Ted Cruz: All Presidential Nominees Should Be Blocked Until Obama Rescinds His Amnesty…

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Ted Cruz

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

Just one more reason to admire this man. The reason he pisses off the GOP establishment so much is that they are too afraid to do what he does – take the left and this lawless President on, head on.

Via Hot Air:

Another leftover from Sunday brunch via the Corner. Joel Pollak floated this idea a few weeks ago in a piece for Breitbart. I thought of it again on Thursday night, when I was busy enjoying my vacation from HA by watching Obama’s amnesty speech and screaming at my TV. Now here’s Cruz proposing the same plan, although with two caveats. One: It’s not so much that he wants the Senate to block O’s nominees as he wants Mitch McConnell to refuse to bring those nominations to the floor in the first place. That’s a clever way of killing two birds with one stone. If McConnell follows Cruz’s plan, Cruz can take credit among conservative voters for having been the motive force in bottling up O’s nominees. If McConnell doesn’t follow Cruz’s plan, Cruz can point to it as proof that the establishment squishes refuse to fight the White House with everything they’ve got, which of course is why we need to nominate someone like Ted Cruz in 2016. Even so, I like the idea on the merits. If Obama won’t respect Congress’s constitutional power to set policy, why should the Senate respect Obama’s constitutional power to staff the executive and judicial branches? He’s the one who declared war on separation of powers. Let him live with the consequences. Plus, who knows? Maybe he’ll go rogue again and decide that he has some sort of emergency power to confirm nominees himself if the Senate won’t do it. I figure we’re only eight or nine more grossly unconstitutional actions away from the media beginning to express “concern” about Obama’s behavior.

Read the full story here.
.
.
.

Share

Obama, Democrats Take Hard Left Turn, Ignore The Will Of The American People

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

President Obama

I have long since lost count of the times conservatives have been described as hard, right-wing idealogues that care only for our conservative ideology. The issue doesn’t really matter. The left always accuses us of being unwilling to bend our conservative principles. President Obama has been especially adept at this, along with outgoing Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid. They are fond of describing to the world how Republicans are just the party of NO. Incidentally, they want the rest of us to forget that it was President Obama who refused to negotiate with the Republicans during last year’s government shutdown. And Harry Reid has killed how many bipartisan bills? That’s something else I’ve lost count of.

It can not be denied that the Democrats took an historic beating in the mid-term elections. They simply got walloped because the American people are tired of the direction they have taken the country since President Obama was sworn into office. One would think this would be cause for reflection on their part. One would think they would ponder what the American people really want them to do. One would be sadly mistaken. Since the mid-term beating became apparent, something else has became abundantly clear. The Democrats are determined to go their own route and ignore the will of the American people.

It didn’t take the President long to come out with a defiant speech, telling the country he was going to work on his own, since it was clear the Republicans would not work with him after they assumed complete control of Congress in 2015. He was in no way apologetic about his actions. In Congress, elections were held to choose their leaders for the upcoming Congress. Care to guess who the Democrats chose to lead them, yet again? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. That tells me they are not interested in changing the course they are on. And last night, President Obama doubled down on his threat to go it alone on immigration reform. He announced to the world that almost 5 million illegal immigrants no longer had to worry about deportation.

What does the President’s actions tell us? Really, nothing new. Many of us have tried to show, since before he was even elected, that the man was a pure ideologue. He believes in his liberal philosophy so strongly, he can not deviate from it. He showed that in his second inaugural address, when all he cared to talk about was climate change. Unlike William Jefferson Clinton, who cared enough about his legacy to move to the middle and work with the Republicans after 1994, Barack Hussein Obama is determined to get his way. That’s why he is forging ahead on immigration, granting deportation relief to the parents of American citizens. Is this full amnesty? Not in the legal definition, but it is a step in that direction. If Obama is allowed to force this new executive action down the throats of the American people, it is not a great leap of faith to believe he will go even further and grant them complete amnesty.

It is important to note one thing. Many who may agree with the President on his desired result on immigration disagree with his methods. Even they believe he is taking the wrong approach to correct the perceived problems with our immigration system. When some of your own party are raising red flags at your actions, would it not be safe to assume that you might be taking things a bit too far? That does not trouble President Obama, evidently. He has been stymied in his desire to help illegal immigrants for much too long. Therefore, he is acting on his own and in doing so, he is taking a hard left turn.

My hope is that the Republican-led Congress will use every means at their disposal to stop President Obama’s attempts to bypass the Constitution in its tracks. The man has been able to shed criticism because he is a black man. Every accusation of impropriety has been met with charges of racism. He accuses others of not being willing to negotiate, when he refuses to do so himself. He loves the blame game, especially when it comes to things he is guilty of. If we were in a school yard, he would be called a bully. And as far as I know, there is only one way to stop a bully. Slapping them down works wonders and it’s about time the Republicans wielded their power and slapped the man who would be king back to his rightful place of limited authority. It’s what the American people want.

.

.

Share

Three Things That Are Illegal About Obama’s Immigration Plan

Share

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

King Obama & his two court jesters
Fundamental Transformer

Hat/Tip to Gregg Jarrett at Fox News.

This article by Gregg Jarrett over at Fox sums it up pretty conclusively. He lays out the argument as to how and why President Obama’s actions to grant blanket amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is illegal.

Will the GOP led Congress that takes office in January of 2015 do anything about it?

That remains to be seen.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Three things that are illegal about Obama’s immigration plan

By Gregg Jarrett

It’s official. By executive fiat, President Obama will grant amnesty to up to 5 million immigrants living illegally in the United States.

How did we get here? Didn’t the president say, even last year, that he couldn’t, and wouldn’t take executive action on immigration?

If Obama ever finds himself in a court of law, he would surely be advised to invoke the Fifth Amendment. He is prone to contradiction and tends to be a good witness against himself.

