Analyst's note:  Believe it or not, I love good news regarding U.S. national security.  U.S. citizens are beginning to wake up to the whirl-wind that is going on around them.

 

******

******

John McCain Gets Censured by Arizona Republicans in Landslide Vote

Capitalism Institute

John McCain is notorious for being one of the most outspoken members of the Republican establishment. He has referred to the Tea Party as “wacko birds”, has gone after Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and anyone else who wants to end the DC gravy train.

At first, he got away with it, as he was recently the presidential candidate for the GOP… finally, it seems that people are now realizing that there’s a reason he lost that election.

He’s a phony “conservative”, a radical statist, and is part of the problem of DC politics. Now, he’s even being censured by the second largest Republican group in his state of Arizona.

From the Tea Party News Network:

Republicans in Maricopa County have long been frustrated with John McCain. When McCain held a ‘closed door’ town hall on amnesty with Jeff Flake, the junior senator from Arizona, local Tea Party organizations were on-hand to protest their stance on rewarding illegals with citizenship. Frustrated with McCain’s overwhelming tendency to side with the progressive Democrats and attack conservatives, one group of Arizona Republicans decided to do something about it.

The Maricopa County Republican Committee, the state’s largest Republican group, formally censured Senator John McCain for “long and terrible record of drafting, co-sponsoring and voting for legislation best associated with liberal Democrats.” This official censuring of McCain happened during the annual mandatory meeting of the Maricopa County Republican Committee. Nearly 1,500 precinct committeemen (PCs) were in attendance. The vote to censure McCain passed overwhelmingly with only 351 in opposition and 1,150 in support of the action.

Here is a partial transcript below:

Whereas Senator McCain has amassed a long and terrible record of drafting, co-sponsoring and voting for legislation best associated with liberal Democrats, such as Amnesty, funding for ObamaCare, the debt ceiling, assaults on the Constitution and 2^nd amendment, and has continued to support liberal nominees…

BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that the Maricopa County Republican leadership censures Senator McCain for his continued disservice to our State and Nation…”

Click here for the full transcript.

If you support the push against McCain, then please share this article and let others know. This is the age of grassroots activism — movements grow or fall on the basis of how passionate its activists are.

Please click here and follow us on Twitter.

******

Obama’s use of executive power faces reckoning at Supreme Court

The Hill -- by By Kevin Bogardus and Ben Goad

If they uphold the decision, experts say the justices could endanger hundreds of NLRB decisions.

Even more significant are the ramifications for future presidents, with the court poised either to bolster or blunt the chief executive’s appointment powers.

“Rulings like this have implications that last for centuries,” said Michael Lotito, an employment and labor attorney and co-chairman of Littler Mendelson's Workplace Policy Institute.

Presidents have for decades used recess appointment powers when the Senate is away to install judges and fill top federal vacancies that ordinarily would be subject to confirmation proceedings.

But with the disputed NLRB appointments, Obama became the first president to appoint nominees when the Senate was in a “pro-forma” session, when the upper chamber is briefly called to order and adjourned every few days.

The sessions are intended to prevent recess appointments, and usually only a handful of senators are present for them. In filling the NLRB posts, the Obama administration claims that the Senate is generally not available to conduct business during the sessions, so the president’s recess appointment power is in effect.
 
“The sham pro-forma sessions are nothing more than that,” said Catholic University law professor Victor Williams, who filed a brief backing the government’s position.

[....] The Obama administration’s case hinges on winning three points, according to Georgetown University Law Center’s Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, who is arguing against the government.

First, it must convince the justices that presidents may make appointments during regular recesses and not, as the appeals court ruled, only during the breaks between numbered sessions on Congress.

Next, the court must agree that the appointments may include the filling of vacancies that existed before the recess began, rather than those that occurred during a recess.

Finally, it must conclude that the pro-forma sessions do not count as formal sessions of Congress.

Proving all three points, particularly the last, would be a tall order, said Rosenkranz, who predicted a 9-0 ruling in favor of Noel Canning.

“I don’t think this is a close case,” he said.

 

Tomorrow is "Today" in this video:

 

******

Illegal alien from Canada OR unemployed Hispanic American?

By Roy Beck, Sunday, January 12, 2014, 3:21 PM EST

The title of this blog was the choice of priorities that I offered Thursday in the studios of Fusion/Univision in Miami.

While this giant ABC-owned network aimed at Hispanic audiences is almost consumed with aiding as many illegal aliens as possible, I tried to raise the idea of helping as many Hispanic Americans as possible.

In the show, I made the point that all Americans are of equal value in my thinking but that I think it is helpful for these so-called Hispanic advocates to consider hypotheticals such as this:

Who should have the U.S. government's priority support in this case:

I think too many advocates of amnesty think of illegal aliens primarily as Hispanics. They see leglaization as a civil rights issue for Hispanics.  

But all illegal aliens are NOT Hispanic. They come from all over the world.

And most Hispanics in America are NOT illegal aliens.

We at NumbersUSA are concerned about Hispanic Americans -- citizens who were born here or who are legal immigrants who have naturalized.

As equal members of our national community, Hispanic Americans have a strong claim on our consciences as they suffer, on average, low wages, low incomes, high unemployment and high poverty.

To try to get amnesty advocates to understand priorities better, I want to know what they think about an illegal alien from Canada taking a job from an Hispanic American.

Thus far, I've not been able to press an amnesty advocate to answer the question I posed above.

Will the supposed great advocates for Hispanic Americans say that the U.S. government's primary reponsibility is to help a white illegal alien from Canada keep a job rather than using mandatory E-Verify to open up the job for that unemployed Hispanic American who is trying to get back to work in construction?

How could a true advocate for Hispanic Americans say the Canadian has priority?

Yet, I suspect that the amnesty advocates will not be able to openly favor the unemployed Hispanic American over the illegal alien from Canada because, if they did, there really would be no logical non-racist reason to favor any illegal alien over any unemployed American.

I would love to hear of any experience any of you readers have in posing this same question to anybody who favors legalization and work permits for illegal aliens. Please let me know. 

In the meantime, I won't budge from my contention in the Fusion/Univision studios that  it is NumbersUSA that is working for the true betterment of the Hispanic-American underclass by promoting less immigration, the resulting tighter labor markets and the better wages and incomes for Hispanic Americans that would follow.

ROY BECK is Founder & President of NumbersUSA.

• An unemployed 25-year-old Hispanic American seeking a construction job?
• OR an illegal alien from Canada who already is illegally holding a construction job?

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

******

Look out! Obama weaponizing IRS

Attorney warns taxman opening '2nd front' in war on conservatives

WMD - by Jerome R. Corsi

 

 

 

 

[....] Last week, the IRS scandal deepened when the Washington Times reported the Justice Department selected Barbara Kay Bosserman, a DOJ trial lawyer, who had contributed to Obama’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012 as well as to the Democratic Party, to lead the criminal probe into the IRS targeting conservative groups to deny their applications for tax-exempt status.

Mitchell in her discussions with conservative groups has explained the activities the IRS seeks to define as “candidate-related political activities,” subject to taxation and reporting to the IRS, are basic 501(c)4 activities such as grassroots lobbying, candidate forums, candidate debates, voter registration drives, voter guides and issue advocacy.

“The IRS is fully aware this is a war in which conservative groups are being targeted,” Mitchell explains, noting the proposed IRS new rules do not apply to labor unions or trade associations. “The Obama administration is not looking for ways to restrain labor unions from using member dues to conduct similar activities.”

Historically, labor union political support has gone to Democratic Party political candidates since the end of World War II, while the upsurge in tax-exempt filings have come from conservatives and especially from the many tea-party groups formed since the economic downturn dating back to 2008.

******

Lawmakers Plot New Strategy for Defying Gun Laws

NewsMax

Having failed in an earlier effort to bar federal agents from enforcing gun regulations in Missouri, conservative lawmakers are trying a new tack this year: banding together with other like-minded states to defy certain federal laws at the same time.

Supporters believe it will be more difficult for the federal government to shrug off such statutes if more states act together. [....]

******

Bailing Out Health Insurers and Helping Obamacare

The Weekly Standard - by Jeffrey H. Anderson

Robert Laszewski—a prominent consultant to health insurance companies—recently wrote in a remarkably candid blog post that, while Obamacare is almost certain to cause insurance costs to skyrocket even higher than it already has, “insurers won’t be losing a lot of sleep over it.”  How can this be?  Because insurance companies won’t bear the cost of their own losses—at least not more than about a quarter of them.  The other three-quarters will be borne by American taxpayers.

For some reason, President Obama hasn’t talked about this particular feature of his signature legislation.  Indeed, it’s bad enough that Obamacare is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to funnel $1,071,000,000,000.00 (that’s $1.071 trillion) over the next decade (2014 to 2023) from American taxpayers, through Washington, to health insurance companies.  It’s even worse that Obamacare is trying to coerce Americans into buying those same insurers’ product (although there are escape routes).  It’s almost unbelievable that it will also subsidize those same insurers’ losses.

******

Don't miss 40 more maps that explain the world