The US Facing Renewed Theats of Jihad by Al Qaeda

January 31, 2013 in Uncategorized

OsamaJuly 25, 2012 BAGHDAD –  An al-Qaida affiliate group in Iraq has claimed responsibility for Monday’s wave of attacks that killed 115 people across the country and wounded hundreds others.

January 21, 2013 BAGHDAD –  An al-Qaida affiliated group in Iraq has claimed responsibility for the assassination of a Sunni parliamentarian who played a leading role in the fight against the group in western Iraq.

Contrast the above wire  stories with Barack Hussein Obama’s frequent peddling of self serving propaganda, amplified by  our progressive  lamestream media, that  Al Qaeda, which is a global militant Islamist organization founded by Osama bin Laden around 1988, is no longer a threat to the security of the United States.  Why, because Osama is dead and Al Qaeda has been decimated

Now we have Bill Gertz of the Washington Times warning us that Al Qaeda, on the contrary has not been decimated, but on the contrary has cells and lone wolfs ready to carry out Terror operations on United States soil.

This at a time when Americans and our governmental watchdog agencies are  being lulled into a false sense of security by President Obama’s  official pronouncements and policy that the  Al Qaeda threat is insignificant.

If  a major attack is launched against the United States, Barack Hussein Obama will not be able to blame the Bushes, faulty intelligence or any other person or agency. It will fall squarely on his head and administration!

On the other hand, could it be that this is the Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis that he needs to complete the transformation of America?

Inside the Ring: New al Qaeda threat

By Bill Gertz

The Washington Times

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

A jihadist website posted a new threat by al Qaeda this week that promises to conduct “shocking” attacks on the United States and the West.

The posting appeared on the Ansar al Mujahidin network Sunday and carried the headline, “Map of al Qaeda and its future strikes.”

The message, in Arabic, asks: “Where will the next strike by al Qaeda be?” A translation was obtained by Inside the Ring.

“The answer for it, in short: The coming strikes by al Qaeda, with God’s Might, will be in the heart of the land of nonbelief, America, and in FranceDenmark, other countries in Europe, in the countries that helped and are helping France, and in other places that shall be named by al Qaeda at other times,” the threat states.

The attacks will be “strong, serious, alarming, earth-shattering, shocking and terrifying.”

Under a section of the post on the method of the attacks, the unidentified writer said the strikes would be “group and lone-wolf operations, in addition to the use of booby-trapped vehicles.”

“All operations will be recorded and published in due time,” the message said. “Let France be prepared, and let the helpers of France be prepared, for it is going to be a long war of attrition.”

The reference to France appears linked to the group’s plans for retaliation against the French-led military strikes in northern Mali in operations to oust al Qaeda terrorists from the North African country.

The Ansar al-Mujahidin network is a well-known jihadist forum that in the past has published reliably accurate propaganda messages from al Qaeda and its affiliates.

U.S. counterterrorism actions over the past 10 years have prevented al Qaeda from conducting major attacks. However, U.S. officials warn that the group continues to be dangerous, despite the killing of its top leaders in drone strikes and special operations.

A U.S. official said the threat is being taken seriously by the U.S. government.

“Extremists regularly make threats online,” he told Inside the Ring. “This one is not particularly unusual, but of course should be taken seriously.”

Retired officers on Hagel

Retired senior military officers on the right and left of the political spectrum are squaring off in the confirmation fight for former Sen. Chuck Hagel, President Obama’s nominee for defense secretary who is set to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

Conservative former officers say Mr. Hagel is the wrong person to head the Pentagon because of his soft-line views on Iran, hostility toward Israel and support for cuts in U.S. military and nuclear forces.

Liberal retirees say the decorated Vietnam War veteran will be a strong leader who will support “war fighters.”

Fourteen retired flag officers wrote to the committee this week, urging the panel to reject Mr. Hagel.

The group — including retired Pacific Fleet commander Adm. James “Ace” Lyons and former Delta Force commando Army Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin — said they oppose confirming the liberal Nebraska Republican for the Pentagon post because he would further cut U.S. military forces and also because he favors the total elimination of nuclear forces.

“Our nation faces enormous national security challenges as we enter 2013,” said the group linked to the conservative Center for Security Policy.

“Addressing those challenges will require leadership at the Pentagon that recognizes the gravity of the threats we face and understands the requirement for a formidable military capable of deterring and, if necessary, overcoming them. Sen. Hagel’s record on key issues indicates he is not such a leader.”

On the other side, a group of retired generals and admirals issued a statement in December supporting Mr. Hagel. They include retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a former national security adviser in the George H.W. Bush administration; retired Adm. William Fallon, a former Pacific command leader; and retired Marine Corps Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Central Command.

These 11 generals and admirals said in their statement that they support Mr. Hagel for Pentagon chief because “he has stood up for what he believes are the best interests of the United States.”

Sen. Hagel has been a voice of moderation and balance in an unbalanced time, and we can think of few people better qualified to lead the Department of Defense,” these retired officers stated.

Senate end-run suggested

Newly confirmed Secretary of State-designate John F. Kerry signaled last week that the Obama administration is planning to seek more executive agreements for future arms-control deals.

The use of such agreements would avoid contentious political battles in the Senate but is raising concerns that such accords would circumvent the Senate’s constitutional duty to provided advice and consent for international treaties.

Sen. James E. Risch, Idaho Republican, told Mr. Kerry during a Jan. 24 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the nomination:

“There are a lot of us that are becoming increasingly concerned about all this talk regarding executive agreements, as opposed to treaties that are negotiated by the executive branch, as contemplated by the Founding Fathers and ratified, if appropriate, by this committee and eventually by the full Senate.”

Mr. Kerry was asked about “bypassing” the committee. He replied with a carefully worded answer that did not rule out the use of non-ratified agreements.

“Well, every administration in its history — Republican and Democrat alike — has entered into executive agreements,” Mr. Kerry said.

“I don’t want to be commenting in some prophylactic way one side or the other without the specific situation in front of me,” he said. “But I’m confident the president is committed to upholding the Constitution.”

Mr. Obama, however, already has taken steps to use administrative power as opposed to formal legislative remedies, in seeking tighter controls on guns in the aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.

Mr. Kerry said that if Republicans and Democrats could get along better, then treaties were more likely to be submitted.

“There’s no better way to guarantee that whatever concerns you have about the president’s desire to move on an executive agreement would be greatly, you know, nullified or mollified if we could find a way to cooperate on a treaty or on the broader issues that face the nation,” Mr. Kerry said.

However, he added: “I think there’s a lot of frustration out there that some of the automatic ideological restraint here that prevents the majority from being able to express their voice has restrained people and pushed people in a way where they’ve got to consider some other ways of getting things done.”

Mr. Risch then said: “Well, and that’s exactly what concerns us, Sen. Kerry, is the fact that it’s OK to do this through the regular order if it gets done, but if it’s not going to get done, then the ends justify the means — [that] it’s OK to end-run around the Constitution.”

Mr. Risch said the nation’s founders “didn’t say do this if it’s convenient, and it’s OK to not do it if it’s not convenient. I have real difficulties with that.”

Mr. Obama last year promised unspecified “flexibility” after the election in seeking a missile defense agreement with Russia during an overheard discussion with then-Russian President Dmitri Medvedev.

The administration is also looking to conclude an additional arms-control agreement with Russia on nuclear weapons.

Hagel on Fort Hood

Sen. Chuck Hagel told Senate Armed Services Committee members this week in written responses to questions that he will review a Pentagon panel study that concluded the Defense Department could not identify key indicators of terrorist radicalization among service personnel, as part of efforts to prevent a repeat of the mass terrorist shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, more than three years ago.

However, in response to a question about Muslims in the militaryMr. Hagel said he would seek to prevent the persecution of Muslims in the aftermath of the deadly shooting.

Thirteen people were killed and 29 wounded when a gunmen identified as Maj. Hassan Nidal opened fire on fellow military personnel on Nov. 5, 2009. Reports at the time said the gunman was shouting “Allah Akbhar” — God is great. Maj. Nidal also has been linked to al Qaeda terrorists in Yemen from emails intercepted by the FBI.

After the attack, however, the Pentagon refused to identify the shooting as a terrorist attack and labeled the incident “workplace violence” in what critics said was an example of Obama administration political correctness.

Mr. Hagel said in his written responses that a Defense Science Board was asked by the Pentagon to study ways to identify “behavioral indicators of violence and self-radicalization,” but it “could not determine a specific list of behaviors that would indicate risk of violent/extremist behavior.”

“If I am confirmed, I will review the implementation of the recommendations of the Fort Hood Review,” he said.

“The attack at Fort Hood was a tragedy,” he stated. “It is essential that the circumstances surrounding the attack not compromise the military’s core values regarding the free exercise of religion and treating every service member with dignity and respect.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/inside-the-ring-new-al-qaeda-threat/#ixzz2JZv2Rv1u
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[subscribe2]

The Party’s over! We’re like “Greece on Steroids”

January 30, 2013 in Uncategorized

Our Economy contracted -0.1% in the Last Quarter and the lamestream media is either yawning or rationalizing that there is no reason for panic or alarm! They excuse our precipitous GDP downturn even though the Barack Hussein Obama Administration injected enormous amounts of (borrowed) stimulus   money into the quarter to bolster his election campaign. 

 According to a Money News article yesterday, Controversial Interview Exposes 5 Signs Stocks Will Collapse in 2013 The Obama Campaign was accused of dirty tricks for banning a video that portrayed our economy in a negative light. 

“After putting $803,436 in Obama’s re-election campaign, a media giant attempted to keep Americans from seeing the video by banning it from their sites,” stated Aaron DeHoog, the financial publisher who is unapologetic for the release of controversial footage that has gained international attention.

The Obama Campaign outright LIED to us as this October 26 report will show:

“While we have more work to do, today’s GDP growth report, showing the 13th straight quarter of growth, is more evidence that our economy continues to come back from the worst recession since the Great Depression under President Obama’s leadership,” Obama campaign spokesman Adam Fetcher said in a statement.

Meanwhile the Middle and Upper Class along with businesses face even a greater economic challenge this quarter with Federal State and Local government’s out of control spending and the piling on of new taxes to confiscate even more of our treasure so as to  replenish their constituency’s  depleted political campaign coffers.

Meanwhile, “We the People” get the funny end of the lollipop stuck to us. Can we believe anything that this Administration says about our Economy, about the Fiscal Cliff, about the Debt Ceiling, about our Military, about Benghazi, about Terrorism, about National Security, about, Israel, about Gun Control, about the Environment, about Global Warming, about Illegal Immigration, about redistribution of Wealth, about Iran’s Nuclear Threat, about UN Treaties  …?

You be the Judge.

NEGATIVE GROWTH: ECONOMY TANKS IN FOURTH QUARTER


Email Article

Print ArticleSend a Tip

by JOHN NOLTE 30 Jan 2013, 6:16 AM PDT 273 POST A COMMENT

Yesterday, Breitbart News reported that consumer confidencehad dropped to its lowest level in almost two years. Much of the media spun the number as the result of a payroll tax increase that hit millions who were repeatedly told by Obama that only the rich would see their taxes increase. Surprise! But the spin didn’t explain why consumer confidence had steadily dropped during the months prior. Well, now we know: The American economy has taken a nosedive.

For the first time in over three years, the U.S. Gross Domestic Product shrank. Between October and December of 2012, the GDP had a negative growth of 0.1. And let’s remember that this is the same quarter where we saw the media go into hyper-drive to spin Obama’s anemic job and GDP growth into a repeat of the Roaring Twenties.

The problem with the American economy is that Obama and his media can’t fool it. Happy talk and spin and distractions about contraception don’t create jobs or growth. You might be able to fool legions of people into voting a certain way, but you can’t fool them into spending and hiring and investing.

Apparently, though, the media and Obama have managed to fool themselves. Even theWall Street Journal calls today’s news “unexpected.” And anyone who watched Obama’s Inauguration speech knows that his failed economy and the millions suffering in it are either not on his radar or of no concern whatsoever. Obama spoke of many things, but not the economy. He’s in a war to win the culture, not to win anyone a job to lift them out of poverty.

The media is just as bad. The biggest story in our country today should be the increase in poverty and an unemployment crisis so dire our labor force has shrunk to thirty-year lows. But neither will speak of it. We do, however, know all about some idiot and his phony girlfriend. We know all about a “heckle” that didn’t happen. One wonders which is the bread and which is the circus.

The pickle both Obama and the media have put themselves in, though, is this: If either makes the economy a priority, that’s an admission Obama’s economy is in trouble. And so we find ourselves in a situation we’ve seen in other countries where the state and media have aligned — a situation where we’re told a bad economy is a good economy, and the victims of this propaganda are those suffering in a bad economy no one wants to admit exists.

Already the media’s spinning this GDP report in a way that says our economy tanked because the government didn’t spend enough. That’s right, annual trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see, but the media push to protect the State from blame and to use this terrible news as a way to further grow the State, is already on.

NBC’s Chief White House Correspondent, Chuck Todd, just assured America this was a one-time economic anomaly and that prosperity is right around the corner. If a job had been created every time a member of Obama’s media said this, we’d have full employment today.

We live in interesting and dangerous times.

Testimony You Won’t See On CNN or Read About in the Boston Globe or NY Times

January 29, 2013 in Uncategorized

Mark Mattioli, the father of  Sandy Hook Elementary shooting victim James Mattioli,  gave moving testimony in front of a Hartford Connecticut Gun Violence Task Force. A couple of  quoted highlights that you will not see in the lamestream media follow.

Mark stated that, “I think that there is much more promise for a solution in identifying, researching and creating solutions along the lines of mental health issues. I think there is a lot of work that can be done there. “

“The Problem is not Gun Laws.”

2nd Amendment Opponent Mayor Bloomberg’s Armed Security Accosts Journalist

January 29, 2013 in Uncategorized

Our country has now evolved such that there are one set of rules for our new elite “Ruling Political Class” and another for us, the  new common “Serfs Class”.

Our Political Class has become a do as I say not as I do elite.  Rabid anti-gun Anti-2nd Amendment Mayor Michael Bloomberg surrounded by 5 hefty security guards , leaving a conference, is asked a gun control question by a reporter,  Jason Matter, who was also an attendee. Jason is immediately accosted by Bloomberg’s  guards  and then the guards  continue to harass and intimidate him even after he walks away down the street.

 

 

HUMAN EVENTS BLOG

GOOD NEWS: MAYOR BLOOMBERG’S JOURNALIST REPELLENT SYSTEM IS WORKING PERFECTLY

By:  John Haywood
1/28/2013 12:55 PM

My old friend Jason Mattera, now with the Andrea Tantaros show, participated in a stress test of New York mayor Michael Bloomberg’s journalist repellent systems, and I’m pleased to report that the system is functioning beautifully.  The Mayor is protected from a number of things he would prefer his citizens remain vulnerable to, including impertinent questions.  He doesn’t seem any more eager to declare his own personal “gun-free zone” than most other gun control zealots, but he’s strongly in favor of journalism-free zones:

You can tell Jason is mellowing out, because in his wild youth he would have done the interview with a Big Gulp in his hand.  If he gets a chance to conduct a follow-up interview, I’m hoping he’ll ask if Bloomberg has ever participated in Barack Obama’s “frequent skeet shoots,” which I believe look something like this:

It’s remarkable how reliably the “why won’t you disarm your bodyguards?” question discombobulates the anti-Second Amendment crowd.  They really don’t have a comfortable focus-group-friendly answer to it.  The coldly logical responses – “because I’m more important than you, so I need protection” – simply do not sit well with the public.  That includes people who might otherwise be content to ride in the gun-control bandwagon, until they hit this particular intellectual speed bump.

The question is not, “Why should you have a professional security detail while I must defend myself?”  If that were the issue at hand, it wouldn’t be tough to answer the question.  Instead, the ruling class finds it difficult to explain why they should enjoy armed protection while the rest of us are forbidden to defend ourselves at all, or must do so within an environment of complex restrictions that put us at a pronounced disadvantage against attackers.  This position might be easier to defend if the Little People faced no significant risk of criminal attack, but that’s obviously not the case.  It’s especially obvious if you know more about the recent history of law-abiding citizens defending themselves with firearms than the national media wants you to know.

Serious students of American liberty read the Second Amendment and see the right of individual citizens to defend themselves, and their families, against tyranny and barbarism.  It is increasingly offensive to hear people with armed security details lecture us on how it’s really more like a provisional license to shoot ducks and clay pigeons.

Update: You’ll have to make do with the artistic representation of Obama’s frequent skeet shooting sessions provided by Messrs. Brooks and Korman, because the White House refuses to provide photos of our gun-slinging President filling the sky with hot lead.

 

Read the entire post and comments here: http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/28/good-news-mayor-bloombergs-journalist-repellent-system-is-working-perfectly/

[subscribe2]

Barack Hussein Obama Continues His Unprecedented Personal Attacks Against Fox News

January 28, 2013 in Uncategorized

bill_of_rights_page1Having launched an attack against our Bill of Rights 2nd Amendment entitlement to bear Arms, Barack Hussein Obama is now carrying out a vendetta against our 1st Amendment Rights of  “…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…”.  Never in our memory has a U.S. President so openly, so divisively attempted to divide and polarize our country.  After Barack Hussein Obama graduated from that Calderon of radical Progressivism Harvard Law School, he was hired, first as an instructor, and then as an adjunct professor of law, at the University of Chicago Law School. As adjunct professor he taught three courses, including Constitutional Law, from 1992 to 2004. One could argue that perhaps Obama had a clandestine purpose in choosing Constitutional Law; that is to undermine and dismantle the Constitution.  Whether or not you agree that this was his intent, you couldn’t disagree that as a Constitutional Lawyer, Professor and President sworn to uphold the Constitution, he is singlehandedly dismantling it. Why? So that he can redistribute OUR Country’s  WEALTH!

In September last year, Glenn Beck Stated, Back in 1998, Barack Obama was recorded saying, “I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution.”

“He actually believes in redistribution. Okay. This is really the one thing about Barack Obama that he has told the truth about over and over and over again, but nobody will believe him! Nobody! He said it before the last campaign,” Glenn said.

You’d have to be some sort of amazing deity to grow up surrounded by Marxists, communists, socialists, people who are on the FBI watch list because they’re so dangerous. His parents, his grandparents, his mentor, his college professors. He talked about hanging around with them all this college, the Marxists, the radical feminists, the anticolonial isolated. Even his spiritual 20‑year mentor, Jeremiah Wright, all the most important people in his life were strong believers in Marxism and Marxist principles. What chance did this guy ever have to understand capitalism? He’s never been around it. Never.

http://youtu.be/nohChZgtwb8

 

In the Throes of Anarchy – Obama’s Union-Controlled NLRB Thumbs Nose At Court Ruling

January 28, 2013 in Uncategorized

“Time and again President Obama has chosen to govern through executive fiat, and today a federal court has taken action to help rein in this abuse of power. The Obama labor board must cease all activity until qualified nominees have been constitutionally appointed to the board. Any attempt to continue this battle in federal court will only prolong the uncertainty the president’s unilateral action has created for America’s workers and job creators.”    

The  above statement released  by U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce Chairman John Kline (R-MN) and Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor, and Pensions Chairman Phil Roe (R-TN) and the following is but just another example of how  the Barack Hussein Obama Administration is placing OUR Constitution  and our Natural Rights under SIEGE.

The  2012 National Defense Authorization Act now  allows the military to detain without a trial any American Citizen accused of being a terrorist, or of supporting terrorists who plot attacks against the United States. Just imagine  how this provision could be used against the Tea Party, for example, who have been deemed “Terrorists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In the following video, a prominent director with the Southern Poverty Law Center speaking to a group of university students, stated in October 2012 that  parts of the Tea Party group are “filled with racists.”

The Obama Administration is implementing  a program of incremental  disembowelment of our Constitution and especially our Bill of Rights.  His attacks are not limited to our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Barack Hussein Obama has now instituted a new litmus test for our Military’s Top Brass:  

    “Will You Fire on American Citizens?”

Obama’s incremental disembowelment and  usurpations of power  will continue until  “We the People” develop the Political Will and Political Courage to seize back our Constitution and our Country.

Obama’s Union-Controlled NLRB Thumbs Nose At Court Ruling, Chairman Vows To March Onward

By: LaborUnionReport (Diary)  |  January 25th, 2013 at 09:15 PM  |

NLRB-picketing
Following Friday morning’s appeals court ruling that Barack Obama’s “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unconstitutional, union attorney (and current NLRB chairman) Mark Gaston Pearce vowed to ignore the court’s ruling.

In a statement posted on the NLRB’s website, Pearce stated:

“The Board respectfully disagrees with today’s decision and believes that the President’s position in the matter will ultimately be upheld. It should be noted that this order applies to only one specific case, Noel Canning, and that similar questions have been raised in more than a dozen cases pending in other courts of appeals.

In the meantime, the Board has important work to do. The parties who come to us seek and expect careful consideration and resolution of their cases, and for that reason, we will continue to perform our statutory duties and issue decisions.”

“The parties who come to us seek and expect careful consideration and resolution of their cases…”

Wait. What?!?

Mr. Pearce must be referring to union bosses ‘expecting careful consideration’ with his statement, because he surely couldn’t mean employers expect careful consideration before the union-controlled NLRB.

Heck, the vast majority of employers already know they face not much more than a kangaroo court with the NLRB.

That’s the reason so many employers are having to appeal their cases to the circuit courts these days.

Related:

______________________

“Truth isn’t mean. It’s truth.”
Andrew Breitbart (1969-2012)

Get LUR updates on Twitter.

Tags: Mark PearceNational Labor Relations BoardNLRB

Gun Control – Hypocrisy On The Hill – Gov’t Officials Won’t Be Affected By Gun Ban

January 27, 2013 in Uncategorized

Gun HGun Control – Hypocrisy On The Hill – Gov’t Officials Exempt From Feinstein’s Bill
Gun Control – Hypocrisy On The Hill – Gov’t Officials Won’t Be Affected By Gun Ban
Lawmaker Want To Be Able To Protect Their Families, But Want To Take Away Your Right To Protect Your Families!

I Guess They Are More Important Then We are!

Are “Gun Free Zones” Really An Invitation To Kill People? – Huckabee

Gun Myths Debunked – Up In Arms Gun Control Debate Heats Up – Jessie Duff -Jeanine Pirro

 

Obama Violated The Constitution- Panel Rules Pres Violated The Constitution With Recess Appointments

January 25, 2013 in Uncategorized

obama vCourt opinion throws labor panel rulings, operation into question as White House slams decision
Published January 25, 2013 FoxNews.com

WASHINGTON –  A federal court’s ruling  Friday that President Obama violated the Constitution with recess appointments  to the National Labor Relations Board opened the door to claims that a host of  rulings and other past appointments may be in question, as the White House  blasted the decision as unfounded.

The administration is expected to appeal. Though White House Press Secretary  Jay Carney would not confirm that, he called the ruling “novel and  unprecedented.”

“It contradicts 150 years of practice by Democratic and Republican  administrations. So we respectfully but strongly disagree with the ruling,”  Carney said.

He denied that the ruling would have any bearing on other decisions and  appointees. “This is one court, one case, one company,” Carney  stressed.

But Republican lawmakers who have railed against the administration’s recess  appointments, as well as the often union-favoring decisions of the NLRB,  rejected that view.

“Today’s ruling will certainly cause other opinions unconstitutionally issued  by the board to be invalidated,” Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said. “The  unconstitutionally appointed members of the NLRB should do the right thing and  step down.”

He also urged the NLRB to take the “responsible course” and stop issuing  decisions “until a constitutionally sound quorum can be established.”

The quorum issue is critical, as the NLRB only has three members — the  typically five-member board is only allowed to issue decisions when it has at  least three members. The court decision pertained to three separate appointees,  two of whom are still on the board. If those two left, there would be just one  validly appointed member — effectively shutting the board down.

If the decision stands, it could also invalidate hundreds of board decisions  made over the past year.

The ruling also threw into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard  Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment,  made in early January along with the three NLRB appointments in question, has  been challenged in a separate case.

“The recess appointments are invalid,” C. Boyden Gray, former White House  counsel to former President George H.W. Bush, said in a statement. He said the  questions surrounding Cordray also cast “serious doubt” on the actions taken by  the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Carney and the NLRB claimed the case would not affect the board’s  operations.

NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce said the board “respectfully disagrees with  today’s decision and believes that the president’s position in the matter will  ultimately be upheld.”

He said “we will continue to perform our statutory duties and issue  decisions.”

Carney also cited “280-plus intra-session recess appointments” dating back to  1867, suggesting the court ruling flies in the face of this history.

The suit had been brought by a local business in Washington state challenging  the National Labor Relations Board. Supported by dozens of Senate Republicans,  the case argued the president didn’t have the power to make three appointments  to the NLRB.

Attorneys for the Obama administration argued that he had the authority  because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. The  Constitution allows for such appointments without Senate approval when Congress  is in recess.

But during that time, GOP lawmakers argued, the Senate technically had stayed  in session because it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called “pro  forma” sessions.

GOP lawmakers used the tactic — as Democrats had done in the past —  specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power to install  members to the labor board. The White House argued that the pro forma sessions  — some lasting less than a minute — were a sham.

But the three-judge panel for the Court of Appeals in the District of  Columbia said the appointments were not valid. The judges, all appointed by  Republican presidents, ruled that during one of those pro forma sessions on Jan.  3, the Senate officially convened its second session of the 112th Congress, as  required by the Constitution.

“Either the Senate is in session, or it is in the recess. If it has broken  for three days within an ongoing session, it is not in ‘the Recess,'” the panel  said.

The court said the president could only fill vacancies with the recess  appointment procedure if the openings arise when the Senate is in an official  recess, which it defined as the break between sessions of Congress.

“Considering the text, history and structure of the Constitution, these  appointments were invalid from their inception,” a panel said.

Republican lawmakers lauded the decision.

“Today’s ruling reaffirms that the Constitution is above political party or  agenda, despite what the Obama administration seems to think,” Sen. Orrin Hatch,  R-Utah, said. “With this ruling, the D.C. Circuit has soundly rejected the Obama  administration’s flimsy interpretation of the law, and will go a long way toward  restoring the constitutional separation of powers.”

In early January, Obama appointed Deputy Labor Secretary Sharon Block, union  lawyer Richard Griffin and NLRB counsel Terence Flynn to fill vacancies on the  NLRB, giving it a full contingent for the first time in more than a year. Block  and Griffin are Democrats, while Flynn is a Republican. Flynn stepped down from  the board last year.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/25/court-obama-appointments-are-unconstitutional/?test=latestnews#ixzz2J21Iy6yd

Amnesty Coming Your Way?

January 25, 2013 in Uncategorized

illegal-alien-amnestySenator Marco Rubio in an interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox talked about his plan for “Undocumented  Immigrants.”

Even our so called  rising star Republican political class can’t help but use the same political speak of the Progressive Left, who seek to legitimatize criminal  behavior. According to Title  8 Section Section 1325 of the  US Code of Federal Regulations:

“Improper Entry by Alien,” any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

  • Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
  • Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
  • Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
  • has committed a federal crime.”

Further, one has to question the political motives of Senator Rubio. After all, a similar  Amnesty law to that proposed by Rubio et al, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was signed into law by President Reagan on November 6, 1986 who  called it,  “the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952.”.

IRCA:

  • required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status.
  • made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants.
  • legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants.
  • legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt. About three million illegal immigrants were granted legal status.

The law  turned out to be a complete and utter failure  when you consider that, it did nothing to stem the flow of Illegal Immigration. It  is estimated that we now have 4  to 6 times  the 1986  illegal Alien population,  residing in  the United States when IRCA became law.  Thus Senator Marco Rubio follows  in the footsteps of his political elite  predecessors and ignores George Santayana admonition that, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”  

” There is much talk about the need for “comprehensive immigration reform”. With that in mind it would be useful to review what we as a nation learned, or should have learned, from our last big experiment in the field, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).” (Ref: Center for Immigration Studies Article January 2013)

In MA alone 17,000 EBT card holders were unable to be identified in 2012. What percentage of these lost EBT cardholders are  illegal Aliens? What about the fraud perpetrated  by Illegal Aliens that are on Welfare, on Medicare and perpetrate felonious. Criminals that are stealing our hard earned treasure at a time when America faces debt crises after debt crisis and at at a time when every level of government can barely manage to provide care for its legal citizenry. The effect of Amnesty on our economy at this time would be nothing short of devestating.

Doesn’t Senator Rubio understand that the end game for illegal Aliens is a quid pro quo relationship, wherein the Democrat Party keeps them as a permanent government dependent underclass in return for their votes and political support. If Amnesty were to passe, these  Illegal Aliens would then become a permanent dependent American underclass. These demographic trends have been causing dramatic political changes in our Southwestern states and if Amnesty were to be passed, this trend will befall our state as well.

The following is an article from Real Clear Politics:

Real Clear Politics

Rubio Finds Support on the Right for Immigration Plan

By Scott Conroy  – January 22, 2013

With leaders from both parties calling on Congress to take up immigration reform this year, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has been meeting with news outlets and conservative opinion-shapers to lay out his vision for a plan that would offer temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants. Those applying would have to pass background checks and other tests designed to eventually lead from permanent residency to citizenship.

Though he has not yet introduced legislation, in trumpeting his sweeping proposals Rubio has seized a torch that in recent years burned several similarly ambitious Republican politicians. But in a sign of how quickly the parameters of the debate on this issue have shifted since President Obama’s re-election, prominent conservatives — many of whom were vocal in their opposition to previous similar plans — have been lavishing praise on Rubio’s ideas for reform.

On his nationally syndicated radio show, Sean Hannity said that Rubio’s plan was “probably the most thoughtful bill that I have heard heretofore,” while Fox News colleague Bill O’Reilly called the program “a good one.” Other purveyors of conservative thought, from Grover Norquist to Ralph Reed to David Brody, have also weighed in with positive reactions.

The most important seal of approval thus far may have come from Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, who had until recently been tied to 2012 running mate Mitt Romney’s policy of opposing “amnesty” for illegal immigrants (whom Romney had suggested could be encouraged to “self-deport”).

But Ryan has made clear that he, too, is ready to pivot on the issue.

“Senator Rubio is exactly right on the need to fix our broken immigration system,” Ryan wrote last week in a post on his Facebook page. “I support the principles he’s outlined: modernization of our immigration laws; stronger security to curb illegal immigration; and respect for the rule of law in addressing the complex challenge of the undocumented population. Our future depends on an immigration system that works.”

Rubio spent much of the first half of last year trying to drum up support for his plan to offer visas to the children of illegal immigrants who have served in the military or attended college — an alternative to the Democratic-backed DREAM Act. But when the president issued an executive order that achieved similar ends, Rubio criticized him for having sidestepped Congress.

Since Obama’s re-election, which came with the support of more than 70 percent of Hispanic voters, Rubio’s team has been heartened by the stark sea change they have seen on the issue.

“Overall, the reaction’s been really positive, and there really hasn’t been any significant opposition to it,” Rubio spokesperson Alex Conant said of the senator’s plan. “People have made good points about the proposals, and we welcome a healthy debate. This isn’t something [where] the senator just woke up one morning and decided to do. He’s been thinking about these issues for years now.”

Rubio’s goal is to pass immigration legislation this year, and the political implications for the rising GOP star could be long-lasting. The first-term senator is widely expected to run for president in 2016. If he does, his first political hurdle to overcome would likely be in Iowa, where conservative hardliners on illegal immigration have long held sway.

In the 2008 nominating fight, John McCain’s efforts to promote comprehensive immigration reform were perhaps his greatest challenge in Iowa — where he finished a distant fourth in that year’s caucuses. He was able to recover and win the Republican nomination, but immigration became an unshakeable albatross for a more recent GOP White House hopeful.

When Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggested in a primary debate that people who disagreed with a Texas law offering in-state tuition rates to children of illegal immigrants “don’t have a heart,” the resulting criticism from conservatives grew into a firestorm in the Hawkeye State. Perry’s opponents and right-leaning activists hammered him for the comment, which he was forced to spend precious time on the stump trying to explain away.

But Republican consultant Bob Haus, who helped run Perry’s Iowa campaign, predicted that Rubio’s efforts on immigration reform would not sting him in a similar manner, if he does run in 2016.

“There are now more Republican leaders who are working to craft sensible, workable solutions than trying to simply derail everything,” Haus said. “These leaders are changing the debate. Republicans aren’t just against everything related to immigration. Now they’re for something. That signals a paradigm shift, and it will be a good one for the Republican Party.”

Despite those shifting sentiments on the right, however, there will no doubt be more than a few influential Republican voices in Iowa who remain resistant to Rubio’s proposals. Steve Deace, an influential conservative radio host in the nation’s first voting state, made clear on Twitter last week that he had no intention of getting behind Rubio’s plan.

“Strangely I am not reassured by Bill O’Reilly’s endorsement of Marco Rubio’s amnesty..err..immigration plan,” Deace tweeted.

During the 2012 primaries, Romney largely succeeded in his efforts to stake out a position to the right of his Republican opponents on the issue. But his short-term political gain became a Pyrrhic victory when the general election came around and the Obama campaign was able to paint him as an extremist on the issue.

Some former members of Romney’s team are among those taking that lesson to heart, seeing Rubio’s efforts as both politically savvy and a near necessity for the GOP’s future.

David Kochel, who helmed Romney’s near-victory in the 2012 Iowa caucuses, suggested that Rubio and other Republicans with their eye on the White House are wise to demonstrate a willingness to be a part of the solution to a difficult challenge.

“I think there will always be some folks in the conservative entertainment industry who will bang away at Republicans who want to work on immigration,” Kochel said. “But it’s a real problem, and not just a party problem. Time to look it in the eye and solve it. We can do it without compromising our principles.”

Read the entire article and comments at:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/22/rubio_finds_support_on_the_right_for_immigration_plan_116748-2.html

2nd Amendment Under Attack – More Detail NRA Responds To Sweeping New Gun Control – Megyn Kelly

January 24, 2013 in Uncategorized

gun bDemocrats introduce expanded  assault-weapons ban

Published January 24, 2013 FoxNews.com

Congressional Democrats introduced a new and broader assault-weapons ban  Thursday, in a vivid press conference that included a display of various weapons  they want to outlaw.

It was a measure that was quickly condemned by the National Rifle Association  as an assault on the Constitution, “instead of prosecuting criminals or fixing  our broken mental health system.”

“The American people know gun bans do not work and we are confident Congress  will reject Senator Feinstein’s wrong-headed approach,” spokeswoman Andrew  Arulanandam said.

The measure was written by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who was behind  the original 1994 assault-weapons ban which expired in 2004. It marks the first  major legislative step since President Obama, in the wake of the Newtown school  shooting, called for new gun control measures including a new and stronger  assault-weapons ban.

“Our weak gun laws allow these mass killings to be carried out again, and  again, and again in our country,” Feinstein said. “Weapons, designed originally  for the military to kill large numbers of people in close combat, are replicated  for civilian use.”

She said the bill she and her colleagues are introducing would bar the “sale,  transfer, manufacture and importation” of assault weapons. It would also ban  magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

As part of the press conference, lawmakers displayed an array of weapons,  including a Colt AR-15, a semi-automatic assault rifle, and an Intratec TEC-9, a  semi-automatic handgun.

The move comes after NBC News host David Gregory faced an investigation for  displaying a banned magazine on a Sunday show in the District — but the Senate  sergeant-at-arms office said the weapons were displayed Thursday in “compliance”  with all applicable laws.

The office said they are “authentic” and in the custody of the Philadelphia  and D.C. police departments, which brought them.

The weapons ban, though, faces long odds even after last month’s mass school  shooting in the state of Connecticut.

In a statement, Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said the proposal would have  done “nothing” to prevent the Newtown tragedy and vowed to fight to defeat the  bill.

“Washington politicians shouldn’t be taking advantage of recent tragedy to  try to push an aggressive gun control agenda. Real assault weapons — machine  guns — are already functionally illegal, and they have been since 1934,” he  said.

The last ban expired in 2004 when Congress refused to renew it under pressure  from the National Rifle Association, a gun advocacy group. There’s continuing  disagreement about the effectiveness of the original assault-weapons ban, and  measures like beefed-up background checks on gun sales may be more likely to  pass.

Definitions of what qualifies as an assault weapon have varied over time and  across states.

According to a summary from Feinstein’s office, her bill would place bans on  120 “specifically named firearms,” as well as certain other semiautomatic guns  — and those with a fixed magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds.

While the 1994 law defined an assault weapon as one that had, in most cases,  a detachable magazine and at least two characteristics as set by Congress, the  new bill would define an assault weapon as one that meets just one of those  characteristics.

Some of those characteristics for rifles in the old law included a pistol  grip, a folding stock and a bayonet mount. But the Feinstein bill would strip  what her office describes as “easy-to-remove” characteristics like the bayonet  mount from that list.

Feinstein’s office says the bill would grandfather in weapons legally owned  before enactment and exempt more than 900 “specifically named weapons” for  hunting or sporting purposes.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/24/democrats-reintroduce-assault-weapons-ban/#ixzz2IwipLnPB