Sounds to me like her boyfriend (the dude she murdered) strung her along for quite awhile (even after he dumped her) so he could continue to have deviant sex with her (in the butt) while he looked for a good Mormon girl he could marry. Now, I am in no way saying he got what was coming to him, but neither is he completely blameless.
They were both lacking in moral character, IMO. She a gold digger, he using her desire to land him to get her to perform deviant sexual acts. Then he cut her loose, but continued to use her for sex? It must have blinded him to how crazy she was (and still is) that she'd go along with whatever he wanted in the sack.
So should she get the death penalty? Not being a criminal-coddling lefty, I think it would be appropriate. From what I hear there is a good possibility she'll fry. The anti-ultimate justice Libs no doubt believe she should get counseling and be rehabilitated. Frankly I think rehabilitation isn't possible with many criminal types and not at all with mental defectives like this Arias chick. Not that I believe she didn't know what she was doing and should get off for that reason (insanity).
In any case – this should, perhaps, be a lesson to the single guys out there (who are completely lacking in morals). If you want to use a woman for sex and string her along for an extended period of time – make sure she isn't a psycho nutcase first.
Notice that, in response to all the scandals that plague his administration, prez Hussein claims he knows nothing? Neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder knew the ATF had decided to arm the Mexican drug cartels. He says he did not know the attack on our consulate in Benghazi was a terrorist attack linked to Al Qaeda instead of a spontaneous uprising linked to a protest over a video – even though whistle blowers testifying before Congress say they told him it was a terrorist attack.
Eric Holder claims he didn't know about the decision to seize AP phone records. Hussein claims he did not know the IRS was targeting Conservative groups. Not until he saw the news reports.
What is this guy, a figurehead who holds no actual power, or the leader of the free world? Does anyone in this incompetent administration actually make any decisions or stay in the loop in regards to anything for which they are supposedly responsible? Just how dumb does the Hussein administration think we are?
If you're like me you aren't buying these incredibly lame protests of not knowing what the hell is going on. You know the entire Hussein Administration is lying to us. And they've got to know how transparent their lies are becoming. They are so desperate that they'd rather the public believe they are unbelievably incompetent then realize how corrupt they actually are.
What's with these delusional Liberals in complete denial regarding their savior's fall from grace? Is it that they just can't wrap their brains around the fact that Hussein lied to them? That the first Black president is also one of the worst commanders in chief ever to serve? And, NO, Libs, I intend no racism by making that statement. It is just an observation of the obvious.
Regardless of whether the far-lefties continue to defend the indefensible, the American people are waking up. A recent poll reveals that HALF of America wants this crooked liar removed from office, including almost 28 percent of Democrats.
Fritz Wenzel of Wenzel Strategies (the company that conducted the poll) says, "the appetite is growing for impeachment proceedings. It is too early to say it is time for those proceedings to start, but it's now possible to see that day on the far horizon". Sorry Libs.
The Liberals tried and failed to recall my governor, Scott Walker. They thought they could win but what they didn't realize is that even Democrat voters knew we needed to reign in the greed of the public sector unions. No doubt that quite a few teachers, firefighters and cops voted for Walker, knowing it would cost them but willing to give up what they knew they didn't deserve. Certainly not when the rest of us with private sector jobs are still suffering under the Obama economy.
With Obama, however, there is a stark contrast. Obama, unlike Walker, isn't doing what is necessary to get the country back on the right fiscal path. Instead he spends our money to buy votes and campaign contributions for himself and his fellow Democrats.
The corruption of this administration is becoming much more clear in it's second term, what with the lies and cover up concerning Benghazi, using the IRS to target political opponents, and the tyrannical seizing of records from reporters. There are many more scandals of course (listed at the beginning of my previous post) but it is these three that are generating some serious talk of impeachment.
If only we could recall him, I think many Americans who voted for Obama the last time out would not just go with whatever candidate the Democrats put up in Obama's place (Biden or Hillary) - but would acknowledge they were wrong in not electing Romney when they had the chance. Certainly Romney would get the vote of independents and conservative Democrats who deeply regret voting for the miserable liar who occupies the White House.
Alas, the Constitution does not allow for the recall of a president. The best we could hope for would be a president Biden if the Republicans retook the Senate in the midterms. Unless it could be proven Biden was in on the lying and we impeached him as well. That, however, would be historically unprecedented (and therefore quite unlikely).
Still, there could be some benefits to impeaching Hussein, namely slowing down (or even halting) his Socialist agenda of spending money we don't have and making the "rich" he vilifies pay for (some of) it (while borrowing the rest from China). What do you think? Should we impeach or should we not impeach?
I say yes, but wait until we get nearer to the midterms so we can use it as ammunition to take out his Democrat allies and win the Senate. When, exactly that would mean impeachment proceedings should begin I do not know, but I'm sure the Republicans are on top of it (or I hope they are).
The issue with his birth certificate, budget-busting healthcare "reform", an attempt to classify CO2 as a pollutant, more thievery in the form of increased taxes, refusing to defend DOMA, an attempt to weaken the second amendment, the Benghazi cover up, and now the scandalous revelation that Hussein's IRS targeted Conservative groups... certainly one can not deny that Hussein's presidency is the worst since (at least) Jimmy Carter.
In particular the ability to execute American citizens as he sees fit gives Libertarian John Myers of the Personal Liberty Digest serious cause for concern. Mr. Myers warns of Hussein's "secret army" that allows Hussein to act as "executioner against Americans he sees as his enemy".
Myers points out that Liberal author Jeremy Scahill says "Obama has been granted a blank check to vastly expand drone strikes while blatantly ignoring the Constitution by denying habeas corpus". Yes, Hussein has only executed two American citizens, SO FAR, but "when you stop denying one subset of Americans due process, you are on a slippery slope toward eliminating other Americans whom the President and his secret cabal classify as enemies".
Frankly, I think it a good think when the lives of terrorist scum like al-Awlaki are ended via hellfire missile, but there needs to be some checks and balances on the process. Congress should be involved and who is on the "kill list" should not be in the hands of the executive only!
If this blatant ignoring of the Constitution were being done by a Republican president the hypocrite Liberals would be screaming impeachment, yet their savior Obama does it and not a peep?
Barack Hussein Obama will not serve out his second term. Instead he will be forced to resign or be impeached and leave office in disgrace. I read about this prediction on a well known Conservative News site. Several Republicans were quoted as believing it will be the Benghazi cover up that will be the undoing of Obama.
Frankly I'm not so sure. Yes, I think there was a cover up, and yes, I believe it could be of a magnitude that removing Hussein from office would be entirely appropriate -- but will it actually happen? Only one president has ever resigned from office. Two others were impeached, but they were not removed. Richard Nixon said if a president does it, then it is legal.
People considered that to be an arrogant statement, but I think for (the most part) it is true (not necessarily that anything a president does is legal, but that he can get away with it). It was only because Nixon recorded his misdeeds, and then did not destroy those tapes, that he made his removal from office a certainty. If he had not resigned he would have been bounced out by an impeachment and conviction.
According to the Washington Post, the "U.S. Embassy officials in Tripoli, some 600 miles away, tried unsuccessfully to get the Pentagon to scramble fighter jets" and that "the embassy also was unable to get permission to deploy four U.S. Special Operations troops in Benghazi during the attack".
The question is why did Hussein allow these attacks to continue without responding? Was the Hussein administration's failure to act due to their incompetence or was there some other reason? Did they actually order those who could have responded to stand down?
Greg Hicks, the former deputy chief of mission in Libya, says, "Special Forces personnel were planning to board a C-130 flight at around 6am local time on Sept. 12 but [were told] "you can't go now, you don't have authority to go...".
I don't know about you, but that sounds quite damning to me. A commenter on the "Atlas Shrugs" message board has a theory regarding the stand down order -- he says, "the corruption of this administration pales in comparison to any other scandal. ...to have a Muslim President in office so soon after 9/11 is by design and no accident".
What do you think about this theory? Is it conspiracy theory nonsense from a nutjob, or a very real possibility? I'm leaning toward the later.
We all knew that sooner or later the tax-and-spend types in Congress were going to try to pass legislation assessing a fee to purchase online. For Democrats, of course, there is no new tax that they do not love. Unfortunately some traitorous Senate Republicans joined in (today) and helped the Dems pass a bill to allow states to tax internet sales.
Hopefully the Republican controlled House will reject this outrageous mugging of the middle class. Prez Hussein got his tax increase on the so-called wealthy - now they are going after ordinary working folks?! I don't know about you, but I'm steamed. Especially that Senate Republicans would go along with this shake down of strapped everyday citizens. They are supposed to hold the line and stop the Dems when they attempt to pick our pockets.
It is true that you're supposed to self-report online purchases and pay the tax when you file your state income tax returns, but does anyone actually comply? Maybe happy to "contribute" Liberals (those who aren't living off entitlements and actually have an income), but I'd bet even the Liberal (hypocrite) compliance rate is low. I sure as hell do not divulge what I buy online to my state tax collectors. It is none of their fricking business.
