Say hello!!!!!!!

Write us at:

Tuesday, March 03, 2015

Write us at:

Moe Lauzier’s

Issues of the Day

How long before Obama rides off into the sunset? Click below…


Long before the story of Chris Kyle made him famous via the silver screen, there was Chris Kyle, retired sniper, and hero to disabled veterans across the nation.
As much of a hero as he was out in the field, he was as much a hero back at home.
That’s part of why the story of his tragic demise at the hands of a Marine veteran is so tragic. He was killed by the man he was trying to help.
And now justice has been served as his killer has been found guilty.
The Daily Caller writes:
Eddie Ray Routh, 27, was found guilty of capital murder by a Texas jury in the murder of former Navy SEAL Chris Kyle and Chad Littlefield.
It took the jury only two hours to reach a unanimous verdict. Routh was immediately sentenced to life in prison without parole.
Kyle rose to fame as the most lethal sniper in American history with more than 160 confirmed kills. His autobiography, “American Sniper,” was made into the highest grossing war movie in history by director Clint Eastwood.
Kyle and Littlefield were murdered on Feb. 2, 2013, when the took Routh, also a veteran, to a gun range trying to help him with his post-traumatic stress. Routh shot Kyle and Littlefield in the back and head.
Routh has a history of mental illness and claimed he was legally insane at the time of killings.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott took to Twitter to express the feelings of millions of Americans.
We can only hope that Taya Kyle and the rest of his family will be able to use this verdict as a chance to move on and heal.
We thank the Kyle’s along with all other service members and service member’s family for their incredible sacrifice.
May God bless them.

When Harry Met Barack

In the 1989 movie, “When Harry Met Sally,” there is a famous restaurant scene in which Sally (Meg Ryan) and Harry (Billy Crystal) are having lunch when the subject turns to sex, and Sally feels called upon to prove that women can fake orgasms. Harry doesn’t believe it, so Sally starts to moan and groan and thrash around in her chair, seemingly oblivious to her surroundings. When the waiter approaches an elderly woman (director Rob Reiner’s mother, Estelle) and asks for her order, she indicates Sally and says, “I’ll have what she’s having.”
That pretty much sums up how I felt when I heard Barack Obama recently claim that the world is getting more peaceful and tolerant, and that Islamic terrorism is basically a hoax trumped up by the media. Or to paraphrase FDR, he would have us believe that we have nothing to fear but Fox News itself.
I gave up cigarettes over 40 years ago, but I might consider taking it up again if I could smoke what the stoner-in-chief is puffing on. While playing down the creeps who have brought the crucifixion out of mothballs, Obama would have us believe that the greatest peril we face is global-warming.
I grew up on movies about scientific geniuses – people like Pasteur, Edison, Wassell, Reed, Ehrlich and the Curies. The way you could tell they were geniuses was that they plowed ahead in spite of the doubters, and the way they tried and failed countless times before eventually proving their theories.
What they did not do was insist that the science was settled and that those who questioned them had evil intentions. What’s more, none of them looked or sounded like Al Gore, who apparently received a “D” in the only college science class he ever took before waking up one day to find himself the world’s greatest climatologist. I guess the Wizard of Oz must have left his PhD on the nightstand.
Moreover, none of the real scientists told lies about melting icebergs and vanishing polar bears. They did not predict that the ocean level would rise 20 feet and they did not label CO2 – the gas that plant life requires for survival – a pollutant. And, finally, they did not change the name of the deadly peril from something specific like “global warming” to something as vague and ephemeral as “climate change” as soon as it was discovered that the earth was cooling down.
Another thing they never did was begin referring to carbon dioxide simply as carbon because they were aware that people would associate carbon with the dirty smoke that spews from our car’s exhaust pipe.
Still another clue is that none of them became billionaires as Al Gore has by selling carbon dispensations to ecological sinners, the way the Catholic Church made a fortune of its own in the Middle Ages. In Gore’s case, he sells them to those wealthy loons who feel guilty about living in large homes, driving huge cars and flying hither and thither in private jets, the way the likes of Robert Kennedy, Jr., Michael Moore and Al Gore, do. In fact, Gore is such an inveterate hypocrite, he makes a point of paying for his own carbon footprints, but he pays it to a company he owns, thereby moving his dough from one pocket to another.
The essence of a moral dilemma for wealthy environmentalists is that the polar bears they believe are disappearing because man is melting their natural habitat are the ones who feast on seal pups. As you may recall, these same people used to go nuts over fur traders killing the adorable baby seals for their pelts.
These days, non-scientists are claiming that vaccines don’t really protect kids from life-threatening diseases, but, instead, like something concocted in Dr. Frankenstein’s cellar, make them autistic. In this case, their authority is an ex-Playboy centerfold named Jenny McCarthy, who at least looks better than Al Gore.
However, instead of dismissing it as poppycock, such eager-beaver presidential candidates as Chris Christie and Rand Paul, fearful of losing the flat-headed vote, started yammering about parental rights. While it’s true that those parents who don’t want their children vaccinated are free to home-school them, the fact remains that even the tots who don’t attend public school still socialize with other kids, and attend movies, sporting events and, alas, Disneyland.
As a safety precaution, keeping the unvaccinated out of public schools works about as well as releasing child molesters back into society on the condition that they live at least a thousand feet from a grammar school. Nobody ever seems to question the soundness of the plan even though the kids obviously have to pass by the pervert’s home on their way to school, the market or a playground.
When people point out the harm that Obama has done to America in six years, I think about the harm he has done to our perception of black people. I’m not talking about Michael Brown and the thugs who torched Ferguson or even the ignoramuses at the Grammy Awards who danced with their arms upraised in tribute to young Mr. Brown, who would still be alive if only he had raised his own arms and not charged the police officer like a rhino on steroids.
I’m referring to the college-educated likes of Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Susan Rice, Al Sharpton and Valerie Jarrett, who have done so much to make the black brand so toxic in 2015 America.
Although my beef with Fox is generally that far too much time is wasted on the likes of Juan Williams, Geraldo Rivera, Bob Beckel, Kirsten Powers and Alan Colmes, every once in a while Judge Andrew Napolitano, Fox’s go-to guy on legal matters, is the one making my head explode. Recently, while speaking to Megyn Kelly, he let us know that, like Obama, he wants Gitmo shut down.
Not only did he not make a semi-persuasive case for it, but he admitted that he had no idea what should be done with the 150 terrorists who are still there. However, that didn’t stop him from blasting Sen. Tom Cotton who had just told a Pentagon bureaucrat that he wished that the captive jihadists would rot in hell, but short of that he was willing to have them rot in Gitmo. It clearly irked Napolitano, but I suspect that my whole-hearted “Amen!” was merely one of many.
Although I didn’t vote for him, I’m embarrassed that our president claimed that the four people murdered at a kosher market in Paris were “random victims.” Even though their killer, Amedy Coulibay, phoned a TV station from the market to say: “I have 16 hostages and I have killed four of them, and I targeted them because they were Jewish,” it cuts no ice with Obama. Even the fact that the victims were all buried in Israel failed to clue the terminally clueless one.
But, then, I suppose if barbarians screaming “Allah Akbar” before killing Christians doesn’t make them Muslims, there’s no reason that shopping in a kosher market and being interred in Israel would suggest they might be Jews.
Finally, it seems only fair to ask: If 11 million illegals are, as the Democrats insist, such a boon to our economy, why didn’t they stay home and help the Mexican economy? And, more to the point, how is it that Mexico was so anxious to see these potential entrepreneurs leave, they gave them a boost over the fence?

The fatal flaw in the Iran dealThe fatal flaw in the Iran deal

WASHINGTON — A sunset clause?
The news from the nuclear talks with Iran was already troubling. Iran was being granted the “right to enrich.” It would be allowed to retain and spin thousands of centrifuges. It could continue construction of the Arak plutonium reactor. Yet so thoroughly was Iran stonewalling International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors that just last Thursday the IAEA reported its concern “about the possible existence in Iran of undisclosed … development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”
Bad enough. Then it got worse: News leaked Monday of the “sunset clause.” President Obama had accepted the Iranian demand that any restrictions on its program be time-limited. After which, the mullahs can crank up their nuclear program at will and produce as much enriched uranium as they want.
Sanctions lifted. Restrictions gone. Nuclear development legitimized. Iran would re-enter the international community, as Obama suggested in an interview last December, as “a very successful regional power.” A few years — probably around 10 — of good behavior and Iran would be home free.
The agreement thus would provide a predictable path to an Iranian bomb. Indeed, a flourishing path, with trade resumed, oil pumping and foreign investment pouring into a restored economy.
Meanwhile, Iran’s intercontinental ballistic missile program is subject to no restrictions at all. It’s not even part of these negotiations.
Why is Iran building them? You don’t build ICBMs in order to deliver sticks of dynamite. Their only purpose is to carry nuclear warheads. Nor does Iran need an ICBM to hit Riyadh or Tel Aviv. Intercontinental missiles are for reaching, well, other continents. North America, for example.
Such an agreement also means the end of nonproliferation. When a rogue state defies the world, continues illegal enrichment and then gets the world to bless an eventual unrestricted industrial-level enrichment program, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is dead. And regional hyperproliferation becomes inevitable as Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others seek shelter in going nuclear themselves.
Wasn’t Obama’s great international cause a nuclear-free world? Within months of his swearing-in, he went to Prague to so declare. He then led a 50-party Nuclear Security Summit, one of whose proclaimed achievements was having Canada give up some enriched uranium.
Having disarmed the Canadian threat, Obama turned to Iran. The deal now on offer to the ayatollah would confer legitimacy on the nuclearization of the most rogue of rogue regimes: radically anti-American, deeply jihadist, purveyor of terrorism from Argentina to Bulgaria, puppeteer of a Syrian regime that specializes in dropping barrel bombs on civilians. In fact, the Iranian regime just this week, at the apex of these nuclear talks, staged a spectacular attack on a replica U.S. carrier near the Strait of Hormuz.
Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war?
It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice maneuver: It’s either appeasement or war.
It’s not. True, there are no good choices, but Obama’s prospective deal is the worst possible. Not only does Iran get a clear path to the bomb but it gets sanctions lifted, all pressure removed and international legitimacy.
There is a third choice. If you are not stopping Iran’s program, don’t give away the store. Keep the pressure, keep the sanctions. Indeed, increase them. After all, previous sanctions brought Iran to its knees and to the negotiating table in the first place. And that was before the collapse of oil prices, which would now vastly magnify the economic effect of heightened sanctions.
Congress is proposing precisely that. Combined with cheap oil, it could so destabilize the Iranian economy as to threaten the clerical regime. That’s the opening. Then offer to renew negotiations for sanctions relief but from a very different starting point — no enrichment. Or, if you like, with a few token centrifuges for face-saving purposes.
And no sunset.
That’s the carrot. As for the stick, make it quietly known that the U.S. will not stand in the way of any threatened nation that takes things into its own hands. We leave the regional threat to the regional powers, say, Israeli bombers overflying Saudi Arabia.
Consider where we began: six U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program.
Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.

G’ day…
Ciao…….Moe Lauzier

Monday, March 02, 2015

Write us at:

Moe Lauzier’s

Issues of the Day

How long before Obama rides off into the sunset? Click below…

You’ve gotta see this...


Remember when the Obama state department floated the idea of bringing jobs to the middle east as a way to combat the growth of ISIS (and all Muslim violence)?
It was pretty ridiculous, especially when you consider Muslims who are committing violence are doing it to advance a religious ideology.  Not to get better economic conditions.
Well, now that the identity of ISIS’s Jihadi John is known, Obama’s going to have a tough time convincing anyone jobs will stop ISIS.
Reuters writes:
Investigators believe that the “Jihadi John” masked fighter who fronted Islamic State beheading videos is a British man named Mohammed Emwazi, two U.S. government sources said on Thursday.
He was born in Kuwait and comes from a prosperous family in London, where he grew up and graduated with a computer programming degree, according to the Washington Post.
In videos released by Islamic State (IS), the black-clad militant brandishing a knife and speaking with an English accent appears to have decapitated hostages including Americans, Britons and Syrians.
The Washington Post said Emwazi, who used the videos to threaten the West and taunt leaders such as President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron, was believed to have traveled to Syria around 2012 and to have later joined IS.
Well, would you look at that… A wealthy Brit decided he would take up arms and join the cause of ISIS.
Emwazi had it all and he left it for a “higher calling.” You can’t make stuff like this up and here we have Obama and his crew talking incessantly about the need for economic opportunity to halt the growth of ISIS.
It’s obviously just rhetoric at this point.
Obama is refusing to target ISIS, or Islam for that matter, as the real vehicle behind the violence.

Obama's Power Grab to Ban Ammo in Full Swing. Only YOU Can Stop Him!

In a familiarly troubling pattern, the Obama administration's wanton crusade against the Second Amendment marches on.  You must act NOW if we are to stop them in their tracks! In an attempt to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is moving to ban a whole class of common rifle ammunition with a radical reinterpretation of a nearly 30-year-old law regulating so-called “armor piercing” ammunition.

The BATFE’s new “Framework” would prohibit the manufacturing, importation, and sale of M855 ball ammunition, one of the most popular cartridges for the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America.  The Obama Administration's repeated attempts to outlaw the AR-15 and other firearms have been unsuccessful, so they're attempting to do what they see as the next best thing--ban one of the most popular types of ammunition the AR-15 uses.

Old but funny
The Lone Ranger and Tonto go camping in the desert. After they got their tent all set up, both men fell sound asleep.
Some hours later, Tonto wakes the Lone Ranger and says, 'Kemosabe, look toward sky, what you see?
'The Lone Ranger replies, 'I see millions of stars.'
‘What that tell you?' asked Tonto.
The Lone Ranger ponders for a minute then says:
'Astronomically speaking, it tells me there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets.
Astrologically, it tells me that Saturn is in Leo.

Time wise, it appears to be approximately a quarter past three in the morning.
Theologically, the Lord is all-powerful and we are small and insignificant.

Meteorologically, it seems we’ll have a beautiful day tomorrow.
What's it tell you, Tonto?'
"You dumber than an Obama voter. It mean someone stole the tent."


Even with the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in full swing here in the Washington, D.C., area, the imminent arrival of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before Congress, amid continued snubs and insults from our “Muslim in chief” and his minions, like National Security Adviser Susan Rice and her equally anti-Judeo Christian cohort Secretary of State John Kerry, Republican presidential candidates and the conservative media generally continue to play a politically correct game of dodging the real issue concerning the rise in terrorism worldwide.
Rather than calling it like it is – “Islamic terrorism” – candidates like Govs. Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal, Sens. Rand Paul and Ted Cruz and the rest of the Republican intelligentsia continue to shade the real truth. The real truth is that we Christians and Jews are at war with Islam, as there is no such thing as “radical Islam.”
Sure there are good Muslims in the world. These are the Muslims who have broken away from the clear teachings of the Quran and who no longer believe that Allah and Muhammad, his degenerate and murderous prophet, stand for nothing but ridding the world of all “infidels.” These are the Muslims who no longer believe that it is required under their former “faith” to lie to accomplish the ends of Islam, which is total world domination of Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and anyone else who holds a different view of God.
I am tired of hearing and seeing our so-called leaders pussyfoot around this hard reality, particularly given the dangerous world we now live in, with a president who sees himself as Muslim and acts accordingly to protect his brothers, including terrorists. I could write a multi-volume book at this point documenting Hussein Obama’s links to Islam and his actions that harm Christians and Jews, but there is no need. Anyone who is lucid, thinking and alive knows the real truth at this point. So I am sick and tired of our conservative brothers in particular shading this truth. I am sick and tired of even fine journalists like Charles Krauthammer, who I admire for his intelligence and logic, dodging this reality, by saying that Obama simply does not know what he is doing and can’t define the enemy, thereby giving hope that someday our Muslim in chief might finally get it.
It’s one thing for our current occupant of the White House to, in his Islamic tradition, lie to us. It’s another thing for our would-be Republican presidential candidates and their conservative boosters and sycophants in the media to mess with our minds and not call it like it is.
Today’s column is short, because I do not need to say more. Speaking from my own perspective and not Freedom Watch, the public-interest group that takes on our corrupt government establishment, as I did when I ran another group I founded, Judicial Watch, I will not vote for any presidential candidate who plays these mind games with We the People.
What needs to be said is that the United States and Christians and Jews in general are at war with Islamic terrorism, that this bogus so-called religion has declared war on us, and that we will win this war no matter what it takes. If that means giving Israel the go ahead to use tactical nuclear weapons to eliminate Iranian nuclear facilities or sending our ground troops into Iraq, Syria, Libya and other Middle Eastern countries to exterminate the Islamic cockroaches of ISIS and their allies, so be it.
To end World War II, we dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese islands of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today, we face an even greater threat than Nazi-Japanese intentions to rule the world, and it’s time that the would-be presidents at CPAC this week and their minions in the conservative media start telling it like it is!

Why Do Gays, Feminists, Actors, Comedians And Whiny Atheists Give Islam A Pass?

For the life of me, I can’t figure out why sassy gays, frothy feminists, liberals in Hollywood, late night comedians and whiny atheists continue to rail against Christians while saying jack-squat against Islam.
Look, I get why Obama skips slamming Islam. He grew up a Muslim. He’s got quite the Muslim name. And … despite all of his Jesus talk and twenty-years of being under the tutelage of Reverend “Goddam America” Jeremiah Wright’s discipleship, everything he says and does screams he’s way chummier with Mohammed than Jesus.
So … I get Obama’s reticence to rebuke the Religion Of Perpetual Rage -- but what about you aforementioned cuties? Why so silent, my darlings? Could it be that thou has shriveled ‘nads and you’re terrified of taking on the real “religious” threat to your liberty and prefer to appear to be hardcore by beating on a non-threatening soft target? Is that it?
I mean, c’mon folks. Even the dullest among you have to concede that Christians represent zero material threat to your life/freedoms and thus your focus on them is about as ill-fitting as a small, A-cup bustier on Oprah.
Christianity doesn’t promote violent jihad. Christianity doesn’t auger for Neil Patrick Harris’ death. Christianity doesn’t cheerlead for the slaughter of Jews. Christians don’t regard the unbaptized in their midst as unenlightened mongrels that must bow to the Golden Rule or be killed. And Christians don’t cheer en masse when cartoonists are slaughtered for drawing cheeky cartoons about Jesus.

But Islam does. For your information, here’s the worst thing a Church Lady wishes on you: If Church Lady had it her way, you’d be a repentant nice boy, wearing a Christian t-shirt, sitting on the front pew every Sunday singing Oh, The Blood Of Jesus, and voting for Mike Huckabee in 2016; and if not, well, so be it, they’ll still love you anyway.

Islam … eh … not so much. No, if Achmed had it his way, because of your penchants, beliefs or lack thereof, you’d be subjugated or slaughtered. If you don’t believe me, watch international news every now and then and/or read the Koran. It’s quite different than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Like in way different. Another reason, I suppose, that those on the Left haven’t gotten too pissy with Islam is that the full force of its fascism hasn’t hit our shores …yet. But it has Western Europe's and it might do you some good, from an ongoing freedom standpoint, to look across the pond and see what multicultural yumminess has yielded up for our dull euro-bros – and do the opposite. In Europe, you can actually go to jail for mocking Islam or burning a Koran, but you can talk crap about Christ and BBQ a Bible all day long over there.

In addition, it’s just a matter of time, with Europe’s diminishing birth rate and thinning of skin, before they’re Islam’s prison chick, mop head wig and all girlfriend. Therefore, if you truly love yourself and love your liberty, you need to fight Islam tooth, fang and claw because if Islam ever solidly takes root here in the USA, we all can kiss our freedoms goodbye.

Political Science: Heat's on Climate Change Dissidents

"I am under 'investigation,'" professor Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado Boulder posted on his blog Wednesday.
The top Democrat on the House Committee on Natural Resources, Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, sent a letter to university President Bruce Benson that asked the school to provide its financial disclosure policies and information on how they apply to Pielke, as well as any drafts and communications involving Pielke's testimony before Congress between Jan. 1, 2007, and Jan. 31, 2015.
In 2013, Grijalva explained, Pielke told the Senate that it is "incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases." Grijalva is a fervent believer in climate change. Pielke is a believer, as well. He has defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and supports a carbon tax. But Pielke doesn't buy all the hype -- hence his testimony that challenged the catastrophic-weather argument. For that, Grijalva wants to give Pielke the full treatment -- a full financial and documentary probe.
Without the agreement of Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah -- who is the committee's chairman -- the ranking Democrat asked for documents from six other academics, including my old pal Steve Hayward at Pepperdine University's School of Public Policy, who have challenged global warming orthodoxy. Grijalva is fishing on one side of the pond only.
Climate change true believers always say they want to keep politics out of science, but they cannot help themselves.
Pielke calls it a "politically motivated 'witch hunt'" designed to intimidate a point of view. What prompted the probe? On Feb. 21, The New York Times reported that Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics scientist Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon, a global warming skeptic, had received more than $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry but failed to disclose his funding in journals that published his work. So Grijalva apparently decided to interrogate others presumed guilty by association of belief.
When partisans want to silence those with whom they disagree, they often concoct a host of phony reasons to convince themselves and others that they really aren't trying to bully anyone into submission. In that spirit, Grijalva cited the Soon story as he claimed, "I have a constitutional duty to protect public lands." And: "My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships."
It's almost funny when you consider that congressmen usually claim that campaign contributions have no influence whatsoever on their voting record. If the Arizona representative thinks money buys allegiance in academia, imagine what it could buy on Capitol Hill.
Boulder Provost Russell Moore backs Pielke up when he says he never has received a dime of fossil fuel money -- just government grants.
I object to the Democrat's apparent presumption that any global warming skeptic is likely to be driven by oil money, whereas climate change enthusiasts have nothing to gain financially. To the contrary, David Legates of the University of Delaware College of Earth, Ocean, & Environment, who is skeptical of climate change predictions of catastrophe, told me that he realized years ago that his independent position means that he should not accept corporate money for research or speaking fees.
"There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey," Legates, another scientist on Grijalva's little list, once told me. Scientists who reinforce catastrophic predictions continue to get fat government grants. As for Legates, his apostasy forced him out of his post as Delaware state climatologist.
There has been some blowback -- read: tweets and lukewarm quotes -- from the "consensus" climate change community at Grijalva's heavy-handed ways. Those mild objections are tame compared with the message that has been sent to academia: Anyone who disagrees with climate change absolutists should be prepared to hear, "Your papers, please."
Pielke already has backed down. He wrote on his blog, "The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject. I am a full professor with tenure, so no one need worry about me -- I'll be just fine as there are plenty of interesting, research-able policy issues to occupy my time. But I can't imagine the message being sent to younger scientists. Actually, I can: 'when people are producing work in line with the scientific consensus there's no reason to go on a witch hunt.'"
Me, I am no scientist. I'm just an observer who expects academic disagreements to be settled after passionate debate and civil discourse. What I see instead is an inquisition from the side that considers its biggest selling point to be the fact that it represents the scientific "consensus." Once again, this is how they build their "consensus" -- by the heavy-handed use of political muscle and brute intimidation.


NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, strongly suggested the fix was in from the beginning by GOP leaders to sabotage the fight against Obama’s amnesty, saying, “The cake was baked from the start.”
The senator said that was evident to him immediately when GOP leaders chose a bill funding the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, as the vehicle to try to stop the amnesty President Obama granted to five-million illegal immigrants by executive order in November.
Cruz made the observations while speaking to a small group of reporters across the street from the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, on Thursday.
WND kicked off the conversation by asking: Why won’t GOP leaders fight amnesty?
If the GOP leadership had really wanted to stop amnesty, Cruz explained, they would not have attached the provision defunding Obama’s amnesty to the DHS funding bill.
They would have attached it to a bill defunding the Environmental Protection Agency, “or some other non-essential agency.”
He described such agencies as “hostages the GOP could afford to hold.”
Cruz insisted GOP leaders knew all along that rank-and-file Republicans would never vote to defund the DHS during a time of increasing terror threats at home and abroad.
Instead, he said, they chose a strategy that was clearly designed to fail.
Cruz said he is optimistic in the long run but pessimistic in the short term about stemming the flow of illegal immigrants.
He is pessimistic because “GOP leadership joined with (Senate Minority Leader) Harry Reid, D-Nev., to pass amnesty.” Cruz was referring to the move this week by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to offer a “clean” bill funding the DHS, which meant dropping the provision in the bill that would have defunded implementation of Obama’s amnesty.
Instead, McConnell offered a separate bill to defund amnesty, which is headed to near-certain defeat because Republicans will not be able to muster the 60 Senate votes needed to avoid a Democratic filibuster.
But Cruz said he is optimistic about the issue in the long run because of the ever-increasing public support behind the need to secure the Southern border.
The senator insisted, if lawmakers were to focus on areas of bipartisan agreement, immigration reform legislation would “sail through Congress.”
He identified the top two areas of bipartisan agreement as securing the border and “streamlining” the process for legal immigration.
But instead of looking for genuine progress on the issue, Cruz said, Obama and his fellow Democrats have used immigration as a “partisan cudgel,” purely for political purposes.
The senator implied Obama is not serious about immigration reform and doesn’t really care about the plight of immigrants, but would rather use them and the issue as a political weapon to increase his power.
As proof of that, the senator noted how the president had a “supermajority” of Democrats in Congress during his first two years in office and could have passed any immigration reform legislation he wanted, and Republicans would have been powerless to stop him.
Instead, Obama “did zero. Nothing.”
Cruz flatly accused Obama of using the Hispanic community for political purposes, saying simply, “It’s wrong.”

trey gowdyGowdy to Democrats: Obama’s lawlessness is going to hurt you

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) told his Democratic colleagues that they will regret supporting President Obama’s immigration actions during a House Judiciary meeting this week.
“You may benefit from the president’s failure to enforce the law today, but I’ll make you this promise: There will come a day where you will cry out for the enforcement of the law,” Gowdy said. “There will come a day where you long for the law to be the foundation of this Republic. So you be careful what you do with the law today, because if you weaken it today, you weaken it forever.”
Following the warning, Gowdy joined “On the Record’s” Greta Van Susteren to explain further.
“I just don’t like it when either side plays games with the rule of law, because it is the most unifying, equalizing force we have in our culture,” Gowdy said.
The conservative lawmaker also noted that because Obama waited until after the midterm elections to move on his plan, Democrats are currently “benefiting more from this as an issue than as a resolved issue.”

Obama's Highhanded Immigration Hypocrisy

Honestly, are any of my Democratic friends even slightly bothered by President Obama’s habitual and brazen lawlessness and what that could mean for our liberties?
Does it bother them that he implemented two new administration programs to halt deportations and allow work permits for up to 5 million immigrants living illegally in the United States after clearly admitting he didn’t have the constitutional authority to do so?
Does it bother them that after having done so, despite his insincere promise, he has been openly defiant about the decision U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen made in favor of the states trying to block Obama’s unlawful act? Obama said: “This is just one federal judge. We have appealed it very aggressively. … I’m using all of the legal power vested in me in order to solve this problem.” Me, me, me.
Does it bother them that his administration has begun to refer to these immigrants as “Americans-in-waiting” – as if his iron will controls, irrespective of the Constitution, the law and the prerogative of the coequal legislative branch?
Does it bother them that, like a Third World despot tyrannizing his subjects, he said in a town hall forum in Miami that there will be consequences for any federal agents who ignore his new policies? Obama said, “If somebody’s working for (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) … and they don’t follow the policy, there are going to be consequences to it.”
Are such threatened consequences, by the way, really the business of a chief executive, even if he is acting lawfully? Isn’t his indignation a bit tough to take, given his own propensity not to follow the law? Does anyone ever make him face consequences for not just ignoring but violating laws?
As others have pointed out, Obama’s position on this issue, despite being legally wrong, is inconsistent. His entire rationale is that these actions are within his executive power because it is a matter of prioritizing immigration enforcement efforts with limited congressional funding. Yet he will have zero tolerance for immigration officials who attempt to exercise their discretion in not enforcing his “orders.”
Also, Obama’s characterization of his executive action as a matter of prosecutorial discretion is disingenuous. Judge Hanen clearly held that Obama’s program of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents is “actually affirmative action rather than inaction” because the program grants “legal presence to individuals Congress has deemed deportable or removable, as well as the ability to obtain Social Security numbers, work authorization permits, and the ability to travel.”
It is absurd for Obama to claim that his action is within his prosecutorial discretion when it not only involves a decision not to enforce a law or ruling but also grants new rights, as Hanen noted, and is in contravention of existing laws. As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has argued, “the president, on his own, has issued a separate action in opposition to current law.” This action, says Paxton, will cost his state hundreds of millions of dollars for education, healthcare and public safety.
Do you understand the argument? Obama isn’t just turning his back on deportment. He is granting substantive rights to immigrants that are not his to grant, foisting the cost of those new rights onto the states without their consent – and doing so in violation of existing laws.
The administration’s duplicity is readily apparent when you listen to the weasel words of Sarah Saldana, director of ICE, in the emergency motion filed by the Obama administration to stay Hanen’s ruling. Saldana said, “Preventing the deferred action policies from going into effect interferes with the Federal Government’s comprehensive strategy for enforcing our immigration laws.”
Do those words, on their face, make sense? How does preventing Obama’s newly granted affirmative privileges to these immigrants from taking effect interfere with the government’s strategy for enforcing its immigration laws? Isn’t it more accurate and honest to say that it interferes with Obama’s attempt not to enforce those laws and to grant affirmative rights to immigrants that Obama decidedly has no authority to grant as president?
An action does not become something it is not just because government officials describe or denominate it as such. Otherwise, the Affordable Care Act would not be raising health care costs for millions of American families, and Obama’s scheme to commandeer the Internet wouldn’t be called “net neutrality.” Obama’s illegal immigration actions are not within his executive authority merely because he depicts them as within his prosecutorial discretion.
Obama’s arrogance may cost him this time, as he has gone way too far, even for him, by flagrantly violating the separation of powers and exceeding his executive authority in granting new rights to immigrants who are here illegally, providing no notice to the states of his action to allow for public feedback and saddling the states with enormous financial burden

G’ day…
Ciao…….Moe Lauzier

Blog Archive