Former pediatric neurosurgury director at the Johns Hopkins Children’s Center Ben Carson speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, March 8, 2014.
Dr. Ben Carson, accomplished neurosurgeon and conservative Christian, tells David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network that there’s a “good chance” he’ll run for president as he can feel “God’s fingers” touching him gently for the 2016 race.
Brody, CBN news chief political correspondent, interviewed Carson during the week for an upcoming national profile story for “The 700 Club,” and asked, “How is that conversation going with God about this potential presidential run? Has He grabbed you by the collar yet? I read an article about that.”
“I feel fingers,” Carson replied in a one-on-one interview in his home in West Palm Beach, Florida. “But it’s mostly me. I have to be sure, and it’s part of my personality that says always look before you leap, but don’t leap before you have to,” he added.
Brody then said, “I do cover the presidential campaign trail,” and asked, “May I potentially see you there soon?”
“I think there is a good chance you might,” Carson responded in the interview, which was only partially released.
“He [Carson] and his wife, Candy, are dedicated followers of Jesus,” Brody remarks in a posting on CBN’s website. “They don’t hide their faith. They can’t. It’s at the core of who they are as people. Evangelical Christians will be attracted to how he doesn’t shy away from proclaiming Jesus as Lord.”
While Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, won the annual Values Voter Summit straw poll for president in September with 25 percent of the vote, Carson finished 5 percentage points behind him earning 20 percent of the vote.
The poll was conducted via mobile votes from 901 attendees of the group’s annual summit in Washington, D.C. The poll included over 22 candidates, including prominent Democrats Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden.
Carson, who has already won a few straw polls this year, was the only candidate that finished in the top three of the voting that did not attend the event. Although Carson has relatively no political experience under his belt, he continues to gain political support with his unwavering conservative comments in the limelight of national media.
“He is extremely popular. … If he decides he wants to [run], I think he could be a serious contender,” Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said in an interview with The Christian Post at the time. “He is another example of someone who refuses to be throttled down by political correctness and is simply speaking the truth. He is laying it out there. He is giving an accurate diagnoses of where America stands and people respond to that. … Republican minded voters are looking for someone who will simply tell the truth and Dr. Carson fits that category.”
If Carson runs for president, “he’s going to shake up politics and politicians,” Brody writes. “He’s not your typical, lunch bucket Republican. He’s going to keep both Republicans and Democrats on their toes.”
Regardless of the circumstance, time, place, identity of the victim or the accused, allegations of sexual assault are serious and should be taken seriously. Bill Cosby, along with George Carlin and Richard Pryor, is a permanent fixture in my lifelong holy trinity of stand-up comedians. I love the guy. I am in awe of his talent.
Nonetheless, a woman has come forward with the claim that Cosby assaulted her 30 years ago. The allegations are horrifying and media outlets from NPR to the Washington Post toCNN are treating the woman’s story with the seriousness it deserves.
Unfortunately, our media is not guided by the lofty principle of what it is supposed to be about; because history shows that when it comes to these kinds of allegations some powerful men like Bill Cosby are taunted and hunted, while other powerful men with the first name Bill, who have faced similar allegations, are protected.
I am of course talking about former-President Bill Clinton, who like Bill Cosby has been accused of rape and has settled a sexual harassment lawsuit. There is also another woman who has accused Clinton of groping her in the White House. All of this is above and beyond the countless extra-marital affairs that swirl around Clinton, including an admitted one with a 21 year-old White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. Clinton’s deceit during the fallout of his affair with Lewinsky resulted in impeachment and the loss of his license to practice law.
Juanita Broderick’s charges of rape against Clinton appear every bit as credible as those against Cosby. Moreover, unlike Cosby’s accuser, Broderick was a reluctant witness who never filed a financial lawsuit. Regardless, the media went out of its way to discredit and dismiss Broderick as a liar, a tool of the Right, or my personal favorite, old news.
Paula Jones would eventually settle a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton for $850,000, but not before Clinton surrogates smeared her as trailer trash as television news anchors chuckled along.
Kathleen Willey, a Democrat and White House volunteer who worked on Clinton’s 1992 campaign, accused Clinton of sexually groping her in the White House in 1993. The Clinton machine worked overtime to destroy and discredit her in 1998, and the media is still too happy to play along.
Let us also never forget that the elite media not only attempted to cover up the Lewinsky affair, but before Lewinsky came up with Clinton’s DNA on the infamous blue dress, his White House was pouring every ounce of energy into portraying this young woman as a crazed liar and stalker. And again, the media was all-too eager to play along.
