Rep. Michael McCaul said Monday that the United States intelligence community has obtained specific evidence indicating that ISIS is targeting President Barack Obama’s Syrian refugee plan.
Speaking at the National Defense University on Monday, McCaul – the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee – said that intelligence officials approached him “earlier this week” with the information.
“I don’t want to get into specifics to protect my sources,” McCaul explained, but “ISIS members in Syria have attempted to exploit it to get into the United States.”
“The U.S. government has information to indicate that individuals tied to terrorist groups in Syria have already attempted to gain access to our country through the U.S. refugee program,” yet the White House has not yet released this information to the public.
“To me that’s very disturbing.”
Additionally, McCaul called the intelligence officials’ decision to come forward “very courageous… given the political debate on the Hill,” which would indicate the information was not meant for his consumption.
President Obama has adamantly called upon the United States to open its doors to Syrian refugees. In his Thanksgiving address, he stated that, “nearly four centuries after the Mayflower set sail, the world is still full of pilgrims” seeking asylum in America.
House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and 18 other members of the House of Representatives introduced a resolution on Tuesday to introduce impeachment proceedings against Internal Revenue Service Commissioner John Koskinen.
According to Chaffetz, “Koskinen violated the public trust” and “failed to comply with a congressionally issued subpoena.” Also, “documents were destroyed on his watch, and the public was consistently misled.”
“Impeachment is the appropriate tool to restore public confidence in the IRS and to protect the institutional interests of Congress,” Chaffetz said in introducing the resolution. “This action will demonstrate to the American people that the IRS is under repair, and signal that Executive Branch officials who violate the public trust will be held accountable.”
Koskinen “failed to act with competence and forthrightness in overseeing the investigation into Internal Revenue Service targeting of Americans because of their political affiliations,” the resolution claimed.
The resolution states that Koskinen “engaged in a pattern of conduct that is incompatible with his duties,” specifically, by failing “to comply with a subpoena resulting in destruction of key evidence.” He “failed to locate and preserve IRS records in accordance with a congressional subpoena and an internal preservation order,” it stated.
The resolution also accuses Koskinen of failing to “testify truthfully” and of providing “false and misleading information” as well as failing “to notify Congress that key evidence was missing.”
………………………..Click on image above to watch stream.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 248 to 177 on Friday afternoon to approve a bill that would give a born baby who survives an abortion the same protection under the law as “any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.”
Under the bill, the Congressional Research Service explained in its official summary of the legislation, “An individual who commits an overt act that kills a child born alive is subject to criminal prosecution for murder.”
The bill would also “require any health care practitioner who is present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion to: (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure that such child is immediately admitted to a hospital.”
Five Democrats voted for the bill, and all 177 votes against it were cast by Democratic members. One member, Rep. John Garamendi (D.-Calif.), voted present, and eight members, including three Republicans and five Democrats did not vote.
Among the members who voted against this bill that would clarify that it is an act of murder to kill a baby who survives an abortion were House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.), Rep. Jackie Speier (D.-Calif.), and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D.-N.Y.)
The bill was sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R.-Ariz.), who was joined by 98 co-sponsors. These included Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R.-Tenn.), Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R.-Mo.), and Rep. Kristi Noem (R.-S.D.).
“The Born Alive Abortion Survivor Protection Act protects little children who have been born alive,” Rep. Franks said in a speech on the House floor before the vote. “No one in this body can obscure the humanity and the personhood of these little born alive babies.”
“The abortion industry labored all these decades to convince the world that unborn children and born children should be completely separated in our minds, that while born children are persons worthy of protection, unborn children are not persons and are not worthy of protection,” he said.
“But those who oppose this bill to protect born alive babies now have the impossible task of trying to join born children and unborn children back together again and then trying to convince all of us to condemn them both as inhuman and not worthy of protection after all,” he said.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney spoke against the bill on the House floor.
“I stand in strong opposition to this punitive and intrusive bill,” she said.
“This is politics at its most manipulative and politics that should never be permitted to come between a patient and her doctor,” she said.
“This bill attempts to criminalize legal medical care and punish millions of women by rolling back reproductive choices. It wages a kind of guerilla warfare against Roe v. Wade by threatening doctors with jail time for providing care to their patients.”
It looks like the thousands of protesters outside the U.S. Capitol may have persuaded at least one Congressman to rethink Obama’s nuclear deal.
Speaker John Boehner reportedly has agreed to vote on a resolution introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL). The resolution will state that Obama has not complied with the law by not submitting the full Iranian nuclear deal to Congress.
Looks like pressure from the House conservative Freedom Caucus membership has forced House Speaker John Boehner to agree the House will not pass a resolution disapproving of President Obama’s Iran deal. Instead, the House will apparently vote Friday on the resolution introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL), which will state that Obama has not complied with the Corker-Cardin law because he has not submitted the full Iranian nuclear “agreement,” which that law explicitly defines to include all “side deals,” between third parties (including the Iran-IAEA side deals).
The House is also anticipated to now vote on a second resolution, which would state that because the President has failed to submit the “agreement” defined by Corker-Cardin, the President has no corresponding authority to lift any existing Iranian sanctions.
The move by Boehner came after Freedom Caucus members threatened to vote down a planned resolution disapproving of the Iran deal, leaving the House on record as approving the deal. This threat was designed to leverage Boehner via potential political embarrassment, and encourage GOP leadership to consider the Roskam alternative, which will both delay congressional action on the Iran deal, as well as provide a stronger legal basis upon which to challenge any presidential action lifting sanctions.
Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus have a strategy to actually kill President Barack Obama’s nuclear arms deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran – rather than “play fight” against it, as GOP leadership wants to do.
“House Freedom Caucus members are poised to demand Wednesday that Republican leaders delay a vote on an Iran disapproval resolution until the White House has revealed all ‘side deals’ with Iran,” Roll Call’s Matt Fuller wrote late Tuesday. “And if GOP leaders don’t delay the Iran disapproval resolution, HFC members are discussing voting down the rule for the resolution on Wednesday.”
Fuller quotes Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) detailing the newly emerging strategy.
Meadows is the House Freedom Caucus member who has put forward a resolution containing a motion to vacate the chair – a fancy term for throwing House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) out. The strategy centers around the fact that President Obama has not followed the law with regard to the Iran deal, specifically a bill that was signed into law from Sens. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) and therefore the deal is no good.
“I think the plan is just to say that there’s a law on Corker-Cardin, it hasn’t been followed, we can’t ignore it, so to continue on with a vote in light of the administration not adhering to the law would be erroneous and really usurp the authority of Congress,” Meadows told Roll Call.
Fuller wrote that it’s expected, according to one member he spoke with, that the House Freedom Caucus members would band together to vote down a rule to bring the Iran deal disapproval resolution to the floor of the House this week if Boehner and his leadership team insist on moving this through Congress as quickly as seems to be happening.
“An HFC member who spoke on the condition of anonymity later told CQ Roll Call that, while the Freedom Caucus did not come to an official position on voting down the rule for the Iran nuclear resolution, he believes HFC members would band together to do so if leadership does not heed member advice during Wednesday morning’s weekly conference meeting,” Fuller wrote.
Voting down a rule is one of the most significant acts against one’s own party’s leadership that members can make. It’s normally expected that members of a majority vote for rules, and then cast their consequential votes on the legislation.
But voting against the rule is seen as a public protest of leadership’s strategy – in this case, not really fighting against the Obama-Iran deal – and if they’re successful in taking the rule down or forcing Democrats to vote for the rule, Boehner’s authority as Speaker of the House will be severely weakened. Conservatives tried, almost successfully, a similar strategy when it came to Obamatrade votes earlier in the year, but this time they will likely have a better shot at success because there’s even more of a national anti-political class mood now and the Iran deal is extremely unpopular.
Members are furious that Boehner is considering desecrating the 14-year-anniversary of the Al Qaeda-led terrorist attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 11 as the day the House would vote to “play fight,” as National Review’s Andy McCarthy calls it, against the Iran deal rather than really trying to stop it.
“Overall, members reported the majority of the discussion Tuesday night during the HFC meeting was dedicated to Iran and whether it was appropriate to start debate Wednesday and hold a vote Friday, which is Sept. 11,” Fuller wrote about the meeting, noting that Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ) was furious. “You gotta be kidding me!” Gosar told him.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), another conservative, previously told Breitbart News that Boehner’s move to hold the Iran “play fight” vote on Sept. 11 made the House GOP leadership worse than Neville Chamberlain, the late 1930s British Prime Minister who infamously declared he had reached a deal with German dictator Adolf Hitler that would deliver “peace for our time.”
More importantly, however, Fuller noted that members are upset that the Obama administration has not provided Congress with the full details of “side deals” between “Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency.”
“Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL), offered a privileged motion Tuesday for a vote on a resolution that states the House should not act on the Iran nuclear legislation until it receives all ‘side deals,’” Fuller wrote. “Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, the president is obligated to send Congress ‘all related materials and annexes,’ and until the president does that, the 60-day clock for a vote on Iran does not start.”
National Review’s McCarthy laid out in two recent columns how the GOP could actually stop the Iran deal from going through, by asserting its authority in Congress, something Boehner seems hell-bent on avoiding.
“It is an easy one, because all that the Republican-controlled Congress has to do, if it really wants to derail this thing, is follow the law that they wrote and Obama signed, the Corker law – the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, sometimes also known as ‘Corker-Cardin,’ after Senate sponsors Bob Corker (R-TN.) and Ben Cardin (D-MD.),” McCarthy writes of his strategy in one of the columns. “Sadly, in another iteration of the anger that is the wind beneath Donald Trump’s wings, many readers insist that GOP leadership has no intention to block Obama on Iran. If that is so, it is passing strange. The national-security threat here is grave. Plus, how much credibility can Republicans have (maybe I should just end the sentence there) in complaining about Obama’s disregard of federal law if they won’t even follow the law they themselves enacted just four months ago?”
McCarthy specified in the other first column exactly how Republicans can kill Obama’s deal with Iran.
“While maddening, the Corker bill is not an abject congressional surrender to Obama and Tehran,” McCarthy wrote.
It is a conditional surrender. It would grant Obama grudging congressional endorsement of the deal in the absence of a now unattainable veto-proof resolution of disapproval, but only if Obama fulfills certain basic terms. Obama has not complied with the most basic one: the mandate that he provide the complete Iran deal for Congress’s consideration. Therefore, notwithstanding Washington’s frenzied assumption that the 60-day period for a congressional vote is winding down, the clock has never actually started to run. Congress’s obligations under Corker have never been triggered; the Corker process is moot.
McCarthy argues that Republicans who are just going through the motions of the Corker-Cardin bill by pushing a disapproval resolution under it, rather than fighting Obama to comply with the law, are “play fighting” against the Iran deal.
‘“Surrender… Then Play-Fight’ is Republican leadership’s shameful approach to ‘governing,’” McCarthy wrote in the second column. “The quotes around ‘governing’ are intentional. After voters, having trusted the GOP’s 2014 campaign promises to block Obama’s agenda, gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress, Senate majority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) notoriously said that the party’s primary objective was to show the public that it could ‘govern.’”
This example with regard to Iran is no different, he argues.
And for now, according to Fuller’s report in Roll Call, it looks like Boehner’s leadership team is moving forward with their plans to “play fight” against the Iran deal while actually surrendering and not really fighting against it.
“On the same day that Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) hold a Capitol Hill rally urging Congress to reject this deal, it will be pretty hard to argue that we should let Democrats off the hook and not take a stand at all,” a “senior GOP aide” – code for someone from the offices of Boehner, House Majority Leader Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) or House Majority Whip Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) – told Roll Call on Tuesday evening.
No wonder why Boehner doesn’t have enough GOP votes to survive Meadows’ motion to vacate the chair should it come up this fall, according to Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC).
Mulvaney told Breitbart News on Tuesday that Boehner would need Democrats to survive if there were a speakership election held now. Those people coming out to the rally against the Iran deal can see right through congressional leadership’s “play fight.” What happens next, of course, is not entirely clear – but Congress is in for a bumpy ride for the rest of September.
Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives certified that they had only 45 employees each in order to sign up for the District of Columbia’s Small Business Exchange. But 12,359 – or 86 percent of the exchange’s enrollees – are members of Congress, congressional staff members, and their spouses and dependents, according to an appeal filed with the D.C. Court of Appeals by Judicial Watch.
The public interest law firm announced Monday that it is appealing the February dismissal of its lawsuit challenging congressional participation in the Obamacare exchange even though the D.C. Exchange Act limits enrollment to small companies with 50 or fewer employees.
“Congress obviously has far more than 50 employees,” Judicial Watch attorney Michael Bekesha pointed out in his opening brief. “It has thousands of employees.”
Congress enrolled in the small business exchange when its previous coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan was terminated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and congressional employees stood to lose thousands of dollars in “employer contributions” if they enrolled in the District’s individual exchange.
According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives both certified that they “employ 50 or fewer full time equivalent employees.”
In October 2013, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) issued a final rule that provides an “employer contribution” covering about three-quarters of the premiums of congressional employees enrolled in the small business exchange starting Jan. 1, 2014.
The OPM rule “allowed at least 12,359 congressional employees and their spouses and dependents to obtain health insurance through the Small Business Exchange… These 12,359 participants represent an astonishing 86% of the Small Business Exchange’s total enrollment,” the appeal states.
Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit last October on behalf of Kirby Vining, a D.C. resident since 1986, who objected to the expenditure of municipal funds to insure congressional employees in an exchange that was established specifically for small employers in the District.
“Congress authored the law [ACA], and is going to rather questionable lengths to avoid compliance with the law it drafted,” Vining said.
Although the D.C. Health Benefit Exchange Authority conceded that D.C. law limits participation in the exchange to small employers, it argued in court that “the local statute must yield to the extent the federal statute or regulation applies.”
In its motion to dismiss the case, the authority also stated that the exchange “has been funded exclusively by federal grants awarded to the District to establish its Exchange, and more recently, an assessment imposed on health carriers doing business in the District.”
In dismissing the lawsuit, D.C. Superior Court Judge Herbert Dixon ruled that Vining had no standing to challenge the OPM rule because he “has not demonstrated a reasonable inference that municipal taxpayer funds have been appropriated to defendant exchange authority to establish a cognizable injury to maintain standing to bring his underlying complaint.”
However, in a budget report submitted to Congress, the Exchange Authority’s actual budget for Fiscal Year 2013 ($10.9 million) and FY 2014 ($66.1 million) was identified as ” ‘municipal monies’ as originating from the District’s General Fund. No monies are identified as Federal Funds, Private Revenue, or Intra-District Funds,” according to the appeal.
“In Fiscal Year 2015, the Exchange Authority’s budget was reclassified from the General Fund to a newly created fund, separate and distinct from ‘Federal Funds’,” it continued.
Dixon also ruled that the OPM rule preempts the D.C. Exchange Act, noting that “allowing members of Congress and their staff to participate in the District’s small business health options program is authorized by federal regulations.”
But Judicial Watch argues in its appeal that the D.C. law cannot be preempted because it is “completely consistent and entirely compatible” with the federal law and in fact its “sole purpose is to implement various provisions of ACA.”
“In reality, the court ruled that a determination by a federal bureaucrat – in this instance, the director of OPM – trumps the 50-employee limit of the Exchange Act, at least with respect to Congress,” the group’s appeal brief stated. “No lawful regulation – much less a regulation that purports to delegate such authority to an agency head – can do that, and the Court cites no legal authority whatsoever for their astonishing conclusion that it can.”
Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said that allowing Congress to enroll in an exchange meant for small businesses is both “unlawful and unethical.”
“It is an abuse of District taxpayers to use D.C. funds to subsidize illegal health insurance for Congress,” Fitton said in a statement. “It is unlawful and unethical for District officials to use local dollars to participate in Congress’s Obamacare fraud.
“The highest court in the District of Columbia must affirm the right of District taxpayers to protect their monies from being misappropriated by corrupt District officials.”
Yet another hate hoax for the files. From Vonore, Tennessee:
The community rallied behind a same-sex couple after their home burned to the ground, but in a twist, a jury found the couple intentionally set fire to their house.
After five days, a jury found Carol Anne and Laura Stutte deliberately set fire to their home, blaming the fire on their neighbor. On May 13, 2011, the Stutte’s insurance company filed the lawsuit in federal court saying they found evidence the couple deliberately set fire to their property and claimed the insurance money.
It was not just insurance fraud, but ideological fraud:
In September of 2010, the Stuttes said the fire was a hate crime after the word “queer” was spray painted on their garage. They filed a lawsuit claiming their neighbor, Janice Millsaps, harassed them and even used the same derogatory word in the months leading up to the fire. They say they felt like they were targeted because they were lesbians. Millsaps filed a counter lawsuit against the couple, denying she harassed the couple or set the fire.
Apparently Carol Anne and Laura were not ideal neighbors. But they should get along well enough with the rest of the characters on the Hate Hoax List.
DAY 1 (PART 1) – PRIVATE SECTOR PETITIONERS: SHARYL ATTKISSON, JASON LEOPOLD, DAVID MCGRAW, LEAH GOODMAN, AND TERRY ANDERSON
DAY 1 (PART 2) – PRIVATE SECTOR PETITIONERS: TOM FITTON, CLETA MITCHELL, NATE JONES, LISETTE GARCIA, GABRIEL ROTTMAN, AND ANNE WEISMANN
DAY 2 – PUBLIC SECTOR OBSTRUCTIONISTS: JOYCE BARR, MARY HOWARD, MELANIE PUSTAY, KAREN NEUMAN, AND BRODI FONTENOT
Virgil K. Smith is a democrat in the Michigan state legislature. As a Representative, and now as Senator, he has made a career out of opposing the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, earning himself a 0% rating from the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership and a “D” rating from the NRA. Over the weekend, this anti-gun crusader showed some typical liberal hypocrisy by firing at least 10 shots at his ex-wife following a domestic dispute.
The Detroit Free Press reports that Smith was at home getting busy with a lady friend when hisangry ex-wife showed up. First she was banging on his bedroom window, and then went to the front door. Smith opened the door and his ex-wife pushed her way in. She ran to the bedroom and began attacking Smith’s girlfriend.
Smith tackled his ex-wife and they knocked over a TV. He told his ex-wife to leave, and despite her previous irrational behavior, she complied. Maybe it’s because Smith threatened her with a gun, but that’s not how he tells it. Once outside, the ex-wife threw a chair at Smith’s house. Why there was a chair outside for throwing purposes is anyone’s guess.
At this point, Smith came outside, reportedly naked, with a .22 caliber rifle. As his wife tried to drive off, he shot at her, hitting her Mercedes 10 times. Luckily, she was not struck by the gunfire. He put so much lead into her car that police initially thought he blasted it with a shotgun.
Smith was arrested on suspicion of aggravated assault with a gun and malicious destruction of property. He is currently being held in the Detroit Detention Center as police continue their investigation. For Smith’s part, he told police that it was the stupidest thing he’d ever done.
Besides being an anti-gun hypocrite and a terrible shot, it turns out Smith has a lengthy career as a failed criminal as well. He has 2 DUIs (or the Michigan equivalent of driving while intoxicated) that resulted in his license being revoked. He was caught stealing a textbook from the college bookstore and then lied to police about his identity. He was convicted of disorderly conduct and giving false information. He was also busted trying to steal a bottle of tequila and was convicted of retail fraud, which I guess is what they call shoplifting in Michigan.
Cases like this make me understand why democrats are so anti-gun; they can’t be trusted with firearms and they know it. And they figure if they can’t be trusted with firearms; nobody should be trusted with them. I think democrats, liberals, and anti-gun fanatics should voluntarily disarm instead of going after our rights. It would be easier, more Constitutional, and everyone would be much safer.
A House panel Tuesday formally requested Hillary Clinton to testify about the private server and email account she used while serving as secretary of state.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, sent a request to Clinton’s personal attorney, David E. Kendall, requesting that Clinton appear before the committee no later than May 1 for a transcribed interview about the server and email.
The request comes after Kendall told Gowdy that the server had been wiped clean and that it would be impossible to recover the 30,000 emails Clinton deleted last year.
Gowdy, in his request to Kendall, also asked Clinton to “reconsider” her refusal to turn over the server to a neutral third party, which he called “highly unusual, if not unprecedented.”
Clinton said she only deleted personal emails and turned over every work-related message to the State Department, which is reviewing the data to filter out classified information.
“Because of the Secretary’s unique arrangement with herself as it relates to public records during and after her tenure as Secretary of State.” Gowdy wrote, “this Committee is left with no alternative but to request Secretary Clinton appear before this Committee for a transcribed interview to better understand decisions the Secretary made relevant to the creation, maintenance, retention, and ultimately deletion of public records.”
In Tuesday’s letter, Gowdy warned that Clinton’s decision not to turn over the server, “the House of Representatives as a whole will need to consider its next steps.”
Rep. Elijah Cummings, of Maryland, who serves as the top Democrat on the Benghazi panel, said in a statement to the Washington Examiner that Gowdy’s depiction of Clinton is inaccurate because Clinton has always been willing to talk to the panel under oath.
“Secretary Clinton agreed to testify months ago – in public and under oath – so the Select Committee’s claim that it has no choice but to subject her to a private staff interview is inaccurate,” Cummings said. “Rather than drag out this political charade into 2016 and selectively leak portions of a closed-door interview, the Committee should schedule the public hearing, make her records public and re-focus its efforts on the attacks in Benghazi.”
The House has the power to subpoena the server, but neither Gowdy nor House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, will say whether it will use that authority. Boehner has demanded Clinton turn over the server.
Gowdy said he wants a neutral party to examine the deleted emails to find out of there is any information related to the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, Libya, that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The House panel wants to examine the State Department’s role before, during and after the attack.
Gowdy noted in the letter that even though Clinton said she deleted the emails, it is “technically possible,” to retrieve them.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee Chairman Trey Gowdy, Congressman Lamar Smith, Congressman Jason Chaffetz, and Congressman John Carter have unveiled four pieces of legislation to strengthen the interior enforcement of our immigration laws, remove the ability of the President to unilaterally shut down immigration enforcement, ensure jobs are preserved for legal workers, reform the United States’ asylum laws, and make sure unaccompanied alien minors who make the dangerous trek to the United States are safely returned home.
THE “LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT”
Science, Space, and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, introduced the Legal Workforce Act to ensure jobs are preserved for Americans and legal workers. This bill requires all U.S. employers to use E-Verify, a web-based system that checks the Social Security numbers of newly hired employees against Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security records to help ensure that they are genuinely eligible to work in the U.S.
THE “PROTECTION OF CHILDREN ACT OF 2015”
Chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee John Carter (R-Texas) is the author of the Protection of Children Act to ensure unaccompanied alien minors who make the dangerous journey to the United States are safely returned home. For those who stay with a sponsor in the United States while awaiting their immigration hearing, the bill provides for greater transparency and safety of these minors to ensure they are not inadvertently delivered into the hands of criminals or abusers.
THE “ASYLUM REFORM AND BORDER PROTECTION ACT OF 2015”
Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, is author of the Asylum Reform and Border Protection Act. This bill closes loopholes in current law that encourage illegal immigration, such as weak standards for asylum claims that enable the Obama Administration’s rubberstamping of fraudulent applications and policies, and effectively ends “catch and release.”
THE “MICHAEL DAVIS, JR. IN HONOR OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT”
The Michael Davis, Jr. in Honor of State and Local Law Enforcement Act is authored by Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.). This legislation ensures that the President of the United States can’t shut down immigration enforcement unilaterally by granting states and localities specific congressional authorization to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law. It also strengthens national security and protects American communities by improving visa security, facilitating the removal of dangerous criminal aliens, and barring terrorists from entering and remaining in the United States.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY GOWDY’S OPENING STATEMENT
REPRESENTATIVE TREY GOWDY QUESTIONS LEFTIST PROFESSOR STEPHEN LEGOMSKY
TESTIMONY OF JAMIEL SHAW, FATHER OF TEENAGER MURDERED BY ILLEGAL ALIEN
While Hussein Obama and his minions make proclamations that a border he has never laid his own eyes on is more secure than it’s ever been, people who really know and who have no reason to try to hide the truth are disputing his false claims.
On Tuesday, Pinal County Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the state of affairs in the United States and his county as it pertains to the issue of illegal immigration. The sheriff had nothing good to say regarding the impact of the lawlessness of the Obama regime is having on law enforcement, the nation at larger and his community.
Sheriff Babeu noted in his prepared text that his county is the number one area for drug and human trafficking into the United States in the entire country, so he is qualified to address the issues. He cited statistics that show between 87,915 and 127,285 illegals were captured annually in his sector alone, figures which do not include the amount of illegals who successfully entered the United States without being apprehended. Of the ones who were caught, Babeu states that between 17 and 30 percent were criminals who already had a record for crimes they previously committed within the United States.
He also cited a recent GAO report which stated that for 56% of our border the United States did not have operational control and that due to natural geographic features and road access, much of the illegal traffic from the three of four Arizona sectors which still are not controlled is funneled through his county.
He noted that his office led the largest drug bust in Arizona history, valued at $3 billion dollars, which resulted in the arrest of 76 members of the Sinaloa Drug Cartel, and the confiscation of 108 firearms, two of which led back to Eric Holder’s fast and furious gun smuggling operation.
He used the presence of 28,600 troops presently stationed in Korea to provide contrast to the situation in America where our own border is largely left to the responsibility of local law enforcement who face what in essence is a foreign militarized criminal operation.
Sheriff Babeu advised Congress of the February 2013 release by ICE of 207 illegal alien inmates in one day, 48 percent of the serious or violent offenders, with a total of 408 in his county that year and the releases now totaling into the hundreds of thousands. These criminal predators now roam our streets, seeking American victims, rather than those of their native lands. In 2014 alone ICE charged only 24 percent, 143,000 of 585,000 potentially deportable illegal aliens which had already been apprehended by law enforcement, releasing the others onto the streets of America. In his county alone, Babeu has been informed by ICE insiders that they are releasing 30 to 50 illegals per day.
He also addressed multiple deportations and the policy of no consequence for subsequent immigration violations as well as the reward system created by allowing the Central American border crashers to remain and supporting their every need.
He also notes how the declaration of Hussein Obama is that five million illegals will receive amnesty, and how that figure is, as is customary, a blatant lie to the American people. He refers to the memorandum of DHS Director and Obama criminal co-conspirator Jeh Johnson which indicates that virtually none of the estimated eleven million illegals in the country will be prosecuted or even pursued. He says, “This is not prosecutorial discretion, but instead an intentional and flagrant disregard of the law and we will all suffer the consequences.”
He proposed a simple but aggressive plan that will solve the problem if it were to be adopted. Babeu recommended, “First, deploy 6,000 armed soldiers for a period of two years. While armed soldiers are deployed, complete the double barrier fence with the security platforms, lighting, sensors and asphalt roads to support rapid deployment of U.S. Border Patrol. Thirdly, fully enforce the law without any diversion option for illegals.”
He called upon Congress to take aggressive action to defend our borders, our communities and our nation as well as highlighting their responsibility to stand up for themselves and their legislative body which is under assault by this dictatorial regime.
The problem is fixable, but it won’t happen without taking action.
The House voted Wednesday to defund President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration, a step Republicans promised to take after Obama said in November he would provide legal protection for up to 5 million illegal immigrants.
Members voted 237-190 in favor of a defunding amendment brought by Rep. Bob Aderholt (R-Ala.). All but seven Republicans supported it, and it was opposed by all Democrats.
Republicans voting against it were Reps. Carlos Curbello (Fla.), Jeff Denham (Calif.), Mario Diaz-Balart (Fla.), Bob Dold (Ill.), Renee Ellmers (N.C.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) and David Valadao (Calif.).
With that vote, Aderholt’s language was attached to a Department of Homeland Security spending bill, which the House then passed shortly after noon in a 236-191 vote.
Aderholt’s language would block funding for Obama’s executive action, even those funds that agencies collect on their own through fees. It would prevent enforcement of memos DHS released in 2011 and 2012 that allow agencies to halt immigration enforcement on various classes of illegal immigrants.
It would also block any effort to carry out similar policies, and prevent the executive branch from giving any benefit to illegal immigrants that aren’t prescribed under law.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) promised to fight Obama’s action “tooth and nail,” and attaching the defunding language to the DHS spending bill is one of the stronger steps the GOP could take. Many conservatives feared the House might pass a defunding bill as a separate item, which would have made it much easier for Obama to ignore.
Attaching it to the DHS spending bill sets up an immediate challenge to Obama, who has said he would veto the bill if it defunds his immigration plan.
It also raises questions about how the Senate will handle the bill. It’s possible that Republicans may have to consider tweaking the language in order to find the 60 votes needed to start work on the bill, and failure to do so could effectively kill the bill in the upper chamber.
But this week, at least, House Republicans were holding firm, and were led by Boehner himself in the effort to fight back against Obama’s attempt to go around Congress.
“We do not take this action lightly, but simply, there is no alternative,” Boehner said, making one of his rare appearances on the House floor to speak about specific legislation. “This executive overreach is an affront to the rule of law and to the Constitution itself.”
“Enough is enough,” Boehner added. “By their votes last November, the people made clear that they wanted more accountability from this president, and by our votes here today, we will heed their will and we will keep our oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”
Democrats used the debate to warn that Obama’s actions were legal, and that the defunding language threatens to create a fight that could lead to the partial shutdown of DHS. Several Democrats have noted that Congress should not put at risk DHS funding, especially after the attacks against Charlie Hebdo in France last week.
“I am deeply disappointed that Republicans insist on making Congress play out this farce at the expense of our Nation’s security,” said Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, on Tuesday. “It has taken less than two weeks for the Republican Congress to prove that it cannot govern responsibly.”
Members considered two other substantive amendments to the bill. One from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) would prohibit the use of any federal funding to consider new applications under Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. That program, known as DACA, has given legal protection to hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who came to the country with their parents.
That amendment narrowly passed in a 218-209 vote, as 26 Republicans voted against it along with every Democrat.
House Members Contact List
Then contact your GOP representative(s) and tell them in no unceratain terms that if they vote to retain Mr. Boehner as Speaker of the House, you will never support them in any future election.
You may also telephone them via the Capitol switchboard at 1-202-224-3121.
FLASHABCK: March 9, 2011
House Speaker John Boehner is not a serious adult when it comes to addressing the out-of-control federal spending of the Democrat party. That is evident in his proposal to cut a largely inconsequential $61 Billion from the final seven months of this year’s budget.
To give you a good idea of just how astoundingly weak Boehner’s proposal is, consider that the budget deficit for February of this year ALONE was $223 Billion, or almost four times the amount that the Speaker proposes to cut by year’s end.
Even if the Senate agrees to sign on to these cuts, Obama’s obscene spending policies will still add another $1.6 Trillion to our already crippling and unsustainable $14.2 Trillion national debt.
Add to that, the fact that the President has crafted a monstrously irresponsible $3.7 Trillion budget for fiscal year 2012, and Boehner ‘s $61 Billion scheme is exposed for the pathetic monetary joke that it is.
To put it bluntly, if the Republican leader of the House is not willing to propose at least $700 Billion in cuts this year in the hopes that he may be able to strike a $350 Billion deal down the road, then he has no business being Speaker, or even being a member of the GOP leadership.
Sure, I understand that the Speaker of the House has no power to force the democrat-controlled Senate or the President to accept such a proposal, but he does have the authority to set the budget-cutting negotiations bar as high as he likes.
I ask you, why allow the Democrat leadership to malign and demonize you over a mere $61 Billion in proposed budget reductions when they could easily be maligning and demonizing you over a number many times higher than that?
At the end of the day, you’d have to be the most inept haggler in the world not to get at least a quarter of a Trillion dollars in cuts out of the bastards, and what’s more, they’d come away from the experience understanding that you actually are what you said you were in November.
Unfortunately for us all, John Boehner is not what he claimed to be during the conservative electoral tsunami of 2010.
In fact, he is a demonstrably unmotivated, unremarkable and unserious individual. who’s just made it painfully clear that he has no intention of confronting the tax-and-spend left in any appreciable way.
Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert has declared his candidacy for Speaker of the House of Representatives against John Boehner.
“After the November elections gave Republicans control of the Senate, voters made clear they wanted change,” Gohmert said in a statement timed alongside a Sunday show interview with Tucker Carlson.
“There have been numerous examples of problematic Republican leadership, but we were hopeful our leaders got the voters’ message,” Gohmert stated. “However, after our Speaker forced through the CRomnibus by passing it with Democratic votes and without time to read it, it seemed clear that we needed new leadership. There had been much discussion. But, until yesterday, no one had stepped up.”
“I applaud my friend Rep. Ted Yoho for putting his name forward as an alternative to the status quo. Ted is a good man for whom I could vote, but I have heard from many supporters and also friends in Congress who have urged me to put forward my name for Speaker as well to increase our chances of change. That is why I am also offering my name as a candidate for Speaker.”
Gohmert’s statement elaborated as to how he can win the Speaker’s race.
“There is false information being floated that any Republican candidates in addition to the current Speaker will split the vote and give the Speaker’s gavel to Congresswoman Pelosi,” Gohmert said. “This is nothing but a scare tactic to keep the current regime in power.”
“As long as Republicans vote for an adult American citizen for Speaker, no Democrat can win. Only if 30 Republicans voted ‘Present’ would there be a chance for a Democrat to win.”
“To win the Speaker’s race, an adult American citizen has to get a clear majority of all Members of Congress on the House floor voting for an eligible person. Voting ‘Present’ simply reduces the number of votes required to win a majority. If no one wins a majority on the first ballot, then we go to a second vote, then a third, until someone gets a majority.”
Gohmert solidified his growing stature in the Republican Party this year with the successful launch of GOHPAC, a tea party PAC to defend primary challengers from their GOP establishment rivals. The PAC helped shine a media light on young conservative candidates like Dan Bongino and Boehner’s Ohio-based primary challenger J.D. Winteregg in the run-up to Dave Brat’s historic defeat of Rep. Eric Cantor in the Virginia eighth district primary.