Tag: Against

Leftist Judge Says Sandy Hook Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturer Can Go Forward

Connecticut Judge: Sandy Hook Lawsuit Against Gun Manufacturer Can Go Forward – The Blaze

.

.
A Connecticut Superior Court judge ruled Thursday that a lawsuit against the maker of a rifle used in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings can go forward.

Under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, gun manufacturers are generally not able to be held liable for crimes committed with their products.

However, Judge Barbara Bellis ruled that the PLCAA does not prevent lawyers for the families of Sandy Hook victims from arguing that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle is a military weapon and should not have been sold to civilians.

More from the Hartford Courant:
.

The lawsuit accuses the Remington Arms Co. and other defendants of negligently selling to civilians a weapon the plaintiffs claim is suitable only for the military and law enforcement. At a hearing in February, Bridgeport lawyer Josh Koskoff argued against dismissing the case, saying the lawsuit’s claim of “negligent entrustment” is an exception to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

.
Bellis agreed with the plaintiffs that she has the jurisdiction to continue with the case, but she did not rule whether or not the PLCAA actually blocks the plaintiffs and their attorneys from pursing their lawsuit.

“At this juncture, the court need not and will not consider the merits of the plaintiffs’ negligent entrustment theory,” Bellis wrote.

Koskoff, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, was happy with the decision.

“We are thrilled that the gun companies’ motion to dismiss was denied,” he said in a statement, according to Newsweek. “The families look forward to continuing their fight in court.”

Fortunately for Koskoff, they won’t have to wait long. The two sides are due back in court Tuesday.

.

.

A Brief Message To All The Republican Politicians Who Didn’t Have The Balls To Run Against Trump And Cruz…


Shut the hell up about a contested convention already! You have exactly ZERO credibility, and your constant blather about the possibility of someone other than Trump or Cruz being nominated by the GOP this summer is suicidally stupid. You sound like a gaggle of leftist college students in search of a ‘safe space’ so they can continue to ignore reality. Are you really so disconnected from your voter base that you honestly believe they will tolerate a bunch of establishment cronies ignoring their will and choosing some RINO squish to run against the Clinton machine this fall? When will you losers get it through your thick heads that YOU CREATED TRUMP! He’s the anti-establishment monster and you are Victor Frankenstein, so stop whining like spoiled 5-year-olds and try to make peace with the fact that you are now reaping what you have sown.

.

Obama Regime Crime Spree Update: IRS Erases Hard Drive Against Judge’s Orders

Chaffetz, Jordan Erupt After IRS Erases Another Hard Drive – Daily Caller

.

.
Leading members of Congress are ripping IRS officials for erasing a computer hard drive after a federal judge ordered it to be preserved.

“The destruction of evidence subject to preservation orders and subpoenas has been an ongoing problem under your leadership at the IRS,” Committee on House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Jason Chaffetz and Rep. Jim Jordan , wrote in a letter to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen late Thursday.

“It is stunning to see that the IRS does not take reasonable care to preserve documents that it is legally required to protect,” Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, and Jordan, an Ohio Republican, said in the letter to Koskinen.

The IRS recently admitted in court to erasing the hard drive even though a federal judge had issued a preservation related to a Microsoft Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the federal tax agency last year, according to court documents. Microsoft accuses the IRS of inappropriately hiring an outside law firm to audit it and of failing to hand over related documents requested under the FOIA.

Chaffetz and other members of the oversight panel began calling for Koskinen’s impeachment in October. Chaffetz and Jordan in their letter point out that the IRS in March 2014 also destroyed 422 backup tapes containing as many as 24,000 emails sent or received by Lois Lerner, former director of IRS’ Exempt Organizations Division.

Lerner was the central figure in the scandal sparked by the tax agency’s illegal targeting and harassment of conservative and Tea Party non-profit applicants during the 2010 and 2012 election campaigns.

Samuel Maruca, owner of the hard drive in question and a former senior IRS executive, participated in the IRS hiring of the outside law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP allegedly to investigate Microsoft. Maruca left the IRS in August 2014, according to court documents.

Chaffetz and Jordan told Koskinen to hand over all documents on IRS preservation policies and all documents related to the destruction of Lerner and Maruca’s hard drives.

.

.

Leftist Evil Update: 177 House Democrats Vote Against Bill That Makes Killing A Born Baby Murder

177 House Members Vote Against Bill That Makes Killing A Born Baby Murder – CNS

.

.
The U.S. House of Representatives voted 248 to 177 on Friday afternoon to approve a bill that would give a born baby who survives an abortion the same protection under the law as “any person who comes to a hospital, clinic, or other facility for screening and treatment or otherwise becomes a patient within its care.”

Under the bill, the Congressional Research Service explained in its official summary of the legislation, “An individual who commits an overt act that kills a child born alive is subject to criminal prosecution for murder.”

The bill would also “require any health care practitioner who is present when a child is born alive following an abortion or attempted abortion to: (1) exercise the same degree of care as reasonably provided to any other child born alive at the same gestational age, and (2) ensure that such child is immediately admitted to a hospital.”

Five Democrats voted for the bill, and all 177 votes against it were cast by Democratic members. One member, Rep. John Garamendi (D.-Calif.), voted present, and eight members, including three Republicans and five Democrats did not vote.

Among the members who voted against this bill that would clarify that it is an act of murder to kill a baby who survives an abortion were House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.), Rep. Jackie Speier (D.-Calif.), and Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D.-N.Y.)

The bill was sponsored by Rep. Trent Franks (R.-Ariz.), who was joined by 98 co-sponsors. These included Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R.-Tenn.), Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R.-Mo.), and Rep. Kristi Noem (R.-S.D.).

“The Born Alive Abortion Survivor Protection Act protects little children who have been born alive,” Rep. Franks said in a speech on the House floor before the vote. “No one in this body can obscure the humanity and the personhood of these little born alive babies.”

“The abortion industry labored all these decades to convince the world that unborn children and born children should be completely separated in our minds, that while born children are persons worthy of protection, unborn children are not persons and are not worthy of protection,” he said.

“But those who oppose this bill to protect born alive babies now have the impossible task of trying to join born children and unborn children back together again and then trying to convince all of us to condemn them both as inhuman and not worthy of protection after all,” he said.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney spoke against the bill on the House floor.

“I stand in strong opposition to this punitive and intrusive bill,” she said.

“This is politics at its most manipulative and politics that should never be permitted to come between a patient and her doctor,” she said.

“This bill attempts to criminalize legal medical care and punish millions of women by rolling back reproductive choices. It wages a kind of guerilla warfare against Roe v. Wade by threatening doctors with jail time for providing care to their patients.”

.

.

VA Retaliated Against Disabled Veteran Because He Tried To Get Them To Find His Lost Claims Folder

Independent Agency Confirms: VA Retaliated Against Whistleblower – Daily Caller

.
……………..

.
An independent federal agency has just determined that the Department of Veterans Affairs retaliated against whistleblower Bradie Frink because he tried to get the VA to find his lost claims folder.

According to the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), retaliation started after Frink, a disabled veteran and employee at the Baltimore Regional Office (BRO) of the Veterans Benefits Administration, contacted Congress when he realized that the VA couldn’t add one of his children as a beneficiary to his disability payments. The reason? Employees couldn’t even locate his claims folder.

As policy, a veteran’s claim folder cannot be stored at the same office where that veteran works, in order to maintain impartiality. When Frink was hired as a clerk in February 2013, the VA attempted to move the folder out to another regional office, but soon discovered that it was lost, even though it appeared in the computer system. Frink initially made several requests, asking the VA to try and locate his folder.

He tried for months. Nothing worked. That’s when Frink decided to contact Sen. Barbara Mikulski on June 5, 2013, with a complaint that the VA was unable to make important service-connected disability payments to him and his family. Mikulski launched an inquriy and forwarded the complaint letter over to BRO, which sparked near immediate retaliation. Incidentally, during the time when Mikulski sent the letter over, BRO was being watched for how it was processing benefits claims.

VA officials started discussing ways to terminate Frink. They succeeded in firing him on July 12, 2013, during his probationary period, despite a clean performance record. Officials alleged that Frink engaged in misconduct, but OSC didn’t buy it.

“OSC’s investigation determined that the VA’s allegations about Mr. Frink lacked evidentiary support; management’s testimony was inconsistent and lacked candor; other witnesses did not corroborate the agency’s version of the events; and termination was an excessive penalty for the alleged misconduct,” the OSC said in a statement. “Further, OSC found one of the VA officials involved in Mr. Frink’s termination showed animus and all three officials involved had a clear motive to retaliate against him.”

With the OSC investigation in hand, VA officials have reinstated Frink with back pay, as well as damages for emotional distress. After a long, hard fight, Frink starts work again Tuesday, over two years after he was fired by supervisors.

