If a pregnant woman is not responsible for the welfare of the child within her womb—the child she willingly helped create—then why should that pregnant woman be responsible for the welfare of a child she has never met? Or a middle-aged man halfway across the country who just lost a job? Or an old woman five states away who needs a hip replacement? Indeed, why should anyone be responsible for anybody’s welfare but their own?
And yet vast portions of the federal government are given over to forcing millions of people to guarantee the well-being of people they have never met, and whose needs (let alone lives) they had no role in creating.
It seems everyday we read stories of Obama underlings using government agencies to attack political adversaries. The optics would suggest that Obama or his immediate minions have a hand in some or all of the subversive actions, but it doesn’t really matter who did what because the administration can just make things go away as is the case in the Lois Lerner IRS scandal.
The Obama Administration’s latest gift to the former IRS tax-exempt chief came recently when U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ron Machen informed the House of Representatives that he would not file charges on its formal contempt citation against Ms. Lerner. This absolution, which shields Ms. Lerner from a grand jury probe, came on Mr. Machen’s final day on the job…
Ms. Lerner was caught red handed but received a “get out of jail free” card from Obama for being a good little foot soldier.
The House on May 7, 2014 held her in contempt of Congress and sent the citation to Mr. Machen.
The law clearly explains that the U.S. Attorney’s only “duty” “shall be” to “bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” Mr. Machen instead sat on the contempt citation for 11 months, and on March 31 sent Speaker John Boehner a letter explaining he’d unilaterally decided not to investigate Ms. Lerner…
…the job of making these legal calls belonged to a grand jury—not Mr. Machen. Keep Reading…
This is not how the justice system in America is supposed to work yet Obama and his cohorts seem to get away with it all the time. Until impeachment proceedings are started against Obama he will consider himself above the law and these Chicago thug tactics will continue.
At some point the American people will finally have enough of these lawless actions and revert back to a previous form of justice that has its own optics of the American old west….and that won’t necessarily be a bad thing.
Congressional Victory Over Obama Iran Deal? – Not So Fast
It’s alarming how easy it is for politicians to bypass the constitution at their leisure. I actually chalked up a victory for the GOP majority with the Corker bill forcing Obama to get congressional approval of the Iran deal. Not only was it not a victory, it was an agreement, and that is more infuriating than anything.
Precedent – The Debt Ceiling
McConnell and other GOP leaders hatched a plan under which Obama would appear to raise the debt unilaterally. Congress could then respond with a “resolution of disapproval.” As McConnell knew, either Democrats would defeat the resolution or Obama would veto it. That was $4 trillion ago. McConnell’s chicanery gave big-spending Republicans a windfall: They succeeded in extending our tapped-out country’s credit line but still managed to vote against the extension — i.e., they could tell the voters back home that they opposed something that actually could not have happened without their support.
Now using that precedent on the Obama Iran deal;
As Corker, other Republican leaders, and the president well know, passage of a resolution of disapproval — even if assured in the House with its commanding Republican majority — could be blocked by the familiar, lockstep parliamentary maneuvering of just 40 Senate Democrats. More significantly, even if enacted in the Senate, the resolution would be vetoed by Obama. As with the resolutions of disapproval on debt increases, it is nearly inconceivable that Obama’s veto would be overridden. To summarize, the Constitution puts the onus on the president to find 67 Senate votes to approve an international agreement, making it virtually impossible to ratify an ill-advised deal. The Corker bill puts the onus on Congress to muster 67 votes to block an agreement.
Bait & Switch;
Under the Constitution, Obama’s Iran deal would not have a prayer. Under the Corker bill, it would sail through. And once again, it would be Republicans first ensuring that self-destruction is imposed on us, then striking the pose of dogged opponents by casting futile nay votes. This is not how our system works. Congress is supposed to make the laws we live under. It is the first branch of government, not a rubber-stamping Supreme Soviet.
The good old days were not that long ago. Lets hope America learned it’s lesson of electing a person because of skin color or gender, not qualification.
These same activists who continue to smear ordinary decent people in Great Britain as racists, Fascists and Nazis for having the temerity to peacefully question mass immigration are duty bound to voice a similar opinion on their black brothers and sisters in South Africa who killing over the same issue.
What is happening in South Africa is a clear demonstration that:
a) there is no such thing as a ‘multi-cultural society”, it is the figment of the imagination of political ideologues.
b) imposing ‘multi-culturalism’ on a reluctant people without their consent will end in violence and bloodshed.
c) politicians can not legislate for people to love each other and get along.
d) the UN is no longer fit for purpose and should be replaced with a non-political organization dedicated to achieving peace through good governance and protecting individual liberty. Keep Reading…..
Actually (d) should be the termination of the UN. It is a worthless body basing decisions on political ideology.
Didn’t trust him after the “Gang of Eight”, don’t trust him now. Folding like a cheap tent for the hispanic vote.
Florida U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio offered a measure of support for President Obama’s first executive amnesty program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, during a recent interview he conducted in Spanish this week with Univision’s Jorge Ramos.
“I believe DACA is important,” Rubio told Ramos in the interview, which was posted online and translated byGrabien. “It can’t be terminated from one moment to the next, because there are already people benefiting from it.”
“Well, at some point it is going to have to end, that is to say, it can’t continue being the permanent policy of the United States,” said Rubio, who conducted two interviews with Ramos: one in Spanish and the other in English.Ramos did not ask Rubio about DACA or immigration for the English-language discussion. Keep Reading….
Sarah Saldana, the head of ICE, has chosen to follow Obamas policy and not law, congress asks her why. The following is an answer that should have her removed from her position.
If your employer gave you a directive to do something that was against the law, particularly federal law, would you do it?If you are the director of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and your name is Sarah Saldana, you would follow your employer’s directive and commit a crime.In a testimony before a House Budget Committee subcommittee, Rep. David Young (R-Iowa) voiced concern about reports that ICE officials were not sure whether to follow the law and enforce it as it is written, or follow a unilateral directive issued by the White House via Barack Hussein Obama that basically relaxes “deportation efforts against what they call low-priority illegal immigrants.” These days, that is code for “everyone who crosses the border” – especially when in groups of 20 or more.
Young stated in the hearing with Saldana, “If I had policies that were contrary to the law, I would understand if they didn’t want to follow them. I would expect them to follow the law first.“
In response to this, Saldana replied, “And that’s where you and I probably have a fundamental disagreement.”
In that brief answer, she is saying that she does not believe she should follow the law but follow an Obama “policy”, which is against the law. She should be fired.
When Young asked Saldana if “she sees Obama’s comments as a threat to ICE officials,” Saldana laughed and said, “A threat? I’m here of my own volition and will. I’m just trying to help the United States of America and our country on issues that are so divisive.”
Apparently Still A Mexican Sarah Saldana
“Our Country”? So she is actually stating she is acting as an agent for “OUR” country which would be Mexico. How can she say “OUR” country if you she is supposed to be an American federal employee? You can’t be both.
The United States of America and our country? Excuse me, but the United States of Americaisour country. Her statement makes it sound like she is negotiating some agreement between two countries – the United States of America and the country in which she aligns herself. Being thisconcerns illegal alien invasion across our southern border, surely she isn’t suggesting that she’s helping Mexico, as well as the United States, at the direction of Obama. At this point, one could believe that would be true; after all, it is Obama and his whimsical orders she’s following.
Based on the attitude of Saldana, one can practically assume that the law is basically no more, at least where the government is concerned with following Obama’s orders seem to trump the law. Congress is basically a “front.” No longer is it a checks and balances branch against the executive and judicial. The law is now what Obama says it is, according to him, and Saldana echoes that sentiment. If truth be told, Congress follows it as well or they would follow theremedy of impeachment as prescribed in the Constitution.
