Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat

  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 7     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #101 

Obama administration is "a criminal enterprise like the Mafia"

On Monday's "Hannity" on the Fox News Channel, Breitbart editor at-large of Ben Shapiro laid out the premise of his new book, "The People Vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration."

"So there are multiple charges -- I mean, everything from Benghazi, which there are violations of the Espionage Act and the Arms Export Control Act to the IRS, in which there are violation of IRS law, to witness tampering on multiple counts. There are tons of charges can be brought against the Obama administration. But I’m arguing here is this is really a criminal enterprise like the mafia. Basically, President Obama never has to give a direct order. All he has to do is sit atop of the chain of command and then let all of his minions do whatever it is that he wants. This is why the RICO Act was created -- is to wrap all of this kind of stuff in a bundle and then allow for prosecution. That would mean [Attorney General] Eric Holder would have to do something."

According to host Sean Hannity, some of what Shapiro argued for seemed politically unachievable. Shapiro, however, would put the power in hands of the people and give them the ability to file a civil lawsuit against Obama administration for these indiscretions.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #102 

This sounds to me like Professor Turley voted to ban the American constitution in the last two elections and doing so should be treated as a traitor ! ! !

He knew as all American should have known that Obama is not eligible for the presidency.


Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #103 

Bergdahl deal is not the first time Obama risked American lives after bypassing Congress

Monte Kuligowski says the chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Diane Feinstein, was visibly upset with Barack Obama upon learning of Obama's secretive Bergdahl deal.  It is reasonable that she and all members of Congress should be outraged.  But should they be surprised that the president traded five of the most dangerous terrorists in Gitmo for the deserter, Bowe Bergdahl, without consulting Congress per the law passed to prevent exactly what Obama did?

Congress should, of course, be livid.  But shocked, I don't think so.

At this point, it should be hard for anyone could be surprised.  The man with a pen and a phone had more than threatened to illegally bypass Congress; he had done so before.

And he had done so in big ways.

On the subject of Obama's usurpation of powers, constitutional expert and George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley had this to say during an NPR interview:

We've seen a gradual sort of gravitational shift of power from the legislative to the executive branch. It was prominent during the Bush years, where I was also very critical, but it certainly accelerated under President Obama. And the most serious violations, in my view, are various cases when he went to Congress, as in the immigration field, as in the healthcare field, as for very specific things, and was rejected, and then decided just to order those on his own. He's also been accused of shifting large amounts of money from their appointed or appropriated purpose to other purposes. These really drive at the heart of the separation of powers.

Testifying before the House Judiciary Committee, Professor Turley noted:

As someone who voted for President Obama and agrees with many of his policies, it is often hard to separate the ends from the means of presidential action. Indeed, despite decades of thinking and writing about the separation of powers, I have had momentary lapses where I privately rejoiced in seeing actions on goals that I share, even though they were done in the circumvention of Congress. For example, when President Obama unilaterally acted on greenhouse gas pollutants, I was initially relieved. I agree entirely with the priority that he has given this issue. However, it takes an act of willful blindness to ignore that the greenhouse regulations were implemented only after Congress rejected such measures and that a new sweeping regulatory scheme is now being promulgated solely upon the authority of the President. We are often so committed to a course of action that we conveniently dismiss the means as a minor issue in light of the goals of the Administration. Many have embraced the notion that all is fair in love and politics. However, as I have said too many times before Congress, in our system it is often more important how we do something than what we do. Priorities and policies (and presidents) change. What cannot change is the system upon which we all depend for our rights and representation.

Turley believes that Obama's "most serious violations" occurred after Congress had soundly rejected Obama's intentions through our constitutional process.

Those with constitutional integrity and intellectual honesty must agree with Turley that Obama's habit of circumventing Congress to effectively dictate has created a "constitutional crisis" and has placed the United States at a "constitutional tipping point."

It appears that the general public isn't fully aware of our constitutional crisis.  But now, with the Bergdahl deal that Obama made with our enemies during a time of war, the public is becoming acutely aware of an unforgivable consequence of rejecting Congress's wishes and the rule of law: there is a reasonable likelihood that Obama's aid to the Taliban via releasing five of its top terrorist leaders will lead to the loss of American life.

Mr. Obama's smug forcing of his will over the resolutions of the people's representatives is finally being exposed for the danger that it is.  Finally, because Obama's bypassing of Congress has had deadly consequences before, yet somehow, that connection has eluded public awareness.

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani recently noted that Obama's Bergdahl deal was "one of the most irresponsible and dangerous decisions that a president has ever made."

That's true, but Obama's Libya decision in 2011 was equally bad, and perhaps even worse.

The focus regarding the Benghazi outrage has been on why the Obama administration had not responded to requests for enhanced security; why American diplomats had not been pulled when the British and the Red Cross pulled out; why the military was not dispatched to help during the six-hour attack on 9-11-2012; why the administration failed to account for the president's whereabouts during the prolonged attack; why a cover-up was devised, blaming an obscure YouTube video and calling the planned, heavily armed terrorist attack a "spontaneous uprising" that occurred during a "protest" over the infamous video.

The unanswered questions swirling around the Benghazi tragedy need to be answered, and, of course, the administration needs to be held accountable for every bit of incompetence and prevarication.

But the foundation of Benghazi is not the the ineptness, cover-up, and propaganda of the Obama administration.

At the overlooked core is Obama's bypassing of Congress in violation of the Constitution and rule of law in order to unilaterally unleash the killing power of the United States military in Libya to overthrow (and fundamentally transform) a sovereign state that presented no threat to the United States.

The instability in Benghazi, Libya and the empowerment of terrorists that led to the brutal murder of four Americans, including U.S. ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, were the proximate consequences of Obama's unconstitutional actions.  By hastily killing the Libyan president, Moammar Gaddafi, Obama and the U.N. created an unstable and anarchic atmosphere in Libya.  And because he acted without Congress's permission, Obama is uniquely responsible for the murder of four American citizens.  Mr. Obama has not even a fig leaf of constitutional cover.

But for Obama's unilateral military orders, there would be no Benghazi tragedy.

Many fear that Mr. Obama's bizarre deal with terrorists, in releasing five of the worst of the worst in exchange for a deserter, will place the United States at risk and will lead to the death of Americans.

Those fears are well-founded. And it is important to remember that Obama's unilateral actions, in defiance of Congress, have already had deadly consequences in Libya.  Obama slapped American sovereignty in the face by submitting the United States military to the authority of the United Nations, with the momentous goal of forcing regime change via killing and destroying.  Congress was not even permitted to vote on the use of U.S. military power to support the rebel forces.

If Obama was willing to unilaterally dispatch a naval force of 11 Navy ships -- including nuclear submarines; B-2 stealth bombers; AV-8B Harrier II jump-jets; A-10 ground-attack aircraft; EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft; U-2 reconnaissance aircraft; F-15E and F-16 fighters; AC-130Us; tanker aircraft; E-8Cs; CIA agents to gather intelligence; and MQ-1 Predator UAVs -- to overthrow a foreign government without congressional authorization, should anyone then be surprised at other transgressions against our constitution and rule of law?

With all that Obama has gotten away with, why shouldn't he feel as though he is above the law?

Congress and every red-blooded American should be outraged over the treacherous Bergdahl deal -- but, unfortunately, there is no reason for surprise.

The question is whether the outrage will translate into congressional action to hold Barack Obama fully accountable.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #104 

When the president disregards the law

Judge Andrew Napolitano says on the same weekend that the secretary of veterans affairs resigned amid the scandal of veterans dying before the government's doctors could treat them in government hospitals; on the heels of another revelation of the National Security Agency's unconstitutional spying, in which federal agents have been seizing the digital images of our loved ones and friends that have accompanied our emails; and a week after the White House intentionally or negligently revealed the true identity of the CIA station chief in Afghanistan, President Obama announced a new foreign-policy initiative called "No One Left Behind." The reference was to the sole service member then held in captivity in the venue of America's longest war, the one most Americans have forgotten: Afghanistan.

