Michelle Malkin

Syndicate content
This WordPress.com site is the cat’s pajamas
Updated: 7 sec ago

Hey, Snotty Bloomberg: Mind your own crumbling city!

Thu, 07/10/2014 - 23:27

Screen Shot 2014-07-11 at 12.31.55 AM
Shooting off his mouth…again

Hey, Snotty Bloomberg: Mind your own crumbling city!
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2014

Some sore losers just don’t know when to pick up their billion-dollar marbles and go away. Far, far away.

I’m looking at you, Michael Bloomberg.

The former New York City mayor mouthed off about my adopted hometown of Colorado Springs and my friends in nearby Pueblo in Rolling Stone magazine this month. He snidely bashed our neighborhoods as backwater holes “where I don’t think there’s roads. It’s as far rural as you can get.”

Snotty Bloomberg is as clueless about geography as he is about the Second Amendment. Colorado Springs and Pueblo are the second and seventh largest cities in the state, respectively. If we’re hee-haw, everyone’s hee-haw. (And what’s wrong with hee-haw, anyway?)

Why such vitriol and hatred for the Rockies from the man who pompously co-founded the “No Labels” movement for “civility” in politics?

Simple: Bloomberg’s still smarting from the ground-breaking losses he and his gun-grabbing East Coast elite pals suffered last fall.

Grass-roots activists — independents, former Democrats, constitutional conservatives and Republicans — successfully recalled two top gun control zealots in our state legislature.

The recall organizers were outspent by a whopping 7-to-1 margin. Bloomberg poured $350,000 into the failed effort to stave off the historic recalls.

Listen up, Bloomie: Butt out of our state and mind your own crumbling city before you bash anyone else’s infrastructure.

You were mayor of New York City for 12 years. How are your roads, bridges and utilities doing, pal?

According to the Center for an Urban Future’s Adam Forman, “1,000 miles of water mains, 170 school buildings and 165 bridges were constructed over a century ago. The city’s public hospital buildings are 57 years old, on average, and 531 public housing towers were built prior to 1950.” The center’s report documented 403 water main breaks last year. And in 2012, “162 bridges across the city—or 11 percent of the total—were structurally deficient,” and 47 of these were deemed “fracture critical.”

Take a Big Gulp of these additional fun facts:

“Thirty seven percent of all subway signals exceed their 50-year useful life, slowing the movement of trains.”

“Approximately 4,000 miles of sewer pipe across the city are made of vitreous clay, a material susceptible to cracking and blockage.”

Meanwhile, 1,500 of the 2,600 public housing buildings do not comply with local standards for exterior and facade conditions.

In Manhattan and Staten Island, less than 60 percent of roads were rated “good” by residents. A “staggering 65.9 percent of streets in West Harlem/Morningside Heights” were in “fair to poor condition.”

Highway maintenance has deteriorated over Bloomberg’s tenure. In 2012, 51 percent of highways were rated poor to fair, compared to 38 percent in 2008. “Conditions have declined in every borough except Brooklyn.”

Oh, and dare I mention to you and your city slicker clique that embarrassing time you had a few Christmas seasons ago dealing with a few feet of snow. Hundreds of ambulances were left stranded. Mass transit was paralyzed. Businesses suffered. Your bungling and AWOL jet setting (Bloomberg was flying to Bermuda while New Yorkers braced for the storm) cost taxpayers the entire $40 million snow removal budget and $30 million in city overtime.

But we’re the bumbling yokels?

Go home, Nanny Bloomberg. Keep your high-and-mighty nose out of our business, your hands off our guns and your money out of our state.

Sen. Patty Murray authors ‘Not My Boss’s Business Act’ to exempt O-care from law she voted for in ’93

Wed, 07/09/2014 - 22:23

**Written by Doug Powers

Sen. Patty Murray has written the “Not My Boss’s Business Act” as a “fix” to get around the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision:

Democrats and women’s health groups believe they have a powerful campaign weapon in pushing back on the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling that Hobby Lobby and other closely held for-profit companies don’t have to comply with the health law’s contraceptive coverage requirement if it violates the owners’ religious beliefs.

The bill was drafted by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a longtime women’s health advocate, and Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), who is up for reelection this year. Sen. Mark Begich, a Democrat up for reelection in Alaska, joined them at the press conference to release the bill.

The Democrats’ bill would essentially exempt the Affordable Care Act from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the law that the Supreme Court said the contraception requirement violated.

Some Democrats have Wile E. Coyote’d their way into having to remove another obstacle of their own placing (to read more about this subject, search DADT and DOMA).

Dems, including Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer and Patty Murray, overwhelmingly supported the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993, and Bill Clinton signed it into law that same year. Now they’re blaming the Supreme Court for applying a law they helped put into existence. But how many MSM stories about this will point out that little detail?

If anybody finds the idea of politicians attempting to overturn the same laws they voted for a couple of decades earlier to be ridiculous, I suggest term limits.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Obama’s Immigration Lawyers’ Enrichment Act

Wed, 07/09/2014 - 08:27

Obama’s Immigration Lawyers’ Enrichment Act
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2014

The American Dream is dying for tens of millions of unemployed, underemployed and long-term jobless citizens. But the White House has guaranteed that one sector of the U.S. economy will thrive for decades to come: Open-borders immigration lawyers.

Don’t believe the fibbing D.C. flacks. While the president’s spokesman Josh Earnest promised that “most” of the illegal immigrant youths from Central America flooding across our borders will “likely” be deported, decades of reality expose the White House lie. Our deportation system is designed to fail.

“Due process” in deportation is a euphemism for interminable delay. According to TRAC Immigration, which gathers data on the chronically backlogged immigration court system, there are currently more than 366,000 pending deportation cases with average wait times nationally of nearly 600 days. There are a measly 59 immigration courts staffed by a meager 235 judges to handle all those cases.

Insiders have told me again and again over the years: “It ain’t over ’til the alien wins.”

Democrats, as always, will blame lack of taxpayer funding. But here’s the cold, hard fact: The system is “broken” on purpose. As they clamor for mass illegal alien amnesty, left-wing immigration lawyers and ethnic activists operate a lucrative industry whose sole objective is to help illegal aliens and convicted criminal visa holders evade deportation for as long as possible. Groups such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, and the American Friends Service Committee make their livelihoods off administrative bottlenecks.

The racket’s chief enablers: The federal Executive Office for Immigration Review, which oversees the immigration courts nationwide, and its unaccountable appellate arm, the Board of Immigration Appeals, which routinely puts aliens’ rights over citizens’ safety.

The BIA’s 15 members are politically appointed, career bureaucrats who have the power to overturn deportation orders nationwide. The panel is comprised largely of alien-friendly advocates from immigration-law circles, former Justice Department attorneys and former BIA staff. These meddling activists regularly reopen factual findings of lower trial courts, violating fundamental principles of appellate review and giving illegal aliens more opportunities to press their cases in federal courts than legal American citizens have.

The legal tricks for evading the flimsy immigration dragnet are well known among the immigrant population, as I first reported 12 years ago in a Center for Immigration Studies report on the deportation abyss. “Even if an alien is removable,” an EOIR bureaucrat testified back then, “he or she may file an application for relief from removal, such as asylum, voluntary departure, suspension of deportation, cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, registry or a waiver of inadmissibility.”

Today’s young illegal border surgers have a plethora of litigation bites at the apple that will keep them in our country in perpetuity. As one of countless immigration law firms now advises, “There a several forms of relief that an unaccompanied child may apply for in immigration court.” Voluntary departure is the de facto “catch and release” option that entrusts illegals to deport themselves. Then there’s the scam-riddled asylum application process, which is significantly loosened for minors. Next alternative: the special juvenile immigrant visa which offers lawful permanent resident status to unaccompanied illegal alien children.

Another route: The fraud-friendly U visa. It’s a program for illegal alien victims of trafficking or domestic violence that was supposed to grant temporary legal status if the beneficiaries assisted law enforcement, but has morphed into an ever-expanding path to residency, work authorization and citizenship for virtually anyone who applies.

An attorney who worked as a law clerk in the Fifth Circuit shared his firsthand experience with me several years ago. Nothing has changed. “It was amazing the number of petitions for review of BIA decisions we handled,” he said. “You are absolutely correct that immigration lawyers use the current system of endless appeals to make illegals essentially undeportable. (It amazes me that illegal aliens, unlike American citizens, get TWO appeals as of right — one to the BIA and then another to the Circuit Court of Appeals.)”

One real solution: “Repeal the statutory provisions that provide for judicial review by the Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court,” the lawyer told me. “It is clearly permissible for the Congress to do this under the Constitution. This would eliminate the biggest ‘bottleneck’ in the removal/deportation process. It would also reduce greatly the overburden dockets of our federal appellate courts.”

Another solution: As I first proposed 12 years ago in my book “Invasion,” it’s long past time to abolish the EOIR and BIA and transfer their functions to existing law enforcement officers within the immigration bureaucracy.

Expedient promises by both parties to “secure the border” are worthless unless America shuts down the litigation boondoggle that rewards foreign law-breakers, their saboteur lawyers and their amnesty advocates.

‘Sobby Lobby’ rides again: Forget ‘it’s the law,’ Harry Reid pledges action against Hobby Lobby ruling

Wed, 07/09/2014 - 06:58

**Written by Doug Powers

null

Reid should be able to focus on this in the coming weeks thanks to all the extra time freed up by not worrying about a budget combined with the fact that he’s insane:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Monday that Democrats will take up legislation in the “coming weeks” to address last month’s Supreme Court decision that allowed some employers with religious objections to opt out of Obamacare’s contraception mandate.

Democrats on Capitol Hill have overwhelmingly criticized the high court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case and are working to craft a response that would restore the coverage, though no specifics have yet been outlined.

“We’re going to do something about the Hobby Lobby legislation,” Reid said on the Senate floor Monday as he ticked off the Senate’s to-do list over the next several weeks.

It wasn’t very long ago that Reid and the Dems said an Obamacare ruling by this very same Supreme Court was “the law,” and tough pomegranates if you didn’t like it:

I need to remind everyone that Obamacare is THE LAW and it has been found CONSTITUTIONAL. We are not re-litigating this.

— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) October 1, 2013

Sorry Harry, but the contraception mandate has been found in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act you voted for and President Clinton signed in 1993. IT’S THE LAW.

Maybe Reid’s anti-Hobby Lobby legislation will be a bill to overturn the RFRA — all while blaming the law on the Koch brothers of course.

Update:

Harry Reid bonus cuckoo points: He considers Clarence Thomas to be a white man.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Uh huh: Costco says decision to pull Dinesh D’Souza’s book from shelves not political; Update: Costco caves

Tue, 07/08/2014 - 16:44

**Written by Doug Powers

Word is that Costco has pulled Dinesh D’Souza’s book, “America: Imagine A World Without Her,” from store shelves.

Costco reportedly said the decision to yank D’Souza’s book, which takes on progressivism head-on, was based on poor sales and was not political.

Excuse me for a second…

Just had to get that out of my system.

Poor sales? Hillary Clinton’s book is currently #91 on Amazon and D’Souza’s is currently, er, #1. I think what Costco means is now that D’Souza’s book isn’t available there, it isn’t selling.

I’m betting they still carry this book:

null

To reiterate: Costco’s decision to yank a book critical of the kinds of policies Obama has supported and continues to push via pen and phone is not political:

null

null

null

null

null

And don’t forget that even though Costco’s decision to stop selling D’Souza’s book was “not political,” they still do carry baby formula for those who were born yesterday and actually believe that.

The biggest mystery might be how D’Souza’s book ever ended up on Costco’s shelves in the first place. Maybe Eric Holder will investigate.

Update:

Apparently Costco has caved and will restock D’Souza’s book. They’re still claiming the decisions to remove and also restock the book had nothing to do with politics.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Rep. Jason Chaffetz: Romney’s the man in 2016

Tue, 07/08/2014 - 07:51

**Written by Doug Powers

Is this kind of thinking why the Republicans might never see the White House again for a long, long time?

At least one House Republican thinks Mitt Romney will make another run for the White House in 2016 — and this time, he says the 2012 runner-up will emerge victorious.

“I think he actually is gonna run for president. He probably doesn’t want me to say that,” Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told host Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s “Hardball” on Monday. Chaffetz also backed the former Massachusetts governor early in the GOP nomination process for 2012.

“A hundred times he says he’s not, but Mitt Romney has always accomplished what he’s set out to do. I think he’s proven right on a lot of stuff. I happen to be in the camp that thinks he’s actually going to run and I think he will be the next president of the United States,” he said.

Got that? Chaffetz predicts that the guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama in 2008 — who then went on to lose Obama in 2012 — will run for and win the White House for the Republicans in 2016.

My thoughts:

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

NOW’s pitiful attempt to kick the habit: Little Sisters of the Poor included on ‘Dirty 100′ list

Mon, 07/07/2014 - 23:10

**Written by Doug Powers

The National Organization for Women has published their “Dirty 100″ list.

null

Sounds pretty bad. What did the “Dirty 100″ do to warrant being called “dirty”? Well, they had the unmitigated gall to challenge Obamacare in court — specifically the contraceptive mandate.

Included among the “Dirty 100″ is a group of dangerously subversive enemies of the State called the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Christine Rousselle at Townhall:

The Little Sisters of the Poor take vows to tend to the needs of the elderly poor. They are opposed to providing contraception to their employees as contraception violates the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The Little Sisters of the Poor are not considered to be a “religious employer” and exempt from the mandate as they employ and care for people of all faith backgrounds.

NOW’s website also attacks Catholicism for the Church’s stance against contraception:

There is still an opportunity for Catholic Church leaders to reverse their mistaken and even cruel position on contraception, joining the modern world and perhaps regaining respect from the laity and the rest of the world.

And nobody is more qualified to insist that others “join the modern world” than a group called the “National Organization for Women” slamming a bunch of women for not falling into lock-step with a law championed by — and nicknamed after — a man.

With that, the Little Sisters of the Poor earned a spot on NOW’s “Dirty 100″ list:

null

In an honest world, “if you like your plan you can keep it” would have earned the #1 spot on any “Dirty 100″ list about Obamacare.

(h/t Twitchy)

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Hillary Clinton’s ‘altruism’ sure does seem to benefit the Clintons quite a bit

Mon, 07/07/2014 - 04:50

**Written by Doug Powers

The explanation Hillary Clinton gives to the “income inequality” crowd for her high speaking fees would raise a lot of questions among the MSM if her last name wasn’t “Clinton,” so instead the media just lap it up:

null

You just knew they’d find a way to turn “$200k speaking fee” into “selfless solicitation for charitable donations“:

All the money Clinton has received for appearances at colleges in the past 18 months has been donated to the Clinton Foundation “to continue its life-changing and life-saving work,” the former secretary of state and potential 2016 Democratic presidential candidate told ABC News Friday. “So it goes from a foundation at a university to another foundation.”

Now there’s a 2016 slogan for her: “From your foundation, to ours. For the children.”

Now just imagine how that headline would have read if Sarah Palin didn’t pay taxes on her speaking income because she donated it to her own foundation that just happens to pay for family, friends and cronies to fly all around the world.

null

Somebody not named “Clinton” doing the same thing would have been bunking with IRS auditors by now.

Ann Althouse asks questions the MSM seems mostly incurious about (via Instapundit):

What is her salary from the foundation? How much of her expenses are covered by family foundation money? How many members of her family make salaries from that foundation? To what extent is the foundation an income tax dodge? And didn’t Hillary Clinton recently portray herself as not truly rich because she and Bill pay income tax on their money?

Shocker — another Clinton story that doesn’t add up.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

N. Korea’s ‘island assault drill’ shows off superior NK swim cap technology

Mon, 07/07/2014 - 04:50

**Written by Doug Powers

This headline and accompanying photo are things of beauty:

null

Lil’ Kim likes what he sees:

null

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Stretch of the millennium: How the Hobby Lobby ruling could help the Taliban deny kids polio vaccine

Mon, 07/07/2014 - 04:50

**Written by Doug Powers

While a plan is being devised to pin global warming on Hobby Lobby, for now we’ll just have to settle for a whiffle-brained diatribe in The New Yorker about the potential downsides of the recent Supreme Court ruling:

If the Pakistani Taliban, aided by clever lawyers, organized a closely held American corporation, and professed to run it on religious principles, might its employees be deprived of insurance coverage to inoculate their children against polio? And would the Supreme Court, by the five-to-four decision issued on Monday in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores and in Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell, endorse such a move?

In setting up stateside to enjoy the freedom proclaimed by the Court, the Taliban would have to overcome its awkward position as a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization under American law. Shooting health workers with whom the Taliban disagrees would also be out of the question, since such acts would bring into play other strands of American law, such as the prohibition on homicide. (Residents of the F.A.T.A., governed by tribal codes that legitimize revenge killing, do not enjoy the same protection.) But these are obstacles that the Taliban’s lawyers, if they were good ones, might well overcome. The Taliban could inspire American followers to put together a corporate charter separately and independently, without any financial or military links to the banned mother organization. And the American offshoot could learn to hire lobbyists rather than gunmen.

The article offers a peek at the liberal view of the intellect of the “working class.” Not only would Americans willingly work for a Taliban-owned entity, but they would allow their kids to go without a polio vaccine just because the Islamist extremist owners didn’t want to cover it on their health insurance plan. And I can’t even believe I just wrote the previous sentence.

The closer, if you can stand it:

And yet, the impact on children, living and unborn, of the Taliban public policy on vaccines is not, arguably, different in category from the impact that the Hobby Lobby decision will likely have on the families of those who work at companies whose owners claim to run them on Christian principles, in one respect: the extrapolation of religious beliefs into public policy will damage the over-all health of affected families. The health consequences of failing to vaccinate children may be more predictable than the health consequences of blocking access to effective contraception. But, in both cases, there is no doubt that the consequences will be harmful. The difference lies partly in our cultural setting—and, in the case of the ongoing campaign to restrict the reproductive rights of American women, in our capacity for outrage.

There’s that disingenuous “blocking access” again. It’s also interesting that somebody concerned about a Supreme Court case’s “impact on children, living and unborn” cherry-picked Burwell v. Hobby Lobby instead of Roe v. Wade.

Also, don’t forget that if you were a single woman and asked the HR department at Taliban Inc. about what kind of birth control coverage you can get, you’d be stoned to death for premarital sex. And hanging gay people — does the Hobby Lobby ruling clear a path for that, too? We’ll have to wait for next week’s article.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Hey, maybe removing the word ‘alien’ from ICE lexicon for young illegals will solve the influx problem

Mon, 07/07/2014 - 04:50

**Written by Doug Powers

Progressive Crisis Management 101: Simply change or eliminate an undesirable-but-accurate label for what’s going, and problem solved!

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel have been directed to no longer refer to illegal immigrant children crossing the border alone as “UACs” (unaccompanied alien children).

Instead these individuals are to be referred to as “unaccompanied children” in official correspondence, according to an internal ICE email obtained by the Center for Immigration Studies and shared with Breitbart News.

“This was briefed earlier today during he (sic) command and staff meeting,” an email sent to ICE personnel reads. “It has been requested that in correspondence regarding unaccompanied children, They (sic) not be referred to as UACs. The term UAC should not be used in official correspondence.”

The email, with the subject line “UACs,” continues, “The appropriate messaging on documents should be using the term : unaccompanied children all lower case. (Unless capitalizing would be grammatically correct).”

Full story here.

NBC’s already tried to help in the re-labeling effort by referring to the illegals as — get this — “#RefugeeRiders.”

If that doesn’t solve the problem, the “UAC’s” will then be referred to as “legal American citizens” according to documents I obtained from sources at “The Department of What We All Know They’re Gonna Try to Do Next.”

President Obama is headed down to Texas to take matters into his own hands. And by “matters” I mean “fundraisers,” of course:

No plans for Pres Obama to visit the US-Mexico border next week while in Texas for 3 Dem fundraisers and a speech on the economy.

— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) July 3, 2014

Jay Carney’s more than capable replacement behind the Podium of Untruth in the press briefing room explained it this way:

But despite being battered on all sides on the issue, a White House spokesman said Thursday that the president had no intention of visiting the border for a firsthand look at the scene of what he has called a humanitarian crisis.

“The reason that some people are suggesting the president should go to border when he’s in Texas is because they’d rather play politics than actually trying to address some of these challenges,” Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, said Thursday.

“Don’t play politics with the president while he’s headlining DNC fundraisers!”

When does a president not visit the site of what the White House has referred to as a “humanitarian crisis” in his own country? When it would be a damaging photo op. If the administration figures out a way to pin it all on global warming, Obama will be down there accompanied by Bill Nye the Science Guy within hours.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Obama’s response to Republicans on WH bypassing Congress: So sue me

Mon, 07/07/2014 - 04:50

**Written by Doug Powers

Great moments in presidential legacy building:

Abraham Lincoln: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

Franklin D. Roosevelt: “No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.”

John F. Kennedy: “Ask not what your country can do for you; Ask what you can do for your country.”

Ronald Reagan: “Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.”

Barack Obama: “So sue me”:

President Barack Obama defiantly dared congressional Republicans on Tuesday to try to block his efforts to act on his own and bypass a divided Congress that has thwarted his policy initiatives.

“So sue me,” he taunted on a sweltering day, as he pushed lawmakers to pay for road and bridge repairs. “I’m not going to apologize for trying to do something.”

Obama struck an aggressive tone in the face of a lawsuit threat from House Speaker John Boehner and in the wake of two defeats before the Supreme Court, including a unanimous decision from the court that he overreached when he appointed members of the National Labor Relations Board while the Senate was in recess.

Obama would take the high road, but I guess he can’t because it’s full of potholes that Republicans won’t pay to fix.

By the way, the reason the Obama administration has entered a new panicked and accelerated unilateral phase like a Roomba in search of a legacy might have something to do with this:

null

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Host on non-dominant cable net: Soccer loss should prove to some that US can’t ‘simply can’t assert its dominance’

Mon, 07/07/2014 - 04:50

**Written by Doug Powers

When seeking experts on not being able to assert dominance, turn to low-rated MSNBC — in this case one of their hosts, Chris Hayes:

While praising the huge American crowds across the country that came out to support the U.S., Hayes condemned what he called “anti-soccer trolls” whose aversion, he said, is “weirdly tied to American exceptionalism.” He then made this statement.

“Part of embracing a truly worldwide competition is accepting the fact the U.S. cannot simply assert its dominance,” Hayes said. “Turns out we have to play just like everybody else.”

After saying that, one of Hayes’ straw men beat him 7-0 in a spirited foosball match in the green room.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Another law signed by Bill Clinton comes back to bite the Dems?

Mon, 07/07/2014 - 04:50

**Written by Doug Powers

Recently, Democrats were celebrating the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act that was enacted in 1996. Bill Clinton congratulated himself for helping lead the recent fight to overturn the law that some guy named Bill Clinton signed into law.

This morning, the Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby. The majority ruled that Hobby Lobby fell under the umbrella of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Who signed that bill? Bill! The RFRA was sponsored in the U.S. Senate by some right-wing Republican named Chuck Schumer.

Today marks the beginning of 21st century Bill Clinton latest battle to undo the damage caused by 20th century Bill Clinton.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Another law signed by Bill Clinton comes back to bite the Dems?

Mon, 07/07/2014 - 04:50

**Written by Doug Powers

Recently, Democrats were celebrating the overturning of the Defense of Marriage Act that was enacted in 1996. Bill Clinton congratulated himself for helping lead the recent fight to overturn the law that some guy named Bill Clinton signed into law.

This morning, the Supreme Court sided with Hobby Lobby. The majority ruled that Hobby Lobby fell under the umbrella of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Who signed that bill? Bill! The RFRA was sponsored in the U.S. Senate by some right-wing Republican named Chuck Schumer.

Today marks the beginning of 21st century Bill Clinton latest battle to undo the damage caused by 20th century Bill Clinton.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

You’ll never guess what might have contributed to the current Iraq crisis

Mon, 07/07/2014 - 04:50

**Written by Doug Powers

Just to get the obvious question out of the way about the situation in Iraq, there’s this at Slate.com:

null

Are we just one more round of “green energy investments” away from stopping the advance of ISIS? Discuss.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

You’ll never guess what might have contributed to the current Iraq crisis

Mon, 07/07/2014 - 04:50

**Written by Doug Powers

Just to get the obvious question out of the way about the situation in Iraq, there’s this at Slate.com:

null

Are we just one more round of “green energy investments” away from stopping the advance of ISIS? Discuss.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Dick Durbin: Obama will ‘borrow the power that is needed’ on immigration if GOP won’t act

Mon, 07/07/2014 - 04:50

**Written by Doug Powers

It seems like only yesterday the Supreme Court smacked down President Obama 9-0 for “borrowing” more power than he is constitutionally given. Wait, it was only yesterday.

From The Hill:

The Obama administration is “not bluffing” in its intent to take executive action on immigration policy if House Republicans don’t act soon, top Democratic leaders warned Thursday.
[...]
“Their first job is to govern,” Menendez added, “and in the absence of governing, then you see executive actions.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) piled on. Noting that a year has passed since the Senate passed a sweeping immigration reform bill with broad bipartisan support, he urged House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to bring a similar bill to the floor.

“I don’t know how much more time he thinks he needs, but I hope that Speaker Boehner will speak up today,” Durbin said. “And if he does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration.”

The remarks come a day after Boehner announced his intent to push legislation allowing the House to sue Obama for what the Republicans say is a habitual inclination to overstep his constitutional authority.

Way to help legitimize Boehner’s lawsuit, Chuck.

Also, today Obama called Boehner’s lawsuit threat a “stunt.” Funny stuff coming from the head of an administration that runs more stunts a week than every NFL defense combined does in an entire season.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Dick Durbin: Obama will ‘borrow the power that is needed’ on immigration if GOP won’t act

Mon, 07/07/2014 - 04:50

**Written by Doug Powers

It seems like only yesterday the Supreme Court smacked down President Obama 9-0 for “borrowing” more power than he is constitutionally given. Wait, it was only yesterday.

From The Hill:

The Obama administration is “not bluffing” in its intent to take executive action on immigration policy if House Republicans don’t act soon, top Democratic leaders warned Thursday.
[...]
“Their first job is to govern,” Menendez added, “and in the absence of governing, then you see executive actions.”

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) piled on. Noting that a year has passed since the Senate passed a sweeping immigration reform bill with broad bipartisan support, he urged House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to bring a similar bill to the floor.

“I don’t know how much more time he thinks he needs, but I hope that Speaker Boehner will speak up today,” Durbin said. “And if he does not, the president will borrow the power that is needed to solve the problems of immigration.”

The remarks come a day after Boehner announced his intent to push legislation allowing the House to sue Obama for what the Republicans say is a habitual inclination to overstep his constitutional authority.

Way to help legitimize Boehner’s lawsuit, Chuck.

Also, today Obama called Boehner’s lawsuit threat a “stunt.” Funny stuff coming from the head of an administration that runs more stunts a week than every NFL defense combined does in an entire season.

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Nancy Pelosi to do a personal meet & greet at the border with people who entered US illegally

Mon, 07/07/2014 - 04:50

**Written by Doug Powers

It’s only polite for one of the people helping send out the invitations to serve as a greeter.

From Politico:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will travel to the southern border of the U.S. on Saturday to be briefed by Customs and Border Protection on the flood of unaccompanied minors entering the country.

The California Democrat will also meet with a group of children held at the South Texas Detention Facility.

“The humanitarian crisis unfolding across our nation’s southern border demands Congress come together and find thoughtful, compassionate and bipartisan solutions,” Pelosi said. “We must ensure our laws are fully enforced, so that due process is provided to unaccompanied children and the safety and well-being of unaccompanied children is protected. We must also work to address the root causes of the problem.”

We must “address the root causes of the problem”? I’m sure Pelosi will think of an easy “fix”:

null

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Syndicate

Syndicate content