President Obama’s favorite justification for his executive action is that “Congress failed to act.” No, Mr. President, Congress did not fail to act, it chose not to act in granting amnesty.

Consider his self-incriminating statements on immigration and executive powers. A year ago, when asked if he had the authority to end deportations of illegal aliens he said, “Actually, I don’t.” Three years earlier, when pressed as to why he could not act on his own on immigration he said, “The notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true.”

Well, now the president says it is true — he can alter the laws unilaterally. Why the metamorphosis? What changed? The law and the Constitution are still the same. Which leaves Obama. When it comes to the truth, inconvenient or otherwise, he is a chameleon like no other politician. He never hesitates to contradict himself, conjuring a new breadth of hypocrisy.

President Obama’s favorite justification for his executive action is that “Congress failed to act.” No, Mr. President, Congress did not fail to act, it chose not to act in granting amnesty.

There is a difference. A determination not to act is, by itself, a deliberate act. This is how the framers constructed our system of government. Congress considers and debates a great many bills. Not all of them pass. This is not “failure” in the conventional sense, but decision by declination. It constitutes a prudent and calculated process.

But the president uses this contrived “failure” as a pretext to arrogate the authority of another branch of government. He wields his pen to legislate by executive decree. He well knows he is exceeding his power. In 2011, he said, “I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the (immigration) on my own. But that‘s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.” He was right. It was a rare moment of clarity for a man who fancies himself a constitutional scholar.

Now, however, by granting legal status to roughly half the nation’s population of illegal immigrants, Obama is twisting the law, ignoring the Constitution, and abdicating his primary responsibility as chief executive. For years, he argued publicly it would be unconstitutional for him to take such action because he said, “I’m president, I’m not king.” Apparently, he now favors a crown on his noggin. In truth, he is king of self-confutation, negating himself with his own words.

Recently, when asked why he disagreed with himself, the president insisted, “Well, actually, my position hasn’t changed”. After the laughter died down, the Washington Post Fact Checker gave Obama an upside-down Pinocchio for his tortured denial of a blatant flip-flop.

The president’s executive order to legalize illegals by nullifying existing law, constitutes a stunning abuse of office: usurping the power of Congress, while abdicating his duty to uphold and enforce the laws. Here are three ways this is happening:

1. Distorting Prosecutorial Discretion 

President Obama claims he is entitled to overhaul immigration laws in the name of  “prosecutorial discretion.” It is one of those wonderfully fungible phrases in the law. Elastic because it is vague and ambiguous. Useful because it can be easily abused. Mr. Obama has appropriated this doctrine to argue he has near boundless discretion to amend, revise, waive or suspend the execution of immigration laws. As chief executive, he is empowering himself to decide what laws may be enforced or ignored and what persons may come or go across our southern border irrespective of what the law actually states.

In past decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has cautioned the executive branch that its prosecutorial discretion, while broad, is not “unfettered.” It is subject to restrictions. The doctrine may not be used to adopt a sweeping policy of non-enforcement of the law. It applies only to decisions not to prosecute or expelspecific individuals or small groups of people, typically for exigent reasons like war, civil unrest or political persecution.

By contrast, President Obama is bestowing a wholesale, blanket amnesty for an entire class of nearly 5 million people. He is doing so not for the reasons allowed by law, but for purposes that appear to be purely political. This is a flagrant abuse of prosecutorial discretion. His expansive action exceeds his authority in ways that none of his predecessors ever envisioned. And it is a radical departure from any of the executive orders issued by previous presidents.

It is true that President Ronald Reagan utilized executive action in 1987 to grant a limited deportation reprieve to certain spouses and young children of immigrants. But his order was a logical and direct extension of, not a departure from, an existing amnesty law Congress had already passed. His exemption and a subsequent extension by his successor, President George H. W. Bush, were later incorporated into a new law passed by Congress. The point is instructive. The actions by Reagan and Bush are not a supporting precedent for Mr. Obama, but an important limiting principle of presidential authority.

However, President Obama has commandeered this elastic doctrine of prosecutorial discretion and stretched or manipulated it beyond all recognition and reason. It has become his political Gumby toy with which he exerts his will whenever he fails to get his way with Congress. He contorts the word “discretion” to adopt a capacious policy — his own policy — to ban full enforcement of a duly enacted immigration statute. He treats the doctrine as a magical incantation shielding his arbitrariness.

2. Usurping Legislative Authority

Our Constitution clearly delineates a separation of powers. Congress is vested with writing laws and the President is charged with executing those laws. This is especially true when it comes to immigration.

At the end of the 19th century, the Supreme Court declared that Congress had “plenary power” (meaning full and complete) to regulate immigration. Derived from Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, the doctrine is based on the concept that immigration is a question of national sovereignty, relating to a nation’s right to define its own borders and restrict entrance therein. As the high court observed, “Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete.”

Yet President Obama has decided to usurp this power by unilateral directive, unconstrained by established checks and balances. In so doing, he is granting himself extra-constitutional authority and upsetting the carefully balanced separation of powers. He is also subverting the nucleus of our constitutional design: the rule of law.

3. Breaching His Sworn Duty

President Obama’s decision that existing laws shall not be enforced against some 5 million illegal immigrants violates his sworn constitutional duty. Article II, Section 3 requires that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Nowhere is it written that the chief executive is granted the latitude to pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce. He cannot ignore or nullify laws he does not like because the constitution gives him no power not to execute laws. To infer such latitude would invite an authoritarian rule anathema to our founding fathers’ vision. President Obama admitted as much when he said, “The fact of the matter is, there are laws on the books that I have to enforce.” He was specifically talking about immigration laws.

In 1996, Congress passed a law which requires federal immigration agents to deport illegal immigrants, with few exceptions. The statutory language is mandatory. Thus, whatever prosecutorial discretion which may have existed previously, was specifically eliminated by that legislative act. Yet, the President is now, in effect, ordering those agents to break the law. He cannot, on his own, engage in a de facto repeal of this law by executive order. To do so would be, quite simply, lawlessness and a dereliction of his duty.

If President Obama can refuse to enforce a valid federal law affecting millions of people, are there any limits to his powers? After all, he has frequently threatened, “Where Congress won’t act, I will.” What is to stop him from rewriting other laws with which he disagrees? Or to act where Congress has declined or refused to act? Can he abolish certain tax laws because Congress chooses to keep them? Can he banish all sources of energy except renewables to advance his agenda on climate change? If so, why even have a legislative branch of government? What’s the point of a Constitution which enumerates and circumscribes powers and duties?

Men like Madison, Jefferson and Adams were keenly aware of the tyranny and corruption of authority concentrated in too few hands. They knew the thirst for power posed an existential danger to those who cherish freedom. Their genius was in crafting a sustaining document that would end the arrogance of one man rule and protect the inherent rights of all men. They knew that absolute power corrupts.

And they feared future presidents like Mr. Obama.

In the history of our republic, no president has dared turn his high office into an instrument of unrestrained power. They held too much respect for their fellow citizens than to abuse or misuse the principles of our democracy. Even Lincoln’s actions to preserve the nation during the Civil War were grounded in the Constitution and the rule of law.

But, like the title of his autobiography, Mr. Obama’s measure of himself seems defined by the word “audacity.” It is no more evident than now.

Gregg Jarrett is a Fox News Anchor and former defense attorney.

Share

New Emails: Lois Lerner Referred to Conservatives as ‘***holes’ and ‘TeRrorists’

Share

lerner obama lost emails

Hat/Tip to CNSNews.com.

Even though former IRS Commissioner Steve Miller testified that there was no political animus towards Tea Party & Conservative groups, emails have surfaced showing what we all already knew.

A newly discovered email exchange from Lois Lerner’s official IRS email account “directly demonstrates Ms. Lerner’s deep animus towards conservatives, which she refers to as ‘—holes,'” House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder on Wednesday.

She evidently views those of us on the right as terrorists.

In that Nov. 9, 2012 email, Lerner further suggests that conservatives will ruin the country: “So we don’t  need to worry about alien teRrorists (sic). It’s our own crazies that will take us down,” she wrote.

The Committee chair, Dave Camp says that these new emails make the case for a stronger investigation.

Camp said he also has discovered that Lerner used her personal email to conduct official business,including confidential tax return information, and he once again urged the Justice Department to ramp up its investigation:

“While the Committee has not seen any evidence of a serious investigation by  your Department, it is my sincere hope that in light of this new, strong evidence that you immediately begin aggressively investigating this matter or appoint a special counsel.”

Camp warned that failure to do so “will only further erode public trust” in the Internal Revenue Service and the Justice Department.

Ways and Means is one of three congressional committees investigating the way the IRS, during Lerner’s tenure, handled groups seeking tax-exempt status. The IRS admits that conservative groups were singled out for inappropriate scrutiny and delay before the 2012 election.

If our government was working like it is supposed to, we’d already have a special prosecutor on this.

Share

Obama Plans to Completely Stop Enforcing Immigration Laws

Share

illigal-immigration-548x381

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

Rep Jeff Sessions: Obama To “Effectively End Immigration Enforcement”

Maybe it’s all his newfound “flexibility” that the President is enjoying, or maybe he just doesn’t give a rat’s patooty about the Constitution. Either way, it looks as if Obama is going to give defacto amnesty to all the Illegal Alien Children streaming across our southern border.

Via Weekly Standard:

The Obama administration is preparing to effectively “nullify” the immigration laws of the United States through an executive action, says one Republican senator. As Time reported Thursday, President Obama appears prepared to provide millions of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. work authorization via executive orders:

When President Obama issues executive orders on immigration in coming weeks, pro-reform activists are expecting something dramatic: temporary relief from deportation and work authorization for perhaps several million undocumented immigrants. If the activists are right, the sweeping move would upend a contentious policy fight and carry broad political consequences.

The activists met privately with the President and his aides June 30 at the White House, and say in that meeting Obama suggested he will act before the November midterm elections. They hope his decision will offer relief to a significant percentage of the estimated 11.7 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. “He seems resolute that he’s going to go big and go soon,” says Frank Sharry, executive director of the pro-reform group America’s Voice.

jeff sessions r_al
Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL

But Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, a Republican, says in a statement that the “temporary relief from deportation” would be a de facto ending of immigration enforcement:

It has now been extensively reported that these executive actions will likely expand his Deferred Action program (DACA) to apply to an additional 5–6 million adult illegal immigrants. The existing DACA program has been widely misunderstood. The executive action did not, as The Hill writes today, only result in ‘deferred deportations for young undocumented immigrants.’ Illegal immigrants in the interior of the U.S. have already, as a practical matter, been immune from enforcement under this Administration. DACA applies to individuals up to 30 years of age and provides actual amnesty papers, photo ID, and work permits to illegal immigrants—who can then take any job in America.

The President’s planned executive orders would expand this permitting program to another 5–6 million illegal immigrants. This would effectively end immigration enforcement in America.

Read the full story here.

Share

White House Fears Impeachment If Obama Unilaterally Grants Amnesty

Share

obama worried about impeachment

 

 

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers & Breitbart.

It has to be a violation of his constitutional responsibility, which amnesty and effectively opening the borders most certainly is.

As is always the case with anything involving former-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, our unbiased, objective, not-at-all-liberal media couldn’t wait to mock her impeachment case against President Obama — but not everyone is laughing. According to reporting from The Hill, The White House fears exactly that should the president take executive action to grant amnesty to thousands of illegals.

As is always the case with anything involving former-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, our unbiased, objective, not-at-all-liberal media couldn’t wait to mock her impeachment case against President Obama — but not everyone is laughing. According to reporting from The Hill, The White House fears exactly that should the president take executive action to grant amnesty to thousands of illegals.

Senior White House advisers are taking very seriously the possibility that Republicans in Congress will try to impeach President Obama, especially if he takes executive action to slow deportations.

Dan Pfeiffer, a senior adviser to Obama, said Friday that the White House is taking the prospect of impeachment in the GOP-controlled House more seriously than many others in Washington, who see it as unlikely.

Keep reading…

 

Share

John Boehner to Sue Obama Over Abuse of Executive Powers

Share
Speaker of the House, John Boehner, (R-OH)
Speaker of the House, John Boehner, (R-OH)

Hat/Tip to Newsmax.

  • In a memo distributed to House members, Boehner accused Obama of “aggressive unilateralism” and said if left unchecked, it would give the president “king-like authority at the expense of the American people and their elected legislators.”
  • The House will vote next month on legislation authorizing a campaign-season lawsuit accusing President Barack Obama of failing to carry out the laws passed by Congress, Speaker John Boehner announced on Wednesday.

As reported here at Conservative Hideout 2.0, John Boehner had been considering whether to bring a lawsuit against the President for his anti-Constitutional activities. Predictably the White House is trying to play this down.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest dismissed any suggestion that the president has failed to act within the law in issuing executive orders or taking other actions. “We feel completely confident that the president was operating within his authority as the president of the United States to take these steps on behalf of the American people,” he told reporters.

This is going to be one more brick in the wall that has been steadily going up between Obama and, well pretty much everyone else, particularly the GOP.

Whatever the outcome of the suit in the courts, Boehner’s announcement guarantees creation of yet another political struggle between Republicans and Obama and his Democratic allies in a campaign already full of them.

“On matters ranging from healthcare and energy to foreign policy and education, President Obama has repeatedly run an end-around” on the public and Congress, the speaker wrote. He accused him of “ignoring some statutes completely, selectively enforcing others and at times, creating laws of his own.”

He may be going forward with a lawsuit, but evidently Boehner still doesn’t know how to say the “I” word…

At a news conference, Boehner strongly brushed aside a question of whether impeachment proceedings could result from the suit.

In his memo, he stopped short of accusing the president of violating his oath of office. Instead, he said Obama was “straining the boundaries of the solemn oath he took on Inauguration Day.”

Other Republicans aren’t so shy.

Rep. Lou Barletta of Pennsylvania said recently the House probably has the votes to impeach Obama, although he said he wasn’t calling for it. One former tea party-backed lawmaker, ex-Rep. Allen West of Florida, has called for the House to vote to remove the president from office.

Read the full story here.

Share

Is Boehner Shedding his RINO Skin?

Share
House Speaker, John Boehner weighing plans to file a lawsuit against Barack Obama
House Speaker, John Boehner weighing plans to file a lawsuit against Barack Obama

Hat/Tip to the Tea Party News Network and the Business Insider.

The only thing more prevalent in the bubble that is Washington DC than corruption is the rumor mill. And now the latest rumor is that Speaker of the House, John Boehner is considering filing a lawsuit against President Barack Obama for his continued usurping of Congress’s enumerated powers and he lawless disregard for one of the pillars of our Constitution, and that is Separation of Powers.

Now it’s no secret that there is plenty of buzz about Boehner’s days as Speaker, as he is getting huge opposition from the Tea Party members of the House. So is this just an action by a man who is trying to hold on to his gavel? Well it’s clearly too early to tell, but even if it just politically calculated move on his part in an effort to remain as Speaker, it is still a move in the right direction.

I know, I know. You’re asking yourself, “Political posturing in DC? Say it ain’t so!” But the bottom line is this that it doesn’t matter so much what Boehner’s reasoning is, if this goes through we may well see the confiscation of Obama’s pen and phone, (rhetorically speaking, that is).

Though Speaker of the House John Boehner is rumored to be on his way out amidst strong backlash from conservatives in the House, his office has announced that the House may file a lawsuit challenging the actions taken by the nation’s most tyrannical president.

According to Michael Steele who spoke on behalf of the Speaker, Boehner is considering whether the House will push forward a lawsuit challenging the continued use of executive orders as a means of effecting the president’s will and usurping the power of the 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,” Steele stated. “The House has passed legislation to address this, but it has gone nowhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate, so we are examining other options.” 

The president has indicated that he may grant some form of amnesty if Congress is unwilling to address the problem of illegal immigration to his satisfaction.
 
The Republican-controlled House has made it no secret that the majority of representatives are frustrated with Obama’s actions. Time and time again, the president has issued ultimatums and when Congress does not create legislation in-line with the president’s agenda, he has been all-too willing to create laws and amend existing laws regardless of the clear constitutional prohibitions against such actions.

 

Everyone knows  that Obama is frustrated with a “do nothing” Congress. But hey, that’s not “gridlock,” it’s called “checks and balances,” a mechanism built into our Constitution to prevent a truly imperial President, such as we’re having to endure now.

 

It’s no secret that Congress is not passing legislation with rapid fury. That’s a good thing. For two years, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the executive branch and America suffered greatly for it. From bailouts to Obamacare, we are still seeing the repercussions of a Congress that rapidly advanced legislation- the wrong kinds of legislation.

 

 
Liberals love to pretend that when Republicans work to stop bad legislation, they are “obstructionists.” But what about the Democrat-controlled Senate who refuses to advance legislation passed by the Republican-controlled House?
 
It is not by mistake that we have two houses of Congress. Our founders did not want one factions running wild; they created a deliberative body under the premise that good ideas must filter through two houses of Congress and then be checked by a president equipped with a veto power. If Democrats are upset about the lack of so-called “progress” in the House, that means we need better ideas- not bullying from the executive.

 

It would seem that Boehner is closer to making the decision.

 

Roll Call’s Daniel Newhause reports Boehner told House Republicans during a closed-door meeting on Tuesday he could have an announcement in the coming days on whether he will mount the legal challenge. According to the report, he has been “consulting with legal scholars” ahead of his next move. 

Boehner’s office confirmed the Roll Call story, but declined to comment on whether specific executive actions would be targeted. Any legal action by Boehner would be a significant and somewhat unprecedented challenge to executive power.

Obama, however, has given House Republicans plenty of potential material. He has made 2014 a self-proclaimed “year of action,” issuing executive orders on everything from the minimum wage to federal pay discrimination. Perhaps the most controversial administrative-only move this year came in the form of newly announced regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency on carbon emissions.

Republicans have also roundly criticized Obama for taking administrative action to delay parts of the Affordable Care Act, most notably the so-called employer mandate.

Read the full stories here and here.

Share

White House knew Bergdahl was traitor, made swap anyway

Share

Hat/Tip to NewsmaxTV.

Ex-Bergdahl Roommate, retired Army Spc. Cody Full told “The Steve Malzberg Show” that the White House knew he deserted, knew he wasn’t a hero, and knew he Was a traitor before swap.

Bowe Bergdahl’s former roommate, retired Army Spc. Cody Full says the government knew that Bergdahl had deserted his post and was a traitor to his country before they made the swap of five high-level Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay to get him back.

“They have all the documentation on it. The administration knew he deserted, they knew he wasn’t a hero,” retired Army Spc. Cody Full told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.

“They knew that he wasn’t captured on a battlefield or lagged behind on a patrol. They knew he went out and deserted on his own.”

Bergdahl was held captive in Afghanistan by the Taliban-aligned Haqqani network from June 2009 until May of this year.

He was traded for five high-ranking Taliban members who were being held at Guantanamo Bay — a secret deal made without the consultation of Congress.

This swap began to stink early on when Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers started telling of his disillusionment with the United States, and eventual desertion.

But the swap quickly came under fire when Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers went public to accuse him of abandoning his post and possibly seeking out the enemy.

Full angrily disagreed with National Security Advisor Susan Rice’s declaration that Bergdahl had served his country with “honor and distinction.”

“Deserting is not serving with honor and distinction and it’s a spit in the face to every U.S. service member who has served with honor and distinction, who has fulfilled his oath. It’s disgusting,” Full said.

Full goes on to say how he felt when he saw Bergdahl’s parents on TV in the Rose Garden with President Obama.

He criticized the fanfare surrounding the Obama administration’s announcement of the deal, which was highlighted by an event in the Rose Garden of the White House in which Bergdahl’s family attended.

“[It] is gross. I mean how many soldiers that have given their lives honorably for this country, how many of their parents had a Rose Garden ceremony?’‘ he asked.

Full said a congressional oversight committee should be formed to further explore how Bergdahl’s actions led to his captivity by terrorists.

“I don’t want to see this get whitewashed,” he said.

Here is his interview on NewsmaxTV on the Steve Malzberg Show.

Share

Taliban: We Found Bergdahl Alone, Cursing Americans

Share
PFC Bowe Bergdahl
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

Hat/Tip to Newser.

Evidently Bowe Bergdahl got his feelings hurt when the Taliban didn’t altogether trust him and his intentions…

The Taliban were just as confused by Bowe Bergdahl as the Afghan villagers who first encountered him after he allegedly wandered off his base, two former commanders say. Fighters rushed to capture Bergdahl after villagers informed them of his presence, and he was found walking alone, acting strangely, and cursing his fellow Americans, one commander tells NBC. He said “he wasn’t happy with his countrymen, but he didn’t intend to convert to Islam” or become a jihadi, the commander says. Both say that they at first believed it was some kind of trick, and they wondered how and why he had left the base alone—which he may have done more than once. They say he described his departure as a “personal issue.” A commander who left the Taliban in 2010 says that Bergdahl didn’t convert to Islam. “Think he had deserted his army with a mission and wanted to accept Islam, but our people didn’t trust him,” he says. “That shattered his belief.” Taliban sources say Bergdahl was taken to a “safe location” after his capture, and was later moved around sites in Pakistan.

And all Obama’s and Bergdahl’s actions have done is to empower and rejuvenate our terrorist enemies.

A commander still with the Taliban, meanwhile, says the exchange of Bergdahl for five Taliban leaders gives the movement legitimacy and has boosted morale among the hundreds of fighters under his command. The prisoner exchange “shows we are able to deal directly with the Americans and also successfully,” he tells Reuters.

Read the full story here.

Share

On the Bergdahl Swap: Obama informed 90 staffers, but ZERO Congressmen

Share

obama & taliban 5

Hat/Tip to Newsmax.

White House: 90 in Administration Knew of Bergdahl Deal, But Not Congress

 

Um, we didn’t tell Congress because, um, because we were afraid of a leak bringing danger down on Bergdahl. Yeah, that’s it! We did not want to inform a bunch of folks because we feared for Bergdahl’s life.

Yeah! That’s the ticket!

Between 80 and 90 administration staffers  knew about the trade of five Taliban leaders for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl even though Congress was kept in the dark, CNN reports, and members of both parties are unhappy about it.

During a classified briefing to the entire House of Representatives late Monday afternoon, White House officials said that up to 90 people had prior knowledge of the trade.

Well, okay we told a few folks, but – Dude, it was only like 80 or 90 people! What harm could that have done?

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon called that news “disturbing,” partly because of the high number who knew and partly because the White House has been saying it didn’t inform Congress until after the swap was made because it feared Bergdahl’s life might be in danger if there had been a leak.

McKeon, a California Republican, told CNN he wants to get an exact number of those who knew and their names.

“My question to them was, if you don’t know who knew, then how could you – if a leak had happened and the sergeant had been killed – how could you go back and find out who leaked?” McKeon said.

This just gets more bizarre by the minute.

Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, declined to offer a defense of the administration when offered the chance by CNN’s Ashleigh Banfield.

“It didn’t sit very well with those of us who were listening at the briefing,” Schiff said of the news that so many administration staffers knew of the decision ahead of time.

Read the full story here, but just be ready to do a lot of head shaking…

Share

John Kerry on the Taliban Five attacking America after their release – It’s “a lot of Baloney.”

Share
Secretary of State, John Kerry
Secretary of State, John Kerry

Hat/Tip to Newsmax.

John “I was for it before I was against it” Kerry is at it again. It’s obvious that he’s on damage control after his boss said, “Absolutely” when asked if it were possible that the Taliban Five he released might attack America again. While in France, he taped an interview for CNN.

Secretary of State John Kerry says it’s “a lot of baloney” to suggest the five Taliban prisoners released in exchange for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will return to battle and kill Americans.

Still, he tells CNN, if they try they’ll likely be killed themselves.

And despite details to the contrary saying that the released terrorists wouldn’t be watched by US officials, Mr. Kerry is saying otherwise.

In an interview recorded in France and aired on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Kerry said the government of Qatar, which agreed to keep watch on the men for a year, aren’t the only ones with an eye on them.

When asked if that meant the United States would be monitoring them, Kerry wouldn’t be specific, but said that if the former prisoners don’t meet the requirements of their release the United States has “the ability to do things.”

“I’m not telling you that they don’t have some ability at some point to go back and to get involved,” Kerry said. “But they also have an ability to get killed doing that. And I don’t think anybody should doubt the capacity of the United States of America to protect Americans.”

When pressed on statements by one of the released terrorists that he is going to kill more Americans, Kerry downplayed it.

He said that the freed Taliban detainee who already has vowed to return to kill more Americans is simply engaging in propaganda.

“Propaganda is propaganda, and they’ll say whatever they want to stir the waters,” he said.

The question of whether Bowe Bergdahl was a deserter to the US Army came up again.

As far as questions relating to Bergdahl’s disappearance — some of his former platoon members say he walked away willingly — Kerry said there is plenty of time to sort through what happened now that Bergdahl is safe from enemy hands.

It would have been, he said, “offensive and incomprehensible to consciously leave an American behind … in the hands of people who would torture him, cut off his head.”

Really?

John Kerry – It would have been, he said, “offensive and incomprehensible to consciously leave an American behind …

It’s too bad that this administration didn’t hold the same view for the four brave Americans who they let die in Benghazi…

Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; information management officer Sean Smith; and two security officers who were former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens; information management officer Sean Smith; and two security officers who were former Navy SEALs, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

 

Share

Chewing Up America

Share

palooka-o

Hey, Barry … The “D” In D-Day Doesn’t Stand For “Doublemint.”

Social media users tore into Barack Obama on Friday after the US president was seen chewing gum during solemn ceremonies to mark the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings. People took to Twitter to denounce Obama’s “shameful” and “vulgar” chewing, with one user attacking him as a “lout.” (Newsmax)

855907978 obama chewing at d day ceremony 2014gum

Benedict Arnold: “What do you think would be my fate if my misguided countrymen were to take me prisoner?”

Colonial army Captain: “They would cut off the leg that was wounded at Saratoga and bury it with the honors of war, and the rest of you they would hang on a gibbet.”

If boorish behavior was the only thing we had to fear from Barack Obama, we’d all sleep easier at night.  After all, chewing gum is not an impeachable offense, even if the used cuds are pasted to the underside of the Resolute desk. But, as Matt Barber writes:

Barack Hussein Obama is America’s biggest threat to national security. He is “an enemy within” … Merriam-Webster defines “treason” as, “the crime of trying to overthrow your country’s government or of helping your country’s enemies during war.” Whether Obama is intentionally trying to overthrow his own government is open for debate. But that he has “helped his country’s enemies during war” is a slam dunk.

The amazing thing? This arrogant clown admits to it: “Is there a possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us?” Obama asked rhetorically of the five terrorists he just cut loose. “Absolutely,” he answered.

… It wouldn’t matter if Bergdahl were Mother Teresa. This scandal isn’t about Bowe Bergdahl. It’s about a sitting United States president intentionally, overtly and criminally violating the National Defense Act to release five of the world’s most dangerous Muslim terrorists – dubbed the jihadist “Dream Team” – thereby directly placing American lives in jeopardy.

Obama swore an oath to protect America “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” not to protect all enemies, foreign and domestic, from America.

the-obama-pledge

And the scandal worsens by the minute. From Weasel Zippers:

Apparently, according to NBC, and as reported here at Conservative Hideout 2.0“the U.S. had provided written assurances that no country would arrest any of the five freed for a year as long as they lived peacefully …”

Keep in mind, at least two of these men are actually wanted war criminals. They have been declared war criminals by the U.N and are accused of the murder of thousands. But we guaranteed they would not be pursued for a year?

As posited here yesterday (The Bergdahl Deception), in David Limbaugh’s Townhall column, It Was Probably Never About Bergdahl, and in Russ Vaughn’s article in the American Thinker, A Dishonorable Discharge…Flowing from the White House:

 It is far likelier that Obama was first motivated to release these killers and then looked around for a plausible cover.

The Gitmo jailbreak was orchestrated by Barack Obama against the advice of his military and intelligence advisers, though Barry will tell you different:

“I make no apologies for it. It was a unanimous decision among my principals in my government … This is something I would do again and will continue to do whenever I have an opportunity.”

Well, he also told you if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor.  How’s that working out for you?

Share

Too Dangerous to release in 2011, Obama turns terrorist over for Bergdahl in 2014

Share
Khairulla-Khairkhwa-325x450
Khairulla-Khairkhwa

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

Unclassified Document Shows In 2011 Obama Argued In Court Taliban Commander He Freed In Exchange For Bergdahl Should Not Be Released…

Ah, the difference three years makes…in 2011 the Obama regime said this joker was too dangerous to release, but now he’s free so Obama could divert our attention away from the VA Scandal.

*sigh*

As Managing Editor of this site, I’m finding that I need to start a file named “Obama Scandals,” just so I can keep up with this lawless and totally inept administration.

If he was a terror threat in 2011, he’s obviously still a terror threat in 2014.

Via Stephen Hayes:

While some top Obama administration officials are downplaying threats posed the five senior Taliban officials released from Guantanamo in the prisoner exchange for Bowe Bergdahl, not long ago the administration went to court to prevent one of those men from going free. In a decision on May 31, 2011, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled in favor of the government–and “Respondent Barack Obama”–in its effort to keep Khairulla Khairkhwa in detention. That decision, once classified “Secret,” has since been declassified and released.

Today, with these Taliban leaders free in Qatar and already looking likely to rejoin the fight against America, top Obama administration officials are seeking to reassure Americans that the threats are minimal–or, in the words of Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, “sufficiently mitigated.” But just three years ago, the same administration argued in court against Khairkhwa’s writ of habeas corpus because of his senior position with the Taliban, his close relationship with Taliban leader Mullah Omar, and his support for Taliban forces fighting against the United States.

The case provides a window on the Obama administration’s concerns–concerns that many top intelligence and military officials continue to have. The court summarized the government’s case this way. “The government contends that the petitioner, a former senior Taliban official, is lawfully detained because he was part of Taliban forces and purposefully and materially supported such forces in hostilities against the United States,” the court wrote in the introduction to its opinion. […]

The court found persuasive the Obama administration’s argument that Khairkhwa helped lead Taliban fighters after the beginning of hostilities with the U.S. in the fall of 2001. Khairkhwa “had a “long history of involvement with the Taliban’s military affairs” and was a “prominent and influential leader within the Taliban.”

Before he was released, the Obama administration argued that Khairkhwa’s long experience as a jihadist leader required his continued detention by the U.S. government. Now that Obama has chosen to transfer him to Qatar the administration would have the public believe that he and the other freed Taliban leaders do not constitute a threat to the United States.

Keep reading…

Share

Democratic Leadership Turning on Obama

Share

500wde_YOU-LIE-Obama

Hat/Tip to the Capitalism Institute.

You know it’s pretty bad when the leadership in your own party makes public statements against you and your actions. Well that is exactly what happened this week when a Senator from California said that the President is lying about the Bergdahl Scandal.

President Obama blatantly violated federal law and statute when he unilaterally decided to release five highly-dangerous Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo in exchange for captured US Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

Obama deliberately neglected to inform Congress before the swap took place, which violates a law that he himself signed last year.  He also provided “material support” to a known terrorist organization, the Taliban, which is in violation of federal code and carries a stiff prison term as a penalty.

This has led to many people and organizations speaking out against the prisoner exchange, with some calling for his arrest and impeachment for such obvious disregard for Congress and lawlessness.

So who is this top Democrat that is not towing the party line?

Dianne_Feinstein_Liberal_DemocratNow a highly unlikely voice has joined opposition to the President’s actions.  Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein is upset that she wasn’t notified before the deal was done, and has publicly contradicted the official story coming out of the White House, according to Politico.

When asked whether there was a “credible threat” on Bergdahl’s life if word had gotten out, the California Democrat responded: “No, I don’t think there was a credible threat, but I don’t know. I have no information that there was.”

Feinstein’s comments, part of an interview with Bloomberg Television’s Political Capital with Al Hunt airing Friday evening, put her at odds with White House officials. At a briefing Wednesday, administration officials told lawmakers that they couldn’t give Congress advance notice on the Bergdahl deal because the Taliban vowed to kill him if any details about the prisoner exchange came out.

Feinstein and several other members of Congress are saying that Obama clearly violated the law by not keeping them in the loop on the negotiations to free Bergdahl.  In fact, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers claims he hasn’t received a briefing on Bergdahl since 2011.

Feinstein said White House deputy national security adviser Tony Blinken called her this week to apologize for not keeping her informed about the deal that returned Bergdahl to the U.S. and released five senior Taliban officials from Guantanamo Bay prison.

The senator added that the administration has an “absolute obligation” to fully investigate the nature of Bergdahl’s capture. Some media reports have suggested that the solder was a deserter given that he likely voluntarily walked away from his platoon.

Senator Feinstein is, generally speaking, not an ally of those who oppose the President and his agenda.  However, credit must be given where it is due, and in this instance, as well as when it was discovered that the White House ordered the CIA to spy on Congress, Feinstein is on the right side.

Read the full story here.

Share

Obama says “My government” didn’t need Congressional approval to release Taliban Five

Share
King Obama & his two court jesters
King Obama & his two court jesters

Hat/Tip to WeaselZippers.

In this snippet of an interview, Obama rolls out the Left’s new talking point about the Bergdahl swap. And that is that if someone wears our country’s uniform, we don’t leave them behind.

Well then Mr. President, please allow me to ask:

WHAT IN THE BLUE HELL HAPPENED IN BENGHAZI THEN?????!!!!!!!!!!

He believes he is the government. If Congress does not challenge this, he will be.

During an interview with NBC’s Brian Williams, Barack Obama claims – incredibly – that “my government” acted ‘unanimously” in its decision to trade five Taliban commanders for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

It was a “unanimous decision” by “my government.” “I make no apologies for it.”

But surely, he meant to say “my administration,” right? Don’t bet on it.

The deal was overwhelmingly rejected in 2012 by members of Congress, Pentagon officials and the intel community. That doesn’t suggest that the American people’s government was “unanimous” about the deal.

.

Share

The Bergdahl Swap – More Questions Than Answers

Share

PFC Bowe Bergdahl
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

Bergdahl Classification Isn’t What Matters – Don’t Miss the Larger Picture

All over the media there is horror and consternation in regards to the Bergdahl return.  He is being called a traitor and I have seen many calls for the death penalty floating about.  You are missing the bigger picture here.  First and foremost, the military never classified Bergdahl as a deserter.  That makes a huge difference in how the military should behave in trying to find and free him.  The military had an obligation to do so.  Secondly, the bigger picture seems to be getting missed here.  President Obama broke the law in order to get his return.  It doesn’t matter what the standing of the soldier is.  The law would be broken even if there were not serious questions about Bergdahl’s actions.

Now from the media reports I have read the sequence of events in this “trade” is that a video was made in December of 2013.  The White House was made aware of the video the following month.  In this very short video (I believe it is under three minutes) it reportedly shows Bergdahl in bad health.  In the statements made by the administration, as well as the president himself, the narrative that they are using is that they saw that his health was deteriorating and knew something had to be done.  Does that make sense to you?

If his health was so dire why did they wait close to five months to do something about it?  If his health was the reason for the “prisoner swap” wouldn’t they have done it in late January or early February?  This is one among many questions that must be answered.

Another one of the narratives that the White House is laying out there is the need for absolute secrecy.  Everyone knows that there are leaks coming out of Capitol Hill.  That can’t be denied.  But this is also the same institution that knew about the bin Laden raid months in advance.  Nothing of that leaked.  One would like to think that members of congress take national security seriously.  There are many who look at Bergdahl as a traitor, some of those people are members of Capitol Hill.  But that doesn’t mean that they would voluntarily risk the life of that man by leaking the information.  This is just a ginned up excuse that the administration is floating to direct attention away from the fact that he has clearly broken the law.  A law, I might add, that he signed.  It isn’t like he wasn’t aware that the law existed.  It seems like the touted Constitutional law professor has left those ideals behind.

This administration has emboldened the Taliban to take additional Americans hostages.  Not to mention many other rogue nations across the world such as North Korea, Iran, and a whole host of others.  We are now known for negotiating with terrorists.  We have crossed that line and there will be no going back.

Conservatives need to do themselves a favor and let the military justice system do what needs to be done and let them handle Bergdahl, we have much bigger fish to fry.

Impeachment must be discussed in this context.  I have never called for that before during the Obama administration because I don’t think incompetence is grounds for impeachment.  But this is a situation where multiple laws were broken, our national security has been endangered, and our troops all over the world have had a target put on their backs forever more.  That should not be allowed to stand.  This is the fight we should be waging.  Bergdahl is only a small cog in the wheel.  Let the Department of Defense handle him.

Share

The Bergdahl Deception

Share

honoring-their-troops1

“To allow a guy like [Bergdahl] to be posed as a hero, like Kerry self-posing as a hero, is really an affront to everybody who died there, and that’s why those guys in his platoon have come forward and that’s why we came forward 40 years ago and ten years ago.” – John O’Neill

If the Bergdahl affair proves anything, it’s that modern Democrats can never be trusted to ensure the national security.  But most of us knew that already. You don’t need a degree in rocket science to realize that exchanging the high command of the Taliban for one lowly former PFC is not a deal that promises to turn out well for our side.  Which begs the question, is Barack Obama even on our side?  Most of us already know the answer to that one.

President Barack Obama was repeatedly advised by several of the nation’s top military and intelligence officials not to engage in the prisoner swap to secure the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl  … Intelligence and defense officials told the Beast that the deal that was arranged was hastily done, and in a manner that suggested it was designed to squelch dissent and impose the will of the White House. (Obama Advisers Repeatedly Told President Not to Deal)

__________

A senior intelligence official with intimate knowledge of the years-long effort to locate and rescue Bergdahl told the Washington Free Beacon that the details of that exchange do not add up. The official, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, speculated that a cash ransom was paid to the Haqqani Network to get the group to free the prisoner …

“The Haqqanis could give a rat’s ass about prisoners,” the official said, referring to the Haqqani Network, a designated terrorist group in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the five Guantanamo Bay prisoners who were freed in exchange for Bergdahl’s release. “The people that are holding Bergdahl want[ed] cash and someone paid it to them.” (Washington Free Beacon)

__________

As more revelations emerge about Bergdahl’s disappearance, it becomes clearer that the White House has something really big to hide. Here are three clues:

1. In predictable fashion, those who question the official story must be discredited. The Soldiers who are providing their own on-the-ground recollections must be “psychopaths,” as an Obama administration official at HUD referred to them. State Department spokesperson Marie Harf has attacked their integrity, and now the media has resurrected “swift-boating” — all meant to disparage, demean, and discredit these brave American Soldiers. This is what liberals do — and I speak from experience.

2. The Soldiers who served alongside Bergdahl and were on the ground with him when he disappeared were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. Why? Would that be anything like the muzzling of the Benghazi survivors?

3. The classified Pentagon report from 2010 on Sergeant Bergdahl should by now be de-classified, but it’s not. Why? What’s in it?

Oh, and then there’s the case of Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings who wrote about Bergdahl’s disappearance in 2012 and ended up dead in 2013. Maybe it’s just a terrible “coincidence” but why was he being investigated by the FBI?  (Allen B. West)

The bottom line? Barack Obama wanted five high ranking Taliban killers freed from custody, but he needed a plausible cover story to get away with it.  Bowe Bergdahl would have to be it.

Share