Late last week, Barack Obama announced the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who had been held by the Taliban for more than five years. Sgt. Bergdahl apparently shed his weapons and equipment, sent his personal belongings home, and walked into the hands of his captors one day, unwilling to remain a part of his military unit and largely ignorant of the fate that faced him. Obama must have been determined to bring Sgt. Bergdahl home at all costs, because the manner of his doing so makes it likely that he violated federal criminal law in the deal he cut with Sgt. Bergdahl's captors.

The government apparently negotiated with the Taliban, a group characterized by federal law as a non-state terrorist organization. The deal required the United States to release five former senior Taliban intelligence and military officials from the American prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Therein lies the legal and constitutional conundrum generated by the post-September 11 contempt for the Constitution that has been a hallmark of Congress, and the Bush and Obama administrations.

The concept of Gitmo as a holding facility of endless duration for uncharged and untried human beings is unrecognizable when viewed through the prism of the Constitution, and in all five cases in which this concept was addressed by the Supreme Court, the court directed the government to put the detainees on trial before a neutral public tribunal using rules that were in place before the detentions began. Both administrations have been averse to public trials, preferring to keep secret their own behavior in the manner of arresting, detaining and interrogating these people. As a result, few trials have been held, only two people have been convicted and both of them were released based on the prison time they had already served.

Yet the release of these Taliban leaders in a prisoner swap materially assists the Taliban in such a way as to be criminal. How can it be criminal to release a prisoner? It is not a crime to release a prisoner who has been acquitted, but it is criminal to release an untried prisoner whom the government reasonably thinks will aid a terrorist group. Federal law prohibits any person from providing material assistance to a terrorist organization, even if the organization fails to use the assistance, and even if the use of it produces no measurable harm.

Material assistance includes anything from money to maps to professional services; it includes the appearance of support and even a false belief in support. It was intended to criminalize intentionally causing any assets of value to come into the control of any non-state terrorist group that American law has condemned.

This is the same statute that the courts have interpreted so broadly that merely listening to a harangue by a terrorist leader at his training camp, without any further behavior, is considered providing material assistance to the group that runs the camp. If hard assets such as money and political support are covered by the statute, then human assets are covered as well. This is the same statute that has been employed successfully to prosecute those who fall victim to FBI stings, in which the defendant typically is a dimwitted person led by FBI agents to believe falsely that he is assisting a terrorist group, but no actual assistance ever flows to the group.

Obama, no doubt, will argue that under the Constitution, he and he alone makes foreign policy and, as well, as commander in chief of the military, he enjoys the constitutional authority to make these prisoner swaps. Yet Obama has sworn an oath faithfully to enforce all federal law. He cannot knowingly or legally exclude himself from the obligation to comply with laws with which he disagrees. That's the Nixon argument -- "When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." -- which the courts and modern history have rejected.

Obama has a serious problem with competence and with fidelity to his oath. In one week, he has alienated and demoralized much of the intelligence community by revealing the true name of one of them and by releasing their worst nightmare back into the theater of Middle East warfare. He has also flagrantly failed to enforce federal law by materially aiding a non-state terrorist group condemned by American law. This is almost inconceivable in an American president.

Yet it is almost predictable with Barack Obama. In our Orwellian post-Sept. 11 world, Congress thinks it can alter basic constitutional principles, and Obama thinks he can enforce only the laws he likes. Did we break away from a king, who thought his powers were given to him by God, 240 years ago only to elect a president who behaves like a king? Thomas Jefferson saw this coming in his final years, when he argued that an elected despot is not the government we fought for.

It surely is not the government Jefferson fought for; but today, it is the government we have.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #105 

Pentagon Official tells why Obama made the Taliban trade

Joseph Miller says here is the truth: The deal to trade five senior Taliban detainees to secure the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was political. It breaks American law. It was publicly justified with lies. It breaks decades of U.S. policy. It puts Americans at risk. It undermines the government of Afghanistan, and it passes responsibility on to the next administration.

But first of all, it was political.

But no, it was not to take the spot light off of the failures at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Simply stated, it was because so long as Bergdahl remained in Taliban captivity in Pakistan, the Obama administration would never be able to close the chapter of the failed Afghanistan campaign it has owned since approving -- and then under-resourcing -- a surge of U.S. forces in the country.

Bergdahl's captivity served as a constant reminder of Barack Obama's strategic failures while U.S. forces prepare to withdraw from Afghanistan. That's something the Democrats cannot allow going into 2014 and 2016 elections. So Obama agreed to an unprecedented deal in blatant violation of U.S. law and established precedent that undermines the safety and security of the United States and her citizens, once again choosing short-term political gain over long-term security interests.

Claims of new information on Bergdahl's deteriorating health are simply false justifications. Bergdahl's health was in no worse shape than should be reasonably expected of someone who had been living as a Taliban for five years. He walked without assistance into the waiting company of U.S. special operations forces, and then climbed aboard the waiting helicopter. He was mentally sound enough to recognize what was going on around him and to communicate with American forces. And none of the medical or psychological issues that he has displayed symptoms are life threatening. So this was just another example of the administration trying to justify its actions.

Additionally, the decision breaks with a decades-old standing U.S. policy to never negotiate with terrorists. Bergdahl was being held by the Haqqani Network in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. The Obama administration designated the Haqqani Network a terrorist organization just a few years ago. By negotiating with the Haqqani Network through the government of Qatar, the administration violated the policy.

Though this is not how the Obama administration sees it.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #106 

Team Obama did not follow the law when they negotiated the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, appeared on Fox & Friends on Monday where he asserted that the White House did not follow the law when they negotiated the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from Taliban captivity in exchange for five high-ranking Taliban prisoners. He said he intends to investigate the prisoner swap and criticized Barack Obama for ending the "chapter in American history where we don't negotiate with terrorists."

"I think the Obama administration negotiated with the Obama administration if they had to follow the law of Congress, and the Obama administration decided that the Obama administration did not have to call Congress," Rogers began.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #107 

Barack Obama breaks the law -- acknowledges that the law was not followed

Karen Tumulty is reporting that amid jubilation Saturday over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from captivity by the Taliban, senior Republicans on Capitol Hill said they were troubled by the means by which it was accomplished, which was a deal to release five Afghan detainees from the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Top Republicans on the Senate and House armed services committees went so far as to accuse Barack Obama of having broken the law, which requires the administration to notify Congress before any transfers from Guantanamo are carried out.

"Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Bergdahl's release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. McKeon (R-Calif.) and the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, James M. Inhofe (Okla.), said in a joint statement.

Lawmakers were not notified of the Guantanamo detainees' transfer until after it occurred.

The law requires the defense secretary to notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days before making any transfers of prisoners, to explain the reason and to provide assurances that those released would not be in a position to reengage in activities that could threaten the United States or its interests.

Before the current law was enacted at the end of last year, the conditions were even more stringent. However, the administration and some Democrats had pressed for them to be loosened, in part to give them more flexibility to negotiate for Bergdahl's release.

A senior administration official, agreeing to speak on the condition of anonymity to explain the timing of the congressional notification, acknowledged that the law was not followed. When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it.

"Due to a near-term opportunity to save Sergeant Bergdahl's life, we moved as quickly as possible," the official said. "The administration determined that given these unique and exigent circumstances, such a transfer should go forward notwithstanding the notice requirement."

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that the detainees transferred from Guantanamo to Qatar, where they are to stay for at least a year, "are hardened terrorists who have the blood of Americans and countless Afghans on their hands. I am eager to learn what precise steps are being taken to ensure that these vicious and violent Taliban extremists never return to the fight against the United States and our partners or engage in any activities that can threaten the prospects for peace and security in Afghanistan."

Beyond this individual instance, some raised the larger question of whether it is sound policy for the United States to have, in the words of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), "negotiated with terrorists."

Rogers said the action marked a "fundamental shift in U.S. policy."

Related:  Five of the most dangerous, high-ranking Taliban commanders in U.S. custody exchanged for American captive

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #108 

It is time for Obama to resigns

Dr. (Col. ret.) Lawrence Sellin says that despite the best efforts of the mainstream media and the political establishment to protect Barack Obama, they can no longer hide the incompetence and criminality of the most divisive and sordid administration in American history.

Former National Security Council Spokesman Tommy "dude, this was like two years ago" Vietor is the poster boy of the Obama Administration; a collection of inexperienced, emotionally immature ideologues, whose "the ends justify the means" mentality permits them to tell any lie, violate any law and indifferently sacrifice lives as long as it serves their political objectives.

This bungling and scandal-prone gaggle of amoral nitwits, led by a talking teleprompter, survives only because the extent of their dishonesty is matched by that of the political-media establishment and the public's inexplicable willingness to tolerate it.

It is, in fact, explainable. Just as certain banks were "too big to fail," Barack Obama is, quite simply, too corrupt to fail.

The "too big to fail" theory asserts that certain financial institutions are so large and so interconnected that their failure would be disastrous to the economy, and they, therefore, must be supported by government when they face difficulty.

Likewise, politicians and the media know that exposing Obama would reveal their own dereliction of duty, their complicity to undermine the Constitution, their continuous flouting the rule of law and uncover their willful ignorance of his alleged felonies and confirm their participation in the greatest election fraud and Constitutional crisis in American history. They know that the truth would topple the corrupt status quo and terminate their exclusive grip on political power, allowing the American people to regain control of their government. The political and media elite will do anything to prevent that, even risk the survival of the country, rather than risk their careers and the financial benefits.

Thomas Jefferson warned Americans of the danger of "elective despotism" now fostered by corrupt politicians, enabled by wealthy special interests and facilitated by a compliant press:

"They should look forward to a time, and that not a distant one, when a corruption in this, as in the country from which we derive our origin, will have seized the heads of government, and be spread by them through the body of the people; when they will purchase the voices of the people, and make them pay the price."

Malfeasance is defined as the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law.

Federal governmental malfeasance fueled by political corruption is the single, most important issue of our time.

The American establishment media follow a script supplied by the Obama Administration to support its radical policies. Rather than restraining the power of the federal government, they have become an extension of it, a government that has become lawless, operating outside of Constitutional constraints and harmful to the American people.

The United States now has a government, which has been transformed from one based on traditional values, articles of faith and the support of individual liberty into one in which moral relativism, political expediency and crony capitalism take precedence.

The resignation of Barack Obama would be a victory for the American people, create an opportunity for the restoration of the Constitution and the rule of law and allow citizens to regain control of the government. At the same time, the departure of Obama will elicit a torrent of revelations that will likely taint the highest officials in government, the leadership of both political parties and the upper echelons of the media.

Like Obama, the establishment considers itself too big to fail, but no government can survive if the interests of its officials conflict with those of the people.

It is time for Obama to resign and let a hopelessly corrupt government fail.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #109 

Obama says enforcing the law "doesn’t make sense"

Keith Koffler is reporting that Barack Obama today told law enforcement officials they should be doing something else other than enforcing immigration law, which says a lot about how much Republicans can expect him to stick to the terms of any immigration deal.

From his remarks, made today at the White House:

It’s estimated that over 80 percent of the folks who are here on an undocumented basis have been here 10 years or longer.  These are folks who are woven into the fabrics of our communities.  Their kids are going to school with our kids.  Most of them are not making trouble; most of them are not causing crimes.

And yet, we put them in this tenuous position and it creates a situation in which your personnel, who have got to go after gang-bangers and need to be going after violent criminals and deal with the whole range of challenges, and who have to cooperate with DHS around our counterterrorism activities — you’ve got to spend time dealing with somebody who is not causing any other trouble other than the fact that they were trying to make a living for their families. That’s just not a good use of our resources. It’s not smart. It doesn’t make sense.

Well, Obama’s compassion doesn’t just extend to the family man illegally mowing your lawn. The administration also last year released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody 36,000 illegal immigrants who had been convicted of murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault, and drunk or drugged driving.

Adding to the distrust is Obama’s redefinition of “deportation,” allowing him to claim he’s even tougher on illegals than Bush. From the Center for Immigration Studies:

In 2012, the year the Obama administration claimed to break enforcement records, more than one-half of removals attributed to ICE were the result of Border Patrol arrests that would never have been counted as a removal in prior years. In 2008, under the Bush administration, only one-third of removals were from Border Patrol arrests.

The White House thinks it may be able to get an immigration deal during a lame duck Congress, once the political pressure is off. Republicans won’t just be sacrificing principle for a deal. They’ll be played for suckers.


A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #110 

Senators denounce Obama for threatening the "entire constitutional system" by "nullifying" immigration laws

Tony Lee is reporting that on Thursday, 22 Republican senators, including even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), denounced Barack Obama in a scathing letter for threatening America's "entire constitutional system" with his immigration "enforcement review" that threatens to "nullify" the nation's immigration laws.

"Your actions demonstrate an astonishing disregard for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the rights of American citizens and legal residents," the senators wrote in a letter to Obama. "Our entire constitutional system is threatened when the Executive Branch suspends the law at its whim and our nation’s sovereignty is imperiled when the commander-in-chief refuses to defend the integrity of its borders."

After intense pressure from pro-amnesty groups who fear that amnesty legislation will not pass this year, Obama's Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson met with advocacy groups last month to reportedly consider administrative actions--such as granting more forms of amnesty, not deporting illegal immigrants who have not committed "major" crimes, and allowing bond hearings for illegal immigrants--to further erode the nation's laws. The senators said they had "grave concerns" with these potential actions because they "would represent a near complete abandonment of basic immigration enforcement and discard the rule of law and the notion that the United States has enforceable borders."

"These policies have operated as an effective repeal of duly enacted federal immigration laws and exceed the bounds of the Executive Branch’s prosecutorial discretion," the senators wrote. "It is not the province of the Executive to nullify the laws that the people of the United States, through their elected representatives, have chosen to enact.  Congress has not passed laws permitting people to illegally enter the country or to ignore their visa expiration dates, so long as they do not have a felony conviction or other severe offense on their record."

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who also signed the letter and has relentlessly debunked the notion that Obama is the so-called "deporter in chief," told Breitbart News that Obama's immigration policies also further hollow out the Middle Class that has been found to no longer be the world's wealthiest and hurt Americans at the bottom of the economic ladder Obama claims he wants to help. 

"The Administration’s immigration policies are widening the income gap the White House claims it wishes to narrow," Sessions told Breitbart News. "American workers have a right to the protections our immigration laws afford, but the Administration has nullified those protections while simultaneously pushing to double the flow of future guest workers into the United States. These policies make it more difficult for the working poor of all backgrounds to rise into the middle class.”

He also said that even though "evidence proves that the Administration has collapsed immigration enforcement," with the result that "millions of struggling Americans have been deprived of their jobs and incomes," Congressional Democrats "continue to empower the illegality and stonewall all efforts to stop it.”

"Congress must work to end the lawlessness and restore constitutional order," he said.

The letter also cites figures from the administration's Immigration and Customs Enforcement revealing that in 2013, "nearly all individuals removed from the United States were convicted criminals and recent border crossers." It also mentions a Los Angeles Times report that found that "since 2009, there has been a 40% decline in removals of individuals living and working in the interior of the country."

The senators also cited the testimony to Congress from Chris Crane, President of the National ICE Council, who said the Obama administration is not only handcuffing ICE agents but also taking "disciplinary actions against its own officers for making lawful arrests, it appears clear that Federal law enforcement officers are the enemy and not those that break our Nation’s laws.”