While I’m at it, let’s throw in the media’s never-ending Frankenstein villaging of Clarence Thomas, a black Supreme Court Justice who was dragged through the mud based on the allegations of only one woman. Unlike the allegations against Clinton, there was no established pattern with other woman. Just the one.
Herman Cain, a black Republican presidential candidate, was destroyed by the media just as he assumed the role of front runner. The sexual harassment allegations against Cain were nowhere near as serious as the charges of outright assault against Clinton, and no more credible. The only difference was a media determined to destroy Cain.
If political correctness was really about political correctness and not partisan politics, the media’s offense here would be condemned by the left as racist. There is no question that what we have is a media that takes allegations of sexual misconduct against black men with the utmost seriousness, while a white southerner is protected at all costs.
Race is certainly part of it. The elite media is left-leaning and the political left is desperate to keep blacks “in their place,” which of course means voting for Democrats. Cosby, Cain, and Thomas challenge and question that destructive cultural mindset. Therefore, all three are threats to Power. Therefore, all three must be marginalized and destroyed at all costs — not just personally but also as a warning to others.
Again, the media is doing the right thing in chasing down the truth about Cosby, but not for the right reasons.
The media’s motives are racial, not noble.
If the media was really about protecting women from powerful predators, the idea of Bill Clinton as America’s first First Gentleman would horrify, not thrill.
For decades, the black vote in the United States almost uniformly has gone to Democrats.
How’s that working out? Black unemployment is twice the national average, poverty rates are higher than before Democrats offered “help,” and the education system fails a disproportionate number of black children. That’s what 50-plus years of blind voting loyalty to Democrats has earned. And, thanks to those same Democrats and the nation’s first black president, it’s about to get a lot worse.
President Obama is set to legalize upwards of 5 million illegal aliens, with the dream of granting amnesty and citizenship to 6 million to 25 million more, based on estimates and chain migration. These aren’t Ph.D.s with seed capital ready to start tech companies; they’re low- and no-skilled workers with limited English skills ready to take any job available, especially entry-level jobs.
After decades of embracing Democrats on a national and local level, the black community is disproportionately poor and, therefore, a higher percentage of the Americans likely to be competing for those entry-level jobs.
Just six years ago, this extra thumb in the eye to a loyal Democratic voting base would have been unthinkable, but Hispanics are the new dominant minority in American politics. In the future, the black vote is going to be less and less necessary to Democrats, which means they will be taken for granted even more than they have been. Loyalty in politics lasts only as long as the last election.
Democrats won’t immediately ignore black voters. It will be gradual. When loyalty is garnered so effortlessly, dismissing it out of hand is folly. But it will happen.
Democrats play identity politics – appealing to people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, income level—whatever you got works for them. If people are concerned that an “other” is out to harm them in some way, they’re extremely loyal to those who pretend to be their protector.
“Leaders” reinforce this lie because it empowers and enriches them personally. They see members of these groups as nothing more than a means to an end. Identity politics is not their genuine belief system; their agenda is. And if they have to stand on people’s necks and crush their spirit to obtain what they want, so be it.
Democrats, particularly progressive Democrats, have run every city with a large minority population, nearly uninterrupted, for generations and they’ve only declined. Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago … name any city with a large minority and/or poor population and you will find it run by progressives for the vast majority of the last 50 or more years.
Congress must fix the problems President Obama’s executive amnesty plan creates.
Americans defeated President Obama’s disastrous amnesty plans both in Congress and at the voting booth. Tonight, President Obama defied an entire nation and declared that he will impose his rejected amnesty through the brute force of executive order.
President Obama’s executive amnesty will provide an estimated 5 million illegal immigrants with the exact benefits Congress rejected, in violation of federal law. His order will grant them social security numbers, government-issued ID’s, legal status and work permits. Illegal immigrants will now be able to take jobs and benefits directly from struggling Americans in a time of high unemployment and low wages. They will be able to take jobs from Americans in all occupations, ranging from truck drivers to power company workers to jobs with city government. Many illegal immigrants will also be able to obtain green cards and become permanent residents, allowing them access to almost all federal programs, to receive citizenship and sponsor foreign relatives to join them in the U.S.
All you have to do is get into the country from anywhere on globe — whether through the border or by overstaying a visa — and you are free to remain, take jobs and receive benefits. This year alone, the White House has released into the United States more than 100,000 illegal immigrants who simply showed up at the border and demanded entry.
And now, with a single pen stroke, President Obama is obliterating what little remains of Americans’ immigration protections. Not only will millions of low-wage illegal immigrants rush into the labor market, but they will collect billions in taxpayer dollars as well. These costly government benefits range from child tax credits, to public housing to the likelihood that amnestied immigrants will rely on taxpayers for medical and retirement benefits.
