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


.

.

President Asshat Attempts Internet Power Grab… Again

Obama’s Internet Power Grab – Canada Free Press

In a completely unsurprising development, one of the two Republican Commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has made it clear the Obama administration’s effort to regulate the Internet is nothing more than another government power grab.

.

.
“President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet,” said a statement released by commissioner Ajit Pai. “It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband… These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.”

Pai continued:

The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get.

Pai’s statement was a response to an op-ed column in Wired magazine by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. He believes “a modernized version” of Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, used to break up AT&T into four distinct Bell companies, should be applied to Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Title II originally came into being under the Communications Act of 1934. Part of it prevented phone companies from engaging in “unjust or unreasonable discrimination” when it came to providing service for their customers. “Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC,” Wheeler wrote last Wednesday. “These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services.”

Wheeler, Obama and the rest of their Democratic Party allies want to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and regulate ISPs like utility companies, or “common carriers,” rather than “information services” that fall outside FCC regulatory power. The ostensible purpose of the change is to implement “net neutrality” rules. Net neutrality is about preventing ISPs from blocking, slowing down, or diminishing the quality of applications and websites, from charging them higher prices for providing prioritized access, aka “fast lanes,” or giving preferential treatment to their affiliates.

Wheeler has drafted a 332-page plan to address the issue. He denies that it imposes new fees or price regulations. It will go to a vote on Feb. 26, and it expected to pass by a margin of 3-2 when the agency’s two Democrats side with the Chairman. Yet there is a telling indication that Wheeler is being less than forthcoming: just as the Democrats did with ObamaCare, the FCC won’t release the actual text of the plan until after they vote on it.

That doesn’t sit well with Pai. “I believe the public has a right to know what its government is doing, particularly when it comes to something as important as Internet regulation,” he said. “I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I had imagined.”

He further explained that the part of Title II whereby the FCC is granting itself the authority to determine whether a variety of practices are “just and reasonable,” does give the agency the power to raise prices. “The claim that President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet does not include rate regulation is flat-out false,” Pai declared. “Indeed, the only limit on the FCC’s discretion to regulate rates is its own determination of whether rates are ‘just and reasonable,’ which isn’t much of a restriction at all.”

Republicans are also incensed. Committees in the House and Senate initiated investigations to determine if the White House improperly influenced the FCC proposal. On Monday, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, sent a letter to Wheeler asking him to explain his decision and produce documentation regarding communications and meetings between the White House and FCC officials. Johnson informed Wheeler he was concerned about “apparent pressure exerted on you and your agency by the White House.”

Johnson further noted the plan is “not only a monumental shift from Chairman Wheeler’s original net-neutrality proposal but also a large deviation from the light regulatory touch applied to broadband services since the Clinton administration,” Johnson said in releasing the letter. “The decision is wrong, and the process raises serious questions about the president’s inappropriate influence over what is supposed to be an independent agency that derives its authority from Congress and not the White House,” he added.

Last Friday, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, expressed similar reservations, and also requested “all documents and communications” between the FCC and the White House.

And although the president appoints the FCC Chairman as Obama did with Wheeler in 2013, the agency is in fact supposed to remain independent. Wheeler, however was a major fundraiser for the president. Furthermore, Johnson and Chaffetz cited a Feb. 4 Wall Street Journal article reporting that, back in November, the White House’s top economic advisor gave a “heads up” to Wheeler about Obama’s intention to regulate the Internet like a public utility, an idea the president himself announced four days later. “The prod from Mr. Obama came after an unusual, secretive effort inside the White House, led by two aides who built a case for the principle known as net neutrality through dozens of meetings with online activists, Web startups and traditional telecommunications companies,” the Journal stated. Johnson asked Wheeler if the FCC was aware of that secretive effort.

Gigi Sohn, the FCC’s special counsel for external affairs, tried to downplay the connection. “I think what the president’s statement did was, rather than force the chairman’s hand, was give him cover to do something he already was thinking about doing,” Sohn said in an appearance on C-Span’s “The Communicators” series.

Forcing anyone’s hand at this point is highly problematic. If the FCC passes its proposal, there is little doubt ISPs and broadband carriers would initiate litigation to prevent it from going into effect. The FCC’s track record in court is not promising. In 2007 the agency responded to a complaint that Comcast was restricting customers’ ability to access certain peer-to-peer networks by issuing an order claiming the cable giant violated federal policy. Three years later, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated the order, finding that while the FCC is permitted to take action reasonably ancillary to its statutory mandate, the FCC could point to no such authority in this particular case.

Later in 2010 the FCC adopted the “Open Internet Order,” broadly imposing net neutrality rules, but stopping short of imposing the Title II reclassification of ISPs they are currently seeking. They cited section 706 of the Telecommunication Act of 1996 whereby the FCC “shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans” as the basis for their statutory authority.

In 2011 Verizon sued the FCC and once again, in January 2014 the DC Circuit Court struck down parts of the Open Internet Order. They vacated the FCC’s anti-discrimination and anti-blocking policies, but maintained the requirement that carriers notify their customers regarding what traffic can be blocked and/or run faster.

Hence the FCC’s current effort to impose Title II common carrier regulations, one Pai doesn’t believe will go anywhere. “Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation,” he explained. “There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time.”

Given the Obama administration’s appetite for unassailable power, that is a good thing. Moreover, the Internet has done quite fine without the heavy hand of a federal government that, far more often than not, seeks to “solve” a problem where none really exists. Moreover, lost in this argument is the reality that private enterprise has invested billions of dollars in bringing an invention to people so all-encompassing, they now consider Internet access a “right,” even though it is nothing of the sor and even though Internet providers have adhered to a number of regulations already providing virtually unlimited access to this technology. Yet in their effort to impose greater controls, the Obama administration has embraced one of the American left’s most vexing beliefs: The pernicious notion incentive and coercion are interchangeable terms.

.

.

Jordan’s King Abdullah Shows U.S. President Asshat What Leadership Is All About

Jordan’s King Gets Medieval On Them – Investor’s Business Daily

.

.
Jordan is taking the war to the terrorists – not only on land but on the propaganda front, where Islamic State has had the high ground for a while. Jordan’s will to win is injecting new energy into the war on terror.

In less than a week, Jordan has transformed itself from a bit player in the war on terror to a moral beacon of why we fight – because it’s ultimately a struggle of good versus evil, and good must win.

It began with King Abdullah’s fiery vow to make the “earth shake” against terrorists who’d just murdered a 26-year-old Jordanian pilot from a prominent tribal family, as the king’s red and white Bedouin tribal attire reminded Jordan’s mourning citizens.

The king also morally delegitimized the terrorists, saying they had zero claim to the name Muslim – powerful, given that the king is a direct descendant of Muhammad. He was buttressed by Jordanian officials, who called the terrorists “daesh” – a derogatory word in Arabic that’s as nasty as it sounds, and one that IS hates.

Then there was the swift execution of two death row terrorists that IS had sought in bad-faith negotiations for the pilot they had already murdered, done swiftly, just as Jordan had warned would happen.

There were also photos of the king suited up in his pilot’s uniform, giving an unmistakable impression of medieval single combat unlike anything seen since the Middle Ages (even if the king didn’t fly on the mission).

There was the king’s moving expression of compassion for the grieving family in their humble Jordan village, with the king and Queen Rania offering comfort and assuring them that their son’s death wasn’t in vain.

As bombing missions took off, with the warning to the terrorists that they were now “meeting the Jordanians for the first time,” half of Jordan’s air force flew over the humble village of the murdered pilot to assure it what the mission was about.

And, matching the terrorists’ propaganda-film tactics, the Jordanians also released a film – theirs, of IS targets being blown away by Jordanian forces, which at last count left 55 terrorists dead on the desert floor.

There’s a word for this: victory. As the West dithers under the weak leadership and wavering resolve of the Obama administration, the Jordanians, however small and threatened they are as a nation, have injected the force multiplier of moral passion into their war effort.

Maybe all the allies could learn from it.

.

.

President Asshat Equates Muslim Terrorists To Christians During National Prayer Breakfast (Video)

Obama’s (Im)moral Equivalence Between ISIS And Christianity – Big Government

.

.
President Barack Obama offered the nation a lesson in moral relativism at the National Prayer Breakfast on Thursday, when he admonished Americans not to “get on our high horse” about radical Islam because “people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” including here in the United States. Obama’s statement was both immoral and insensitive, and appeared to excuse the grotesque atrocities carried out by radical Islam, as well as his own passivity in responding.

Obama’s moral equivalence – immoral equivalence, really – between medieval Christianity and contemporary radical Islam points to the fundamental reason that he has often refused to identify terrorism as more than “workplace violence”, and “extremism” as something other than radical Islam. Obama’s focus is to transform America, and to do that he first needs to humble America, to convince Americans that there is nothing innately better or exceptional about our chosen values.

While it is true that history is replete with examples of people carrying out atrocities in the name of nearly every faith and ideology, in the context of our present circumstances, where the jihadists of the so-called Islamic State are taunting the world with their brutality, to declare that “it’s not unique to one group or one religion” is to abdicate any pretense at moral leadership in rallying the nation and the world to stop what is happening–and to prevent it from spreading elsewhere.

Instead, Obama called on Americans to “start with some… humility.” He told Americans to “not be so full of yourself and so confident that you are right” and that “somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.” Not only does he often fail to take that advice, but his self-righteousness about his own moral relativism is self-contradictory. He has shown more passion in admonishing Americans than condemning terror. Worse than insulting, his remarks are a disgrace to the office he holds.

.

.

.

Obama Foreign Policy Collapse: Yemen President, Prime Minister Resign After Muslim Terrorists Overrun Government

US Policy Collapse: Yemen President & Prime Minister Resign – Breitbart

.

.
The U.S.-backed President and Prime Minister of Yemen, Abd-Rabbu Mansour and Khaled Balah, have offered their resignation from the country’s top positions, according to reports from the region.

Iran-backed Houthi Shiite militants have reportedly been holding Yemen’s president ‘captive’ at his presidential palace, in an action described by a Yemeni Colonel to the AP as a military coup. This is the “completion of a coup” and the president has “no control,” added Yemen’s Information Minister. U.S. officials have thus far refused to describe the developments as a “coup.”

This reportedly forced the U.S.-backed President to accede to the militant’s demands: that the Houthis are given prominent positions of power within the government, and that they will be allowed to maintain an active presence in the country’s capital city of Sanaa.

U.S. President Barack Obama has maintained that the United States’ partnership with the Yemeni government was a model for counterterrorism success. The President said in a September speech that the Yemen model for counterinsurgency would be utilized in fighting the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq:

This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.

Below is an English-translated version of what is believed to be Yemen Prime Minister Balah’s resignation letter to President Hadi, posted on Facebook:

.

.

.