Screen Shot 2015-02-24 at 4.23.25 PMMitch McConnell Announces a Vote on Clean DHS Funding Is ComingThe Senate majority leader is making his move to try and prevent a shutdown.

February 24, 2015 With the Homeland Security Department set to shut down on Saturday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday offered Senate Democrats everything they wanted. And then, as with mice and cookies, they asked for some more.
McConnell told reporters Tuesday that after two months of begging, he would finally agree to give Democrats a clean vote to fund DHS through the end of the fiscal year. The funding, based on an agreement between Democratic and Republican appropriators last year, would come with no strings attached.

“I’ve indicated to the Democratic leader that I’d be happy to have his cooperation to advance the consideration of a clean DHS bill which would carry us through till September 30th,” McConnell said to press Tuesday.

Then, he would hold a vote Friday to defund President Obama’s executive action on immigration, as a consolation prize for conservatives in the House and Senate who have pushed to tie the two issues together. That sequence would keep DHS open and could earn enough Democratic votes to pass the separate measure defunding the president’s executive action. Already Sens. Claire McCaskill and Joe Manchin have said they will vote to move forward the immigration bill; although McCaskill said that the DHS funding must come first and hasn’t made a decision on whether she’ll vote for the underlying immigration measure.

But when Democrats heard the news, they were not impressed. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said that he had a positive meeting with McConnell on Tuesday, but then asked for more: House Speaker John Boehner’s guarantee that the clean DHS funding bill could pass the House.

That’s a tall order for Boehner, who will meet with his conference to discuss their options on Wednesday. It’s likely that a clean DHS funding bill will earn the vast majority of Democratic votes in the House, but with conservatives riled up about the immigration measure, it will be a much harder sell in Boehner’s own conference.

McConnell told reporters Tuesday, “I do not know what the House will do.”

McConnell spokesman Don Stewart would not say whether McConnell had told Boehner about his new strategy before making the announcement Monday night, although he acknowledged that the two leaders speak often.

Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said McConnell announced the decision at a conference luncheon Tuesday, but that the announcement had drawn ire from more-conservative members who believe McConnell was giving in to Democratic demands without holding the president accountable. Multiple Republicans in the meeting said there was still broad disagreement as to whether a caving to Democrats demands for a clean funding bill was the best course forward.

“Most of us feel like the courts gave us a major victory,” Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said outlining the rationale for McConnell to offer a clean DHS bill now after weeks of not backing down. “Sometimes it makes a lot of sense to bank victories and move ahead.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., who has been a major advocate of tying DHS funding to blocking Obama’s actions, says he thinks leadership should stick with the original plan.

“I think it is a big deal of huge, historic importance,” Sessions says.” I will be glad to consider what our leaders have talked about, but I remain firmly convinced that at this point Congress should put the heat where it belongs, and that is on the president.”

Outside conservatives, who have been known to influence Boehner’s ability to get his conference to “yes” have already said they are opposed to stand alone DHS funding bill. Senate Conservatives Fund tweeted Tuesday, “Senate GOP leaders surrender again … plan to fund Obama’s amnesty for the rest of the fiscal year.”

The influence, especially of a group such as Heritage Action for America, which announced it will key vote a “no” on a clean DHS funding vote, could still derail any DHS deal. “As the majority leader said last year, the power of the purse is the ‘only tool’ Congress has to rein in executive overreach,” Heritage Action CEO Michael Needham said in a statement.

“I think it is clear that the House has not agreed on a strategy yet,” Flake told reporters.

For Democrats, the only way to pass a DHS bill is without amendments defunding Obama’s unilateral actions. “Separation’s important,” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin said after the press conference, “and the order if it’s going to be accomplished before the deadline really requires us to move to the funding bill first.”

“If this is a clean funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security, it’s going to have a lot of Democratic support,” Durbin added.

The deal appeared to still be very delicate Tuesday afternoon, however, when a senior GOP House aide accused Democrats of demanding too much.

“Apparently inspired by President Obama’s own overreach, Senator Reid is now shamelessly threatening to filibuster a ‘clean’ Homeland Security funding bill,” the aide said. “The American people are watching, and there will be consequences for Senate Democrats’ hypocrisy and irresponsibility.”

Democrats will need to agree to McConnell’s new plan for the DHS funding bill to move forward. The minority—or at least six of its members—will have to agree to allow the Senate to take up the House-passed DHS bill, which Democrats have already voted down four times. The House bill currently includes several amendments defunding Obama’s executive actions on immigration from the past three years, but McConnell has promised that he would move to remove them once Democrats agree to get on the bill.

If Democrats continue to filibuster the funding bill, McConnell said Tuesday he would bring up the immigration measure from Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, on Friday anyway.

“Every excuse that they’ve had, we’ve now taken away, and they’re still objecting,” Stewart said.

This story is breaking and will be updated.

Correction: An earlier version of this story mislabeled Sens. Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell. McConnell is the Senate majority leader, Reid the Senate minority leader.

House GOP leaders to subcommittee chairs: Vote with us or step down

Screen Shot 2015-01-06 at 10.23.32 AM

Subcommittee chairs received warnings that they should give up their posts if they vote against procedural motions on the floor.

By LAUREN FRENCH and JAKE SHERMAN 2/12/15 7:00 PM EST Updated 2/13/15 5:43 PM EST

House Republicans are continuing to threaten the rebels within their ranks.

At least three committee chairmen have issued formal warnings to subcommittee chairmen that lawmakers planning to vote against procedural motions on the House floor should give up their posts — the third time in just six weeks that Republican leaders have made it known they will not tolerate members stepping out of line.

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway of Texas, Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop of Utah and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce of California have all warned their subcommittee chairs that voting against rules while occupying the coveted positions will not be accepted, according to lawmakers familiar with the discussions.

From left, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., and Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin of Ill., attend a statue unveiling ceremony honoring former Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2015, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Boehner and McConnell are at a standstill over provisions attached to a Homeland Security spending bill aimed at blocking President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration. McConnell declared a Senate stalemate Tuesday and called on the House to make the next move to avoid an agency shutdown. House Republicans said they had no intention of doing so and today, Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2015, Speaker Boehner declared that Senate Democrats should ‘get off their ass’ and pass a bill to fund the Homeland Security Department and restrict President Barack Obama’s executive moves on immigration.
Bishop said his Wednesday night warning was part of a larger discussion on how he wants his committee to run, including how bills and amendments will be introduced.

“On a procedural issue, especially a rule, if you feel strong enough against something, you should also feel strong enough to remove yourself from the situation in which you would be a distraction to what we are trying to do on the committee,” Bishop said.

The Republican leadership team, led by Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), did not issue a directive to its chairmen to punish members who vote against procedural motions. However, sources said GOP leadership made clear to all full committee chairmen that there is an expectation that subcommittee chairs will vote with Republicans on rules.

The warning does not automatically come with a punishment if subcommittee chairmen vote against rules, sources stressed, but it’s yet another sign that Boehner and his allies are looking to bring the rank and file into line after a series of close votes on budgets and appropriations bills in the previous Congress.

Already this year, the Ohio Republican stripped committee spots from two lawmakers who challenged his speakership in early January. Reps. Richard Nugent and Daniel Webster, both of Florida, were removed from the Rules Committee — a panel appointed exclusively at Boehner’s direction — after Webster launched a challenge for the top spot in the House and Nugent backed him.

In a second move, Republican Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana told whips that any lawmaker serving on the team would be expected to fall in line on rules and speaker votes. In response, Reps. Ron DeSantis of Florida and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina both gave notice that they no longer wanted to be part of the leadership operation.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler speaks during new conference in Washington, Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2014, to announce that AT&T will pay $80 million to FTC for consumer refunds in mobile cramming case, which is part of combined $105 million settlement with FTC and
Procedural motions are important for the majority party as it allows the House to proceed to debate and vote on the underlying legislation.

These moves come as at least two dozen Republicans formed a splinter caucus designed to advance a conservative direction in the House. The House Freedom Caucus has pledged to work with Republican leaders, but lawmakers involved with forming the group said its members would be willing to vote against a rule or procedural vote as a bloc if they are left out of discussions on legislation.

It would take around 28 members to derail a rules vote.

A Republican lawmaker who attended the closed-door meeting with Bishop said members of the new conservative caucus feel as if the committee announcement is a reaction to the group’s growing influence.

“He said that if you’re going to vote against a procedural motion you might as well resign prior to doing so, there was no discussion about it,” the lawmaker said. “This is something completely new. I think they see that [the Freedom Caucus] is a very potent weapon we can use.”

Royce’s office said the chairman had not held a conversation with members. Conaway’s office declined to comment.

“The whip team meetings are private meetings and the chairman will not discuss conversations that take place during these meetings,” said a spokesperson for the Agriculture Committee.

Read more:


Imperial president allowed to wage war against enemies anywhere in the world

By Kurt Nimmo

The Obama administration designed the language of its unconstitutional AUMF to be vague, Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, admitted on Wednesday.

Earnest said the proposal was left undefined “because we believe it’s important that there aren’t overly burdensome constraints that are placed on the commander in chief.”

Critics interpret this to mean the executive branch of the government wants to expand the reach of the imperial presidency and allow it to wage war against ill-defined enemies anywhere in the world.

Additionally, the administration believes the deliberately ambiguous AUMF, or Authorization for the Use of Military Force, will bring lawmakers together in a bipartisan coalition calling for a war against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq without restraint, including the use of ground troops.

Republicans are concerned the proposed AUMF will not provide the authority they believe is required to eliminate the Islamic State.

House Speaker John Boehner, a Michigan Democrat, said he is concerned the latest AUMF will not give “military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people.”

Few in Congress have questioned the constitutionality of the proposed AUMF or two previous ones used to wage war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen following the attacks of September 11, 2001.

“In constitutional reality the President has no such sole authority,” notes Greg Weiner. “The President’s plenary ‘national security’ power is a phantom; it simply is not there in the Constitution. Like most constitutional authorities, the national security power is shared. It entails the war power, which belongs to Congress, the spending power (Congress’ too), military regulations (again) and other areas of policy that are not the President’s alone to decide.”

Republicans, however, take a different approach on the AUMF and the possibility it may limit the use of ground troops.

Arizona Republican Senator John McCain told reporters he would consider any such language as “unconstitutional,” declaring the Constitution gives the president the power to use the military to intervene abroad at his discretion.

White House encouraging Congressional Black Caucus to boycott Netanyahu’s speech


Written by Allen West on February 9, 2015

It’s Black History Month and there will be countless remembrances of the Civil Rights movement — such as the film “Selma.” However, we must never forget the people of other races, creeds, and religions who stood by blacks in the South to bring the practice of segregation and Jim Crow to an end – all of which by the way, was introduced by the Democrat party.

One of those groups who stood with blacks were the Jewish people – as a matter of fact it was two Jewish men who were doing voting registration work in Mississippi who went missing. It was later discovered that Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were killed along with James Chaney in 1964 — as depicted in the 1988 film, “Mississippi Burning.”

So the latest news involving the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) is rather disturbing. As reported by the UK Daily Mail, “Two prominent black Democrats in the House of Representatives are vowing to skip Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress next month, a move that a White House insider says was put in motion by the Obama administration.”

“John Lewis of Georgia and G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina both said Friday that they disapproved when House Speaker John Boehner invited the Israeli leader to address a joint session of Congress on March 3 without consulting President Barack Obama first. That disapproval apparently was orchestrated, or at least strongly encouraged, by the White House through communications with lawmakers connected to the Congressional Black Caucus.”S

Here’s The Reason Valerie Jarrett Is Scared Of Benjamin Netanyahu

Screen Shot 2015-01-15 at 11.51.12 AM

Why else would the White House be so scared that one of our closest and reliable allies is speaking to a co-equal branch of government?


We have all seen the White House’s reaction to House Speaker John Boehner inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress on the Iranian nuclear situation. The Obama administration has completely freaked out, lobbing public barrages against Netanyahu and Boehner for “going around the White House and diplomatic protocol.” This is quite humorous for the president who famously said “I have a pen and a phone and can do anything I want”–but that’s for another column.

I’ve written about the Obama administration’s agenda when dealing with Iran. The agenda is to run out the clock and allow Iran to develop, or be on the verge of developing, a nuclear weapon that would threaten the entire Middle East and the world. Israel would especially be in danger.

The real questions are: Who is pushing this agenda? Who is pushing for Iran to go nuclear? And, who is so scared of Netanyahu briefing Congress and the American people on what Iran is up to?

Advertisement-content continues below

The answer is Valerie Jarrett, Obama’s Rasputin. This is where the anger from the White House is coming from.

Most people know she was born in Iran. This in itself does not disqualify her from advising the president, but it does open her agenda to scrutiny. There have been reports that she has been secretly negotiating with Iran on the nuclear issue, but the White House has vehemently denied it.

I, for one, don’t trust a thing this administration says.

Now, the Jerusalem Post is reporting that the Obama administration has already given Iran eighty percent of what it has demanded in the negotiations. The “deal” to be reached will leave Iran within months of going nuclear if they decide to move forward. All of the centrifuges will remain under their control.

This “deal” is not a deal, but an appeasement.

The Post reports: “Jerusalem officials appear alarmed at the prospect that the United States will soon strike a deal with the Iranian regime that will leave it with a ‘breakout capacity’ of months during which it can gallop toward a nuclear bomb.”

This is what Valerie Jarrett is so scared of–that her secret deals with Iran to allow them to go nuclear will become public knowledge. She is scared Netanyahu will tell Congress and the American people what is really going on. We can’t have that, can we?

Why else would the White House be so scared that one of our closest and reliable allies is speaking to a co-equal branch of government?


BREAKING: Obstructionist Democrats Side with Illegal Immigrants Over National Security

Screen Shot 2015-02-04 at 9.40.11 AM

By Jennifer Burke

In a move that risks a partial shutdown of the government, and that simultaneously sides with illegals over the protection of American citizens, Senate Democrats blocked a House-passed Homeland Security bill.

The bill, put forth and passed by the House, would have fully funded DHS, but not Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty which was implemented via executive order. While Democrats say that fully funding DHS is imperative due to the mounting rise and threat of lone wolf terrorist attacks, and threats by ISIS, they will not do so if it in any way jeopardizes amnesty.
The Washington Times reports that West Virginia Democrat Senator Joe Manchin said, “I stand ready to work with my Republican colleagues to secure our border and reform our immigration system, but this bill is not the proper place to do that.”

According to USA Today , Nevada Democrat Senator Harry Reid said, “”Why should we be dealing with issues that have nothing to do with homeland security?. We should pass a homeland security bill with no strings attached to it.”

The $40 billion bill would not only have cut funding for Obama’s illegal amnesty, but also ended the Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) program which was also illegally implemented by Obama via executive order in 2012. It was from the DACA program that the term DREAMers was coined in reference to the 600,000 young illegal immigrants who were brought into the country by their parents. DACA allowed them to obtain work permits and stay in the country at least two years. Obama also recently expanded DACA through his illegal amnesty program.”

The majority of DHS employees are considered essential workers, so they would be expected to work as the funding fight continues, but will not receive a paycheck until it is resolved.

Republicans in the House view the DHS funding bill as a fight against Obama’s overreach via executive action. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who has often butted heads with the more conservative faction of the Republican caucus, even turned to Texas Senator Ted Cruz, a favorite among the pro-freedom, pro-Constitution Tea Party movement, to lead the fight in the Senate.

Speaker Boehner said, “We won this fight in the House. Now, the fight must be won in the United States Senate. It’s time for Senator Cruz and Senator Sessions and Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats to stand with the American people and to block the president’s actions.”

With Democrat obstruction preventing the bill from moving forward, Republicans will now have to scramble to come up with a Plan B. They have vowed to not allow the DHS to run out of money.

A new bill must be decided upon and passed in order to fully fund DHS through the end of the fiscal year. If Democrats continue to obstruct funding for DHS by siding with illegals over Americans, then DHS will run out of money on February 27.

Nevada Senator Dean Heller was the sole Republican to vote with the Democrats against the DHS funding bill.