Only a short time ago, President Obama himself admitted this action would be illegal and unconstitutional: “I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own” he explained, adding “that’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.” President Obama also said that: “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”
Apparently, America now has its first emperor.
And he has issued an imperial order to dissolve America’s borders. Millions more will enter and demand the same amnesty benefits as those who came before. The entire moral foundation and consistency of our laws will have been eviscerated. Law enforcement officials have repeatedly warned that the president’s new amnesty will unleash a “tidal wave” of illegal immigration. The impact on our jobs, wages, hospitals, schools, police departments and neighborhoods will be crushing.
A second hammer blow will be dealt by the president’s unilateral increase in foreignworker programs for large corporations, including technology corporations. Currently,two-thirds of all new jobs in the IT industry are being filled by foreign workers — and yet the president wants to dramatically surge foreign worker admissions even further. This at a time when the Census Bureau tells us more than 11 million Americanswith science, technology, engineering and math degrees don’t have jobs in those fields.
President Obama is auctioning off America’s middle class to the highest bidders.
Immigration already stands at record levels and is rising quickly. Between 2000 and 2014 — a period during which the government issued nearly 30 million lawful visas to foreign workers and permanent immigrants — all net employment gains among the working-age went to imported labor. Now the president is planning to unilaterally increase immigration even further — all to placate a few billionaire lobbyists and open border extremists.
The great task before the nation now is to resist this imperial decree and return control of this nation to its own citizens — as our Constitution established.
That task begins with Congress refusing to allow a dime of money to be spent executing this unlawful amnesty. This a routine, constitutional and crucial application of congressional power.
If Democrat lawmakers join Republicans in blocking funds for his unlawful plan, the president will be stopped. Americans must ask their representatives this one question: do you serve the citizens of this country and their Constitution — or not?
Sen. Jeff Sessions is the ranking member of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee and a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
WASHINGTON — Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn warns there could be not only a political firestorm but acts of civil disobedience and even violence in reaction to President Obama’s executive order on immigration Thursday.
“The country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very serious situation,” Coburn said on Capital Download. “You’re going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy. … You could see violence.”
Coburn, 66, is a conservative Republican but one who has a personal relationship with Obama. They entered the Senate in the same class, elected in 2004, and the new senators from opposite ends of the political spectrum and their spouses immediately hit it off at an orientation dinner. Last year, the president wrote a tribute in Time magazine to Coburn as “someone who speaks his mind (and) sticks to his principles.”
“I really like the guy,” Coburn, 66, told USA TODAY’s weekly video newsmaker series Wednesday. “I thought he’s neat, and I think Michelle’s a neat lady.”
That history gives Coburn’s stark assessment a special sting. On immigration, he accuses Obama of acting like “an autocratic leader that’s going to disregard what the Constitution says and make law anyway.” He says changes in immigration policy require passage by Congress, not just the president’s signature — a charge the White House disputes and on which legal experts disagree.
“Instead of having the rule of law handling in our country today, now we’re starting to have the rule of rulers, and that’s the total antithesis of what this country was founded on,” Coburn says. “Here’s how people think: Well, if the law doesn’t apply to the president … then why should it apply to me?”
Coburn, who also served three terms in the House of Representatives, is retiring two years before his second Senate term is up as he battles a recurrence of cancer. He has been a leading deficit hawk, nicknamed “Dr. No” for his steadfast opposition to spending and his blunt-spoken manner.
Though he says both parties deserve some of the blame for Washington’s dysfunction, he argues that the president has the ability to chart a different path. Solid Republican control of Congress in the wake of this month’s midterm elections could make it easier to deal with an issue such as the structural problems associated with the deficit. Making the compromises necessary for that “requires divided government,” he says.
“If I were in his office, I’d say, if you want to have a successful second term, dig down, swallow your pride, get what you can get, compromise on everything you can for the best interests of the country,” he says. “Bring us back together.”
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama will outline a plan on Thursday to relax U.S. immigration policy for as many as 5 million people, bypassing Congress and angering Republicans.
U.S. Representative Paul Ryan, the leading Republican voice on fiscal policy and a potential 2016 presidential candidate, called the plan a “partisan bomb” while a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner branded the president “Emperor Obama” for acting unilaterally.
The White House said Obama will deliver a televised speech at 8 p.m. ET on Thursday (0100 GMT Friday) laying out the plan followed by a trip to Las Vegas on Friday. Nevada is home to the highest proportion of undocumented immigrants.
Frustrated by years of congressional inaction on what most in Washington agree is a broken immigration system, Obama said he is now prepared to use his executive authority.
Obama’s directives are expected to remove the threat of deportation for as many as 5 million of the estimated 11 million people living illegally in the United States.
He will ignore the people, the constitution, and his own words.
Even as word is leaking out that President Obama will announce his long-awaited executive action on immigration this week, House Speaker John Boehner has posted a summary of previous presidential statements admitting the limits of executive power. Boehner’s communications advisor Matt Wolking authored the article which is entitled “22 Times President Obama Said He Couldn’t Ignore or Create His Own Immigration Law.” It begins [emphasis added]:
With the White House poised to grant executive amnesty any day now despite the American people’s staunch opposition, on Sunday President Obama was asked about the many, many statements he made in the past about his inability to unilaterally change or ignore immigration law. His response was astonishingly brazen: “Actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress.”
This is a flagrant untruth: “In fact, most of the questions that were posed to the president over the past several years were about the very thing that he is expected to announce within a matter of days,” reported The New York Times. “[T]he questions actually specifically addressed the sorts of actions that he is contemplating now,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker agreed, awarding President Obama the rare “Upside-Down Pinocchio,” which signifies “a major-league flip-flop.” Even FactCheck.org piled on.
President Obama is once again trying to mislead Americans, but he can’t run from what he’s said over and over (and over) again. Not only are Americans not stupid – they can read[.]
The list of 22 statements follows, stretching from 2008 to as recently as August 2014. The whole thing may be found here.
22 Times President Obama Said He Couldn’t Ignore or Create His Own Immigration Law
With the White House poised to grant executive amnesty any day now despite the American people’s staunch opposition, on Sunday President Obama was asked about the many, many statements he made in the past about his inability to unilaterally change or ignore immigration law. His response was astonishingly brazen: “Actually, my position hasn’t changed. When I was talking to the advocates, their interest was in me, through executive action, duplicating the legislation that was stalled in Congress.”
This is a flagrant untruth: “In fact, most of the questions that were posed to the president over the past several years were about the very thing that he is expected to announce within a matter of days,”reportedThe New York Times. “[T]he questions actually specifically addressed the sorts of actions that he is contemplating now,” The Washington Post’s Fact Checker agreed, awarding President Obama the rare “Upside-Down Pinocchio,” which signifies “a major-league flip-flop.” Even FactCheck.orgpiled on.
President Obama is once again trying to mislead Americans, but he can’t run from what he’s said over and over (and over) again. Not only are Americans not stupid – they can read:
“I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with [the president] trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (3/31/08)
“We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. … I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doingan end-run around Congress.” (5/19/08)
“Comprehensive reform, that’s how we’re going to solve this problem. … Anybody who tells you it’s going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn’t been paying attention to how this town works.” (5/5/10)
“[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. … I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision.And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)
“I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there. I’ve got to work to make sure that they are changed.” (10/14/10)
“I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I’m committed to making it happen, but I’ve got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I’m president, I’m not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there’s a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That’s what the Executive Branch means. I can’t just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)
“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that.That’s part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants. … With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed …. [W]e’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” (3/28/11)
“I can’t solve this problem by myself. … [W]e’re going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it happen. … I can’t do it by myself. We’re going to have to change the laws in Congress, but I’m confident we can make it happen.” (4/20/11)
“I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works. See, democracy is hard. But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one.” (4/29/11)
“Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That’s what I’m committed to doing.” (5/10/11)
“I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books …. Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.” (7/25/11)
“So what we’ve tried to do is within the constraints of the laws on the books, we’ve tried to be as fair, humane, just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves need to be changed. … The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. … Administratively, we can’t ignore the law. … I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved.” (9/28/11)
In June 2012, President Obama unilaterally granted deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA), allowing “eligible individuals who do not present a risk to national security or public safety … to request temporary relief from deportation proceedings and apply for work authorization.” He then argued that he had already done everything he could legally do on his own:
“Now, what I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch,there’s a limit to what I can do. Part of the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole lot of money into it, and when you have a lot of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are going to be higher numbers. What we’ve said is, let’s make sure that you’re not misdirecting those resources. But we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally. And that’s why this continues to be a top priority of mine. … And we will continue to make sure that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible. But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question, we’re going to continue to be bound by the law. … And so part of the challenge as President is constantly saying, ‘what authorities do I have?’” (9/20/12)
“We are a nation of immigrants. … But we’re also a nation of laws. So what I’ve said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I’ve done everything that I can on my own[.]” (10/16/12)
“I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law. And that’s what we’ve done. But what I’ve also said is, let’s make sure that we’re applying the law in a way that takes into account people’s humanity. That’s the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law.” (1/30/13)
“I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And, you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law. When it comes to the dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, ‘These folks are generally not a risk. They’re not involved in crime. … And so let’s prioritize our enforcement resources.’ But to sort through all the possible cases of everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who’ve put down roots here. … My job is to carry out the law. And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They give us an order that we’ve got to go out there and enforce the laws that are on the books. … If this was an issue that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time ago. … The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and implement it.” (1/30/13)
“This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency.The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.” (2/14/13)
“I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus. … And we’ve been able to provide help through deferred action for young people …. But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively.” (7/16/13)
“My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they’ve allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can’t do everything that Congress has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. …But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that’s not an option. … What I’ve said is there is a there’s a path to get this done, and that’s through Congress.” (9/17/13)
“[I]f, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. … It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out.” (11/25/13)
“I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive immigration reform. But what I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I’ve done is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can’t enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million people, there aren’t the resources there. What we’ve said is focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity, focus on people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on young people, who we’re calling DREAMers …. That already stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, ‘you have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books. That’s why it’s so important for us to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.” (3/6/14)
“I think that I never have a green light [to push the limits of executive power]. I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers. There are some things we can’t do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. … Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending.So I don’t have a green light. … My preference in all these instances is to work with Congress, because not only can Congress do more, but it’s going to be longer-lasting.” (8/6/14)
Netanyahu to world leaders: I want to see outrage over this massacre
PM says Hamas, Islamic Movement, PA are spreading blood libel against Israel and its Jewish citizens, which fuel the ongoing campaign of violence.
Ynet, Agencies, Hassan Shaalan
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday called on world leaders to denounce the attack in a Jerusalem synagogue that claimed the lives of four worshipers.
“I call on all the leaders of countries in the Western world: I want to see outrage over this massacre. I want to see denunciation,” he said at a press conference in Jerusalem Tuesday night.
Two terrorists wielding meat cleavers, knives and guns arrived at the compound on Harav Shimon Agassi Street, which includes a synagogue and yeshiva (rabbinical seminary), and carried out two attacks in two locations.
While Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas condemned the attack, Netanyahu said this was not enough.
“We are in the midst of a terror campaign focused on Jerusalem. In the middle of Shacharit, while wrapping in tallit and tefillin, four rabbis were slaughtered, four innocent and pure Jews. The animals who committed this massacre came charged with vast hatred from wide-raging incitment against the Jewish people and its country,” Netanyahu said.
“Hamas, the Islamic Movement and the Palestinian Authority are spreading countless of libels and lies against the State of Israel. They say the Jews are defiling the Temple Mount. They say we mean to destroy the holy sites there, and that we mean to change the praying arrangements there. It’s all a lie. And these lies have already exacted a very steep price,” he added.
“Yesterday, a bus driver from East Jerusalem committed suicide. The pathological report’s findings, which were released to the public, prove it unequivocally. But this did not prevent those inciting to spread these blood libels that he was murdered by Jews. And this incitement played a part in the shocking massacre this morning.”
Earlier in the day, Netanyahu warned that Israel would “respond harshly” to the attack, calling it a “cruel murder of Jews who came to pray and were killed by despicable murderers.”
Security forces inside the synagogue (Photo:Reuters)
Netanyahu’s comments were echoed by Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz who said that “the terrorists wielded axes, but the voice was that of Mahmoud Abbas.”
The scene of the attack (Photo: Gil Yohanan)
An official Hamas statement said that the attack was a response to the death of bus driver Yusuf Hassan al-Ramouni, who was found hanged at a Jerusalem bus terminal Sunday night. Police said that he had committed suicide, a statement dismissed by some.
Other Israeli politicians reacted strongly to the attack, also suggesting that Israel’s response would be fierce.
“These are no longer isolated incidents – we are at war,” said Shas leader Aryeh Deri, while Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat urged “the government to allocate all forces and resources; we will not let terror win.”
President Reuven Rivlin said that Israel was “experiencing a coordinated campaign; this isn’t a coincidental sequence of events.” He added that “this hour demands national responsibility and unity, and coping together — both with terrorism and with other challenges that face us.”
Economy Minister Naftali Bennett also denounced Abbas, saying that he “has declared war on Israel, (and) we must respond accordingly.”
The wounded are evacuated (Photo: Kobi Nachshoni)
But Israel Police Commissioner Yohanan Danino sounded a note of caution in comments from the site of the attack. “We currently have no magic solution for these kinds of attacks,” he said.
“The terrorists will be defeated,” Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovich said. “I call on citizens not to take the law into their own hands.”
Justice Minister Tzipi Livni warned that the attack should not be connected to the Islamic State, stating that it was a Palestinian attack with a nationalist motive.
Likud MK Danny Danon said that ‘Netanyahu must take charge and re-establish security for the citizens of Jerusalem.’
Meanwhile, Likud MK Miri Regev, who proposed legislation to change the status quo on the Temple Mount – a move vehemently rejected by the Muslim world – told Ynet that, “If this kind of incident had occurred in a mosque, the entire world would be against us.”
MKs from the main Arab parties provided a different point of view. Hadash chairman Mohammad Barakeh, Ibrahim Sarsour of Ra`am-Ta`al, and Jamal Zahalka of Balad, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow for the bloodshed.
They said that the cycle of violence could only end only through negotiation. They stressed that the attack stemmed from lack of hope and of a political horizon, which they saw as Netanyahu’s responsibility.
November 18, 2014 The Senate narrowly rejected legislation on Tuesday that would have authorized construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, dealing a bitter blow to politically imperiled Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu less than a month before her Dec. 6 runoff election.
The vote was 59-41 on the legislation, which easily passed the House last week.
The fate of the heavily lobbied bill, which required 60 votes to pass, was uncertain until final votes were counted. And ultimately, despite the senator’s assurances to the contrary, Landrieu was not able to garner the votes needed for passage.
Going into the vote, Landrieu knew she had 59 Senators supporting her motion, but it was never clear where she’d get number 60. Democratic Majority Whip Dick Durbin was seen as one of Landrieu’s last options, but he voted no on the bill.
The bill has become intertwined with the political struggles of the Louisiana Democrat as she faces an uphill battle in her bid for reelection against GOP challenger Rep. Bill Cassidy.
Senate Democratic leaders, after long preventing votes on Keystone, last week agreed to a floor showdown at the behest of Landrieu, a co-sponsor of the pro-Keystone legislation, who is seeking to show that she can deliver on pro-oil policies in a state where the petroleum industry is a big part of the economy.
But Capitol Hill Republicans, while unanimously backing the pipeline, have sought to prevent Landrieu from gaining political traction from the unexpected lame-duck Keystone fight. The latest House Keystone bill that passed last week was sponsored by Landrieu’s foe Cassidy.
Landrieu insisted she could secure 60 votes needed to pass the legislation with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate as late as Tuesday morning. But despite the willingness of Senate leadership to allow a vote on the bill, Landrieu was not able to persuade enough Democrats to side with her in a vote to approve the pipeline.
The White House did not issue a formal veto threat on the project, but the president hinted in the days leading up to the vote that he would veto the legislation.
White House Spokesman Josh Earnest said Tuesday: “It certainly is a piece of legislation that the president doesn’t support.”
Legislation green-lighting the oil sands project is certain to come to Obama’s desk next year, however, when Republicans take the reins in the Senate. Soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has pledged to move swiftly to authorize the pipeline.
TransCanada Corp.’s project would carry hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil each day from oil sands projects in Alberta, Canada, to refineries along the Gulf Coast. It would also carry oil from the booming Bakken formation in North Dakota.
Keystone is a big priority for Republicans and industry groups that have lobbied aggressively in favor of the pipeline. But it’s a political headache for Obama, and for Democrats in general, who are divided over the project.
Many labor unions back Keystone, but environmentalists–another pillar of Obama’s political base–bitterly oppose it and have mounted an aggressive campaign in recent years that has included numerous protests.
The Obama administration has spent six years weighing the project, and the president has repeatedly said in recent days that he wants to let the review play out. The president has also made critical comments about the project on his recent trip to Asia, buoying environmentalists.
“I have to constantly push back against this idea that somehow the Keystone pipeline is either this massive jobs bill for the United States, or is somehow lowering gas prices,” he told reporters in Myanmar four days ago.
Obama has also said that he will not approve Keystone unless he’s certain that building the project would not significantly increase carbon emissions.
Republicans, who have said the project is an economic win that will boost U.S. energy security, used the debate to increase political pressure on the White House over Keystone.
“I say to President Obama, time is up, and the excuses have run out. It is time for you, Mr. President, to make a decision,” said Sen. John Barrasso, a Wyoming Republican who is part of the GOP leadership team, during the floor debate Tuesday. Republican Sen. John Thune, who is also in leadership, noted that the pipeline has bipartisan support in Congress, and he said the Keystone opponents are “members of the far-left wing of the Democratic party.”
Environmentalists and Democrats against the project argue that Keystone will worsen global warming by serving as a catalyst for rapid expansion of carbon-intensive oil sands production in Canada.
“To protect the planet from catastrophic global warming, we need to leave four-fifths of the identified conventional fossil-fuel reserves in the ground,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, ahead of the vote. “But building the Keystone pipeline would open the faucet to rapid exploitation of a massive new unconventional reserve–that is, the tar sands–making it much less likely for human civilization to succeed in meeting that carbon budget that is so important to our future economic and environmental world.”
But a major State Department environmental analysis published in January generally rebutted claims that the pipeline is a linchpin for growing oil-sands production.
It concluded that construction of Keystone–one of several new oil-sands pipelines that companies are proposing–is unlikely to affect the rate of oil-sands expansion. That’s because growing use of railways to move oil can pick up the slack, even though moving oil by rail is more expensive.
However, State’s analysis also predicts that if no new pipelines are built to handle expanded oil-sands production, oil prices remaining in the $65-$75 per barrel range could curtail production, but the study calls this unlikely. Oil prices have been falling for months, and West Texas Intermediate crude oil is currently trading at around $75 per barrel.
The Energy Department’s statistical arm this month estimated that oil will average $78 per barrel in 2015, which is well below its previous forecast.
Palestinians armed with cleavers and gun attack synagogue
Three victims were US-Israeli citizens, one a UK-Israeli citizen
Netanyahu vows to ‘respond with a heavy hand’
Hamas praises attack as response to ‘Israeli crimes’
Four Israelis were killed and eight more wounded in a frenzied assault by two Palestinian men on Jewish worshippers praying at a Jerusalem synagogue in the most lethal incident in the city in years.
The two assailants who launched their attack with meat cleavers and a gun during early morning prayers were then killed by police officers in the ensuing gun battle at the scene of the attack.
The deaths occurred as the two men – identified by family members as cousins Ghassan and Uday Abu Jamal from the East Jerusalem district of Jabal Mukaber – burst into the Bnei Torah synagogue in Har Nof, an ultra-Orthodox Jewish neighbourhood of West Jerusalem.
Three of the victims held dual US-Israeli citizenship, and one was a British-Israeli citizen – 68-year-old Avraham Shmuel Goldberg, who emigrated to Israel from the UK in 1993.
The three US citizens were 59-year-old Moshe Twersky – the head of an English speaking religious college – Aryeh Kopinsky, 43, and Kalman Ze’ev Levine, 55. The grandson of one of the founders of the Modern Orthodox movement, Twersky lived close to the scene of the attack in Har Nof.
Witnesses including worshippers, residents and a first-aider who entered the synagogue while the attack was continuing, described a chaotic and bloody scene as police and the attackers engaged in a shootout at the building’s entrance.
Akiva Pollack, a paramedic who was one of the first on the scene, told the Guardian he had entered the synagogue to be confronted by an individual covered in blood.
“He said he had been shot but when he took his shirt off it was covered in deep cuts. I tried to treat him, but then I heard shooting nearby.”
Dragging one of the injured from the synagogue he reached the exit to see a policeman shot. “I tried to help him. I intubated him but he was badly wounded.”
Another medical volunteer who arrived early on the scene was Joyce Morel. She told Haaretz newspaper: “The gentleman I tended to first still had his tefillin on. There were also women there who didn’t know where their husbands were, and others who didn’t know where their father was. Those were most likely the ones killed. It was very hard to deal with, very upsetting.”
A man who identified himself only as Yossi and was in the synagogue at the time of the attack, told Channel 2: “The police arrived and surrounded the entrance and then the terrorist ran out and they shot him. There was wild gunfire. People ran out of the synagogue. It was hell.”
“I tried to escape. The man with the knife approached me. There was a chair and table between us … my prayer shawl got caught. I left it there and escaped.”
Yosef Posternak, who was also praying in the synagogue at the time of the attack, told Israel Radio that about 25 worshippers were inside when the attackers entered.
“I looked up and saw someone shooting people at point-blank range. Then someone came in with what looked like a butcher’s knife and he went wild.” He added: “I saw people lying on the floor, blood everywhere. People were trying to fight with [the attackers] but they didn’t have much of a chance,” he said.
Pictures posted by an Israeli army spokesman showed a man in a Jewish prayer shawl lying dead, a bloodied butcher’s cleaver discarded on the floor and several overturned prayer tables.
Yakov Cohen, a 60-year-old pensioner who lives in an apartment block opposite the synagogue and had been preparing to go and pray himself, described seeing the gun battle.
“I was getting ready to go down and pray myself. My wife had gone out for a walk,” he told the Guardian. “She called to tell me there was shooting and to stay at home.
“I saw armed police at the door of the synagogue and then heard one of them shout: ‘He’s getting ready to come out.’ An Arab came out of the building – a man in his 30s – the police shot him as he came out.”
The attack is bound to ratchet up fears of sustained violence in the city, already on edge amid soaring tensions over a contested holy site.
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a militant group, said the cousins were its members. A PFLP statement did not specify whether the group instructed the cousins to carry out the attack. Hamas, the militant Palestinian group that runs the Gaza Strip, also praised the attack.
Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, vowed that Israel would “respond harshly” to the attack, describing it as a “cruel murder of Jews who came to pray and were killed by despicable murderers”.
The US secretary of state, John Kerry, said he spoke to Netanyahu after the assault and denounced it as an “act of pure terror and senseless brutality and violence”.
“Innocent people who had come to worship died in the sanctuary of a synagogue,” Kerry said, his voice quavering.
“They were hatcheted, hacked and murdered in that holy place in an act of pure terror and senseless brutality and murder. I call on Palestinians at every single level of leadership to condemn this in the most powerful terms. This violence has no place anywhere, particularly after the discussion that we just had the other day in Amman.”
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, condemned the attack, the first time he has done so since a recent spike in deadly violence against Israelis began. He also called for an end to Israeli “provocations” surrounding the sacred site.
In a statement, Abbas’s office said he “condemns the killing of the worshippers in a synagogue in west Jerusalem”. The statement called for an end to the “invasion” of the mosque at the holy site and a halt to “incitement” by Israeli ministers.
In a bleak assessment of the recent wave of violence, the Israeli justice minister, Tzipi Livni, told Army Radio that she has long feared that is a becoming a religious war. “And a religious war cannot be solved.”
In Jabal Mukaber relatives of the two attackers offered different theories about the motives for the attack, with some linking it to the death of Palestinian bus driver found hanged behind his bus – described by Israeli authorities as a suicide – but widely believed by many palestinians to have been a “lynching”. Other family members, however, blamed recent friction at the Jerusalem holy site known to Muslims as the Noble sanctuary and to Jews as the temple Mount which has been blamed for a rash of deadly violence and clashes.
A cousin of the men, Sufian Abu Jamal, a construction worker aged 40, described it as a “heroic act and the normal reaction of what has been happening to Palestinians in jerusalem and at the Al Aqsa mosque.”
At the house of Uday, “Abu Salah”, an uncle of one of the men said his relatives had been made angry by what they had seen on Facebook and television news reports. “It was a situation ripe for an explosion and that is what happened.”
Tuesday’s attack was the latest in a series of deadly assaults. Five Israelis and a foreign visitor have been deliberately run over and killed or stabbed to death by Palestinians while about a dozen Palestinians have also been killed, including those accused of carrying out those attacks.
Residents trace the violence in Jerusalem to July, when a Palestinian teenager was burned to death by Jewish assailants, an alleged revenge attack for the abduction and killing of three Jewish teens by Palestinian militants in the occupied West Bank.
Perhaps the most disturbing line from Chebli’s prayer is his declaration that America recognizes Allah as their god, saying “Thee do WE worship.”
Although Obama and the rest of the administration paint Chebli as a moderate, peaceful Muslim, he is anything but moderate.
Shoebat.com reveals Chebli’s disturbing background and relation to terrorist Hassan Khaled:
Chebli’s mentor, Khaled, who was the Mufti of Lebanon was “martyred” after a bomb was set up which killed him and others. His father went the same way “martyred” by a bombing. Have a look at Khaled, the fiery revolutionist exhorting a crowd to chant, ‘Allahu Akbar.’
Prior to Khaled’s fallout with the PLO’s Yasser Arafat, he was a champion and supporter of Palestinian terrorism against Israel to sending terrorist recruits from Lebanon.
And in the same footsteps as Khaled, Chelbi also traveled to Egypt to study at Al-Azhar University, the world’s oldest university and center for Brotherhood jurisprudence. It was during this time that Chelbi’s mentor Khaled was chosen as the nation’s foremost Islamic legal scholar in the Sunni Muslim sect.
Allowing an Imam to claim America for Islam in the very building in which federal laws are written is an abomination. Housing the most dangerous enemy of Christianity and Western civilization in the archetype of our nation’s faith is unforgivable. Not only are we harboring the enemy, we are exalting and admiring them on a pedestal.