“…HE WANTS US TO IMPEACH HIM NOW”, SAYS TEXAS REPRESENTATIVE.

27 Jul

Barack%20Obama-JTM-046564McALLEN, Texas – Observing what he could only describe as “chaos on the border” during a midnight tour of the Rio Grande on Friday, Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, concluded, “President Obama is begging to be impeached.”

“For all I know, Obama is preparing to process 5 million illegal immigrant kids and teenagers into the United States,” Stockman said upon observing border operations near McAllen, Texas.

“He wants us to impeach him now,” Stockman theorized, “before the midterm election because his senior advisers believe that is the only chance the Democratic Party has to avoid a major electoral defeat. Evidently Obama believes impeachment could motivate the Democratic Party base to come out and vote.”

Does Barack Obama WANT to be impeached? Sound off in the WND Poll.

Accompanied by a WND film crew, Stockman began the evening by stopping at a massive Department of Homeland Security detention facility a mile or two north of the Mexican border, only to be encountered by seven or eight armed Border Patrol agents who approached him and WND for questioning.

Though polite, a Border Patrol supervisor speaking from behind the chain-link fence that surrounded the facility refused to allow Stockman to tour the facility.

Through the chain-linked fence, the WND film crew took video of an active hangar-like open building cooled by two massive fans in which teenage illegal immigrants were being searched for concealed weapons as they were being processed into the detention facility.

Sign the petition demanding Congress follow through on impeaching Obama.

Within minutes, as Stockman began asking questions of the Border Patrol supervisor, the hanger-like intake facility was shut down and emptied of illegal immigrant teenagers being processed by more than a dozen Border Patrol agents.

“We release all detainees under 14 years of age without taking any biometric identification, including no fingerprints,” the Border Patrol agent explained to Stockman. “We are prevented by law from taking fingerprints or other biometric information on these kids.”

The Border Patrol supervisor could not identify for Stockman the law in question.

“Then how do you know who these children under 14 years old are?” Stockman asked. “How do you know if you are releasing these kids to people who are truly family members in the United States or to pedophiles or other criminals posing as family members?”

“We only know who these children are by what they tell us,” the Border Patrol supervisor admitted. “Truthfully, we don’t really have any idea who they might be or where they came from other than what we can observe from questioning them. You’re right. If they give us false information, we have no way to know it or to follow it up without biometrics.”

Stockman asked what information the Border Patrol has on the people in the United States who claim to be relatives.

“That’s not what our department handles,” the Border Patrol supervisor again admitted.

Back in the vehicle, frustrated at seeing the facility going into rapid shutdown mode once he and the WND film crew set up to film, Stockman expanded on the impeachment theme.

Stockman observed that rather than begin impeachment proceedings now, what the House of Representatives should do is to take away money from the Obama administration.

“The only way we’re going to stop Obama from opening the border is to take away the money he needs to operate,” Stockman concluded. “What we should do is shut down the White House.”

The definitive case for removing Barack Obama from office is presented in “Impeachable Offenses” by Aaron Klein and Brenda J. Elliott.

In a four-hour tour of McAllen roads leading to the Rio Grande that began at midnight, WND observed dozens of Border Patrol lock-up vehicles, with one marked “LICE” in large hand-written letters, transporting illegal immigrant detainees to destinations unknown to WND.

Every time WND’s vehicle approached the Rio Grande, Border Patrol trailed behind to engage in questioning once WND and Rep. Stockman stopped.

“Be careful, it’s a busy night out here,” one Border Patrol agent advised.

In another stop about a mile north of the border, WND observed a Border Patrol vehicle with an agent manning what appeared to be a 10-foot antenna scanning the surrounding open territory.

“It’s taking high-definition night-vision photographs,” the Border Patrol agent explained, as he dodged into the shadows to avoid being filmed in the bright lights of the WND film crew.

In a night in which Stockman described law enforcement presence on the McAllen border as “heavily active and in plain view,” the congressman and WND observed several Department of Public Safety state troopers patrolling the border in conjunction with the ever-present white-and-green-marked Border Patrol vehicles.

On Friday, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told WND in a cell-phone call from the airport that she and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, are planning to join Stockman at the border in McAllen, arriving at noon Saturday.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/congressman-at-border-obama-begging-to-be-impeached/#M7PqSA0x2If3joq4.99

Tags: , , ,

Image

Progressivism Definition

24 Jul

we the progressives

Tags:

Mark Caserta: Progressives need liberal Supreme Court

24 Jul

supreme court

Jul. 24, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the nation. Its decisions set precedents which all other courts must follow and can never be superseded. Not even Congress or the president can change, reject or ignore a Supreme Court decision.

In the third of my series of columns exposing the progressive movement in the United States, we’ll examine how I believe liberals will be intensifying their efforts to change the political face of the Supreme Court, determined to preserve and expand their ideology for future generations.

Understand, under the Constitution, justices on the Supreme Court receive lifetime appointments. While the process of appointing justices has undergone changes over the years, the sharing of power between the president and the Senate remains unchanged.

To receive appointment to the court, a candidate must first be nominated by the president and then confirmed by the Senate. Presidents have the power to make “recess appointments” when the Senate isn’t in session, but such appointments expire at the end of the Senate’s next session.

The framers of the Constitution designed the U.S. government with a system of “checks and balances” to ensure no one branch would have absolute authority. But make no mistake about it, the Supreme Court has formidable power and has become a prized asset in our nation’s political theater. While the court’s sole purpose is to interpret the Constitution, rulings increasingly tend to reflect a justice’s political persuasion.

Currently, the Supreme Court leans slightly conservative. Justices John Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are considered mostly conservative. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor are seen as liberal, while Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Anthony Kennedy are considered moderate to moderate conservative, respectively. With four of these Justices over the age of 70, court openings are a real possibility over the next few years.

In June, the Obama administration was levied with two major Supreme Court decisions adversely impacting progressive advancement.

Unable to get several controversial nominees confirmed to the National Labor Relations Board, the Supreme Court unanimously held that President Obama violated the Constitution by appointing officials during a Senate three-day break. I submit the president strategically “tested” the recess appointment law just as he’s testing his executive authority in the face of congressional resistance, but failed.

In Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Inc. the Court ruled 5-4 that for-profit corporations with sincerely held religious beliefs are not required to provide a full range of free contraceptives to employees pursuant to Obamacare. Once again, this progressive challenge to our religious freedoms failed.

Don’t expect progressives to acquiesce in the face of these failures. They plan to do everything possible to elect a liberal president and retain the Senate in the upcoming elections.

If liberals are successful at “tilting” the balance of the Supreme Court to the left, our children and grandchildren will likely see an intensification of progressivism in their lives.

A misplaced vote could have impact beyond the term of any candidate. It could have impact for years to come.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , ,

ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER APTLY DEFENDS HIS COUNTRY ON FOX NEWS

23 Jul

http://conservativetribune.com/netanyahu-defends-country/

netanyahu

While criticism continues to pour in, it doesn’t seem that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is all that bothered by what people outside of his country think of the efforts being made to squash Hamas and their reign of terror in Israel.

Netanyahu appeared on Fox News Sunday and in just three minutes explained why “Operation Protective Edge” is absolutely necessary to the survival of Israel. IJReview reports that the Israeli Prime Minister made three powerful points, which if correctly understood, completely justifies every course of action taken by the country so far.

The Israeli leader’s first point was that Israel will do whatever it takes to ensure the safety of its people from Hamas and other radical terror groups.

Netanyahu went on to state that Hamas was targeting massive areas of Israel, a point he drove home by using the U.S. in a powerful illustration.

“I just want your viewers to imagine the United States being bombarded not in one city or two cities, but in every city between New York and Colorado. 80% of your citizens would have to be in bomb shelters or ready to go into bomb shelters within a minute to minute-and-a half, max. No country can accept that, we can’t accept it, and we’ll take the necessary actions to stop it.”

The prime minister also discussed the difficulty in taking out Hamas rocket launchers, since the terror group often conducts their attacks from within urban areas, using fellow Palestinians as human shields, an act Netanyahu condemns as cowardly.

“Here’s the difference between us. We’re using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they’re using their civilians to protect their missiles.”

Prime Minister Netanyahu is absolutely right. The U.S. would never in a million years accept the kind of treatment that Israel has patiently endured for years. America would retaliate with a massive coordinated military strategy that would not only secure freedom and peace, but would obliterate the enemy ensuring they never return to cause trouble again.

This is precisely what Israel is attempting to do, the same action any country would take, yet liberals the world over are jumping on the pro-Hamas bandwagon, eagerly taking every opportunity they’re given to express their anti-Semitic views.

Hopefully President Obama will snap out of his anti-colonialist coma and see that Israel is being bullied and will be motivated to throw support behind their efforts to secure peace.

Tags:

This Romney – Obama debate moment now haunting the president! 45 seconds

23 Jul

http://conservativetribune.com/romney-makes-obama-foolish/romney obama

Mitt Romney saw this coming a long time ago, according to a video posted on IJ Review. “Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again,” he said to Obama during the third presidential debate in 2012. “I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia or Mr. Putin. I’m certainly not going to say to him, ‘I’ll give you more flexibility after the election.’ ”

Romney predicted exactly how Putin would respond to such attempts at appeasement: “After the election, he’ll get more backbone.”

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty, of course. There are many pundits who claim now to have seen all along what would happen in U.S. – Russia relations under a continued Obama presidency, just as there are many who predicted then that only Obama could keep the peace between the two countries.

Obama’s response, that Romney wanted to return the U.S. to the Cold War is equally telling. The Cold War had been “over for 20 years,” as Obama said. The president seems to forget, however, that it was Ronald Reagan’s policy of dealing with the Soviet Union from a position of strength that ended the Cold War.

Just as Obama’s appeasement seems poised to start it up all over again.

Tags: , , ,

A must watch! I’m sure the woman wished she’d never asked the question!!!

22 Jul

Tags: ,

Fed appeals court panel says most Obamacare subsidies illegal

22 Jul

OBAMACARE

Dan Mangan
CNBC.com

In a potentially crippling blow to Obamacare, a federal appeals court panel declared Tuesday that government subsidies worth billions of dollars that helped 4.7 million people buy insurance on HealthCare.gov are illegal.

A judicial panel in a 2-1 ruling said such subsidies can be granted only to those people who bought insurance in an Obamacare exchange run by an individual state or the District of Columbia — not on the federally run exchange HealthCare.gov.

“Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states,” wrote Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph in his majority opinion, where he was joined by Judge Thomas Griffith. “We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly.”

In his dissent, Judge Harry Edwards, who called the case a “not-so-veiled attempt to gut” Obamacare, wrote that the judgment of the majority “portends disastrous consequences.”

Indeed, the decision threatens to unleash a cascade of effects that could seriously compromise Obamacare’s goals of compelling people to get health insurance, and helping them afford it.

The Obama administration is certain to ask the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reverse the panel’s decision, which for now does not have the rule of law.

The ruling endorsed a controversial interpretation of the Affordable Care Act that argues that the HealthCare.gov subsidies are illegal because ACA does not explicitly empower a federal exchange to offer subsidized coverage, as it does in the case of state-created exchanges. Subsidies for more than 2 million people who bought coverage on state exchanges would not be affected by Tuesday’s ruling if it is upheld.

HealthCare.gov serves residents of the 36 states that did not create their own health insurance marketplace. About 4.7 million people, or 86 percent of all HealthCare.gov enrollees, qualified for a subsidy to offset the cost of their coverage this year because they had low or moderate incomes.

If upheld, the ruling could lead many, if not most of those subsidized customers to abandon their health plans sold on HealthCare.gov because they no longer would find them affordable without the often-lucrative tax credits. And if that coverage then is not affordable for them as defined by the Obamacare law, those people will no longer be bound by the law’s mandate to have health insurance by this year or pay a fine next year.

If there were to be a large exodus of subsidized customers from the HealthCare.gov plans, it would in turn likely lead to much higher premium rates for nonsubsidized people who would remain in those plans.

The ruling also threatens, in the same 36 states, to gut the Obamacare rule starting next year that all employers with 50 or more full-time workers offer affordable insurance to them or face fines. That’s because the rule only kicks in if one of such an employers’ workers buy subsidized covered on HealthCare.gov.

The decision by the three-judge panel is the most serious challenge to the underpinnings of the Affordable Care Act since a challenge to that law’s constitutionality was heard by the Supreme Court. The high court in 2012 upheld most of the ACA, including the mandate that most people must get insurance or pay a fine.

If the Obama administration fails to prevail in its expected challenge to Tuesday’s bombshell ruling, it can ask the Supreme Court to reverse it.

A high court review is guaranteed if another federal appeals court circuit rules against plaintiffs in a similar case challenging the subsidies. And the only other circuit currently considering such a case, the Fourth Circuit, is expected by both sides to rule against plaintiffs there in a decision that is believed to be imminent.

Tuesday’s ruling focused on the plaintiffs’ claim that the ACA, in several of its sections, says that subsidies from the federal government in the form of tax credits can be issued through an exchange established by a state.

The law also says that if a state chooses not to set up its own exchange, the federal government can establish its own marketplace to sell insurance in such states.

However, the ACA does not explicitly say, as it does in the case of state-run exchanges, that subsidies can be given to people who buy insurance on a federal exchange.

The plaintiffs’ claim has been met with derision by Obamacare supporters, who argue that it relies on a narrow reading, or even misreading of the law. Those supporters said the claim ignores its overarching intent: to provide affordable insurance to millions of people who were previously uninsured.

Supporters argue that the legality of the subsidies to HealthCare.gov enrollee derives from the fact that the law explicitly anticipated the potential need to create an exchange in the event that a state chose not to.

When the ACA was passed, most supporters believed that the vast majority of states would create their own exchange. But the opposition to Obamacare of many Republican governors and state legislators lead to most states refusing to build their own marketplaces, setting the stage for the challenges to the subsidies issued for HealthCare.gov plans.

Two separate federal district court judges—in D.C. and Virginia—have rejected plaintiffs’ challenge to the subsidies. Those denials lead to the appeals in the D.C. federal circuit and in the Fourth Circuit.

Out of the more than 8 million Obamacare enrollees this year, fewer than 2.6 million people signed up in plans sold via an exchange run by a state or the District of Columbia. Of those people, 82 percent, or about 2.1 million, qualified for subsidies.

The subsidies are available to people whose incomes are between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level. For a family of four, that’s between about $24,000 and $95,400 annually.

In a report issued Thursday, the consultancy Avalere Health said that if those subsidies were removed this year from the 4.7 million people who received them in HealthCare.gov states, their premiums would have been an average of 76 percent higher in price than what they are paying now.

Another report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute estimated that by 2016, about 7.3 million enrollees who would have qualified for financial assistance will be lose access to about $36.1 billion in subsidies if those court challenges succeed.

Tags: , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Immigration important to liberal cause

17 Jul

gty_GOP_path_130808_wg

Jul. 17, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

The very sovereignty of the United States and the resolve of the American people to stand firmly upon the principles of our republic are being challenged by the crisis at our southern border.

In the second of my series of columns exposing the progressive movement in our country, we’ll examine the liberal ideology behind their desire to “reform” the immigration policies of the United States.

Many recall President Obama’s first inaugural address in January 2009 when he suggested we must begin “the work of remaking America.” Understand what liberals peddle as “reform” is simply the progressive unraveling of our nation’s laws and redefining them to help propagate the progressive movement. Necessary to this change is reconstructing the very landscape of America’s demographics and gradually whittling away at our constitution.

The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants from all parts of the world. America values the contributions of immigrants who continue to enrich this country and preserve its legacy as a land of freedom and opportunity.

However, America places no small value on the decision to become a U.S. citizen. To become a citizen you must apply for a “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents or apply for naturalization. The process requires a display of commitment to the United States and loyalty to its constitution. Their reward includes the rights and privileges afforded a U.S. citizen.

Integral to this process is “The Immigration and Nationality Act” set in place post-World War II and meant to control immigration into the United States. The law negated exclusion of immigrants based solely upon their country of origin, but protected our nation from those who were unlawful, immoral, diseased, politically radical, etc. and was accepting of those willing to assimilate into the U.S. economic, social and political structure.

Admittedly, poor enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws has rendered our borders porous far too long. But President Obama’s perceived open-door policy and his subsequent level of neglect of our nation’s borders is unprecedented! Among other things, it represents an unrestricted threat to our national security by anyone willing to exploit our vulnerabilities.

Make no mistake about it. Liberal reform of our nation’s immigration policies would render the current immigration laws null and void and virtually eliminate any incentive for immigrants to naturalize or assimilate into the culture of the United States, thereby having no ownership in its continuance.

But progressives thrive on arbitrary power, not the rule of law. They pursue immigration reform under the guise of humanitarianism while portraying conservatives as prejudiced and outright “haters” simply because we refuse to capitulate to those who would reframe America around their own cancerous liberal theology.

For liberals, bypassing the lawful assimilation of immigrants into the United States, among many potential deleterious effects, adds to a populace dependent upon a government willing to sustain it and devoid of any commitment to the sovereignty of our nation.

But most importantly, it broadens the scope of individuals, void of constitutional acumen, who may be dubiously proselytized into a predacious progressive movement.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Progressive ideology nurtured in classroom

10 Jul

CLASSROOM

Jul. 10, 2014 @ 12:00 AM

The United States’ greatest enemy may very well be “an enemy from within” — the progressive movement.

This is the first of a series of columns intended to define and expose the tactics I believe progressive visionaries plan to employ in the U.S. over the next several years.

One must first understand the idiopathic process of the progressive movement is literally revealed in the name. Through a progressive, resolute methodology of challenging the status quo, liberals doggedly advance the standards from right to left. They understand that rooted mindsets will not change overnight, but through a gradual desensitization to liberal theology, they can create an ideology more befitting a “new age” of Americans.

Progressives often leverage the liberal factions of our judicial system and the classroom in their quest for fundamental change. Over the next several weeks I plan to deal with the evolving strategies we’re witnessing in the United States and how to recognize and avert them.

Abe Lincoln was quoted as saying, “The philosophy of the classroom today will be the philosophy of government tomorrow.” In my youth, religion was a welcome part of the classroom. Saying the Lord’s Prayer and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance was simply part of our daily morning routine. Most of my teachers even had a Bible on their desk, and why not? It was the accepted foundation for all we knew and loved about America. And nearly every classroom wall displayed the Ten Commandments.

Scripture was something we reverenced and referenced nearly every day.

Then in 1962 the Supreme Court ruled that official prayer had no place in the public school system. While many blame Madalyn Murray O’Hair, an outspoken atheist of the time, her role was minimal.

The decision resulted from the case of Engel v. Vitale in which parents challenged a prayer written by a New York education board. These multi-denominational parents did not want their children subjected to state-sponsored devotions which the high court equated to the government “respecting an establishment of religion.”

The relatively benign invocation in question read, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” Still, parents were adamant that it shouldn’t be uttered in the public sphere.

In the following year, 1963, the Supreme Court handed down another important ruling dealing with prayer in public schools. In Abington Township School District v. Schempp, the court declared school-sponsored Bible reading and recitation of the Lord’s Prayer unconstitutional. And in 1980, the Ten Commandments were eventually removed from the classroom.

It’s been 50 years since the Supreme Court first ruled that official prayer in public schools is unconstitutional. The landmark decision has given liberals the opportunity to debase Christianity and begin progressively removing God from the classroom where it would instill conservative values in young minds.

Since then, this liberal “progression” has marred the path for our nation’s youth and indeed unconstitutionally “impeded” the “free exercise of religion” in America.

Removing God from the classroom was integral to the progressive agenda.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , ,

DEMOCRAT RIPS OBAMA FOR NOT VISITING THE BORDER

9 Jul

pool

Instead, He chose to drink a beer and shoot some pool…

Democratic congressman Henry Cuellar ripped President Obama for being “aloof” and “detached” by not visiting the Texas border to see first hand the immigration crisis. Cuellar made the comments on MSNBC:

“He’s so close to the border. And let me say this: when I saw, and I hate to use the word bizarre, but under the circumstances, when he is shown playing pool in Colorado, drinking a beer, and he can’t even go 242 miles to the Texas border, and plus, if he doesn’t want to go down to the border, there’s the Air Force Base where HHS is holding some of the young kids from the border. He could at least make that trip to San Antonio, but again, border community leaders wants to see him down there on the border, and I think the optics and the substance of it is that he should show up at the border,” said Cuellar.

And he had some advice for the White House.”If they are worried about putting a face, the president’s face, to this human crisis, humanitarian crisis, I think it’s worse if he doesn’t even show up. Either way, he’s going to be tied into this humanitarian crisis. he either can roll up his sleeves and go down to the border, or he can just look aloof and detached and not go to the border, send surrogates down there, and say that he’s got everything under control.”

He adds, “It Just floored me, because if he’s saying he’s too busy to go to the border but you have time to drink beer, play pool.”
The president was in Colorado last night — drinking beer and playing pool.

(THE WEEKLY STANDARD)

Tags: , , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →