The poster-boy of ‘ignoring the obvious’…

Obama shrugged off Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to Congress as ‘lacking alternatives’ in the matter of Iran’s path toward nuclear capability.

But, if ‘demanding that Iran “act like a normal country” before treating it like one’ doesn’t qualify as a viable alternative…

…if a call to nations to “stand together to stop Iran’s march of conquest, subjugation and terror” doesn’t qualify as a viable alternative…

…what in God’s name does?

In the Middle East, and globally, Iran has shown time and again it’s the bad actor in this matter…so, Mr. Obama, simply trusting they’ll change isn’t a good ‘alternative’.

In a classic example of diametrically opposed national philosophy, Israel’s PM said America’s Constitution “…promises life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Iran’s founding document pledges death, tyranny, and the pursuit of jihad

And he finished with a simple declaration that, before lifting restrictions against Iran, that state must do 3 things: stop its aggression against Middle East neighbors, stop it’s support of global terrorism, and stop threatening Israel’s annihilation.

Lacking alternatives? Not really.

Unless you’re living in Barack Obama’s world…of Oblivion.

Republican leadership just negated argument against a 3rd Party solution…

The GOP caving on amnesty seems illogical, considering anti-amnesty was a main driver helping Republicans retake the Congress in 2014 midterm elections.

With such an overwhelming voter mandate, many find yesterday’s GOP leadership cowardice incomprehensible…why did they cave to Democrats?

Many reasons have been suggested, but one is never mentioned…

…old-fashioned blackmail. Politicians aren’t choirboys (ask Bill Clinton).

So it could be the opposition has dirt on the GOP leadership.

Add that to the dozen-or-so other reasons Republican leaders have no guts.

But, whatever the reason, Boehner & McConnell, by their action, have (ironically) made the BEST argument so far to justify a 3rd Party solution for America.

After all, what harm is an Emperor Obama with no clothes

…when there’s a Congress…with no principle?

Heard the one about the Jewish suicide-bomber…?

…neither have we.

As a petulant Poser in the White House whines about his petty protocol, the Prime Minister of Israel worries about a suicidal terror-state going nuclear on his country.

(And Deroy Murdock makes a great point…Obama doesn’t consult Congress when he wants to skirt the law…he should be familiar with the ‘evasion’ concept.)

BlueCollar suggests Netanyahu has the edge in any ‘concern-meter’ standings.

Let Us Be Clear…Israel’s survival trumps Obama’s feelings.

PERIOD. FULL STOP.

Unhhh…terrorists will keep on killing, so why try to stop them from getting BETTER at it…?

Obama’s UN ambassador now justifies allowing the world’s most active terror-state to acquire nuclear capabilities, saying it’s not achievable or realistic to stop them.

By that logic, why try to stop LA street gangs from acquiring .50-cal chainguns? Why try to stop Mexican drug cartels from getting Hellfire missiles?

Short answer…because Evil cannot be allowed to get MORE LETHAL.

Can it be Obama’s team just admitted they’re not up to it, or W did the impossible?

Hint: why doesn’t Obama call former President George W Bush, and ask for help? W can give him pointers…on how he convinced Libya to forego nuclear efforts.

Msg. to Obama…the first step to recovery is admitting there’s a problem.

Seems UN Amb. Susan Rice just did that for him.

Only an Obamacrat sees losing 33% of a year’s pay as a ‘Success Story’

Obamacare…the Democrat gift that keeps on taking.

Gushing over the Bronze plan, HHS Secretary Burwell reveals the Liberal mindset.

But Investor’s Business Daily crunched the numbers on the ‘Success Story’ of hers, and the example Burwell used gets UGLY if that family incurs any serious illness.

Seems that family of four with $38.3k annual income faces a $12,600 deductible.

Only a Liberal can see a potential loss of 1/3 of a years pay as a ‘success story’.

Damned if they do BECAUSE they don’t…?

Yes – the Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare’s illegal subsidies ‘won’t be a disaster’but the way Republicans handle it from that point might be.

This week the Supreme Court will hear Obama lawyers try to explain how it’s okay for the federal govt to give subsidies to consumers in states using fed exchanges.

(O’care’s adviser Gruber openly bragged about coercion used against GOP states by adding language withholding consumer subsidies if states didn’t set them up. Now he says that language doesn’t mean what he said it means…yeah, right.)

It’s pretty obvious the subsidy rule in Obamacare was coercive, deliberately written to force states into setting up their own exchanges (thus bearing the brunt of cost).

But, if the Supreme Court rules Obama’s HHS is doling out subsidies illegally, and must discontinue that practice, shutting off that subsidy spigot will be blamed on…

…Republicans (it was GOP-run states that refused to set up the exchanges).

Democrats won’t be blamed, even though they wrote the law in the first place.

Democrats won’t be blamed, even though they passed it without one GOP vote.

Democrats won’t be blamed – they broke their own law, to give people subsidies.

Democrats wrote bad law (deliberately)…

…broke that law (deliberately)…

…and can now put the blame on Republicans…

…for inflicting Democrat law! (Damned if they do…)

The best way to stop the ‘blame Republicans’ scenario is full repeal of O’care.

Until that happens, it would be advisable for Republicans to strap in.

(DAMNED…IF THEY DON’T.)

What else can it be called?

Emailed protests assert references of an ‘Affirmative Action presidency’ are racist.

What else can it be called, when a community organizer with no business or political leadership experience and zero foreign policy skills is elected to the presidency?

Labeling a lowering of standards as ‘Affirmative Action’ is not racist.

(After all, that’s the classic definition of Affirmative Action.)

What’s racist is the fact that lowered standards enabled his election.

‘Lowered standards’? That’s been the hallmark of this presidency

The Attorney General wants to lower standards for proving civil rights offenses.

What else is new?

For Democrats, nothing defines Affirmative Action better than lower standards, and nothing more clearly reveals the Obama administration for what it is.

Standards were lowered for qualifications of a President…and cabinet posts;

Standards were lowered for burden of proof when black thugs defied the law;

Standards were lowered for qualifying Gitmo detainees as ‘not terror risks’;

Standards were even lowered for qualifications to be an American citizen.

‘Lowered standards’ is what Obama and Holder are all about.

In AG Holder’s America, where military-garbed Black Panthers brandish nightsticks and threaten white voters on election day with impunity, are we surprised?

Over the last six years, Americans have lived Affirmative Action…every day.

3 billion more reasons to stop this guy

Obama’s Treasury Dept. gave health insurers $3 billion of your money last year.

Just one BIG problem – that money wasn’t authorized by Congress to be used.

Congress refused to allow the appropriation for those payments…he did it anyway.

And Obama’s minions won’t say where the money came from.

Until Obama’s toadies disclose the source for this illegal spending, it’s fair to ask…

…how many veterans or children will die, because of $3 billion diverted from their programs…so Obama can enrich fat-cat insurance companies?