China Warns U.S. After Trump Wins Nevada Caucus

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio iHeart.SmythRadio.com

freebeacon.com

Chinese Communist Party leaders stand up while the international communist anthem is played. / AP

BY: Bill Gertz Follow @BillGertzFebruary 24, 2016 5:00 pm

China warned the United States on Wednesday not to adopt punitive currency policies that could disrupt U.S.-China relations after Donald Trump’s win in the Nevada caucus.

Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters in Beijing that “we are following with interest the U.S. presidential election.”

Hua was asked about China’s response to a possible Trump presidency and his announced plan to punish China for currency manipulation with a tax on Chinese goods.

“Since it belongs to the domestic affair of the U.S., I am not going to make comments on specific remarks by the relevant candidate,” she said.

“But I want to stress that China and the U.S., as world’s largest developing and developed countries, shoulder major responsibilities in safeguarding world peace, stability and security and driving world development,” the spokeswoman added.

“The sustained, sound and steady growth of China-U.S. relations serves the fundamental and long-term interests of the two countries and benefits the world. We hope and believe that the U.S. government will pursue a positive policy toward China in a responsible manner.”

The comments came as Wang Yi, the Chinese foreign minister, is holding talks in Washington that include U.S. concerns about a Chinese military buildup on disputed islands in the South China Sea, and cooperation on dealing with North Korea’s nuclear and missile provocations.

Hua said Wang and Secretary of State John Kerry agreed the two sides will enhance cooperation and increase talks and exchanges.

“We stand ready to preserve and advance China-U.S. relations together with the U.S. side,” she said.

Kerry said he spoke to Wang about reducing tensions and finding diplomatic solutions to competing South China Sea claims.

“We want there to be a halt to the expansion and militarization of occupied features,” Kerry said. “Everyone benefits by true demilitarization, non-militarization.”

Kerry also said the United States remains committed to freedom of navigation and overflight, “something which China says it does not stand in the way of; it agrees that there should be peaceful freedom of navigation.”

Reports from Asia say Chinese state-run media have been ordered by the Communist Party to minimize reporting on the U.S. presidential election.

Hong Kong’s Chinese-language news outlet Oriental Daily reported Feb. 5 that the Party’s Propaganda Department, which sets policies for all state-run media, ordered all publications to ban election coverage of U.S. policies toward China and to focus election coverage on negative stories and scandals.

Trump won the Nevada caucus with 45 percent of the vote, increasing his chances of winning the Republican nomination later this year.

Last month, Trump vowed to impose a 45 percent tariff on Chinese good to offset China’s devaluation of the yuan.

“They’re devaluing their currency, and they’re killing our companies,” Trump said. “We are letting them get away with it, and we can’t let them get away with it.”

The Obama administration has adopted conciliatory policies toward China on trade and currency issues.

Trump, on his campaign website, outlined a hardline approach to dealing with China that involves officially declaring China a currency manipulator and negotiating an end to the practice.

Trump also wants to thwart China’s theft of intellectual property and adopt policies aimed at bring jobs back from overseas to the United States.

Bolstering the U.S. military and “deploying it appropriately in the East and South China Seas” are other goals.

“These actions will discourage Chinese adventurism that imperils American interests in Asia and shows our strength as we begin renegotiating our trading relationship with China,” the Trump website states. “A strong military presence will be a clear signal to China and other nations in Asia and around the world that America is back in the global leadership business.”

COMMENTS

NY mountain hits minus -114 degrees wind chill at summit

Listen to Military Veteran Talk Radio 

iHeart.SmythRadio.com

www.nydailynews.com

While New York City had its coldest start to Valentine’s Day in 100 years on Sunday, it would seem balmy compared with the wicked wind chill at upstate Whiteface Mountain.

As temperatures dropped across the Northeast from the blast of a polar vortex, the wind chill at Whiteface, near Lake Placid, made it feel like a body- and mind-numbing minus 114 degrees late Saturday and into Sunday. Central Park could only muster a minus 1 degree.

The Wild Center, which works with the Atmospheric Science Research Center at SUNY Albany, recorded the frigid temperature from a research station at the mountain’s summit.

The Wild Center This is what happens when a tree is exposed to minus 114 degrees wind chill at Whiteface Mountain's summit.

POLAR VORTEX TO BLAST NORTHEAST WITH COLDEST AIR IN A DECADE

“The extreme temperatures (Saturday) night on Whiteface have to do with its elevation, 4,865 feet and the wind speed,” Tracey Legat, the center’s communications manager at the center told the Daily News. “The mountains of the Adirondacks are often some of the coldest places in the lower 48 states during the year.”

The Wild Center Winds at Whiteface Mountain's summit blasted at 45 mph on Saturday night going into Sunday morning.

The Arctic winds howled through the summit at about 45 mph, freezing almost everything in their path.

The center managed to capture a photo of a tree being turned into a popsicle as the winds formed “monstrous rime ice” around it.

The Wild Center On Sunday morning, the wind chill on Whiteface Mountain's summit was colder than the windchill in Antarctica.

The mountain’s summit was actually colder than Antarctica on Sunday, according to the National Weather Service.

ang@nydailynews.com

Tags: upstate new york , nyc weather

COMMENTS

Ford Shifting Future Auto Production To Mexico As Obama Signs Pacific Trade Deal

Getty

by WARNER TODD HUSTON8 Feb 20161,231

Just as President Barack Obama’s deputy signed the unpopular Trans Pacific Partnership free-trade deal during an election year, Ford Motor Company has announced it will doubling production capacity at a Mexico factory, instead of enlarging U.S. factories.

The new factory will manufacture hybrid autos with gasoline and electric engines, whose development has been partly funded by U.S. taxpayers via federal research programs.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Ford is planning to build 500,000 vehicles at its new Mexican factory, starting in 2018. That is double Mexico’s 2015 production.

Ford has begun to build a new factory in San Luis Potosí, Mexico, to assemble several models including, a new model meant to rival Toyota’s Prius hybrid vehicle. In turn, U.S.-based plants will focus on light trucks and sport-utility vehicles.

Insiders say Ford will spend $1 billion to build the expansion factory in Mexico. That’s in addition to the $2.5 billion already earmarked for expansion in the neighboring nation.

Ford rival General Motors is planning a $5 billion expansion in Mexico.

But American automakers aren’t alone. New facilities are also being built in Mexico by BMW AG, Volkswagen AG, Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motors.

All these announcements come on the heels of new deals that offer higher wages for today’s workers, represented by the United Auto Workers union.

UAW membership began to fall from its 1979 high of 1.5 million members to only 540,000 in 2006. By 2010 it had fallen to only 390,000 members. Since 2010, membership has been slowing growing, and it grew 3 percent in 2014 . In 2015, The UAW climbed up to 403,000 members, or three-quarters of its 2006 membership.

But the plans to expand in Mexico also come at the same time Obama began pushing his Trans Pacific Partnership trade plan, one of the largest multinational trade agreements in history.

The trade deal, often derided as Obamatrade, has met with fierce criticism from conservatives in Congress many of whom fear the deal means a massive loss of jobs in the U.S. Senator Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), for one, has been afierce critic of the deal saying it does not protect the interests of the American people and our workers. Ohio Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) is facing a tough election, and he’s come out in conditional opposition to the completed deal.

Even as Obama’s representatives signed onto the deal last week, Senator Jeff Sessions said voters should press their candidates on where they stand on TPP.

The Senator urged voters to insist their candidates for president and Congress “explain why we are not seeing politicians expressing support for this gargantuan agreement.”

“Every elected official, every candidate must be crystal clear about where they stand on the TPP. The American people deserve no less,” Sessions declared.

To date every GOP presidential candidate has made a firm announcement on where they stand on TPP except Florida SenatorSen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). While Rubio voted “yes” to fast track the deal, he hasn’t explicitly said how he will vote on the final deal.

Rubio did say that TPP is one of the pillars in his “three-pillar foreign policy strategy,” so even as he hasn’t said if he will vote in favor of the plan. But his actions seem to point to his support for the measure.

GOP frontrunner Donald Trump, though, has been unequivocal on TPP. He is against it. Last week Trump called the plan “a terrible deal” for the United States because it is a jobs killer.

“It’s going to allow countries to continue to take advantage of us and take our jobs, take our trade,” Trump said. “It’s bad for us. It’ll allow China to come in through the back door at a later date and continue to really do a number on us, and it doesn’t take into account money manipulation — manipulation or devaluation of currency, which is the single biggest tool that countries use against us,” he said. “It’s a terrible deal.”

Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter@warnerthuston or email the author at igcolonel@hotmail.com

Read More Stories About:

Big Government, Economics

Noam Chomsky Says GOP Is 'Literally A Serious Danger To Human Survival’

POLITICS

The MIT professor and noted author said "strategic voting" can keep Republican candidates away from the levers of power.

ULLSTEIN BILD VIA GETTY IMAGES

 13 hours ago | Updated 1 minute ago

Matt Ferner National Reporter, The Huffington Post

ULLSTEIN BILD VIA GETTY IMAGES

Noam Chomsky, the noted radical and MIT professor emeritus, said the Republican Party has become so extreme in its rhetoric and policies that it poses a “serious danger to human survival.”

“Today, the Republican Party has drifted off the rails,” Chomsky, a frequent critic of both parties, said in an interview Monday with The Huffington Post. “It’s become what the respected conservative political analysts Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein call ‘a radical insurgency’ that has pretty much abandoned parliamentary politics.”

Chomsky cited a 2013 article by Mann and Ornstein published in Daedalus, the journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, analyzing the polarization of the parties. The authors write that the GOP has become “ideologically extreme, scornful of facts and compromise, and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

Chomsky said the GOP and its presidential candidates are “literally a serious danger to decent human survival” and cited Republicans' rejection of measures to deal with climate change, which he called a “looming environmental catastrophe.” All of the top Republican presidential candidates are either outright deniers, doubt its seriousness or insist no action should be taken -- “dooming our grandchildren,” Chomsky said.

"I am not a believer," Donald Trump, the Republican presidential front-runner, said recently. "Unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather."

Trump isn’t alone. Although 97 percent of climate scientists insist climate change is real and caused by human actions, more than half of Republicans in Congress deny mankind has anything to do with global warming.

"What they are saying is, let's destroy the world. Is that worth voting against? Yeah," Chomsky said in a recent interview with Mehdi Hasan on Al Jazeera English's "UpFront."

The policies that the GOP presidential candidates and its representatives in Congress support, Chomsky argued, are in “abject service to private wealth and power,” despite “rhetorical posturing” of some, including House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). GOP proposals would effectively raise taxes on lower-income Americans and reduce them for the wealthy. 

Chomsky advised 2016 voters to cast their ballots strategically. He said the U.S. is essentially “one-party” system -- a business party with factions called Republicans and Democrats. But, he said, there are small differences between the factions that can make a “huge difference in systems of enormous power” -- like that afforded to the president.

“I’ve always counseled strategic voting, Chomsky said. "Meaning, in a swing state, or swing congressional district, or swing school board, if there is a significant enough difference to matter, vote for the better candidate -- or sometimes the least bad.”

Chomsky said if he lived in a swing state, he’d vote for Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton.

By no means should this be viewed as an endorsement of Clinton. Chomsky has been a vocal Clinton critic, saying her presidency would resemble that of President Barack Obama, who Chomsky has condemned for using drone strikes to kill individuals the president deems worthy of execution. 

In an ideal world, Chomsky might vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who Chomsky has called an "honest and committed New Dealer" who has “the best policies,” despite some criticisms. 

Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, Chomsky told Al Jazeera he'd cast his general election vote "against the Republican candidate” because there may be dire consequences to a GOP victory. 

“The likely candidates are, in my opinion, extremely dangerous, at least if they mean anything like what they are saying,” Chomsky said. “I think it makes good sense to keep them far away from levers of power

CAPITALISM VS SOCIAL COMMUNISTS

Brian P Smyth
iHeart.SmythRadio.com

As a personally responsible American who is currently working and supporting a family my greatest fear is that of freedom and our sovereignty will be stolen from us by the socialist communist left. There is no freedom in social programs only tyranny and control.

Poll Drudge Report

S 2016 begins the United States starts to to lose their sovereignty self governance. Because the politicians that were elected to protect us or doing the opposite the allowing the invasion of the illegals from the south the north in the east as well as overloading social programs, which is a socialist communist idea from the 70's from Cloward and Piven.

This poll taken by Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report is probably the scariest poll I've ever seen you have the Communist Bernie Sanders neck and neck with the capitalist Donald Trump who wins the communist or the capitalist?

Democratic debate: It's Hillary Clinton who can win and govern, not Bernie Sanders

DEMOCRATS

By Jessica Tarlov

Published January 18, 2016

FoxNews.com

Facebook Twitter livefyre Email

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (L) and rival candidate U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (R) speak simultaneously at the NBC News - YouTube Democratic presidential candidates debate in Charleston, South Carolina January 17, 2016. REUTERS/Randall Hill - RTX22TE2

My role in representing the left on Fox News can sometimes feel like David versus Goliath, but in heels.

It’s always welcome when I get a tweet or two that doesn’t involve “#Dumbacrat” and it’s especially heartening when one of two things happen: a conservative reaches out to let me know that I’ve let a little liberal light into their lives, or when fellow liberals are watching Fox because they know that without understanding the other side we will collectively get nowhere.

ADVERTISEMENT

But the reality is that as clear a divide as exists between left and right, there is an equal schism within the left amongst those vying for the Democrat nomination.  

That is precisely what we saw on stage in South Carolina Sunday night.

Fundamentally, the question is do we see a visionary or absurdist in Bernie Sanders? And do we see an experienced leader or sell-out in Hillary Clinton?

In a widely praised final State of the Union address, President Obama discussed his primary regret as being that he was unable to fix the partisanship that has been plaguing Washington. This theme was echoed in Republican South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley’s rebuttal. It’s clear that both sides see partisanship as a serious issue that is holding our nation back.

And this is ultimately the reason why a political revolution won’t save us – from the left or the right. The system just isn’t built that way.

No one challenges Bernie Sanders’s authenticity, but there is a very real challenge in getting a candidate elected whose vision is so extreme.

Single payer health care – a policy that Hillary Clinton has long championed herself – could not even get passed with a Democratically-controlled House and Senate and a strong Democrat in the White House. The unabashed demonization of the financial services and pharmaceutical industries alienates key drivers of the American economy. Tuition free college sounds amazing – especially as someone who spent way too long in graduate school – but even with a plan to pay for it through raising taxes, it’s a fantasy.

Bernie’s vision is compelling. On Sunday night he showed his usual passion and ability to evolve: he has modified his position and now thinks that gun manufacturers can be held responsible in certain cases and he clearly takes the threat of ISIS seriously, something that has been questioned in the past.

But a compelling vision doesn’t necessarily translate into success in governing a divided populace.

This is where Hillary’s strength lies.

She offers the feasible version of Bernie’s political revolution. We should build on the Affordable Care Act, not replace it. We should be dedicated to making higher education more affordable and accessible, but not promising schemes that will never be turned into law. And she leads her Iran policy with the maxim “distrust but verify,” an embodiment of her muscular approach to foreign policy.

I return to the ACA to most clearly show why Hillary is the one who understands the liberal agenda and how to get things done. On stage in Charleston Sunday night, she recognized that we accomplished a historic milestone for social progress and the imprudence of scrapping it with a hostile congress and a country that is fatigued of the issue. The answer to this isn’t “single payer or bust.” To Bernie that doesn’t seem to matter. And that’s where Bernie’s political revolution fails us.   

Pragmatism doesn’t mean that there isn’t boldness and a big heart in her own vision. When she spoke of a lifetime of public service fighting for women’s equality, children and a better life for the middle class she means it. And her record shows that.

So the answer to the question of whether Hillary is a pragmatist or a sell out is that she’s a woman who understands that the prospects for improving the lives of everyday Americans hinges on the ability to champion solutions that those on the right will at least consider.

Now don’t get me wrong, I love Bernie Sanders’s vision for America. But that isn’t the issue. The issue is who can we nominate that can win an election andgovern in a way that makes progress certain, albeit slow. #ImWithHer. 

Jessica Tarlov, Ph.D., is a political strategist at Douglas E. Schoen, LLC. Follow her on Twitter @JessicaTarlov.

Maybe 150 Show For Hillary NV "Rally"?

They Did It Again... Secret Service Blocks Reporters From Asking Hillary Questions in Nevada - The Gateway Pundit

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Hillary Clinton held a rally today in Henderson, Nevada.Only a couple hundred turned out to hear the former Secretary of State.

Hillary Clinton rally begins in Henderson, Nevada. Biggest applause so far after mention of equal pay for women.pic.twitter.com/AHWAQSw8oI

— Jacob Rascon (@Jacobnbc) January 6, 2016

She’s a candidate of the people.

Last July the Secret Service roped off reporters from getting to Hillary.ViaTwitchy:Baltimore Sun

Today the Secret Service blocked reporters from asking her questions.

Agents from @SecretService trying to block reporters from asking@HillaryClinton questions in Nevada — is that really their job? @DHSgov

— Ed Henry (@edhenry) January 6, 2016

COMMENTS

Coming to America? China Introduces ‘Credit Score’ For Obedient Citizens

www.infowars.com

China’s largest social networks have partnered with the country’s Communist government to create a credit score system that will measure how obedient its citizens are, a chilling prospect that could one day arrive in America if social justice warriors get their way.

Entitled ‘Sesame Credit’, the program, “Aims to create a docile, compliant citizenry who are fiscally and morally responsible by employing a game-like format to create self-imposed, group social control. In other words, China gamified peer pressure to control its citizenry; and, though the scheme hasn’t been fully implemented yet, it’s already working — insidiously well,” reports Zero Hedge.

Sesame Credit is operated by Alibaba and Tencent, two companies that run all the top social networks in China, including Weibo, which has over 200 million users. It works by measuring not only purchase and bill paying history but also “political compliance.”

“Among the things that will hurt a citizen’s score are posting political opinions without prior permission, or posting information that the regime does not like, such as about the Tiananmen Square massacre that the government carried out to hold on to power, or the Shanghai stock market collapse. It will hurt your score not only if you do these things, but if any of your friends do them,” warns the ACLU.

In other words, people will face the threat of not only becoming a target of state surveillance, but also losing their friends if they express political views frowned upon by the state. This social pressure would obviously make individuals far less likely to criticize the government or to counter a dominant social narrative. The credit scores can also be seen by anyone, adding the further burden of potential public shaming for controversial opinions.

The idea is ripped straight from the script of The Prisoner – a cult 1960’s TV show in which the authorities in control of ‘The Village’ attempt to break Number 6 and strip him of his individuality. In one episode, Number 6 is declared “unmutual” and faces ostracization from the rest of the community.

Rick Falkvinge compared this new method of molding the ‘good citizen’ to how the KGB and the Stasi would neutralize dissent.

“The KGB and the Stasi’s method of preventing dissent from taking hold was to plant so-called agents provocateurs in the general population, people who tried to make people agree with dissent, but who actually were arresting them as soon as they agreed with such dissent, he writes. “As a result, nobody would dare agree that the government did anything bad, and this was very effective in preventing any large-scale resistance from taking hold. The Chinese way here is much more subtle, but probably more effective still.”

Johan Lagerkvist also warns that the program will scrutinize what books people read, labeling it akin to “Amazon’s consumer tracking with an Orwellian political twist.”

Sesame Credit is currently opt-in only but is set to become mandatory by 2020.

Could such a system ever take off in America? For years, the Obama White House has been pushing cybersecurity initiatives that would mandate de facto government permission to use the Internet. Since web access would be linked with an individual user’s identify, it could easily be restricted if that individual dares to dissent against the state.

A credit score for expressing politically correct opinions also sounds like a utopian wet dream for social justice warriors, who utilize the power of mob outrage to pester governments and corporations into publicly shaming people who challenge their narratives.

Indeed, prominent feminists are alreadycalling on the United Nations to pressure ISPs and governments to cut off web access for those who dare to disagree with feminists and leftists online.

If the we continue to treat the feelings of perpetually offended outrage mobs with more importance than free speech – particularly controversial and unpopular free speech – there’ll be no need for governments to impose a social credit score to control citizens – we’re already imposing it on ourselves by default.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet

Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

PAUL GIVES IT ALL AWAY TO COMMUNIST

Ryan and Pelosi corral votes as $1.1T funding bill speeds to floor

thehill.com

The House is poised to pass a bipartisan $1.1 trillion bill to fund the government, with GOP and Democratic whip teams going into overdrive to boost their numbers before the Friday morning vote.

Democratic leaders have voiced numerous objections to the package, particularly the inclusion of an end to a ban on crude oil exports and the failure to address Puerto Rico’s debt crisis. But with the White House urging support — and dozens of conservatives expected to buck GOP leaders and vote no — the Democrats are also scrambling to convince wary rank-and-file members that the current package is the best they can get.

Senior Obama administration officials and Cabinet secretaries began reaching out to congressional Democrats, urging them to back the spending deal, a source said. 

And Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who both endorsed the massive omnibus bill, were personally pressing undecided members and “working it,” according to a whip team member.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and his top lieutenants appeared much more relaxed than their Democratic counterparts. Still, Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) and other leaders were making calls, sending text messages and button-holing colleagues on the floor to drive up their vote total, lawmakers and aides said.

Ryan huddled in his office Thursday afternoon with members of the Western Caucus, who griped that he didn’t do enough during the negotiations to fight against environmental regulations, an attendee said. 

But by the end of the meeting, Ryan had flipped a couple “no” votes to “yes.”

“It will pass,” a senior GOP lawmaker close to leadership said without hesitation.

Providing the omnibus some momentum, the House on Thursday passed legislation extending a series of expired tax breaks — many of them permanently — with an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 318 to 109. The spending bill, if it passes Friday, will be combined with the tax proposal and delivered to the Senate as one package.

Leaders from both parties stayed in close contact Wednesday and Thursday as they swapped their respective vote tallies, even as those numbers remained fluid. Senior lawmakers familiar with the whip operations said Republicans would likely need to deliver 120 votes and Democrats 100 votes to ship the bill over to the Senate before leaving for the holidays.

Ryan is hoping for a big GOP vote — a majority of the majority, or roughly 124 Republicans — to signal that the conference has turned a corner from the days of his predecessor, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who faced a conservative revolt every time he tried to bring a bipartisan spending bill to the floor. 

Earlier Thursday, members of the Democratic whip team said they had only locked up about 80 supporters on their side. But by late afternoon, all of the arm-twisting by leaders and vote-counters was beginning to pay off.

“I think everything is back on track and the votes will be there tomorrow morning,” said a member of the Democratic whip team.

Pelosi, who negotiated the omnibus with Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), said the provision lifting the 40-year ban on crude oil exports is "the biggest obstacle” as she pitches the compromise to wary Democrats.

But the oil provision, she added, allowed the Democrats to win major concessions from the Republicans on a long list of other issues, from the environment and labor protections to banking reforms and the Syrian refugee program.

"Republicans’ desperate thirst for lifting the oil export ban empowered Democrats to win significant concessions throughout the Omnibus, including ridding the bill of scores of deeply destructive poison pill riders," Pelosi wrote in a letter to Democratic colleagues Thursday night.

Pelosi on Wednesday had huddled separately with members of the Progressive Caucus and Tri-Caucus, which consists of black, Hispanic and Asian American Democrats. In both meetings, she got an earful, according to a number of attendees, and the criticisms continued at a Democratic Caucus meeting on Thursday morning.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said he's opposing the omnibus because Republicans stripped out a Democratic proposal to help Puerto Rican leaders manage their debt crisis. He suggested Democratic negotiators didn't fight hard enough, and urged a reopening of the talks.

"I don't know if we negotiated from a position of power in this," he said. "And I, for one, am not going to go to Florida, and talk to 1 million Puerto Ricans in Florida, and tell them to vote Democrat if the Democrats can't stand up for the Puerto Ricans today."

Still, other top liberals are lining up behind the measure, providing cover to Democrats who had been reluctant to support it.

Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and David Price (D-N.C.), two top appropriators, both announced Thursday on the House floor that they'll grudgingly back the deal. And Hoyer, the Democratic whip, also threw his weight behind the measure.

"I believe we can do better, especially when it comes to making investments in areas that grow our economy, such as infrastructure, research, innovation, higher education, and workforce development," Hoyer said.

"But I will support this omnibus, and I urge my colleagues to support this omnibus, because we must not let the perfect stand in the way of the practical and the appropriate."

Ryan, meanwhile, has sought to mollify the Democratic criticisms over the Puerto Rico debt crisis by vowing to tackle the issue, through regular order, early next year. That promise has won some praise from Democrats, who nonetheless say the delay is both harmful and unnecessary.

Complicating the debate, a number of heavyweight groups are split on the issue and have ramped up their lobbying ahead of Friday's vote. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers and the Business Round Table are all urging support for the omnibus, while Heritage Action and the Club for Growth are drumming up opposition. 

One thing lawmakers agree on is a desire to put 2015 behind them. Many were anxious to vote quickly and begin their long holiday recess, where Christmas dinners, vacations to Machu Picchu and CODELs await them.

And there are other pressing matters to tend to this weekend: Several lawmakers said after Friday’s vote they were flying directly to Dayton, Ohio, where GOP Rep. Mike Turner is tying the knot on Saturday with his fiancée Majida Mourad

OOPS President Obama Claims America Doesn't Want Stay At Home Moms

SmythRadio

Fighting Communist Everywhere.

Democrats Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi all Support Obama’s Dictatorship.

 

 

Democrats Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi all Support Obama’s Dictatorship.

Every congressman, regardless of political party or ideology, takes an oath of office that reads (emphasis added):

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Granted, the Democrat Party, the party that “booed” God loudly three times at their 2012 convention, probably have a huge problem with the “So help me God” closing, but, nevertheless, they promise to follow the U.S. Constitution.

The beginning body of the U.S. Constitution, Article, I, Section 1, states that “ALL” legislative powers are obtained by the Congress of the United State, not Barack Obama. In one clear, easy to understand sentence, the longest serving Constitution in world history states:

“All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

However, Democrats, so desperate to import more undocumented Democrats, overcome with political greed, are ignoring the Constitution their swore to uphold, calling on their Messiah, Barack Obama, to become America’s first dictator, pushing the Marxist community organizer to issue laws where there are none, change laws where there are existing ones, and to not enforce laws that don’t promote the Democrat Party’s communist agenda.

Take immigration.  We do have immigration laws, correct?

Congressional Democrats are violating their oath of office and are urging Obama to break existing immigration laws, encouraging him even to make new immigration “laws” if Congress “fails to act.” Obama himself even promised to issue additional royal edicts to skirt the rule of law.

The Hill  reports on comments from leading treasonous Democrats, who are pressuring weak-kneed Speaker of the House, RINO John Boehner, to agree with Obama’s dictates, pass them in the House, or Obama will be a dictator “act alone.”

“We’re deporting too many people; we’re breaking up families; and he ought to do whatever’s in his executive power to change what is a bad policy,” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said Thursday. “It’s the right thing to do.”

Rep. Filemon Vela (D-Texas), a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) who represents a border district, agreed that the issue demands more urgency from the president.

“He needs to be looking at it now,” Vela said Thursday, predicting no action in the House this year. “We have no Republican bills, whatsoever.”

Democrats are not speaking entirely with one voice on the issue, however. Many party leaders are backing Obama’s delay in the hope that Boehner will launch a last-minute effort to take up immigration legislation this year.

“I’m hopeful,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Thursday, during a news briefing to mark the anniversary of the Senate passing its immigration reform bill. “I believe that the Speaker is of good faith on this.

“Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) agreed, arguing that Democrats “have always said that the deadline for getting a bill done feasibly is July 31.”

“Are the chances very small? Very small,” Schumer said Thursday. “But … hope springs eternal. Maybe Speaker Boehner would come to his senses.”

Other liberals are running out of patience with that strategy.

Rep. Rubén Hinojosa (D-Texas), the chairman of the CHC, has long been critical of Obama’s delayed action. Last month, he called on the president “to reconsider.” And this week, he said leading Hispanic lawmakers will amplify that message in a coming visit to the White House.

“I told him that we’d give him time, so we should be going to the White House soon,” Hinojosa said Wednesday.

In other words, change the law by our arbitrary deadline, or Dictator Obama will do it for us. It’s treasonous. Separation of powers be damned!

high crimes and misdemeanors in presidential impeachment

Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"

by Jon Roland, Constitution Society

Sick Bias Radio

The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.
Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject's fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.
Perjury is usually defined as "lying under oath". That is not quite right. The original meaning was "violation of one's oath (or affirmation)".
The word "perjury" is usually defined today as "lying under oath about a material matter", but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is "violation of an oath". We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter "j" is the letter "i" in Latin.

periurium, i, n,, a false oath, perjury.

periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. iuro, avi, atus, are, to swear, take an oath.

iurator, oris, m., a swearer.

iuratus, adj., sworn under oath, bound by an oath.

ius, iuris, that which is binding, right, justice, duty.

per, ... IV. Of means or manner, through, by, by means of, ... under pretense of, by the pretext of, ....

By Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, the president must swear: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He is bound by this oath in all matters until he leaves office. No additional oath is needed to bind him to tell the truth in anything he says, as telling the truth is pursuant to all matters except perhaps those relating to national security. Any public statement is perjury if it is a lie, and not necessary to deceive an enemy.
When a person takes an oath (or affirmation) before giving testimony, he is assuming the role of an official, that of "witness under oath", for the duration of his testimony. That official position entails a special obligation to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and in that capacity, one is punishable in a way he would not be as an ordinary person not under oath. Therefore, perjury is a high crime.
An official such as the president does not need to take a special oath to become subject to the penalties of perjury. He took an oath, by Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 8, to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" to the best of his ability. While he holds that office, he is always under oath, and lying at any time constitutes perjury if it is not justified for national security.
Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr erred in presenting in his referral only those offenses which could be "laid at the feet" of the president. He functioned like a prosecutor of an offense against criminal statutes that apply to ordinary persons and are provable by the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt". That is not to say that such offenses are not also high crimes or misdemeanors when committed by an official bound by oath. Most such offenses are. But "high crimes and misdemeanors" also includes other offenses, applicable only to a public official, for which the standard is "preponderance of evidence". Holding a particular office of trust is not a right, but a privilege, and removal from such office is not a punishment. Disablement of the right to hold any office in the future would be a punishment, and therefore the standards of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" would apply before that ruling could be imposed by the Senate.
It should be noted, however, that when an offense against a statute is also a "high crime or misdemeanor", it may be, and usually is, referred to by a different name, when considered as such. Thus, an offense like "obstruction of justice" or "subornation of perjury" may become "abuse of authority" when done by an official bound by oath. As such it would be grounds for impeachment and removal from office, but would be punishable by its statutory name once the official is out of office.
An executive official is ultimately responsible for any failures of his subordinates and for their violations of the oath he and they took, which means violations of the Constitution and the rights of persons. It is not necessary to be able to prove that such failures or violations occurred at his instigation or with his knowledge, to be able, in Starr's words, to "lay them at the feet" of the president. It is sufficient to show, on the preponderance of evidence, that the president was aware of misconduct on the part of his subordinates, or should have been, and failed to do all he could to remedy the misconduct, including termination and prosecution of the subordinates and compensation for the victims or their heirs. The president's subordinates include everyone in the executive branch, and their agents and contractors. It is not limited to those over whom he has direct supervision. He is not protected by "plausible deniability". He is legally responsible for everything that everyone in the executive branch is doing.
Therefore, the appropriate subject matter for an impeachment and removal proceeding is the full range of offenses against the Constitution and against the rights of persons committed by subordinate officials and their agents which have not been adequately investigated or remedied. The massacre at Waco, the assault at Ruby Ridge, and many, many other illegal or excessive assaults by federal agents, and the failure of the president to take action against the offenders, is more than enough to justify impeachment and removal from office on grounds of dereliction of duty. To these we could add the many suspicious incidents that indicate covered up crimes by federal agents, including the suspicious deaths of persons suspected of being knowledgeable of wrongdoing by the president or others in the executive branch, or its contractors.
The impeachment and removal process should be a debate on the entire field of proven and suspected misconduct by federal officials and agents under this president, and if judged to have been excessive by reasonable standards, to be grounds for removal, even if direct complicity cannot be shown.