and news websites have done nothing different and even when they have, it’s been dumb.

 

After the Daily Beast hired some conservative writers earlier this year, the site’s editor in chief, John Avlon, patted himself on the back by releasing a statement to acknowledge his “growing roster of reform Republican columnists.”

The statement didn’t say that “reform Republican columnists” translates to: writers who hate Trump.

Matt Lewis, Stuart Stevens, Rick Wilson and Lachlan Markay are all Republicans at the Daily Beast who didn’t like Trump during the campaign and write almost exclusively negative things about him now.

At the start of April the Los Angeles Times began a series of editorials on Trump, six total, all negative, and then bravely explained why they “took a stand.”

(Very brave to criticize the president from that hotbed of Trump supporters known as Southern California.)

 

The Washington Post, competing with Lifetime Movies for best melodrama, adopted the humiliating slogan “Democracy dies in darkness.”

Scott Pelley of the CBS “Evening News” was heralded twice by the press this year for inserting what passes for searing commentary into his newscasts, like “Today, the president had another Twitter tantrum.”

It’s as if the media collectively woke up and said, “I’m either going to stab myself to death or die trying!”

Trump has boosted the economic outlook by dismantling excessive regulations, slowed illegal immigration at the border to a near halt and appointed a young Supreme Court justice.

The most would-be conservative New York Times columnist Ross Douthat could do was say in an op-ed last week that things “could be worse.”

To mark the lead up to Trump’s 100 days in office, MSNBC on Thursday aired a news package with interviews of foreigners offering their “reviews” of Trump, which correspondent Richard Engel worriedly summed up as “not good.”

True, “America First” probably doesn’t poll well in the West Bank (where Engel interviewed someone for his story) but so long as it seems to reflect poorly on Trump, MSNBC will run it.

Nobody expects a loudmouthed outsider to swoop into the highest office without some setbacks, least of which just 100 days in.

But everyone can see Trump is pushing forward on the big things he said he would: A plan for a wall on the Mexican border has been commissioned, NAFTA is being renegotiated and another attempt at healthcare legislation is on its way.

 

On the other hand, the news media said they would undertake the massive burden of understanding the perspective of working class people who voted for Trump and: Nah, he’s a racist!

Trump’s 100 days haven’t been flawless. But at least he’s trying.

The national media aren’t even doing that.

 

THE END

Continue reading

Intellectual Froglegs: They Came from Outer Space Edition: They Won’t Go Away

Most everything I know about Trump, I learned since he entered the election, and I quickly learned you never try to predict the man’s actions.

 

But I also learned another thing, never bet against him, Trump will win.

 And in this case, it means America wins.

 

And while our apolitical president can hardly be considered ‘conservative,’ the core of what he’s doing absolutely is.

 

 

In fact, Trump’s is the most conservative agenda since Reagan.

So, we can dicker over ideological details later, our first order of business should be to help Trump put this train back on the track.

 

Joe Dan Gorman is the creator, host & producer of Intellectual Froglegs. Nominated for VIDEO BLOGGER OF THE YEAR at CPAC 2013. Former Real Estate Investment Broker until real estate collapse in 2007. When he is not creating and producing wicked coolness, he is busy performing liberal exorcisms, playing guitar and sharing his testimony and love for Jesus Christ.

THE END

Continue reading

The Rights Guaranteed under The First Amendment are Absolute

 

Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known, yet misquoted and misused  phrase in Supreme Court history: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.”

 

Without fail, when a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as a proof of limits on the First Amendment.

And whatever that controversy may be, “the law”–as some have curiously called it–can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes’ quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood.

Is it legal to shout “fire” in a crowded theater?

When I originally started this article it was going to be with my usual cynicism in mind.

Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment are only allowed if they don’t offend liberals.

 

Equally important, it didn’t hurt other people’s feelings.

Turns out the fools at Cal Berkley and other campuses across the country are breaking the law.

 

 
Allowing hate speech, for instance, might reinforce relations of power and the dominance of the majority, rather than promoting individual liberty.
Other jurisdictions have not had to formulate issues in terms of First Amendment rights but have faced comparable issues.
Classic philosophical discussions and United States judicial decisions have placed qualifications on freedom of expression by time, place and intention or likely effects of utterance.
These qualifications were formulated to oral and written, particularly published written, communication.
A crucial current issue is how these qualifications are to be understood to electronic communication, where time and place of utterance can be difficult to delimit. (Source)

 

It absolutely is not forbidden using modern statutes of criminal law.(Source)

That’s a shocker to likely all of us.

I have no idea why said law has not been overturned, Free Speech, The First Amendment or no No First Amendment.

 

 

WW I Schenck v. The United States. 1919

 

Otherwise, know as the Supreme Courts ability to reign in draft dodgers who thought they could get off under the First Amendment.

 

Landscape

 

In Schenck v. the United States (1919), the Supreme Court invented the famous “clear and present danger” test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual’s free speech rights under the First Amendment. (Source)

In reviewing the conviction of a man charged with distributing provocative flyers to draftees of World War I, the Court asserted that, in certain contexts, words can create a “clear and present danger” that Congress may constitutionally prohibit.

While the ruling has since been overturned, Schenck is still significant for creating the context-based balancing tests used in reviewing freedom of speech challenges.

The case involved a prominent socialist, Charles Schenck, who attempted to distribute thousands of flyers to American servicemen recently drafted to fight in World War I.

Schenck’s flyers asserted that the draft amounted to “involuntary servitude” prescribed by the Constitution’s Thirteenth Amendment (outlawing slavery) and that the war itself was motivated by capitalist greed, and urged draftees to petition for repeal of the draft.

Schenck was charged by the U.S. government with violating the recently enacted Espionage Act.

 

 

 

The government alleged that Schenck violated the act by conspiring “to cause insubordination, in the military and naval forces of the United States.”

Schenck responded that the Espionage Act violated the First Amendment of the Constitution, which forbids Congress from making any law abridging the freedom of speech.

He was found guilty on all charges. The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed Schenck’s conviction.

 

 

The Supreme Court, in a pioneering opinion written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, upheld Schenck’s conviction and ruled that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment.

The Court maintained that Schenck had fully intended to undermine the draft because his flyers were designed to have precisely that effect.

The Court then argued that “the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.

The Court maintained that Schenck had fully intended to undermine the draft because his flyers were designed to have precisely that effect.

The Court then argued that “the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.”

While in peacetime such flyers could be construed as harmless speech, in times of war they could be construed as acts of national insubordination.

The Court maintained that Schenck had fully intended to undermine the draft because his flyers were designed to have precisely that effect.

The Court then argued that “the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done

In sum, free speech rights given by the First Amendment, while generous, are not limitless, and context determines the limits.

“The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

Against this test, the Court upheld the Espionage Act and affirmed Schenck’s conviction, finding that his speech had created a clear and present danger of insubordination in wartime.

The decision, in addition to sending Charles Schenck to jail for six months, resulted in a pragmatic “balancing test” allowing the Supreme Court to assess free speech challenges against the state’s interests on a case-by-case basis.

(Justice Holmes, the test’s creator, however, would attempt to refine the standard less than a year later, when he famously reversed himself and dissented in a similar free speech case, Abrams v. United States.)

However, the “clear and present danger” test would only last for 50 years.

In 1969, the Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio replaced it with the “imminent lawless action” test, one that protects a broader range of speech.

This test states that the government may only limit speech that incites unlawful action sooner than the police can arrive to prevent that action.

As of 2006, the “imminent lawless action” test is still used.

 

 

THE END

Continue reading

It’s Rock and Roll But I Like It: Updated April 28, 2016

It just doesn’t get any better than this. 

 

I’d ask you to walk down memory lane but you need to see and hear the videos to get it.

Feel free to add your favorites, I’ll update the section.

 

The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band Ode to  Chick Kirshner founder of The Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity Cal Zeta at Long Beach State.

 

This was Chuck’s favorite song, Each of us went to the Golden Bear with or without Chuck to see and listen to the group.

Now on with the Ronk and Roll  Music.

 

He was laid to rest in a beautiful ceremony.

 

 

 

 

 

The heart that was a symbol of our fraternity was surrounded with pearls.

THE END FOR NOW

Continue reading