TRAITOR PAUL RYAN LED HOUSE: SPENDING, CAPITULATION TO DEMOCRATS, & RISING DEBT CONTINUE-PLANNED PARENTHOOD RE-FUNDED

PAUL RYAN A FRAUD LIKE BOEHNER

POPE'S CATHOLIC PUPPET DESTROYING AMERICA JUST LIKE OBAMA

PAUL RYAN SELLS OUT AMERICA!!

Published on Dec 18, 2015

UPDATE: As of Noon Central time on December 18, 2015. Congress approved the omnibus bill with the House voting 316-113. The Bill now heads to Obama's desk. Who will gladly sign away any protection we may have had against jihadist terrorism entering the United States.

This is what happened while you were sleeping dreaming of family and friends gathered for the upcoming holiday season. Yet another treasonous move from our corporatized politicians and their NWO agendized act of war against the American people. Act of War against the American people? Come on. I’ll explain why. But first, how destructive is the 2,242 page omnibus package passed at 2 am led by Obama sycophant ?

Breitbart reports “Rep. ’s first major legislative achievement is a total and complete sell-out of the American people masquerading as an appropriations bill.”Obama’s Unconstitutional 2012 Amnesty for hundred’s of thousands of illegal Aliens continues to warm the federal printing presses with work permits and federal benefits. Meanwhile the taxpaying middle class will be cannon fodder for the Unconstitutional Obamacare penalties that have doubled since last year. Breitbart continues “Obama’s executive action, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), has granted around 700,000 illegal aliens with work permits, as well as the ability to receive tax credits and federal entitlement programs.”

Regardless of the fact that a promising 32 year old American woman was gunned down in broad daylight in San Francisco as a result of the failed policies of the revolving door allowing criminals to return to Sanctuary Cities. Ryan is rewarding these sanctuary cities with a heap of federal grants. “Division B Title II of Ryan’s omnibus funds various grant programs for the Department of Justice (pages 167, 168, and 169) and contains no language that would restrict the provision of such grants to sanctuary jurisdictions.”

Criminal Aliens will continue to resettle in America, H-2B visas will quadruple and replace American workers with cheap foreign labor in America, Defense and Non Defense spending will be increased by $25 Billion, the 700 mile border fence Americans were promised has been gutted, 1.1 Trillion more was added to Obama’s already doubling of our national debt as foreign countries buy up our farmland, corporations, and even our entertainment industry. This is nothing less than dangerous and total betrayal by the criminals occupying our Government. 

Senator Sessions: Why Voters Are in Open Rebellion

Published on Dec 17, 2015

Sen. Sessions explains why American voters are in open rebellion over the betrayal of GOP leaders. Leadership lied to him about contents of the bill and introduced a bill at 2AM giving Obama and big business everything they wanted: a fourfold increase in immigration, American workers forced to train their foreign replacements then laid off, and allowing Obama to bring in unlimited migrants from wherever he wishes and give them access to unlimited welfare and entitlements.

BUDGET BILL A DISASTER FOR CONSERVATIVES & AMERICA ON EVERY COUNT

Paul Ryan-Led House: Spending, Capitulation to Democrats, and Rising Debt Continue

BY STEVE BYAS

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/22160-paul-ryan-led-house-spending-capitulation-to-democrats-and-rising-debt-continue; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Dave Brat, the Virginia Republican who unseated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the primary, and a prominent member of the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives, summed up the new budget soon to be voted on by the entire House.

“The end product here is just cleaning the barn; it’s a disaster. We’re breaking our pledge on the budget caps to the American people, we’ve lost fiscal discipline, and we’re throwing it all on the next generation,” declared Brat, a member of the House Budget Committee.

Several Republican presidential candidates have made the rising national debt a major issue of their campaigns. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky calls the $18-trillion debt the “greatest threat” to the future of the country, while Senator Marco Rubio predicts the debt will “shackle future generations."

However, the latest budget deal — the first under the leadership of House Speaker Paul Ryan, will add billions to that debt.

And the House gets just two days to review it.

The new budget involves $1.1 trillion in spending and $680 billion in tax breaks. It not only vastly increases federal spending, but also represents yet another victory over the Republicans for the White House and Obama's Democratic allies.

