Translate

Thursday, December 17, 2015

SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS: OBAMA'S "ENTIRE LAWLESS IMMIGRATION AGENDA" FUNDED BY OMNIBUS SPENDING BILL~PLANNED PARENTHOOD RE-FUNDED

Sessions: Spending Bill Funds Obama’s
"Entire Lawless Immigration Agenda"


Omnibus Omits Justice Department
‘Slush Fund’ Rider Ending Payments 
to Liberal Groups

Rider would have ended settlement payments from going to groups such as La Raza, National Urban League
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research 
purposes:

President Obama on Wednesday backed the final spending package that would continue to fund the government through September 2016, with the White House saying it meets his expectations without containing “hundreds of needless ideological riders.”
The bill was praised by the likes of Planned Parenthood and will continue to allow American funding to go toward “international climate” efforts in poorer nations. The bill would also provide handouts for NASCAR tracks, college students, teachers, and racehorses.
However, one provision that did not make the final omnibus bill would have eliminated what critics refer to as a Department of Justice “slush fund” that allows money to be funneled to third-party activist groups—a practice that has come under scrutiny due to the liberal ideological bent of some of the approved organizations.
The practice in question began on August 21, 2014 when the department entered into a nearly $17-billion settlement with Bank of America for selling residential mortgage-backed securities leading up to the 2008 financial collapse. Similar settlements were made with J.P. Morgan and Citigroup that brought the total amount to $36.65 billion.
During settlement, the companies agree to pay financial penalties that sometimes include “donations” given to nonprofits instead of being paid directly to the Treasury.
With the Bank of America and Citigroup settlement, a provision was included that required $150 million in donations to groups that are supposed to help people who have been hurt by a corporations actions. The donations count as twice as much as cash paid towards the settlement total. For example, if a company were to donate $500,000 to an approved organization, it would count as $1,000,000 toward their bill.
The approved groups to where donations can go include the likes of the National Council of La Raza, National Urban League, and NeighborWorks America, which gives grants to community organizing groups thta lean left.
In the case of Bank of America, two payments were made totaling $1.5 million to La Raza that were credited as $3,450,00 while another $1,150,000 was donated to the Urban League and counted as $2,265,000 towards their bill, according to the bank’s latest settlement report released on November 2.
“The purpose of financial penalties is to punish, and to provide restitution to real victims,” the Wall Street Journal wrote on Dec. 3. “The Justice Department would make the case that this money is flowing to groups that aid the targets of supposed banking abuse, such as homeowners. But that assumes the work these groups do is targeted at actual victims—which it isn’t. It assumes that the work these groups do in housing is nonpartisan—which it isn’t. And it ignores that money is fungible.”
Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), the head of the Judiciary Committee, has expressed concern for some time now over these actions. The Justice Department “may be systematically subverting Congress’ budget authority by using settlements to funnel money to activist groups,” Goodlatte said in February.
On June 2, the House of Representatives passed an amendment brought forth by Goodlatte to be included in the original appropriations bill that sought to end the practice.
“The passage of this amendment finally puts an end to the serious executive overreach of the Department of Justice in regards to improper donations being allocated in mortgage settlement agreements,” Goodlatte said after its passage. “A long and difficult investigation led by the House Judiciary Committee shows that the [Justice Department] DOJ systematically subverted Congress’s budget authority by allocating donations to third-party groups, rather than to the victims who are deserving of settlement money.”
An aide for the House Judiciary Committee informed the Free Beacon that the amendment did not make it into the final omnibus bill. The Appropriations Committee did not respond to request for comment on why it failed to make the final bill and whether anyone in particular nixed it.
Government accountability groups such as Cause of Action have launched investigations into the practice. The group has also filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act seeking “clarity from the Justice Department on its legal authority to enter into financial settlements and arbitrarily allocate settlement funds.”
A senior policy adviser for Freedom Partners said the Obama administration is circumventing Congress in what equates to taxpayer funds being funneled to liberal special interests.
“The Obama administration is circumventing Congress by doling out funding from bank settlements to its left-wing allies,” Andy Koenig said. “This is billions of dollars in taxpayer money that instead of going to far-left special interests, should be going toward paying down our debt. Ending shady deals like this should be commonsense.”
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.
____________________________________________________________

