The Senate Just Stood Up To Obama And Slapped Him Down By A Vote Of 98 To 1

Facebook/Barack Obama

The Senate overwhelmingly rejected President Obama’s budget plan Tuesday, nearly voting unanimously in opposition to his proposal.

03252015_Palm Beach Tweet_Twitter

On Tuesday, the Senate voted 98 to 1 rejecting President Obama’s $4 trillion budget. After ten years, it is slated to result in massive federal deficits, according to National Review. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., was the only Senator to vote in the affirmative.

There was some dispute, however, as to whether or not the budget voted upon by the Senate reflected fully upon President Obama, as the package did not include a minimum-wage increase. “This is the president’s proposed budget.” asserted Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

“Since 2011, it’s only gotten two votes for the president’s proposed budget, 1,023 votes against,” Cornyn added.

“It is not what President Obama presented to the American people,” countered Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. Sanders is the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.

This is hardly the first time the president has experienced trouble pushing a budget through the Senate. They were rejected 97 to 0 and 99 to 0 in 2011 and 2012 respectively, when Democrats controlled the upper chamber. The budget passed in 2013 was the first one green-lighted in four years.

Both the House and the Senate are debating budget proposals this week. One key point of debate in composing the budget for the GOP is whether or not to increase defense funding.

In the Senate, any member can propose an amendment, resulting in what seems like an endless amount of votes on their end.

While he is uncertain whether or not he will vote for a bill that does not increase funding for the Pentagon, Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., tells Politico he likes the idea of a ‘Queen of the Hill’ format– that is, whichever proposal has the most votes is the proposal the caucus chooses.

“I like that idea. Whatever one gets the most votes, let that prevail. It works,” Harris said.

h/t: BizPac Review

Share this if you stand against President Obama. 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Iran And United States Close To Nuclear Deal, Congress Has Concerns

Mykhaylo Palinchak / Shutterstock.com  Mykhaylo Palinchak / Shutterstock.com

Details have emerged about a historic nuclear deal between the United States and Iran, but Congress still has concerns.

The deal includes a 40 percent reduction of Iran’s machines used to make a nuclear bomb, the lifting of several economic sanctions, and a partial lift of the United Nations embargo on “conventional arms,” The Associated Press reported.

This deal would reduce the amount of nuclear centrifuges the Islamic republic operates from 10,000 to 6,000. The Obama administration believes this could delay Iran’s capability of producing a nuclear weapon from two to three months to at least one year, the AP noted.

But the White House has been aggressively scrutinized over their dealings with Iran. Freshman Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. wrote to President Obama earlier this month assuring him if “Congress doesn’t approve a nuclear deal, Congress won’t accept a deal.” Forty-seven Republican senators signed the letter.

A second letter was introduced by Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., at a House Foreign Affairs Committee, which a veto-proof majority of 360 members signed, advising Obama that Congress must approve any deal the White House makes with Tehran.

“In reviewing such an agreement, Congress must be convinced that its terms foreclose any pathway to a bomb, and only then will Congress be able to consider permanent sanctions relief,” said the letter.

“There really cannot be any marginalization of Congress. Congress really needs to play a very active and vital role in this whole process, and any attempts to sidestep Congress will be resisted,” Engel said Thursday.

“We would hope that we could get a prompt response from the White House. It’s truly a very bipartisan letter expressing Congress’ strong feelings about things that need to be in the agreement,” he added.

Engel has consensus from former Democratic, currently Independent, Senator Joe Lieberman. Writing in The Wall Street Journal Tuesday, Lieberman argued Congress should have a hand in approving any deal with Iran:

The president as commander in chief deserves deference in devising national-security strategy, but Congress has clear constitutional standing and an institutional prerogative not to be cut out of the process.

h/t: TheBlaze

Share this article if you are skeptical about any deal at all with Iran.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Congress: Read Article III of the Constitution; It’s Treasonous to Give $12 Billion to Iran, America’s Sworn Enemy

Obama Iran contrast

Congress authorized the State Department to transfer $11.9 billion in cash payments to Iran by June 2015. Transferring any form of aid/comfort to Iran, a sworn enemy of the United States, is a treasonous act.

Treason against the United States is defined as 1) “consist[ing] only in levying war against them,” or 2) “in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.”

Some argue this definition is only applicable only during wartime. Regardless of how one defines America “at war,” sending cash to a sworn enemy that has publicly declared its intent to destroy America, and to continue building nuclear weapons, clearly falls within the Constitutional definition of a treasonous act.

How did this happen? Extensive corruption exists in both the executive and legislative branches of America’s government.

Under Barack Hussein Obama, the Muslim Brotherhood has infiltrated the White House as well as multiple layers of government, and is largely directing American domestic and foreign policy. (A powerful and growing Islamic influence also extends throughout the Republican Party.)

The majority of Congress has committed treason by voting to “aid and comfort” America’s enemies and fund terrorist activities worldwide.

“Providing aid and comfort” ranges from offering an enemy, through the transfer of financial resources either in cash or assets, military training, weapons, ammunition, transportation, and troops; material aid such as food, housing, transportation, shelter, and medical/technological/communications assistance; and any other means that could improve an enemy’s security and protection that enables it to levy war against the United States.

In December 2014, 51 percent of Congress voted in favor of a $1.1 trillion omnibus bill furthering America’s debt and sending nearly 75 percent of foreign aid to Islamic countries intentionally killing Christians and Jews. The bill allocated $73 billion for State Department “overseas military operations and diplomatic efforts,” which included $11.9 billion in cash payments to Iran over a six-month period.

Only 40 percent of the Senate—40 U.S. Senators—and 47 percent of the House—206 Congressman—voted against it; 56 U.S. Senators (including four abstainers) and 219 Congressman (including 10 abstainers) voted for it.

The bill also authorized funding Obama’s executive order on amnesty for illegal immigrants, which Senator Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and 21 other senators valiantly opposed–and lost. Senator Pat Toomey, R-Penn., (according to a congressional GOP aide) aggressively whipped enough Republican votes for executive amnesty and against Cruz’s amendment.

Those who voted “yes” on the omnibus bill authorized the federal government to send cash payments to Iran, a country the State Department has designated for many years as the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” Iran affirms its age-old and aggressive public declaration that America is its sworn enemy.

Unless the American people en masse vehemently oppose such treachery, the State Department will have transferred cash assets of $11.9 billion to Iran by June of this year. Obama’s planned efforts to transfer cash payments to Iran—financially aiding America’s sworn enemy—also coincides with his aggressive measures to eliminate America’s border security and open diplomatic ties with Cuba.

While some members of Congress did attempt (via failed legislation) to “restrict” Iran’s “spending” of American taxpayer dollars, others sought to “require the White House to certify” that Iran would not use the funds to support terrorism. Even now, some actually think a letter will change the State Department’s course of action or the relentless and seemingly unending issuance of executive memorandum.

But Congress’ treasonous acts don’t end there.

In September 2014, Congress authorized the funding to “train and arm ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels” who were neither Syrian nor moderate. The Syrian rebels were actually Turkish mercenaries working with al-Qaeda who eventually broke off into ISIS. ISIS is now using U.S. military weapons, tanks, and ammunition; they are driving new Toyota trucks and were trained by U.S. military in Jordan and Qatar—courtesy of Obama and Congress.

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), a Senate Intelligence Committee member for whom I once worked, said she did not have enough information about the “moderate fighters,” arguing that Congress should at a minimum engage in a full debate over such funding (which it didn’t). In spite of hers and many others’ doubts, she still voted “yes.”

Only 10 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted not to fund the “Syrian” rebels.

While Congress continues to fund America’s enemies abroad with taxpayer money and increase America’s debt, it ignores homegrown enemies operating on American soil.

There are over 107 non-profit organizations such as CAIR (The Council on American Islamic Relations, a recently designated international terrorist organization) that act as front groups supporting and supported by terrorist groups–and the Gulen Charter schools operating throughout America that advocate creating a worldwide Caliphate. Worse still, there are scores of jihad training camps in more than half of American states.

The majority of such organizations receives tax credits and grant money; many of their members receive welfare benefits, and few have been audited by the IRS.

The majority of Congress has committed treason, which is why they will not hold Barack Obama accountable for his treasonous acts. If he goes down, so do they.

Massive-scale impeachment proceedings would create extensive turmoil throughout America and the world. But such upheaval is necessary when America’s government no longer represents or protects its own citizens and actively enables its enemies determined to destroy them.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

The VA Just Admitted Something That Should Enrage Every Budget-Conscious American Taxpayer

Image Credit: Dept. of Veterans' Affairs

It should certainly not be a surprise to anyone who pays attention to this sort of thing that, when it comes to estimating the true cost of a program or a project, the federal government is a failure…repeatedly. But this example of an outrageous cost overrun in a troubled federal department might still come as a shock.

The fancy new VA hospital being built on the outskirts of Denver — a huge, elaborate, oddly designed facility — was originally estimated to cost about $328 million.  Now, according to testimony before the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, the price tag is put at $1.73 billion. That’s more than five times the original construction budget.

The Blaze reports that an official of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs came to the committee asking for a whole lot more money to finish the construction. And it wasn’t the first time the VA has made this sort of monetary request for the long-delayed project.

That official, VA office of Accountability Review Director Meghan Flanz, told lawmakers that the agency is striving to complete the work and give what she termed “the best value to taxpayers.”

“’VA remains committed to completing the Aurora [Colorado] project for our veterans as soon as practical, at the best value to taxpayers, given where we are today,’ she said.”

Western Journalism has reported frequently on healthcare and medical treatment problems facing many of our vets at VA hospitals around the country.

Just last week, we noted that a special federal investigator would be looking into claims of a secret wait list at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital in Louisiana – where ultimately more than three dozen veterans died as a result of suspected treatment delays.

Now, with the acknowledged cost overruns at the new hospital outside Colorado’s capital city — huge overruns linked with long delays in the facility’s completion — it’s clear the Veterans Administration has significant problems not only with delivering quality healthcare to vets, but also in being responsible with its own financial health.

And of course when a federal agency blows through its projected budget like this, that means another hole is blown in the wallets of taxpayers who could never get away with this kind of budget-busting in their own lives.

h/t: The Blaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

McConnell Issues Ultimatum To President Obama About ‘Bad’ Iranian Nuclear Deal

Mitch McConnell

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., appeared on CNN on Sunday to discuss the imminent Iranian nuclear deal and the options congressional law makers have moving forward during President Obama’s negations.

“The President is about to make what we believe will be a very bad deal,” McConnell said. “He clearly doesn’t want Congress involved at all and we’re worried about it.”

“We don’t think he ought to make a bad deal with one of the worst regimes in the world,” he added.

His comments come on the heels of endless Democratic criticism calling the 47 senators who signed the open letter unpatriotic and traitors.

McConnell, however, stood firm, much like Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., did when confronted with opposition, by pointing back to the Constitution and clarifying that any deal done without the consent of Congress will not last after Obama’s term is complete.

McConnell concluded by outlining two possible routes in the ultimatum: either a deal is done and it will come to Congress, or, if there is no deal, “ratcheting up sanctions” would be the next appropriate step.

h/t: IJReview

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom