Waxman Wants Congressional Hearings On Redskins Name, But Not Benghazi

Waxman Wants Congressional Hearings On Redskins Name, But Not Benghazi

I just discovered where Democrats’ priorities lie.

A possible White House coverup involving the murder of four American patriots in a far-off war-torn land. Congressional hearings? Certainly not.

Discussing changing the name of the Washington Redskins to something more “politically correct”? Of course!

That’s your Democratic Party in 2014. Gotta love how they priorities.

Rep. Henry Waxman and both of his nostrils is pressing the Committee on Energy and Commerce to hold hearings to examine the racism of the team’s name.

In a letter to Michigan Rep. Fred Upton (R), chairman of that committee, Waxman tells him “in the case of the Washington football team, the offensive conduct is public, not private … but is being condoned and defended by the National Football League.”

And so how, exactly, is it the House of Representative’s purview to call hearings on the name of a football team? It’s not. Not by a longshot. But that doesn’t stop that the nares-excessive Waxman from pushing onward.

“Te NFL is a private league, but it enjoys many public advantages,” he starts a long paragraph that you can read yourself because it’s ridiculous. It really is.

Oh … and for the record: Here’s what Waxman said about the Benghazi hearings:

“The Democrats ought to be there every day, recording why it’s a sham.”

I think those caverns in his schnoz go too far into the brain.

Republicans look to loosen penalties on illegal immigrants

Republicans look to loosen penalties on illegal immigrants

Republican Rep. Raul Labrador on Thursday offered a potential immigration deal to the White House, saying the GOP would agree to loosen penalties on illegal immigrants if President Obama would agree to increase visas for foreigners who work in high-tech fields.

Mr. Labrador suggested dropping the penalty period that bars illegal immigrants from reapplying to enter the U.S. legally after being deported, a period that now lasts for between three and 10 years, depending on how long they had first remained in the country illegally.

“I think most Republicans agree that the 3- and 10-year bars have to go away because right now the people that are here illegally, they have to go home to become legal, but then they have to remain home for ten years,” the Idaho Republican said. “We remove those bars from them, you could fix the status of about 25 percent of the people that are here illegally right now if they return to their home country and then they come back legally.”

Under current law, those that leave the U.S. after living here illegally for six months or more cannot return for three years. Those who lived here illegally for at least a year cannot return for ten years. That has served as an incentive for many illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. rather than return home and face yearslong bans.

Mr. Labrador, who dropped out of a bipartisan group last year that tried to strike a broad immigration deal, made the overture at a forum of House conservatives hosted by the Heritage Foundation.

He said in return for dropping the bars, Democrats should agree to boost legal immigration by granting green cards to foreigners who graduate from American universities with advanced degrees in the fields of science, engineering, math or technology.

Democrats have said they support that change, and indeed this week the Department of Homeland Security took unilateral steps to try to make it easier to approve visas for some high-skilled foreign workers.

But Mr. Labrador’s proposal didn’t impress immigration advocates, who said they will only accept a broad reform package that covers all parts of the immigration debate.

“This offer doesn’t come close to passing the laugh test,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice. “We want reform that includes legal status and the opportunity at citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants.”

“If House Republicans are prepared to give us a vote on that, they should give us a call,” Mr. Sharry said. “If not, they will feel the pressure of a changing electorate until they get on the right side of history.”

The advocates’ antipathy underscores the difficulty of moving any immigration legislation. Democrats want all parts of immigration tackled at the same time, and say a pathway to citizenship for most of the 11 million in the country illegally right now must be part of any deal.

House Republicans, though, say they won’t pass a massive bill, and say they want to tackle the immigration issue in pieces, including securing the border, boosting interior enforcement, rewriting the legal immigration system and expanding guest-worker programs.

Republicans also say they do not trust Mr. Obama enough to support any legislation that puts legalization before strict border security that he would have to enforce.

On issues ranging from immigration and drugs to Obamacare and gay marriage, Mr. Obama has unilaterally decided not to enforce or support numerous laws and provisions of laws with which he disagrees, a tactic Republicans have called lawless and a reason not to trust his “law-enforcement priorities.”

“I look back at the 28 years in the business world and I think, ‘Who was it that ever destroyed my trust that was ever able to re-earn it again?’ I can’t come up with a name in all that time,” Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican and staunch illegal immigration opponent, said Thursday. “I don’t trust him, except to do what is politically to his advantage.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/8/republicans-look-to-loosen-penalties-on-illegal-im/#ixzz31M7YJT8m
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

‘Pilot program’ revealed: Washington sends missiles to Syrian rebels

‘Pilot program’ revealed: Washington sends missiles to Syrian rebels

The US is sending missiles to Syrian rebels as part of a “pilot program” to strengthen the opposition, American media reveals. Addressing criticism the US is arming extremist militants, Washington claims its weapons will not “fall into the wrong hands.”

Washington’s new initiative aims to find out whether it can supply opposition forces in Syria with weapons without them falling into the hands of Islamist extremists, American officials told USA Today on condition of anonymity.

“They will try this first and see how it goes” before expanding it, said a former official. According to reports, rebel groups have already received anti-tank missiles, known as TOWs, which are specially designed to destroy tanks and pierce reinforced bunkers.

Rebel fighters prepare to launch an anti-tank missile towards forces loyal to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad in Maaret al-Naaman village, in Idlib April 30, 2014. (Reuters / Rasem Ghareeb)
Rebel fighters prepare to launch an anti-tank missile towards forces loyal to Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad in Maaret al-Naaman village, in Idlib April 30, 2014. (Reuters / Rasem Ghareeb)

This latest move by the US comes as the head of the Syrian National Coalition for Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, Ahmad Al-Jarba, visits Washington to lobby for more support. Al-Jarba will push for Washington to supply rebel forces with anti-aircraft missiles, the New York Times reports.

In a meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry, Al-Jarba emphasized that his coalition was “moderate and inclusive.”

“The coalition’s goal is to build a pluralistic, civil state where the majority can live together with the minority in peace,” he said.

Washington has thrown its support behind the Syrian National Coalition, granting the body official foreign mission status in the US. The US government suspended the Syrian embassy, representing the Assad government, earlier in March. In addition, the White House has pledged an extra $27 million to helping the cause of the rebels in Syria.

However, Brian Becker of the anti-war ANSWER coalition, says this money will only go to help the spread of terrorism in the country.

“The opposition in Syria includes notorious terrorist forces and they have used terrorism, of course supported by the United States through proxy forces in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to finance it and arm them, but they have been carrying out terrorist actions,” the anti-war activist mentioned.

“The idea that there is a dichotomy between a good opposition and a bad opposition is just a myth in the face of rising public and media attention in the US about the nature of the terrorist organizations that are fighting the Assad government,” Becker concluded.

A road sign is seen as Syrian government forces walk in a street on May 9, 2014 in the Christian neighborhood of Hamidiyeh in the old city of Homs after Syrian government forces regained control of rebel-controlled areas. (AFP Photo / Youssef Karwashan)
A road sign is seen as Syrian government forces walk in a street on May 9, 2014 in the Christian neighborhood of Hamidiyeh in the old city of Homs after Syrian government forces regained control of rebel-controlled areas. (AFP Photo / Youssef Karwashan)

As the US steps up its support for the opposition, the Assad government has scheduled presidential elections for June 3. Bashar Assad will run for re-election against rival candidates Maher Abdul-Hafiz Hajjar, 46, and Hassan bin Abdullah al-Nouri, 54. Elements of the Syrian opposition and Washington have already leveled criticism at the vote, branding it a “farce.”

One senior US administration official denounced the Syrian election as “a parody of democracy,” AFP reports. Assad’s decision to hold the elections “rings particularly hollow given that the regime is continuing to attack and massacre the very electorate that is purporting to represent,” the official said.

Washington believes the conflict in Syria can only be solved if Assad steps down as president.

Syria was plunged into civil war in 2011 when peaceful uprisings against Assad descended into violence. As a result of the conflict, at least 150,000 people have died and millions more have been displaced and gone into exile. The international community made significant progress last year, when the US and Russia agreed that Syria should destroy its chemical weapons stockpile following an attack in Damascus on August 21 last year.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-UN task force confirmed last week that 92 percent of the weapons stockpile had been removed from the war-torn nation.

One EPA Employee Watched Two To Six Hours Of Porn Every Day At Work… And Still Has His Job

One EPA Employee Watched Two To Six Hours Of Porn Every Day At Work… And Still Has His Job

“How much pornography would it take for an EPA employee to lose his job?”

The EPA still has not fired employees for heavy watching of pornography at work and falsifying federal documents, according to Representative Darrell Issa, House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman.

“How much pornography would it take for an EPA employee to lose his job?” Issa asked EPA officials testifying before the House Oversight Committee, one of whom was the EPA’s second in command.

“This individual spent four consecutive hours on a site called ‘sadism is beautiful,’” Issa said. “You are running an organization from which no one can get fired.”

Unbelievably, one EPA employee spent two to six hours every day looking at pornography since 2010 and has 7,000 porn files on the computer he uses. He also even watched porn when inspector general agents visited his office. He still holds his job at the EPA.

Renee Page, the director of the agency’s Office of Administration, sold products using a government email account, according to the OIG. Page hired 17 of her family members and friends as paid interns. Page also received a prestigious Presidential Rank Award in 2010, getting $35,000 in cash.

“[T}he OIG conducted an investigation into serious misconduct by another EPA manager who allowed an employee to stay at home and not report for duty for several years,” according to deputy assistant inspector general Allan Williams. “Based on a long-standing arrangement with the employee… this EPA manager not only entered fraudulent time-and-attendance records for the absent employee but also approved the same fraudulent records.”

“It is estimated that the manager’s approval of fraudulent time-and-attendance records cost the government more than $500,000,” Williams also said. “Even more egregious is that this EPA manager authored and approved exemplary performance appraisals that resulted in a cash award for the absent employee.”

The EPA’s abuses have gone on long enough.

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/one-epa-employee-watched-two-six-hours-porn-every-day-work-still-job/#GkGhmuYFL2XPjiDq.99

Mark Levin Crushes GOP Establishm​ent: ‘Never Stand On Principle, Except During Campaigns When They Don’t Mean it!’

Popular conservative radio host, constitutional scholar, and best-selling author, Mark Levin, took to the airwaves on Thursday, powerfully and pointedly lambasting Republican Party leadership while praising the pro-liberty, pro-Constitution Tea Party movement on Thursday.

Levin began his show on Thursday by asking (hear audio below) in the backdrop of GOP establishment electoral victories over grassroots Tea Party candidates in Tuesday’s primaries:

“Is the Tea Party dead? Is that a stupid question? Is conservatism dead? Is liberty dead? Is the Constitution to be surrendered…what’s left of it? Are you rolling into a fetal position and just surrendering to all this?”
Levin then provides an important historic reminder, the inconvenient truth to the GOP leadership, now at war with the party’s own grassroots, of just how defeated and on its way to irrelevance the Republican Party was before the Tea Party movement was born in 2009, stating that the movement spontaneously began because, referencing the GOP establishment, “These people never stand on principle, except during campaigns, when they don’t mean it.”

In 2006, George W. Bush, and his right-hand political hack, the architect, Karl Rove, lost the House of Representatives and lost the United States Senate. They’d both been in Republican control. The House of Representatives had been in Republican control since the Newt Gingrich revolution. And they hated Gingrich. And the ‘Bushies’ still have Gingrich.

So the ‘Bushies’ and Karl Rove, and the moderates, and Mitch McConnell, running the National Republican Senatorial Committee, they lost the Congress.

There was no Tea Party in 2006. There was no Tea Party in 2008. They still lost the Congress. As a matter of fact, Mitch McConnell famously said, and I won’t drag out the audio for it, ‘the Republican Party needs to be careful it’s becoming a regional party.’

Just like now, we’re told the Republican Party needs to reach out to this group and that group and pander based on ethnicity, and so forth, because again, it’s gotta watch the demographics. These people never stand on principle, except during campaigns, when they don’t mean it. And when it comes time to govern, then they jettison it.
Levin established how the Tea Party movement completely resurrected the Republican Party, which was basically dead, and just how historic the turnaround was as evidenced by the landslide victories of 2010, led by the energized grassroots. Levin correctly points out that it wasn’t the political consultant class or the GOP leadership that led to that historic victory, but was the Tea Party:

So nothing was happening with the Republican Party but loss after loss until 2010. And what happened? The people rose up from the grassroots, not through any political party; not because of what consultants said; not because the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; not because of lobbyists or the media.

They’d had enough!

They’d had enough of Bush. In the last six months of his presidency he turned into Herbert Hoover, and they had enough of what Obama was announcing after his election. They saw that the country was hitting a brick wall and they were right. We were right. What happened was a spontaneous movement of patriotic Americans with conservative beliefs.

They didn’t organize a [political] party. There is no, quote-unquote, ‘Tea Party.’ There are millions of us who have had enough…constitutionalists, law-abiding citizens, taxpayers. We’ve had enough! And what happened in that election in 2010, when the Republicans were flat on their back, when Nancy Pelosi was Speaker of the House, when Barack Obama had super-majority in the Senate and the House was ramming home Obamacare and Dodd-Frank…what happened?

Did the Republican Party stop them? No! you stopped them! And the result is the Republican Party benefited from it because it is and was, quote-unquote, the ‘opposition party.’ And it was an amazing, historic, landslide, a tidal wave.

The House of Representatives, in one election, switched from super-majority Democrat-controlled under Nancy Pelosi, to super-majority Republican control later under John Boehner. The Republicans had a net gain of 65 seats, and almost a net gain of 72 seats, some of the elections were so close. That exceeded the Gingrich revolution of 1994, where they picked up 54 seats.

Not since 1938 had the Republicans seen such a landslide.What happened in the Senate? The Democrats lost six seats and three new Republican senators in particular were elected with Tea Party support.