“The constitutional right to petition Congress must be guaranteed for all Americans. Federal agencies cannot deny their employees this right even if it leads to scrutiny of their operations,” said Special Counsel Carolyn Lerner in a statement.

.

.

Judge Rules Against Insane Homeowner’s Association That Tried To Force Family To Take Down Purple Swingset

They Gave Their Little Girls A Purple Backyard Swing Set. Then The Jail Threats Started Coming – Independent Journal Review

When Marla Stout put up a new swing set in her family’s backyard, her two daughters pleaded with her to paint it the color of bubblegum. Marla wasn’t a fan of the pink swing set idea, but she agreed to paint it purple.

Now, she and her husband have been threatened with jail time because of it.

According to Fox News, the Stouts painted the swing set two years ago, but it wasn’t until this summer that the Raintree Lake Subdivision Homeowners Association (HOA) decided to make a stink about it.

.

.
While there are no distinct rules about swing set colors, the HOA dictates that they must be “harmonious with the community and with nature.” In the HOA’s opinion, the purple swing set wasn’t “in harmony” with the others in the community.

“We got very frustrated,” Marla said. “There’s somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 homes in our community. There’s all kinds of colors. There’s people with bright purple doors. There’s trees that are the color of this swing set.”

Marla and her husband were told that if the swing set wasn’t removed, they would be fined or jailed.

The HOA claimed that the Stouts were in the wrong for not getting their swing set color pre-approved. They tried to dissuade the Stouts from filing a lawsuit, claiming that the costs would be “far greater than any principle [they] are trying to prove.”

But after an initial hearing on August 21, a Missouri judge ruled a week later that the swing set can stay purple. While the Stouts are thrilled with the judge’s decision – they had a barbecue Friday to celebrate – they believe that the HOA should apologize to the entire community.

“It’s been very embarrassing for our community and it’s cost every resident in this community a lot of money and reputation,” Marla said.

.

.

.

*VIDEO* Obama Regime Siding With Muslim Terrorists Against American Citizens In Court


.

.

Wisconsin Supreme Court FINALLY Stops Nazistic John Doe Investigation Against Conservatives

Wisconsin Supreme Court Stops John Doe Investigation Against Conservatives – Legal Insurrection

.

.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has effectively killed the “John Doe” case which led to home raids and intimidation of a wide range of Wisconsin conservative activists.

The decision is embedded at the bottom of this post.

Here is the key finding, which completely shreds both the legal theories and motives of the prosecutors, completely vindicates the targets, and praises those who fought back legally against prosecutorial misconduct (emphasis added):

¶133 Our lengthy discussion of these three cases can be distilled into a few simple, but important, points. It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a “perfect storm” of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them. It is fortunate, indeed, for every other citizen of this great State who is interested in the protection of fundamental liberties that the special prosecutor chose as his targets innocent citizens who had both the will and the means to fight the unlimited resources of an unjust prosecution. Further, these brave individuals played a crucial role in presenting this court with an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation.

Andrew Grossman, who filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case and who has served as counsel to Eric O’Keefe and the Wisconsin Club for Growth (two of the targets of the investigation) in various federal civil rights litigation against the prosecutors, provided me with the following statement:

Today’s decision puts an end to one of the worst abuses of power ever seen in Wisconsin law enforcement. The next step will be holding those responsible accountable for their actions. The Court’s recognition that the John Doe was a politically motivated “dragnet” of Gov. Walker’s allies provides strong support for Cindy Archer’s civil rights action against the Milwaukee prosecutors and lawsuits by potentially any of the other John Doe targets.

Background on John Doe abuses:

We have been covering the John Doe cases for a year and a half. You can read all out posts in the John Doe (WI) Tag.

Here are some key posts:

* Revealed: Wisconsin John Doe investigation was full-blown anti-conservative fishing expedition
* Exposed: How Prosecutors targeted Scott Walker and conservatives
* Was Prosecutor’s union-operative wife behind “John Doe” investigation of Scott Walker?
* Wisconsin “John Doe” War on Walker wins “Nastiest Political Tactic of the Year”
* Wisconsin Dems used battering rams against Scott Walker supporters – literally
* Former Scott Walker Aide Sues prosecutors for WI John Doe “Home Invasion”

.

.
Analysis:

The court found that Wisconsin statutes did not limit “issue advocacy,” and that any attempt to so limit speech was unconstitutional:

¶7 We can resolve the original action, Two Unnamed Petitioners, by first examining whether the statutory definitions of “committee,” “contributions,” “disbursements,” and “political purposes” in Wis. Stat. §§ 11.01(4), (6), (7), and (16) are limited to express advocacy[4] or whether they encompass the conduct of coordination between a candidate or a campaign committee and an independent organization that engages in issue advocacy. Second, if the definitions extend to issue advocacy coordination, what then constitutes prohibited “coordination?”

* * *

¶41 We turn first to Two Unnamed Petitioners, the original action filed with the Wisconsin Supreme Court. This case requires us to interpret Wisconsin’s campaign finance law, Wis. Stat. Ch. 11. By its very nature, this task involves fundamental questions regarding the scope of the government’s ability to regulate political speech. To resolve this case, we must engage in statutory interpretation of the phrase “political purposes,” which includes all activities “done for the purpose of influencing [an] election.” Wis. Stat. § 11.01(16). We conclude, consistent with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution, that the plain language of “political purposes” in Wis. Stat. § 11.01(16) is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague if it is not given a limiting construction and applied to only express advocacy and its functional equivalent. This conclusion invalidates the special prosecutor’s theory of the case and ends the John Doe investigation. Therefore, we agree with the Unnamed Movants and grant their requested relief.

The Court ripped into the investigating prosecutors (emphasis added):

¶68 Having reached our conclusion about the scope of conduct regulated by Chapter 11, we now turn to the special prosecutor’s theories of coordination and whether the alleged conduct is regulated under Wisconsin law.[23] The special prosecutor has disregarded the vital principle that in our nation and our state political speech is a fundamental right and is afforded the highest level of protection. The special prosecutor’s theories, rather than “assur[ing] [the] unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people,” Roth, 354 U.S. at 484, instead would assure that such political speech will be investigated with paramilitary-style home invasions conducted in the pre-dawn hours and then prosecuted and punished. In short, the special prosecutor completely ignores the command that, when seeking to regulate issue advocacy groups, such regulation must be done with “narrow specificity.” Barland II, 751 F.3d at 811 (quotations omitted).

¶69 The limiting construction that we apply makes clear that the special prosecutor’s theories are unsupportable in law given that the theories rely on overbroad and vague statutes. By limiting the definition of “political purposes” to express advocacy and its functional equivalent, political speech continues to be protected as a fundamental First Amendment right.

The court made clear the investigation was stopped cold in its tracks:

¶76 To be clear, this conclusion ends the John Doe investigation because the special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law. Consequently, the investigation is closed. Consistent with our decision and the order entered by Reserve Judge Peterson, we order that the special prosecutor and the district attorneys involved in this investigation must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation. All Unnamed Movants are relieved of any duty to cooperate further with the investigation.

The Court went on in addition to uphold a lower court’s quashing of a subpoenas and search warrants sought by the prosecutors, finding that the John Doe powers did not allow “a fishing expedition”:

¶91 Reasonableness and particularity are not just requirements of search warrants, however. Subpoenas issued by courts, and by extension John Doe judges, must also satisfy these requirements of the Fourth Amendment. In re John Doe Proceeding, 272 Wis. 2d 208, ¶38. A John Doe proceeding, with its broad investigatory powers, must never be allowed to become a fishing expedition.

¶92 It is difficult, if not impossible, to overstate the importance of the role of the John Doe judge. If he does not conduct the investigation fairly, as a neutral and detached magistrate, the risk of harm to innocent targets of the investigation-and we remain mindful that all such targets are presumed innocent-is too great. Through the use of a John Doe proceeding, “law enforcement officers are able to obtain the benefit of powers not otherwise available to them, i.e., the power to subpoena witnesses, to take testimony under oath, and to compel the testimony of a reluctant witness.” Washington, 83 Wis. 2d at 822-23. Such powers, if not wielded with care and skill may serve to transform a John Doe proceeding into an implement of harassment and persecution by a vengeful or unethical prosecutor. Thus, John Doe judges must be mindful of this danger and zealously guard the rights of all citizens against over-reach.

The Court then summarized its holdings, just so there was no doubt that it had completely rejected the prosecutors’ legal theory on coordination of issue advocacy (emphasis added):

¶133 Our lengthy discussion of these three cases can be distilled into a few simple, but important, points. It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing. In other words, the special prosecutor was the instigator of a “perfect storm” of wrongs that was visited upon the innocent Unnamed Movants and those who dared to associate with them. It is fortunate, indeed, for every other citizen of this great State who is interested in the protection of fundamental liberties that the special prosecutor chose as his targets innocent citizens who had both the will and the means to fight the unlimited resources of an unjust prosecution. Further, these brave individuals played a crucial role in presenting this court with an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation.