Sessions also noted to Breitbart News that net immigration levels have quadrupled over the last 40 years and cited Harvard Professor Dr. George Borjas, who has found high levels illegal and legal immigration from 1980–2000 have "resulted in a 7.4% wage reduction for American workers without a high school diploma."

"Currently, more than 1 in 4 Americans without a high school diploma is unemployed, underemployed, or marginally attached to the workforce," he said. "Research from Dr. Borjas also demonstrates that American workers competing each year with immigrant labor lose approximately $400 billion in wages."

The senators wrote that the Obama should not look for new ways to weaken immigration laws, especially since his administration has since 2009:

...issued policy directives and memoranda incrementally nullifying immigration enforcement in the interior of the United States – to the point that unless individuals in the country illegally are apprehended, tried, and convicted for a felony or other serious offense, they are free to live and work in the country.

"You swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," they wrote. "We therefore ask you to uphold that oath and to carry out the duties required by the Constitution and entrusted to you by the American people."

Those who signed the letter include: Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the Ranking Member of the Judiciary Committee, McConnell, Sessions, Richard Shelby (R-AL), Mike Lee (R-UT), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), John Boozman (R-AK), David Vitter (R-LA), Jim Risch (R-ID), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Tim Scott (R-SC), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Ted Cruz (R-TX), John Hoeven (R-ND).

Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX), Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) were the GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee who did not sign the letter.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 217
Reply with quote  #111 
I wonder of Sheriff Arpaio and Zullo have anything to do with him hiring the attorney?

Avatar / Picture

Posts: 1,042
Reply with quote  #112 

He's preparing to lose the Senate come November!

That's an interesting observation.

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #113 

Why did Obama hire a top criminal attorney for White House Counsel?

Keith Koffler says: if I suddenly told you I was hiring Johnny Cochran to be my attorney, you'd think – well, first of all, you'd think it was peculiar, since Johnny Cochran is dead. Maybe I'm looking to save some money. But, assuming I mean the metaphorical Johnny Cochran, you'd be pretty sure I'm in some kind of really serious trouble.

Or if your wife mentioned she had hired a lawyer, and you found out the attorney specializes in . . . divorce. You'd probably start checking some apartment listings.

Eggleston.jpg Which brings us to the strange case of Barack Obama's decision to hire Neil Eggleston to be his new White House Counsel.

Eggleston is the kind of guy you go to when someone tells you, "time to lawyer up." He's a veteran at cleaning up ethics messes for politicians, most notably Bill Clinton, whom he aided during the Whitewater probes and the Monica Lewinsky affair, double entendre intended.

But that's not nearly all. He represented Rahm Emanuel during the scandal surrounding former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, as well as Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and George W. Bush political director Sara Taylor when scandals touched them, Clinton Cabinet members Federico Pena and Alexis Herman during corruption probes, and various business people involved in "complex criminal investigations" according to the New York Times.

Which begs and pleads the question, is Obama looking for more protection for the White House from the various GOP congressional probes, or is he aware of the possibility that something much, much worse could break?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #114 

5 Ways Obama has destroyed the rule of law in America

John Hawkins wants to know why any American should respect the law?

Because it's moral? Not necessarily. Slavery was once the law of the land. Abortion is the law of the land today. Even in a nation like America, it's not unusual for laws to be unfair, unjust, and even immoral.

Is it because laws represent the will of the people? Not anymore. Today, the "law" is often summarily created from murky statutes by unelected bureaucrats who face no consequences for destroying people's lives.

Well, is the law at least equally applied? Absolutely not. Your political affiliation and how well connected you are to the regime in charge can have a direct bearing on whether you're prosecuted for breaking the law and how serious the penalty will be.

So, what's left?

Respect for the law? Why should anyone respect arbitrary, immoral laws that aren't equally applied and don't reflect the will of the people? Under Barack Obama, the "law" in this country has become nothing more than whatever you can get away with and we're likely to feel the consequences of that for decades to come.

1) Obamacare is whatever Barack Obama says it is: Barack Obama has no more legal right to change Obamacare all by his lonesome than Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, or for that matter, Justin Bieber does. He simply doesn't have the legal authority to delay the employer mandate, delay taxes that are written into law, or give subsidies through federal exchanges to places where no state exchange were set up. Yet, Obama has delayed or changed the meaning of the law 19 times as if he were Kim Jong- un, as opposed to the President of a republic.

2) There are different laws for Tea Parties and the Occupy Movement: In city after city, the Occupy Movement was allowed to protest without expensive permits, participants were allowed to illegally camp and in some places they were allowed to break the law with impunity, which is why it's so staggering that there were still almost 8,000 arrests by the time all the dirty hippies abandoned their tents and rape-free zones to go home and take showers. Meanwhile, Tea Party groups across the country weren't given any similar breaks.

 Tea party activists...accused officials in at least four cities of giving preferential treatment to anti-Wall Street protesters, and one group in Richmond is asking the city to repay $8,000 spent for permits and other needs. ...The Richmond Tea Party said Mayor Dwight C. Jones' administration sought permit fees, portable toilets and other demands for their events, but has given Occupy Richmond a free pass. The occupation has grown to a tent city, with a makeshift library, a volleyball net and a row of portable toilets. Jones has said that because he is a product of the civil rights movement he has allowed the Occupy protesters to remain since Oct. 17. "He's sympathizing with them," said Colleen Owens, a spokeswoman for the Richmond Tea Party. "We would never, as a tea party, have gotten away with not complying with the law." Tea party organizers had to buy liability insurance, hire police and emergency personnel and even keep a defibrillator on site, Owens said.

 When groups all across the country are charged thousands of dollars for permits and liability insurance solely because of their political beliefs while other groups are given a free pass, there is no equality under the law.

3) Illegal immigration becomes legal: Admittedly, George W. Bush did a mediocre job of securing the border and enforcing immigration law. However, as a practical matter, illegal immigration isn't "illegal" anymore. Obama has illegally passed his own version of the DREAM Act, illegally handed out work permits to people who are breaking the law, and for all intents and purposes, has stopped detaining illegal immigrants who haven't been charged with other crimes. According to Senator Jeff Sessions  , "at least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal." 

This is despite the fact that being here illegally is a crime and the people who broke that law did so knowing that the penalty was deportation. Tens of millions of immigrants have been welcomed to this country because as EVERYONE is well aware, we already have a "path to citizenship" for non- Americans and it's called following the law.
4) The IRS illegally targeted Tea Partiers: If the IRS ever comes after you, try refusing to hand over documentation for years and pleading the 5th Amendment and see what happens to you. If you're lucky, maybe you'll end up in the same minimum security prison that Wesley Snipes went to after some advisors convinced him he didn't have to pay taxes. Yet, after the IRS targeted Tea Partiers because they were conservative, tried to refer them for prosecution to the DOJ, and illegally released some of their information to outside parties, the IRS officials have been refusing to cooperate with the investigation. If the IRS wasn’t guiltier than Wesley Snipes, it would be cooperating just like the rest of us are forced to do when we face an audit.

5) Eric Holder encouraged state attorney generals to refuse to defend traditional marriage in court: In other words, if your state passes a ban on gay marriage, Holder wants state attorney generals to undercut the will of the people in order to further his political agenda. So according to Eric Holder, whether the people of a state get to have a representative in court depends on whether or not liberal attorney generals agree with their opinion or not. As John Suthers, the attorney general of Colorado, said:

I have been attorney general of Colorado for nine years, during which time the state has enacted laws that span the philosophical and political spectrum. I personally oppose a number of Colorado’s laws as a matter of public policy, and a few are contrary to my religious beliefs. But as my state’s attorney general, I have defended them all -- and will continue to.

