Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Obama Adminstration’

The Net Neutrality Scam


Posted By Ryan McMaken | Mises.org On February 26, 2015

Article reblogged from Infowars: http://www.infowars.com

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://www.infowars.com/the-net-neutrality-scam/

The Net Neutrality Scam

Yet again, the government wants to fix a problem that doesn’t exist.

According to the Obama administration and the FCC, it is necessary to regulate internet service providers so that they don’t interfere with people’s access to the web. The claim immediately prompts one to ask: Who is being denied access to the web?

In the past twenty years, access to the internet has only become more widespread and service today is far faster for many people — including “ordinary” people — than it was twenty years ago, or even ten years ago. Today, broadband in Europe, where the internet is more tightly regulated, has less reach than it has in the United States.

The administration’s plan is rather innocuously called “net neutrality,” but in fact it has nothing at all to do with neutrality and is just a scheme to vastly increase the federal government’s control over the internet. cropped-ignorance.png

What is Net Neutrality?

We don’t know the details of the plan because the FCC refuses to let the taxpayers see the 300-page proposal before the FCC votes on it today. But, we do know a few things.

  • Currently, ISPs are regulated by the FCC, but as an “information service” under the less restrictive rules of so-called Title I. But now, the FCC wants to regulate ISPs as utilities under the far more restrictive Title II restrictions. For a clue as to how cutting edge this idea is, remember this switch to Title II regulation would put ISPs into the same regulatory regime as Ma Bell under the Communications Act of 1934.

So what does this mean for the FCC in practice? According to FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, “It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.” More specifically, Gordon Crovitz at the Wall Street Journal writes:

[With Net Netruality,] bureaucrats can review the fairness of Google’s search results, Facebook’s news feeds and news sites’ links to one another and to advertisers. BlackBerry is already lobbying the FCC to force Apple and Netflix to offer apps for BlackBerry’s unpopular phones. Bureaucrats will oversee peering, content-delivery networks and other parts of the interconnected network that enables everything from Netflix and YouTube to security drones and online surgery.

The administration insists these measures are necessary because — even though there is no evidence that this has actually happened — it is possible that at some point in the future, internet service providers could restrict some content and apps on the internet. Thus, we are told, control of content should be handed over to the federal government to ensure that internet service providers are “neutral” when it comes to deciding what is on the internet and what is not.Imperial President Obama kingobamafingerconstitution-300x204 Tyrant Obama Freedom is not dictator friendly

Can Goods Be Allocated in a “Neutral” Way?

The problem is that there is no such thing as “neutral” allocation of resources, whether done by government or the marketplace. In the marketplace, goods and services tend to be allocated according to those who demand the goods the most. Where demand is highest, prices are highest, so goods and services tend to go to where they are most demanded. This makes perfect sense, of course, and also reflects the inherent democracy of the markets. Where larger numbers of people put more resources is where more goods and services will head.

It is this mechanism that drives the marketplaces for food, clothing, and a host of other products. Consequently, both food and clothing have become so plentiful that obesity is a major health problem and second-hand clothing stores, selling barely-worn discarded clothing, are a boom industry, even in affluent neighborhoods. Similarly, cell phones have only become more affordable and more widespread in recent decades.

For industries where new firms may freely enter, and customers are not compelled to buy, companies or individuals that wish to make money must use their resources in ways that are freely demanded by others. Unless they have been granted monopoly power by government, no firm can simply ignore its customers. If they do, competing firms will enter the marketplace with other goods and services. Although goods allocated in this fashion are — according to the administration — not being allocated “neutrally,” the fact is that more people now have more service at higher speeds than was the case in the past. Furthermore, even if firms (or the government) attempted to allocate goods in a neutral manner, it would be impossible to do so, because neither society nor the physical world are neutral.

In his recent interview on new neutrality, Peter Klein used the analogy of a grocery store. In modern-day grocery stores, suppliers of food and drink will negotiate with stores (using so-called “slotting allowances”) to have their goods advertised near the front of the store or have goods placed on store shelves at eye level. If government were to tell grocery stores to start being more “neutral” about where it places goods, we can see immediately that such a thing is impossible. After all, somebody’s goods have to be at eye level or near the front of the store. Who is to decide? A handful of government bureaucrats, or thousands of consumers who with their purchases control the success and failure of firms?

In a similar way, bandwidth varies for various ISP clients depending the infrastructure available, and the resources available to each client. And yet, in spite of the administration’s fear-mongering that ISPs will lock out clients of humble means, and the need to hand all bandwidth over to plutocrats, internet access continues to expand. And who can be surprised? Have grocery stores stopped carrying low-priced nutritious food such as bananas and oatmeal just because Nabisco Corp. pays for better product placement for its costly processed foods? Obviously not.cropped-freedom-is-not-dictator-friendly.png

Who will Control the FCC?

All goods need not be allocated in response to the human-choice-driven price mechanism of the marketplace. Goods and services can also be allocated by political means. That is, states, employing coercive means can seize goods and services and allocate them according to certain political goals and the goals of people in positions of political power. There is nothing “neutral” about this method of allocating resources.

In the net neutrality debate, it’s almost risible that some are suggesting that the FCC will somehow necessarily work in the “public” interest;

  • First of all, we can already see how the FCC regards the public with its refusal to make its own proposals public.
  • Second, who will define who the “public” is?
  • And finally, after identifying who the “public” is, how will the governing bodies of the FCC determine what the “public” wants?Different Free Speech Ideologies

It’s a safe bet there will be no plebiscitary process, so what mechanism will be used? In practice, bureaucratic agencies respond to lobbying and political pressure like any other political institution. Those who can most afford to lobby and provide information to the FCC, however, will not be ordinary people who have the constraints of household budgets and lives to live in places other than Washington, DC office buildings. No, the general public will be essentially powerless because regulatory regimes diminish the market power of customers.

