Judge orders Obama administration to release illegal immigrants from 'deplorable' facilities

A federal judge in California has ruled that hundreds of illegal immigrant women and children in U.S. holding facilities should be released, another apparent setback for President Obama’s immigration policy, according to The Los Angeles Times.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee said Friday that the conditions in which the detainees are being held are “deplorable” and violate parts of an 18-year-old court settlement that put restrictions on the detention of migrant children.

The ruling also raises questions about what the administration will do with the estimated 1,700 parents and children at three detention facilities, two in Texas and one in Pennsylvania.

Last year, tens of thousands of women and unaccompanied minors from Central America arrived at the Southwest border, with many believing a rumor that unaccompanied children and single parents with at least one child would be allowed to stay.

More than 68,000 of them were apprehended and detained while officials decided whether they had a right to stay.

Many were being released and told to appear at immigration offices until the administration eventually opened new detention centers.

Gee said in her ruling that children in the two Texas facilities had been held in substandard conditions and gave the administration until Aug. 3 to respond.

“We are disappointed with the court's decision and are reviewing it in consultation with the Department of Justice,” Marsha Catron, press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said in a prepared statement given to The Times.

Many of the Central Americans who crossed the Southwest border illegally last summer said they were fleeing poverty and escalating gang violence.

The Texas facilities are run by private companies, while the one in Pennsylvania is run by a county government.

In February, a federal judge blocked Obama's 2012 executive action to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from being deported.

And a federal appeals court in New Orleans refused three months later to allow the program to go forward, denying an administration request to lift the lower court decision.

Gee’s decision is also seen as a victory for the immigrant rights lawyers who brought the case.

The ruling upholds a tentative decision Gee made in April and comes a week after the two sides told her that they failed to reach a new settlement agreement as she had requested.

The 1997 settlement bars immigrant children from being held in unlicensed, secure facilities. Gee found that settlement covered all children in the custody of federal immigration officials, even those being held with a parent.

The Justice Department had argued it was necessary to modify the settlement and use detention to try to deter more immigrants from coming to the border after last year's surge. The department also said it was an important way to keep families together while their immigration cases were being reviewed, but the judge rejected that argument in her decision.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

[OPINION[ Finley: Democrats’ handout strategy is failing

Democrats hope to prevail in the 2016 elections by pounding the income gap. But at least one major group on the short end of that equation isn’t buying that the handout party has the right answers.

Blue collar white voters believe the Republican Party is better equipped to make the economic system more fair by an overwhelming margin, according to a new Washington Post poll.

In the survey of non-college educated whites, 50 percent had more faith in GOP policies, while 29 percent favored the Democratic strategy.

These are among the workers hit hardest by the economic shifts of the past quarter century, and in particular by the failed polices of the Obama administration.

They’ve seen good paying jobs in Appalachian coal mines become casualties of the president’s war on coal. They’ve lost solid, middle class work on the oil rigs of the Gulf to a president more obsessed with tomorrow’s temperatures than today’s families. And they’ve bid goodbye to Midwestern factory jobs while the president saddles employers with oppressive taxes and regulations.

They’re the autoworkers whose fathers punched in at $30 an hour, and they’re trying to get by on a $15 hourly wage. They’re the legion of middle class workers who once had employer-provided health insurance, but now have to pay for most of their medical costs themselves.

They should be ripe for the Democrats’ anti-corporate, people vs. the powerful message. But they aren’t buying. And that’s good news, not just for Republicans in the upcoming election cycle, but for the country in the long-term.

Mitt Romney, the failed GOP standard bearer in 2012, bemoaned the prospects for selling a message of smaller government when 47 percent of the population is receiving some form of government assistance.

But many of these blue collar whites are among the 47 percenters. They may be getting Obamacare subsidies, or unemployment benefits, or even food stamps.

And that’s not what they want. They’re looking for the opportunity to take care of themselves and their families. They want jobs, not another Big Government giveaway designed to replace the paychecks Democratic policies have killed.

They’ve lost faith — if they ever had any — in the government’s ability to solve their problems. And who can blame them?

Blue collar workers have lost ground under Obama’s wealth transfer schemes. His policies haven’t helped the poor and working class, and haven’t much hurt the rich. During the president’s tenure, the gaps between rich and poor have widened. All he’s done is explode the size of government and enrich the political class.

Democrats won’t win these working white voters with campaigns built on class resentment and Robin Hood promises, and they may not be able to convince other blue collar workers to buy into more of the same failed strategies.

Because this rather large and often neglected group of voters doesn’t want more government. They want more and better jobs. And so far, Democrats haven’t proved they can deliver.

nfinley@detroitnews.com

Via: Detroit News

Continue Reading....

Obama Administration Restricts Investigative Powers Of Inspectors General

The Obama administration formally announced that inspectors general will have to get permission from their agency heads to gain access to grand jury, wiretap and fair credit information — an action that severely limits the watchdogs’ oversight capabilities, independence and power to uncover fraud.

An opinion, issued by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, says the Inspector General Act of 1978 — which was written by Congress to create the government watchdogs in order to help maintain integrity within their agencies — does not have the authority to override nondisclosure provisions in other laws, most notably in regard to grand jury, wiretap or fair credit information.

“In reaching these conclusions, our Office’s role has not been to decide what access [inspectors general] should receive as a matter of policy. Rather, we have endeavored to determine as a matter of law, using established tools of statutory construction, how best to reconcile the strong privacy protections … with the interest in access reflected in … theIG Act,” states the legal counsel’s opinion, which was dated Monday and released Thursday.

“I strongly disagree with the OLC opinion,” Michael Horowitz, the Justice Department’s inspector general, said in a statement. “Congress meant what it said when it authorized Inspectors General to independently access ‘all’ documents necessary to conduct effective oversight. Without such access, our Office’s ability to conduct its work will be significantly impaired, and it will be more difficult for us to detect and deter waste, fraud, and abuse, and to protect taxpayer dollars.”

Mr. Horowitz has had to seek former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s permission, and now Loretta E. Lynch’s, to gain access to such material. The approval process in obtaining the materials delayed review of Operation Fast and Furious — the failed Mexican drug cartel sting that lost track of more than 1,000 government-issued guns, one of which later was used to kill a U.S. Border Patrol agent — and has delayed other reports the inspector general is set to publish.

At no point has the Justice Department denied any of Mr. Horowitz’s requests, but some in Congress have argued that requiring the inspector general to ask the attorney general for materials represents a direct conflict of interest and impairs the inspector general’s independence.

Via: Washington Times

Continue Reading....

Secret 'Side Deals' ... Not-So-Secret Opposition: Why Obama's Iran Deal Is In Danger

The Obama administration has to be worried about the polling data on the Iran deal. It’s not good, not good at all.

According to Pew, which released a survey this week, 38 percent support it and 48 percent oppose.

Given the fact that the American people usually follow the president’s lead when it comes to foreign policy, this is a pretty bleak result for President Obama.

Even more striking, perhaps, is the relative softness of Democratic support — only 59 percent of Obama’s fellow Dems support the pact, fewer than three in five. (Unsurprisingly, nearly 80 percent of Republicans oppose the deal.)

The Pew results appear to contradict an earlier Washington Post/ABC poll that found 56 percent support for the deal with 37 percent against.

But that 56-37 number is hinky. It doesn’t jibe with other findings in the same survey.

For example, 35 percent said they approved of the president’s handling of Iran, while 52 percent disapproved.

Since the president’s “handling of Iran” now boils down exclusively to the pact he made with the mullahs, that painfully low 35 percent approval rating for Obama on Iran is impossible to square with 56 percent support for the deal.

Even more impossible to square are the feelings the public has about the deal.

In the words of James Arkin of Real Clear Politics, “just 35 percent of Americans said they were confident the deal would prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon — and only 6 percent were ‘very confident.’

“Meanwhile, 64 percent said they were not confident the deal would halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, with 42 percent saying they had absolutely no confidence.”

These numbers actually confirm rather than undermine the subsequent Pew findings.

Pew’s survey is much larger than its predecessor, with nearly 1,700 respondents who say they know something about the terms of the deal.

Pew explains the discrepancy by pointing to the difference in the way the organizations approached the issue:

“The Pew Research question, which does not describe the agreement, finds lower levels of support than the Post/ABC News question, which details the intention to monitor Iran’s facilities and raises the possibility of re-imposition of sanctions if Iran does not comply.”

In other words, when the pact is described as the administration would want it to be described, it gets soft support — but the overall sense remains that Obama has done a bad job of it when it comes to Iran.

Via: New York Post

Continue Reading...

Obama's Scorched Oil and Gas Policy

The clock is ticking on the Obama Administration. With only 18 months remaining in his final term, federal energy planners and agency regulators are working as quickly as possible to impose new rules on the oil and natural gas industry.

As one industry lobbyist told the Houston Chronicle, “The agencies are all in hyperdrive to get the rules across the finish line or have them well-positioned in the regulatory queue so that their path forward past Jan. 20, 2017, is clearly established.”

The rush to increase regulations on oil and natural gas is nothing but bad news for an industry that has already contracted because of a large drop in wellhead revenues. Ditto for consumers who need infrastructure investments today for affordable, plentiful energy tomorrow.

Oil and gas has been a rare bright spot in Obama's economy—and in spite of, not because of, his policies.

Ending four decades of concern over imported oil, the United States is now the largest oil and natural gas producer in the world. Advanced technologies, including hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling, have harvested an energy bounty that has lowered costs for consumers, created thousands of jobs, and nearly single-handedly lifted the nation from the depths of The Great Recession.

Punishing the good in the name of climate change (is there anything not related to climate change these days?) is a legacy issue for the President. Yet some measures in Obama's thicket of impositions could impede the fight against his so-called “greatest threat to future generations.”

By proposing new methane emission regulations, for example, the administration will hike drilling costs for natural gas. Even the EPA’s own data shows that methane emissions already have fallen dramatically due to the industry’s voluntary actions and rules already on the books.

The administration also has finalized new hydraulic fracturing regulations for wells drilled on public lands despite a new EPA report that found “no widespread, systemic impacts to drinking water sources.”

Of course, the administration’s fracking rules will not apply to this White House's new prohibitions on nearly 300 million acres of federal land. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, portions of the Arctic Ocean, and large tracts of several Western states are among the parcels the White House is preserving “for future generations.”

Moreover, the offshore leasing plan for 2017–2022, which the Interior Department hopes to complete soon, does not include leases in the energy-rich eastern Gulf of Mexico or along the Pacific Coast. Instead it proposes to allow the industry to pick over bones in the previously explored and developed western Gulf and possibly in a small portion of the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf.

There also are new offshore drilling rules, including a regulation requiring Arctic drillers to have two rigs on hand—one to drill the well and a backup rig in case a relief well is needed. This, despite a National Petroleum Council report calling on the administration to encourage Alaskan offshore drilling now or become more dependent on foreign oil in the future.

All of these regulations, including tougher ground-level ozone standards, are moving forward in lock-step with the regulations on carbon dioxide from power plants. This drastic, controversial proposal combined with other regulations will shutter scores of coal-fired power plants andreduce electrical power by as much as 130 gigawatts, enough to serve the residential needs of more than 100 million Americans.

These new regulations are just a few of the counterproductive, top-down rules which will be proudly trumpeted at the next presidential library. They will be added to the plethora of similarly misguided edicts such as the ethanol mandate as well as the “sue and settle” rulemakings accomplished by collusion between administration officials and environmental groups.

Based on this record, it is abundantly clear that the administration’s final months of “hope and change” will be marked by continuing hostility toward natural gas, oil, and coal. The overriding goal—in addition to making electricity costs “necessarily skyrocket”—is to keep these fuels in the ground. This raft of regulations is the president’s workaround to his inability to push cap-and-trade legislation or a carbon tax through Congress.

The administration’s own energy analysts admit the economy runs primarily on natural gas, oil, and coal--and will for decades to come. As a result, Obama's vindictive energy agenda has become a rear-guard assault on neutralizing, if not reversing, one of the great industrial achievements of our time.

 Via: Real Clear Energy

Continue Reading....

The Real Reason Our Troops at Chattanooga Were Unarmed Is Absolutely Infuriating

Service members on base and outside at remote recruiting sites are not being deprived of weapons just because of short-sighted directives. It’s much worse than that. They have no access to guns to protect themselves – though in most states the civilians they pass in the streets off-post can legally and easily carry concealed – because senior military leaders are more terrified of career-ending “incidents” than the safety of their troops.

It’s a disgrace, but it’s only another example of the moral rot within the leadership of our Armed Forces that began before the Obama era but which now, under his poisonous leadership, threatens to destroy the greatest military in human history.

“Senior military leaders are more terrified of career-ending ‘incidents’ than the safety of their troops.”

Let’s be very clear – the Department of Defense (DoD) directive that limits the carrying of weapons absolutely allows commanders the discretion to arm their troops.

Let’s look at what the rules actually say. DoD Directive 5210.56, paragraph 4, reads, in part:

1. DoD personnel, to whom this Directive is applicable, shall be appropriately armed and have the inherent right to self-defense.
2. Arming DoD personnel with firearms shall be limited and controlled. Qualified personnel shall be armed when required for assigned duties and there is reasonable expectation that DoD installations, property, or personnel lives or DoD assets will be jeopardized if personnel are not armed. …

Each service has specific regulations that further implement the DoD Directive. For example, Army Regulation (AR) 190-14, paragraphs 2-1 and 2-2, reserves the general power to arm troops in the continental United States to the Secretary of the Army, but it expressly provides that “[o]fficers of field grade rank or higher … may authorize the carrying of firearms for law enforcement and security duties” that include “[p]rotect[ing] DOD assets and personnel.”

So, the idea that military leaders have their hands tied is nonsense – the governing directives and regulations expressly allow senior leaders to arm their troops when there is a threat. And there is a threat – as we saw in Chattanooga, as we saw at Fort Hood. These freaks are not picking military personnel at random. They are continuing the radical Islamic war against America here on our soil, and our warriors remain stubbornly disarmed and defenseless.

So why would a commander not order troops who have qualified on their M9 pistols to draw sidearms and ammo and carry them during their duties, at least until this crisis passes? Perhaps their discretion has been withdrawn from higher command – that’s possible, especially with this toxic administration. But more likely it’s because of fear.

Via: The Journal

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Obama admin looks to ban some Social Security recipients from owning guns

The Obama administration wants to keep people collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs, the Los Angeles Times reported.

The push, which could potentially affect millions whose monthly disability payments are handled by others, is intended to bring the Social Security Administration in line with laws that prevent gun sales to felons, drug addicts, immigrants in the United States illegally, and others, according to the paper.

The language of federal gun laws restricts ownership to people who are unable to manage their own affairs due to "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” – which could potentially affect a large group within Social Security, the LA Times reported.

If Social Security, which has never taken part in the background check system, uses the same standard as the Department of Veterans Affairs – which is the idea floated – then millions of beneficiaries could be affected, with about 4.2 million adults receiving monthly benefits that are managed by “representative payees.”

The latest move is part of the efforts by President Obama to strengthen gun control following the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in 2012.

Critics are blasting the plan, saying that expanding the list of people who cannot own guns based on financial competence is wrongheaded.

The ban, they argue, would keep guns out of the hands of some dangerous people, but would also include people who simply have a bad memory or have a hard time balancing a checkbook.

The background check for gun ownership started in 1993 by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named after White House Press Secretary James Brady, who was partially paralyzed after being shot in the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan.

Gun stores are required to run the names of potential buyers through a computerized system before every sale.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Lies, Damn Lies and John Kerry

Benjamin NetanyahuVerified account‏@netanyahu

Today: • Khamenei tweeted video calling for Israel's destruction • UN voted to lift sanctions on Iran Says it all. https://youtu.be/cMJinyFFmsw 

Just to bring you up to date in the ongoing efforts of the Obama administration to provide Iran with $150 billion and the ability to make a nuclear weapon. These are developments over the weekend:

Via Washington Examiner

Secretary of State John Kerry deflected bipartisan criticism of the Obama administration’s move to take the Iran nuclear deal to the United Nations before the U.S. Congress has the opportunity to vote on it, saying the U.N. has a right to go first and to suggest otherwise was “presumptuous.”

Obama had previously signed legislation that would give Congress 60 days to review and vote on the deal struck over Iran’s nuclear program. But since agreeing on the deal with the other world powers, the administration has announced its intention to bring the deal to the United Nations first.

Thus, by the time Congress votes, the administration will argue that were the body to reject the deal, they’d be blowing up a U.N.-approved agreement.

What this means is that by the time Congress gets around to voting on the deal, international sanctions on Iran will have been lifted. The only remaining sanctions are those which Obama has the authority to modify. While there remains the theoretical possibility of ‘snap back’ sanctions if Iran breaches the agreement (this, by the way, is virtually certain as they are already in violation of the interim agreement), for this to happen would require an affirmative vote of the UN Security Council. Russia and China are Iran’s allies. Both have veto authority.

One is left to wonder what in the hell Congress is voting on.

It is Bush’s fault.

CNN State of the UnionQUESTION: I’ve spoken to a lot of experts, ones who wanted this deal to be good, who were rooting for you. And they say the best case scenario is that over the next 15 years… the Iranians will be closer to the capacity to build a nuclear weapon… and they’ll have done it all under the guise of international law.
KERRY: … Guess what, my friend: Iran had 12,000 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, and that’s enough if they enriched it further for 10 to 12 bombs. They had it. That’s what Barack Obama was dealt as a hand when he came in: 19,000 centrifuges already spinning; a country that had already mastered the fuel cycle; a country that already was threshold in the sense that they are only two months away from breakout.

Fox News SundayQUESTION: Secretary Moniz… why didn’t [President Obama] keep his pledge to the American people that we would end Iran’s program?
MONIZ: Well, first of all, the issue of Iran having a nuclear program was already established in the previous administration.

My gosh, when will this excuse ever wear out.

When he took office the Iranians had less than 4,000 centrifuges spinning and experts were still arguing over whether they had enough uranium for a bomb. He almost immediately began to reach out to the Iranians with confidence-building measures. They also didn’t have “19,000 centrifuges already spinning” they had 3,936 centrifuges spinning. And they were not 2 months away from breakout but instead were just getting around to stockpiling enough uranium for a single bomb [e].

In short, every thing Kerry and Moniz said was a lie and they knew it was a lie.

The administration is lying about Iran’s break out time.

Fox News Sunday
QUESTION: But the President said in April:
OBAMA: In year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges, they can enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.
QUESTION: That’s not ending the program.
MONIZ: The breakout time, in fact, will not be going to zero at that time.
QUESTION: So the President was –
MONIZ: The – I’m just telling you we have the agreement has – the final agreement has the one-year breakout time securely for 10 years and then there will be a soft landing after that for several years.
QUESTION: Right. So by year 13, 14 it’s –
KERRY: It never, ever goes to zero. Ever.
MONIZ: No, it will never go to zero.

This is balderdash translated into gibberish then blown out of Kerry’s ass. Back in April, the administration said the break out time was two months. Now it is a year. Logic tells you that this can’t be true. Assuming that break out time is a year, it means that Iran will have a nuke within a year because there is no mechanism available to monitor their progress or curb their development.

Anytime-anywhere inspections are dead.

Iran has already said that it will not allow inspections of military nuclear facilities and it will not allow US inspectors on the IAEA teams. Without unannounced inspections we are back to playing a shell game. Kerry is trying to gaslight everyone by claiming there is no such thing as ‘anytime-anywhere’ inspections because that isn’t an official term.

CBS Face the NationKERRY: There’s no such thing in arms control as anytime, anywhere. There isn’t any nation in the world – none – that has an anytime, anywhere.

Fox News SundayKERRY: The fact is that in arms control there is no country anywhere on this planet that has anywhere, anytime. There is no such standard within arms control inspections… we never, ever had a discussion about anywhere, anytime. It’s called managed access. It’s under the IAEA. Everybody understands it.

This is actually a lie. Everyone knows what the term means and the administration has guaranteed Congress that it will have that access.

The arms embargo is dead.

ABC This Week
KERRY: The United Nations resolution which brought about the sanctions in the first place said that if Iran will suspend its enrichment and come to negotiations, all the sanctions would be lifted. Now, they’ve done more than just come to negotiations. They’ve actually negotiated a deal. And three of the seven nations thought they shouldn’t therefore be held to any kind of restraint. We prevailed and insisted, no, they have to be.

CBS Face the Nation
KERRY: … [T]he reason that we were only able to limit them to the five and eight, which is quite extraordinary that we got that, was that three of the nations negotiating thought they shouldn’t have any and were ready to hold out to do that. And we said under no circumstances, we have to have those…

Fox News Sunday
KERRY: This is a nuclear negotiation about a nuclear program. The United Nations, when they passed the resolution, contemplated that if Iran came to the negotiation and they ponied up, all the sanctions would be lifted. We didn’t lift all the sanctions. We left in place despite the fact that three out of seven countries negotiating wanted to do away with them altogether. We won the five years for the arms and eight years for the missiles.

A majority of the negotiators wanted to retain an arms embargo. He refers to seven countries but keep in mind one of those is Iran. The US caved on this. If the US had stood with Britain and France and Germany it would have put Iran in the position of sacrificing everything for the sake of ending the arms embargo.

Summary.

John Kerry is a liar. He’s not a particularly skilled one… I don’t know whether this is good or bad, I rather think it is bad because he practices the skill regularly but never improves. The US position on the Iran negotiations is on our hands and knees squealing like a pig.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading....

Daily Caller: Disgraced Planned Parenthood Official Works For White House Staff…Her 'Right-Wing' Hatred EXPOSED

Disgraced Planned Parenthood official Deborah Nucatola’s shocking personal work history is coming to light.

Records reveal that Nucatola was employed by a former White House staffer at the time that she was selling aborted baby fetus parts.

A staunch political advocate, Nucatola railed against the “right-wing” Bush administration. What’s more, she so enjoyed her work in the abortion industry that she touted a T-shirt celebrating a drug used in the practice.

Let’s break it down:

Works for a White House staffer

Nucatola is currently employed at Sexual Health Innovations, founded by former Obama White House staffer Jessica Ladd. Senior Obama administration officials sit on the board of the abortion activist group, including Praveen Basaviah of the President’s Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS and Kyle Bernstein of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The IRS-approved 501(c)3 tech nonprofit is a major Obama administration contractor.

The group works on issues including “abortion access,” according to its website. But the group’s biggest project right now is Callisto, an online “third-party sexual assault reporting system” for girls on college campuses. The property in development counts Google as its investor.

Sexual Health Innovations provides “original websites, apps, and software systems that will advance sexual health and wellbeing.” The group did the design work on The Sex Pact, described in literature as “a CDC-funded initiative to increase condom usage among 14-18 year-old African American males in Washington, DC.”

Sexual health and wellbeing issues especially affect populations with less political power and financial resources, such as youth, racial and gender minorities, women, and GLBTQ communities,” the group has stated. “Their lack of influence, combined with the stigmatization of sexual health topics, makes it hard for them to access high-quality sexual health education, services, and support.”

The Daily Caller has inquired as to the level of compensation that Nucatola currently earns at the nonprofit.

 Jessica Ladd 

is the Founder and CEO of Sexual Health Innovations. She previously worked in the White House Office of National AIDS Policy, as a Public Policy Associate at The AIDS Institute, and as a sexual health educator and researcher for a variety of organizations. Ms. Ladd also founded The Social Innovation Lab in Baltimore and a chapter of FemSex at Pomona College. She received her Masters in Public Health at Johns Hopkins and her BA in Public Policy/Human Sexuality at Pomona College.

Deborah Nucatola

is Senior Director of Medical Services for Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA)…”SexualHealthInnovations.org

Hated Right-Wingers

Nucatola railed against the “right-wing” Bush administration in a California local newspaper op-ed in 2007.

Responding to the Bush administration’s global gag rule preventing advocacy groups from counseling women to have abortions, Nucatola wrote, “Despite recent advances, women in the United States and abroad continue to suffer the consequences of a right-wing U.S. administration that has put politics before health and ideology before science…The policies of the Bush administration do not represent America at its best, nor do they represent the values that the majority of Americans hold dear.”

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

The Insiders: The Democrats’ doctrine of ‘government is the solution’ is in tatters

The Obama administration is a case study in mismanagement. Republican presidential candidates should remind voters that management matters. And it isn’t just about government process. People have lost faith in our politics and government. The next president needs to work tirelessly to restore voters’ faith in our government’s ability to function. What part of the federal government is working better than it did six years ago? The Democratic Party’s fundamental doctrine that “government is the solution” is in tatters.

The failure to produce “shovel-ready” projects, the IRS targeting malfeasance, the calamity of the Obamacare roll-out, the bungling of the Fast and Furious operation, the mass confusion surrounding the enforcement of America’s southern border, the Veterans Affairs neglect, the lack of transparency in the White House, the bewildering events surrounding the Secret Service, the oblivious Office of Personnel Management, the tolerance of “sanctuary cities” that may have directly led to the death of an innocent American citizen and, now, a revelation that accused Charleston, S.C., shooter Dylann Roof was able to purchase a gun that he otherwise should not have been able to buy because there was a “lapse” in the FBI background check system.  All of these are examples that reflect a flat-out case of gross mismanagement of government under President Obama.

I think Obama believes that governance is about theatrics, symbolism and gestures — not about executive management. Every administration and the government as a whole eventually reflects many of the characteristics of the incumbent president. People take their lead from the person at the top and a work culture emerges. Suffice it to say, I don’t think there will be any business schools named for Obama.

Anyway, as I’ve said before, in this administration, too many people who work for Obama are all about having their position, not doing the work required of that position. They relish holding their office without assuming the responsibility of management. Or they don’t really understand what management means. But why would they? The president himself never managed anything and so there’s no particular reason he should have a good eye for or any relevant experience in picking or guiding effective managers.

What does the management failure of the Obama presidency say about what we should look for in our next president? Well, a proven manager would be an excellent place to start. In 2008 and again in 2012, voters took a chance with Barack Obama, and we ended up with wall-to-wall incompetence.

Via: Washington Post

Continue Reading....

VICTIMS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT CRIME TO TESTIFY BEFORE CONGRESS

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) says he has invited the family members of victims of illegal immigrant crimes to testify before Congress.

According to the Iowa lawmaker, the hearing will examine the breakdown of immigration enforcement under the Obama administration and the repercussions of lax immigration enforcement — specifically the impact on families victimized by illegal immigrant crime.

“Congress has a constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight of the executive branch of government to make sure the laws are being faithfully executed and carried out as intended. Little oversight has been done by the previous majority to ensure the administration is exercising sound judgment and acting within the immigration laws.   It’s clear they have taken far too much liberty and are essentially trying to write the laws themselves,” Grassley said in a statement.

The hearing will be next Tuesday. In addition to victimized families Grassley says he has also invited the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Sarah Saldana, and the Director of Citizenship and Immigration Services Leon Rodriguez to testify.

“This hearing is intended to highlight how misguided the Obama administration’s lax enforcement policies are and how these policies are putting Americans in harm’s way,” he said.

The hearing comes on the heels of the recent murder of a young woman in the sanctuary city of San Francisco, allegedly by an illegal immigrant with a long rap sheet and multiple deportations.

Via: BREITBART

Continue Reading....