If this bill passes taxes will be assessed and collected automatically by online retailers (and passed on to the states), so you'll have no choice but to pay up. CBS News reports that "some states have sales taxes as high as 7 percent, plus city and county taxes that can push the combined rate even higher". Apparently they think we're made of money!
Congress continues to spend without restraint knowing they can simply pass legislation to steal more from us already over-taxed citizens. Instead of balancing the books as they should. Additionally, as the CBS article warns, "States could audit out-of-state businesses, impose liens on their property and, ultimately, sue them in state court" - so this legislation gives even more power to the government to harass businesses by piling on onerous regulations. Does anyone else find this extremely troubling?
One commenter to the CBS News story put it best when he described Congress as "a mob of self-serving, greedy, corrupt, egomaniacs who could care less about the affects their actions or inactions have on the people they are supposed to represent".
Libertarians, while completely wrong when it comes to social issues, do have it correct when it comes to fiscal matters. According to a recent article by Libertarian Wayne Allen Root, Prez Hussein is like a drug pusher, addicting the population to entitlements.
In his commentary Wayne says, "He has addicted the whole country to welfare, food stamps, disability, unemployment, free meals at school, housing allowances and free healthcare. He's turned almost the whole population into addicts with their hands out".
Wayne is absolutely right, although I'd disagree that the addicts are "almost the whole population". The people with their hands out are the 47 percent Mitt Romney referred to in that private speech he gave to donors that a Liberal operative illegally recorded. But the Liberals and Liberal suckers rejected Romney's advice that America enter rehab. Instead they voted for the candidate who promised to continue feeding their addiction.
Romney told the addicts he was going to cut them off. He told them he'd grow the economy by getting rid of oppressive regulations and cutting the taxes of job creators. Under a Romney presidency everyone who was willing to work hard would be able to provide for themselves and wouldn't need the Liberal entitlements.
But Romney was vilified for telling the truth, and it cost him dearly. The Liberal parasites and leaches don't like it when their victims complain. Getting the voters hooked on freebies from the Government (that the productive sector of society pays for) is the only way Democrats can win!
Which is why Hussein the drug pusher continues his call for the job creators and successful individuals to be taxed more and more. Someone has to pay for all the free drugs (entitlements) the Democrats hand out like candy. But we all know that addicts (unless they get clean) eventually die. This is the path America is headed down under the Liberals.
Barack Hussein Obama is killing our economy by enabling the Liberal druggies addicted to entitlements. America needs to detox. It will be hard, but we'll come out stronger on the other end. Unfortunately the healing can't begin until we get our fiscal house in order, and that isn't going to happen with Hussein "leading" the nation.
There are those who believe the last election was stolen. That massive voter fraud swung it in Obama's favor and that Romney actually won. I think these people are definitely on to something. But, as history has shown us, once a president is elected (or he appears to have been elected), nothing can be done to undo the announced election results.
So Obama, legitimate or not, won't be ejected from office. His "win" won't be overturned because nobody is investigating the voter fraud issue. Republicans continue to work to see that it's reduced in the future, but past voter fraud will stand. Clearly Obama'a presidency could be illegitimate in that his win was due to voter fraud (that will never be investigated and thus never proven), but what about the "natural born citizen" issue? That issue was resolved when Obama (under pressure) FINALLY released his Hawaiian long form birth certificate, right?
Not so fast kemosabe! The Hawaiian birth certificate that Hussein released may have fooled the Liberal media, but others say it's a forgery. CBS News in Arizona reported on an investigation initiated by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and they say Joe's investigators "confirmed" the document was created using Photoshop (see video below).
Snopes does a pretty good job "debunking" the "created in Photoshop" charge, but Snopes is the same site that "debunked" the allegation that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet. They based their conclusion on some bullpucky about "create" and "invent" not having the same meaning - but go to any dictionary website and you'll find that the words are synonyms.
Also, Wikipedia notes that the site's creator David Mikkelson "has said that the site receives more complaints of liberal bias than conservative bias". Maybe their defense of Al Gore using a nonsense argument about synonyms having different meanings could have something to do with these "Liberal bias" accusations?
On the other hand, the Snopes page links to a Fox New article! I suppose this was done to convince Right-wingers? "Look Right-winger, we're linking to FOX NEWS"!! But check this out - if you Google the name of the Photoshop expert, "Jean-Claude Tremblay", one of the articles that comes up on top is, "Fox News expert denies he claimed birth certificate legit".
Tremblay (the Fox News expert) says, "the network must retract the story, [because] it deliberately misquoted him". Tremblay says his findings don't prove the authenticity of the document one way or the other, but Fox News refuses to allow him to correct their story. As a result Tremblay feels "anger verging on disdain" and no longer trusts Fox News. I guess that blows the Snopes "debunking" out of the water. This expert's analysis went from "absolutely legit" to "can't say one way or the other". Question is, why would Fox News put forward a story that misrepresents what the Photoshop expert said?
The newspaper announcements that some cite as "proof" have also been questioned. Both of the two papers that ran the birth announcements said their information came from the state Department of Health and the "certificates of live birth". But these certificates require no proof that the child was actually born in Hawaii; instead they are issued if the child's parents have "declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child".
Furthermore, a neighbor living next to the address where the birth announcement says the Obamas lived can't recall that a White woman who gave birth to a black baby ever lived there, and an investigator looking into the matter discovered the house was owned by an "Orland S. and Thelma S. (Young) Lefforge, both of whom are deceased".
In conclusion I must say that (for me, at least), the question of where Barack Hussein Obama was actually born is still unknown - but the claim that he was born in Hawaii seems incredibly suspect. If he was actually born in Hawaii you'd think there wouldn't be all these questions. For me, the fact that there are all these questions point to a cover-up. And why cover-up where he was actually born unless he was born outside the United States?
Back to the question regarding Barack Hussein Obama's presidency and it's legitimacy. Is he a legitimate president? Was he legitimately elected? Is he Constitutionally eligible to serve? I say the facts seem to strongly suggest that he is illegitimate for two reasons. First of all, his "win" was accomplished via voter fraud, and secondly - he wasn't even eligible to run in the first place!
On Friday April 25th, in a move that some might describe as an endorsement of evil, our disgraceful and incompetent prez met with those who murder babies for profit. Doing something no president before him had ever considered, Hussein spoke out in favor of a woman's right to have her unborn child put to death, because, as a past Supreme Court determined, it is a matter of her "privacy".
Regarding Planned Parenthood, Obama reportedly said "It's not going anywhere today, it's not going anywhere tomorrow". No doubt he is correct, as Obama will, most likely, appoint at least one SCOTUS judge during his second term (unless impeached). There is no doubt that Jesus cries for the lives of the tens of thousands of babies whose lives could have been saved if only Romney were president; Romney appointed the next SCOTUS judge, and Roe V Wade was overturned.
At least we still have Republican state Legislatures and Governors working hard to stop the abortionists and shut down their murder factories, including despicable corporations like Planned Parenthood. Places where doctors ignore their oaths to "do no harm" and slaughter infants in the womb.
We all know Hussein endorsed infanticide in the past (when he served in the IL state senate), but now he has used the office of the presidency to officially endorse it! The Godless Liberals must be overjoyed the holocaust of the unborn will continue to be "legal". Murder is illegal when the victim is outside the womb, but for some reason that is beyond me it is perfectly legal if the victim's umbilical cord is still attached.
The hypocritical Liberals claimed that those who oppose baby butchery are waging a "war on women". Additionally, these immoral Liberals mock the pious and moral by inventing a fake "religion" they call "humanism". Wikipedia says, "Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings", but fighting to keep murder private isn't ethical, it is very, very unethical!
Can there be any doubt that Satan smiled when the "Humanist" Liberals won and Barack Hussein Obama was "elected" to a second term! I say shame on Liberals for supporting this barbarism. How can they live with themselves? At least Conservatives like me who value the lives of the sweet innocent babies can take solace in the fact that their murderers will have to answer to the All Mighty for their reprehensible crimes.
And, speaking of things that are illegal, I probably need to make it clear that I do not support the assassination of abortion doctors, heinous though their actions may be. This is a problem that can't be solved through vigilantism.
Yes, the re-election of the nation's top champion of killing kids, Barack Hussein Obama, means we probably won't be able to shut down the Liberal dream of snuffing out the lives of as many innocent babies as possible (by overturning Rove V Wade), but, like I said earlier, the Republican Governors and Republicans in the state congresses have the right idea - shut down the abortion factories by any legal means possible.
Get this, apparently captured Boston bombing "suspect" Dzhokar Tsarnaev (the cute one) says that, perhaps he should not have listened to his older brother when he first told him he wanted to bomb the Boston marathon. Now he says that, perhaps he should have told his brother no. A little to late for regrets, I say. Also, I doubt the jury will buy this defense of blaming everything on the dead brother.
No, I think he's going to fry. Or have his body pumped full of lethal chemicals. However the death penalty is administered at the federal level. I can't say I know much about the subject. In any case, an excuse of committing jihad and blowing people up because you love and idolize your older brother just isn't going to get you any sympathy, I suspect.
He seemed to be on the right path. In college, and therefore presumably on track for a good career in dentistry. The American dream could have been his, but he flushed it away when he decided to go along with his brother's crazy ideas about jihad. Previously he indicated that his personal priorities were "career and money", but jihad leads to death. Both for your victims and for yourself, as he certainly should have known.
If you're a terrorist-sympathizing Liberal you might ask, "what went wrong"? What did the United States do to cause the Tsarnaev brothers to be susceptible to radicalization? How far can we go in appeasing jihad-inclined Muslims so this does not happen again? Me, I'm not a part of the blame America first crowd, so I say, "who gives a sh*t"? Look what we did for him, and still he wants to kill Americans? I think it is a shame he wasn't killed in the shootout that preceded his capture. Now millions of taxpayer dollars are going to be spent trying him, as if there is any doubt regarding his guilt.
I heard the reason we needed to take him alive was to gather information regarding additional attacks that might be underway, other conspirators, who radicalized him and are they in the United States, etc. Not all the details may be out, but it appears as though there is no additional useful information to be gleaned. I heard yesterday three college friends of Dzhokar were arrested (also immigrants), but all they did is "tamper with evidence" (disposed of his backpack), and this info did not come from Dzhokar (so the cops could have taken him out and saved the taxpayers a butt load of money).
Yes, he is an American citizen so he could not be designated an enemy combatant, as some Republicans suggested (darn!). Wikipedia notes that he was (prophetically?) naturalized on September 11, 2012. So, less than a year as a citizen. Perhaps we need some kind of legislation that allows citizenship to be revoked? Clearly this is an "oops, we made a mistake" type situation. I mean, he must have had jihad type thoughts while undergoing the naturalization process, so obviously he lied when he pledged allegiance to the United States. I say that should be enough to void our citizenship "contract" with him.
Too bad we can't void our presidential contract with Barack Hussein Obama. We did try, but more people supposedly voted for him than against him. Now we're stuck with the stealth jihadist for another 4 years! What I'm referring to are the following two facts: [Fact 1] Many Republicans believe BHO is Muslim, and [Fact 2] BHO's economic policies have led to an extremely anemic "recovery" that has left many Americans behind.
Is it possible that Barack Hussein Obama is actually a follower of radical Islam determined to bring down America from the inside by waging economic jihad? If so, that would undoubtedly make him the world's greatest jihadist. But whether he is a follower of radical Islam or not, his terrible economic policies are causing great harm to our country.
Prez Hussein apparently phoned NBA player Jason Collins and congratulated him for having sex with other men. Is it just me or did this move cause you to think, WTF? Me, I could have lived my entire life and been just fine not knowing this sports figure engages in sodomy. But if you're famous and draw attention to yourself by letting the entire world know what kind of deviant behavior you partake in while in the boudoir, Obama will call you personally and say, "job well done".
Job well done? For what, making us normals lose our lunches, and forcing us to explain to our children how two people of the same sex can "do it"? Sex is a private matter between two people (a man and a woman if you adhere to the Bible), and it should REMAIN that way.
Remember awhile back when there was a story that suggested Hussein might be involved in a relationship with a man? The Liberal media swept those allegations under the rug, but I've read that "it is common knowledge in the Chicago gay community that Obama actively visited the gay bars and bathhouses in Chicago while he was an Illinois state senator".
A homosexual man named Larry Sinclair says "he had sex and used cocaine twice with Obama while Obama was an Illinois state senator". He wrote a book about the affair titled, "Barack Obama & Larry Sinclair: Cocaine, Sex, Lies & Murder". The book description on Amazon says Obama, "smoked crack cocaine while being fellated".
If accurate this is truly disgusting. However, it certainly could explain Hussein's enthusiasm in supporting the homosexual agenda. Will we ever know the truth? According to one of the individuals reporting on Barack's homo-ness, "all of this is going to be as public knowledge as JFK's affair with Marilyn Monroe and the other women he cavorted with while married to Jackie". Eventually it will come out.
Maybe the day the truth is revealed will be in 2016 when Obama leaves Michelle, "comes out" and marries another man. Then we shall know that this was just another of Hussein's many lies. In the meantime he'll only congratulate others for their gayness, as the nation isn't ready for a homosexual Kenyan Muslim Socialist president. I don't know if it ever will be.
