In Response to Obamacare Sham, Congressman Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Stop Bait and Switch Practices
Rep. Ben Quayle (R-AZ) introduced a constitutional amendment late last week, that would require Congress to clearly label new taxes in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling that Obamacare could be upheld based on it’s nature as a tax – something the President vehemently denied during the sales pitch.
“Most Americans figured out long ago that President Obama had attempted to sell them a bill of goods with Obamacare. Yesterday, the Supreme Court confirmed it. The President stated clearly, and on multiple occasions that the individual mandate was not a tax as he sold it to Congress and the American people. However, he was more than happy to see the Supreme Court uphold the law on the basis that it is in fact a tax.
“My amendment requires that all taxes levied by Congress be labeled honestly and openly as taxes during the legislative process. The American people deserve to know the full implications and consequences of legislation passed by Congress. Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision illustrated plainly the dangers of deceptive labeling by our leaders.”
How the amendment would force governing bodies to actually tell the truth is unclear.
Since the Supreme Court ruling which clearly stated that Obamacare could only be upheld under Congress’s authority to tax, multiple members of the administration have continued to declare that it is still not a tax. Chief of Staff Jack Lew, Press Secretary Jay Carney, and Nancy Pelosi to name a few, have continued to lie to the public, essentially trying to convince Americans that the sky is not blue.
Bottom line – Obama argued that it is most definitely not a tax, then sent his lawyers in to argue that it was a tax, the Supreme Court agreed, calling it a tax, and now the President is back to insisting it is not a tax.
Followed that right? It’s not easy to keep a web of lies from getting tangled.
Unless you’re the President. Lying comes second-nature to this administration.
Fausta’s blog is simply referring to it as “border security for pu**ies”.
Fox News has reported that border patrol agents in Arizona are not happy about a new ‘Active Shooter’ course being provided by the Department of Homeland Security, in which agents are instructed to ‘run away and hide’ when they encounter an ‘active shooter’.
One agent referred to it as ‘insulting’.
It’s one thing to tell civilian employees to cower under a desk if a gunman starts spraying fire in a confined area, say members of Tucson Local 2544/National Border Patrol Council, but to give armed law enforcement professionals the same advice is downright insulting. The instructions from DHS come in the form of pamphlets and a mandatory computer tutorial.
“We are now taught in an ‘Active Shooter’ course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to ‘run away’ and ‘hide’” union leader Brandon Judd wrote on the website of 3,300-member union local. “If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become ‘aggressive’ and ‘throw things’ at him or her. We are then advised to ‘call law enforcement’ and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered).”
Here is a copy of the pocket guide to border security:
While it is difficult to read, the instructions throughout the pamphlet read like a sad comedy routine. For example, step three in the ‘How to Respond’ section states that “when your life is in imminent danger” respond by “throwing items at the active shooter”.
How about, blow their head clean off of their body?
Fausta likens it to a Monty Python skit:
Say again? “Attempt to disrupt and/or incapacitate the active shooter”? Whatever happened to shoot to kill?
What’s next? Holler at them, “Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elder berries”?
It’s quite odd that our government has been arming drug cartels at the border with powerful assault weapons, while simultaneously telling Americans working along the border to throw rocks back at them.
Unreal – In Response to Supreme Court Decision, Obama Administration Punishes Arizona Law Enforcement
How can an alleged law scholar respond to the Supreme Court of our nation by ignoring their rulings, or essentially finding other ways around what they have decreed as legal?
The court struck down three of the four provisions in Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law, but upheld a key provision which allows police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop. Clearly, the Obama administration was not pleased with the Supreme Court ruling, which makes me believe it may have been more of a victory than was assumed at first glance. And being not pleased, the administration does what it tends to do when they don’t get their own way – they reverted to a child-like petulant nature.
The Department of Homeland Security has announced that they are discontinuing agreements made with Arizona police to enforce federal immigration laws. In other words, they pouted, stomped their feet, took their ball and went home.
The Department of Homeland Security is suspending the program it uses to deputize local, county and state law enforcement officers in Arizona so they can double up as immigration agents.
The move affects only Arizona and it was made in direct reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Monday regarding Arizona’s controversial immigration laws.
Further, DHS has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.
Read that again.
HOMELAND SECURITY will be IGNORING PHONE CALLS regarding individuals who are IN OUR COUNTRY ILLEGALLY. Doesn’t that defy the very definition of ‘homeland security’?
Can you just imagine?
“Excuse me Ms. Napolitano, we’d like to report an individual who has crossed our border illegally, ignoring the sovereignty of our nation, someone who may represent a threat to our security…”
Napolitano, with fingers inserted firmly in ears responds with, “La, la, la, la, I can’t hear you…”
Additionally, the DHS is limiting resources to a state police force trying to enforce a federal law that the federal government wasn’t enforcing in the first place. Presumably, they would be continuing this program had the Supreme Court struck down the entire law, leaving only one interpretation – Obama is only willing to enforce a law if he agrees with it.
This is a stunningly amateurish temper tantrum of a response to the Supreme Court’s decree that police officer’s can check the immigration status of people in the process of breaking the law. And it leads to the question, with this and the administration’s adamant opposition to voter ID laws, why is President Obama so protective of people that are willing to break the law?
Oh yes – votes. Democrats have the market cornered when it comes to illegal votes.
Meanwhile, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer crushed the President with this statement:
“As though we needed any more evidence, President Obama has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. Within the last two hours, I have been notified the Obama administration has revoked the 287(g) agreement under the authority of which Arizona law enforcement officers have partnered with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law.
“Of course, it is no coincidence that this announcement comes immediately on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the heart of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law: SB 1070. It’s worth noting that 68 law enforcement entities in 24 states have functioning 287(g) agreements with the federal government. But it appears the only agreements eliminated today were those in Arizona, the state that happens to be on the front lines of America’s fight against illegal immigration. We are on our own, apparently.
“I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. The Obama administration has fought the people of Arizona at every turn – downplaying the threat that a porous border poses to our citizens, filing suit in order to block our State from protecting itself, unilaterally granting immunity to tens of thousands of illegal aliens living in our midst, and now this. Still, the disarmament of Arizona’s 287(g) agreements is a new low, even for this administration.
It seems like on a nearly daily basis, we are discussing how the Obama administration has managed to hit a new low. At some point, you’d think the President would hit the bottom of the barrel, but he simply keeps breaking through and digging even deeper.
Will the President find a way to circumvent the law again if the Supreme Court strikes down his signature achievement on Thursday?
Brewer points out why the actions of this President need to be taken very seriously:
“The President’s action should be of concern to all Americans. This fight is not over. President Obama may disregard Congress. He may target individual states like Arizona. He may generally act with impunity. But he is not above judgment – and the American people will have theirs very soon.”
Will you continue to stand for this America? Four more years of this imperial Presidency?
The Supreme Court has upheld a provision in the Arizona Immigration Law known as SB 1070, which allows police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop.
A majority of other provisions in the law were struck down, cited as an intrusion on the federal governments enforcement of immigration.
The Wall Street Journal explains the other provisions which were overturned.
The others make it a crime for immigrants without work permits to seek employment, make it a crime for immigrants to fail to carry registration documents, and authorize the police to arrest any immigrant they believe has committed a deportable offense. Those other three provisions were struck down.
Shane at Caffeinated Thoughts has a copy of the decision, and states in regards to the immigration check victory, the reason the police immigration status check was upheld is because the Court didn’t believe it interfered with the “federal immigration scheme.”
This gives the decision an even greater feeling of being a hollow victory of sorts. What good is checking the immigration status of those stopped for breaking the law, if it is only reported to the federal government who just recently were instructed to halt deportations of some 800,000 illegal immigrants?
On the plus side, the “show me your papers” provision was the most controversial, as well as the most widely debated and generally understood aspect of the law.
Both sides will likely come away from this claiming victory.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on Obamacare on Thursday.
Who knew the Obama administration was so good at government versions of three card monte?
Erika Johnsen at Townhall reports:
Just add it to the Obama administration’s ever-lengthening list of ridiculous stimulus-related schemes: a well-subsidized solar company received a federal loan guarantee (backed, it goes without saying, by The American Taxpayer) to sell solar panels… to itself.
And here’s the story from the Washington Examiner:
First Solar is the company. The subsidy came from the Export-Import Bank, which President Obama and Harry Reid are currently fighting to extend and expand. The underlying issue is how Obama’s insistence on green-energy subsidies and export subsidies manifests itself as rank corporate welfare.
Here’s the road of subsidies these solar panels followed from Perrysburg, Ohio, to St. Clair, Ontario.
First Solar is an Arizona-based manufacturer of solar panels. In 2010, the Obama administration awarded the company $16.3 million to expand its factory in Ohio — a subsidy Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland touted in his failed re-election bid that year.
Five weeks before the 2010 election, Strickland announced more than a million dollars in job training grants to First Solar. The Ohio Department of Development also lent First Solar $5 million, and the state’s Air Quality Development Authority gave the company an additional $10 million loan.
After First Solar pocketed this $17.3 million in government grants and $15 million in government loans, Ex-Im entered the scene.
In September 2011, Ex-Im approved $455.7 million in loan guarantees to subsidize the sale of solar panels to two wind farms in Canada. That means if the wind farm ever defaults, the taxpayers pick up the tab, ensuring First Solar gets paid.
But the buyer, in this case, was First Solar.
A small corporation called St. Clair Solar owned the wind farm and was the Canadian company buying First Solar’s panels. But St. Clair Solar was a wholly owned subsidiary of First Solar. So, basically, First Solar was shipping its own solar panels from Ohio to a solar farm it owned in Canada, and the U.S. taxpayers were subsidizing this “export.”
No surprise here, as Romney captures all of Arizona’s 29 delegates with a big victory. Still too early to call in Michigan though, where the real story is whether or not Romney can capture his home state over Rick Santorum.
Via Fox News:
Mitt Romney has won the Arizona Republican presidential primary, Fox News projects.
The Michigan contest, meanwhile, is too close to call as early returns show Romney and Rick Santorum separated by a narrow margin.
With 20 percent of precincts reporting in Michigan, Romney is leading with 41 percent, followed by Santorum with 38 percent. Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich are trailing far behind, though Fox News can project that Paul will take place third and Gingrich will place last in the state.
With his win in Arizona, the former Massachusetts governor will take all 29 delegates in the winner-take-all state, padding his lead in the national delegate hunt.
Again, if you’re looking for coverage of the Arizona and Michigan primaries tonight, coverage that will serve as an alternative to the mainstream media, please give Tony Katz and Stephen Kruiser a look. But don’t stare!
Watch them. Call them. Loooove them.
They’ll also be taking phone calls at (888) 955-8669. So feel free to give them a ring and do lots of heavy breathing. I’m told they like that. No, not you Mr. Frank!
The primary coverage is brought to you by the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity.
And with this post, my personal integrity has pretty much gone out the window. Enjoy anyway…
If you’re tired of the same ol’ establishment media coverage of the Republican debates, we’re offering a live stream of coverage provided by All Patriots Media, sponsored by the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity. The debate coverage will be hosted by Tony Katz and Stephen Kruiser.