Former Secretary Hillary Clinton and her State Department colleagues have given “constantly shifting” stories about her secret email account, a federal judge said Tuesday, finding there’s evidence the Obama administration showed “bad faith” in how it followed open-records laws.
Judge Royce C. Lamberth said it remains to be seen whether the government did try to obfuscate matters, but said there’s at least enough smoke that Judicial Watch, the conservative interest group suing to get a look at all of Mrs. Clinton’s records, should be allowed to press for more details about how the State Department made its decisions.
“Plaintiff is relying on constantly shifting admissions by the government and the former government officials,” Judge Lamberth said.
Mrs. Clinton declined to use a State.gov email account during her term as secretary, instead using an email account tied to a server she kept at her home in New York.
All of her messages that concerned official business were supposed to be archived by the State Department, but she kept them, only returning them in December 2014, nearly two years after leaving office and only at the prompting of the House committee probing the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi.
That meant that during her four years in office and nearly two years afterward, the State Department was not searching those documents in response to open-records requests from Congress or the public.
Last month, the State Department finally finished processing more than 30,000 pages of Mrs. Clinton’s emails and made them public on the department’s Freedom of Information Act web page – a mammoth undertaking that has put a treasure trove of information in the public’s eye.
Judicial Watch and others argue that some 30,000 other messages Mrs. Clinton sent from her secret address during her time in office, but which she has deemed private business, should also be reviewed by the government.
The State Department told Judge Lamberth it never misled the public because it never said it was searching Mrs. Clinton’s emails in the first place. The department said that meant it wasn’t acting in bad faith when it responded to open-records requests.
Judge Lamberth, though, said more evidence is needed before those conclusions can be reached.
“The government argues that this does not show a lack of good faith, but that is what remains to be seen, and the factual record must be developed appropriately in order for this court to make that determination,” he said in a brief ruling.
The Justice Department declined to comment on Judge Lamberth’s ruling, which marks the third legal black eye for the Obama administration in recent weeks.
Last week, a federal appeals court said the Justice Department was turning the law on its head to protect the IRS from taxpayers, rather than to protect taxpayers from the IRS.
And another judge issued a “show cause” order demanding to know why the government appeared to conceal documents in an open-records case brought against a top Obama climate adviser. Judge Amit Mehta, who serves on the district court in Washington, D.C., along with Judge Lamberth, raised the possibility of punishing the administration for its actions.
Judge Lamberth’s decision Tuesday joins that of Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, also in the district court in Washington, who earlier this year granted discovery in another case brought by Judicial Watch against the State Department.
Judge Sullivan even said he was inclined to order the State Department to demand all of Mrs. Clinton’s emails – including the 30,000 or so messages she said were private business, not public records, that she sent from her secret account during her time in office.
Judge Lamberth said he’ll wait to see what Judge Sullivan decides before moving ahead with discovery in his own case.
In this week’s broadcast of his weekly program on TheBlaze radio network, Sheriff David Clarke had a few choice words for the occupier of the White House and his conduct in the orchestration of and response to violence against police officers in America.
Clarke points out that instead of investigating the human rights abuse of black on black crime, the Department of Justice is going after police, making the targeting of them “job one.”
He addresses the murder of officer Randolph Holder in New York, with 96 officers killed last year and another 48,518 assaulted in the line of duty, saying, “That’s the brutality. Many of those suspects were black, in the commission of crimes, threatening a law enforcement officer or failing to abide by their lawful commands, resisting arrest. How about black criminal abuse, black criminal brutality?”
Clarke doesn’t put much value in the apology of Judge Patricia Nunez, the one who released the inmate who would later murder Officer Holder, calling her a criminal coddling, criminal advocating, empathy for the criminal, despicable human being.
He notes, “By the way we still have not heard from ‘president’ Obama, that heartless, soulless bastard, who wastes no time taking to the microphone to stick up for a criminal creep like Mike Brown, like Eric Garner, like Freddie Gray, like Trayvon Martin, in communicating empathy for those goons and yet he has to be prodded, he has to be prodded to say something when a law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty.”
The Obama administration officials – with the awareness of the Secretary of State – were involved in violating a ban on arming rebels in Syria in an operation that mirrors the Iran-Contra Scandal during the Reagan Administration. But while the news media initiated a feeding-frenzy on Iran-Contra, they’re either yawning or helping the Obama administration in covering up the Benghazi-to-Syria arms transfers.
During Thursday’s House Select Committee on Benghazi hearing, the news media and the Democratic Party information machine appeared to be creating their desired narrative: the GOP is on a witch hunt to stop Hillary Clinton’s inauguration as President. But the hearings did manage to force the release of documents that were being hidden by the alleged conspirators.
Some of the many documents released by a watchdog group that investigates and exposes corruption and criminal activity by government officials and agencies provides evidence that then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other senior officials, as well as President Barack Obama, deceived the American people regarding the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi U.S. consulate massacre. The pages released show that top administration officials were handed intelligence reports within hours of the attack that stated the Islamic terrorists’ actions had been planned up to 10 days before the attack and the goal was simply to to assassinate as many Americans as possible.
The documents also confirms the suspicions that U.S. government officials were well aware of weapons being shipped from Benghazi to Syria for use by rebel forces against the Al-Assad regime, according to Judicial Watch. In addition, the document-release contains an August 2012 analysis of intelligence that predicted the meteoric rise of al-Qaida in Iraq terrorists who morphed into the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. It also the predicted failure of Obama’s foreign policy aimed at regime change in Syria.
In an overly redacted copy of a memorandum dated Sept. 12, 2012 – the day after the Bengahzi slaughter of four Americans including a U.S. ambassador – the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) reported to Hillary Clinton, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the White House National Security Council and the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff that the Islamic terrorists planned their attack about 10 or more days prior to the slaughter that occurred on the day the U.S. acknowledged the 11th Anniversary of the attacks in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania that killed about 3,000 people.
The terrorists intended to attack the sparsely protected U.S. diplomatic mission and to assassinate as many American officials as possible. The motive for the attack appeared to be revenge for U.S. killing of Abu Yahya al-Libi, a high-level Al Qaida terrorist killed by U.S. drone strikes in North Waziristan.
According to Judicial Watch’s analysis of the documents, the Benghazi attack was planned and perpetrated by members of the Brigades of the Captive Omar Abdul Rahman (BCOAR). BCOAR is also responsible for past attacks on the Red Cross in Benghazi and the attack on the British Ambassador, they have approximately 120 members.” Rahman [a/k/a “The Blind Sheik”] is currently locked up in a federal prison in New York for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center which killed six people in New York. He is serving a life sentence.
The redacted DIA memo identified the leader of BCOAR as being Abdul Baset (AZUZ). The memo reveals that he was sent to Libya to “core” al-Qaida’s replacement for Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawhari, to being creating al-Qaeda bases and training camps in Libya. Baset is described as not being “a charismatic leader, but rather just a violent radical.” The memo also states that the majority of BCOAR’s members are “under the age of 28 with a large number between the ages of 17-21 years of age.”
The DIA reported that BCOAR built their headquarters and a training facility in Libyan city of Derna. “They train in the mountains surrounding Derna where they have large caches of weapons. Some of these weapons are disguised as feeding troughs for livestock. They have SA-7 and SA-23/4 MANPADS, as well as unidentified missiles over two meters in length,” the memo states.
Judicial Watch, a group that has been successful in breaching the government’s “stonewalls,” obtained the documents after U.S. District Court Judge Katanji Brown Jackson ordered their release after the watchdog group’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Defense had been denied. Judicial Watch was then forced to file a lawsuit for the requested documents and related material.
The documents totally contradict statements made by Hillary Clinton and other national security and diplomatic officials appointed by President Obama about the Benghazi attack.They claims the murder of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, and the destruction of American property was a result of anger by Muslim civilians who were enraged by obscure YouTube video by an American filmmaker that denigrated the Muslim religion.
“These documents… point to [the] connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton.
It wasn’t until faced with overwhelming evidence that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other members of the administration finally conceded that the attack was perpetrated by a group of Islamic terrorists.
In response to the documents, Judicial Watch’s President Tom Fitton said, “These documents are jaw-dropping. No wonder we had to file more FOIA lawsuits and wait over two years for them. If the American people had known the truth – that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other top administration officials knew that the Benghazi attack was an al-Qaida terrorist attack from the get-go – and yet lied and covered this fact up – Mitt Romney might very well be president. And why would the Obama administration continue to support the Muslim Brotherhood even after it knew it was tied to the Benghazi terrorist attack and to al Qaeda?”
“These documents also point to [the] connection between the collapse in Libya and the ISIS war – and confirm that the U.S. knew remarkable details about the transfer of arms from Benghazi to Syrian jihadists,” stated Tom Fitton. “These documents show that the Benghazi cover-up has continued for years and is only unraveling through our independent lawsuits. The Benghazi scandal just got a whole lot worse for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.”
President Barack Obama said in his weekly address today that four villages in Alaska are in “imminent danger” because of climate change and that safety will be his administration’s top consideration in permitting offshore oil and gas drilling “as we push our economy and the world to ultimately transition off of fossil fuels.”
‘America will lead the world to meet the threat of climate change before it’s too late’
Here are key excerpts from the president’s address:
Alaska’s glaciers are melting faster too, threatening tourism and adding to rising seas. And if we do nothing, Alaskan temperatures are projected to rise between six and twelve degrees by the end of the century, changing all sorts of industries forever.
This is all real. This is happening to our fellow Americans right now. In fact, Alaska’s governor recently told me that four villages are in “imminent danger” and have to be relocated. Already, rising sea levels are beginning to swallow one island community.
Think about that. If another country threatened to wipe out an American town, we’d do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Climate change poses the same threat, right now…
Since the United States and China worked together to set ambitious climate targets last year, leading by example, many of the world’s biggest emitters have come forward with new climate plans of their own. And that’s a good sign as we approach this December’s global climate negotiations in Paris.
Now, one of the ways America is leading is by transitioning away from dirty energy sources that threaten our health and our environment, and by going all-in on clean, renewable energy sources like wind and solar…
The bottom line is, safety has been and will continue to be my administration’s top priority when it comes to oil and gas exploration off America’s precious coasts – even as we push our economy and the world to ultimately transition off of fossil fuels.
So I’m looking forward to talking with Alaskans about how we can work together to make America the global leader on climate change around the globe… Because what’s happening in Alaska is happening to us. It’s our wakeup call. And as long as I’m President, America will lead the world to meet the threat of climate change before it’s too late.
You can’t get much more hypocritical than the New York Times, which acted as a megaphone for the oppo research efforts of American Bridge, the pro-Hillary operation founded by David Brock. The “scandal” amounted to four traffic tickets for Marco Rubio over 18 years, puffed up by including his wife’s driving record into a headline of 17 violations for the couple.
The problem is that the Times studiously ignored the scofflaw behavior of Barack Obama, who ignored 15 outstanding parking tickets until his run for the presidency forced him to clean up his record. Fire Andrea Mitchell reports:
Funny how this pitiful New York Times fails to release that Obama had 15 outstanding parking tickets dating back to the 1980’s. King Obama didn’t pay off these 15 parking tickets until just before he launched his presidential campaign in 2007. Ironic isn’t it? Remember State Department’s airhead Jen Psaki? She was a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign back in 2007 and dismissed the tickets as not relevant. But Rubio’s are according to the left wing media, just remember that.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama got more than an education when he attended Harvard Law School in the late 1980s. He also got a healthy stack of parking tickets, most of which he never paid.
The Illinois Senator shelled out $375 in January – two weeks before he officially launched his presidential campaign – to finally pay for 15 outstanding parking tickets and their associated late fees.
The story was first reported Wednesday by The Somerville News.
Obama received 17 parking tickets in Cambridge between 1988 and 1991, mostly for parking in a bus stop, parking without a resident permit and failing to pay the meter, records from the Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation office show.
He incurred $140 in fines and $260 in late fees in Cambridge in all, but he paid $25 for two of the tickets in February 1990.
Note that Rubio did not ignore his tickets, nor did he try to use political influence to fix them. In contrast, Obama was a scofflaw. And that attitude toward the law has been reflected in his behavior in office, ignoring the Constitutional limitations on his power. He is a scofflaw of the law that governs the government.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) knew last year that an illegal alien California camp counselor known as “Papa Bear” was being investigated on child molestation and child pornography charges but did nothing about it, Iowa U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley claims in a letter sent to DHS Sec. Jeh Johnson on Wednesday.
Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla was arrested May 7 and charged with four felonies including child molestation and the distribution of child pornography. According to local news reports, authorities believe that Covarrubias-Padilla also produced child pornography.
Covarrubias-Padilla recently worked as a night counselor at Walden West, an environmental science camp near San Jose. Besides the recovery of 600 child porn images from his computer, Covarrubias-Padilla has been accused of sexually abusing a 10-year-old boy. The Santa Clara County Office of Education told Grassley’s office that it had received over 100 phone calls and 50 emails from parents concerned that their child may have been victimized. Covarrubias-Padilla worked at two other camps over the past two years.
In his letter to Johnson, Grassley stated that whistleblowers with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — a DHS sub-agency — claim that the federal authorities knew as early as Nov. 17 that Covarrubias-Padilla was being investigated for child sex abuse charges.
Yet, nothing was done about his DACA status until his recent arrest, Grassley claims.
The whistleblowers claim that on Oct. 8, 2012, Covarrubias-Padilla applied for amnesty protection under President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. His amnesty and work eligibility were scheduled to last through this month, at which point he would have been allowed to re-apply for the program.
“These allegations are deeply troubling because, if true, they suggest that DHS was aware for months or years that Mr. Covarrubias-Padilla posed a public safety threat to the children he was monitoring, yet took no action to revoke his DACA authorization,” Grassley, a Republican, wrote to Johnson.
“These allegations are particularly alarming because they suggest that Mr. Covarrubias-Padilla would not have been placed in a position to abuse and exploit children had DHS properly vetted DACA recipients,” Grassley added.
Grassley has recently shed light on other cases involving felonious DACA recipients. One particular egregious case of DHS failure was Emmanuel Jesus Rangel-Hernandez. Rangel-Hernandez was slated for deportation following a 2012 marijuana charge. He applied for amnesty under DACA in Feb. 2013, and his application was approved in Aug. 2013. But the application was approved even though U.S. Customs and Immigration Services (USCIS) was aware that Rangel-Hernandez was gang-affiliated. Gang members are not eligible for DACA status.
After Grassley raised questions about Rangel-Hernandez’s case, USCIS admitted in a response letter that it erred in approving his DACA application and ensured that steps were taken to prevent gang members from being given amnesty in the future.
In his latest letter to Johnson, Grassley asked 11 questions about Covarrubias-Padilla’s DACA application, immigration status, and known criminal history.
He asked for a response by May 29.
Grassley also sought information on how ICE and USCIS coordinated and shared information about Covarrubias-Padilla.
“Did USCIS know or have reason to know that ICE was investigating Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla in connection to crimes involving either possession or distribution of child pornography or child exploitation, including molestation?” Grassley asked.
“If Edgar Covarrubias-Padilla was under investigation by ICE, please provide the procedures in place for when, and in what manner, ICE would have notified USCIS.”
Ben Carson thinks President Obama is a “psychopath.”
In a new GQ profile of the potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate, reporter Jason Zengerle shares an unguarded moment with Carson, during which the famed neurosurgeon called President Barack Obama a “psychopath” for his ability to shamelessly lie to the American people.
Carson reportedly went off on the president after his adviser Armstrong Williams said the president “looks good” during his State of the Union address.
“Like most psychopaths. That’s the way they look, they all look great,” Carson replied.
“He’s gotta convince people to believe him,” Williams reportedly responded, “That’s all he’s doing: selling his narrative.”
“But he knows he’s telling a lie!” Carson said. “He’s trying to sell what he thinks is not true! He’s sitting there saying, ‘These Americans are so stupid, I can tell them anything.’”
Williams seemed to recognize the comments might be controversial and told Carson not to repeat them during an interview later. “We don’t have to call him a psychopath. I don’t want you to go to CNN with that kind of mood.”
In an op-ed on February 9, I suggested that Israel’s opposition leader, Isaac Herzog, should stand alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before Congress on March 3, to underline “their common conviction that the regime in Tehran cannot be appeased and must be faced down.”
On Monday evening, as details of the looming US-led deal with Iran emerged from Geneva, Israel’s most respected Middle East affairs analyst, Channel 2 commentator Ehud Ya’ari, made precisely the same suggestion. So problematic are the reported terms of the deal, Ya’ari indicated, that Israel’s two leading contenders in the March 17 elections, Netanyahu and Herzog, need to put aside their differences and make plain to US legislators that the need to thwart such an accord crosses party lines in Israel and stands as a consensual imperative.
After anonymous sources in Jerusalem leaked to Israeli reporters in recent weeks the ostensible terms of the deal being hammered out, various spokespeople for the Obama administration contended that the Netanyahu government was misrepresenting the specifics for narrow political ends. They sneered that Israel didn’t actually know what the terms were. And they made the acknowledgement – the astounding acknowledgement for a United States whose key regional ally is directly and relentlessly threatened with destruction by Iran – that the Obama administration is consequently no longer sharing with Jerusalem all sensitive details of the Iran talks.
And yet among the terms of the deal being reported by the Associated Press from Geneva on Monday are precisely those that were asserted in recent weeks by the Israeli sources, precisely those that were scoffed at by the Administration. Centrally, Iran is to be allowed to keep 6,500 centrifuges spinning, and there will be a sunset clause providing for an end to intrusive inspections in some 10-15 years. If anything, indeed, some of the terms reported by the AP are even more worrying than those that were leaked in Jerusalem: “The idea would be to reward Iran for good behavior over the last years of any agreement,” the AP said, “gradually lifting constraints on its uranium enrichment program and slowly easing economic sanctions.” There is also no indication of restrictions on Iran’s missile development – its potential delivery systems.
In his TV commentary on Monday night, Ya’ari highlighted that the deal could further embolden Iran as it expands its influence throughout this region, and he noted that the isolation of Iran even by Israel’s key allies was already cracking, with the firmly pro-Israel foreign minister of Australia, Julie Bishop, announcing an imminent visit to Tehran – the first Australian foreign minister to make such a trip in a decade.
Ya’ari also noted that the International Atomic Energy Agency has made clear that it lacks the tools to effectively monitor the kind of nuclear program that Iran will be allowed to maintain under the emerging deal – incapable, that is, of ensuring that Iran does not fool the West as it has done in the past.
The devil of such deals is generally in the detail. But the devil, here, is in the principle as well — the principle that the P5+1 is about to legitimize Iran as a nuclear threshold state. From there, it will be capable of rapidly breaking out to the bomb, well aware that the international community lacks the will to stop it.
The Obama administration would evidently like to believe that 10-15 years from now, the ayatollahs will be gone, Iran will have a different leadership, and the threat of what Netanyahu has repeatedly called “the most dangerous regime in the world attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world” will have passed.
But if the deal now taking shape is indeed finalized, the chances of the regime being ousted from within, or effectively confronted from without, will drastically recede. This deal, indeed, will help cement the ayatollahs in power, with dire consequences for Israel, relatively moderate Arab states, and the free world.
It goes without saying that this weekend’s developments in Geneva have only bolstered Netanyahu’s determination to sound the alarm before Congress next Tuesday. It’s also still clearer today why the Obama administration has been so anxious to query his motives and seek to discredit his concerns.
I headlined my February 9 op-ed “Who to believe on Iran: Obama or Netanyahu?” I think we know now.
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.
No, the president of the United States was not facing rape allegations.
While covering the story of a rape suspect having charges against him dropped on Friday, San Diego TV station KSWB-TV made a painful error: The station aired a picture of President Barack Obama with the story, complete with a “no charges” caption under his photo, the Times of San Diego reported.
“Yeah, there was an accident when they had an over-the-shoulder” display, KSWB assignment editor Mike Wille told Times of San Diego. “It wasn’t on purpose.”
The Times noted that KSWB did not note or apologize for the error during its newscast.
Watch the segment below: