Praises Infowars and PrisonPlanet.com for questioning the administration
by INFOWARS.COM | JULY 1, 2014
After describing how lapdog media figures cozy up to the establishment, conservative radio talk show host and author Michael Savage gave kudos, in particular, to the work of Infowars’ newest reporter Staff Sgt. Joe Biggs, who last week traveled to south Texas where House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was scheduled to give a press conference.
Infowars was denied access to the Congressperson because it was not “pre-credentialed” by the establishment, in other words it was decided the news organization based in central Texas and not far from the border is too dangerous to be allowed near Madame Pelosi, who is known for her fumbling answers to serious questions.
June 27, 2014 By Matthew Burke
Every congressman, regardless of political party or ideology, takes an oath of office that reads (emphasis added):
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
Granted, the Democrat Party, the party that “booed” God loudly three times at their 2012 convention, probably have a huge problem with the “So help me God” closing, but, nevertheless, they promise to follow the U.S. Constitution.
The beginning body of the U.S. Constitution, Article, I, Section 1, states that “ALL” legislative powers are obtained by the Congress of the United State, not Barack Obama. In one clear, easy to understand sentence, the longest serving Constitution in world history states:
“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”
However, Democrats, so desperate to import more undocumented Democrats, overcome with political greed, are ignoring the Constitution their swore to uphold, calling on their Messiah, Barack Obama, to become America’s first dictator, pushing the Marxist community organizer to issue laws where there are none, change laws where there are existing ones, and to not enforce laws that don’t promote the Democrat Party’s communist agenda.
Take immigration. We do have immigration laws, correct?
Congressional Democrats are violating their oath of office and are urging Obama to break existing immigration laws, encouraging him even to make new immigration “laws” if Congress “fails to act.” Obama himself even promised to issue additional royal edicts to skirt the rule of law.
The Hill reports on comments from leading treasonous Democrats, who are pressuring weak-kneed Speaker of the House, RINO John Boehner, to agree with Obama’s dictates, pass them in the House, or Obama will be a dictator “act alone.”
“We’re deporting too many people; we’re breaking up families; and he ought to do whatever’s in his executive power to change what is a bad policy,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday. “It’s the right thing to do.”
Rep. Filemon Vela (D-Texas), a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) who represents a border district, agreed that the issue demands more urgency from the president.
“He needs to be looking at it now,” Vela said Thursday, predicting no action in the House this year. “We have no Republican bills, whatsoever.”
Democrats are not speaking entirely with one voice on the issue, however. Many party leaders are backing Obama’s delay in the hope that Boehner will launch a last-minute effort to take up immigration legislation this year.
“I’m hopeful,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday, during a news briefing to mark the anniversary of the Senate passing its immigration reform bill. “I believe that the Speaker is of good faith on this.
“Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) agreed, arguing that Democrats “have always said that the deadline for getting a bill done feasibly is July 31.”
“Are the chances very small? Very small,” Schumer said Thursday. “But … hope springs eternal. Maybe Speaker Boehner would come to his senses.”
Other liberals are running out of patience with that strategy.
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa (D-Texas), the chairman of the CHC, has long been critical of Obama’s delayed action. Last month, he called on the president “to reconsider.” And this week, he said leading Hispanic lawmakers will amplify that message in a coming visit to the White House.
“I told him that we’d give him time, so we should be going to the White House soon,” Hinojosa said Wednesday.
In other words, change the law by our arbitrary deadline, or Dictator Obama will do it for us. It’s treasonous. Separation of powers be damned!
She will meet with children held at the South Texas Detention Facility
By LAUREN FRENCH | 6/26/14 6:42 PM EDT
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will travel to the southern border of the U.S. on Saturday to be briefed by Customs and Border Protection on the flood of unaccompanied minors entering the country.
The California Democrat will also meet with a group of children held at the South Texas Detention Facility.
“The humanitarian crisis unfolding across our nation’s southern border demands Congress come together and find thoughtful, compassionate and bipartisan solutions,” Pelosi said. “We must ensure our laws are fully enforced, so that due process is provided to unaccompanied children and the safety and well-being of unaccompanied children is protected. We must also work to address the root causes of the problem.”
More than 50,000 unaccompanied children from central America have crossed the border into the United States since last October, but federal law says the U.S. cannot immediately turn the minors away if they are from non-contiguous countries such as Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.
The rush of children has turned into a crisis for Customs and Border Protection, which does not have the capacity to house the children for the 72 hours before they are transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services to await an immigration hearing.
Pelosi will be joined by Democratic Reps. Filemon Vela of Texas, Rubén E. Hinojosa of Texas and Steven Horsford of Nevada. Hinojosa is the chairman of the Chairman, Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Vela sits on the House Homeland Security Committee.