Planned Parenthood unscathed in spending bill

BY PETER SULLIVAN
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Planned Parenthood is praising Democrats in Congress after the spending bill released early Wednesday morning spared the organization from cuts. 
As expected, the spending bill does not defund Planned Parenthood, a clear deal-breaker for Democrats, but the absence of spending cuts is still noteworthy given the intensity of the push to defund the group earlier this year. 
Planned Parenthood Vice President Dana Singiser praised congressional Democrats on Wednesday for “holding the line against these harmful policy riders and cuts to key women’s health programs.”
“Extreme members of Congress spent an entire year targeting access to reproductive health care at every opportunity — even threatening to shut down the government,” she added. “Today’s budget bill maintains access to critical preventive health services and lacks these harmful attacks on women’s health care — at home and abroad.”
After pushing for complete defunding of Planned Parenthood ahead of the Oct. 1 funding deadline, the conservative House Freedom Caucus scaled back its demands to a call for compromise language that would give states the ability to choose to defund the group.
The compromise was not included in the final spending bill.
The Freedom Caucus and Pro-Life Caucus also pushed for the Abortion Non-Discrimination Act to be included. That would have strengthened protections for organizations that do not want to cover abortions and doctors who do not want to provide them, as well as allowing people to sue if they think the protections are violated. 
It also was not included in the final spending bill.
Republicans did win language requiring a 7 percent cut in funding for the United Nations Population Fund, an entity that the Pro-Life Caucus said supports China’s “coercive birth limitation policy.”
Planned Parenthood denounced that cut, while acknowledging that it is “small.”
Planned Parenthood is also pushing for more family planning funding. Still, Democrats touted that the bill includes $286 million for Title X family planning, a program that would have been completely eliminated in House Republicans’ proposal earlier this year. 
A Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado was the site of a mass shooting on Nov. 27 in which three people were killed and nine people were wounded. Pro-abortion-rights groups blamed rhetoric in Washington for influencing the shooter, and the violence appeared to undercut efforts to reduce funding for the group.




PAMELA GELLER EXPOSES ISLAMIC JIHAD, FULLY MUSLIM

ISLAMIC APOLOGIST IN CHIEF
TRUTH IS THE NEW HATE SPEECH
"I WILL NOT ABRIDGE MY FREE SPEECH 
TO DEFEND SAVAGERY"
GELLER SUED THE NEW YORK CITY "MTA" TO PROTECT HER RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH;
POSTERS THEN ALLOWED IN SUBWAYS & ON BUSES
GELLER SPOKE AT BROOKLYN COLLEGE; MUSLIM STUDENTS WALK OUT, HARASS, INTERRUPT SPEECH
OBAMA PUSHING "REFUGEE" NARRATIVE
"FATWA" ON HER HEAD FOR BOLDLY SPEAKING OUT

OBAMA REFUSES TO LOOK AT SOCIAL MEDIA 
TO FERRET OUT TERRORISTS
DHS HOWEVER IS MONITORING SOCIAL MEDIA 
FOR CRITICIZING OBAMA
GELLER: "ISLAM ASSERTS ITS AUTHORITY OVER NON MUSLIMS (INFIDELS)

Pamela Geller on Hannity Show
Discussing the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL)


Pamela Geller to Attorney General
Loretta Lynch: "Come and Get Me Byatch!"
"We'll Be Cell Mates"


Pamela Geller Jihad In Boston, Jihad In America, Stop The Jihad 4/20/13
"In America, They Assassinate Your Character" First


                             

FOX Host Pleads With Pamela Geller to Respect Islam & Constrain Herself; Even Donald Trump & Catholic Bill Donahue Object To Her Supposedly Inciting Islamofascists
Geller: "I Will Not Abridge My Free Speech"


Michael Savage Attacks Bill O'Reilly and Greta Van Susteren of Fox News Criticizing Pamela Geller on Mohammed Contest


Pamela Geller - Free Speech Under Assault
Published on May 7, 2015
Pamela Geller, organizer of the draw Mohammad event in Texas, schools CNN’s Alisyn Camerota on the principles of free speech.http://www.LibertyPen.com


Pamela Geller Banned Speech Chabad House
Great Neck, Long Island, New York
"They Are Pursuing a Pro Jihadist Foreign Policy"
Published on Apr 21, 2013
April 14, 2013. Chabad House. Great Long Island hosts the banned synagogue speech that was shut down by pressure lobbies who oppose the American right to free speech. David Yerushalmi introduces Pamela Geller.