Most of the interaction that FCC policymakers will have with the “public” will be through lobbyists working for the internet service providers, so what net neutrality does is turn the attention of the ISPs away from the consumers themselves and toward the regulatory agency. In the marketplace, a firm’s customers are the most important decision makers. But the more regulated an industry becomes, the more important the regulating agency becomes to the firm’s owners and managers.2

The natural outcome will be more “regulatory capture,” in which the institutions with the most at stake in a regulatory agency’s decisions end up controlling the agencies themselves. We see this all the time in the revolving door between legislators, regulators, and lobbyists. And you can also be sure that once this happens, the industry will close itself off to new innovative firms seeking to enter the marketplace. The regulatory agencies will ensure the health of the status quo providers at the cost of new entrepreneurs and new competitors.

Nor are such regulatory regimes even “efficient” in the mainstream use of the term. As economist Douglass North noted, regulatory regimes do not improve efficiency, but serve the interests of those with political power:

“Institutions are not necessarily or even usually created to be socially efficient; rather they, or at least the formal rules, are created to serve the interests of those with the bargaining power to create new rules.”Any man who thinks Master

So, if populists think net neutrality will somehow give “the people” greater voice in how bandwidth is allocated and ISPs function, they should think again.

Freedom with Prayer

Sharia Advisors – Barack Obama’s Muslim Appointees in High Security Positions


http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/sharia-advisers-barack-obamas-muslim-appointees/#22YuZGYdB1gqKBgK.99

Just how does one even begin to understand how the President would place people into positions that seem like placing the proverbial Fox in the Chicken Coop? Barack Obama has placed individuals who represent, or are a part of, the Muslim Brotherhood into high security positions. Is this due to the fact that Obama is a Muslim? Is this due to the fact that Obama may think that showing the Muslim community he has placed Muslims in high positions will stop them from hating the United States? Could this be due to his Marxist ideology he developed while at Occidental College? Maybe, just maybe, it is because Obama just does not wish for the United States to be strong and he wants to show the world the United States is not the leader it once was. One thing Obama has shown to the world is that he is not a world leader nor is he an American leader.

Let us get to the people we are talking about and the positions they have been placed in by Obama. We’ll also see what their background is, and how it could ruin the United States. First, we must mention a recent report about a new “Party” being comprised of the same type of individuals that killed all those people in the Twin Towers! This new party is made up of fundamentalist Muslims here in the United States with their main goal being to take over the United States from within. Their plans are to place their candidates into elections to win so they can destroy the Constitution and create a nation of Islamic laws!

These very people we are about to expose are associated with this line of thinking, and the Socialists/Marxists within Congress are showing them the way. The majority of what is contained in this article is backed up by links to sources that that you can read and decide for yourselves whether or not there is a serious Islamic threat to the United States.

Let’s begin our expose.

Muslims in the White House Administration

 Arif Alikhan

Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

  • Former deputy mayor of Homeland Security and Public Safety for the City of Los Angeles
  • Was responsible for derailing the LAPD’s plan to monitor activities within the Los Angeles Muslim community
  • Was appointed as assistant secretary for the Office of Policy Development in Barack Obama’s Department of Homeland Security in 2009
  • Became a Professor of Homeland Security and Counterterrorism in 2010

An opponent of President George W. Bush’s prosecution of the war on Islamic terror, Alikhan was responsible for derailing the LAPD‘s efforts to monitor activities within the city’s Muslim community, where numerous radical mosques and madrassas were known to exist, and where some of the 9/11 hijackers had received support from local residents.

In April 2009, President Barack Obama‘s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano appointed Alikhan as assistant secretary for DHS’s Office of Policy Development. Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations‘ Los Angeles branch, praised the “well-deserved” appointment.

Thirteen days prior to his DHS appointment, Alikhan, a devout Sunni Muslim, had participated in a Muslim Public Affairs Council fundraiser titled “Be the Change,” to support that organization’s leadership-development programs.

Even the left leaning site Snopes confirms this:

Obama Appoints 2 Devout Muslims to Homeland Security Posts 

Obama and Janet Nappy Appoint Devout Muslim to Homeland Security Post,

Arif Alikhan as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development…
Kareem Shora, who was born in Damascus, Syria was appointed by DHS Secretary Napolitano on Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC)

Arif Alikhan, the son of Pakistani immigrants, served for seven years as a federal prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles specializing in computer crime, and in November 2006 the mayor of Los Angeles chose him to serve as the Deputy Mayor of Homeland Security for that city. In April 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano appointed Mr. Alikhan to the position of Assistant Secretary for Policy Development in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS):

Arif comes from Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa’s office, where he served as Deputy Mayor for Homeland Security and Public Safety. As a key adviser to the Mayor, he has led the City’s efforts to develop homeland security, emergency management and law enforcement initiatives, including operational oversight of Los Angeles Police, Fire and Emergency Management departments. He is a former federal prosecutor and senior advisor to the U.S. Attorney General, and has partnered extensively with local, state and federal agencies.

Before serving as Deputy Mayor, Alikhan was a career prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice from 1997-2006. During that time, he served as Chief of the Cyber and Intellectual Crimes Section for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles and as a Senior Advisor to the U.S. Attorney General in Washington, D.C., where he oversaw the national Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Program for the Department of Justice. Alikhan holds a J.D. from Loyola Law School and a B.A. from the University of California, Irvine.

Devout Muslims being appointed to critical Homeland Security positions? Was it not men of the “Devout Muslim Faith” that flew planes into U.S. buildings not too long ago? What the heck is this president thinking?

Here we show devout Muslim style people holding posts that have deep inside operations over the “Security” of the United States! Now, one has to wonder why has this happened and what was Obama thinking of when he made these appointments? Is this just a reflection of Obama’s deep inside ideologies, or is this Obama’s way to work out his Marxist ideology he was developed back in 1981?

We must move on to the other 5 individuals with backgrounds deeply embedded with Muslim ideology, and in some cases, links to the very Muslim Brotherhood that is proud to state they wish to destroy the United States. This is the same Muslim Brotherhood that Barack Obama’s brother, Malik, helps to finance and of which the Egyptian media has said Obama is a member. As a side note, one of Barack Obama’s foundations, which was founded by Malik, is tied to terrorism.

Mohammed Elibiary
– Homeland Security Adviser

Now, here we have an individual that is an Islamic Cleric!

  • Islamic cleric
  • Admirer of the late Ayatollah Khomeini 
  • Has advised numerous law-enforcement organizations on homeland security-related matters
  • Was named to President Obama’s Homeland Security Advisory Council in 2010
  • Misused classified documents in an effort to promote the notion that “Islamophobia” was widespread

Mohamed Elibiary is a Texas-based Islamic cleric who founded Lone Star Intelligence LLC, a security crisis consulting firm, and the Freedom and Justice Foundation (F&J), a Muslim nonprofit group established in November 2002 to “promote a centrist public-policy environment in Texas by coordinating the state-level government and interfaith community relations for the organized Texas Muslim community.” F&J played a key role in successfully lobbying for the passage of Texas’s Halal Food Law (the state’s first Muslim consumer-protection statute), and for the institution of Islamic prayers (recited by Imams) in both chambers of the State Legislature.(Where are the athieist where this is concerned? JB)

Elibiary was a guest speaker at a December 2004 conference in Dallas, titled “A Tribute to the Great Islamic Visionary,” which was held in honor of the late Ayatollah Khomeini. When a reporter subsequently asked Elibiary to explain why he had chosen to appear at an event honoring the iconic jihadist, Elibiary claimed not to have known in advance about the conference’s agenda. When journalist Rod Dreher of the Dallas Morning News voiced skepticism about Elibiary’s explanation, the latter threatened Dreher, telling him: “Expect someone to put a banana in your exhaust pipe.”

In a 2006 letter to the Dallas Morning News, Elibiary defended the profoundly anti-American early Muslim Brotherhood leader and theorist Sayyid Qutb, stating: “I’d recommend everyone read Qutb, but read him with an eye to improving America not just to be jealous with malice in our hearts.”

In October 2011 it was reported that Elibiary had recently been given access to a highly sensitive DPS database (the Homeland Security State and Local Intelligence Community of Interest, or HS SLIC) containing hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports intended solely to aid law-enforcement agencies. In fact, Elibiary was the only Homeland Security Advisory Council member (out of 26) who was permitted to view the HS SLIC.Really 01

In early November 2011, Elibiary’s access to the HS SLIC database was revoked. He retained his post as a Department of Homeland Security advisor, however. In September 2013 he was promoted to senior advisor at the Advisory Council, a title held only by a small number of select members.

In October 2013, Elibiary said: “I do consider the United States of America an Islamic country with an Islamically compliant constitution.” What he meant was that the Constitution and Islamic law reflect the same values and principles.Really 01

On more than one occasion in 2013, Elibiary opined that his close friend, former Holy Land Foundation president and CEO Shukri Abu Baker — who had been convicted in 2008 of financing the terrorist organization Hamas – was, in fact, an innocent victim of political persecution.

Is it any wonder that Obama is seen as a very weak President? Making appointments like this do not help with a firm appraisal of the situation. Elibiary has serious problems engaging in taqiyyah, as evidenced here, here, here and here.

Rashad Hussain

Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)

  • Was named deputy associate counsel to President Barack Obama in 2009
  • Was appointed (by Obama) as a special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference in 2010

In October 2000, Hussain spoke at a conference sponsored by the Association of Muslim Social Scientists and Georgetown University’s Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. Titled “Islam, Pluralism, and Democracy,” this gathering featured appearances by numerous leaders of the global Muslim Brotherhood, including such notables as Louay Safi, Jamal Barzinji, Hisham Al-Talib, and Abdul Hamid Abu Sulayman.

In June 2002, Hussain participated in a Congressional Staffers panel at the American Muslim Council‘s (AMC) 11th annual convention. At that time, AMC was headed by the Muslim Brotherhood leader Abdurahman Alamoudi, who would later be convicted and incarcerated on terrorism charges.

In 2003, Hussain was a recipient of the Paul & Daisy Soros Fellowship for New Americans, which was founded by, and named after, George Soros‘s older brother and sister-in-law.Really 01

In January 2009, Hussain — recruited by Cassandra Butts, advisor to (and former Harvard Law School classmate of) President Barack Obama — was named deputy associate counsel to the President. In that position, Hussain focused on issues involving national security, new media, and outreach to the Muslim community. As Obama prepared for his June 2009 trip to Cairo, Hussain helped Ben Rhodes, the President’s principal foreign-policy speechwriter, draft the address that Obama would deliver at Cairo’s Al-Azhar University. According to Hussain, his own input was geared toward emphasizing the contributions that Muslims have made to American society, and clarifying the context behind some passages in the Koran. (I would like someone to tell me what they were? JB)

In August 2010, Hussain took part in an interfaith “bridge-building” trip organized by the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Suhail Khan. Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism pointed out that “two of the Islamic leaders attending the trip … had made anti-Semitic, radical Islamic statements or [had] justified terrorist attacks” on previous occasions.

It should be noted that, notwithstanding his ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies, Hussain endorses the use of the term “Hamas terrorists.” Further, he urges Muslim leaders to spread the message that genuine Islam forbids acts of terrorism and extremism. While aiming to “discredi[t] the terrorist ideology,” however, Hussain cautions against efforts to tie that objective to the imposition of democracy on Islamic nations; such efforts, says Hussain, could be perceived by Muslims as manifestations of an imperialistic mindset. Thus, he proposes that the U.S. build a Muslim coalition “not limited to those who advocate Western-style democracy, and avoid creating a dichotomy between freedom and Islamic society.”

Now could one even think of the kind of flack a Republican would garner to have this guy associated with the White House in any way? It has to make one wonder just what is Obama doing? Is he really making a very bold attempt to destroy the United States? Let us continue.

