Cruz, Sessions vow to fight Obama’s plan to expand amnesty

Cruz_1-1024x682Barack Obama reportedly plans to use his executive authority to extend amnesty to six million more illegal immigrants by the end of the summer, but on Thursday Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) vowed to fight him every step of the way:

The two senators have been among the most vocal Republican opponents of Obama’s deferred deportation policy, which they say has prompted a flood of unaccompanied minors to try crossing into the United States.

Cruz said he was back at the Texas border last weekend, when he asked border officials why the roughly 60,000 children have tried to cross.

“Every single one of the border patrol agents gave the exact same answer,” Cruz said. “They said they’re coming because they believe they will get amnesty.”

Cruz also called it “fitting” that Obama was hosted by the television producer of the TV show Scandal during his recent visit to California, as “it is scandalous that the president has more time to be fundraiser in chief than he does to do his basic job in being commander in chief in securing our borders.”

Sessions stated that Americans need to know that Obama’s deferred action program also hopes to grant work authorization permits to illegal immigrant adults:

“We need to know what this is saying, and we need to know what it means, and we need as members of Congress in this Senate to resist it,” Sessions said, citing a National Journal report outlining Obama’s plan. “And we cannot allow it to happen. We will not allow it to happen.”

“They are not entitled to certain government benefits if they come illegally,” Sessions added.” Of course they are not. Of course they are not able to work and take jobs and get benefits if they came into the country illegally.”

Cruz has proposed legislation that would prevent a program similar to Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy for millions of other illegal immigrants, and also plans to propose another bill this week that would fix a 2008 law so the U.S. can more quickly deport children from Central America. As for the latter bill, Speaker John Boehner is expected to propose the same change in his forthcoming House border legislation.

White House seriously worried GOP may try to impeach Obama

Barack_Obama_20110501Many lawmakers in Washington and people across the country have brushed off the House GOP’s talk of impeachment, but senior White House officials are taking the issue extremely seriously. Dan Pfeiffer, a senior adviser to Obama, said Friday that he strongly believes Republicans in Congress may try to impeach Obama, particularly if he takes executive action to slow deportations:

“I saw a poll today that had a huge portion of the Republican Party base saying they supported impeaching the president. A lot of people in this town laugh that off. I would not discount that possibility,” he told reporters Friday at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor.

Pfeiffer said Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) decision to file a lawsuit against Obama over his use of executive actions increased the chance of impeachment proceedings in the future.

He said that possibility could become more likely if Obama takes executive action to halt the deportations of illegal immigrants who have strong ties to the United States, such as those who have family members who are U.S. citizens.

“I think Speaker Boehner, by going down the path of this lawsuit, has opened the door to Republicans possibly considering impeachment at some point in the future,” he said.

Interestingly, a recent CNN/ORC poll found that the majority of the country doesn’t support impeachment; two-thirds of respondents oppose it, while only 35 percent are in favor. The results correlate with a Rasmussen poll released July 14 that revealed 55 percent of likely voters believe it would be more worthwhile to elect a Republican Congress than impeach Obama.

Either way, it seems the public is fed up with Barack — and the feds know it.

Video: Obamacare architect plainly states subsidies are limited to state-run exchanges

Jonathan GruberTuesday, two separate federal courts gave two completely opposite rulings on the legality of subsidies granted through Obamacare’s federal exchange. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the subsidies are illegal, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld them, stating that the law was “ambiguous.”

Well, perhaps the Fourth Circuit judges should take a look at the following video. In 2012, Jonathan Gruber — an MIT economist who helped design the Massachusetts health law that was the model for Obamacare and who was subsequently brought on by the Obama administration and paid $400,000 a year as a consultant — clearly explains to an audience that Obamacare’s health insurance subsidies are ONLY available in states that set up their own exchanges:

Oh, and then there’s this:

PS: Possibly the most damning thing about this video is that Jonathan Gruber stated, quite forthrightly, that the decision to deny subsidies to federal exchange policies was deliberate, and designed to push states into starting their own exchanges. That is… extremely unhelpful to the current Democratic narrative.

Surprise! Obamacare subsidies offered through the federal exchange are illegal, because the text of the law says so. Period.

Vietnam vet suffering from cancer denied benefits, told to get job by VA

26097850_BG1Of all the horror stories to come out of the VA scandal, this has to be one of the most infuriating. Ken Moore, a Vietnam veteran suffering from cancer who is unable to walk or speak, was denied disability benefits by the Department of Veterans Affairs and told via letter to go get a job:

After receiving the jarring letter, Moore’s wife, Judy, told WSMV TV in Nashville, “He read it and was like, ‘This can’t be real. It can’t be happening. This is a nightmare.’”

Ken is suffering from cancer and also has lung problems from being exposed to Agent Orange during his service overseas. Because his illness has left him unable to walk or talk, he filed for 100 percent disability last year.

The couple dutifully obtained a doctor’s certification from the VA hospital in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, to certify that the veteran’s health was too precarious for him to find employment, and they supplied all the requested medical documents.

In the official assessment, the Moore’s doctor assured the VA, “I do not think that there is a reasonable likelihood that he will improve to the point that he can return to work.”

Despite all this, the Moores were informed recently via a letter that the disabled veteran’s condition did not preclude him from getting a job and therefore his claim for 100 percent disability was denied.

Um, what?! How does being unable to walk or talk not qualify someone for 100 percent disability?!

Thankfully, the  TV news station’s Channel 4 I-Team was able to help Moore obtain his full disability; indeed, he will be awarded benefits retroactive to February 2013 when he first began the process of applying for benefits. Even so, Moore never should have been denied them in the first place.

House panel approves vote to authorize Obama lawsuit

boehner-twitterThe House Rules Committee approved a resolution Thursday allowing the full House to vote on authorizing Speaker John Boehner’s lawsuit against Barack Obama’s excessive use of executive authority:

The 7-4 vote was split along partisan lines, just as the vote in the full chamber is sure to be. A vote by the whole House to move forward on the legal action is expected next week.

[...]

If the House approves the lawsuit, which it is expected to do handily, it would be sent to a federal judge to decide whether the chamber has legal standing to pursue the case. Legal experts testifying before the Rules Committee last week were split on the question of whether the House was sufficiently damaged by the delay to be granted standing.

If a judge rules that the House has standing, the lawsuit would move forward, with lawyers for the Obama administration and the House arguing their cases before a federal court. It could take months for the lawsuit to be argued and ruled on.

The lawsuit is based entirely on Obama’s numerous delays of Obamacare’s employer mandate. Unsurprisingly, it has heightened tensions between House Republicans and the White House and Democrats both. It will take a while for this fight to come down the pipe — but if and when it does it will be a nasty one.