CAIR'S PROPAGANDA ADS



PASTOR MANNING INTERVIEWS 
PAMELA GELLER 2014
"THE SILENCE OF THE SHARIA COMPLIANT MEDIA"




UPDATE: JEB BUSH'S CLOSE NAZI TIES EXPOSED BY JOHN BUCHANAN

JEB BUSH: CLOSE NAZI TIES 
EXPOSED BY JOHN BUCHANAN

Investigation Exposes Jeb Bush Nazi Treasure Holdings


Republished:Wednesday, November 11, 2015


JEB BUSH: WOULD HAVE KILLED BABY HITLER~BUT NO MENTION OF HIS GRANDFATHER SUPPORTING THE NAZIS

Jeb Bush: Killing Baby Hitler
HITLER & PRESCOTT BUSH
QUOTES:
Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. created the Union Banking Corporation with Friedrich “Fritz” Thyssen. Prescott Bush was one of seven corporate directors put in charge of Union Banking Corporation as a front to help Thyssen conceal the bank’s real ownership. The U.S. Government accused Prescott Bush & Brown Brothers Harriman & Co. of “Trading with the Enemy” in 1942, the bank and other business interests were seized under the Trading With The Enemy Act and held the assets for the duration of WWII until 1951 when they were given back their company. Union Banking Corporation was dissolved.
A year later in 1952 Prescott Bush became a US Senator.
FRITZ THYSSEN-STEEL BUSINESSMAN
Fritz Thyssen
JEB BUSH: KILLING BABY HITLER;
BUT NO MENTION OF HIS GRANDFATHER 
SUPPORTING THE NAZIS
BY KURT NIMMO
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Jeb Bush, the Republican presidential candidate who is in the single digits, told The Huffington Post he would kill a baby Hitler if given the chance to go back in time.
“Hell yeah, I would!” the former Florida governor said while on the campaign trail in New Hampshire. “You gotta step up, man.”
“It could have a dangerous effect on everything else, but I’d do it — I mean, Hitler,” Bush added.
The question was posed by The New York Times Magazine. Most respondents said they would kill the baby who would grow up to become Der Fuhrer.
If given the chance, Jeb Bush might want to travel back in time and prevent his grandfather from helping Hitler become one of the most infamous dictators of the 20th century.
Prescott Bush, a Wall Street executive banker and Connecticut Senator, helped assist the Nazis through the Union Banking Corporation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Banking_Corporationand Brown Brothers Harriman, an influential investment bank.
The bank held gold for the Nazis and acted as a clearing house for Fritz Thyssen, a German industrialist who supported the Nazi regime. In 1932 Thyssen and other industrialists signed a letter urging Paul von Hindenburg to appoint Adolf Hitler as chancellor. He also arranged a meeting of the Association of German Industrialists that raised 3 million marks for the Nazi Party. Thyssen was instrumental in Hitler’s effort to re-arm Germany. In 1941 Thyssen wrote a book titled “I Paid Hitler.”
Jeb Bush’s grandfather was also linked to Consolidated Silesian Steel Company, a company that used slave labor during the Second World War.
Prescott Bush was not deterred by the outbreak of the Second World War. It took the Trading with the Enemy Act and a seizure of the bank’s assets in 1942 to stop it from dealing with Thyssen and the Nazis.
If Jeb Bush found a way to travel back in time, he also might want to prevent J.P. Morgan, T. W. Lamont, the Rockefeller interests, General Electric Company, Standard Oil, National City Bank, Chase and Manhattan banks, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, and dozens of others from the financial and corporate elite supporting Hitler and the Nazis.
___________________________________________________________

Prescott Bush - How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to Power



OBAMA'S MORALLY PERVERTED ANALOGY: CONFLATES SYRIAN REFUGEES WITH JEWISH REFUGEES BEFORE WORLD WAR TWO

OBAMA PLAYS ON IGNORANCE OF HISTORY; IMMIGRATION LAWS BE DAMNED
HE WANTS US TO REMEMBER OUR MISTREATMENT 
OF THE "ENEMIES OF AMERICA" IN THE 1940s?
OBAMA CONFLATES SYRIAN REFUGEES WITH REJECTION 
OF JEWISH REFUGEES BEFORE WORLD WAR TWO
SHOULD WE FEEL GUILTY FOR U.S. DETENTION CAMPS FOR JAPANESE, AND OUR BOMBING OF JAPAN & GERMANY?
"REPEATING THE MISTAKES OF THE PAST"???
LETTING THIS MUSLIM JIHADIST INTO AMERICA, & ELECTING HIM TWICE 
WAS OUR WORST MISTAKE

Morally perverted analogy between WW2 fleeing Nazis and Syrian refugees
JEWS WERE NOT COMING TO AMERICA
TO KILL AMERICANS
Published on Nov 20, 2015
9 reasons why comparing WW2 Jewish refugees and today's Muslim Syrian refugees is a specious and reprehensible analogy.
The latest from the delusional, suicidal or just plain stupid left is that refusing to take Syrian refugees is the same as refusal to save Jews from Hitler in WW2. And when Obama whines "we don't want to take in widows and children", we know 80% are fighting age males and he (Obama) just doesn't want his grand jihad schemes thwarted or limited.
Why Syrian refugees NOT = to Jewish refugees WW2
a. Jews were not a terror threat; there is evidence terrorists are hiding among Syrian refugees. FBI says we cannot vet them. Obama’s own DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson actually said “we don’t know a whole lot” about Syrian refugees coming into America, and that DHS has “no active protocol” for properly screening them. Paris killers came as “refuges” http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/franc... 
b. Jews were singled out for persecution by the Nazis, not (initially) fleeing an ongoing war. 
c. Jews had nowhere to go; Syrian refugees should have many places to go. 
d. Opposition to Jewish refugees was “racial”; opposition to Syrian refugees is based on security concerns. 
e. Many of the Syrian “refugees” are neither Syrian, nor refugees. 
f. The Jewish refugees had communities willing and able to resettle them; the Syrian refugees may not
See full article here about above from Breitbart http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com...
additionally: 
g. Obama has already admitted a million + Muslims under the radar to USA, 25% of whom support violent jihad.http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com...
h. Islamic goal is conquest by invasion this way principle of Islam, Hiraj, conquest by invasion.
i. Why does Obama want this? Obama is not asleep. He is not delusional or stupid or naive. His father was Muslim. He was educated in Indonesian Muslim schools. Rev Wright says Obama asked him to become Christian for show and not give up Islam. Why would anyone come up with any explanation for Obama other than the obvious? He is a pro Islamic jihadist. Here are 250 examples:
http://strongandresolute.blogspot.com...
+ 80% Moslems vote Democratic
+Bill and Hillary have take HUGE $ from Jihadist nations.


Obama Administration Warns Governors
About Syrian Refugees


NOT THE ONLY PERVERTER OF HISTORY

Durbin Exploits Holocaust, Jewish Refugees & Others;
Calls For Importation Of Syrians; 10-1-2015
Published on Oct 1, 2015
Democratic Senator Dick Durbin exploits the story of the SS St. Louis - a vessel carrying Jewish refugees from Nazi persecution sent back to Europe - to push the agenda of President Barack Hussein Obama to import at least twenty thousand "refugees" from Syria.



Obama to New U.S. Citizens: Syrian Refugees Like Jewish Refugees of WWII

BY STEVE BYAS
SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/22153-obama-to-new-u-s-citizens-syrian-refugees-like-jewish-refugees-of-wwiirepublished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Speaking Tuesday at a naturalization ceremony at the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C., President Obama took the opportunity to lecture the newly minted Americans and subtly criticize Republican presidential candidates about immigration in general, and the issue of Muslim immigration in particular.
“In the Syrian refugee today, we should see the Jewish refugee of World War II,” Obama declared, in an obvious reference to the incident when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt refused to admit Jews into the United States, sealing their fate, as they were then returned to Europe and Hitler’s death camps.
The president's analogy fails, however, in one critical respect.
Not one person at the time believed that the Jews asking for admission into America in an effort to escape persecution of the Nazis in Germany were any threat whatsoever to commit murderous acts of terrorism inside the United States. On the other hand, not one person can assure us today that no ISIS terrorists would be among the genuine Syrian refugees fleeing persecution of those same terrorists in the Middle East.
“How quickly we forget,” Obama intoned in his speech Tuesday. “One generation passes, two generations pass and we don’t remember where we came from and suggest that there is ‘us’ and there is ‘them’ — not remembering that we used to be ‘them.’”
While immigrants have certainly made many positive contributions to America, Obama’s comments promote the commonly held view that all Americans are descended from immigrants. This is true only if one calls those present in the country at the time of the American Revolution (except for the American Indians) “immigrants.” When the first federal census was taken in 1790, the total white population was 80 percent British. Almost all the rise in population until the 1840s was what is referred to as a “natural,” or non-immigration, increase.
So, why does Obama so strongly favor ever increasing immigration? Before his election in 2008, he boldly predicted that his presidency would result in the “fundamental transformation” of America. One can safely infer that Obama sees open borders — or at least a massive increase in immigration — as an important element in effecting that transformation.
Obama appeared to make that connection clear to the new citizens: “We cannot say it loudly or often enough: Immigrants revitalize a new America." (Emphasis added.)
In September, Obama launched an effort to get the almost nine million legal immigrants in the country to apply for citizenship. Since he captured 71 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2012, with much of that coming from naturalized citizens, it is clear that there is a political motivation in the Democratic Party’s advocacy of a “path to citizenship”: The majority of virtually all immigrants of recent years vote for Democrats.
Actually, this is not totally new. With improvements in transportation after 1880, the source of immigration into the United States shifted from northern and western Europe to include millions from southern and eastern Europe and from Asia — principally Japan and China. These “new immigrants,” as they were called, from nations such as Italy and Poland, tended to swell the ranks of the Democratic Party and the growing cities of the North, such as Chicago and New York.
In the 1920s, the Republican Party won three consecutive presidential landslide elections. By 1928, some were even wondering if the Democratic Party would soon “go the way of the Whigs”— that is, cease to exist. But, in that 1928 election, while Democrat Al Smith of New York was drubbed nationally for the party’s third consecutive defeat, he did carry the 12 of the largest cities in the country. This laid the groundwork for the Democrats to emerge as the dominant political party in the country, winning five consecutive presidential elections, with huge majorities in Congress until 1947.
By the 1960s, the children and grandchildren of these immigrants had begun to shift their loyalties to the Republican Party. Beginning in 1968, the GOP was clearly in ascent, winning five of six presidential elections and taking control of Congress in the 1994 elections.
But the seeds of a Democratic comeback were sowed in 1965. Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy explained in 1988 what happened, and why the future looked so bright for his party, despite having just lost their third presidential election in a row, and five of the last six:
The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family’s greatest gift to the Democratic Party.
This explains why Obama is so intent on not only maintaining, but expanding, that flood of immigration from poor countries. The immigrants to America before the Great Society largely came to work — whether they were from Europe to work in the growing factories of the northeastern United States, or those from Asian nations such as China and Japan, who traded poverty for a job in America. And job prospects have drawn millions since the Great Society, as well.
However, the differences between the pre- and the post-Great Society immigrations are important to note. Immigrants before the Great Society had no choice but to work to survive. Today, the modern welfare state constructed by Lyndon Johnson and expanded since by Democrats and many Republicans, has created a large class dependent on government programs. This “underclass” of welfare dependents can be expected to continue to vote for the politicians who provide these social programs.
This, in a nutshell, is why Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other such “progressive” politicians support never-ending waves of immigration.
But even more ominous is that these hordes of immigrants will provide the votes to keep in power politicians who want to “fundamentally transform” America, including those shifting more power to international organizations by diminishing the patriotic resistance to the loss of American national sovereignty. Whereas the immigrants prior to the Great Society tended to assimilate and become patriotic Americans, the large numbers of the immigrants who have arrived in the country since have resisted assimilation. As Obama said, “Immigrants revitalize a new America.”
A new America, remade in the image created by Barack Obama, and those like him who favor the abandonment of the old America.