For example, Obama was able to win on climate change funding. This past summer, a bill would have blocked any funding for the Green Climate Fund (GCF). This fund’s purpose is to provide help to poorer nations in their efforts to implement the agenda of those who want to scale back certain economic activity, which they say will fight “global climate change.”

This bill, however, while not explicitly funding the GCF, does not actually block it either. In other words, Obama will be able to use money from current “discretionary funding” to make American contributions to the GCF. Press Secretary Josh Earnest was pleased at the budget proposal in this regard, telling reporters, “Based on what we have reviewed so far, there are no restrictions on our ability to make good on the president’s pledge to contribute to the Green Climate Fund.”

Karen Orenstein, a senior analyst with Friends of the Earth, added, “This is a rebuke to those congressional extremists who tried to play politics with desperately needed money to help the world’s poor take climate action. Morality and reason, rather than science-denying isolationism, prevailed in this case.”

The number of visas made available for foreign workers will also increase with the Ryan budget — another victory for Obama and the Democrats. Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, perhaps the number-one opponent in Congress of the president’s pro-immigration policies, took to the floor of the Senate to express his outrage:

The GOP-led Congress is about to deliver Obama a four-fold increase to one of the most controversial foreign worker programs. The result? Higher unemployment and lower wages for Americans.

Sessions was referencing the number of H-2B visas, which will expand from 66,000 to 250,000, due to the Ryan budget language.

Yet, provisions to defund “sanctuary cities” (which provide sanctuary to illegal aliens in violation of federal immigration law) were stripped from the bill, Sessions noted, and the Ryan budget will continue to provide funding to those cities. The proposal to prevent illegal aliens from receiving tax credits for children not even in the country was also taken out of the budget.

Planned Parenthood — despite the fact that it takes the lives of 330,000 unborn babies every year, and has now been exposed selling aborted baby parts — is fully funded in the Ryan budget. Additionally, neither the effort to restrict Syrian and Iraqi refugee resettlement, nor the attempt to stop Obama from taking unilateral executive action on immigration, was in the final draft.

Tax breaks for special-interest groups, who have the lobbyists to make such things happen, will also add to the rising national debt. Others getting a break? The film and TV industries, rum producers in the Caribbean, racehorse owners, and those who have a two-wheeled plug-in electric car..

However, the average American who works in a factory, or who owns a small business or is employed in one — lacking a high-powered lobbyist in D.C. — can expect to continue to bear the burden of government spending and tax policies, designed to benefit the well-connected.

President Andrew Jackson alluded to this issue in his historic veto message, when he struck down the recharter bill for the Second Bank of the United States in 1832. He declared,

It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes.... When the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinction, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges ... the humble members of society — the farmer, mechanics, and laborers — who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government.

So it continues, whether Congress is controlled by Democrats or Republicans. Those who have connections are the recipients of federal spending and favorable changes in the laws. For example, Republican leadership may not have cared enough about aborted babies to fight for defunding Planned Parenthood, or American workers displaced by foreign workers and environmental extremism, but Ryan made sure a provision was added to the bill to allow the sale of American oil to foreigners. While this is intrinsically a good policy, it vividly illustrates the truth of Andrew Jackson’s remarks in his bank veto message.

As radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh asked in commenting on the budget bill, “Why do we even have a Republican Party?”

_________________________________________________________________

PLEASED WITH NEW BUDGET FUNDING FOR ABORTIONS

Dana Singiser, Planned Parenthood vice president of public policy and government

http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2011/11/new-planned-parenthood-vp-has-loads-of-political-experience/#.VnQdDPqVonV

EXCERPTS: "Singiser made just $300 a month when working on Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign . Nothing lists her new salary, but other V.P.s listed on Planned Parenthood’s 2009 tax return earned upwards of $200,000 per year."

Oh, by the way, according to The Hill newspaper, Singiser “was a key part in the team that shepherded his [Obama’s] healthcare reform law through Congress.”

______________________________________________________

Paul Ryan, John Boehner: What's the Difference?

BY STEVE BYAS

SEE: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/item/22161-paul-ryan-john-boehner-what-s-the-difference; republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:

Fiscal conservatives who hoped House Speaker Paul Ryan would put up more of a fight against President Barack Obama and the congressional Democrats have reason to be disappointed with the unveiling of the new congressional budget.

The budget increases federal spending and hands victory after victory over to the White House and Obama's Democratic allies in the Congress.

The budget continues full funding for Planned Parenthood, the organization revealed to having been involved in the sale of baby body parts. Sanctuary cities — localities that ignore federal immigration law and harbor illegal aliens — will continue receiving federal funds uninterrupted. Visas for foreign workers, which lead to the displacement of American workers, received an increase in funding. Democrats won extensions of tax credits for solar and wind production. Efforts to block Obama’s executive actions on immigration were not included in the bill.

Exactly how the budget bill would differ from a bill negotiated by former House Speaker John Boehner is hard to determine.

Republicans were able to insert a repeal on the ban of crude oil to foreigners, but that is hardly the kind of victory that excites the Republicans' conservative base. Rather, it is revealing of just who is important to Republican leaders in Congress, and who has the better lobbyists. Kansas Republican Tim Huelskamp agreed with lifting the ban, but he said he did not receive a single call in favor of the action. Instead, his calls were all about Syrian refugees, the funding of Planned Parenthood, and several other concerns.

Not surprisingly, members of the House Freedom Caucus, the group which is largely responsible for forcing Boehner out of Congress, are not pleased with the new budget. Huelskamp, who is a member of the caucus, predicted that a majority of Republicans would vote no on the $1.1 trillion appropriations bill. He’s calling the package the “Boehner legacy bill.” Another member of the Caucus, Jim Jordan, agrees that few Republican members of the House will support the bill, either.

Representative Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican who is also a Caucus member, had objections about the cybersecurity language added to the bill.

“It’s pretty bad,” complained Freedom Caucus chairman Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio. “How can you not put the refugee issue in there? It makes so much sense. We were clear that if that goes in and [we get] something pretty good on the pro-life, we thought we could get a number of us” to vote for the bill. “But that’s not going to happen.”

So, Ryan will most likely construct a coalition of so-called moderate Republicans and mostly House Democrats to pass the bill. This, of course, was the Boehner way of advancing spending bills during his tenure. When Ryan was under consideration for the speakership, he wooed conservatives by promising to abide by the Hastert Rule (named for former Speaker Denny Hastert). The Hastert Rule stipulated that the speaker would allow votes only on bills enjoying the support of the majority of the Republicans.

But Ryan is not following the Hastert Rule with this budget. He is instead implementing the governing coalition used by his predecessor, John Boehner.

Despite predictable grumbling from the more conservative members of the House, such as Freedom Caucus members, Ryan appears safe in his position as speaker, at least for now. Representative David Brat, the man who pulled off one of the great upsets of American political history when he defeated former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a Republican primary in Virginia, criticized the budget deal (“We’re breaking our pledge on the budget caps”), but he also had cautious praise for Ryan.

“Not only is he saying the right things, he is lining it up to do the right things.”

Arizona Republican Representative Matt Salmon agreed. “Paul [Ryan] made some pretty sustainable commitments about things we’ll do next year: a major overhaul of our tax system, welfare reform, replacing Obamacare. These are major things. If we do those things and define clearly what we stand for, that’s the best we can hope for.”

“In terms of process, I can tell you I’ve had more meaningful conversations with the speaker and leadership in the last couple of weeks than I think I have in the last couple of years,” added Representative Mark Meadows, a North Carolina Republican. It was Meadows who headed the charge against Boehner that eventually led to his resignation last fall. “I would give it an A-plus in terms of trying to reach out to the rank and file.”

One concrete action taken by Ryan that is encouraging to some Freedom Caucus members is that he has already begun the budget process for 2016. A large part of the problem for the past several years has been the failure of the House to develop a budget early enough to vote on the various parts of that budget separately. This has led to the series of “continuing resolutions” of recent years, which has led to a subtle shift in budget-making power away from Congress to a liberal president such as Obama. Obama can threaten to veto the budget if the Republicans put things in the bill he does not like, and blame the Republicans for “shutting down the government.” With his allies in the mainstream media, the public is led to believe it is all the Republicans’ fault. Many Republicans in Congress quake in fear of being blamed for "shutting down the government."

The next budget vote is slated in the fall of next year, in the middle of the presidential campaign. We can expect to hear suggestions that Republicans in the House should avoid a confrontation with Obama over the budget, so as not to hurt the Republican nominee. “Let’s wait until we have a Republican president to take serious action on the budget” will be the probable plea.

Voters were told that Republicans will take “serious action” if they get control of the House. After they did win the House in the 2010 elections, little was done, because the argument then was that the Democrats still controlled the Senate, and besides, we have a presidential election in 2012. Then, in 2014, the Republicans took the Senate and kept the House, and the Republican base was told, once again, to “wait,” since Obama will just veto any substantive action on important issues. And, of course, he can blame the Republicans.

A year from now, the Paul Ryan “honeymoon” will be over, and we will get to see the extent to which he will honor his “marriage vows” to the Republicans in Congress and to the country.

OMAMA TO BLAME: FEDS IGNORED ISLAMIC TERROR THREAT BEFORE SAN BERNARDINO TO FOCUS ON ‘RIGHT-WING RADICALS’

FEDS IGNORED ISLAMIC TERROR THREAT BEFORE SAN BERNARDINO TO FOCUS ON ‘RIGHT-WING RADICALS’

SEE: http://the-trumpet-online.com/feds-ignored-islamic-terror-threat-before-san-bernardino-to-focus-on-right-wing-radicals/;

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

The federal government deliberately downplayed the threat posed by Islamic terrorism immediately before the recent spate of Islamist terror attacks, ignoring Muslim extremists in favor of hyping the threat posed by radical right-wingers.

In the years leading up to the Boston bombings, the Garland shooting, the Chattanooga attack and the San Bernardino massacre, the FBI, Homeland Security and the Obama White House emphasized the narrative that white supremacists and anti-government Americans were of more concern than Muslim jihadists.

A policy that prohibited Homeland Security officials from checking the social media accounts of foreign visa applicants, while concurrently keeping tags on the social media profiles of American citizens, directly contributed to San Bernardino terrorists Tashfeen Malik and Syed Farook going undetected.

As Chuck Ross writes, “Malik, a Pakistani citizen, reportedly posted pro-jihad messages on her Facebook account while living overseas. But the posts were not discovered even though Malik underwent three separate screening procedures before being granted her green card.”

This failure to check Malik’s social media accounts was justified on the premise that it could be “viewed negatively” from a privacy and civil liberties perspective. However, a DHS directive published in 2011 encouraged agents to “compile reports” on the social media accounts of American citizens which contained discussion of “policy directives, debates and implementations related to DHS.”

In a similar vein, the FBI’s August 2014 national terror threat assessment list completely omitted Islamic terrorists, instead focusing on sovereign citizens and the militia movement.

The University of Maryland’s National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) also said that sovereign citizens were the “top concern of law enforcement.”

In 2012 that same department released a study which characterized Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority,” and “reverent of individual liberty” as “extreme right-wing” terrorists.

The study, which was funded by the DHS to the tune of $12 million dollars, largely ignored Islamic extremism and instead focused on Americans who hold beliefs shared by the vast majority of conservatives and libertarians and put them in the context of radical extremism.

Last year, it also emerged that the Department of Homeland Security maintains a “hands off” list of individuals with terrorist ties, allowing them unfettered entrance to the United States. In a related story, Muslim Brotherhood members with ties to terrorism traveling through Minneapolis Airport, New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport and Dulles Airport in April 2012 were handed “port courtesies,” with the State Department telling the DHS to ensure the men “not be pulled into secondary upon arrival at a point of entry.”

In August last year, over 12 months after the Boston bombings, the Department of Homeland Security listed sovereign citizens as a more deadly potential terror threat than Islamic extremists, placing sovereign citizens number one on the list despite the fact that individuals who identify as such have only been involved in minor and sporadic attacks.

PSA’s for the Department of Homeland Security’s See Something, Say Something program also routinely failed to portray terrorists as Muslims on numerous occasions, preferring instead to depict the bad guys as white middle class Americans.

In pursuing the political narrative that right-wing American citizens posed a greater terror threat than Islamic extremists, the federal government has made it significantly easier for Muslim jihadists to coordinate and plan attacks, while a climate of political correctness that led to neighbors of Malik and Farook refusing to report their suspicious activity for fear of appearing racist has also fed into the dangerous delusion that radical Islam doesn’t represent a problem that needs to be urgently addressed.