Speaker alleged president not only has ignored law but “brags about it”
House Speaker John Boehner announced Wednesday he plans to file suit against President Obama over his alleged abuse of executive power.
“This is not about impeachment — it’s about him faithfully executing the laws of this country,” Boehner said.
The speaker alleged that the president not only has ignored the law but “brags about it,” decrying what he described as “arrogance and incompetence.”
Boehner had been weighing such a lawsuit in recent days, over concerns that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority with executive actions. Republicans have voiced frustration with Obama’s second-term “pen and phone” strategy of pursuing policy changes without Congress — particularly environmental rules via the Environmental Protection Agency. Republicans also complained about numerous unilateral changes to the implementation of ObamaCare.
The lawsuit has not yet been filed. But asked Wednesday whether he intended to proceed, Boehner said: “I am.”
“My view is the president has not faithfully executed the laws,” he said. “What we have seen clearly over the last five years is an effort to erode the power of the Legislative Branch.”
He did not detail his plans at the press conference, but elaborated in a memo to House Republicans sent later Wednesday. In it, he said he plans to bring legislation authorizing the suit to the floor in July, citing concerns that Obama’s executive actions could shift the “balance of power decisively and dangerously” in favor of the White House — giving the president “king-like authority.” He cited concerns over policies on health care, energy, foreign policy and education.
“On one matter after another during his presidency, President Obama has circumvented the Congress through executive action, creating his own laws and excusing himself from executing statutes he is sworn to enforce — at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the America people to stop him,” he wrote.
The decision to sue still would have to be formally approved by a group of House leaders, and then the House. The plaintiff would be the House of Representatives.
White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, asked about the suit at Wednesday’s briefing, defended the president’s executive authority — while blasting Republican leadership for what he called a “taxpayer-funded lawsuit against the president of the United States for doing his job.”
“It seems that Republicans have shifted their opposition into a high gear,” he said. “Frankly, it’s a gear that I didn’t know previously existed.”
Ahead of Boehner’s announcement, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi ridiculed the prospect of a suit against the president.
“I make of it as subterfuge,” she said. “They’re doing nothing here. So they have to give some aura of activity.”
Pelosi said the Republican caucus needs an “adult in that room.”
Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, told Republicans Tuesday he could have an announcement within days on whether the House will file a lawsuit against President Barack Obama, challenging the executive actions that have become the keystone of the administration.
The lawsuit could set up a significant test of constitutional checks and balances, with the legislative branch suing the executive branch for ignoring its mandates, and the judiciary branch deciding the outcome.
Boehner told the House Republican Conference during a closed-door meeting Tuesday morning that he has been consulting with legal scholars and plans to unveil his next steps this week or next, according to sources in the room.
(Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call in your inbox or on your iPhone.)
Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said further action is necessary because the Senate has not taken up bills passed by the House targeting executive actions. The House has passed a bill expediting court consideration of House resolutions starting lawsuits targeting executive overreach and another mandating that the attorney general notify Congress when the administration decides to take executive action outside of what has been authorized by Congress.
“The president has a clear record of ignoring the American people’s elected representatives and exceeding his constitutional authority, which has dangerous implications for both our system of government and our economy,” Steel said. “The House has passed legislation to address this, but it has gone nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate, so we are examining other options.”
It remains unclear which executive action or actions the House would challenge, but Obama has given Congress ample targets. In the last several years, he has issued executive actions halting deportations of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came to the country as children, extending the family and medical leave benefits to gay couples and raising the minimum wage for federal contractors. He has also worked around legislative deadlines for enacting provisions of the Affordable Care Act and issued other executive actions relating to the environment and the gender and race pay gap.
boehner 192 062414 330×221 Boehner Planning House Lawsuit Against Obama Executive Actions
UNITED STATES – JUNE 24: Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, speaks to the media at the Republican National Committee following the House Republican Conference meeting on Tuesday, June 24, 2014. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)
Obama has said he takes executive action because of a divided Congress’ inability to pass laws targeting important issues of the day. Congressional Republicans contend such actions are unconstitutional and thwart Congress’ power.
But individual members of Congress do not have standing to sue because they are not legally recognized as injured parties. Congress as an institution, on the other hand, may sue on the grounds that there has been institutional injury done because their legislative powers have been nullified.
One path Boehner could take would be to convene the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group, a panel of leaders created in 1993 that votes on whether or not to sue on behalf of the House. The group consists of the speaker, the majority leader, the majority whip, the minority leader and the minority whip, and it would act on a majority vote.
Boehner last convened the group when the Obama administration dropped its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in 2011. The House has since dropped its challenge of the law. At the time, however, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California objected to the challenge holding that it was an unwarranted way to spend taxpayer money. Her spokesman, Drew Hammill, said she will likely object similarly if Boehner moves forward with a lawsuit against the president.
“While the urgent needs of the American people are ignored by House Republicans, it is reprehensible that Speaker Boehner plans another doomed, legal boondoggle after he spent $2.3 million in taxpayer dollars unsuccessfully defending discrimination in federal courts,” Hammill said.
Boehner’s legal theory is based on work by Washington, D.C., attorney David Rivkin of Baker Hostetler LLP and Elizabeth Price Foley, a professor of law at Florida International University College of Law.
Rivkin said in an interview that in addition to proving institutional injury, the House would have to prove that as an institution, it has authorized the lawsuit. A vote by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group would do so.
The suit would also have to prove that no other private plaintiff has standing to challenge the particular suspension of executive action and that there are no other opportunities for meaningful political remedies by Congress, for instance by repeal of the underlying law.
“Professor Foley and I feel that if those four conditions are met, the lawsuit would have an excellent chance to succeed. This is particularly the case because President Obama’s numerous suspensions of the law are inflicting damage on the horizontal separations of powers and undermine individual liberty,” Rivkin said.
Rivkin and Foley have argued in op-eds that most of Obama’s executive orders have been benevolent — that is, they have exempted classes of citizens from the law, for instance through deferred action for childhood arrivals. Therefore, no individual has standing to sue because the actions have helped people. Congress as an institution, however, can sue because the actions flout the laws they have passed.
They have argued that short of impeachment, there is no other check to the president’s issuance of executive actions.
Joseph R. Carducci, June 19, 2014obamacare
We told you so. This is a big part of why every single Republican in both chambers of congress voted against the passage of ObamaCare. It should also be noted that with just one or two (and we really mean one or two) exceptions, the entire Democratic party voted in favor of its passage. Now, a new study has found that healthcare costs and premiums continue to soar for most Americans under ObamaCare.
Obama promised this law would lower our healthcare costs overall. He did not promise to raise our costs, collect lots of new taxes, and then use that money to pay out subsidies in order to offset those bills and expenses for SOME people. Nope. Take a look at the video on the linked page to hear what he actually said yourself. Obama promised us that “everyone’s rates will drop significantly, and the federal government’s cost curve will bend down, thus helping to reduce deficits.” You probably also remember House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Dem, CA) promising that the average family would see their costs drop by $4,000 per year.
Yet, once again, we see that Obama never had any intention of keeping his word. Costs for ObamaCare have been spiking upward dramatically for the vast majority of people all across this country. Obviously, our glorious community organizer in chief couldn’t have said the truth, because not even the liberal Democrats would have been able to justify such a vote politically.
A Manhattan Institute study conducted last year found there was a 41 percent average increase in rates. The recently released follow-up study involved more than 3,100 counties across the nation and now pegs the average rate hike at 49 percent. The only state where consumers have seen an actual drop has been New York. Even this was largely due to their severely dysfunction individual market prior to the introduction of ObamaCare. The study also discovered premiums for men increased in 91 percent of all counties; the average man saw increases from 32 to 91 percent, based on their age bracket (27-year-old men were at 91 percent, while 64-year-old men saw 32 percent average increases). Women fared better than men, seeing only a 42 to 44 percent increase.
Now we are also seeing a number of insurers preparing us for even higher rate hikes for 2015. In fact, these increases have already started coming out, and they will extend throughout the spring and into the summer and early fall. More and more Americans are reporting their healthcare costs are indeed going up, rather than down like Obama, Pelosi, and much of the news media reported in the lead-up to ObamaCare approval and implementation. Even more expect this law to continue raising costs in the long run. Even the ration of those hurt by ObamaCare to those helped by law is still running at roughly 2-to-1.
So, while the White House gloats again over a recent HHS report indicating a large majority of subsidy eligible enrollees have seen their premiums go down, don’t believe it. After all, this is produced by the same people who have no idea how many sign-ups are still unpaid (almost a year after ObamaCare began), how many new enrollees previously had insurance, or how many of those supposed 8 million people really are indeed enrolled.
What do YOU think? Is all of this trouble over ObamaCare worth paying $10 billion in subsidies the CBO has projected (other experts think this could be higher, at $16.5 billion)? How about Obama breaking his promise to lower our healthcare costs and premiums? Did he ever intend to keep this promise?
(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has a tongue-in-cheek suggestion for President Obama: Negotiate another prisoner exchange, but this time trade five senior Democrats for a U.S. Marine being held in Mexico.
Addressing the GOP convention in Fort Worth, Texas Friday, Paul said a delegate he had been chatting to had said, “There is one guy who is kind of deserving we ought to try to get home, and that’s the Marine who accidentally carried his guns into Mexico.”
“So here’s what I’m thinking: Mr. President, you love to trade people.”
“Why don’t we set up a trade? But this time, instead of five Taliban, how about five Democrats?” Paul said to laughter and applause. “I’m thinking John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi – couldn’t we send them to Mexico?”
Paul was alluding to the controversial swap of five senior Taliban detainees being held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a soldier held by the Haqqani network, a terrorist group allied to the Taliban, for five years.
The Marine Corps reservist he was referring to, Andrew Tahmooressi, has been in Mexican custody since the end of March, when he was arrested with three legally-registered firearms in his vehicle.
The 25 year-old, who served two combat tours in Afghanistan and suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, has stated that he crossed the border accidentally.
He is being held on weapons charges and several U.S. lawmakers have been urging the administration to do more to get him returned home.
On Thursday State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said the administration was “working very hard to discuss with the Mexican authorities the path forward here.”
At a briefing earlier in the week, Harf fielded a question that linked the Tahmooressi and Bergdahl cases.
“Given what just transpired to release Sergeant Bergdahl – again, wouldn’t a phone call from Secretary Kerry to his [Mexican] counterpart – couldn’t this thing be wrapped up quicker?” a reporter asked.
“They are two totally different situations,” she replied. “Are you comparing the Mexican Government to the Taliban?”
“No, I’m saying one would assume that it would be easier to negotiate and talk to the Mexican government than the Taliban,” the reporter said.
“Look, he entered – he reportedly entered Mexico with several weapons and ammunition, circumstances which would normally result in arrest in Mexico. So we are letting the process work itself through,” Harf said. “The Mexican authorities provided prompt notification of his arrest, have allowed regular consular access. We’ll continue working with them.”
Kerry visited Mexico last month, and when asked afterwards about Tahmooressi said he had raised the matter with his hosts.
“We are working on determining whether or not certain evidence that has been presented is meeting the standard that’s necessary to be able to hold that young Marine, and we’re trying to find out exactly what the fact pattern is, but we are working on that,” he told CNN on May 28. “And as recently as last week, I had those discussions with Mexican authorities.”
By Brian Anderson on June 6, 2014
Rand Paul is nothing if not entertaining. Following the disastrous trade of 5 top Taliban terrorists for deserter Bowe Bergdahl by President Obama, the Kentucky Senator suggested more appropriate trade bait for future prisoner swaps.
While speaking to at the Texas GOP Convention Paul unveiled his enhanced negotiating package:
“Mr. President, you love to trade people. Why don’t we set up a trade? But this time, instead of five Taliban, how about five Democrats? I’m thinking John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi…”
Unfortunately, the crowd erupted in cheers and laughter and the last two remaining democrats up for trade could not be heard. It’s tricky to offer a guess because there are so many liberal politicians that could easily make the list. I’d say Dianne Fienstien, Harry Reid, and Bernie Sanders are all in the running.
The only problem I can see with such a swap would be that we’ve got nothing to trade for. According to Obama, Bergdahl was the last American soldier that needed to come home. The President seems to be forgetting about the 2500 POWs and MIAs from the Vietnam War, but the truth is what Obama says it is.
But do we really need something in exchange for Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi? What could we reasonably expect to get for John Kerry? A couple boxes of old newspapers, maybe? I’d be happy just to get rid of these democrats as I would with an old non-working appliance.
Instead of putting this deal in the “barter” section on Craigslist, list it under the “free” category:
Free: 5 obsolete democrats. One may have some slight brain damage, but all retain their sense of self-righteousness. Can be stripped for parts. Will be on curb of Capitol Building. First come first served. Please don’t disturb residents.
Paul was using humor to make a point about the legal and national security implications of Obama’s deal and it is something that makes him uncomfortable.
“I don’t know about y’all, but I’ve been a little bit annoyed with the president. Releasing five Taliban senior officials…it’s illegal and wrong and he should never have done it,” said Paul.
At a press conference after the speech, reporters hammered Paul about his comments.
“It was a joke. Except for Nancy Pelosi, I was serious about her,” zinged Paul.
You know liberal reports have about as much of a sense of humor as liberal politicians, so they continued to harass the Senator about his joke.
“Well, I mean, it’s humor, and I hope there’s room for humor. I thought it was funny. It was meant to be humorous,” replied Paul.
I guess Rand Paul didn’t get the memo. There is no room to make fun of Obama or the democrats. In fact, because he specifically named Clinton, Pelosi, and Kerry it will be construed as part of the GOP’s war on women. Kerry’s a girl, right?