BIG BLOW TO BARACK OBAMA’S CLIMATE CHANGE INITIATIVE …
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court abruptly halted President Obama’s controversial new power plant regulations that is part of his global warming climate change initiative. 27 states and industry opponents that call the regulations “an unprecedented power grab” and that the regulations would greatly increase energy costs and put some of their industries out of business. Appellate arguments are set to begin June 2, 2016. Thankfully, the SCOTUS put a hold on anything going forward as Powerline opines, “Obama’s EPA was betting that the slow legal process would mean that they’d have a lot of things in place, and many utilities would have complied with the EPA’s dictates, before the law was settled at the Supreme Court.”
A divided Supreme Court on Tuesday abruptly halted President Obama’s controversial new power plant regulations, dealing a blow to the administration’s sweeping plan to address global warming.
In a 5-4 decision, the court halted enforcement of the plan until after legal challenges are resolved.
The surprising move is a victory for the coalition of 27 mostly Republican-led states and industry opponents that call the regulations “an unprecedented power grab.”
By temporarily freezing the rule the high court’s order signals that opponents have made a strong argument against the plan. A federal appeals court last month refused to put it on hold.
The court’s four liberal justices said they would have denied the request.
The plan aims to stave off the worst predicted impacts of climate change by reducing carbon dioxide emissions at existing power plants by about one-third by 2030.
“We disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the Clean Power Plan while litigation proceeds,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement.Earnest said the administration’s plan is based on a strong legal and technical foundation, and gives the states time to develop cost-effective plans to reduce emissions. He also said the administration will continue to “take aggressive steps to make forward progress to reduce carbon emissions.”
WHAT WOULD YOU EXPECT FROM A COMMUNITY AGITATOR?
The New York Post is reporting that newly uncovered internal memos reveal the Obama administration knowingly exaggerated charges of racial discrimination in probes of Ally Bank and other defendants in the $900 billion car-lending business as part of a “racial justice” campaign. Well doesn’t this look like an Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson race baiting shakedown? They would be proud. Hell, the mob would be proud. Then again, is Obama anything any different? This president has done more to harm race relations in this country. Imagine that, seeing that most misguided individuals voted for him to do just the opposite. SHAMEFUL, SIMPLY SHAMEFUL.
Newly uncovered internal memos reveal the Obama administration knowingly exaggerated charges of racial discrimination in probes of Ally Bank and other defendants in the $900 billion car-lending business as part of a “racial justice” campaign that’s looking more like a massive government extortion and shakedown operation.
So far, Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has reached more than $220 million in settlements with several auto lenders since the agency launched its anti-discrimination crusade against the industry in 2013. Several other banks are under active investigation.
That’s despite the fact that the CFPB had no actual complaints of racial discrimination — it was all just based on half-baked statistics.
A confidential 23-page internal report detailing CFPB’s strategy for going after lenders shows why these companies are forking over millions of dollars in restitution and fines to the government despite denying any wrongdoing.
The high-level memo, sent by top CFPB civil-rights prosecutors to the bureau’s director and revealed by a House committee, admits their methods for proving discrimination were seriously flawed from the start and had little chance of holding up in court. Yet they figured they could muscle Ally, as well as future defendants, with threats and intimidation.
Let’s hope that America can survive the damage that has been inflicted upon it and its people during this terrible Obama presidency.
Posted February 8, 2016 by Scared Monkeys
Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Chicago-Style Politics, Community Agitator, Discrimination, Divider in Chief, Epic Fail, Imperial President, Incompetence, Jesse Jackson, Misleader, Politics of Fear, Race Card, Racism, Smear Campaign, The Lying King, Transparency, WTF | one comment
Barack Obama Sheds a Tear During his Gun Control Speech While Trying to Tear Down the Second Amendment and the US Constitution
SO SORRY IF I DON’T TRUST THIS PRESIDENT WHO RAN ON “THEY CLING TO BIBLES AND GUNS” …
The liberal MSM is a flutter that Barack Obama teared up as he gave his speech on gun control in America and assaulted the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. Is it possible that these are not crocodile tears from Obama, sure it is. However, none of his power grab ideas would have prevented any of the mass murders that he is referencing. Also, so sorry if I don’t believe the actions of a man who’s sole purpose is to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. But just curious, why didn’t Obama cry or shed a tear on so many other occasions where people died at the hands of his policies, like Fast & Furious where he armed the bad guys, or in San Bernadino, CA where his lax visa checks allowed a terrorist in the country or the continues release of criminals from prison who used guns in the commission of their crimes?