...Depending on one’s view of the laws in question, such a “litigation veto” may, in the short term, be a terrific thing; an unpopular law is defanged and the attorney general can take credit -- indeed, he can be the hero to his political base and keep his political ambitions intact. But in the longer term, this practice corrodes our system of checks and balances, public belief in the power of democracy and ultimately the moral and legal authority on which attorneys general must depend.

....I fear that refusing to defend unpopular or politically distasteful laws will ultimately weaken the legal and moral authority that attorneys general have earned and depend on. We will become viewed as simply one more player in a political system rather than as legal authorities in a legal system. The courts, the governments we represent and, most important, the people we serve will treat our pronouncements and arguments with skepticism and cynicism.

When the "law" becomes little more than politics by other means, it deserves to be treated with the same rich contempt that we hold for politicians in this country. That has already started to happen, it's not good for the country, and much to the chagrin of the liberals who love this lawlessness as long as they're in charge, it's not going to end with Obama.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #115 

Sen. Sessions: "Deliberate plan by president" to collapse U.S. law enforcement system

Craig Bannister is reporting that Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said today that Americans need to stand up to "a deliberate plan by the president of the United States" to collapse the nation's law enforcement system regarding illegal immigration.

In a Senate speech, Sessions said:

"Our law enforcement system is in a state of collapse, and it's a deliberate plan by the president of the United States, and it's wrong. And, people need to be aware of it and need to stand up to it and I believe the American people are beginning to do so."

Sen. Sessions rebuked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Vice President Joe Biden for their pro-amnesty efforts:

"So, you come into the country illegally and the attorney general of the United States declares that these individuals have a civil right to amnesty. How can this possibly be: the chief law enforcement officer in America?

"Vice President Biden recently said, quote: 'You know, 11million people live in the shadows; I believe they're already American citizens.' Eleven million undocumented aliens are already Americans? Goodness. The vice president of the United States would make such a statement. It's stunning beyond belief."

Related:  Sheriffs warn of violence from Mexican cartels deep into interior of U.S.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #116 

The Democrat Party -- a criminal organization masquerading as a political party

“Think of the Democratic Party as what it really  is: a criminal organization masquerading as a political party," my friend and fellow PJM columnist Michael Walsh wrote in 2009 in the guise of his leftwing alter-ego, David Kahane, says Ed Driscoll.

Certainly, at a minimum it’s safe to say that Democrats were rather active on the nation’s police blotters today. Since this is one narrative the MSM will never assemble (as they’re in on the fun), it’s up to the Blogosphere -- so here we go.

First up, the password is Swordfish Shrimp Boy:

“BREAKING: Anti-Gun CA Senator Leland Yee Charged With Gun Running,” reports The Truth About Guns:

It what would surely place his likeness prominently on the Mt. Rushmore of hypocrisy if the allegations are proven in a court of law, famously anti-gun California state Senator Leland Yee has been charged with, in addition to bribery and public corruption…yes…gun running. Specifically conspiring with known organized crime lord Kwok Cheung “Shrimp Boy” Chow to illegally import firearms and sell them without a license . . .

The affidavit charges that the $2 million worth of weapons to have been secreted into the country from the Philippines included rocket launchers and machine guns, some of which Yee himself had fired while on Mindanao. A portion of the weapons Yee conspired to bring into the U.S. through New Jersey were to have been forwarded on to North Africa via Sicily.

At NRO’s Corner, Tim Cavanaugh adds, “California State Senator Leland Yee, a Democrat representing San Francisco, was arrested Wednesday by the Justice Department in an apparent sting that involves a famous Chinatown criminal, local media report“:

Yee is the third Democrat in the California state senate facing criminal charges. The other two are in Los Angeles County. Rod Wright of Inglewood is taking a leave of absence after being convicted of perjury and voter fraud related to charges that he lied about his residence when running for office in 2008. Monetebello’s Ron Calderon is also on leave while fighting 24 felony counts related to bribery in exchange for steering legislation.

The Democratic Party has 28 out of 40 seats in the state senate. Wright’s and Calderon’s absences have already left the Democrats without the two-thirds supermajority they often claim to need, presumably so they can stand up to Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, the Democratic-controlled State Assembly, and the Democrats who hold all statewide elected offices.

Like the Truth About Guns Website, Rush Limbaugh is also having a schadenfreude overdose:

The reason that I stopped everything to take your call -- and clearly, folks, he didn’t call for this reason -- is Leland Yee is the California politician who attempted to get me fired and disbarred and dismembered and dis-whatever else’d after I impersonated the ChiCom premier. The ChiCom premier was here and having a joint press conference with Obama.

I did an interpretation of the ChiCom premier speaking Chinese. (interruption) Yeah, it was one of my best shows. Leland Yee and these people had an absolute fit! They thought, “This is exactly the kind of racism and the bigotry and the insensitivity and what else” that I, El Rushbo, am known for.  And that’s why I took the call. So here this guy who wanted me thrown off the air for racism and bigotry is now having his offices raided by the “feebs” because of possible corruption while in office.  I just love it!

CALLER: (chuckling)

RUSH: These guys, they sit up there all majestically in their royalty, and they try to eliminate their opposition.  All the while their hands are in the till and they’re engaging in corruption I couldn’t even dream of.  So I’m actually glad, Chris, that you called, and I’m actually glad that you got through. ‘Cause otherwise Leland Yee’s name probably would not have come up today.

Beyond Yee, as I said, today was quite a day for Democrats and the police blotter. Democrat Charlotte NC Mayor Patrick Cannon resigned today after less than six months in office, “just hours after he was arrested and accused of taking more than $48,000 in bribes from undercover FBI agents posing as businessmen who wanted to do work with North Carolina’s largest city,” the Blaze reports:

Cannon submitted his resignation letter to city manager Ron Carlee and city attorney Bob Hagemann, Charlotte spokesman Keith Richardson said in an email. The 47-year-old Cannon is charged with bribery and public corruption. The Democrat took cash, airline tickets, a hotel room and the use of a luxury apartment as bribes and solicited more than $1 million more, according to a criminal complaint from the U.S. Attorney’s office.

Cannon said in his resignation letter that the pending charges “will create too much of a distraction” for the business of the city to go forward. He said it was effective immediately.

Keith Farnham, 66, a Democrat Illinois state rep, resigned today. In an article dated Monday, but updated to reflect Farnham’s resignation today, the Chicago Tribune reported:

Reports that federal agents were looking for evidence of child pornography when they seized computers from the Elgin district office of former state Rep. Keith Farnham shocked local officials who said the lawmaker was well-liked and active in the community.

“I couldn’t even fathom it. I was stunned,” said former Elgin Mayor Ed Schock, adding that Farnham always worked on the city’s behalf.[pixel]

[pixel]Farnham has not been accused of any crime.Federal agents were searching for documents “pertaining to the possession, receipt or distribution of child pornography” as well as computer files, copies and negatives of child pornography or any documents that depicted minors “engaged in sexually explicit conduct,” according to a search warrant released Friday.

And the hits just keep on coming.

“Pa. State Sen. LeAnna Washington ordered to stand trial,” Philadelphia’s ABC affiliate reports today:

Pennsylvania state prosecutors won a first step Wednesday in their corruption case against state Sen. Leanna Washington, securing a judge’s ruling that they have enough evidence for a trial on charges that Washington crossed the line when she allegedly ordered taxpayer-paid employees to organize an annual “birthday party” political fundraiser.

For eight years, Washington pressured her Senate staff to devote weeks to drawing up guest lists that included city and state officials, creating invitations and taking money from invitees that ultimately went to Washington’s campaign account, prosecutors say.

They also allegedly used taxpayer-paid computers, copiers and office supplies.

District Judge John Kessler ruled that testimony from one of Washington’s former employees, Jamila Hall, was strong enough to allow the case to go to trial. In a grand jury presentment issued with the charges March 12, prosecutors listed seven current or former employees or interns, including Hall, who said they witnessed or carried out tasks to organize the fundraisers.

Washington, 68, declined comment after the two-hour hearing at Kessler’s Montgomery County office. Washington, a Democrat who represents parts of Philadelphia and Montgomery County, is running for a third full term this year.

Meanwhile, “Agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation raided the Albany office of Assemblyman William Scarborough this morning, he confirmed to reporters,” Capital New York reported, also today:

Scarborough, a Queens Democrat, said the F.B.I. asked questions about the per diem reimbursements that legislators collect for each day they spend in the Capitol. Agents took papers from his offices in Albany and Jamaica, and also accosted him in his hotel room this morning.

”I’m innocent, but I understand the reality,” Scarborough said to a group of reporters who, hearing rumors, flocked to his office on the sixth floor of the Legislative Office Building. “I don’t know what’s going to go on. I am going to talk to a lawyer, this is just stunning to me.”

* * * * * * *

Scarborough received $59,085 in per diem payments between 2010 and 2011. He submitted voucher payments claiming $825 for five nights in Albany from March 13th to March 17th 2011, while public records showed he attended a town meeting at York College in Jamaica Queens that Thursday.

“I may very well have gone to that meeting, turned around and gone back to Albany that night,” Scarborough told the New York Post in 2012. “If we arrive in Albany before midnight, we’re entitled to put in for the night.”

The Assembly doesn’t require members to submit hotel receipts and Scarborough told the Post he would not look for them.

“I don’t think I have to give you proof,” he said at the time.

And, “Law enforcement officials raided the office and home of House Speaker Gordon Fox on Friday as part of a criminal investigation by the U.S. attorney’s office, FBI, IRS and state police,” AP reported:

Officials would not say who or what was being investigated, but authorities worked for hours inside the Democratic House speaker’s Statehouse office while state troopers stood outside.

Authorities entered the office carrying an evidence bag and empty cardboard boxes Friday morning. Fox’s spokesman, Larry Berman, said state police had asked everyone working in the office to leave but he didn’t know why.

Yesterday, AP added that Nicholas Mattiello, a fellow Democrat, replaced Fox after he resigned, following the raid.

Mattiello, a Democrat from Cranston, comfortably won the vote to succeed Gordon Fox, 61-6, with six abstentions and two absent. Oversight Committee Chairman Michael Marcello, D-Scituate, had challenged Mattiello for the top House spot but conceded earlier Tuesday, saying he didn’t have enough votes.

The vote came during the first meeting of the House since the dramatic series of developments that began Friday morning when state and federal authorities, including the FBI, the IRS and the state police, searched Fox’s office and home and carried away boxes of material. Officials have declined to detail what the probe is about or say whether Fox is a target. Neither Fox nor his lawyer has commented on the investigation.

“Today, Democrats across the country have won some pretty heinous headlines for their actions,” notes.

“Unexpectedly,” as would say.

Update:  David Freddoso writes in “The case of Leland Yee: This is the craziest criminal complaint against a lawmaker you’ve ever read.”

What this really is, is the Democrats cleaning up the real outlaws six months before the election.  Better to get this stuff out now than in October -- weeks before the election.

Remember, the FBI is part of the Justice Department -- and Eric Holder runs that dung-heap.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #117 

Obama "has carried out a dramatic nullification of federal law"

Matthew Boyle is reporting that fully 98 percent of individuals deported from the United States in 2013 were either criminals, apprehended while illegally crossing the border, or had been previously deported, according to a new analysis from Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL).

The three-page document, labeled a "Critical Alert" by the senator's office, found three executive actions by Barack Obama providing amnesty to groups of illegal aliens meant that virtually no one who did not meet other criteria beyond simply being in the country illegal was deported.

"The evidence reveals that the Administration has carried out a dramatic nullification of federal law," Sessions said in a statement to Breitbart News. "Under the guise of setting 'priorities', the Administration has determined that almost anyone in the world who can enter the United States is free to illegally live, work and claim benefits here as long as they are not caught committing a felony or other serious crime.

Obama's well-known executive action granted virtual amnesty to so-called DREAMers -- individuals who claim to have entered the country as minors under their parents' guidance.

Two are lesser known executive actions include an Aug. 23, 2013, DHS directive "expanding that [summer 2012 executive DREAM Act] amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries" and a Dec. 21, 2012, DHS directive "reinforcing that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction."

In 2013, Sessions' staff found, 98 percent of ICE's removals of illegal aliens fit the agency's "enforcement criteria." There are four such criteria for illegal aliens to be considered deportation-worthy by ICE: a conviction of committing a serious criminal offense, an apprehension made while an individual is crossing the border, the resurfacing of someone previously deported, or someone having been a fugitive from the law. "Remarkably, the first two categories -- border apprehensions (which are not deportations as commonly understood) and convicted criminals -- account for 94% of the 368,000 removals (235,000 and 110,000, respectively)," Sessions' staff wrote in the memo.

Only 0.2 percent of an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. who were actually placed into removal proceedings in 2013 in 2013 did not have a violent or otherwise serious criminal conviction on their record. Only .08 percent of the total number of illegal aliens placed into removal proceedings were neither repeat or serial immigration law violators nor convicted of a serious crime. Even with that .08 percent of removals who were not caught crossing the border or being a serial immigration law violator or being convicted of serious crimes, Sessions' staff notes that ICE officers who communicate with his office say that there is likely some other serious security risk for allowing them to stay in the country that is cause for their removal.

The findings stand in stark contrast to liberal calls on Obama to reduce deportations. Top Hispanic Democrats recently met with Obama at the White House recently about the issue, prompting an announcement about a review at the Department of Homeland Security about how to deport illegal aliens in a more "humane" fashion.

The report was enough to prompt a chorus of outrage from Sessions' like-minded colleagues in the House, who slammed the Obama administration for enacting amnesty by fiat.

"This is another clear warning to anyone who thinks immigration reform is possible under President Obama," said Rep. John Fleming (R-LA). "He has repeatedly shown a willingness to enforce the law selectively, while looking the other way when it doesn't fit his agenda."

"We can add immigration enforcement to the long list of areas where President Obama is selectively enforcing the law," Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) told Breitbart News in response to Sessions' new report. "This is part of a repeated pattern of overreach on the part of the Administration and shows their unwillingness to follow the law as it is written -- not the law as they want it to be. It's impossible for Congress to have an open and honest debate on border security when we can't trust the President to do his job."

"At least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal," Sessions' staff wrote. "Those who do not facially meet the Administration's select 'priorities' are free to illegally work in the United States and to receive taxpayer benefits, regardless of whether or not they come into contact with immigration enforcement."

Continue reading here . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #118 

Court to decide whether Obama can write own laws

Keith Koffler is reporting that in one of the ObamaCare rewrites that many are unaware of, but which is tremendously significant, the Obama administration decided to change the clear language of the law and rule that HHS could provide subsidies to those who signed up on the federal exchange. On Tuesday a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals will hear a case challenging the rule, according to the Wall Street Journal.

You see, the writers of ObamaCare realized that for sure everyone’s going to love this thing, and so they decided it would be fine to say that insurance premium subsidies will be available only to people who enroll “through an Exchange established by the State.” The states of course wouldn’t want to deny their citizens the pleasure, and so they’d set up exchanges.

Except, 34 states didn’t.

The Wall Street Journal picks up the narrative:

In 2012, HHS and the Internal Revenue Service arrogated to themselves the power to rewrite the law and published a regulation simply decreeing that subsidies would be available through the federal exchanges too.

The IRS devoted only a single paragraph to its deviation from the statute, even though the “established by a State” language appears nine times in the law’s text. The rule claims that an exchange established on behalf of a state is a “federally established state-established exchange,” as if HHS is the 51st state.

Wow. A federally established state-established exchange. Only really good, dutiful Soviets could come up with such a phrase.

But not to worry. The WSJ suggests that even if Obama loses in court, he will ignore the judiciary, just as he did the legislature. Why discriminate?

Fear of legal defeat also explains why the Administration is suddenly claiming that the appeals court lacks the jurisdiction to invalidate its interpretation of ObamaCare. Last week the Justice Department submitted a so-called 28(J) letter, declaring that because Halbig is not a class action, any adverse ruling only applies to the named plaintiffs.

In other words, even if the court finds that the Administration is acting illegally, it cannot strike down the IRS-HHS rule and the executive branch will continue to ignore both Congress’s law and the law of the courts. There are few if any precedents for such a remarkable argument.

Precedents? Who needs precedents when you’re someone who is as unprecedented as the sublime Obama.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #119 

Benjamin Rush, fiery founding father

Eileen F. Toplansky says n the preface to the 1942 Pocket History of the United States co-authored by Allan Nevins and Henry Steele Commager, one reads that

from its earliest beginnings, [America's] people have been conscious of a peculiar destiny, because upon it have been fastened the hopes and aspirations of the human race, and because it has not failed to fulfill that destiny or to justify those hopes."

Consequently, "America became the most ambitious experiment ever undertaken in the intermingling of people, in religious toleration, social equality, economic opportunity, and political democracy" (vi). Nevins and Commager contend that "there is something exhilarating in the story of the tenacious exaltation of liberty and the steady growth of democracy in the history of America."  The authors explain that the theme in their short book is "the development here of a people intelligent enough to want freedom and willing to work for it and to fight for it" (vii).

Aye, there's the rub -- "people intelligent enough to want freedom and willing to work for it and to fight for it."

Clearly the forces alluded to in the Pocket History are currently being battered in Obama's America.  With this in mind, it is vital to reacquaint ourselves with the ideas of Dr. Benjamin Rush.  In his 1947 Selected Writings of Benjamin Rush, editor Dagobert D. Runes writes that there were very "few as fiery as [Benjamin Rush] ... in the vehemence of protest that brought this country into being; and few held the standards of its early learning and culture as high as he held them" (v).

A physician by trade, Rush was born on December 24, 1745. Rush's pamphlets, articles, letters, and speeches number in the thousands.  He wished to abolish slavery, and he urged the removal of the death penalty.  He decried the plight of the debtors prison and advocated the establishment of special hospitals for the insane.

Runes writes that "there can be no doubt as to the depth of Benjamin Rush's burning patriotism, his hatred of the British oppression, -- of all tyranny."  Rush "stands... among the early patriots who with clear eye and unflagging zeal saw, and worked to achieve, the goals of human freedom" (ix).

In 1792 in his "On Securities for Liberty" Benjamin Rush wrote that

The objections, which have been urged against the Federal Constitution, from its wanting a Bill of Rights, have been reasoned and ridiculed out of credit in every state that has adopted it.  There can be only two securities for liberty in any government, viz. representation and checks. By the first, the rights of the people, and by the second, the rights of representation are effectually secured. Every part of a free constitution hangs upon these two points; and these form the two capital

features of the proposed Constitution of the United States. Without them, a volume of rights would avail nothing; and with them, a declaration of rights is absurd and unnecessary.

It is heartening that the current House of Representatives has finally "passed the first of a pair of bills aimed at reining in ... a pattern of overreach by the executive branch under President Obama."  But so much more needs to be done as Obama continues to act as an imperial president.  An updated report by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor cites 24 instances of this administration unilaterally acting and bypassing Congress.

Benjamin Rush emphasized that the elected representatives are the servants of the people, not the other way around when he wrote that "[t]o be held at the mercy of their servants, is disgraceful to the dignity of freemen."

And yet we have a tawdry display of arrogance by the Democrats and a spineless and passive acceptance by some Republicans who have completely forgotten their duty to the people.

Dr. Rush reminds his 18th century readers that

Men, who call for a Bill of Rights, have not recovered from the habits they acquired under the monarchical government of Great Britain. I have the same opinion with the Antifederalists, of the danger of trusting arbitrary power to any single body of men: but no such power will be committed to our new rulers.

If only that were true. Instead, we have a body politic who is nonchalantly willing to bypass those very Bill of Rights which have protected Americans.  Thus,

the Obama administration’s vision of America is inherently in conflict with the Bill of Rights. Recent scandals [IRS, NSA, AP phone records, Benghazi] are merely the latest skirmish in this ongoing battle.

This makes perfect sense when you put it in context. Authoritarian statists despise the Bill of Rights because of the plainness of its language and the clarity of its intent; it’s meant to protect us from them. And when government transgresses the protection the Amendments afford U.S. citizens, it is obvious that our freedoms are in jeopardy.

In fact, the Obama's administration "to cede control of the Internet to an international group" is an absolute outrage and will be the death-blow to the First Amendment.

Dr. Rush wrote that "neither the House of Representatives, the Senate, or the President, can perform a single legislative" [because a] "hundred principles in man will lead them to watch, to check, and to oppose each other, should an attempt be made by either of them upon the liberties of the people.”

How far have we fallen when the restrictions placed upon these separate entities have become blurred, ignored, and trampled.  And worse still, when the people do not rise up in protest.

Benjamin Rush held the people accountable as well when he wrote

But are we to consider men entrusted with power, as the receptacles of all the depravity of human nature? by no means. The people do not part with their full proportions of it. Reason and revelation both deceive us, if they are all wise and virtuous. Is not history as full of the vices of the people, as it is of the crimes of the kings? what is the present moral character of the citizens of the United States? I need not describe it. It proves too plainly that the people are as much disposed to vice as their rulers.

Indeed, we have far too many Americans who are willing to give up their freedom for a phony promise, and an appeal to their baser emotions. Moreover, there is a mental lethargy and indifference among too many of our citizens.  We have a media that has not a shred of decency and truth finding when it comes to investigating the news.  Thus Buck Sexton of the Blaze asserts that

There is no question now that President Obama, his senior-most advisors, and his left-wing base share an ideology that is inimical to individualism, liberty, and limited government. The Bill of Rights, as written by the Founders, stands athwart that agenda, which is why the Obama administration seeks to render it obsolete.

What remains to be determined is whether the American people, presented with irrefutable evidence of an authoritarian trajectory, will take to the bully pulpit and the polling booth to retrieve our liberties before it is too late.

Thus, "[o]ur Founders created a series of checks and balances for our democracy to prevent any one of the three branches of government from becoming too powerful. Today, this system is under threat as the executive branch continues to bypass Congress and use executive action to promote its own agenda."

Wake up, America.  Please!

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #120 

What's changed?

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #121 

Obama, in his sole discretion

David Limbaugh says with each passing day, Barack Obama -- leftism personified -- demonstrates that leftism is characterized by anything other than the human compassion it claims as its exclusive possession.

I've always said leftists are about not compassion or treating people with sensitivity and respect, much less equally, but control and bullying, all with an arrogant, mean-spirited air of superiority.

For Obama, there are at least two aspects to his control-freakishness. He not only pushes policies that give the federal government vastly more control over our lives but also is inordinately dictatorial in the manner in which he ramrods his agenda through, displaying utter contempt for what anyone else thinks, what he might damage with his unilateral actions and, most of all, the Constitution and the rule of law.

Obama is on a tear now, and no one had better get in his way. He told a group of liberal Democratic donors at a fundraiser this week in New York: "I hope you will all step up because, although I'm very optimistic about our long-term trends, the notion that we would waste two years in further inaction rather than move boldly on a path that I think all of us in this room agree on -- we don't have time to waste. … The clock is ticking. … I want to squeeze every last little bit of work that I can during the remainder of my term."

Prior to his taking office, did anyone ever tell this man no in his life? He acts as though no one else has any say at all in policy decisions in a nation established with three coequal branches of the federal government, individual states with robust powers and citizens armed with individual liberties.

It's as if he truly believes that as president, he has the power and a mandate to cram through every last morsel of his leftist wish list, no matter who opposes him or whom he hurts in the process.

His latest gambit is to impose federal regulations that could extend overtime pay to as many as 10 million workers who are now ineligible for it. What makes this leftist president think he has a duty to use his office to act like a union boss, micromanaging what management pays employees, irrespective of any of the multitudinous factors that have to be considered in making such a decision?

This is part of a disturbing pattern. Obama obviously doesn't care that his onerous regulatory, spending and taxing policies have put a severe and long-term drag on the economy, as long as he gets to use the Monopoly money to spend on pet projects and to redistribute to people he deems, in his sole discretion, to be worthier of it.

He is defiantly unconcerned that ObamaCare is going to raise people's premiums, as finally admitted by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, despite his promise that it would reduce the premiums for a family of four by some $2,500. He doesn't care that ObamaCare is radically reducing the available medical specialists in almost every field throughout the country, that people are losing their plans that he promised they could keep or that it is forcing people out of work. As long as, in his sole discretion, he gets to keep his beloved ObamaCare, he will not even consider the collateral damage.

In his push to extend unemployment benefits ad infinitum, in his sole discretion, he callously ignored study after study showing that these extensions cost people jobs. He doesn't care that increasing capital gains taxes reduces overall revenues. He doesn't evidence the slightest concern that his unilateral action, in his sole discretion, to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour could cost 500,000 jobs, according to the Congressional Budget Office. He is the president and a wonderful liberal who "cares" about the little guy, so don't you dare question him.

Trade associations, which are already engaged in fighting him over this minimum wage insanity, say they were blindsided by his announcement to extend overtime pay to workers. "This came as a shot out of the blue," said David French, the National Retail Federation's senior vice president for government relations. "Just on the surface, this looks like an enormous new administrative burden."

But Obama can't be concerned with grumbling from the peons. Betsey Stevenson of the White House Council of Economic Advisers said they were trying to "make the labor force as fair as possible for all workers."

There they go again. It's all about "fairness" and "economic justice" and other Jane Fonda-esque euphemisms to disguise their tyrannical actions as caring. Fairness for whom? If employers decide to limit employees' hours or cut their base pay to account for overtime, will that be fair for them?

People are rightly concerned that Obama routinely ignores the Constitution and rule of law, but they sometimes overlook just how callous he is in the guise of being compassionate, and it's time he quit getting a pass for his officious behavior.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #122 
Sorry I am so ignorant about political procedure.. How do we the people get a law thru that removes from office immediately any that break their oath to uphold and defend our sacred constitution?

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #123 

Rep. Gowdy's floor speech on the "Enforce the Law Act"

Details here . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #124 

Obama threatens vetoes of bill requiring him to follow the law

Joel Gehrke is reporting that Barack Obama is threatening to veto a law that would allow Congress to sue him in federal courts for arbitrarily changing or refusing to enforce federal laws because it "violates the separation of powers" by encroaching on his presidential authority.

"[T]he power the bill purports to assign to Congress to sue the president over whether he has properly discharged his constitutional obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully executed exceeds constitutional limitations," the White House Office of Management and Budget said Wednesday in a statement of administration policy. "Congress may not assign such power to itself, nor may it assign to the courts the task of resolving such generalized political disputes."

The lead sponsor of the measure, Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., said it was designed to curb Obama's abuse of presidential authority, most notably in his frequent changes to Obamacare.

"We have pursued certain remedies afforded to Congress to address executive overreach but these efforts have been thwarted," Gowdy said. "This bill is necessary; it will give Congress the authority to defend this branch of government as the Framers and our fellow citizens would expect."

Obama also threatened to veto another bill by Rep. Ron DeSantis, R-Fla., which would require the administration to explain decisions not to enforce laws when those decisions are rooted in policy concerns rather than just constitutional concerns (which the Justice Department is already required to do).

"The American people deserve to know exactly which laws the Obama administration is refusing to enforce and why," DeSantis said when introducing his bill.

OMB said DeSantis' law is too burdensome. "The bill would inordinately expand current law, which already requires reports to Congress when non-enforcement of federal law is based on constitutional grounds," Obama's team said in a statement of administration policy.

"Federal agencies are continually engaged in the process of determining how to concentrate limited enforcement resources most effectively. ... The vastly expanded reporting scheme required by the bill would be unduly burdensome and would place the Attorney General in the unprecedented position of having to be kept informed of and report on enforcement decisions made by every other Federal agency," the statement continued.

The House is scheduled to vote on both bills Wednesday.

On the same day that DeSantis introduced his bill, Attorney General Eric Holder told Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, that he thought Obama was "probably at the height of his constitutional power" when issuing the delays of Obamacare mandates, though he acknowledged that he couldn't explain the precise legal analysis.

"When you look at the quality, not just the quantity but the quality, the nature of the executive orders that he has issued, he has usurped an extraordinary amount of authority within the executive branch," Lee said at the time. "This is not precedented, and I point to the delay -- the unilateral delay, lawless delay, in my opinion -- of the employer mandate as an example of this. And so, at a minimum, I think he owes us an explanation as to what his legal analysis was."

Update:  House GOP passes "Enforce the Law Act" to battle Obama’s imperial presidency

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #125 

Obama illegally seizing private property and violating disclosure laws

Dan from Squirrel Hill is reporting that The New York Times and Ralph Nader have recently criticized Barack Obama for illegally seizing assets from shareholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and for illegally avoiding disclosing this information to shareholders.

The fifth amendment requires that compensation be given for such seizures, but Obama did not do this.

Federal disclosure laws require that shareholders be informed of this information immediately, but Obama waited more than three years to tell them.

Neither of these actions by Obama surprises me one bit. These things are consistent with his many, many, many other illegal activities. He has no respect for the rule of law, the constitution, private property, or individual liberty.

The New York Times reports:

Would you buy stock in a company that barred you from sharing in its future earnings? Of course not. Participating in the upside is what stock ownership is all about.

And yet, as of December 2010, holders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac common stock were subject to such a restriction by the United States government. They didn't know it at the time, though, because the policy was not disclosed.

This month, an internal United States Treasury memo that outlined this restriction came up at a forum in Washington.

The memo was addressed to Timothy F. Geithner, then the Treasury secretary, from Jeffrey A. Goldstein, then the under secretary for domestic finance. In discussing Fannie and Freddie, the beleaguered government-sponsored enterprises rescued by taxpayers in September 2008, the memo referred to "the administration's commitment to ensure existing common equity holders will not have access to any positive earnings from the G.S.E.'s in the future."

The memo, which was produced in a lawsuit filed by Fannie and Freddie shareholders, was dated Dec. 20, 2010. Securities laws require material information -- that is, information that might affect an investor's view of a company -- to be disclosed. That the government would deny a company's shareholders all its profits certainly seems material, but the existence of this policy cannot be found in the financial filings of Fannie Mae. Neither have the Treasury's discussions about the future of the two finance giants mentioned the administration's commitment to shut common stockholders out of future earnings.

Ralph Nader wrote:

"What legal authority does the Administration have, as this section of the memo intimates, to completely wipe out shareholders -- even after taxpayers have been repaid (as is likely to happen soon)?"

"Contrary to this statement, neither the memo -- nor Treasury's actions by unilaterally amending the PSPAs -- leaves one with the impression that this point in the memo is meant to highlight the importance of repaying the taxpayers. It seems to be setting a precedent for using and abusing the GSEs' shareholders."

"Taxpayers should recoup their investment in the GSEs; but the Administration does not have to wipe out shareholders in order for this to happen."

"This need not be an issue of choosing taxpayers over shareholders. The federal government has similarly recouped taxpayer money used to bailout other corporations (A.I.G., Citigroup, etc.) involved in the financial collapse, but has allowed the shareholders of those companies to share in their recovery. The same should be the case with the GSEs."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved