Like Us On Facebook

Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Immigration judge pushed to sanction Obama's lawyers

 

120929obamaangryz

A federal judge who earlier determined that President Obama’s amnesty-by-executive-memo strategy likely is illegal and suspended work on it now is being asked by a popular leader in America’s law-enforcement community to sanction the president’s administration for lying in court.

“The Obama Justice Department and its clients, as set forth in the accompanying supplemental brief by amicus curiae Sheriff Joe Arpaio … have lied intentionally to two courts which have addressed the president’s unconstitutional and illegal executive actions,” claims a motion on behalf of Arpaio submitted to the federal court in Brownsville, Texas.

It was there that Judge Andrew Hanen determined that Obama’s amnesty program is unconstitutional because he didn’t follow the Administrative Procedures Act, and Hanen issued a temporary injunction against the program.

Arpaio, who has a separate case over the same immigration issues pending at an appellate court in Washington, D.C., earlier had filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Texas case, which was brought by 26 states.

He’s now asking to be allowed to intervene further.

In a filing submitted by Arpaio’s attorney, Larry Klayman of FreedomWatch, cited arguments, which the document calls “lies,” from the government in Arpaio’s case in Washington.

The document explains, “As set forth in the accompanying amicus brief, this must be remedied in the interests of justice, through the commencement of contempt proceedings and the imposition of harsh sanctions on counsel for the defendants.”

In the brief, Klayman wrote, “The president and his Justice Department are not above the law.”

The issue of lies, and the trustworthiness of the government in the case, is not brand new.

WND reported earlier when the judge bluntly asked a Justice Department attorney whether or not President Obama and federal officials can be believed regarding the administration’s executive-ordered plan to delay deportation for up to 5 million illegal aliens.

The testy confrontation came in a federal court in Texas where Hanen, who previously issued a temporary injunction halting Obama’s plan, is presiding over a lawsuit brought by 26 states.

“I can trust what Secretary [Jeh] Johnson says … what President Obama says?” Hanen asked, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

Fox News reported the judge even went further, instructing Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett, “That’s a yes or no question.”

She responded, “Yes, your honor.”

Hanen called that hearing after ordering in February a halt to any actions related to Obama’s executive action until a full trial or a further order from him.

The issue was whether or not the Justice Department misled the judge by claiming that deportation reprieves would not go forward before he made a ruling. It turned out that federal officials had delayed deportation for 108,000 people for three years and granted them work permits.

The administration had argued the reprieves were granted under a 2012 program that was not impacted by Hanen’s order. But the 2012 program, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, granted only two-year reprieves, while Obama’s November order allows three-year deferrals.

Hartnett told the judge “government attorneys hadn’t properly explained this because they had been focused on other parts of the proposed action,” Fox reported.

Hanen remained skeptical, and it was then he asked, “Can I trust what the president says?”

The states that brought the lawsuit at that time had asked for sanctions against the federal government because of the misleading statements. Angela Colmenero, a lawyer from Texas, said the federal government provided “representations” that eventually proved untrue or “less than forthcoming.”

Fox News reported Hanen “chided” Hartness for saying “before the injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard” to the deferrals.

“Like an idiot, I believed that,” Hanen said.

Klayman explained to WND that the additional filings with the court “detail the falsehoods put forth by the Obama Justice Department on behalf of the president in trying to prevent the issuance of an order temporarily enjoining the implementation of these executive actions.”

“Specifically, lawyers of Obama’s Justice Department told the courts in two federal cases, the one in Texas (1:14-cv-254) and the one in the District of Columbia filed by Arpaio and Klayman (1:14-cv-01966), that the presidents’ executive actions would not be implemented, at the earliest until February 18, 2015, when in fact it has been learned that the president and DHS were already well on their way to putting the executive actions into effect. These intentional misrepresentations were intended to convince and deceive these courts that immediate judicial rulings on the motions for preliminary injunctions were not necessary, as nothing had occurred as yet that could conceivably be damaging to the plaintiffs in both cases,” Klayman explained in a statement.

“President Obama and his ‘yes-men’ at the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security are not above the law. They cannot be permitted to walk away scot-free from lying to courts, much more attempting to put into effect unconstitutional executive actions granting illegal amnesty to over 5 million illegal aliens. This serious misconduct must be harshly sanctioned to further the rule of law, uphold the integrity of the courts, and prevent this from happening again in these important cases. As an alumnus of the Justice Department, I am appalled by the actions of President Obama’s legal counsel in these cases,” Klayman said.

Klayman’s filing explained that government lawyers argued in both cases a preliminary injunction was not needed because “the amnesty programs were not imminent.”

Yet, such activities already were going on, he argued.

“Those claims were a premeditated and intentional misrepresentation,” Klayman wrote.

He noted the judge already has set aside the idea of monetary sanctions since the penalties would be paid by taxpayers.

“The court can consider other forms of sanctions to ensure ethical and honest conduct by the Obama Justice Department and its clients in the future.”

WND also reported when Arpaio had asked for a hearing for the government to explain why it apparently is refusing to abide by Hanen’s order.

A notice and recommendation from Klayman said, “Several reports indicate that the executive branch under the Obama administration has not complied with this court’s temporary injunction, but continues full-speed to implement a grant of amnesty and related benefits to approximately 5 million citizens of foreign countries who are illegally in the United States under the defendants’ November 20, 2014, executive action programs implemented by several memoranda issued by Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson,” the filing explained.

It explained: “If the defendants have in fact halted implementation of the programs in compliance with the court’s temporary injunction, the opportunity to assure the court and other observers of this may be afforded by the court asking for a response on whether the reports of continued implementation are accurate and whether the injunction is being complied with.”

Klayman’s filing also noted Obama’s statement at a town hall meeting in Miami Feb. 25 that he won’t be deterred by “one federal judge” on immigration.

Obama, according to the Washington Times, “told a Miami crowd that he will move ahead with his executive action on immigration and vowed that his administration will become even more aggressive in the weeks and months to come.”

Klayman’s filing also noted Obama said: “This is just one federal judge. We have appealed it very aggressively. We’re going to be as aggressive as we can.”

Wrote Klayman: “The Obama administration is continuing to signal not only its disagreement with the court’s order, which is its right, but beyond that its non-compliance with the court’s order.”

The attorney also noted a report from the government watchdog Judicial Watch that said “a source within the U.S. government contracting industry” said the U.S. Department of Homeland Security “is continuing at full speed to implement the ‘deferred action’ programs created on November 20, 2014.”

“In short,” Klayman told the court, “President Obama’s defiant pledge in Miami, Florida, on February 25, 2015, to move forward aggressively with implementation of his deferred action amnesty by executive over-reach … more than suggests that the Obama administration is continuing to implement the executive action amnesty in defiance of the court’s temporary injunction.

“Given the strong reports that DHS is continuing to implement the programs that the court enjoined, the court should issue an order to show cause and call for clarification and assurance from the defendants that they are and will comply with the court’s temporary injunction, and if not take immediate remedial actions to [ensure] that the order is being complied with.”

The Obama administration’s action “to expend taxpayers money in violation of this court’s temporary injunction order would be another affront to the rule of law,” he wrote.

U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen

U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen

WND also reported earlier that Obama’s amnesty plan continued moving forward on another front. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced the extension of a program allowing spouses of certain visa holders to obtain work permits.

According to the Washington Times, the move will, in 90 days, allow some 180,000 immigrants to be eligible for the benefit “in the first year.”

“Allowing the spouses of these visa holders to legally work in the United States makes perfect sense,” the newspaper quoted agency chief Leon Rodriguez saying. “It helps U.S. businesses keep their highly skilled workers by increasing the chances these workers will choose to stay in this country during the transition from temporary workers to permanent residents.”

Klayman even noted that according to a Weekly Standard report, Obama was threatening “consequences” for federal employees who followed the judge’s order, instead of the amnesty memos.

That report quoted Obama saying: “Until we pass a law through Congress, the executive actions we’ve taken are not going to be permanent; they are temporary. There are going to be some jurisdictions and there may be individual ICE official or Border Control agent not paying attention to our new directives. But they’re going to be answerable to the head of Homeland Security because he’s been very clear about what our priorities will be.”

He continued, “If somebody’s working for ICE … and they don’t follow the policy, there’s going to be consequences to it.”

Sen Ted Cruz, R-Texas, also raised the issue of compliance with the court order.

“Violating an unambiguous federal court order by defying its instructions to cease and desist a particular activity would represent a significant breach of your authority, and would be an escalation in abuse of our separation of powers,” Cruz wrote to administration officials. “For a president and his cabinet to telegraph intent to violate a federal court order requires additional scrutiny from Congress.”

But administration officials were unabashed in their intent.

The Washington Times said Cecilia Munoz, White House domestic policy director, addressed the issue: “It’s important to put [Hanen's order] in context, because the broader executive actions are moving forward. The administration continues to implement the portions of the actions that the president and the Department of Homeland Security took, which were not affected by the court’s ruling.”

But Hanen’s order said: “The United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees and Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of United States customs and Border Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, deputy chief of United States Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Protection; Thomas S. Winkowski, acting director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Leon Rodriguez, director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services are hereby enjoined from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.”

And even Obama himself said he couldn’t do it alone.

House Speaker John Boehner has listed online 22 times when Obama has made such statements.

For example, in October 2010, Obama said: “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. … I’ve got to have some partners to do it. … If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there’s a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. … I can’t just make the laws up by myself.”

The Texas lawsuit was filed when the states suddenly faced massive new demands for public services such as schooling and health care from foreigners who previously had been subject to deportation.

Hanen granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the government from enforcing the Obama administration’s immigration orders. The ruling also confirmed WND’s exclusive report that, contrary to popular perception, the order to delay deportation was not an executive order by the president. Instead, it was a memorandum issued by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson at Obama’s direction.

WND also reported when yet another a federal judge in Pennsylvania declared the amnesty unconstitutional.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause and, therefore, is unconstitutional,” said U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.

The judge noted Obama “contended that although legislation is the most appropriate course of action to solve the immigration debate, his executive action was necessary because of Congress’ failure to pass legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard.”

“This proposition is arbitrary and does not negate the requirement that the November 20, 2014, executive action be lawfully within the president’s executive authority,” the judge wrote. “It is not.”

Immigration judge pushed to sanction Obama's lawyers
Bob Unruh
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:36:21 GMT

Mayor takes stand against Muslim Shariah courts

 

Irvine, Texas, Mayor Beth Van Duyne

Irvine, Texas, Mayor Beth Van Duyne

When a group of imams tried to bring a form of “Shariah light” to Texas, they met an unlikely foe – Irving Mayor Beth Van Duyne.

Now, Van Duyne has been thrust into the national media spotlight, and her city is being called “ground zero” in the battle to prevent Islamic law from gaining a foothold, no matter how small, in the U.S. legal system.

Van Duyne’s name and picture has popped up on Facebook pages and Twitter feeds across America in recent days, casting her with equal enthusiasm as villain or hero, depending on one’s political outlook.

She’s either the mayor who stood up to the Muslim Brotherhood or the “Islamophobic bigot” looking to cash in politically on fears about Islamic terrorism.

The media frenzy was touched off by reports that an Islamic tribunal was being set up in the Dallas, Texas, area. A group of imams from surrounding mosques would sit on what they call a “mediation panel,” as defacto judges, and mediate disputes between Muslims who voluntarily submit to its edicts. They denied this was a Shariah court, saying the panel would mete out nonbinding decisions in business disputes, divorces and other family matters “in full accordance with the law.”

Van Duyne wrote a blistering Facebook post last month in which she vowed to “fight with every fiber of my being against this action.”

Get the details on how to stop Islamization of America – $4.95 today only!

She worked with state legislators to craft a bill that would declare it illegal for any U.S. court to adopt any foreign legal system for the basis of its rulings. Islam was not mentioned in the bill, nor was any religion.

Last Thursday the Irving City Council voted 5-4 to endorse the bill before a packed room full of mostly angry Muslims.

When called on by the Council of American-Islamic Relations to apologize for her February Facebook post, Van Duyne flatly refused. She also appeared in the national spotlight in an interview with conservative media icon Glenn Beck.

She’s been practically canonized by some websites while becoming the target of journalistic hit pieces from others.

Her local newspaper, the Dallas Morning News, cast her as a petulant demagogue who uses “gifted speaking skills” to “get a crowd on her side.”

“The dispute has made Van Duyne a hero among a fringe movement that believes Muslims – a tiny fraction of the U.S. population – are plotting to take over American culture and courts,” the Dallas Morning News reported. The newspaper then quoted local imam Zia Sheikh as saying the mayor’s stance “fuels anti-Islamic hysteria” and is “very Islamophobic.”

But to conservatives who have watched one city, state and federal leader after another kowtow to the threats and demands of CAIR, she is a breath of fresh air.

“The U.S. is a constitutional republic ruled by constitutional law. If Muslims want to live under Shariah law, fine, then let them move to a country that is ruled by Shariah law,” wrote Greg Polkowski in a March 24 Facebook post. “The problem is they come here for the freedom and opportunities that aren’t available in their home countries (usually Muslim controlled) and upon arrival decide they want to change the U.S. to reflect the political/religious environment they left. This reminds me of a sign I’ve seen posted by a few swimming pools over the years, ‘We don’t swim in your toilet, please don’t pee in our pool.’”

The Dallas Morning News attacked Van Duyne’s supporters as followers of “fringe websites.”

“Van Duyne had spent the last month criticizing and questioning a Muslim mediation panel, conflating it with a court in an interview seen around the country. That night, she pushed the council to endorse a state bill whose author had targeted the panel.

“The dispute has made Van Duyne a hero on fringe websites that fear an Islamic takeover of America.”

While eager to denigrate Van Duyne’s supporters, the Dallas newspaper closes its eyes to the dubious reputation of the group demanding apologies, CAIR. More than just a fringe element, CAIR is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, which are terrorist elements.

CAIR is known in the U.S. as a nonprofit advocacy group for Muslim-Americans, but in 2007 U.S. prosecutors named it an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism-funding case against the Holy Land Foundation charity. The charity was convicted of supporting Hamas, which is on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. When President Obama took office in 2008 the trial was shut down and investigations into CAIR ceased. In fact, the president has sought counsel from CAIR officials in matters of Homeland Security and law enforcement, acceding to its demand that the FBI scrub from its training manuals all references to radical Islam.

Yet, despite its connections to the Muslim Brotherhood, the Dallas Morning News and countless other U.S. media outlets continue to quote its officials as credible representatives of all U.S. Muslims. The Muslim Brotherhood has been designated a terrorist organization by scores of countries, including even some Arab and Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates, along with Russia, Israel and others.

Dr. Mark Christian grew up in a prominent Muslim family in Egypt and converted to Christianity as an adult. He has been disowned by his family.

Dr. Mark Christian grew up in a prominent Muslim family in Egypt and converted to Christianity as an adult. He has been disowned by his family.

Dr. Mark Christian, a former Muslim who grew up in Egypt the son of a Muslim Brotherhood activist, said such “mediation panels” would not be tolerated in Egypt. But the ignorance of American government officials makes them easy prey for CAIR’s intimidation.

“The concept of ‘Shariah mediation’ to settle disputes between Muslims here in the U.S. is indeed disturbing.” he said. “It is the first step in establishing a parallel system of government within our own system.”

After fleeing Egypt, Christian lived in Great Britain before coming to the United States.

“I have seen these tribunals in operation in Britain,” he said. “They supplant the laws of the host nation by forcing Muslims to abandon their inherent rights under our law and submit instead to Shariah, many times to their own detriment.”

“I applaud the mayor for her strength of conviction. She isn’t denying rights to Muslims; she is preserving them for Muslims.

“She is, however, denying the Muslim Brotherhood one of their chief tools in controlling Muslim populations in free nations.”

CAIR’s alliance with leftists in the U.S. media and so-called “watchdog” groups like the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center assures that whenever someone criticizes CAIR and points out facts about its connections to the Muslim Brotherhood they get branded as “Islamophobic” or “bigoted.”

Thus, it’s no surprise that most politicians cower at the sight of a CAIR spokesman and avoid at all costs saying anything that can be seen as remotely anti-Islam.

But the mayor of one small city in Texas seems to dance to a different drumbeat.

WND requested a phone interview with Van Duyne Tuesday but was told by her secretary that she had urgent city business to tend to.

“I wish to see her character in every elected official in our nation,” Christian said.

Mayor takes stand against Muslim Shariah courts
Leo Hohmann
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:47:49 GMT

Author: White House reveals 'hatred' for Israel

 

end_times

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough recently publicly demanded an Israeli “occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end,” pushing the relations between the U.S. and its chief Middle East ally for decades to the breaking point.

McDonough’s comments, made to the left wing activist group J Street, simply are proof of the Obama administration’s “hatred” for Israel, according to best-selling author Joel Richardson.

Richardson, who recently released “When a Jew Rules the World: What Every Christian Must Know about Israel in God’s Prophetic Plans,” explains the United States is now openly siding against Israel and the Jewish people.

“The Obama administration has finally fully come out of the closet and removed all pretense as to their hatred of Israel. In demanding that Israel withdraw from its own lands and end the ‘occupation’ (Israel is not presently occupying anything) the United States has joined its voice to those who are openly calling for the genocide of the Jewish people.”

McDonough’s speech has been widely interpreted as an attack on the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, as McDonough proclaimed the Obama administration expects “policies that demonstrate a genuine commitment to a two-state solution” and a cessation of settlement activity.

He also stated any peace plan should be based on “1967 lines” of territory, borders that Benjamin Netanyahu has previously slammed as “indefensible.”

What does what’s happening in Israel mean to you? Find out in “When a Jew Rules the World: What Every Christian Must Know about Israel in God’s Prophetic Plans.”

Richardson condemned McDonough’s comments as a total misrepresentation of the Israeli situation.

“Imagine if you lived in an apartment building and you were surrounded by families that lived in open hostility to you and your children. Every one of the families had, at one time or another, openly expressed their plans to kill you and your children, and, in fact, two of your children had been killed by your neighbors.

“Determined to protect your family, you begin to take action. You hire armed security guards to stand outside your door. At the entrance to your building you install metal detectors to prevent your neighbors from bringing deadly weapons into your building. To protect you from the neighbors who killed your two young children, you install a secure security door between your two apartments that only you can unlock.

“Now imagine that nearly every day, groups of idealistic and opinionated young college students show up and stand outside your building, shouting into bull-horns how unfair and unjust you are being to your neighbors. Imagine if these same college students even began demanding that you remove the security door that separates your apartment from your neighbor’s apartment,” Richardson said.

“Such a scenario is the stuff of hellish nightmares. But the fact of the matter is that this actually does describe the situation in Israel in many ways. Poll after poll has shown that a vast majority of those living in the Palestinian territories support suicide bombings against the Jewish people. And until Israel built the wall, they were in fact very common, with multitudes of Israelis regularly losing their lives. Today, there are almost daily calls for the complete genocide of the Jewish people from those living in nations on every side of Israel.

“The call for a two-state solution is the call for the extermination of the Jewish people.”

J Street has been especially active in pushing for a two-state solution. The group has been accused of anti-Israel bias and is a regular critic of sanctions on Iran and Israeli anti-terrorist actions. J Street supports negotiations with the terrorist group Hamas, aided the Palestinian Authority in its attempt to unilaterally declare a Palestinian state at the United Nations, and received seed money from left-wing billionaire George Soros.

Besides the controversial choice of venue, McDonough’s speech comes at a time of crisis for American/Israeli relations. The Israeli government of Netanyahu has fiercely denied reports it spied on American negotiations with Iran over a nuclear weapon, even as the reports also revealed the United States has been spying on Israel.

See a trailer:

According to allegations from a pollster working for Netanyahu’s Likud Party, “President Obama and his allies” were even more active in the unsuccessful campaign against Netanyahu than initially reported. This even included the use of American taxpayer dollars.

Richardson observes, “The overnight shift toward radical anti-Israel sentiment is happening not only around the world and within our own government but also in the churches. For that reason, it’s so important for Christians to read ‘When a Jew Rules the World’ so they know how to respond to the propaganda and deception sweeping the nations like a flood.”

Richardson interprets the publication of the book during this troubled period as “clearly providential.”

He affirms that reactions to the book have been uniformly supportive and says, “So far everyone who has read it has said that it is one of the most important books of our time. Every review so far has been resoundingly positive.”

As of Tuesday, “When a Jew Rules the World” enjoyed unanimous five star ratings from readers on Amazon.com.

Readers report”

  • Joel puts forth a book that is well researched, articulate, and it really gets to the heart of Jesus and what is going on in the world. He doesn’t mince words and lays forth a real case for the church to take a look at doctrines that have led to many hurts and physical deaths. He does so with love for the church but with a firm voice asking us to wake up. Time is short and we need watchmen like Joel sounding the alarm.
  • Excellent from start to finish! The best theological and historical argument for God’s sovereign election and eternal purpose for the Apple of His eye, Israel!
  • Joel Richardson has been given understanding and insight into the prophetic scriptures and a voice to articulate these things to the church in this hour. His books have helped to blow the fog of traditional mindsets and poor hermeneutics from the arena of prophetic study, and this latest volume is no exception.

Richardson’s previous bestseller, ”The Islamic Antichrist: The Shocking Truth About the Real Nature of the Beast,” is currently the No. 1 bestseller in “Islamic Theology” among all books on Amazon.com.

“When a Jew Rules the World” also enjoys top status as the current No. 1 new release in “Christian Eschatology” on Amazon.com.

Richardson says his work provides “clear, simple, and direct answers” to anti-Israel attacks. And at this time, he says, it is more critical than ever.

“The closer we get to the final days of the Obama administration, the more he is taking the mask off and revealing his radical anti-Western agenda. These comments from his chief of staff are just the latest example.”

Author: White House reveals 'hatred' for Israel
-NO AUTHOR-
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 00:58:32 GMT

9.8 million federal employees delinquent on taxes

 

The Internal Revenue Service

The Internal Revenue Service

The combined unpaid tax amount for federal workers and retirees for 2014 surpasses $3.5 billion, the Internal Revenue Service reported.

The figure is spread among 305,000 federal employees and retirees, the Associated Press reported. And as bad as that back tax amount sounds, it still beats the previous year’s amount.

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

The current delinquency rate is 3.1 percent of 9.8 million federal workers; in 2013, the delinquency rate stood at 3.3 percent.

Department of Housing and Urban Development employees are the worst offenders, with a delinquency rate of 4.7 percent. By contrast, those at the Treasury Department touted the least number of delinquencies, with a rate of 1.2 percent, AP reported.

The report comes as the House Oversight Committee is preparing Wednesday to take up a bill that would label those with “seriously delinquent tax debt[s]” ineligible for employment with the federal government.

The IRS doesn’t have current delinquency figures for those outside the federal workforce. In past years, however, the unpaid tax rate for members of the general public stood between 8 percent and 9 percent.

And House and Senate members?

Roughly 5 percent in the House owe taxes; another 3.5 percent in the Senate face a similar situation, AP reported.

9.8 million federal employees delinquent on taxes
Cheryl Chumley
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 11:16:40 GMT

Germanwings confirms: 2 Americans among dead

 

Germanwings

A plane crash in the French Alps killed all 150 aboard.

Germanwings airline confirmed Wednesday morning two Americans were among the dozens killed in a plane crash in the French Alps.

Previously, the French prime minister had said only one American was among the 150 on board the Germanwings flight that went down Tuesday. The U.S. State Department has not confirmed the death of the Americans, and no information has been released about their identities.

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

Also among the dead: Two babies, the airline said, ABC News reported.

French President Francois Hollande said shortly after the crash there were “apparently no survivors.”

Airline officials, meanwhile, say they expect to recover the voice recorder by Thursday. Emergency responders are working hard to sift through the debris for clues to the reason of the crash, but their efforts are being hampered by the remoteness of the location.

Germanwings confirms: 2 Americans among dead
Cheryl Chumley
Wed, 25 Mar 2015 12:27:42 GMT

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Get Over It… Cruz IS Eligible

 

 

Whether Ted Cruz is your choice for the Republican presidential nomination or not - and we're not going to settle that today - at least we can settle the matter raised by any number of commenters who asked, "Hey, wasn't he born in Canada?"

Why yes, he was. And it's completely irrelevant. Despite the insistence of some folks that you're not a "natural-born citizen" unless you're born on U.S. soil, Cruz in fact is a natural-born citizen and he's eligible. And this video from the Wall Street Journal explains it pretty clearly:

http://www.wsj.com/video/is-ted-cruz-born-in-canada-eligible-to-be-president/8BF329E2-4B95-4650-92C3-A3C07095C997.html

The key lies in the distinction between a natural-born citizen and a naturalized citizen. At its essence, this simply means there are two kinds of citizens - those who were citizens from birth and those who became citizens later on. A lot of people assume that you're only a natural-born citizen if you were physically born in the U.S., but that's not true. That's one way you can be a natural-born citizen, but another way is to be born abroad to parents who are citizens.

And this makes sense when you think about it. No one gets to choose where they're born, and if your parents are U.S. citizens and they happen to be abroad when your mother goes into labor and gives birth to you, there's really no reason that should impact your citizenship. To tell someone born under those circumstances that they have to later take a citizenship test and become "naturalized" would be absurd.

The reason the Constitution doesn't allow a naturalized citizen to become president is that they want to prevent true foreigners who might have another agenda from obtaining citizenship for the purpose of obtaining power and then misusing it to the detriment of the United States. That clearly doesn't apply to someone whose American parents happen to be in Calgary when he's born

So feel free to raise whatever objections you might have about the merits of Ted Cruz as a candidate, but let's put this one to bed. He is eligible to be president.

http://www.caintv.com/yes-ted-cruz-is-constitutional

Barry, Bibi and Israeli security

 

Radical Dike 600 LI

Barry, Bibi and Israeli security
-NO AUTHOR-
Mon, 23 Mar 2015 23:51:57 GMT

Boehner office on eve of civil disobedience

 

House Speaker John Boehner

House Speaker John Boehner

Two months after GOP House leadership unexpectedly canceled a promised vote vital to many among its pro-life base, a coalition of activist leaders is turning up the heat on Republican Speaker John Boehner over his alleged “betrayal.”

On Wednesday, March 25, at 11 a.m., a team of activists plans a sit-in protest at Sen. Boehner’s office in Washington, D.C. The event, known as #FreeTheBan, will be led by Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition; Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue; and Jill Stanek of JillStanek.com.

Boehner has said the legislation, known as the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, still “remains an important priority for our majority,” but the sit-in leaders signed a letter explaining why pro-life leaders felt “betrayed” by GOP leadership.

“This life-saving legislation [was] withdrawn on the eve of the 2015 March for Life, when hundreds of thousands of Americans had come to Washington, D.C., to embrace human rights and equality for all, and we were promised it would be passed on January 22 [the anniversary of Roe v. Wade],” the letter to Boehner states. “Just one day before scores would be marching in the harsh winter conditions of January, we were still being assured a vote would happen the next day. Imagine our further sense of betrayal that, almost two months later, no vote has been rescheduled for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.”

“I, for the most part, kept my silence, waiting … and waiting … and waiting for the GOP House leadership to circle back and fix their mess,” Stanek elaborated in a blog post titled Why I’m protesting Speaker Boehner’s office on March 25.” “The GOP must have mistaken our silence for indifference.”

The sit-in reveals pro-life leaders aren’t willing to seem “indifferent” any longer.

Newman, for example, is telling WND the stakes are so high it’s worth the risk of civil disobedience.

“We have to implement a backbone policy for Mr. Boehner,” Newman told WND. “It means we’re serious. We’re willing to take this to another level.”

He noted it’s been 42 years since abortion was decriminalized, and Congress now has the largest pro-life majority since then.

“We expect them to act,” he said. “It’s exactly why the voters put them there. It was in their platform, what they ran on.”

Stanek, a former nurse who first rose to prominence after confronting then-Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama over baby born alive legislation, said personal experience drove her to speak up then, and it drives her now.

“For me, it always comes back to the 21-week abortion survivor I held until he died. That sweetheart would be alive today had a 20-week abortion ban been in place,” she said. “I have determined … Wednesday will be a fitting time to remind politicians, and even we in the pro-life community, about that little guy and others like him, and attempt to restore a sense of urgency on saving these babies from an agonizing, tortured death.”

Learn how to build an “Abortion Free” America one community at a time in this brand-new, autographed book

As WND reported, Congress was supposed to vote earlier this year on the Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would ban abortion after 20 weeks gestation, but the vote was canceled at the last minute when Boehner apparently was unsure of the support he would get for the plan.

It was a ban that had found approval in Congress earlier, but not only did it not get support this year, it also has not been rescheduled for a vote.

Newman called the developments in Congress a “slap in the face of the pro-life movement.”

“We want a whole lot more,” he said. “We expect a whole lot from this Congress.”

The GOP expanded its majority in the U.S. House during the 2014 midterm elections and took control of the U.S. Senate for the first time in years.

“It’s something that cannot be ignored,” Newman said. “This speaker is weak, his policies are weak, his plan for implementing pro-life legislation is weak.”

He said if it becomes necessary, there may be future events at additional congressional offices.

Such civil disobedience has been used before by the pro-life movement. Some of the efforts by Joe Scheidler and the Pro-Life Action League were so effective in the 1980s that abortion advocates took them to court and accused them of racketeering.

It took 28 years and three trips to the U.S. Supreme Court to finish the case – a decision in which the pro-lifers’ actions were vindicated entirely.

WND’s original report on the Boehner sit-in included an interview with Stanek.

“I, as a nurse at a hospital in Chicago, held an abortion survivor for 45 minutes until he died, and he was 21 weeks old,” she said. “An abortion ban such as this would save babies like I held. This is very real to me. I have actually seen and held the babies that the House is just playing around with willy-nilly right now.”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Jill Stanek:

She noted the bill wasn’t given a vote even though the previous GOP-run House had passed it.

“When we protest on March 25, it will have been two months. We’ve been patient, more than measured in our response, more than muted. I, among others, am just not going to stand for this anymore,” Stanek said.

The sticking point in the legislation centered on the exception for rape and incest victims, who would be required to provide a police report of the crime before receiving an abortion. Stanek thinks the exception is a bad idea altogether.

“There should have never been a rape-incest exception to begin with,” she said. “We’re talking about five months along in pregnancy. Certainly by that time, mothers should know that they’re pregnant. And certainly, babies, even if they’re conceived in rape or incest, are innocent victims, too, and shouldn’t be put to death.”

Speaker Boehner and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., had tapped Republican women to be the face of this legislation, but it was ultimately two GOP women who forced the bill back on the shelf. Reps. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., and Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., made it clear at the GOP retreat before the vote that they had problems forcing victims of crime to bring a police report with them to get an abortion.

Stanek said if you’re going to have the exception, not requiring women to present a police report would make the law virtually meaningless.

“Late-term abortions aren’t good for women to begin with, but taking out this reporting requirement would just give a huge loophole to abortionists to check that box every time a woman came in for a late-term abortion and says she’s been raped,” said Stanek, who argued the reporting requirement also makes women safer.

“Making women report their crime to police protects other women from being victimized by these sexual perpetrators and protects the very women themselves against these perpetrators from violating them again,” she said. “Some of these women are victims of incest, and girls are victims of incest. If they don’t have to report the crime, then the evidence is covered up, literally killed when the abortion is committed.”

Stanek said the bill never should have been sidelined.

JOIN THE DON’T BE YELLOW, DUMP BOEHNER NOW CAMPAIGN

“They didn’t even take a headcount to see if they had the votes. They had the votes. At the last moment, the chief opponent, Renee Ellmers, said she would vote for the bill, but they just chickened out, and they took advantage of the pro-life movement.”

The protest does carry some legal risks for participants, but Stanek believes the cause is worth it.

“It’s going to be a sit-in,” she said. “We’re going to risk arrest, but this form of civil disobedience is nothing compared to what is happening to these children every day.”

Organizers are inviting pro-life activists from across the nation to join. Speaker Boehner’s office is located at 1011 in the Longworth House Office Building in Washington, D.C.

The name of the event is #FreeTheBan. More information is available at the event’s Facebook page.

Recruit your friends, neighbors and fellow commuters to the “Don’t Be Yellow: Dump Boehner Now”

Boehner office on eve of civil disobedience
Drew Zahn
Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:30:52 GMT

Ted Cruz deploys Ronald Reagan secret to victory

 

WASHINGTON – Ted Cruz is counting on the help of Barack Obama to win the White House.

That is, the senator intends to learn from the lessons of Obama’s 2008 “grassroots guerrilla campaign” for president, which the Texan often has spoken of admiringly.

But, while Cruz will borrow tactics from arguably the right’s greatest archenemy, he will follow the playbook of the right’s greatest hero, Ronald Reagan.

Grassroots support was the key to general election victories for both Obama and Reagan, but, like the Gipper, Cruz must first conquer his own party’s establishment.

He intends to do that not by appealing to the center, but by being his own man, an unapologetic conservative, and expanding the appeal of the Republican Party, just like Reagan.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas

And, just like Reagan, he intends to wage an insurgent campaign.

Merriam Webster defines “insurgent” as “one who acts contrary to the policies and decisions of one’s own political party.”

And that defines the Cruz strategy: He will not try to win over the GOP establishment; he will bypass Washington and go straight to the voters.

It is a simple but detailed plan. And it is based on a simple premise: A moderate approach will lead to certain defeat; only a conservative approach can lead to victory.

Cruz shared the outline of his strategy at a recent gathering of a few conservative journalists, attended by WND:

  • Aim for the approval of voters, not Washington.
  • Be a crossover candidate: Win back Reagan Democrats and FDR Democrats.
  • Emphasize principles over politics; stick to core beliefs.
  • Win tea-party and conservative votes, peel off support from libertarians.
  • Energize and mobilize evangelical voters.

Most of those details are taken straight from the Reagan playbook. So, what advice would a former Reagan aide have for Cruz?

“Ted Cruz needs no advice,” Jeffrey Lord told WND.

An associate political director in the Reagan White House, Lord wrote an in-depth comparison of the Gipper and Cruz published in the American Spectator on Monday called, “The Texas Reagan announces for president.”

In that article, Cruz explicitly told Lord he intends to pursue a 21st-century version of the insurgency strategy pioneered by the late Ronald Reagan.

Lord told WND that Cruz’s speech Monday morning announcing his candidacy for president was “truly amazing” and “right on the mark.”

The former Reagan aide also explained why Cruz appears to have the right stuff to be the right’s first successful insurgent presidential candidate since the Gipper.

Aim for the approval of voters, not Washington

Cruz’s speech was not meant to win over the Washington establishment. It was aimed at Americans in the heartland who, he believes, yearn for a leader who speaks with conviction, rather than a candidate who will try to appeal to the center.

“He was bold, positive, and forthright,” Lord told WND. “Like Reagan, he was totally unapologetic about his conservatism – and the Cruz idea of ‘courageous conservatism’ was a way of answering the old Bush line about ‘compassionate conservatism,’ which by definition was apologizing for being conservative.”

Cruz’s speech showed what he believes is the lesson of Reagan’s success: The way to win is not to try to please as many voters as possible, but to convince voters of the quality of his convictions and that he is a man who will stick to his principles.

“That was the key to Reagan,” said Lord. “Reagan was not only unapologetic about being a conservative, he was proud to be one. Ted Cruz believes exactly the same thing – and it shows.”

See the campaign video: “Ted Cruz for President”

A few weeks ago, WND quoted Cruz describing how establishment Washington hated Reagan as a candidate and how he went over the heads of GOP elite to take his case straight to the people, from whom his real power came.

After Monday’s speech, reporters questioned Cruz’s mettle and ability to win an arduous campaign, but the candidate said it wasn’t about him, responding, “That’s where you’re lacking the faith in what’s happening across this country.”

He explained, “It’s coming from the people. Washington won’t turn us around, but what will turn us around is millions of courageous conservatives who are inspired to reignite the promise of America.”

That echoed a line in Cruz’s speech in which he asked people to “Imagine, imagine millions of courageous conservatives across America rising up together to say, in unison, we demand our liberty.”

That message struck the right chord with Amy Kremer, the former head of the Tea Party Express, who said the Cruz candidacy “will excite the base in a way we haven’t seen in years.”

Watch Cruz’s announcement!

Lord’s article noted, “Cruz has run aggressively against the Beltway culture since the moment he arrived in town. He’s a proud outsider even within the institution of the Senate, accentuated by his favorite hashtag: #MakeDCListen.”

“Cruz likes to say the biggest divide in American politics isn’t between Republicans and Democrats; it’s between ‘the people and the entrenched politicians in Washington, D.C.’”

That approach has earned Cruz the wrath of the Washington elite, even in his own party.

Lord wrote, that just makes the senator even more Reaganesque: “It is safe to say that as with Reagan, Ted Cruz’s adversaries can’t stand him, which, in the eyes of his admirers, is more than enough to see the newly declared candidate as the Texas Reagan.”

That has cost Cruz the financial support of  GOP king-makers, but it is making him a hero to the Republican’s grassroots base.

“Thus it is that like Reagan, Ted Cruz has become highly unpopular with Establishment Republicans. Not to mention the foaming furies he ignites from liberals who, in the day, hated Reagan in precisely the same way,” wrote Lord.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

But Cruz’s grassroots support comes from his willingness to “draw a line in the sand” and hold steadfast for causes and principles he believes are worthwhile, such as the government shutdown over defunding Obamacare in 2013, which, Lord, wrote, “was furiously assaulted by many of Cruz’s Republican Senate colleagues and most of the Establishment GOP, with some GOP senators going out of their way to deliberately sabotage the Cruz effort to defund the highly unpopular mandatory health program.”

However, with conservative luminaries such as talk-radio host Mark Levin raving about Monday’s speech, key endorsements seem likely, as Cruz’s grassroots campaign appears to have begun with immediate momentum.

Be a crossover candidate: Win back Reagan Democrats and FDR Democrats

It was no coincidence that, in his speech Monday, Cruz quoted Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt’s immortal words, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself,” then immediately spoke of Reagan’s boldness in cutting taxes, demanding the release of the American hostages in Iran and his determination to win the Cold War.

Cruz is courting admirers of both presidents and considers that a key to winning the White House.

WND reported how Cruz had recently told a small group of reporters that the reason GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election was because two groups of voters had stayed home: evangelicals and blue-collar Reagan Democrats.

Former President Ronald Reagan

Former President Ronald Reagan

Cruz insisted the only way to get crossover voters was to do what candidate Reagan had done: Stick to principles and frame the election as a fundamental choice between liberal and conservative governing philosophies.

The senator noted how Reagan was so successful with that strategy that he was the only president to ever have a type of crossover voter named after him, Reagan Democrats.

And, Cruz maintained, in sticking to his core beliefs rather than pandering to as many voters as possible, Reagan had given “FDR Democrats a reason to cross over” and support a candidate who would be a consistent man of his convictions, even if they might disagree with him on some issues.

It was notable that Cruz ended his speech with a nod to one of Reagan’s most inspirational beliefs, declaring, “We will restore that shining city on a hill that is the United States of America.”

Cruz knows the GOP brand is in need of some image repair, after years of Democrats hammering the GOP as stupid, evil, crazy and, especially, greedy.

But he also sees that as an opportunity to flip the script on the mainstream narrative of the GOP as party of the rich and Democrats as party of the poor.

As WND reported, Cruz intends to run a populist campaign aimed at explaining to working Americans the benefits of conservatism to everyone.

He sees that as an opportunity to expand his appeal beyond his conservative base, because, as he told the American Spectator, “The image created in the mainstream media does not comply with the facts.”

Emphasize principles over politics; stick to core beliefs

“Show me where you stood up and fought,” Cruz challenged potential candidates in a speech given in Iowa in January.

Cruz has said the GOP presidential candidate must be someone who has, time and again, chosen principle over politics – a candidate willing to take an unpopular stance if it is based on solid principle.

The feisty Texan, of course, has earned a reputation as someone willing to repeatedly and tirelessly go against both Democrats and establishment GOP leaders in his efforts to repeal Obamacare and stop amnesty.

A Section

Lord noted that keeping principles in practice, as well as in theory, reflected Reagan’s view, “that the GOP should move the center to the right – not, as the GOP establishment believes, move the right to the center.”

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

Cruz has said the critical mistake that could cost the GOP another presidential election would be playing it safe by running another moderate candidate too “squishy” on the issues.

The real litmus test for the best candidate, insisted Cruz, was whether he or she had “stood up to fight on principle” on the most critical issues, such as amnesty, Obamacare, the runaway national debt, Second Amendment rights and the struggle to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Emphasizing reporters should watch what candidates have done more than what they promise, and that actions should speak louder than words, the senator turned to scripture as the best guide of all, noting, “You shall know them by their fruits.”

Sticking to principles does not come without considerable risk in Washington.

Lord noted how when Cruz drew a “line in the sand” in the fight against Obamacare in 2013, he “was furiously assaulted” by many of his “Republican Senate colleagues and most of the Establishment GOP, with some GOP senators going out of their way to deliberately sabotage the Cruz effort to defund the highly unpopular mandatory health program.”

“Cruz was also opposed at the time by other potential GOP presidential candidates Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and Chris Christie, as well as the losing 2012 party nominees Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Insisting Cruz was badly damaging the party’s 2014 chances was former Bush 43 top White House aide Karl Rove.

“In February 2014, when Cruz, in another line-in-the-sand moment insisted on holding Senate Republicans accountable in a vote to raise the debt limit, the Establishment GOP turned on him again. The Wall Street Journal editorialized that Cruz was ‘The Minority Maker.’”

However, as Lord also observed, “the 2014 elections brought a tidal wave of support for the Republican Party, giving it the best showing since 1928 with a take-over of the Senate and more seats in its House majority.”

Sticking to his guns has given Cruz another, perhaps surprising, dividend: what may be the growing respect of his peers and former antagonists.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

When Cruz joined Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., in filibustering the nomination of eventual CIA Director John Brennan over drone policy, Sen. John McCain referred to the duo as “wacko birds.”

Cruz never responded with a personal attack, instead, characteristically adhering to Reagan’s “11th commandment” of not speaking ill of fellow Republicans in public.

Over the weekend, just before Cruz announced his candidacy, CNN quoted McCain as saying of Cruz: “He is a valued member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He and I are friendly, and I think he is a very viable candidate.”

McCain also suggested Cruz could beat Hillary Clinton and win the presidency in 2016.

Win tea-party and conservative votes, peel off support from libertarians

Cruz aides have told reporters he sees as the GOP as composed of four branches: establishment, libertarian, social conservative and tea party.

His strategy in the GOP primary races is to win tea-party and conservative votes and peel off support from libertarians, as well as energize and mobilize evangelical voters among the social conservatives.

A Cruz aide used a March Madness metaphor to described the strategy to National Review, equating the four GOP branches to four brackets.

“We’re the number one seed in the tea-party bracket,” he said, adding, “I think this makes us the number one seed in the evangelical bracket.”

Cruz told the American Spectator he intended to pursue “a 21st-century version of the insurgency strategy” pioneered by Reagan, and bringing together “national security, social, pro-growth, and libertarian conservatives.”

See Ted Cruz’s speech announcing his candidacy for president:

Lord recounted how the “Reagan coalition broadened the base of the party to bring in everyone from evangelicals to women to union workers to Latinos.”

Cruz sees the key to victory in expanding the base by attracting voters with conservative principles and re-creating what Lord described as Reagan’s “virtual army of supporters who had previously never spent a day in politics.”

The Texan’s hope is that will also offset the GOP establishment’s advantage in fundraising, where Bush is expected to raise $100 million, while Cruz hopes to raise $40 to $50 million.

And, as Lord also noted, Cruz is counting on his base-broadening strategy to overcome a severe deficit in the polls, where CNN recently had him at just 4 percent support.

Energize and mobilize evangelical voters

It is no accident that Cruz announced his candidacy for president at Liberty University, which advertises itself as the largest Christian university in the world.

He maintains low voter turnout among evangelicals and blue-collar “Reagan Democrats” cost the GOP the election in 2012.

“Today, roughly half of born-again Christians aren’t voting; they’re staying home,” said Cruz in his speech Monday. “Imagine, instead, millions of people of faith all across America coming out to the polls and voting our values.”

Focusing on religious conservatives could help provide Cruz a jump start in two early primaries.

An entrance poll in 2012 found 57 percent of voters in the Iowa Republican caucuses described themselves as born-again or evangelical Christians.

An exit poll found 65 percent of South Carolina voters were born again or evangelical.

Cruz often reminds audiences his father is a pastor.

In his announcement speech, Cruz credited Christian faith with saving his family in the 1970s.

He described how his parents lived a “fast life,” both “drinking far too much,” neither with a “personal relationship with Jesus” and separating when he was three.

But his father converted to Christianity, “And God transformed his heart and he drove to the airport, he bought a plane ticket, and he flew back to be with my mother and me.”

“Were it not for the transformative love of Jesus Christ, I would not have been saved, and I would have been raised by a single mom without my father in the household.”

Will history repeat?

Why does Cruz appear so confident and enthusiastic when he is beginning a race for the White House with 4 percent support?

Probably because he has beaten long odds before, and handily, by sticking to the Reagan formula and running to the right, not the center.

As Lord wrote, “In early 2011, he was still the little-known, Harvard-educated, Cuban-American former Texas solicitor general considering a long-shot run against wealthy Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst. Cruz essentially did not register in the polls when he launched his Senate run.”

But, defying the pundits, his insurgent campaign based on conservative principles forced Dewhurst into a runoff, even though he finished 10 points behind.

“Two months later, Cruz erased that deficit and walloped Dewhurst – who by then had spent $25 million of his own fortune trying to salvage his campaign – by 14 points in the runoff,” recounted Lord.

He concluded, “A conservative star had been born.”

Follow Garth Kant @DCgarth

Ted Cruz deploys Ronald Reagan secret to victory
Garth Kant
Tue, 24 Mar 2015 02:38:42 GMT

Sunday, March 22, 2015

GOP 'squandering biggest victory' in 90 years

 

Mcconnell_Boehner

Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., says Republican leaders are wasting historic majorities in Congress by surrendering on critical issues like immigration and driving deep wedges in the party by collaborating more with Democrats than conservatives on key votes.

“We are talking about historical vote margins in the House and Senate,” he said. “Republicans have done better than we have in probably 80-90 years. We have immediately started squandering away that victory.”

Huelskamp said the biggest disappointments are in fully funding what he considers to be President Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty and in failing to stop Washington’s desire to tax more and spend more. He said the problem started back in December with the “cromnibus” bill, even before the GOP gained control of the U.S. Senate.

“Both Speaker John Boehner and soon-to-be leader Mitch McConnell backed away and seem more intent on working with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi than they are conservatives,” Huelskamp said.

Recruit your friends, neighbors and fellow commuters to the “Don’t Be Yellow: Dump Boehner Now” campaign!

Most frustrating to Huelskamp is the Republican surrender on blocking money for the president’s unilateral action to grant legal status to five million adults in the U.S. illegally. The “cromnibus” bill funded the program through the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, for just two months, with the stated intention of killing the appropriation once the GOP controlled both the House and Senate.

In January, the House passed DHS funding without money for Obama’s legalization program. Republicans tried to move that bill through the Senate, but Democrats filibustered it. McConnell then relented and allowed for full DHS funding in exchange for a separate vote to strip out the new immigration money. The funding bill passed. Efforts to defund the legalization program failed. After an initial one-week extension for DHS appropriations, the House also fully funded Obama’s immigration actions.

Huelskamp is appalled.

“What we hear again and again is, ‘Boy, if we do well in the next election, we’ll really fight on some conservative principles,’” he said. “It’s always about the next election, the next battle. What I hear from the American people, particularly conservatives across this country is, ‘Stand for something.’ Win or lose, they know the difference between trying and failing and not trying at all.

“So far, what I’ve seen this year is not trying at all,” he said. “You have too many insiders, both in the Republican Party and the Democratic Party, that are more interested in their future up here than what the American people want.”

Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan.:

While many Republicans say the fight to stop what most call an unconstitutional amnesty is far from over, Huelskamp said the GOP just rolled over on the best and possibly last chance to really stop the president.

“The leadership of the House and Senate Republicans have essentially folded their tents and given up on immigration,” he said. “There is no more battle. It’s now left up to the courts.”

The congressman said depending on the courts just got harder now that the legislative branch gave a firm thumbs up to the immigration program by funding it for the rest of the fiscal year.

“We sent a very strong bad message to the courts when the leadership essentially agreed with the president’s position and funded it, hoping somehow against hope that the Supreme Court’s going to come in and save the day. That didn’t work with Obamacare. I hope it works with immigration, but there is no plan for the House or Senate Republicans to challenge this,” said Huelskamp, who noted that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia recently told lawmakers not to rely on the courts to stop Obama.

“He advised the members, saying, ‘Do not expect the Supreme Court to do your constitutional duty.’ He said, ‘We can’t. That’s up to you,’” Huelskamp explained.

Beyond an unwillingness to fight fiercely against the Obama agenda, Huelskamp said when it comes to amnesty, there a lot of Republicans who are far more accepting of the idea than they’re willing to state publicly.

“The reality is, we have plenty of Republicans that said they were against the amnesty but silently hope it prevails and continues ahead,” he said. “They would much rather the issue go away than stand on principle.”

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

Huelskamp is no stranger to public disputes with Republican leaders. In 2013, Boehner stripped Huelskamp and two other critical conservatives of plum committee assignments for not being loyal enough to leadership.

After Huelskamp and other conservatives refused to support a three-week or one-week extension of DHS funding as part of Boehner’s attempt to force a House-Senate conference on the DHS funding bill, the congressman found himself targeted in ads from a Super PAC affiliated with the House GOP leadership. The ad accused Huelskamp of not being conservative and putting politics ahead of national security.

“For a sitting speaker of the House to use and rely on outside groups to target and attack fellow Republicans is unprecedented,” he said. “I think that demonstrates the weakness of the speaker and his position.”

Huelskamp believes current leaders still have a 1990s mentality toward conducting business, but he said there are far too many crises brewing to shirk the need for strong leadership.

“It’s a different world,” he said. “We have $18 trillion of debt. We have our foreign policy in shambles. We have amnesty being forced upon us by the president. We’ve got out-of-control executive agencies that are pushing the agenda of the left. The idea that you can negotiate and compromise with this president, I don’t think our leadership gets that.”

GOP 'squandering biggest victory' in 90 years
Greg Corombos
Sat, 21 Mar 2015 23:07:05 GMT