I think I like the comment at Michelle Malkin.com the best when it comes to Obama pretending to care and trying to be truthful with the American people when it comes to guns, “If you like your 2nd Amendment, you can keep it.”
Mr. Obama will clarify that existing laws require anyone making a living by selling guns to register as a licensed gun dealer and conduct background checks. White House officials said the president would note that criminal penalties already exist for violating those laws.
“We have to be very clear that this is not going to solve every violent crime in this country,” Mr. Obama said on Monday, ahead of a formal announcement on Tuesday. “It’s not going to prevent every mass shooting; it’s not going to keep every gun out of the hands of a criminal.”
Mr. Obama will hire more personnel to process background checks in a timely manner, direct officials to conduct more gun research, improve the information in the background check system, encourage more domestic violence prosecutions and order better tracking of lost guns. He will also make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the background check system, which could bar a gun sale.
But officials said it was impossible to predict whether the new directives would have made any difference in recent shootings, such as the one in San Bernardino, Calif.
IT WAS INEVITABLE … OBAMA IS COMING AFTER YOUR GUNS.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (Second Amendment)
Lame duck Barack Obama is looking to once again fundamentally transform America and directly attack the Second Amendment. CNN is to host a town hall meeting at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia where Obama will look to push gun control even though the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that Americans have the right to bear arms. Sorry, but I don’t trust a word this man says. So he wants to get rid of the guns that protect Americans, really? So then why are the guns not taken away that protect politicians? If Americans allow this to stand, it is the death of liberty. Please do not let this man destroy this country any more than he already has.
President Barack Obama is mounting a final-year push to make gun control part of his legacy despite Republican opposition and is expected to announce unilateral action soon.
He will join CNN’s Anderson Cooper Thursday for an exclusive one-hour live town hall on gun control at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, in hopes of mounting a final pitch to the public.
It’s an issue he has had zero success on so far in his presidency, despite his repeated, emotional appeals for change. Congress has remained a roadblock even in the face of widespread public support for Obama’s past calls for universal background checks or bolstered mental health support, with near uniform opposition from Republicans and a split on the issue among Democrats.
Obama will sit down with Cooper at 8 p.m. ET for the event, titled “Guns in America.” The event’s timing coincides with the fifth anniversary, next Friday, of the shooting of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, in a rampage that left six dead and 13 others wounded.
On January 4, President Obama will meet with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to finalize the executive gun controls expected to be announced next week.
During his first weekly radio address of 2016 Obama said:
A few months ago, I directed my team at the White House to look into any new actions I can take to help reduce gun violence. And on Monday, I’ll meet with our Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, to discuss our options.
Because I get too many letters from parents, and teachers, and kids, to sit around and do nothing. I get letters from responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time these tragedies happen; who share my belief that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to bear arms; and who share my belief we can protect that right while keeping an irresponsible, dangerous few from inflicting harm on a massive scale.
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump told supporters Saturday that he will veto President Obama’s actions on guns if elected to the White House.
“The Second Amendment, it’s so great to me,” Trump said at a campaign rally in Biloxi, Miss.
“We’re not changing the Second Amendment.”
Trump said to loud cheers that there is an “assault” on the Second Amendment as Obama considers executive action on gun control.
“I will veto that. I will unsign that so fast,” Trump said.
NSA Targeting of Israeli Leaders also Swept up the Content of Private Conversations with U.S. Lawmakers … The Hell with Liberties
WELCOME TO OBAMA IN WONDERLAND …
From the WSJ – U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress … National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders also swept up the content of private conversations with U.S. lawmakers. What else would you expect from the anti-liberty president? Barack Obama wound negotiate with Iran, yet spy on an ally like Israel. Isn’t it quite remarkable just how screwed up America has become under Obama as Obama had NSA spy on Israel during Iran nuclear deal negotiations. The hell with the fact that Obama was dealing with state sponsored terrorism and nuclear talks, lets spy on Israel to see how they might react.
It kind of makes you wonder who Barack Obama considers a friend and who he considers a foe. Obama promised to transform America and that is what he has done thanks to Americas voting this dangerous clown back into office. This is not the first time Obama has used government agencies against We the People … can you say IRS-gate of which has been completely swept under the carpet.
President Barack Obama announced two years ago he would curtail eavesdropping on friendly heads of state after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs.
But behind the scenes, the White House decided to keep certain allies under close watch, current and former U.S. officials said. Topping the list was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The U.S., pursuing a nuclear arms agreement with Iran at the time, captured communications between Mr. Netanyahu and his aides that inflamed mistrust between the two countries and planted a political minefield at home when Mr. Netanyahu later took his campaign against the deal to Capitol Hill.
The National Security Agency’s targeting of Israeli leaders and officials also swept up the contents of some of their private conversations with U.S. lawmakers and American-Jewish groups. That raised fears—an “Oh-s— moment,” one senior U.S. official said—that the executive branch would be accused of spying on Congress.
White House officials believed the intercepted information could be valuable to counter Mr. Netanyahu’s campaign. They also recognized that asking for it was politically risky. So, wary of a paper trail stemming from a request, the White House let the NSA decide what to share and what to withhold, officials said. “We didn’t say, ‘Do it,’ ” a senior U.S. official said. “We didn’t say, ‘Don’t do it.’ ”
According to liberal logic, this makes Obama an anti-Semite.
President Obama announced two years ago that he would stop eavesdropping on leaders of U.S. allies, after the world learned the reach of long-secret U.S. surveillance programs. According to The Wall Street Journal, this meant an end to spying on French President François Hollande, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and other North Atlantic Treaty Organization leaders.
However, Israel apparently failed to make Obama’s list of true allies. The Journal reports that the NSA continued routinely to intercept the communications of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and send them to White House officials for dissection.
And that’s not all. Spying on Netanyahu reportedly led to eavesdropping on members of Congress and leaders of American Jewish organization with whom the Israeli prime minister and his government communicated.
Originally, the stated justification for spying on Netanyahu was fear that he would attack Iran without first warning the U.S. However, by 2013, U.S. intelligence agencies had determined that Israel wasn’t going to strike Iran, so the rationale shifted. Now, Team Obama wanted to know whether Israel had learned of secret negotiations between the U.S. and Iran.
JUST CURIOUS, ISN’T THIS GUY JUST AN UNDOCUMENTED WHITE HOUSE RESIDENT?
Meet the man who dared interrupted Barack Obama and the First families Thanksgiving Day dinner as he jumped the White House fence. 23 year old Joseph Anthony Caputo scaled the White House fence last week draped in an American flag and was soon after taken into custody by the secret service. Hmm, oh the irony, jumping the White House fence is considered illegal by an American citizen, but jumping the fence and coming across the Mexican-US border by a non-citizen is not.
But I would ask the question, why was he arrested, why is he made to undergo a psychiatric exam? According to his lawyer, Joseph Anthony Caputo was “not militant, not violent” and definitely not suicidal. Maybe there lies the rub. If he was an illegal or a Syrian refugee, maybe Joseph Anthony Caputo would be a free man today and instead of a court date, he would be a guest of Barack Obama and praised as a Pilgrim. What was Caputo thinking draping himself with the American flag? Dude, you should have used the Mexican or Syrian flag. If you had, you would have been praised by Obama. Just how intolerant could Obama be, maybe this man just thought of himself as an undocumented illegal alien or a Syrian refugee.
An attorney for the man who climbed over the White House fence last week said his client was a “good American” who meant no harm but had chosen an unusual means of delivering proposals to improve government.
Joseph Anthony Caputo, 23, was “not militant, not violent” and definitely not suicidal, although he was portrayed that way in news accounts, said the lawyer, Stephan Seeger.
I ask this as a serious question, why does the White House have a fence around it and is illegal to trespass on White House grounds? Isn’t the White House supposed to be a microcosm of the United States? Why is it illegal to jump a White House fence but not a United States border fence? Think about it. Different rules for the king as opposed to the peasants.
YES HE IS AND EVEN MORE INSANE AND THANKS TO THOSE WHO VOTED FOR THIS DANGEROUS, LYING PRESIDENT FOR A SECOND TIME …
Following the Paris terror attacks and the threats by ISIS to infiltrate as Syrian refugees, Barack Obama plans to accept 10,000 Syrian refugees in 2016 and we won’t have a clue as to who they are. Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump quested the mental soundness of President Obama plans by saying, What’s our president doing? Is he insane?”
Billionaire businessman and Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump is questioning the mental soundness of President Obama in light of the administration’s plans to allow Syrian refugees into the United States.
“Refugees are pouring into our great country from Syria. We don’t even know who they are. They could be [Islamic State]. They could be anybody. What’s our president doing? Is he insane?” Mr. Trump said in a short video posted to social media on Tuesday.
This president forgot a long time ago what his oath of office meant.
CNN Reporter Jim Acosta Asks Barack Obama: “Why Can’t We Take Out These Bastards?” … Listen To Obama’s Defensive Answer
FROM THE FAILURE IN CHIEF, LISTEN TO BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA MORE DEFENSIVE AND UPSET WITH REPORTERS QUESTIONS THAN WITH ISIS …
How dare the media hold Emperor Barack Obama accountable for his failed policies, who do they think they are? Following Obama’s pathetic ISIS speech at the G-20 Summit in Turkey, the King held court and answered questions from the minions. Many have been critical of Obama’s policies is dealing with ISIS, but is is startling that the liberal media is now taking the lead and posing some glaring questions to Obama. CNN’s Jim Acosta asked Barack Obama the question that pretty much all Americans have wanted to ask, “Why Can’t We Take Out These Bastards?”
“Jim, I just spent the last three questions answering that very question, so I don’t know what more you want me to add. I think I’ve described very specifically what our strategy is, and I’ve described very specifically why we do not pursue some of the other strategies that have been suggested.”
In response to Acosta’s question, Obama reiterated that the U.S. military could retake territory from the Islamic State, but the result would be occupation. An occupation, huh? Is this what this fool really thinks? So we are not going to destroy this festering cancer called ISIS because this liberal coward this it will be an occupation? Obama went on to say, “So we are going to continue to pursue the strategy that has the best chance of working, even though it does not offer the satisfaction, I guess, of a neat headline or an immediate resolution.” OBAMA, WHAT PART DON’T YOU GET THAT YOUR STRATEGY IS FAILING!!!
CNN senior White House correspondent Jim Acosta took an unusually blunt approach Monday in questioning President Barack Obama about why the United States has not destroyed the Islamic State, the militant group also known as ISIS.
“A lot of Americans have this frustration that they see the United States has the greatest military in the world, it has the backing of nearly every other country in the world when it comes to taking on ISIS,” Acosta said. “I guess the question is, and if you’ll forgive the language, but why can’t we take out these bastards?”
Obama, who was speaking in Antalya, Turkey, at the G-20 summit, responded that he had “just spent the last three questions answering that very question.”
Earlier Monday, Obama had defended the U.S. strategy against the Islamic State, which has largely focused on airstrikes, amid calls for deploying a large number of ground troops in response to the Paris terrorist attacks. Obama said a ground invasion would be a “mistake” because it would require using U.S. troops to occupy Iraqi and Syrian cities indefinitely.
Posted November 17, 2015 by Scared Monkeys
Apologist in Chief, Barack Obama, Bystander in Chief, CNN, Epic Fail, Imperial President, Incompetence, ISIS, Leading from Behind, Lost in Smallness, Media, Misleader, Radical Islam, The Dodger in Chief, The Lying King, War on Terror, WTF, You Tube - VIDEO | no comments
JUDICIAL WATCH SAYS THAT THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE USED ORGANIZATIONS OWN DONOR LISTS TO TARGET AUDITS …
Sorry, but the IRS needs to be disbanded and a new way of taxation needs to be devised. Never again should any US citizen ever be the target of such viscous tyranny. Juridical Watch is saying that the IRS used donor lists to target unwarranted audits of those opposed to Barack Obama and his policies. Imagine that. The Founding Fathers never intended for any such government agency to ever have this kind f power and fear over its citizens. We fought a Revolutionary War to rid ourselves from tyranny.
“These documents that we had to force out of the IRS prove that the agency used donor lists to audit supporters of organizations engaged in First Amendment-protected lawful political speech,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fittonsaid .
Government watchdog group Judicial Watch has obtained documents that show the Internal Revenue Service used donor lists from conservative tax-exempt organizations to determine who it would target for audits.
The IRS produced the documents in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the group.
“These documents that we had to force out of the IRS prove that the agency used donor lists to audit supporters of organizations engaged in First Amendment-protected lawful political speech,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
A letter dated September 28, 2010, then-Democrat Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) informs then-IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman: “ I request that you and your agency survey major 501(c)(4), (c)(5) and (c)(6) organizations …” In reply, in a letter dated February 17, 2011, Shulman writes: “In the work plan of the Exempt Organizations Division, we announced that beginning in FY2011, we are increasing our focus on section 501(c)(4), (5) and (6) organizations.”
In 2010, after receiving Baucus’s letter, the IRS considered the issue of auditing donors to 501(c)(4) organizations, alleging that a 35 percent gift tax would be due on donations in excess of $13,000. The documents show that the IRS wanted to cross-check donor lists from 501(c)(4) organizations against gift tax filings and commence audits against taxpayers based on this information.
A gift tax on contributions to 501(c)(4)’s was considered by most to be a dead letter since the IRS had never enforced the rule after the Supreme Court ruled that such taxes violated the First Amendment. The documents show that the IRS had not enforced the gift tax since 1982.
But then, in February 2011, at least five donors of an unnamed organization were audited.
Any for any of you who think the Obama White House and most likely Obama himself was not directly behind this IRS scandal of targeting Obama’s conservative enemies, I bet you believe you can keep your doctor, hospital and healthcare plan under Obamacare too.
STRIKE 2: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals today told Barack Obama where he can stick his pen …
Today, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States has dealt Barack Obama’s Executive order on Amnesty a tremendous blow. Two of three judges on a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans sided on the rule of law and the US Constitution. Judges Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Elrod both ruled and refused to lift an injunction against President Obama’s deportation amnesty and said the president’s new program, known as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA), is a binding policy that should have gone through the usual public notice and comment period instead of being announced unilaterally by Mr. Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson late last year
A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied the Obama administration’s request to lift a hold on the president’s executive actions on immigration, which would have granted protection from deportation as well as work permits to millions of immigrants in the country illegally.
Two of three judges on a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, left in place an injunction by a Federal District Court judge in Brownsville, Tex. The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other states against actions President Obama took in November. Many of the initiatives were scheduled to take effect this month.
The appeals court found that the states had sufficient legal grounds to bring the lawsuit and that the administration had not shown that it would be harmed if the injunction remained in place and the programs were further delayed.
Also denied was a request by the administration to limit the injunction to the states bringing the lawsuit. The ruling is a second setback for programs the president hoped would be a major piece of his legacy, raising new uncertainty about whether they will take effect before the end of his term and casting doubts on the confidence of administration lawyers that their case was very strong.
Remember when Obama said he didn’t have the power to pass such amnesty and then did it anyhow?