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

Senators Call For Defunding The United Nations If Obama Goes To The UN Against Israel


The Obama administration made a lot of noise over the weekend about its displeasure at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s comments over the future of Palestinian statehood. Even though Netanyahu walked back his comments in an olive branch to the administration, the White House’s negative, threatening rhetoric towards the Jewish State has not diminished; in fact, it has increased.

What concerns many lawmakers in the House and the Senate are the administration’s threats to possibly change the level of support that America gives Israel in the United Nations. Historically, the United States has been the nation that prevents adverse action against Israel such as the United Nations proclaiming Palestinian statehood. Some senators over the weekend fired a shot across the administration’s bow on this issue.

The Jerusalem Post reports:

The US Congress should reconsider funding for the United Nations if the Security Council approves a resolution on Palestinian statehood, Republican Senator John McCain said on Sunday.

McCain, in an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” show, said President Barack Obama should not even be considering such a resolution.

Breitbart also reported:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) threatened to cut off funding to the United Nations if President Obama uses it to bypass Congress on Iran sanctions on Thursday’s “On the Record” on the Fox News Channel.

“Here’s what the president needs to understand. If you go to the UN Security Council and you try to bypass the Congress to get this deal approved by the UN Security Council, but not come to your own Congress, then you’re going to risk Congress cutting off money to the United Nations” he stated.

The rubber is hitting the road here at the tail end of the disastrous Obama presidency. This is a very dangerous time for our nation. Our Congressional leaders are going to have to step up and defend the American way of life and our allies in the face of threats to injure them from our treasonous White House.

This may be the last opportunity for an old warrior like John McCain to rise to the occasion when his country needs him.

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

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

Senate’s Budget Less Bold Than House’s

Talk Radio News Service (Flickr)

Senate Republicans offered their first budget since 2006, when it last held the majority. The plan reaches a surplus in ten years, increases defense spending, repeals ObamaCare, calls for changes to the tax code, and makes reforms to government entitlement programs.

U.S. Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee (pictured above), stated regarding the plan:

Today we begin the monumental task of confronting our nation’s chronic overspending and exploding debt, which threatens each and every American. Make no mistake, our fiscal outlook is grim and has been ignored for far too long.

The Senate plan cuts $5.1 trillion over ten years to balance, versus the House budget, which cuts $5.5 trillion to get the same result in nine years. Overall, the budget cuts $4.1 trillion in mandatory spending and $97 billion from discretionary programs.

Two trillion in savings comes from the repeal of ObamaCare. Some other specific cuts include $430 billion in savings to Medicare, $600 billion from welfare programs, and $400 billion in savings to Medicaid by converting it to block grants to the states like the current Children’s Health Insurance Program (“CHIP”) is administered.

The Senate plan, unlike the House budget, does not call for a conversion of Medicare from a defined benefit program to a defined contribution program. Under the House reform, those eligible for Medicare who enroll in 2024 and going forward would receive premium payments from the federal government, which they would use to purchase healthcare coverage from private insurers.

Another area of disagreement between the Senate and the House regards defense spending. The House budget calls for $90 billion going to Overseas Contingency Operations, while the Senate plan designates $58 billion. President Obama had requested $64 billion in his budget. Funding the OCO fund is a way lawmakers can get around the Sequestration cuts, which are still in effect.

The Senate plan does not offer specifics regarding tax reform, but balances without increasing taxes and sets a target for tax revenue to the federal government as a percentage of GDP at 18.2 percent, which is near the historic norm of 18 percent and slightly higher than the House plan of 18.1 percent.

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

Report: Democratic Aide Knew Abortion Ban Provision Was In Human Trafficking Bill Weeks Ago; Bill Still Stalled

miker /  miker /

An aide for a Democratic U.S. Senator knew weeks in advance about abortion provisions in a human trafficking bill that is currently sitting in a holding pattern. The bill failed to advance for a fifth time Thursday.

The Associated Press (AP) reported Thursday that an aide to Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. (pictured above), “had seen” the Hyde Amendment language before S. 178 – the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 –  was passed unanimously by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.

S. 178’s objective is to expand “the definition of ‘child abuse’ under the Victims of Child Abuse Act of 1990 to include human trafficking deterrence programs that assist law enforcement and other entities in rescuing and restoring the lives of trafficking victims, while investigating and prosecuting offenses involving child human trafficking,” according to its summary.

Klobuchar spokeswoman Julia Krahe told the AP Wednesday “the aide did not inform the senator. The senator takes responsibility for the work of her office and missing the provision and she is focused on moving forward to find a way to fix the bill and protect victims of trafficking.”

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., insisted the measure would not come off the floor as long as the Hyde Amendment language was in the bill. “You can blame it on staff, blame it on whoever you want to blame,” Reid said earlier this month, “But we didn’t know it was in the bill, and … the bill will not come off this floor as long as that language is in the bill.”

S. 178 failed for a fifth time Wednesday, 56-42; but a deal to clear the 60 vote cloture hurdle could be looming, The Hill reported.

03152015_Fednet Tweet_Twitter

Reid’s deputy, Senate Minority Leader Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asserted the Republican Party is putting Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch “in the back of the bus” because of the human trafficking measure.

“And so, Loretta Lynch, the first African-American woman nominated to be attorney general, is asked to sit in the back of the bus when it comes to the Senate calendar,” Durbin said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “That is unfair. It’s unjust. It is beneath the decorum and dignity of the United States Senate. This woman deserves fairness.”

But in 2005, Durbin voted against both Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State and Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General, the first African-American and Hispanic to respectively hold those posts. This point was not lost on Karl Rove, former senior adviser to President George W. Bush.

03192015_Karl Rove Tweet_Twitter

Share this if you cannot believe the insanity and incompetence of the Senate Democrats.

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

Think Of The Children!

“What about the children?”

Politicians of both parties often stoop to using our children as props whenever they’re fighting for a new law or pet government program.

They argue we need to cut the $18 trillion debt, regulate the Internet, or pay teachers more “for our children.”

“Think of the children” is almost always an emotional and irrational appeal made in desperation by those who don’t have a reasonable or legitimate argument.

Invoking “the children” is pure BS. It’s obvious political BS. But it’s BS that’s been used for a long time by Democrats and Republicans.

It became so common that it was satirized way back in the early 1990s in the “The Simpsons,” when the character Helen Lovejoy constantly shrieked “Think of the children” during town debates over everything from lowering taxes to what to do about too many bears roaming the streets.

Despite becoming a cultural joke, using “the children” as emotional weapons in political warfare still goes on all the time.

Every other lousy politician in Washington who wants to tax, subsidize, or regulate something still claims he’s doing it “for the children” — whether it’s saving the planet from climate change, giving amnesty to illegal immigrants, or intervening in Syria.

But when it comes to passing a piece of legislation that will actually do something to help hundreds of thousands of real children, it’s another story.

As part of the latest parliamentary maneuvering and cat-fighting between Democrats and Republicans, the passage of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015 has been delayed in the Senate.

Passed by the House, and having broad bipartisan support, the act would strike an important blow in the fight against human sex trafficking.

The act would create a fund to help authorities in the USA deter and combat sex trafficking, prosecute traffickers when they are caught, and provide assistance to private groups that work to rescue and restore the lives of trafficking victims — most of whom are children.

We hear little about it, but human trafficking is a serious problem in the United States and around the globe. The U.S. State Department estimates there are 27 million victims of trafficking worldwide.

Human trafficking is a $32 billion industry involving more than 125 countries. The majority of victims are women and girls who are forcibly trafficked from one place to another to do work or provide sex, usually under horribly unsafe and unhygienic conditions.

The United States is not untouched by this crime against children. Experts say 17,500 people are trafficked into the U.S. each year; and about 300,000 American children, particularly children in foster care, are continually at risk of being pulled into the hell of human trafficking.

According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the typical sex-trafficked child in the United States is 13 or 14 years old. The average pimp makes upwards of $200,000 a year from one of his four to eight children, who are forced to have sex 20 to 48 times a day.

Private organizations like the Polaris Project and Arrow Child and Family Ministries in Texas, which I’m affiliated with, are working hard to educate the public about the horrors of sex-trafficking and rescue as many young victims as they can.

But it’s a huge job, and the public and private resources to do it are spread thin and hard to acquire.

With the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, Republicans and Democrats are in a great position to actually do something “for the children” instead of just talking about it.

For now, the act has become another bargaining chip in Washington’s never-ending private poker game.

It will pass eventually. Even Congress gets it right once in a while. But it’s time for politicians to quit playing politics with the lives of our children.

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

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