¶134 In Two Unnamed Petitioners, we hold that the definition of “political purposes” in Wis. Stat. § 11.01(16) is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Wisconsin Constitution because its language “‘is so sweeping that its sanctions may be applied to constitutionally protected conduct which the state is not permitted to regulate.’” Janssen, 219 Wis. 2d at 374 (quoting Bachowski, 139 Wis. 2d at 411). However, a readily available limiting construction exists that we will apply and that will prevent the chilling of otherwise protected speech; namely, that “political purposes” is limited to express advocacy and its functional equivalent as those terms are defined in Buckley and WRTL II. With this limiting construction in place, Chapter 11 does not proscribe any of the alleged conduct of any of the Unnamed Movants. The special prosecutor has not alleged any express advocacy, and issue advocacy, whether coordinated or not, is “beyond the reach of [Ch. 11].” Barland II, 751 F.3d at 815. Accordingly, we invalidate the special prosecutor’s theory of the case, and we grant the relief requested by the Unnamed Movants.

¶135 To be clear, this conclusion ends the John Doe investigation because the special prosecutor’s legal theory is unsupported in either reason or law. Consequently, the investigation is closed. Consistent with our decision and the order entered by Reserve Judge Peterson, we order that the special prosecutor and the district attorneys involved in this investigation must cease all activities related to the investigation, return all property seized in the investigation from any individual or organization, and permanently destroy all copies of information and other materials obtained through the investigation. All Unnamed Movants are relieved of any duty to cooperate further with the investigation.

Wisconsin Supreme Court – John Doe Decision

.

.

The Reds And The Blues: Who’s For The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Act, And Who’s Against It?


YEAS

These Are The Republican Members Of Congress With An American Conservative Union Rating Of 90 Or Above Who Support The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Act.

Representative Joe Barton – 92
Representative Marsha Blackburn – 96
Representative John Boehner – 94
Representative Steve Chabot – 92
Representative Mike Conaway – 92
Senator John Cornyn – 92
Senator Tom Cotton – 100
Senator Mike Crapo – 92
Senator Ted Cruz – 100
Representative Ron DeSantis – 100
Representative Scott DesJarlais – 100
Senator Jeff Flake – 92
Representative Trey Gowdy – 92
Senator Chuck Grassley – 92
Representative Tom Graves – 92
Representative Jeb Hensarling – 96
Representative George Holding – 96
Representative Tim Huelskamp – 96
Senator Jim Inhofe – 92
Senator Ron Johnson – 96
Representative Doug LaMalfa – 96
Senator James Lankford – 94
Representative Kenny Marchant – 96
Representative Tom McClintock – 100
Representative Jeff Miller – 92
Representative Randy Neugebauer – 96
Representative Robert Pittenger – 92
Representative Mike Pompeo – 100
Representative Tom Price – 92
Senator James Risch – 92
Representative Ed Royce – 92
Senator Marco Rubio – 96
Representative Matt Salmon – 96
Representative Steve Scalise – 96
Representative David Schweikert – 100
Senator Tim Scott – 96
Representative Austin Scott – 92
Representative Jim Sensenbrenner – 100
Representative Marlin Stutzman – 96
Representative Randy Weber – 100
Representative Roger Williams – 100

These Are The Democrat Members Of Congress With An American Conservative Union Rating Of 0 Who Support The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Act.

Representative Ami Bera
Representative Susan Davis
Representative John Delaney
Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Senator Ben Cardin
Senator Dianne Feinstein
Senator Tim Kaine
Senator Patty Murray
Senator Bill Nelson

These Are The Republican Governors Who Support The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Act.

Robert Bentley – Alabama
Terry Branstad – Iowa
Sam Brownback – Kansas
Phil Bryant – Mississippi
Mary Fallin – Oklahoma
Gary Herbert – Utah
Susana Martinez – New Mexico
Mike Pence – Indiana
Pete Ricketts – Nebraska
Brian Sandoval – Nevada
Rick Scott – Florida
Scott Walker – Wisconsin

These Are The Democrat Governors Who Support The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Act.

Steve Beshear – Kentucky
John Hickenlooper – Colorado

These Are The Conservative Organizations That Support The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Act.

60 Plus Association
Advance Arkansas Institute
American Commitment
American Conservative Union
American Enterprise Institute
Americans For Job Security
Americans For Tax Reform
Cardinal Institute For West Virginia Policy
Center For Individual Freedom
Citizens For Limited Taxation
Club For Growth
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Conservative Reform Network
Council For Citizens Against Government Waste
Crossroads GPS
Digital Liberty
Ending Spending
Frontiers Of Freedom
Georgia Center Right Coalition
Institute For Liberty
Institute For Policy Innovation
Minnesota Center-Right Coalition
National Taxpayers Union
Property Rights Alliance
R Street Institute
Rio Grande Foundation
Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council
Taxpayers Protection Alliance
The Jeffersonian Project
Thomas Jefferson Institute For Public Policy​

These Are The Leftist Organizations That Support The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Act.

Progressive Coalition For American Jobs

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

NAYS

These Are The Republican Members Of Congress With An American Conservative Union Rating Of 90 Or Above Who Oppose The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Act.

Representative Jim Bridenstine – 96
Representative Michael Burgess – 92
Representative Jeff Duncan – 100
Representative John Fleming – 96
Representative Scott Garrett – 96
Representative Louie Gohmert – 96
Representative Paul Gosar – 92
Representative Jim Jordan – 100
Senator Mike Lee – 100
Representative Cynthia Lummis – 92
Representative Mark Meadows – 96
Representative Mick Mulvaney – 95
Senator Rand Paul – 96
Representative Scott Perry – 96
Representative Bill Posey – 92
Representative Dana Rohrabacher – 96
Senator Jeff Sessions – 96

These Are The Democrat Members Of Congress With An American Conservative Union Rating Of 0 Who Oppose The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Act.

Representative Alma Adams
Senator Tammy Baldwin
Representative Tim Bishop
Representative John Carney
Representative William Clay
Representative Emanuel Cleaver
Representative Jim Clyburn
Senator Dick Durbin
Representative Bill Foster
Representative Steny Hoyer
Representative Tim Johnson
Representative Marcy Kaptur
Representative Ann Kuster
Senator Pat Leahy
Senator Barbara Mikulski
Senator Chris Murphy
Representative Patrick Murphy
Representative Donald Norcross
Representative David Price
Representative Cedric Richmond
Senator Brian Schatz
Representative Brad Sherman
Senator Chuck Schumer
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Tom Udall

These Are The Republican Governors Who Oppose The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Act.

Chris Christie – New Jersey
Bobby Jindal – Louisiana

These Are The Democrat Governors Who Oppose The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Act.

Jay Nixon – Missouri

These Are The Conservative Organizations That Oppose The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Act.

Americans For Limited Government
Eagle Forum
Heritage Action For America

These Are The Leftist Organizations That Oppose The Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) Act.

Association Of Flight Attendants – CWA
AFL-CIO
American Federation Of Government Employees
American Foreign Service Association
American Federation Of State, County And Municipal Employees
American Federation Of Teachers
Alliance For Justice
Air Line Pilots Association
American Postal Workers Union
International Union Of Bricklayers And Allied Craftworkers
Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers And Grain Millers’ International Union
Commonwealth Association Of School Administrators
Chicago Federation Of Labor
Consumers Union
Credo Action
Civil Service Employees Association
Communications Workers Of America
Democracy For America
Doctors Without Borders
Farm Labor Organizing Committee
Global Trade Watch
Glass, Molders, Pottery International Union
International Association Of Fire Fighters
International Association Of Machinists And Aerospace Workers
International Alliance Of Theatrical Stage Employees
International Brotherhood Of Boilermakers
International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers
International Brotherhood Of Teamsters
International Federation Of Professional & Technical Engineers
International Longshoremen’s Association
International Longshore And Warehouse Union
International Union Of Operating Engineers
International Union Of Painters and Allied Trades
Laborers’ International Union Of North America
North America’s Building Trades Unions
National Association Of Letter Carriers
National Air Traffic Controllers Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
National Education Association
National Football League Players Association
National Nurses United
National Postal Mail Handlers Union – LIUNA
National Taxi Workers’ Alliance
Operative Plasterers’ And Cement Masons’ International Association
Office And Professional Employees International Union
Oregon Fair Trade Campaign
Retail, Wholesale And Department Store Union
The Screen Actors Guild‐American Federation Of Television And Radio Artists
Service Employees International Union
Sierra Club
Seafarers International Union
International Association Of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail And Transportation Workers
Transportation Communications International Union-IAM
Transport Workers Union Of America
United Association
United Automobile Workers
United Brotherhood Of Carpenters
United Food And Commercial Workers International Union
United Mine Workers Of America:
UNITE HERE
United Steelworkers
Utility Workers Union Of America

.

Sheriffs Against Amnesty To March On Washington D.C. In December (Video)

Sheriffs Against Amnesty To March On Washington – WorldNetDaily

Sheriffs around the country are planning to march on the nation’s capital, hoping to send a message to President Obama and Congress that they oppose amnesty for illegal immigrants.

.

.
The Dec. 10 rally in Washington, D.C., is being organized by two sheriffs from Massachusetts – Bristol County Sheriff Thomas Hodgson and Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph McDonald.

They have challenged America’s other sheriffs, asking for at least 200 of them to join in paying a visit to the Capitol to make a stand against amnesty and plead for Congress and the president to secure the border. More than 20 have already signed up to participate, Hodgson told WND.

The march will culminate in a meeting with Republican leaders at the Capitol building regarding possible legislation to secure the border “once and for all.”

Hodgson has sent a letter to sheriffs nationwide asking them to join him in the rally.

He told WND he’s already heard from 20 to 25 sheriffs who have committed to join him on the trip to Washington. The letter states in part:

“As you know, the policies of recent years that encourage immigrants to illegally enter our country have created serious threats to our domestic and national security. The citizens of our nation are counting on the American Sheriffs to fulfill our oath to preserve law and order and live up to our responsibilities as guardians of the United States Constitution.

“Given the fact that 25 people are killed each day by illegal immigrants, and our schools are becoming overcrowded and more costly, our public health is threatened by new diseases and ailments introduced by people living in our communities illegally, and the fact that benefits are being given and violations of the law forgiven for a select group of non-citizens, makes clear our obligation to act now before we erode the confidence and the faith citizens have in Sheriffs across the country and throughout our history.”

Hodgson told WND that sheriffs across this country “are tired of being marginalized, either by the inaction of Congress or the overreaction by the president of the United States, who have put us in this situation.”

Hodgson said he started thinking about planning the march while at the National Sheriffs Association Conference in Dallas-Fort Worth earlier this year.

“One of the things I raised was that the people of the United States have always looked to the American sheriff as someone who looks out for public safety and they are not looked at in a partisan way, so it seemed to me we need to stand up to support the border sheriffs,” Hodgson said. “We all have become border sheriffs.”

He said President Obama’s 2012 executive order allowing illegals to stay in the country for two years and entitling them to a hearing, “caused all sorts of problems” for law enforcement.

“The word got out and the cartels realized immediately that was a great way to make money, and it has netted them millions and millions of dollars smuggling people to the border,” Hodgson said. “That was done with the stroke of a pen in June 2012, which was an election year.”

Obama chooses to act on ‘Revolution Day’

Now Obama is about to go even further, planning to announce a sweeping amnesty plan for millions of illegal immigrants Thursday evening.

Just after 12 p.m. Wednesday, the White House posted a Facebook announcement that reads as follows:

“It’s time to fix our broken immigration system. Tomorrow night (November 20th), President Obama will address the nation on new commonsense steps he’s taking to fix as much of it as he can. Tune in tomorrow at 8pm ET. “

Thursday’s date, Nov. 20, is significant, says William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration.

“November 20 is Mexican ‘Revolution Day’ or Mexican ‘Civil War Day’ which is the equivalent of America’s 4th of July,” Gheen said. “Obama’s choice of this date for his departure from his Oath of Office and the U.S. Constitution creates a permanent symbolic relationship between his actions and Mexico’s violent revolutionary and civil wars from 1910-1920.

“Obama is making a powerful and dangerous symbolic declaration to large Spanish media audiences today comparing his new immigration orders to the violent Mexican revolution and civil war,” Gheen continued. “Obama is timing his move to thwart the American public’s voice in Congress to coincide with Mexican Revolution Day and the Ferguson (grand jury decision) while CBS, ABC, and NBC will keep most U.S. citizens oblivious tonight.”

No proof for cited cause of ‘surge’

The problems with illegals were already intense before Obama’s 2012 executive order, but they exploded in the wake of that declaration, Hodgson said.

“The president said the surge at the border was from them trying to escape poverty and violent drug gangs. They have their issues, no question, but no one has ever been able to document that this was the cause,” he said.

He cited a report by the El Paso Intelligence Center, which he called “a bipartisan study done on this very issue,” that found no connection between increased crime and poverty and the surge at the border.

“We know homicides are down in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, but the point is the president did this. They are trying to place children all over the country. They have to hire translators, etc., and the costs are overwhelming,” Hodgson said. “We have one situation in Lowell, Massachusetts, where the mayor is saying, ‘Our schools are bursting at the seams. We just can’t afford this anymore.’

“Just the other day, we apprehended a (illegal) man 35 years old for a crime in one of our high schools. He had gray hair. This is the kind of nonsense that’s going on.”

Hodgson said he visited McAllen, Texas, this summer and saw firsthand the chaos that was being caused by a border that had been turned into a massive welcome mat. He also saw how it’s affecting the interior of the country.

“They were moving them out of the facility there so they could create bed space. Five plane loads were sent to Massachusetts,” he said. “One guy had all kinds of medical issues, and his treatment is going to be in the millions of dollars. Now that he’s being released from our hospital, they shipped him back to Texas and let him go. So these are the kinds of problems the American people aren’t being told of, but we see them every day.”

The Obama administration has essentially created a whole new class of people with special rights and privileges that are not available to law-abiding citizens, Hodgson said.

“They are exempt from certain laws. Now the president of the United States says, ‘I know you came here illegally, and I know you may have committed misdemeanor crimes after you came here, but I’m going to give you a work visa and allow you to stay here indefinitely,” Hodgson said. “When you have a president say he doesn’t care who comes into our country … that’s the beginnings of the breakdown of democracy.”

The concern is what kind of message amnesty sends to “the five million people waiting in line to get in legally,” Hodgson said.

“Congress is not acting. They are not doing what they should be doing, which is to secure our borders. That’s why I’m asking sheriffs to go to Washington,” he said. “Our cities are being overrun. So we’re saying to Congress, ‘Live up to your oaths.’”

If anyone can stand up for the rights of law-abiding citizens, the sheriffs can, he said.

“It’s our responsibility to enforce the laws, and we’re also responsible for protecting the constitutional rights of the people who elect us,” he said. “So this is a problem that affects all of us.”

Not all sheriffs on board

The National Sheriffs Association has the largest membership of any law enforcement group in America.

“They have come out and said they fully endorse every sheriff to stand up and speak out on this issue,” Hodgson said. “And we support the security of the border. Start with stemming the borders. That’s step one. And then manage what we have here in a very thoughtful political approach.”

But not all the nation’s sheriffs are against granting amnesty.

Sheriff Scott Jones of Sacramento County, California, released a video plea to the president this week calling for him to unilaterally declare “immigration reform.”

See video below in which Jones claims the president is “singularly” responsible for the immigration issue.

.

.
Gheen, of Americans for Legal Immigration, said he sees Jones’ message as counterproductive.

“Most sheriffs have better sense than that because they’re elected by the people,” Gheen said. “But, hey, you have to consider, it’s California.”

Hodgson was not sure if Jones would be joining his march on Washington.

“There are sheriffs that may have different points of view, but I can tell you the majority of sheriffs in this country are against amnesty, and they are absolutely in favor of getting our borders secured,” Hodgson said.

He said getting 200 sheriffs to join him in Washington in the middle of the holiday season won’t be easy, but he’s encouraged by the early response.

“I threw that figure out there as a challenge to the sheriffs. I’ve gotten several calls from sheriffs who have committed to us from as far away as Washington state, California, North Carolina, Maryland, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania,” he said.

Sheriff Sam Page from Rockingham County, N.C., and Sheriff Jenkins of Fredrick County, Maryland, and Sheriff Paul Babeu of Pinal County, Arizona, are among those who have already committed to the effort.

Hodgson said he’s been involved in the immigration issue since 1999, shortly after he won his first term as sheriff of Bristol County.

“I’ve worked on both Republican and Democratic sides to try to get this issue under control, and I’m very familiar with how it’s become used as a political football. I’m as frustrated as anybody,” he said.

Bring in the Israelis

Hodgson said he has been calling for officials in Washington to bring in Israeli border security officials as consultants to help map out a comprehensive border security plan.

“Frankly… because nobody is better at border security than the Israelis,” he said.

He describes it this way for the uninitiated: If you were looking out your kitchen window and saw a strange man walking through your backyard, would you turn away and take your chances on whether that stranger meant harm or was “just passing through”?

“We’ve got criminals, gang members, drug dealers and now al-Qaida working with the cartels, and we have reports that ISIS could be doing the same thing,” Hodgson said. “Since when do we turn our back on that? You wouldn’t turn your back if someone you didn’t know was walking through your backyard. We need to know who’s coming in and who’s here.”

Hodgson said he believes there’s more to it than just Washington lacking the will to do what’s right. He believes the Obama administration has sinister motives.

“They want to build a socialist system,” he said.

And how do you do that?

“You overburden the existing system until it collapses,” he said. “We can’t let it happen. Our Founding Fathers would disown us if we let it happen.”

Gheen, of ALIPAC, said he had a suggestion that he wishes the sheriffs would consider when they pay a visit to the nation’s capital next month.

“If the sheriffs are heading to Washington, how about suggesting the sheriffs take some of their best men to D.C. and they use their power and ability to arrest the president of the United States?” Gheen said. “I think if the sheriffs are going to Washington on Dec. 10 and the president continues to violate the Constitution of the United States, that they should consider arresting the president of the United States. What if the sheriffs decided to use their power to do this?”

.

.

The Lawyers Behind The Lawsuit Against Obama (Ian Tuttle)

The Lawyers Behind The Lawsuit Against Obama – Ian Tuttle

.

.
For some time now, Elizabeth Foley and David Rivkin have had two questions about the 44th president: “How is he getting away with this? And why isn’t someone doing something about this?” Foley, a professor of constitutional law at Florida International University College of Law, and Rivkin, lead outside counsel of Florida et al. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, one of three Obamacare challenges that ended up before the Supreme Court in 2012, are doing something. They are the architects of the House of Representatives’ likely lawsuit against President Obama, which would challenge the president’s selective suspension of various laws as violations of his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws, and as violations of the constitutionally prescribed separation of powers.

“It began,” Foley tells National Review Online, “with utter fascination,” a reaction that should be universal, Foley adds, among constitutional lawyers observing the current executive. Foley and Rivkin have a list of questionable executive actions, going back to the president’s first term, that range from little-reported executive orders to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to controversial, large-scale actions, such as the multiple suspensions of Obamacare provisions and the unilateral implementation of the DREAM Act. “Over a period of time, the president has taken increasingly bold actions that defy the congressional actions that preceded them,” Foley says. “With every step, he gets more aggressive.” Foley and Rivkin corresponded frequently and pondered various legal possibilities – “but we kept coming back to the problem of standing.”

The pair first outlined a potential solution in a January 15 Politico article, “Can Obama’s Legal End-Run Around Congress Be Stopped?” That article spurred an invitation to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, which had been searching for an answer to the same question. In December 2013, the committee had heard testimony from four legal experts on “the constitutional concerns raised by recent non-enforcement policies and the President’s duty to faithfully execute the law of the United States,” as Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor (and self-avowed liberal), put it in his testimony. Foley appeared before the committee in late February 2014 and elaborated on the points she and Rivkin had first outlined in Politico. “I knew the committee was looking for information about standing, so I saw it as an opportunity to give Congress and that committee a roadmap” to addressing executive overreach. Her testimony occasioned several conversations with House Judiciary Committee staff members, which rapidly led to meetings with House leadership and the consolidation of a legal strategy that has, in their view “a likelihood of success.”

The strategy depends on successfully establishing that the House of Representatives has “standing” to sue the president. Only one criterion is provided by the Constitution: identification of an injury-in-fact, in this case the apparent nullification of Congress’s institutional power. Showing this, Foley and Rivkin say, is the easy part. But they suggest that the courts have identified three additional factors that, if met, would strengthen the claim that the House has standing. They are not constitutionally necessary, but they are “‘plus’ factors that will take the lawsuit over the finish line in terms of standing,” Foley notes.

“The idea,” Rivkin tells me, “is to create the perfect combination of all relevant factors to create the perfectly configured legislative-standing case.”

The first plus-factor criterion is to demonstrate the lack of a private plaintiff. In Foley’s and Rivkin’s characterization, the president’s actions are “benevolent” suspensions of law — that is, they are specially intended to assist particular groups (young immigrants or small businesses, for example). Because assisting certain people was the president’s aim, no individuals have suffered sufficient injury to have standing to sue. “No one can challenge benevolent suspensions in court except Congress, because they constitute an institutional injury to Congress qua Congress,” Foley explains. The offense is not against private citizens; it is against the powers that the Constitution guarantees to Congress as a body.

Along with demonstrating the impossibility of a private plaintiff, the House should explicitly authorize the lawsuit, they say, through either a formal resolution or the use of the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG), a standing group of House members that is authorized by House rules to represent that chamber in the courts. This would count as a plus factor because institutional-standing cases do not require formal authorization from the institution. The House members could therefore file on behalf of the House without getting the body’s formal approval, but such approval would probably help the case.

The House should also show that no political remedy (“self-help”) for the situation is available. This third element is a point of contention among legal theorists on the right. Opponents of the House lawsuit contend that the Constitution provides the House with two obvious remedies, neither of which it has exercised: the power of the purse and the power of impeachment. Foley and Rivkin counter that these are not “proportionate remedies” to the problem at hand. With regard to impeachment, Foley asks: “What do you do when the president’s own party controls one of the chambers of Congress?” Moreover, “impeachment is overkill for this particular transgression,” she says. “All Congress wants is for the president to faithfully execute the law. This does not mean that they think he should be kicked out of office.” The second option, cutting funds, “creates major distortions in political accountability, which is the genesis, the heart, of the notion of the separation of powers.” Congress, says Foley, should not be blamed for the president’s misdeeds – but that is just what will happen if the House has no recourse but to penalize innocent organizations as a means of punishing the president. Political self-help is important, Foley observes, “but only when proportionate and related to the transgression.”

If the House can establish standing by fulfilling these four criteria – the establishment of injury-in-fact, as required by the Constitution, and the three “plus” factors – they will have the opportunity to make their case to the courts that the president has flouted his constitutional mandate. While they believe there are a number of transgressions to choose from, Foley and Rivkin plan to present only the strongest infraction in court. They are mum about which one that might be. There is a mindset in both Washington and legal academia that this case is doomed because of the question of standing. The answer, Foley and Rivkin counter, is “creativity” – and their auspicious pairing. “David has been around D.C. a long time; he’s an old-school neocon, very Article II,” Foley says, referring to the portion of the U.S. Constitution that addresses the executive branch. “I’m more libertarian, more focused on individual rights. It’s important to have those differences.”

The pair is adamant that this is not their lawsuit: “It’s the House of Representatives’ lawsuit.” But they are equally adamant about the stakes: “The president is taking actions that are directly contrary to congressional instructions,” Foley says. “The constitution is clear: He has a duty to faithfully execute the laws. Congress needs to preserve its lawmaking prerogative.”

“It is incredible brazenness,” Rivkin adds. “And he continues in part because he’s gotten away with it.”

With any luck, Foley and Rivkin hope, not for long.

.

.

Conservative Businessman Eric Gurr Mounting Primary Challenge Against John Boehner (Videos)

Meet Eric Gurr, The Man Who Would Take Down House Speaker John Boehner – The Examiner

Eric Gurr is a 48-year-old Ohioan and a lifelong Republican. He was born and raised in Hamilton, a suburb of Cincinnati. Mr. Gurr is the CEO of a computer consulting firm based in West Chester, Ohio. He is married and has three children as well as two grandchildren. He and his family reside in fast-growing Liberty Township. He has never run for political office before.

.

.
Oh, and he just happens to be challenging House Speaker John Boehner in the Republican primary for Ohio’s 8th congressional district.

Mr. Gurr was kind enough to grant yours truly an exclusive interview.

ROBERT ELLIOTT: Thank you for agreeing to do this interview, Mr. Gurr.

So did you go to college in Ohio? How does your family feel about your decision to run for high public office? What prompted someone who has never run for political office before to decide to challenge one of the most powerful elected officials in the country?

ERIC GURR: I went to college at The University of Cincinnati. I started out in mechanical engineering in 1983, then switched to computer related. I dropped out in ’87 and have worked with computers, programming, and related endeavors since that time.

My family has been very supportive of my decision.

What prompted me to run was the realization that since 2008 Mr. Boehner had slowly pulled away from my views and what I thought was in the best interest of the nation long-term. I was not in favor of the TARP programs and I still think our monetary policy is on the wrong track.

Syria was the tipping point. I thought that war with Syria was a terrible idea. Essentially it is a very high-risk proposition with little or nothing to be gained. I also believe strongly that the immigration bill was a bad bill at the wrong time. It makes no sense at all to add to a workforce burdened by high unemployment and underemployment.

When I started putting all of these things together I realized that Speaker Boehner has just been in Washington too long. Publicly elected servants should serve a few terms and then leave lest they become forever detached from their constituents. Over time this leads to a moderation not only in positions and policy, but in passion for the fight. Inside that beltway, conservative values (both economically and socially) are seen as “extreme.” We as the base of the GOP have no desire nor need to apologize for these conservative principles as they have served the nation quite well for over 200 years.

ROBERT ELLIOTT: What are your thoughts on the multiple scandals that have engulfed the Obama administration – IRS, NSA, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, etc.?

ERIC GURR: The IRS scandal is the biggest scandal to hit this country since Watergate. The most feared institution has been used for political purposes. I find it highly improbable that Ms. Lois Lerner acted of her own volition. I am stunned that the Democrats don’t seem to understand the gravity of this situation. This scandal needs to be investigated until we know absolutely everything.

The NSA is not permitted to spy on citizens without a proper warrant. I think that the Constitution is quite clear on this. I know there are many who say that this invasion of privacy protects us all, but where does that end?

I also believe Benghazi is a real and serious scandal. If we follow the timeline it appears that we first received word of an attack at 10:00 PM. If the State Department didn’t send help they must answer the question: why? The canned response is that the main thrust of the attack happened at 4:00 AM and the forces would not have had time to get there. But there is no way they could have known when the next attack was coming.

Fast & Furious was probably a well-intended venture that spiraled out of hand. But when our own agents are shot with these weapons I think some answers should be expected. The attorney general has some real inconsistencies in his statements to Congress and needs to be brought back on the carpet. If we cannot trust the attorney general to follow the laws, who can we trust?

ROBERT ELLIOTT: How do you feel about the recent efforts of House and (some) Senate Republicans to defund Obamacare?

ERIC GURR: I think Ted Cruz and others supporting him are on the right track. With control of only the House there are few tools left in the tool box. It will be no consolation for Republicans to say in three or four months, “We told you this would happen.”

The bill is axiomatically prevented from working for several reasons. The biggest reason being that there is no addressing of the supply side in the bill. If you want to lower cost while increasing demand for services you must first address the supply. It takes years to become a doctor. So the first portion of a serious bill like this would have been to delay for eight years while you fund an increase in the number of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers and equipment. This bill added an anti-science and anti-technology excise tax of 2.3 percent. If the GOP is somehow successful in the endeavor and at least delays implementation by a year or two the economy will rebound, job growth will ensue, and we will have a clearer picture of what needs to be done to reform existing systems. If some of the old guard in the GOP leadership continue to delay and obfuscate, we’ll never get the opportunity to explain to the American people (the few who still support the bill) how damaging it is to the long term economic viability of the nation.

ROBERT ELLIOTT: Candidates who seek to unseat incumbents are almost always at a financial disadvantage. This is especially true in your case, since you are taking on such a powerful and high-profile incumbent in the Speaker of the House. How much cash do you think your campaign will need to raise in order to mount a credible challenge? And how do you plan to raise it? Have you considered a “money-bomb” type of event?

ERIC GURR: Money is the challenge. I’ve been contacted by people all over the country suggesting a “money bomb” type of event. I have tried to contact a few of the conservative outlets, but have been told I must be “vetted” first. Over the past two weeks I’ve tried to respond to as many online requests as I can and that’s starting to produce. The website gurrforcongress.com is averaging over 300 visits per day. I’ve tried to analyze the situation in the 8th congressional district of Ohio and the good news is that millions of dollars probably won’t be needed. Speaker Boehner can only bombard the voters with so much information. I’ve figured I’ll need about $300,000 to make a serious challenge. Although it sounds like a lot, the reality is if I can get a few thousand people to donate $25 – $50 I’ll be in a strong position. In order to become competitive with his fundraising machine I’ll have to look outside the district. With a solid drive and $100,000 or so I think I can pull that off.

ROBERT ELLIOTT: How do you feel about term limits? If elected, would you pledge to serve only a certain number of terms?

ERIC GURR: I’m in favor of term limits but much more in favor of politicians keeping their word. I would not serve more than four terms and prefer to serve three, then be challenged in a primary to get the word out about new candidates. If you lose, you lose. If not, the next year there are a few candidates the public has come to know who can run for the seat and I would drop out. There is absolutely no chance I would serve more than four [terms]. A citizen legislator must be a citizen first. If you stay in Washington for 15 or 20 years, you have become a professional politician.

ROBERT ELLIOTT: How would you work to tackle the federal budget deficit? Assuming you plan to support spending reductions, are there any areas that you think should be off-limits to cuts?

ERIC GURR: The deficit should be cut in two phases. In the first phase I would propose to Congress cutting 3% across the board with an exemption for Social Security and Medicare. Then I would push hard for a significant cut in the capital gains tax. This tax cut has historically increased revenue. I would also delve deeper into cuts for the EPA, agricultural subsidies, and even the Department of Education. All of these agencies have poor track records recently and have seen their budgets bloated beyond any reasonable level of growth.

Defense spending is worth a look, but I don’t know that I would commit to any cuts at this point. It’s not that I think there isn’t room, it’s just that I know when you have a certain level of access to information you may be inclined to change your views. I am in favor of missile defense but not in favor of a large standing army with bases spread across the world.

The American people have felt the pinch for five years and I think it is time for Washington, D.C. to share in a little of the belt tightening.

ROBERT ELLIOTT: Would your campaign like to communicate a direct message to potential donors and/or Republican primary voters in your district?

Frank Milillo, Eric Gurr’s campaign manager:

Dear Friends,

As many of you may have heard, Hamilton native Eric Gurr is challenging John Boehner in the May primary for the Ohio 8th district U.S. congressional seat. Many of us have supported Mr. Boehner over the past 20-plus years, but I think many of you now agree it’s time for a change. Eric is a principled conservative and wants to cut spending, lower taxes to promote jobs and economic growth, and put an end to the ill-conceived Obamacare.

It is difficult to defeat a politician as entrenched in Washington culture as Mr. Boehner has become. He has nationwide donations and deep pockets. But we believe the people of Ohio deserve better, and with your donation of as little as $25 we can get the word out and make a hopeful and helpful change for the people of Ohio and the United States of America.

To donate, please visit the campaign website at gurrforcongress.com

Orr if you prefer, you can send a check to:

Gurr For Congress
7182 Liberty Centre Drive, Suite O
West Chester, Ohio 45069

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
—————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related videos:

.

.

.

.

.

Win For Little Sisters Of The Poor As USSC Issues Injunction Against Contraception Mandate

Supreme Court Issues Injunction Against Contraception Mandate – Townhall

This afternoon, the Supreme Court issued an order for an injunction against forcing private businesses to apply for an exemption to Obamacare’s contraception mandate.

.

.
The Little Sisters of the Poor – a Catholic group that cares for the old and infirm – have challenged Obamacare’s contraception mandate on the grounds that it violates religious liberty. The Supreme Court is considering the case, and while the case is under consideration, it has issued a temporary order that businesses will not have to provide contraception coverage, or to follow the Obama Administration’s “guidelines” to fill out the paperwork required to provide contraception coverage indirectly.

As Buzzfeed’s Chris Geidner reported:

The unsigned order of the court “should not be construed as an expression of the Court’s views on the merits” of the case, currently on appeal before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Filed with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, she referred the request to the entire court. She had issued a temporary injunction on Dec. 31 while considering the nuns’ request for an injunction during the appeal. There were no filed dissents to the continued injunction.

There’s no timeline for when SCOTUS will issue its final ruling.

As Fox News detailed, the Little Sisters of the Poor case represents a nightmare for the Obama Administration:

For an administration seeking to win a skeptical public over to ObamaCare, the Justice Department could not have picked a more sympathetic foe for a Supreme Court fight than The Little Sisters of the Poor.

The administration is fighting back against a lawsuit filed by the non-profit, which does not meet ObamaCare’s classification of a “religious employer” because it hires and tends to people of all religious and ethnic backgrounds.

Supporters say The Little Sisters of the Poor epitomize service by caring for the elderly poor and those deemed “worthless” by society. In the United States, it runs 30 homes where hundreds of its employees provide nursing and end of life care.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

FBI Unlikely To File Charges Against IRS For Targeting Conservatives… Hasn’t Bothered To Interview The Victims

FBI Won’t File Charges Against IRS For Targeting Conservatives But Never Interviewed A Single Tea Party Group – Gateway Pundit

.

.
The IRS Scandal involved:

At least 292 conservative groups targeted
At least 5 pro-Israel groups targeted
Constitutional groups targeted
Groups that criticized Obama administration were targeted
At least two pro-life groups targeted
A Texas voting-rights group was targeted
Conservative activists and businesses were targeted
At least one conservative Hispanic group was targeted
IRS continued to target groups even after the scandal was exposed

The Obama FBI will not file charges against the IRS for targeting conservative groups. The agency never once interviewed a single Tea Party group.

The WSJ.com reported:

The Journal reports that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is unlikely to file any criminal charges in the targeting of conservative political organizations by the Internal Revenue Service. Yet Cleta Mitchell, an attorney who represents many of the targets, says that the FBI has never contacted any of her clients to discuss their treatment at the hands of the IRS. “Shouldn’t law enforcement talk to the victims in an investigation?,” she asks in an email. “That’s like investigating a burglary without interviewing the burgled,” notes a Journal editorial

…Beyond the harassment of Tea Party groups and the leaking of confidential taxpayer data to political opponents, the IRS case also involved senior government officials falsely assuring Congress for a year that there was no targeting. IRS brass then falsely and publicly claimed that the targeting was the work of low-level employees. Yet when it comes to allegations of misleading Congress, the Obama Justice Department was more interested in trying to prosecute baseball pitcher Roger Clemens for comments about steroids than it was in pursuing a case involving the use of the nation’s tax-collecting authority against the President’s opponents.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Rep. Gowdy Discusses House Resolution Authorizing Congressional Lawsuits Against Obama Regime (Video)

Republican Congressman: Obama’s Disregard Of Law ‘Has Reached An Unprecedented Level’ (Video) – Gateway Pundit

On Thursday the Obama administration pushed back the deadline for consumers to make their first payment for coverage under the healthcare law. This was just the latest lawless suspension of one of the Obamacare regulations.

Today Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) told FOX News the Obama administration’s flouting of the law had reached an “unprecedented level.”

.

.
The Daily Caller reported:

South Carolina Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy said Sunday that the Obama administration’s deliberate flouting of congressional law “has reached an unprecedented level,” claiming the time is now ripe for Congress to take the White House to court over executive overreach.

Gowdy spoke with Fox News’ Shannon Bream about a House resolution authorizing a congressional lawsuit against the executive branch. Although individual lawmakers do not have standing to challenge the president, the provision would allow the institution of Congress itself to sue the Obama administration for ignoring laws passed by the legislative body.

“The case law that says members don’t have standing also allows for the institution itself – under a theory of vote nullification, that if the executive is just nullifying the votes of a co-equal branch of government – that we may have standing,” Gowdy said. “So an individual member – the case you referenced was Dennis Kucinich challenging the actions in Libya – he does not have standing. But the institution of Congress as a whole, if it relates to recess appointments or the Affordable Care Act or immigration, courts have signaled that they may say the institution itself has standing, and that’s what [South Carolina Republican Rep. Tom Rice] is trying to do with his resolution.”

Read the rest here.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Corruption Update: Fraud Claim Against Eric Holder, Other Democrats Bolstered After Ruling

Fraud Claim Against Holder Bolstered After Ruling – WorldNetDaily

Allegations of fraud against Attorney General Eric Holder, other top Justice officials, several prominent Democratic operatives – including a major contributor to Hillary Clinton – and Credit Suisse Bank has been re-ignited by a federal bankruptcy judge’s decision that also apparently has derailed the U.S. Senate bid of a former Democrat governor.

.

The decision July 10 by Judge Bruce A. Markell dismissed a bankruptcy judgment against real estate developer Tim Blixseth.

Blixseth, the founder of the Yellowstone Club, a luxury ski and golf resort in Montana, has alleged that Credit Suisse made a criminally fraudulent loan to Yellowstone Club that led to the bankruptcy judgment, which stripped Blixseth of ownership of the resort. Blixseth alleges he was defrauded by an elaborate scheme engineered by his ex-wife and Ron Burkle, the supermarket king who raised more than $1 million for Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

Though seemingly unrelated, the bankruptcy decision appears to have prompted former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer to announce Saturday that he does not intend to pursue a bid to run in 2014 for the U.S. Senate. The seat has been held by retiring Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, a prominent proponent of Obamacare who in recent months has described the health care law as “a train wreck.”

WND reported in June 2012 that several hundred pages of documents allege Holder and Lanny Breuer, the assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s criminal division, have intervened to block recommended federal prosecutions in an ongoing dispute involving the Yellowstone Club, a private golf and ski resort now owned by Burkle and international bank Credit Suisse.

WND also reported allegations by Blixseth attorney Mike Flynn that Holder and Breuer sought shield from federal criminal prosecution of Credit Suisse Group AG a client of the Washington-based law firm Covington & Burling, as well as key Democratic Party operatives suspected of playing a role in allegedly fraudulent mortgage financing and bank lending practices.

Before joining the Department of Justice in the Obama administration, Holder and Breuer were partners at the international law firm Covington & Burling.

Judge Markell’s decision last week dismissed a $40 million fraud judgment against Blixseth that had been enforced by U.S. bankruptcy judge Ralph Kirscher, a Democrat appointed to the bankruptcy court by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 1999 during President Clinton’s second term of office.

Blixseth and Flynn have repeatedly charged that Kirscher’s bankruptcy decision was fraudulently influenced in a 2009 meeting with Montana’s governor at the time, Schweitzer. The meeting resulted in a decision to allow Blixseth’s ex-wife and Sam Byrne, a Boston real estate investor with ties to the Democratic Party, to buy the Yellowstone Club at a price substantially below market value after the bankruptcy had been declared.

Flynn further alleged in a letter shared with WND, addressed to the Public Integrity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice, that Burkle, Byrne and Schweitzer funneled more than $1.2 million through the Democratic Governor’s Association in 2008 to the Montana Democratic Party for the benefit of Schwitzer’s re-election campaign.

Flynn asserts in the letter to the DOJ that the “money laundering scheme – having Burkle and Byrne with their friends donate to the Democratic Governor’s Association and then to the Montana Democratic Party, for the benefit of Schweitzer – appears designed to conceal Burkle and Byrne’s financial relationship with Schweitzer while at the same time Burkle and Byrne were taking over the Yellowstone Club and using their relationship and ‘political capital’ and ‘political favors’ with Schweitzer to do it.”

After his re-election in 2009, Schweitzer created two highly controversial funds, The Council for a Sustainable America and The American Sustainability Project, into which Burkle and Byrne funneled $335,000, Flynn said.

Flynn further charged that in early 2010, the Montana Democratic Party political machine with the backing of Holder and Breuer “targeted” Blixseth with a baseless criminal investigation.

Among recent developments is the entry into the Yellowstone case of a whistleblower who claims to have been paid $6 million by Blixseth’s former wife to hack into Blixseth’s computers to obtain highly confidential information that she shared with Burkle and Department of Justice criminal investigators.

Flynn explained to WND his current concern that Holder may have ordered the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section to block the whistleblower’s application for immunity to prevent disclosure of corruption by the various Democratic Party political operatives involved in the Yellowstone case, including Holder and Breuer.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Caught On Tape: Obama DOJ Lackey Urges Sanford Officials To Take Action Against Zimmerman

Caught On Tape: Obama Justice Official Urges Action Against George Zimmerman – Gateway Pundit

Earlier this week we found out the Obama Justice Department helped organize the race-based Trayvon Martin rallies in Sanford, Florida.

.

Now this…

Judicial Watch released audio today of an Obama Department of Justice official urging Sanford city officials to take action against George Zimmerman.

.

………………….Click on image above to listen to audio clip.

The Washington Times reported:

The legal watchdog Judicial Watch released an audio recording Thursday of a Department of Justice staffer urging Sanford, Fla., city officials and the minority advocacy group Dream Defenders to seek justice for Trayvon Martin, because “if a community perceives that there’s something wrong in the black community, there’s something wrong.”

“CRS is an arm of the department that we call the Peacemakers,” Thomas Battles, regional director of the DOJ’s Community Relations Service, said at a meeting at the Shiloh Church on April 19, 2012. “We work with communities where there is real or perceived racial tensions.”

“…When Trayvon happened, for many of us, it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back,” he continued. “We had grown up in a state and environment where race is a way of life… We’re not from Sanford, but what Sanford represented to us was the very real problems going around this state and this country. We wanted to figure out how could we stand in solidarity, and how could we make this about not just justice for Trayvon, but using this moment and using the opportunity to honor his memory, to honor his spirit by working to bring down the various structures and the various systems that allow something like this to happen.”

Just when we thought this administration could go no lower – we find out they have been actively interfering with a Florida criminal case.

There is absolutely nothing that is off limits to this administration.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Vile Obamacare Abortion Mandate In Hobby Lobby Case

Court Opposes Obama On Abortion Mandate – WorldNetDaily

A federal appeals court in Denver has ruled against the Obamacare abortion mandate that forces religious business owners to violate their beliefs by paying for abortifacients.

.

The ruling from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the case returned to the district court level for swift resolution of the request by the owners of Hobby Lobby for an injunction until the dispute fully is resolved.

The district court previously refused to allow the injunction, and even Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the company owners to start paying for abortifacients for their employees, in direct violation of their faith.

However, the 10th Circuit took the case with the unusual step that the full court would hear the arguments rather than a three-judge panel.

In their decision, the court said Hobby Lobby has “established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm.”

The case is just one of more than five dozen pending in U.S. courts now challenging Obama’s demand that employers pay for abortifacients for their employee regardless of their religious faith and beliefs.

A five-judge majority on the court said the mandate creates a substantial burden, because if the owners do not comply with Obama’s demands, based on their religious beliefs, they would be subjected to millions of dollars in fines annually.

The judges also said the government did not satisfy the requirement to show that any burden on the religious exercise of the plaintiffs was overridden by some “compelling” government interest or that it was imposed in the least intrusive way possible.

The court pointedly noted that Obama’s administration already has exempted “tens of millions of people” from the same mandate, so to do so for Hobby Lobby hardly would create an impact.

The American Center for Law and Justice was one of the dozens of organizations that filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the dispute.

“We are pleased with the outcome of this case, especially because the 10th Circuit majority tracks the arguments we presented,” the group said. ” …These are the same arguments we have presented in the other mandate cases in which we are involved.”

The Green family, owners of the chain of hundreds of stores in 40 states, said, through the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, they are optimistic.

“My family and I believe very strongly in our conviction that life begins at conception, and the emergency contraceptives that we would be forced to provide in our employee health plan under this mandate are contrary to that conviction,” said David Green, founder. “We believe that business owners should not have to be forced to choose between following their faith and following the law.”

Hobby Lobby is the largest business so far to file a lawsuit against the Health and Human Services mandate under Obamacare. But it is just one of many plaintiffs who make up more than 60 lawsuits launched already.

Other plaintiffs include Colorado Christian University, Ave Maria University and Wheaton College of Illinois.

“We hold that Hobby Lobby and Mardel [a related company] are entitled to bring claims under [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act], have established a likelihood of success that their rights under this statute are substantially burdened by the contraceptive-coverage requirement, and have established an irreparable harm.”

The 165-page opinion said Hobby Lobby has standing to sue, and the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply. The opinion also said the majority holds that the district court erred in finding that Hobby Lobby had not demonstrated a likelihood of success.

The judges noted that the company owners established their work on Christian principles and continue to run them that way, refusing to open on Sundays or engage in business activities that promote alcohol use.

The company also buys newspaper ads inviting people to “know Jesus as Lord and Savior.”

The court noted that the law allows exemptions to Obamacare for religious employers, but religious for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby were deliberately targeted for the requirement.

“The plaintiffs assert that because more than 13,000 individuals are insured under the Hobby Lobby plan… [Obamacare fines] would total at least $1.3 million per day, or almost $475 million per year.”

The fines, combined with the fact the government was unable to show it had narrowly tailored the requirement, means the government’s argument must fail, the court said.

“In addition, the Supreme Court has settled that individuals have Free Exercise rights with respect to their for-profit businesses… In short, individuals may incorporate for religious purposes and keep the Free Exercise rights, and unincorporated individuals may pursue profit while keeping their Free Exercise rights.”

The court said the government has the idea that when individuals incorporate but are not tax-exempt under the IRS code, “Free Exercise rights somehow disappear.”

But the judges said religious expression and religious conduct can be communicated by individuals and for-profit corporations alike.

Several other district judges have ordered that the abortion mandate not be enforced against individual companies until the dispute is resolved, but the government is appealing the decisions.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

TX Governor Strikes Back Against Leftist Mob, Calls For 2nd Special Session Of Legislature To Vote On Abortion Bill

Texas Gov. Perry Calls Second Special Session On Abortion – Fox News

After a one-woman filibuster and a raucous crowd helped derail a GOP-led effort to restrict Texas abortions, Gov. Rick Perry announced Wednesday that he’s calling lawmakers back next week to try again.

.

Perry ordered the Legislature to meet July 1 to begin 30 more days of work. Like the first special session, which ended in chaos overnight, the second one will include on its agenda a Republican-backed plan that critics say would close nearly every abortion clinic across the state and impose other widespread limits on the procedure.

“I am calling the Legislature back into session because too much important work remains undone for the people of Texas,” Perry said in a statement. “Texans value life and want to protect women and the unborn.”

The first session’s debate over abortion restrictions led to the most chaotic day in the Texas Legislature in modern history, starting with a marathon filibuster and ending with a down-to-the wire, frenetic vote marked by questions about whether Republicans tried to break chamber rules and jam the measure through.

The governor can convene as many extra sessions as he likes and sets the agenda of what lawmakers can work on. Also listed on the session’s agenda are separate bills to boost highway funding and deal with a juvenile justice issue.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, who oversees the flow of legislation in the Senate, hinted that another special session was coming when he told lawmakers “see you soon” after the first session adjourned.

Many of the same abortion rights groups that staged Tuesday’s night’s protests took to Twitter on Wednesday, promising they had more in store.

The entire process starts over, with bills that must be filed by individual lawmakers, undergo a public hearing and be passed out of committee before they can be considered by both chambers.

Still, supporters are likely to draft a measure similar to the one that nearly passed during the first special session. It sought a statewide ban on undergoing the procedure after 20 weeks of pregnancy, the point at which anti-abortion activists claim a fetus can feel pain – despite a lack of scientific evidence to support that.

That bill also would have forced many clinics that perform the procedure to upgrade their facilities to be classified as ambulatory surgical centers. Doctors would be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.

Democrats put their hopes of thwarting the bill Tuesday in the hands of Wendy Davis, a state senator clad in pink running shoes, for a daylong attempt to talk the bill to death. Over the duration of the speech, Davis became a social media star, even becoming the subject of a tweet from President Obama for her efforts.

But just before midnight, Republicans claimed she strayed off topic and got help with a back brace – two things that are against filibuster rules – and cut her off.

That cleared the way for a vote.

But when Republican Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst shouted into the microphone, trying to call the final votes, nobody seemed to hear him. Some 400 supporters jammed into the gallery had taken their feet with a deafening roar, drowning out his voice. It was, as some claimed, a “people’s filibuster” – an attempt by protesters to finish what Davis had started more than 11 hours earlier.

“Get them out!” Republican Sen. Donna Campbell shouted to a security guard. “… I want them out of here!”

As the crowd clapped and shouted “shame, shame, shame,” Dewhurst gathered Republican lawmakers around Secretary of the Senate Patsy Spaw to register their votes. Democrats ran forward, holding up their cellphones, which showed it was past midnight.

But Dewhurst and other Republicans insisted the first vote was cast before midnight by the Legislature’s clock and that the bill had passed.

By the time decorum was restored and the 19-10 vote in favor of the measure was recorded, the clock read 12:03 a.m. Confusion took over: The Republicans had passed the bill, but did it count? Were the votes tallied in time?

Reporters checked the Senate’s official website and saw the vote registered on Wednesday, after the deadline. But a short time later, the website was updated to show the vote on Tuesday. Sen. Chuy Hinojosa produced two official printouts of the vote, each showing a different day for the same vote.

After protests from angry Democrats, senators met privately with Dewhurst for more than an hour. Eventually, he returned to the then-empty Senate chamber and declared that while the bill had passed, he didn’t have time to sign it, so it wasn’t approved. In return for declaring the measure dead, Democrats promised not to question the date of the vote any further.

While altering a public record is illegal, stopping the clock to allow for a vote or changing the journal before it is published are long traditions in the Texas Legislature and unlikely to lead to a prosecution.

The law’s provision that abortions be performed at surgical centers means only five of Texas’ 42 abortion clinics would remain in operation in a state 773 miles wide and 790 miles long with 26 million people. A woman living along the Mexico border or in West Texas would have to drive hundreds of miles to obtain an abortion.

Conservatives and anti-abortion campaigners joined Dewhurst in condemning the “unruly mob” for violating the Senate’s decorum by screaming obscenities at Republican backers of the bill.

Texas Democrats, though, see an opportunity to capitalize just months after setting up a grassroots organization called “Battleground Texas” with a $36 million cash infusion. And they circled around Davis — the teen mom turned Harvard Law School grad whose Twitter followers rocketed from 1,200 to 83,000 in just 24 hours.

“As Sen. Wendy Davis most powerfully emphasized, Democrats are not afraid of a fight,” said Gilberto Hinojosa, Texas Democratic Party chairman. “Last night was a turning point in that story of Texas.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Funny Or Die – Public Service Announcement: How To Fight Back Against NSA Snooping


.
H/T Independent Journal Review

.