Salam al-Marayati
– Obama Adviser and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council and is its current executive director

  • Founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council
  • Accused Israelis of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks
  • Hamas and Hezbollah sympathizer

Just these 3 things alone should have brought forth questions, but we as Citizens of the United States have been asleep at the wheel and now need to take that wheel away from Obama and all his Islamic, Socialist, Communist, and Marxist friends before we lose our very freedoms. Take a look at this guy’s background.

Salam Al-Marayati is the founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a Los Angeles-based Islamic advocacy group that defends Muslim extremist violence. MPAC has condemned the anti-terrorism measures of both the U.S. and Israel and has called for a repeal of the Patriot Act.

On the afternoon of September 11, 2001, Al-Marayati used a Los Angeles talk radio program as a forum in which to accuse the Israelis of responsibility for that morning’s attacks on New York and Washington. Al-Marayati has also called for the U.S. government to unfreeze the assets of two Islamic charities, the Global Relief Foundation and the Holy Land Foundation, that were shut down by the government because of funding they had given to terrorist organizations.

Al-Marayati refuses to call Hezbollah a terrorist group. “I don’t think any group should be judged 100% this or that,” he says. “I think every group is going to have . . . its claim of liberation and resistance.” He has similarly justified Hamas‘ existence as a political entity that promotes social programs and “educational operations.” “Yesterday’s terrorists in the Middle East are today’s leaders,” he says. “The PLO is the number one example of this . . . The PLO 35 years ago was considered a terrorist organization, nobody should deal with them . . . But they became the people in authority, in Palestine, today. So Hamas today, the way it’s being viewed, is exactly how the PLO was viewed 30 years ago. And, in fact, even Hamas in terms of its social and educational operations is doing exactly what the PLO was doing 35 years ago, as well as its quote unquote military operations.”Really 01

In October 2010, the Barack Obama administration picked Al-Marayati to represent the U.S. government at the annual Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe human-rights conference, known as the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting.

Now this guy seems to be a real piece of work. He should never be associated with any part of the United States, especially when it comes to advising the president and having any say in domestic or foreign policy.

Imam Mohamed Magid
– Obama’s Sharia Czar from the Islamic Society of North America 

This shows a direct link to Obama himself and this guy is a “leader” of a group that does not like the United States Constitution nor its people! But let us show you just who this character is!

  • President of the Islamic Society of North America
  • Accused the Bush administration of waging a “war against Islam and Muslims”
  • Says that media references to jihad as “holy war” constitute a “misuse” of that term
  • Was named to President Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2011
  • Persuaded DHS to erase from its “Countering Violent Extremism” curriculum any suggestion that Muslim terrorism draws its inspiration from the laws and doctrines of Islam 

Ten days after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Magid, angered by what he perceived to be a growing anti-Muslim sentiment among the American people, belligerently told journalists: “We cannot be apologetic about being Muslims in this country … We have a right to be Muslim.”Really 01

In March 2002, federal agents raided the offices of many northern-Virginia-based Muslim organizations, including ADAMS, on suspicion that they were providing material support to terrorists. This initiative, known as “Operation Green Quest,” was the largest investigation of terror-financing ever conducted anywhere in the world. Soon after the raids had been completed, Magid held a public meeting in the town of Sterling, where he encouraged “community building” among the groups that were being investigated. To this meeting, he invited such notables as Kit Gage of the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom; Mahdi Bray, political advisor for the Muslim Public Affairs Council; and Nihad Awad, the pro-Hamas executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Awad told the outraged crowd: “This is a war against Islam and Muslims. Our administration [i.e., the Bush administration] has the burden of proving otherwise.”

Notwithstanding his combative track record, Magid has cultivated, in media and political circles, an image as a moderate Muslim. The Huffington Post, for one, has dubbed him “America’s Imam.” In 2005, Time magazine published a lengthy profile of Magid, likewise depicting him as a voice of moderation who “work[s] closely with the FBI,” “regularly opens doors for [FBI] agents trying to cultivate contacts in his Muslim community,” and “alerts the bureau when suspicious persons approach his congregation.” The Time report, however, angered many of Magid’s Muslim constituents who viewed the FBI as their enemy. Consequently, Magid felt compelled to issue a “clarifying statement” explaining that his meetings with FBI personnel were intended mainly to “convey … that our Muslim community needs to be treated as partners, not as suspects,” and to “work with law enforcement to preserve our civil liberties and civil rights.” Further, Magid emphasized that he and his fellow Muslim leaders did “not use these monthly meetings to report upon the activities of our community members.”

In 2011 President Barack Obama appointed Magid to serve on the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Countering Violent Extremism Working Group. In this position, Magid was authorized to train and advise personnel affiliated with the FBI and other federal agencies. He soon became a regular visitor to the White House, and merged as perhaps the most influential and sought-after Muslim authority in the United States. (Does anyone else see the stupidity in this? JB)

In his new DHS role, Magid, claiming that media references to jihad as “holy war” constituted a “misuse” of the term, asked Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez to: arrange for Magid to meet regularly with top Justice Department officials; allow Magid to reeducate FBI agents vis a vis Islam and its practitioners; and carefully avoid criticism of Islam, which Magid characterized as “religious bigotry and hate.” Magid and other Muslim lobbyists also persuaded government officials to ban the practice, at airports, of conducting the extra security checks on passengers traveling from a number of Islamic countries — checks that had been instituted after a Nigerian Muslim tried to blow up a passenger plane on Christmas Day 2009.

In response to pressure from Magid and his fellow lobbyists, DHS carefully erased from its “Countering Violent Extremism” curriculum any suggestion that Muslim terrorism drew its inspiration from the laws and doctrines of Islam. In 2012, the FBI purged some 700 documents and 300 presentations from its training materials and lesson plans. (But, that same material lists Evangelical Christians as radical extremist that need to be watched. JB)

On March 8, 2013, Magid and ten religious leaders met with President Obama for a 90-minute conversation about immigration reform. Also present at the meeting was senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett. Three days later, Magid took part in a meeting with Obama where the President listened to “recommendations” designed to help him prepare for his upcoming diplomacy trip to the Middle East.

In addition to his DHS work, Magid has also served with the National Security Council and has been a member of the FBI’s Muslim, Sikh, and Arab Advisory Board.
* Magid is a member of the Peaceful Families Project; the Annual Twinning of Mosques and Synagogues; Fairfax Faith Communities in Action; the Interfaith Conference of Metropolitan Washington Assembly; the National Interfaith Planning Committee for Domestic Violence; the Buxton Interfaith Initiative; and the George Mason University Campus Ministry. He is also the chairman of Fairfax County Faith Communities in Action, a board member of the Fairfax County Partnership for Youth, and a board member of the FaithTrust Institute.

* In 2010 and 2011, Magid attended Ramadan Iftar Dinners at the Obama White House.

Is it just us or does it seem that these people shown here do not present the best ideas for a free United States? How in the world could anyone place such individuals in the positions Obama has them in? This makes the United States look weak, giving refuge and high security clearance to people that do not wish the nation any good! However, there is one more individual we wish to expose.

Eboo Patel
– Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships

Now this guy is really out there with all sorts of problems, but where has the Lame stream media been to ask questions about people such as this man? Has our nation lost the drive to ask serious questions and only accept what is doled out to them in spoons of filth? Eboo Patel:

Now this is going to get very interesting, but why has the “Lame Stream Media” overlooked this one?

In 2005 Patel and several young radicals co-authored the book Letters from Young Activists: Today’s Rebels Speak Out. Among Patel’s co-authors were Chesa Boudin (the adopted son of former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers) and Ismail Khalidi (the son of Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi). The book’s Preface was written by Ayers’ wife, Weather Underground co-founder Bernardine Dohrn. The back cover featured an endorsement from the convicted cop-killer and former Black Panther Party member Mumia Abu-Jamal. And on the Acknowledgments page, Patel and his fellow authors thanked Ayers personally for the “guidance” and “encouragement” he had provided.

(Does the title sound a bit like Obama’s book, Dreams of My Father? Maybe Bill Ayers wrote the one for this guy too?) 

In Patel’s 2007 book, “Saving Each Other, Saving Ourselves”, the author recounts discussions that he had with Imam Rauf regarding the future of Islam in the United States. “Islam is a religion that has always been revitalized by its migration,” writes Patel. “America is a nation that has been constantly rejuvenated by immigrants. There is now a critical mass of Muslims in America.” The website of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, an organization co-founded by Rauf, once listed Patel as one of the top “Muslim Leaders of Tomorrow.”

In a 2007 interview with National Public Radio to promote his next newly published book, Acts of Faith, Patel was asked about the “affinity” he felt for the radicalism of Bill Ayers, as he described in the book. Noting that “I actually grew up in the same hometown that Bill Ayers did,” Patel replied: “I was kind of taught the same myths about America, a land of freedom and equality and justice, etc., etc. And then, when I got to college, I saw people eating out of garbage cans for dinner, and I saw Vietnam vets drinking mouthwash for the alcohol, and I thought to myself, this is not the myth that I grew up with.” This harsh reality, Patel said, caused him to feel enormous “rage,” and he credited the “faith-based movement” for having helped him “direc[t] that rage in a direction far more compassionate and far more merciful—with the Catholic Worker Movement.” “Had [I] been one of the people involved in the Weather Underground who were sitting at my kitchen table when I was 18 years old and raging,” said Patel, “my life could have been very different.”

In late July 2011, Patel spoke at the main event of a three-day convention held by the Muslim Students Association. Specifically, he participated in a panel alongside Tariq Ramadan (grandson of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hasan al-Banna) and Siraj Wahhaj (who was named as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing). 

In 2011 Patel depicted Van Jones, the revolutionary communist who had served several months as President Obama’s “green jobs” czar, as an “American patriot,” a “faith hero,” and one of “the true giants of history.”

Patel is a regular contributor to the Washington Post, National Public Radio, and CNN. He has blogged for the Huffington Post, USA Today, and Sojourners, among other outlets. Moreover, he has served on the Council on Foreign Relations’ religious advisory committee, the Aga Khan Foundation’s national committee, and the Duke University Islamic Studies Center’s advisory board. He is a fellow of the Ashoka Foundation, and has spoken in such major venues as the Clinton Global Initiative and the Nobel Peace Prize Forum.

 

Now this guy sounds bad. Could you think of what he would have done had he lived and worked with Bill Ayers in the Weather Underground? To have this man as the head of your “Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships” just seems to be extending a hand to the devil himself!

We have shown just a few of the very questionable appointees that Obama has made, and these people should have raised red flags all over the place. The so-called “News Media” should have been on this like flies on sugar, but it appears that the people just do not seem to care or they are apathetic. They just do not want to see what is going on in their own backyard, and even though it is a big one, the entire United States is our back yard.

If we don’t know what is going on in our own back yard, one day we will wake up to Bayonets in our faces, being marched off to camps of reorientation, or worse! If we as a nation do not wake up, and soon, it may well be too late to save the US from the throws of Dictatorship and the caliphate. We know this sounds very critical, but if we do not take a stand as was done in Nevada with Cliven Bundy, we will all lose our freedom.

About Leon Puissegur

<img alt=” src=’http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/81ca12ddbeb4f68fdd595848c3ced8a6?s=68&d=http%3A%2F%2F0.gravatar.com%2Favatar%2Fad516503a11cd5ca435acc9bb6523536%3Fs%3D68&r=G’ class=’avatar avatar-68 photo’ height=’68’ width=’68’ />Leon Puissegur is a Disabled Vietnam Veteran with 3 children and 9 grandchildren. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for 43 years. He is an award winning author and has been writing opinion pieces over the years and in just the last few years has written 4 books and a large amount of articles on many sites. You can purchase his books at Amazon. Pick up his latest The Oil Man.

Wake up America

Reports: Saudi Prince Bandar Using US to Topple Syria’s Assad – Freedom Outpost


http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/08/reports-saudi-prince-bandar-bin-sultan-using-us-to-topple-assad/

 By Joshua Cook

According to reports in Mint Press News made by veteran Associated Press reporter Dale Gavlak, the chemical attack came from Syrian rebel arms by Prince Bandar, not the Assad regime.

Gavlak writes, “The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was ‘a judgment …already clear to the world.'”

Gavlak’s report states that the U.S. is not interested in differing opinion, despite evidence that points to Saudi Arabian Prince Bandar.

The report continues,

“However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.”

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned.

She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

Prince Bandar is said to have close ties to Washington, serving as Saudi Arabia’s ambassador. According to a report in the UK’s The Independent, Prince Bandar has re-emerged as a pivotal figure in the struggle by America and its allies to tilt the battlefield balance against the regime in Syria.

According to the Independent, it was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first alerted Western allies to the alleged use of sarin gas by the Syrian regime in February.

According to the report,

“It is a long-term Saudi goal that in the past several days has been subsumed by the more immediate crisis over the purported use of chemical weapons by Damascus …That message is being delivered to President Barack Obama by the current Saudi Ambassador in Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, who is a Bandar protégé.”

This situation continues to become eerily similar to President George W. Bush’s intel on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

In fact, according to Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, on January 11, 2002, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers met in Cheney’s office with Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United States to discuss plans to attack Iraq.

The Washington Post reported that Bandar, who helped arrange Saudi cooperation with the U.S. military, feared Saudi interests would be damaged if Bush did not follow through on attacking Hussein, thus Bandar became another advocate for war.

“Months of applying pressure on the White House and Congress over Syria have slowly born fruit. The CIA is believed to have been working with Prince Bandar directly since last year in training rebels at base in Jordan close to the Syrian border,” the Independent reported.

The Saudis are “indispensable partners on Syria” and have considerable influence on American thinking, a senior US official told The Wall Street Journal yesterday. He added: “No one wants to do anything alone.”

And right now, Secretary of State John Kerry is trying to justify intervening in Syria on the basis of crimes against humanity.

But it makes you wonder: Whose crimes?

Is Saudi Arabia using an attack on Syria by the west as a way to advance its own agenda?

Joshua Cook lives in Travelers Rest SC. He received his BA from Southeastern University and MBA from North Greenville University.

Now Egypt looks to ‘expose’ Obama


Strategy may include embarrassing White House

http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/now-egypt-looks-to-expose-obama/

author-image Jerome R. Corsi

Jerome R. Corsi, a Harvard Ph.D., is a WND senior staff reporter. He has authored many books, including No. 1 N.Y. Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and “Unfit for Command.” Corsi’s latest book is the forthcoming “What Went Wrong?: The Inside Story of the GOP Debacle of 2012 … And How It Can Be Avoided Next Time.”
obama-worried

The evidence is mounting that the military government currently ruling Egypt has decided to embarrass the Obama administration as part of a strategy to suppress Muslim Brotherhood activity in Egypt.

Last week, WND reported that Tehani al-Gebali, the vice president of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt, gave a speech and participated in an interview broadcast on Egyptian television that identified Malik Obama, the Kenyan half-brother of President Obama, as “a major architect” managing investments for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

In the speech, Gebali said she would like “open files” to expose nations like the United States that are resisting the current military-controlled government of Egypt by continuing to support “terrorist” groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood.

“The Egyptian people are astounded,” wrote Coptic Egyptian author Michael Armanious in an article titled “Egyptians Bewildered Over Support for the Muslim Brotherhood,” published by the Gatestone Institute International Policy Council. “They simply do not understand the Obama Administration’s efforts to bring the Muslim Brotherhood back to power.”

Armanious puzzled over why the Obama administration supported the Muslim Brotherhood when the result of the “Arab Spring” was to oust Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and elect Muslim Brotherhood-backed Mohamed Morsi as president June 30, 2012.

“In an effort to make some sense of the Obama Administration’s policies, Amr Adeeb, a prominent Egyptian commentator, argues that the U.S. is helping the Muslim Brotherhood to achieve power, in order to turn Egypt into a magnet for jihadist fighters,” Armanious continued. “The goal, Adeeb states, is to turn Egypt into another Syria or Afghanistan and discredit Islamism as a viable political movement.”

Armanious argued the theory helped explain why the Obama administration has continued to side with the Muslim Brotherhood.

“To Westerners, this may seem like a bizarre conspiracy theory, but for Egyptians it helps explain why the U.S. government is supporting an organization that has openly declared jihad against the West, engaged in threats of war with Israel and Ethiopia, demolished dozens of ancient historic churches, set hospitals on fire, and murdered Christians in the streets. The Muslim Brotherhood has no respect for the rule of law, but the Obama Administration treats the Egyptian military that removed the group from power as a threat to democracy itself.”

Armanious charged that Morsi and his supporters utilized undemocratic measures to gain and hold onto power, citing as proof of his claim that on the day of Morsi’s election as president, the Muslim Brotherhood stopped thousands of Coptic Christians from voting.

Armanious wrote:

Morsi also straightforwardly stated that he was recreating an Islamic “Caliphate.” He pardoned and freed hard-line Islamists – including Anwar Sadat’s killers – and allowed them to have an Islamic political party, contrary to the constitution, which bans religious parties. When Morsi spoke to audiences, hard-line Islamists sat in the front row, demonstrating that these people were his political base.

To buttress the support of this base, Morsi released members of Gamaa al-Islamiyya, founded by the “Blind Sheikh,” Omar Abdel-Rahman, who attempted the first World Trade Center attack. This group, considered a terrorist organization by the United States, killed over 60 tourists in Luxor in 1997. That history did not stop Morsi from appointing one of its members governor of Luxor, over the objection of local residents who are dependent on tourism for their livelihood. Nor did it stop him from assigning another member of this group as Minister of Culture. With these decisions, Morsi delivered a final blow to Egypt’s tourism industry.

Concluding his article, Armonious noted many Egyptians are asking: “Why is the U.S. Administration siding with the forces of oppression in their country and assisting with its transformation into a failed state under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood?”

Egypt cracks down on Muslim Brotherhood

Last week in Cairo, the government arrested Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Ahmad Aref along with some 75 executive members of the group, according to Egypt’s interior ministry.

“Mohamed El-Beltagy, a Muslim Brotherhood leader, was targeted in several provinces, but security forces failed to arrest him,” said sources in Egypt’s judiciary, speaking to the Arabic-language newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat on the condition of anonymity.

Sources told Asharq Al-Awsat that the steps come within the framework of the security services’ efforts to pursue the Brotherhood’s executive leaders and organizational offices, as well members who had arrest warrants issued against them.

The English-language Daily News in Cairo independently reported last week that security forces in Egypt arrested a number of senior members of the Muslim Brotherhood in a campaign of arrests that followed the dispersal of sit-ins at Rabaa Al-Adaweya and Nehda Square.

The Daily Times further reported Muslim Brotherhood lawyer Ali Kamal accused supporters of the change of power that unseated Morsi as seeking to “settle accounts” by arresting the supreme guide of the group, Mohamed Badie, and other senior members.

“It is well-known that all the charges brought against the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood and … the Freedom and Justice Party … are implausible fabricated charges with no legally acceptable evidence,” he said on the group’s website.

Prominent supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood Safwat Hegazy was arrested early Wednesday morning near Marsa Matrouh. The Ministry of Interior said it apprehended Hegazy, who had changed his appearance, as he attempted to cross into Libya through Egypt’s western border.

According to the Daily Times report, Safwat Hegazy was accused of inciting violence and killing.

The campaign the Egyptian government is waging against the Muslim Brotherhood appears to be effective.

Reuters reported that mass protests called by the Muslim Brotherhood for last Friday failed to materialize as the movement “reeled from a bloody army crackdown on followers of ousted President Mohamed Morsi.

Troops and police had taken what Reuters called “low-key security measures” before the “Friends of Martyrs” processions that the Muslim Brotherhood had planned to launch from 28 mosques in the capital after weekly prayers.

But midday prayers were canceled last Friday at some Cairo mosques. and there were few signs of major demonstrations unfolding in the city.

Importing Jihad: Obama Considers Bringing Syrian Refugees To America


by

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/importing-jihad-obama-considers-bringing-syrian-refugees-to-america/#ixzz2WKHX3EWJ

More of Obama’s immigration war on America. Obama supports the jihadist opposition in Syria — al Qaeda elements. And he is bringing those savages here? He has turned a blind eye to religious minorities that are being persecuted under Muslim rule. So it will be more Muslim immigration. Clearly, jihadist groups linked to al Qaeda pose a grave security concern. It’s another giant middle finger to the American people by the Obama administration, endangering national security.

We have suffered the effects of importing whole Muslim communities from jihad regions (i.e. Somalia). More here. Law enforcement officials have reported to Congress on the growing Somali Muslim threat.

This will be worse.

The growing concern of ‘Home-Grown,’ Spectacular Jihad Growing Problem, Authorities Fear” is a direct result of the huge influx of whole Muslim communities from jihad areas and nations into the US since 911.

I strongly recommend Freedom Outpost readers contact their congressmen and tell them that we simply cannot afford the cost or the risk.

“U.S. considers taking in Syrian refugeesL.A. Times:

A resettlement plan aims to help both the hard-hit Syrian families and the Middle Eastern countries that are straining to support 1.6 million refugees.

A resettlement plan under discussion in Washington and other capitals is aimed at relieving pressure on Middle Eastern countries straining to support 1.6 million refugees, as well as assisting hard-hit Syrian families.

The State Department is “ready to consider the idea,” an official from the department said, if the administration receives a formal request from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees, which is the usual procedure.

The United States usually accepts about half the refugees that the U.N. agency proposes for resettlement. California has historically taken the largest share, but Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia are also popular destinations

[…]

Homeland security officials require careful vetting of refugees, with multiple interviews and background checks before they are allowed to enter the country. Under normal circumstances, the screening process can take a year or longer.

U.S. officials are likely to be extra careful with Syrian refugees. As Islamic militants take a more prominent role in the rebel forces, officials worry about fighters with Al Qaeda ties trying to enter the country. Two resettled Iraqis were convicted of trying to send arms to Al Qaeda from their home in Bowling Green, Ky.

Benghazi, Libiya Coverup


Benghazi, Libya Coverup

Benghazi, Libya Coverup

“I DON’T KNOW.”


By Jerry Broussard

I spent most of my career as a sales representative working for a major worldwide copier corporation. I worked my way up into management, and then corporate management. The lessons I learned along the way, and many of them very painfully, taught me many lifelong lessons that still structure my life.

One of those valuable lessons was being aware of what was going on in my department and how that related to all the other departments. What was going on in the corporation was critical information, and saying, “I don’t know” became a career ending response to a question. Blame never worked, and lack of knowledge created a C.O.S. (Change of Status).

During my time in the Marine Corp, that same atmosphere existed. “Knowing” was expecting, especially because it might mean the life of the people in your unit. Not “knowing” was a miserable excuse and would result in disciplinary action. Part of your job description was to make sure you knew critical information in order to do the job you were assigned to accomplish.

Obama-ScandalsNow we have the President Obama administration up to its pits with “alligators” in the form of scandals. Benghazi, IRS Assault on conservative organizations, snooping into AP reporter’s emails and phone calls, “Fast n’ Furious”, voter shenanigans, voter oppression, phony voter registration, and all the other lies they have been caught telling. No matter who is questioned about these matters, the answer comes back, “I don’t know”, “I was uninformed”, “I never heard about that until it was a published news article”, “I was not told anything about that”, etc., etc., etc.. As prevalent as these excuses are, and the numerous people making these excuses, produces the following reactions;

  • Utter incompetence. Anyone accepting a responsible job to perform duties within an organization, and cannot tell you what is going on in that department, or what went wrong I that unit, is incompetent, assuming they are not deceiving you about their lack of knowledge.
  • They are too distracted. Any manager spending most of their time outside the department they are responsible for, is not going to know what is going on in that department (playing too much golf, multiple vacations, giving endless speeches, endless campaigning, etc.).
  • Poor management skills. The lack of knowledge is always the result of people occupying management positions that have no clue what it takes to be a successful manager. They have no idea what to keep track of, and rely too much on delegated authority, which give them an out if anything goes wrong.
  • THEY ARE LIEING ABOUT NOT KNOWING. They cover up the truth because of the punishment realized for making wrong decisions. This person will also blame others in an effort to deflect scrutiny off them. They hope you will drop it or look somewhere else so they can continue the deception.
    • Case in Point: Pelosi Blames Bush For IRS Scandal

Thursday, May 16, 2013

http://patriotupdate.com/2013/05/pelosi-blames-bush-for-irs-scandal/

Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) pointed out in her press conference today that former IRS commissioner Douglas Shulman was appointed under George W. Bush, and that the agency is seen to most people as “three scary initials.”

“Has anybody mentioned that the director who left, and therefore we have now an acting director, was a Bush appointee? And that Miller was a career… these were not Obama appointees. But it happened on their watch.”

Pelosi was being asked a question on whether President Obama had done enough with the resignation of the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, Steven T. Miller.

Steve Miller was appointed acting commissioner November 9th of 2012, when the Bush appointee stepped down.

Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/2013/05/pelosi-blames-bush-for-irs-scandal/#ixzz2TUtMmmEM

 

In the corporate world, such people would be immediately punished, terminated and/or prosecuted. In the political world???????????

As for me and my house, we are going to remember all this next year for the mid-term elections. How about you?

Socialist Obama Adminstration Getting More Arrogant


Big Sis: Obama Admin Can Pick Which Laws to Enforce

by Matthew Boyle 24 Apr 2013 http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/04/24/Big-Sis-declares-Obama-has-power-to-pick-which-laws-to-enforce-as-immigration-bill-would-grant-admin-more-authority

During her testimony on the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared that she, President Barack Obama and other political officials at the top of this administration have the authority to decide which laws to enforce, and which ones to ignore.

Napolitano made the declaration in an exchange with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) when he was questioning her on how Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have alleged that political officials in the Obama administration, including her, have blocked them from enforcing the law.

Sessions noted that ICE agents’ union president Chris Crane had testified on Monday “that agents are prohibited from enforcing the law and, indeed, the ICE officers have filed a lawsuit [to that effect].”

“I started out as a federal prosecutor in the Department of Justice in 1975,” Sessions said. “I have never heard of a situation in which a group of law officers sued their supervisor and you for blocking them from following the law. They weren’t complaining about pay, benefits, working conditions. They were saying their very oath they took, to enforce the law, is being blocked by rules and regulations and policies established from on high and that this is undermining their ability to do what they’re sworn to do.”

In her response to those remarks from Sessions, Napolitano said she believes she and other political officials have the authority to tell law enforcement agents which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore.

“There are tensions with union leadership, unfortunately, but here’s what I expect as a former federal prosecutor and attorney general, and that is that law enforcement agents will enforce the law in accord with the guidance they’re given from their superiors,” Napolitano said. “That’s what we ask of ICE, that’s what we ask of Border Patrol, that’s what we ask throughout the Department and I believe that would be consistent with all law enforcement. Agents don’t set the enforcement priorities. Those are set by their superiors and they are asked then to obey that guidance in accord with the law.”

Sessions was not pleased with Napolitano’s response, so he followed up by asking: ““Well, what Mr. Crane testified to was that there are law provisions that say an agent shall do this, that and the other, and that the policies set by their political supervisors refuse to allow them to do what the law plainly requires. You are not entitled to set policies, are you, that violate the mandates of congressional law?”

Napolitano answered that question by saying she “disagree[s] with almost everything” Sessions has said, “but we’ll just have to respectfully disagree with each other.”

“But, I think it does point to why this bill needs to be passed, because what we want our officers doing is focusing on narco-traffickers and human smugglers and money launderers and others who misuse our border and our immigration system,” Napolitano said. “By having a process by which those in the country illegally can pay a fine, pay fees, register so we know who they are, by dealing with the employer demand for illegal labor, by opening up the visa system, that will have the effect, basically, of confirming the focus of resources where they need to be.”

Despite Napolitano’s and the administration’s belief that they can tell law enforcement agents which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore, the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill cedes even more authority away from Congress and gives it to the administration.

In their lines of questioning with Napolitano during Tuesday’s hearing, Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Mike Lee (R-UT) focused on how the bill cedes authority. In a statement he issued after the hearing indicating he is not satisfied with the bill’s so-called “border security triggers” that are supposedly meant to ensure the border actually gets secured, Cruz said he does not trust the bill will actually secure the border.

“As it stands, the border security component – which numbers only 58 pages of the 844-page bill – largely cedes authority to the Department of Homeland Security to determine when and how the border would be secure,” Cruz said. “However, today’s hearing revealed that the last clear metric for border security – ‘operational control’ – reflected that in 2010, DHS had secured 873 miles of the more than 2,000 mile border. When that metric did not demonstrate success, DHS decided to simply abandon the metric. In order for a metric to be real, it must be meaningful. Currently, there are no objective metrics in place to ensure any triggers in this bill will be meaningful, all while the pathway to citizenship component remains contingent on this undefined border security.”

Lee similarly questioned why the Gang of Eight bill gives Napolitano and the administration so much authority. “Some of the questions that I have as I’ve read through this bill over the last few days relate to the amount of discretion you are given, you and your successors will be given over time, should this become law,” Lee opened his line of questioning with Napolitano on Tuesday.

Even Gang of Eight member Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) admits the amount of authority the bill would cede to the administration is controversial. “Biggest challenge on #immigrationreform has been well founded lack of trust that Obama administration will enforce the law,” Rubio Tweeted on Tuesday. “Its [sic] a big problem”

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: