Social networks went into overload after ‘The Bible’ broadcast depicted an actor portraying Satan who bore an uncanny resemblance to President Obama.
Why does Satan look suspiciously like President Barack Obama in the History Channel’s hit series The Bible?
That’s the question on many viewers’ lips after Sunday evening’s episode of the popular show featured a devil-playing actor with an uncanny resemblance to the 44th POTUS.
Social networks went into meltdown as thousands of the 13.1 million audience pointed out the eerie similarity between Obama and actor Mohamen Mehdi Ouazanni, reports mediaite.com.
Right-wing commentator and radio-host Glenn Beck tweeted: “Anyone else think the Devil in #TheBible Sunday on History Channel looks exactly like That Guy?”
It airs on the History Channel in two-hour chunks on Sunday nights, with its finale scheduled for March 31, Easter Sunday.
Burnett has so far not commented on the controversy.
One of the oldest and most storied traditions of the Senate made a sudden return to Capitol Hill on Wednesday when a junior senator seized control of the chamber with an hours-long filibuster involving rambling speeches aimed at blocking a vote on President Obama’s choice to lead the CIA.
Led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) with help from other junior senators, the filibuster was aimed at drawing attention to deep concern on both sides of the aisle about the administration’s use of unmanned aerial drones in its fight against terrorists and whether the government would ever use them in the United States.
Shortly before noon, Paul — the scion of a political family at the heart of the libertarian movement — came to the Senate floor and declared his opposition to the nomination of John O. Brennan, Obama’s choice to lead the spy agency, who has overseen the drone program.
“I will speak until I can no longer speak,” Paul said as he began. “I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”
Former Florida governor Jeb Bush talks with TODAY’s Matt Lauer about the sequester cuts will have on the economy and national security and strategies for improving our immigration system.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush won’t confirm he’s a candidate for the next presidential race, but he sounded like a White House hopeful Monday, declaring his party in need of leadership.
“I have a voice, I want to share my beliefs about how the conservative movement and the Republican party can regain its footing, because we’ve lost our way,” he told TODAY’s Matt Lauer.
Bush said he wouldn’t rule out a run in 2016, “but I won’t declare today either.”
Instead, he offered his views on the current fiscal problems facing the White House and Congress, including the deep budget cuts that will be rolled out in numerous federal agencies in upcoming weeks.
Bush called the sequestration a “temporary problem in our history,” one the nation appears numb to because of hype raised by President Obama.
“The president kind of led the charge to say that widows and orphans were going to be out on the street, and so when it didn’t happen, he actually himself kind of stepped back on Friday and said it wasn’t going to happen that way,” he said.
Bush said the impact of the sequestration was “oversold” and “people are just numbed by this dysfunction and they watch it with their peripheral vision.”
Bush also said recent fiscal problems are hampering progress on immigration reform, an issue he believes could help restore the nation’s economic growth. It’s also the one of the few areas where both parties have shown considerable compromise.
“This is the one place where cats and dogs seem to be getting along a little more, so I’m optimistic that there could be a consensus about going forward on immigration,” said Bush, who addresses the issue in his new book, “Immigration Wars.”
Bush faulted both the Republican party and its 2012 presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, for failing to garner more support from Hispanic voters during the last election cycle.
“Gov. Romney put himself in a box, I think, in the primary by trying to out(-conservative) conservatives, some very good conservative candidates, and never really recovered from it,” Bush said.
Immigration may not be the dominant issue for Asian-Amerians, Hispanics and other minorities, Bush added, but Republicans need to recognize that it is important to them.
“It’s a gateway. If you set a tone that you don’t want people to be part of your team, they don’t join,” he said.
While Bush supports an immigration policy that would grant legal status to people who enter the country illegally if certain conditions are met, he does not support granting them citizenship.
“There has to be some difference between people who come here legally and illegally. It’s just a matter of common sense and a matter of the rule of law,” he said. “If we’re not going to apply the law fairly and consistently, then we’re going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming into the country.”
He also said many people don’t want to become citizens.
“They want to come here, they want to work hard, they want to provide for their families. Some will want to come home, not necessarily all of them want to stay as citizens,” he said.
Bush will appear next week at the upcoming Conservative Political Action Conference (C-PAC). One person who won’t be joining him on the speaker roster is New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who was criticized by conservatives after he effusively praised President Obama for helping his state after Hurricane Sandy.
But Bush said conservatives were probably more put off by the way Christie handled budget issues unrelated to Sandy aid.
“I love Christie,” Bush said of his possible rival for the 2016 presidential race. “I think Gov. Christie is a part of the future of the Republican party for sure, and whether he’s going to C-PAC or not is not really changing that.”
MORE at MSN Today
There has been speculation regarding President Obama’s “citizen army”. In 2008, President Obama made statements regarding a “civilian national security force”. Since that day, many have been curious as to what President Obama had in mind when he made that statement. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY13) may have just given a bit of insight into what was meant when he introduced H.R. 748 last week.
“We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded,” Obama said as a candidate in 2008.
H.R. 748 would require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 25 to perform “national service”. These persons in the United States would either serve the country as a member of uniformed services or as civilian service. The civilian service could be served with a Federal, State, or local government program. The local government programs include community-based organizations. H.R. 748 would “authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, to provide for the registration of women under the Military Selective Service Act, and for other purposes”
“Sequester cuts will make US more vulnerable to terrorist attack” (ahem)
Will we finally call their bluff on these threats?
Allowing the $85 billion sequester to go forward will make the United States more vulnerable to a terrorist attack, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned Monday.
Napolitano added that the blunt nature of the $85 billion in automatic spending cuts set for March 1 “makes it awfully, awfully tough” to mitigate threats faced by the nation.
“I don’t think we can maintain the same level of security at all places around the country with sequester compared to without sequester,” said Napolitano, whose agency includes the Transportation Security Administration.
The cuts will also hit the Pentagon, the Department of Justice and other national security spending, and the administration has warned the spending reductions will hurt the military’s readiness.
“I think if you look at the combination of the effect on [the Department of Homeland Security], the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense, we are having real impacts on the robustness of our defensive posture,” Napolitano told reporters at the White House on Monday.
Napolitano’s attendance at the White House briefing was the latest part of a White House effort to pressure Congress into passing a deal that would prevent the sequester.
Earlier on Monday, President Obama urged the nation’s governors, gathered in Washington for their annual meeting, to lobby their congressional delegations to reach a compromise deal.
In her remarks, Napolitano said the cuts would reduce Coast Guard patrols by 25 percent, reduce the number of beds for immigration detentions and increase wait times at ports.
“When you slow down the inspection of containers by up to five days … that translates into lots and lots of jobs, good paying jobs, and those are going to be impacted,” Napolitano said.
Republicans have said the White House is attempting to frighten the American people over the sequester with scare tactics.
“My advice to the [president is] stop the campaigning, stop sending out your cabinet secretaries to scare the American people,” Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said Sunday on “Meet the Press.”
Jindal said Obama should “roll up your sleeves and do the hard work of governing.”
Asked about Jindal’s comments, Napolitano denied the administration was employing scare tactics.
“I’m not here to scare people; I’m here to inform and let people begin to plan,” Napolitano said.
White House press secretary Jay Carney would not say if Obama will meet with Congressional leaders to discuss the sequester this week.
But he vowed to “continue to engage with the Congress this week.”
The White House is demanding that a sequester replacement bill include some tax increases, something Republicans have refused. Carney indicated that he doesn’t expect Republicans to move much in their position.
“The simple fact is what Republican leaders are saying in public reflects the positions that they have,” he said.
The impasse and divide over taxes suggests the cuts will begin on March 1, with both sides hoping public pressure will build on the other to budge from their position.
More from The Hill:
• Napolitano warns of long TSA lines from sequester
• GOP rips Obama as ‘road show president’
• Rival sequester bills teed up in Senate
• Blame and fear as sequester looms
• Web anonymity battle starts anew
• McCain, Graham to meet with Obama on immigration
• Dems schedule votes on assault weapons ban
• Unprecedented role for celebrity first lady
President Obama took part Thursday in what the White House called a “Fireside Hangout — our 21st century take on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats.” During the event, which was broadcast on the White House’s official YouTube channel and Google+, the president was asked about the administration’s deportation of 1.5 million illegal immigrants.
When asked specifically what he would do to make sure more families weren’t deported, Mr. Obama responded: “This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”
Read more: Washington Times
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, CISPA is set to be re-introduced before the US House next week. The bill will be identical to the one introduced last spring, that was defeated on the Senate floor in August of last year.
The house Intelligence Committee chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Representative Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md) will attempt the re-introduction based on a spate of cyber espionage and hacking attacks.
Civil liberties groups have criticized the bill for invading privacy. CISPA allows for the voluntary sharing of information about internet traffic between private companies and the government. Its intention is to assist the intelligence service in identifying and neutralizing cyber and hacking attacks and to ensure the security of networks against attack .
The bill would also allow the government to pass information to private companies and protect them from legal actions that may arise from the sharing of information.
Opponents of the bill say it will allow government to track an individuals browsing information, allowing them to spy on individuals at will.
Fight for the Future, a non-profit group’working to extend the internet’s powers for good’ have already started an online petition which asks voters to call their representatives on the House Intelligence Committee to register their opposition to the bill.
Several newspapers have recently become victims of cyber spying. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post have all been attacked.
Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security said in January:
“We shouldn’t wait until there is a 9/11 in the cyber world. There are things we should be doing right now that,if not prevent, would mitigate the extent of the damage.”
Last October Leon Panetta also warned of the possibility of a ‘cyber Pearl Harbor”
Despite the huge amount of opposition to the bill President Obama is expected to issue an Executive order aimed at strengthening US cyber security, the order is expected to be released after he delivers the State of the Union address on Tuesday.
MORE: The Daily Sheeple
Contributed by Chris Carrington of The Daily Sheeple.
Chris Carrington is a writer, researcher and lecturer with a background in science, technology and environmental studies. Chris is an editor for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up!
Unable to reach a deal with Congress, President Obama plans to use his power to exert executive actions against the will of lawmakers. The president will issue orders addressing controversial topics including cybersecurity.
Although President Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any president in over 100 years, he is making extensive plans to change that, Washington Post reports quoting people outside the White House involved in discussions on the issues. Due to conflicts with a Congress that too often disagrees on proposed legislation, Obama plans to act alone and is likely “to rely heavily” on his executive powers in future, according to the newspaper.
Obama’s first executive order is expected to be issued this week when the president calls for the creation of new standards on what private-sector companies must do to protect their computer systems from a cybersecurity breach.
The order is a direct response to Congress’ refusal to pass the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) last year, which the administration deemed crucial to prevent crippling attacks on the nation’s infrastructure. But members of Congress who opposed the legislation cited serious privacy concerns with giving the government greater access to Americans’ personal information that only private companies and servers might have access to.
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea threatened on Friday to take “physical countermeasures” against South Korea if it helps enforce sanctions against the besieged North, calling the United Nations-endorsed penalties a “declaration of war” and warning of a prolonged chill in the relations between the two Koreas.
North Korea’s confrontational posture was likely to significantly limit room for the South’s incoming conservative president, Park Geun-hye, to make overtures for reconciliation with the North; like the outgoing President Lee Myung-bak and President Obama in the United States, Mr. Park considers the dismantling of the North’s nuclear program the premise in all South Korea’s diplomacy toward the North. Since her December election, she has said she would not tolerate the North’s nuclear program and would deal sternly with North Korean provocations.
From Florida to California, a growing number of the nation’s sheriffs are standing up to gun control measures proposed by both the administration and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.).
Many law enforcement officials have written letters to President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden voicing their concerns over what they believe is an effort to infringe upon the Second Amendment.
In New Mexico, 30 of the state’s 33 county sheriffs have reminded state lawmakers that they are under oath to support the U.S. Constitution, and that includes the Second Amendment.
CNSNews.com previously reported that 28 of the 29 sheriff’s in Utah sent a letter to President Obama stating that they will not enforce any new gun laws they believe to be unconstitutional.
A host of Oregon sheriffs have said that they will not comply with any new unconstitutional gun regulations:
- Sheriff Craig Zanni wrote, ”I have and will continue to uphold my Oath of Office including supporting the Second Amendment,” in a letter to Coos County citizens.
- Douglas County Sheriff John Hanlin said he would refuse to enforce any new Federal gun law he believes is unconstitutional.
- In a letter to Vice President Joe Biden, Grant County Sheriff, Glenn Palmer writes: “I will not tolerate nor will I permit any federal incursion within the exterior boundaries of Grant County, Oregon, where any type of gun control legislation aimed at disarming law -abiding citizens is the goal or objective.”
- Sheriff Gil Gilbertson of Josephine County told Biden in a letter: ”Any rule, regulation, or executive order repugnant to the constitutional rights of the citizens of this County will be ignored by this office.”
- Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon says his department will not participate in any overreaching and unconstitutional federal firearms restrictions.
In California, Sheriff Adam Christianson of Stanislaus County wrote to the vice president: “I refuse to take firearms from law abiding citizens and will not turn law-abiding citizens into criminals by enforcing useless gun control legislation.”