New York Sun Editorial Staff Wonders Where President Asshat Gets The Authority To Rename Mount McKinley

McKinley’s Greatest Monument – New York Sun

.
…………

.
It’s a mystery to us where President Obama or his interior secretary, Sally Jewell, gets the authority to rename in Alaska a mountain whose name was ratified by Congress a century ago as McKinley. We can understand the Democratic Party’s interest, in that McKinley, a Republican, was a particularly fine President. He was, moreover, one of four presidents felled by an assassin. We can understand, too, the sentiments of Alaska, whose legislature has wanted to change the name. Where, though, does the president come off doing this by fiat?

The question begs for an answer in light of the fact that legislation has been before Congress to change the name, but the Congress has decided not to do so. If the Supreme Court has been clear about anything it has been that the failure of Congress to act doesn’t amount to license for the other branches to act. Congress, the law supposes, had its own good reasons for not acting. One of them no doubt is that McKinley was from Ohio, which, given that Mount McKinley National Park is the locale of said mountain, has its own standing.

Our own interest in the matter lies with McKinley. We have no particular objection to, per se, Denali. That’s the name for the summit used by Alaskan Natives and, in recent years, also the federal name for the park. It’s the name the state’s senior senator, Lisa Murkowski, sought to attach to the mountain via legislation she earlier this year introduced, to no effect. Legislators from Ohio understood better, and moved to block the measure. William McKinley may never have been to the mountain, but he was an important and assassinated president.

Maybe some day a Republican president will restore to John Fitzgerald Kennedy International Airport the name of Idlewild, which is the name us native New Yorkers use for the airport (Idlewild is still a permitted reference for the airport in the “Reporters Handbook and Manual of Style of the New York Sun”). We could see the logic of it in an age of hyper-sensitivity to local sentiments. But we would object were a president to simply rename the airport after Congress had been asked and decided not to act.

In any event, let us raise a salute to Wm. McKinley. From his front porch in 1896, he ran one of the most remarkable campaigns in American history, defeating the Democrat, William Jennings Bryan, who ran for the free coinage of silver – a campaign of inflation – by attacking the Jews. It was one of the few anti-Semitic campaigns in American history. McKinley defeated it handily and gained passage in 1900 of the Gold Standard Act, which set the stage for the great boom of the 20th century. It’s a monument as majestic as the peak of Denali.

.

.

The Psychopathic Socialists Party ÷ The Cowering Excuse-Makers Party = President Donald Trump

Modern day Democrat politicians are socialists, which really isn’t breaking news. Heck, that particular socio-political philosophy was adopted by the DNC during the Great Depression. What is news, however, is that they’ve also become psychopathic, exhibiting the personality traits of your average serial killer just before he decides to start butchering prostitutes for the first time.

For a while there – say, 70 years or so – they seemed to be merely delusional, but since the turn of the 21st century, they’ve proven themselves to be devoid of any genuine feelings of empathy, compassion or remorse with respect to other human beings – at least the ones who don’t appear on their respective campaign contributors lists.

While not insane in the purely legal sense of the word, they are, nonetheless, stark-staring lunatics who are capable of the worst atrocities imaginable. In other words, they are scheming, soulless humanoids with a knack for appearing normal most of the time, despite their utter lack of humanity.

They’re also control freaks of the highest order, which is why they spend practically every waking moment thinking up ways to interfere with other people’s lives instead of doing anything substantive with their own. They become politicians because that is the one profession wherein you can make a name for yourself – not to mention oodles of money – without actually being a productive member of society.

Sadly, their minions in the entertainment industry, academia, and the press are still stuck in the aforementioned delusional phase of the socialist experiment, and have no idea that pols like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are complete monsters. Then again, I suppose it’s better that they’ve remained merely psychoneurotic rather than having mutated into full-blown, dead-eyed maniacs themselves. After all, psychosis (a distorted sense of reality) can be treated and even cured over time, but psychopathy is forever.

Anyway, enough with those demented bastards, let’s move on to the psychology of today’s Republican politicians and the sad sacks who help elect them, shall we?

— In the interest of full disclosure, there was a time when I too was a card-carrying member of the Republican party, but that ended soon after John Boehner became Speaker of the House of Representatives. You see, Mr. Boehner is what we in the rusted bucket of political punditry call an “assclown”, and one day while I was having a shave, I looked into the bathroom mirror and asked myself this question: can you really continue to claim membership in an organization that would appoint the likes of ‘Tammy Faye Boehner’ to such a position of power in Congress? My reflection answered with a resounding: NOPE! And the rest, as they say, is history. —

Now onto the subject at hand…

The GOP of the 21st century – thus far – is about as useful as shoe laces on a pair of sandals, and its leadership seems to be comprised of more cowards than a battalion of Iraqi soldiers.

But why is that, you ask?

Well, have you ever heard the term ‘Stockholm Syndrome’? It’s a psychological phenomenon in which hostages come to identify with – and even feel sympathy for – their captors. If you ask me, that’s the basic underpinning of the whole right-wing malfunction at the federal level in recent times, and if there’s a better explanation than this one for the behavioral patterns exhibited by the GOP’s most powerful leaders, I’d like to hear it. Really, I would.

The only viable alternative hypothesis I can come up with is that they’re just plain suicidal, and they want to take us all down with them. The problem with that supposition is that people who commit suicide are generally compulsive in nature. They don’t plan their demise years in advance, and they almost never intentionally take a stranger to his grave in the process.

As for the psychology of Republicans who are prominent in the fields of academia, entertainment and journalism, these people appear to be largely normal, with some notable exceptions. That’s why they and most other right-wingers in the private sector feel so disconnected from their elected representatives these days – especially the ones in positions of party leadership. After all, rational people have a hard time accepting irrational behavior, even from people they like.

So if you’ve been wondering why so many Republicans – even a good number of staunch conservatives – on TV, the internet, and talk radio are defending the likes of Donald Trump this election cycle, despite the fact that he’s wandered all over the political spectrum in terms of policy positions over the years, please allow me to explain their reasoning as best I understand it.

You see, it’s not who Trump is – per se – or even what he may believe about many issues that’s of primary importance to a lot of folks on the right these days. No, it’s what he represents that has them fired up, and what he represents is a man who just might actually get something positive done for a change in Washington DC, simply because he’s not a career politician with a long track record of fucking up absolutely EVERYTHING he touches!

Many people are just plain tired of the same platitudes and empty promises they’ve heard over and over again for the past quarter of a century from nearly every polished, right-leaning, professional politico who’s come down the pike. They all say pretty much the same things, yet little if anything actually changes once they take office, and in the meantime, the party elites keep growing more and more hostile toward the very people who elected them.

In essence, a growing number of Republicans are willing to roll the dice with an unknown quantity like The Donald on the off chance that he may be able to do what nobody since Ronald Reagan has managed to pull off, which is stem the tide of leftist incompetence and corruption that has permeated our federal government for decades. And what’s more, it really doesn’t seem to matter to them that he may entertain certain left-leaning sympathies with which they disagree.

Perhaps if there is a psychological malady that can be applied to some non-elected Republicans, it is ‘Battered Woman Syndrome’, a condition brought about by persistent abuse at the hands of someone whom the victim initially trusted and even professed to love. Of course, people who suffer from this complex for an extended period of time often snap and turn on their abusers with unfettered ferocity. (see Battered Woman’s Defense – U.S. criminal law)

So, is that what this whole Trump phenomenon is about? Is he merely a weapon of convenience being leveled at an habitually abusive political class by its long-suffering voter base? Is he like the butcher knife on the counter that the bruised and bloodied wife of a bully finally picks up one day and plunges into her tormenter’s filthy neck?

Your guess is as good as mine, but I certainly wouldn’t be surprised to find out that there’s some merit to that theory.

Edward L. Daley

.

President Asshat Gives Turkey Green Light To Bomb Former U.S. Soldiers Fighting With Kurds Against ISIS

Obama Gives Turkey Green Light To Bomb Former U.S. Soldiers Fighting ISIS – Gateway Pundit

Forty to fifty Americans are fighting with Kurdish forces against ISIS –

.

.
Retired U.S. Marine Jordan Matson joined the YPG Kurdish fighters to fight ISIS in September 2014.

Jordan told Greta Van Susteren in February that there are 40-50 Americans fighting with Kurdish forces against ISIS.

He also said the Kurds are very hospitable to Christians and Yazidis.

.

.
British ex-soldiers are also fighting with Kurdish forces against the Islamic State.

.

.
James Hughes, 26, and Jamie Read, 24, are fighting alongside other foreign volunteers with the Kurdish People’s Protection Units.

This week Obama gave a green light to Turkey to bomb the Kurds.

————————————————————————————————————————–

Peshmerga
@KURDISTAN_ARMY

Msg. to the American people and the US gov. : Is this a penalty because we fought against ISIS instead of the world ?

10:45 PM – 25 Jul 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

Turkish jets struck camps belonging to Kurdish militants in northern Iraq this weekend. This was Turkey’s first strike on the Kurds since a 2013 peace deal.

Americans and British soldiers are fighting with Kurds against ISIS.

————————————————————————————————————————–

Peshmerga
@KURDISTAN_ARMY

After the nuclear deal between Iran and US
Kurds= terrorists
Shiite militias (#PMF) = Forces to protect human rights.

9:40 PM – 25 Jul 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

————————————————————————————————————————–
Peshmerga
@KURDISTAN_ARMY

No Friends but the Mountains: The Fate of the Kurds
White House calls Kurdish force a terrorist group.
#PKK #Turkey
https://twitter.com/kurdistan_army/status/625118478639349760

5:19 AM – 26 Jul 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

.

.

*VIDEO* Allen West Verbally Bitchslaps President Asshat During Times Square Anti-Iran Rally


.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.

.

*VIDEO* OAN Network Conservababe Tomi Lahren Verbally Bitchslaps President Asshat


.

.

President Asshat Released Top Iranian Scientist As Part Of Nuke Deal; Left Americans To Rot In Hell

Obama Released Top Iranian Scientist As Part Of Nuke Deal; Left Americans To Rot In Hell – Gateway Pundit

On Wednesday Barack Obama lashed out at CBS reporter Major Garrett after he asked him about the four Americans left behind to languish in Iranian prisons.

.

.
Former Marine Amir Hekmati, Saeed Abedini and Vahid Salemi are being held in Iranian prisons. (Breitbart)

Obama was defending his nuclear deal with Iran when Garrett asked him about the US hostages in Iran.

Obama: I got to give you credit Major for how you craft those questions. the notion that I’m content as I celebrate with American citizens languishing in Iranian jails… Major, that’s nonsense and you should know better.

Of course, that is exactly what he did.

The Obama administration did nothing to free American hostages during their talks with the Iranian regime.

.

.
Now we know…

Obama released a top Iranian scientist as part of the deal but left the Americans to rot in hell in Iranian prisons.

The Times of Israel reported:

Mojtaba Atarodi, arrested in California for attempting to acquire equipment for Iran’s military-nuclear programs, was released in April as part of back channel talks, Times of Israel told. The contacts, mediated in Oman for years by close colleague of the Sultan, have seen a series of US-Iran prisoner releases, and there may be more to come.

The secret back channel of negotiations between Iran and the United States, which led to this month’s interim deal in Geneva on Iran’s rogue nuclear program, has also seen a series of prisoner releases by both sides, which have played a central role in bridging the distance between the two nations, the Times of Israel has been told.

In the most dramatic of those releases, the US in April released a top Iranian scientist, Mojtaba Atarodi, who had been arrested in 2011 for attempting to acquire equipment that could be used for Iran’s military-nuclear programs.

No wonder he didn’t want reporters talking about it!

.

.

Missouri Democrat Party Renames Annual Dinner After Racist President

Democrats Change Name Of Dinner To Honor Racist Harry Truman – Daily Caller

.

.
The Missouri Democratic Party is changing the name of its annual “Jefferson-Jackson” fundraising dinner, deleting the names of slave-owning party heroes Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. The party will instead honor avowed racist Harry Truman.

Though the state party denied that the name change was due to racial issues, Democratic state Sen. Jamilah Nasheed, who has called for the name to be changed, said that it was probably due to race. Every state Democratic party holds an early-summer Jefferson-Jackson fundraising dinner. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton recently attended the dinners in Arkansas and Virginia.

But the Missouri party’s decision to instead name the dinner for Harry Truman might not have been the most racially savvy choice.

“I think one man is just as good as another so long as he’s honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman,” Truman wrote as a 27-year old in 1911. “Uncle Will says that the Lord made a white man from dust, a nigger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman.”

“[Uncle Will] does hate Chinese and Japs,” Truman wrote. “So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, yellow men in Asia and white men in Europe and America.”

Though Truman nearly lost the 1948 Democratic nomination when Southern Democrats walked out of the convention due to Truman’s mildly progressive racial policies at the time, his personal beliefs were pretty firmly racist.

As a U.S. senator, Truman told his daughter in a letter that the White House waitstaff was comprised of “an army of coons.”

.

.

Spokane, Washington NAACP President Just Pretended To Be Black… Is Really White… And A Complete Nutjob

NAACP President Is Busted As Fraud; She’s Actually White And Born In Montana – Gateway Pundit

.

.
Fake Black Lives Matter –

Her parents say she’s been misrepresenting her race for years.

Rachel Dolezal got busted by a reporter on video:

.

.
Rachel Dolezal is president of the Spokane chapter of the NAACP and teaches African American culture at university.

KHQ reported:

There are questions about Spokane’s NAACP Chapter President, Rachel Dolezal. The city confirmed with KHQ she claimed to be of African-American descent on a city application to be on the Ombudsman commission. But we spoke with her parents today who say Rachel is white and has been misrepresenting her ethnicity for years.

Dolezal teaches African American Culture at Eastern Washington University as an adjunct instructor. Her blog also says she is an art instructor at North Idaho College, is an advisor for the NIC Black Student Association.

Dolezal made headlines back in February when she claimed someone had mailed racist and threatening letters to the NAACP post office box. KHQ managed to obtain a 38-page Spokane Police report about the investigation into that mail. Officers concluded that the mail had not been properly processed through the post office, and was likely put directly into the post office box, without being mailed at all. They said only a few people have access to the box: the USPS employees who work there, and the boxholder. Police said they do not believe the USPS employees put the mail there. The investigation continues.

More… Rachel Dolezal posed in native-wear with her family. She said she was born in a teepee.

.
…………

.

.

President Asshat To Release 10 More Gitmo Terrorists This Month

Up To 10 More Gitmo Terrorists Released This Month – Universal Free Press

.

.
The Obama administration intends to transfer up to 10 detainees from the Guantanamo detention center to other countries this month, even while the Senate debates freezing such transfers and keeping the prison site open. These would be the first transfers since the president stopped releasing the detainees the first of January amid anger on the part of Americans and a refusal of some countries to accept any more of them.

“You’re likely to see some progress in June,” a defense official said Wednesday. “I just talked to the National Security Council and people at State Department, and we could see as many as 10 be released. While there is no definite timeframe on this it would be sooner rather than later. The administration is actively engaged with a number of countries in additional negotiations regarding the 57 that are eligible. Of the prison’s 122 detainees, 57 have been cleared for transfer to other countries by the Pentagon as part of an interagency review.

Last year, the Obama administration sped up transfers in a race to empty the detention center before the Republican-led Congress could block attempts to close it. Those transfers came to a halt in January. In April, when the Washington Post reported they might start again, and today, the official said that some June transfers are likely.

These would be the first prisoners to leave Guantanamo under new Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. Carter replaced Chuck Hagel in February following his reluctance to back the administration on the releases of the terrorists. Ultimately, Hagel transferred 44 Guantanamo detainees – more than half of those in the weeks before he stepped down in November. Still, that was ten times more than his predecessor, Leon Panetta, who transferred just four.

Obama wants to close Guantanamo, and in Carter, he has found a willing accomplice. “He has also said that he wants to take a holistic approach,” the official said. “So he wants to focus on the 57 who are cleared for transfer, but he wants to see what we’re doing with the rest of those. So he’s thinking about all 122, not just the 57.”

The source said Carter was working hard on the issue. “I think it’s fair to say he’s fully engaged in all things Guantanamo – transfers, dealing with the Senate and the House and the Hill, talking with the White House on a regular basis”. “There’s a been a lot of oversight and follow-up on the Hill, explaining why a specific transfer meets the statute; why somebody, who hypothetically is in Guantanamo because they’re not a choir boy, that threat can be substantially mitigated.”

This week, the Senate began considering the 2016 defense authorization bill, or NDAA, which over the years has become the main battleground for the fight to keep or close the prison. Both existing versions of House and Senate NDAA would extend current restrictions on transferring prisoners to facilities inside the United States, and restore stricter provisions stripped out in past years. In some cases, they would also add new obstacles, essentially blocking many of the third-party transfers. The House version would withhold 25 percent of Carter’s budget as punishment for what House Armed Services Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, called foot-dragging on providing documents related to the five terrorists swapped for accused deserter Bowe Bergdahl.

The Senate Armed Services Committee inserted a compromise provision drawn up by Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.: the president can close the prison if he can draw up a plan that gets Congressional approval; if not, stricter restrictions go into effect.

“This legislation contains a bipartisan compromise on how to address the challenge of the detention facility of Guantanamo Bay,” McCain said in his opening statement on the floor Wednesday. “President Obama has said from day one of his presidency that he wants to close Guantanamo, but six and a half years into his administration, the President has never provided a plan to do so.”

SASC Ranking Member Jack Reed, D-R.I., voted against the bill and spoke against it on the floor. “One problem is the familiar, oft-debated and very complicated challenge of Guantanamo,” he said. “While we have had some carefully crafted compromise language in this bill, there are other provisions that reverse progress, particularly on the overseas transfers of detainees.”

The White House has threatened to veto the NDAAs as drafted, arguing they not only move backward rather than forward on closing the facility, but that portions are unconstitutional infringements on the executive.

“The bill also continues unwarranted restrictions, and imposes onerous additional ones, regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay,” the administration policy statement on the Senate NDAA reads, repeating the veto threat. “These provisions undermine our national security by limiting our ability to act as our military, diplomatic, and other national security professionals deem appropriate in a given case.”

.

.

George W. Bush Outpolls President Asshat

George W. Bush Outpolls Barack Obama – Politico

.

.
Americans now have a more favorable view of former President George W. Bush than they do of President Barack Obama.

It is the first time in more than a decade that Americans have expressed a favorable view of Bush, at least according to a new CNN/ORC poll released Wednesday.

Bush is seen in a favorable light by 52 percent of those surveyed, compared with 43 percent who still view the 43rd president unfavorably. Americans are split on Obama, with 49 percent responding favorably and unfavorably.

The last time Bush polled in positive territory was in early April 2005, close to three months into his second term.

Among living presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton are viewed the most favorably, with 64 percent responding favorably to both. Just 30 percent see the elder Bush negatively, and 33 percent see Clinton in an unfavorable light.

When the same question was asked in 2014, the 43rd president polled at 46 percent favorability, continuing his steady increase in the public’s esteem since leaving office, when just 33 percent responded that way in February 2009.

The poll was conducted May 29-31 by telephone, surveying 1,025 Americans, with an overall margin of error of plus-or-minus 3 percentage points.

.

.

Federal Court Deals Blow To President Asshat’s Executive Amnesty Scheme

Federal Appeals Court Deals Blow To President Obama’s Amnesty – Washington Times

.

.
A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against President Obama’s new deportation in a ruling Tuesday that marks the second major legal setback for an administration that had insisted its actions were legal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, which had sued to stop the amnesty, on all key points, finding that Mr. Obama’s amnesty likely broke the law governing how big policies are to be written.

“The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction,” the judges wrote in the majority opinion.

Mr. Obama had acted in November to try to grant tentative legal status and work permits to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, saying he was tired of waiting for Congress to act.

The full amnesty, known as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, or DAPA, had been scheduled to begin last week, while an earlier part had been slated to accept applications on Feb. 18. But just two days before that, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued his injunction finding that Mr. Obama had broken the law.

Administration officials had criticized that ruling, and immigrant-rights advocates had called Judge Hanen an activist bent on punishing immigrants. But Tuesday’s ruling upholds his injunction, giving some vindication to the judge.

It also could mean Mr. Obama will have to appeal to the Supreme Court if he wants to implement his amnesty before the end of his term.

In the 2-1 decision, Judge Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Elrod ruled in favor of Texas, finding that the state would suffer an injury from having to deliver services to the illegal immigrants granted legal status, and ruling that it was a major enough policy that the president should have sent it through the usual rule-making process.

“DAPA modifies substantive rights and interests – conferring lawful presence on 500,000 illegal aliens in Texas forces the state to choose between spending millions of dollars to subsidize driver’s licenses and changing its law,” the judges wrote.

Judge Stephen A. Higginson dissented from Tuesday’s ruling, saying he would have left the fight over immigration policy to the White House and Congress, saying Mr. Obama should have broad discretion to decide who gets deported and how he goes about that.

Just Higginson also said the fight was a political battle, not a legal one

“The political nature of this dispute is clear from the names on the briefs: hundreds of mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, attorneys general, governors, and state legislators – not to mention 185 members of Congress, 15 states and the District of Columbia on the one hand, and 113 members of Congress and 26 states on the other,” he wrote.

.

.

Israeli President Rivlin Refuses To Meet With Notorious Anti-Semite Jimmy Carter

Rivlin Refuses Meeting In Israel With Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter – Jerusalem Post

.

.
President Reuven Rivlin has refused to meet with former U.S. president Jimmy Carter during his upcoming visit to the region, due to his stances over recent years seen as “anti-Israel.”

In recent years, Carter has become one of the most prominent critics of Israel, notably when during last summer’s war with Hamas he denounced the IDF’s Operation Protective Edge in Gaza as illegitimate.

An Israeli diplomatic official told The Jerusalem Post’s Hebrew sister publication Ma’ariv that the Foreign Ministry recommended Rivlin not meet with Carter, in order to transmit the message that those who harm Israel will not meet with the president.

Carter is reportedly expected to visit Israel and the Palestinian territories in the coming weeks.

Carter has criticized successive U.S. administrations for failing to clinch an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. He has advocated controversial positions, chief among them that the West should engage Hamas in diplomatic negotiations.

.

.

Who Is Dennis Michael Lynch?


.
Dennis Michael Lynch (born August 28, 1969) is an American entrepreneur, documentary filmmaker, and conservative commentator. He is the founder and CEO of TV360Media, a company specializing in the production and distribution of digital film, and often appears as a guest on Fox News and TheBlaze. He is currently running for President of the United States as a conservative Republican.

Official Campaign Website
Facebook
Twitter
Youtube
Documentary: They Come To America

.
VETERANS TEAR DOWN OBAMA BARRICADES AT WWII MEMORIAL

.
SEAN HANNITY TELEVISION SPECIAL: THE COST OF AMNESTY

.
BUNDY RANCH STANDOFF

.
DML FOR AMERICA PAC

.
SPEECH AT NEW HAMPSHIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERSHIP SUMMIT

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.

All You Need To Know About Hillary’s Qualifications For President (Videos)

U.S. Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 101, Section 2071 – Cornell University Law School
CONCEALMENT, REMOVAL, OR MUTILATION GENERALLY

(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.

.

.
Statement Regarding Subpoena Compliance And Server Determination By Former Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton – House Select Committee On Benghazi

March 27, 2015 – Press Release

Washington, DC – Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy today issued the following statement regarding former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s response to the committee’s subpoena. She failed to produce a single new document and refused to relinquish her server to a neutral, detached third party for an independent review of potential public records:

“After seeking and receiving a two week extension from the Committee, Secretary Clinton failed to provide a single new document to the subpoena issued by the Committee and refused to provide her private server to the Inspector General for the State Department or any other independent arbiter for analysis.

“We learned today, from her attorney, Secretary Clinton unilaterally decided to wipe her server clean and permanently delete all emails from her personal server. While it is not clear precisely when Secretary Clinton decided to permanently delete all emails from her server, it appears she made the decision after October 28, 2014, when the Department of State for the first time asked the Secretary to return her public record to the Department.

“Not only was the Secretary the sole arbiter of what was a public record, she also summarily decided to delete all emails from her server ensuring no one could check behind her analysis in the public interest.”

“In light of the Secretary’s unprecedented email arrangement with herself and her decision nearly two years after she left office to permanently delete all emails and because the equities at stake involve not only those of the Select Committee and Congress more broadly, but also those of the American people and their right to the full record of her tenure as secretary of State, we will work with the leadership of the House of Representatives as the Committee considers next steps. But it is clear Congress will need to speak with the former Secretary about her email arrangement and the decision to permanently delete those emails.”

.
BILL WHITTLE: THE CRIMINAL ARROGANCE OF HILLARY CLINTON

.
BEN SHAPIRO: HILLARY LIES… A LOT

.
‘JUDICIAL WATCH’ LEGAL PANEL ON THE HILLARY CLINTON EMAIL SCANDAL

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.

Rand Paul Just Jumped Into The Race For President – And I’m Here To Bust His Balls (Video)


.
The following quotes were taken from the above-embedded speech by Senator Rand Paul in which he declared his candidacy for President of the United States. After each one, I have posted a response in the hopes that every Paulbot in America will take a few moments out of his or her busy day to write me some hate-mail.

Let’s begin.

RP: “We’ve come to take our country back from the special interests that use Washington as their personal piggy bank.”

What political interests aren’t “special”? Which ones should we get rid of, and how? If I’m not mistaken, people have a constitutional right to petition their government for a redress of grievances. Should we now amend the ‘Bill of Rights’ with respect to this issue?

RP: “If we nominate a candidate who is simply Democrat-light, what’s the point?”

There’s no more point in doing that than there is in nominating a Libertarian who calls himself a Republican in order to get GOP backing for an election.

RP: “Washington is horribly broken. I fear it can’t be fixed from within.”

If that’s true, then why are you running for president? After all, if change can only be made from without, why attempt to become the biggest insider there is?

RP: “Congress has an abysmal record with balancing anything. Our only recourse is to force Congress to balance the budget with a constitutional amendment.”

How are you going to convince Congressmen to do something that they could have done at any time in the past, but have consistently refused to do? Are you calling for a ‘Convention of the States’ for such a purpose? And if you could get Congress and/or the states to adopt a balanced budget amendment, would there be exceptions to it, such as during times of war?

RP: “We limit the president to two terms. It’s about time we limit the terms of Congress.”

How do you propose we convince members of Congress to pass a law that makes them leave office and actually work for a living? Again, are you suggesting we implement a ‘Convention of the States’? If so, I’d support that. If not, then this proposition is as shallow as a mud puddle.

RP: “I want to reform Washington. I want common-sense rules that will break the logjam in Congress. That’s why I’ve introduced a ‘Read The Bills’ act.”

Is there currently something preventing Congressmen from reading the bills they vote on? Even if you could force them to read their bills, where is the guarantee that they’d understand them, or that doing so would cause them to vote differently than they otherwise would?

RP: “Work is not punishment, work is the reward.”

No, work is just another word for effort, and effort is not a reward, it is the means by which one reaps a reward. For instance, the satisfaction derived from accomplishing a goal is a reward for effort, as is the money exchanged for it in a free market. Rewards are the results of work, not the work itself.

RP: “My plan involves economic freedom zones to allow impoverished areas like Detroit, west Louisville, eastern Kentucky to prosper by leaving more money in the pockets of the people who live there.”

How? Are you proposing that we create special tax rates for people in failing cities by modifying our already monstrously complex tax code? If not, then what do you suggest? And who gets to determine which areas of the country are worthy of such distinct consideration, and which aren’t?

RP: “Conservatives understand that government is the problem, not the solution. Conservatives should not succumb, though, to the notion that a government inept at home will somehow succeed in building nations abroad.”

What if we have no choice but to go to war with a country filled with radical Islamists? Do we just leave it in ruins afterward, creating a power vacuum for any lunatic to fill? Contrary to popular belief, America has never lost a war. However, in modern times it has often lost the ensuant peace. (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq)

RP: “We brought Iran to the table through sanctions that I voted for. Now we must stay strong. That’s why I’ve co-sponsored legislation that ensures that any deal between the U.S. and Iran must be approved by Congress. Not only is that good policy, it’s the law.”

If it’s already the law, why are you co-sponsoring a bill of identical effect? Wouldn’t your time in Congress be better spent supporting legislation that isn’t redundant?

RP: “Let’s quit building bridges in foreign countries and use that money to build some bridges here at home.”

That may be an effective bumper-sticker line for a presidential campaign, but if my memory hasn’t completely failed me, back in 2009, Congress passed an $831B “stimulus” bill called the ‘American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’ for just such domestic purposes. And yet, our infrastructure is in worse shape now than it’s ever been. So tell me, how is not spending a few million dollars in Iraq or Afghanistan going to help us build bridges in America, when the billions we’ve supposedly allocated for that purpose aren’t actually being used to build bridges?

RP: “It angers me to see mobs burning our flag and chanting ‘death to America’ in countries that receive millions of dollars in our foreign aid. I say, it must end. I say not one penny more to these haters of America.”

What if the penny you mentioned is one of many being used to stop Muslim extremists from overrunning U.S.-friendly governments – like the one headed by the Shah of Iran in the 1970s? Should we provide “aid” money to a bad government that’s at least willing to play ball with us on the international stage, or would you rather let it be replaced by a worse one that will cost us far more in treasure and blood down the road?

RP: “I say that your phone records are yours.”

Not if the records in question belong to your service provider. Which records are you referring to, exactly?

RP: “The president created this vast dragnet by executive order, and as president, on day one, I will immediately end this unconstitutional surveillance.”

To which executive order do you refer? For that matter, which president? And how are you going to end said surveillance… by executive order? Tell me, is the NSA’s collection of metadata identical to the general warrants of search and seizure rejected by our founding fathers? I don’t believe so.

As Charles Krauthammer wrote in 2013: Thirty-five years ago in United States v. Choate, the courts ruled that the Postal Service may record “mail cover,” i.e., what’s written on the outside of an envelope – the addresses of sender and receiver. The National Security Agency’s recording of U.S. phone data does basically that with the telephone. It records who is calling whom – the outside of the envelope, as it were. The content of the conversation, however, is like the letter inside the envelope. It may not be opened without a court order. The constitutional basis for this is simple: The Fourth Amendment protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for what’s written on an envelope. It’s dropped in a public mailbox, read by workers at the collection center and read once again by the letter carrier. It’s already openly been shared, much as your phone records are shared with, recorded by, and (e-)mailed back to you by a third party, namely the phone company. Indeed, in 1979 the Supreme Court (Smith v. Maryland) made the point directly regarding the telephone: The expectation of privacy applies to the content of a call, not its record. There is therefore nothing constitutionally offensive about the newly revealed NSA data-mining program that seeks to identify terrorist networks through telephone-log pattern recognition.

RP: “I see an America where criminal justice is applied equally, and any law that disproportionately incarcerates people of color is repealed.”

The enforcement of most violent-crime laws leads to a disproportionate incarceration rate among “people of color”. Should we suddenly decriminalize armed robbery and murder because a higher percentage – per capita – of non-whites are convicted of those crimes than whites?

————————————————————————————————————————–

Dear Rand Paul supporters,

I get why you like the good doctor. He seems like a man of integrity who keeps to his word and champions the cause of liberty in a way that few of his contemporaries do.

Good for him.

The downside to many of his policy viewpoints, however, is that he really hasn’t thought them through. They won’t work – despite his noble intentions – because ideology must be tempered with pragmatism, or else it is counterproductive.

Sincerely,

Edward L. Daley

.

President Asshat Enjoys Women’s College Basketball Game As U.S. Troops Flee Yemen

Obama Enjoys Ivy League Women’s College Basketball As U.S. Troops Flee Yemen – Daily Caller

.

.
President Barack Obama enjoyed NCAA women’s college basketball tournament action on Saturday as approximately U.S. 100 troops evacuated a rapidly deteriorating and chaotic situation near the southern Yemen city of al-Houta.

The soldiers – many of them elite special forces commandos – had been stationed at al-Anad air base in the war-torn Arab country, reports BBC News.

The proximate cause of the hasty Saturday exit was a Friday attack on the city of al-Houta by al-Qaida fighters. A quick counter-attack by the Yemeni army has since reportedly minimized al-Qaida gains.

Friday also saw a suicide bomb attack in Sana’a, the capital of Yemen. At least 137 people died in the bombing, for which Islamic State-associated combatants have claimed credit.

Obama sat in a prime seat at the first-round NCAA tournament game at XFINITY Center in College Park, Md. He was surrounded by a group of fans festooned in orange and black — the colors of fancypants Princeton University.

Obama’s niece, Leslie Robinson, plays on the Princeton women’s team, which is currently undefeated for the season.

Princeton, a #8 seed, beat the University of Wisconsin–Green Bay, a #9 seed, by a score of 80-70 on Saturday afternoon.

Fans at the game chanted “four more years,” notes Yahoo! News.

In the fall of 2014, Obama touted Yemen as a War on Terror success story.

Yemen is currently undergoing what amounts to a civil war involving several armed and vigorous elements including al-Qaida and ISIS.

A number of weeks ago, U.S. Marines allegedly destroyed their weapons or simply left them to Yemeni factions before leaving in the midst of an Iran-backed coup.

.

.

President Asshat Humiliated As Allies Rush To Join China’s New Bank

Diplomatic Disaster: Obama Humiliated By Allies’ Rush To Join China’s New Bank – Washington Times

.

.
The battle of wills between Beijing and Washington over a China-sponsored development bank for Asia is turning into a rout, and the Obama administration has found itself isolated and embarrassed as its top allies lined up this week to join the proposed Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

In what one analyst dubbed a “diplomatic disaster” for the U.S., Britain became the first major European ally to sign on as a founding member of the Shanghai-based investment bank, joined quickly by France, Germany and Italy, which dismissed public and private warnings from the U.S. about the bank’s potential impact on global lending standards and the competition it could provide to existing institutions such as the U.S.-dominated World Bank.

Luxembourg, a major global financial center, revealed this week that it would sign up. China also is also wooing Australia and South Korea, two of America’s closest Asian allies, to join before the March 31 deadline. A South Korean wire service reported Wednesday that Seoul was “seriously considering” the offer.

The reason for the stampede is clear: China’s market and its huge hoard of cash to invest override any concerns voiced by the U.S. Treasury Department and State Department over Beijing’s half-ownership stake in the bank.

“Simply put, if you partake, you have a stake,” Thomas Koenig, a policy analyst with the European Union Chamber of Commerce, told the German broadcast service Deutsche Welle.

With 32 countries on board and more expected in the coming days, Chinese state media have begun to gloat about the failure of the Obama administration to rally even its closest allies and trading partners to shun the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. They noted that U.S. officials have long lectured China, now the world’s second-largest economy, to take a more active “stakeholder” role in global economic affairs, but then tried to undermine the investment bank almost from the time Chinese President Xi Jinping floated the idea of an Asian development fund during a trip to Indonesia in October 2013.

“Welcome Germany! Welcome France! Welcome Italy!” the official Chinese Xinhua News Agency wrote in a commentary published Wednesday.

“Despite a petulant and cynical Washington,” more and more major countries are joining, the commentary noted. “Holding sour grapes over the AIIB makes America look isolated and hypocritical.”

Chinese officials noted Wednesday that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank will be on the agenda for the summit of top Chinese, Japanese and South Korean diplomats Saturday in Seoul. Chinese Deputy Finance Minister Shi Yaobin told reporters in Beijing that the U.S. would still be welcomed as a founding partner.

Saying Asia’s booming infrastructure financing needs – estimated at a staggering $700 billion annually – aren’t being met by institutions such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, China is putting up half of the planned initial $50 billion financing to launch the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. India, another U.S. ally, is the second-biggest investor, and a group of developing countries from Asia and the Middle East quickly signed on.

The Obama administration has been skeptical of the idea from the start, arguing that the proposed bank could prove redundant and could undercut lending standards on such issues as worker protections and the environment. China’s large stake also raised red flags, U.S. officials said, about whether the bank would favor Beijing’s economic and strategic priorities.

Clash over clout

Underlying the public debate was a clear clash between Washington and Beijing over clout in the globe’s leading financial infrastructure, set up largely by the United States in the wake of World War II and still largely dominated in the senior ranks by U.S., European and Japanese officials.

“We are wary about a trend toward constant accommodation of China, which is not the best way to engage a rising power,” an unidentified U.S. official told the Financial Times newspaper after news broke that Britain would join the bank.

Rising powers such as China, Brazil and India also have expressed mounting frustration that a proposed overhaul of the International Monetary Fund to reset voting rights to reflect the new global pecking order has been blocked because the Obama administration and the Republican-dominated Congress have been unable to pass it.

Analysts say Chinese officials have skillfully tried to meet concerns that Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank members will be drawn into a power clash. During a visit to Australia last month, Zhou Qiangwu, a point man for Beijing’s selling efforts, noted that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank would be run by a multinational secretariat and use the same management structure as the Asian Development Bank and World Bank.

The proposed bank would “follow the international practice and give highest attention to environmental impact and resettlement” issues, he said, with strong safeguards against corruption.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew tried to moderate the U.S. line against the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank in testimony on Capitol Hill this week, insisting that the administration’s primary goal was to ensure that the bank did not undermine lending standards.

“I hope before the final commitments are made anyone who lends their name to this organization will make sure that the governance is appropriate,” Mr. Lew said.

But the White House and the State Department said this week that it was the “sovereign decision” of each country on whether to participate in the bank.

Mr. Lew did acknowledge that the longtime U.S. and Western primacy in the global financial sphere was being challenged by China and other rising powers, which may not share Washington’s priorities.

“New players are challenging U.S. leadership in the multilateral system,” Mr. Lew said, pleading for passage of the IMF reform package. “Our international credibility and influence are being threatened.”

But private analysts say that credibility and influence have taken major hits from the rush to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

C. Fred Bergsten, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics, wrote this week that the Obama administration made a huge mistake by trying to undermine the bank, not only failing to persuade allies to stay out but also strengthening the voices in Beijing who argue that the U.S. is trying to keep China down.

“The U.S. hostility reinforces the Chinese view that U.S. strategy is to contain and suppress it,” he wrote, “so increasing rather than decreasing the prospect of uncooperative Chinese behavior.”

Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman said this week that the saga “is turning into a diplomatic debacle for the U.S.”

“By setting up and then losing a power struggle with China,” he said, “Washington has sent an unintended signal about the drift of power and influence in the 21st century.”

.

.

President Asshat Makes Japanese Internment Camp A National Monument In Attempt To Vilify America

Obama Hates America: Domestic Enemy President Makes Japanese Internment Camp A National Monument In Attempt To Vilify America – Pat Dollard

.

.

.
This action sums up Obama’s views of America perfectly, and lays out his agenda, his sick joy in hurting it: “America is a bad place that has done bad things, and I am going to humiliate and shame it as much as possible. I am also going to curse it for doing what it needed to survive in order to weaken it from ever doing things that protects itself but hurts its enemies ever again.”

Excerpted from Gateway Pundit: After Rudy Giuliani made his comments this week that Barack Obama does not love America the White House tweeted this out:

=============================================

The White House
@WhiteHouse

Obama: “I’m using my powers as President to announce America’s 3 newest National Monuments.” #ObamaLovesAmerica

3:11 PM – 19 Feb 2015
=============================================

“Obama loves America” because he announced three new National Monuments.

The only problem is that one of Obama’s national monuments is the Japanese internment camp in Hawaii.

.

.
Honouliuli Internment Camp was long forgotten until it was dug up in 2007.

The Honouliuli National Monument is on Oahu. The camp was the largest and longest-operating internment camp, opened in 1943 and closed in 1946, in Hawaii. In August 1943, there were 160 Japanese Americans and 69 Japanese interned there. Keep reading

Excerpted from Monsanto.com: Monsanto recently donated land to the National Park Service from the Honouliuli Internment Camp Site for a National Park Service National Monument. The designation of the monument was announced by President Obama on Feb. 19.

“We are very excited about reaching this significant milestone in the community’s efforts to preserve the Honouliuli Internment Camp into perpetuity as part of the U.S. National Park System,” said Alan Takemoto, Community Affairs Manager of Monsanto Hawaii. “Transferring ownership of this land to the Federal Government is the result of years of hard work by numerous individuals and organizations who have been diligently and patiently working, step by step, to make this community vision a reality. We at Monsanto Hawaii are very proud to be a part of this tremendous collaboration.”

In 2007, Monsanto acquired farmland in Kunia which includes the site of the former Honouliuli Internment Camp. At that time, the company pledged to work with the community to preserve the Camp site for its historic value. Since then, Monsanto has been collaborating closely with local organizations, including the Japanese Cultural Center of Hawai‘i and University of Hawai‘i West O‘ahu, to work with the National Park Service in the hopes of establishing Honouliuli Internment Camp as a National Historic Site. Keep reading

.

.

Federal Judge Slams The Brakes On President Asshat’s Executive Amnesty Scheme

Federal Judge Halts Obama’s Amnesty Orders – WorldNetDaily

.

.
A federal judge in Texas on Monday granted a temporary injunction halting President Obama’s executive-order driven amnesty program.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ordered the government not to proceed with any portion of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, DAPA.

In his order the federal judge said the court found “that at least one plaintiff has satisfied all the necessary elements to maintain a lawsuit and to obtain a temporary injunction.”

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

The outline of plans was “set out in the Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson’s memorandum dated November 20, 2014.”

The injunction is until “a final resolution of the merits of this case or until a further order of this court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the United States Supreme Court,” the judge ordered.

He cited the Obama administration’s failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Hanen also ordered that federal officials and agencies are further enjoined from implementing “any and all aspects or phases of the expansions (including any and all changes) to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.”

That was the program begun several years ago by Obama.

The judge also explained the defendants will be allowed to “reapproach this court for relief from this order, in the time period between the date of this order and the trial on the merits, for good cause, including if Congress passes legislation that authorizes DAPA or at such a time as the defendants have complied with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.”

He scheduled a conference call for counsel following a Feb. 27, 2015, deadline for a schedule for the case to be processed.

In Austin, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said, “President Obama abdicated his responsibility to uphold the United States Constitution when he attempted to circumvent the laws passed by Congress via executive fiat, and Judge Hanen’s decision rightly stops the president’s overreach in its tracks. We live in a nation governed by a system of checks and balances, and the president’s attempt to by-pass the will of the American people was successfully checked today. The district court’s ruling is very clear – it prevents the president from implementing the policies in ‘any and all aspects.’”

It’s one of two pending cases challenging Obama’s amnesty.

The other actually was developed first, and was thrown out at the district court level.

But it now is on a fast track before an appellate court in Washington, D.C.

It was filed by attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, on behalf of Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona.

Klayman told WND he’s waiting now for the government to respond to the appellate court.

“We want the D.C. court to enter a preliminary injunction, stopping everything in its tracks,” he said. “We’re confident that they will agree with us.”

Obama’s amnesty plans are forecast to allow at least another five million illegal aliens in the U.S. to be given a legal status, where they could hold jobs, driver’s licenses – and critics say they would even be allowed to vote.

WND had reported earlier on the significance of the case, which was brought by 26 states against the federal government. It was predicted to go far beyond amnesty and immigration.

The fight will determine whether the United States can be run by a president and his decrees, or by a chief elected official who enforces the laws Congress writes, according to Mark Krikorian, chief of the Center for Immigration Studies, which watches the immigration situation.

“If I were a Republican politician, I wouldn’t even be arguing this on the basis of immigration,” he told WND in an interview. “I would be talking about this as just the latest and most egregious example of a president’s rule by decree.”

He said the coming dispute, which very well may extend into the 2016 presidential election or beyond, is going to decide “the balance of powers, whether Congress actually makes law or is an advisory body like the U.N. General Assembly, which is how Obama sees it.”

Obama already has challenged America’s laws a multitude of times, simply issuing orders to make changes to the Obamacare law, and on a variety of other issues, all without the benefit of a decision by Congress, which originally wrote the laws.

The fight over amnesty is one of two focal points – the other is Obamacare – of a letter-writing campaign to encourage GOP members of the U.S. House to replace Speaker John Boehner.

The “Dump Boehner Now” campaign allows voters to reach every single Republican House member with hard-copy letters asking them to reconsider their choice as speaker. The letter says House members had the chance to stop Obamacare and amnesty, but Boehner failed to take advantage.

Joseph Farah, WND founder and campaign organizer, set up the letters campaign. He said the opposition to Boehner is based on the Obamacare and amnesty program that voters rejected in the 2014 midterm elections.

The letter explains to members of the U.S. House that two issues have “prompted Americans to turn in droves to the Republican Party in November 2014 – Barack Obama’s blatantly unconstitutional executive action to provide amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, and the deliberately deceptive restructuring of America’s health-care system through Obamacare, which threatens to unravel the greatest health delivery system in the world.”

Pointing out that Republicans before the election “solemnly vowed to STOP this lame-duck president,” the letter states: “Now you have the power, right and duty to stop him.

“But it won’t happen with John Boehner leading you. You know this to be true. The trillion-dollar budget deal is just the latest proof that Boehner is not capable of leading the House to victory during this critical period.”

It’s because during the lame-duck Congress, Boehner agreed to Obama’s plan to continue funding for Obamacare and amnesty into 2015.

MSNBC did a report only days ago speculating on whether Hanen would halt the federal plan. MSNBC called Hanen “a critic of the Obama administration’s immigration policies.”

Worried MSNBC, “If Hanen decides against the Obama administration, he could block the implementation of the executive measures, which are scheduled to kick in Feb. 18. If that were to happen, the Department of Justice would almost certainly appeal the decision, which would then go to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals – yet another conservative-leaning court.”

The fact that more than half the states are participating in the case has alarmed amnesty supporters, but they still hope more and more illegals come out of the shadows and claim a place at the head of the line of those awaiting official recognition in the U.S., or at least it appears that way.

Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center told MSNBC, “People have been waiting so long for a chance to come forward and be able to work with authorization and not be looking over their shoulder all day long. We’re really trying to send the message that this should be business as usual.”

House Republicans, under Boehner, also have said they are going to take court action, but haven’t yet.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the decision was a victory.

“And a crucial first step in reining in President Obama’s lawlessness,” he added.

Klayman has explained it’s not a case mainly about immigration.

“This is fundamentally about the rule of law and our constitutional system,” he said.

“I know we would prefer, like all conservatives and patriots, to have a clear ruling that executive overreach by any president is a dangerous injury to our Constitution. Lawyers do recognize, however, that courts try to find the easiest way to reach a result. We hope to reach a ruling that the executive branch cannot rewrite the nation’s laws whether they go through the Administrative Procedures Act process or not,” Klayman said.

In an accompanying 123-page memorandum, Hanen wrote about the states’ interest in not allowing “their own resources” to be drained by the “constant influx of illegal immigrants.”

He found “States ultimately bear the brunt of illegal immigration.”

The opinion noted specifically that Washington “maintains that none of the plaintiffs have standing to bring this injunctive action. The states disagree, claiming that the government cannot implement a substantive program and then insulate itself from legal challenges by those who suffer from its negative effects.”

The judge noted the reality of the immigration situation.

“When apprehending illegal aliens, the government often processes and releases them with only the promise that they will return for a hearing if and when the government decides to hold one. In the meantime, the states – with little or no help from the government – are required by law to provide various services to this population.”

He continued, “It is indisputable that the states are harmed to some extent by the government’s action and inaction in the area of immigration.”

The judge said Obama’s program isn’t only a situation where there aren’t enough resources, so program managers pick and choose which cases to handle. Washington’s current program “is an announced program of non-enforcement of the law that contradicts Congress’ statutory goals.”

“The DHS does have discretion in the manner in which it chooses to fulfill the expressed will of Congress. It cannot, however, enact a program whereby it not only ignores the dictates of Congress, but actively acts to thwart them,” the judge said.

.

.

*VIDEO* Dinesh D’Souza Weighs In On President Asshat’s Crusades Comments


.

.