SHOCK: Obama Wants Repeal Of Iraq War Authorization To Guarantee No U.S. Troops Can Stop ISIS, Christian Holocaust

SHOCK: Obama Wants Repeal Of Iraq War Authorization To Guarantee No U.S. Troops Can Stop ISIS, Christian Holocaust

Home  »  Special Features  »  SHOCK: Obama Wants Repeal Of Iraq War Authorization To Guarantee No U.S. Troops Can Stop ISIS, Christian Holocaust

Jul 25, 2014 No Comments ›› Chuck Biscuits
Excerpted from FREE BEACON: The Obama administration is calling on Congress to fully repeal the war authorization in Iraq to ensure that no U.S. troops return to the country, which is under siege by the extremist Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS).
White House national security adviser Susan Rice petitioned Speaker of the House John Boehner (R., Ohio) in a letter Friday to completely repeal the war authorization, officially known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq, or AUMF.
Rice’s letter was sent as Congress just hours before it approved a resolution opposing U.S. military intervention in Iraq, where the terrorist group ISIL claims to have established an Islamic caliphate.
“We believe a more appropriate and timely action for Congress to take is the repeal of the outdated 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq,” Rice wrote, according to a copy of her letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
“With American combat troops having completed their withdrawal from Iraq on December 18, 2011, the Iraq AUMF is no longer used for any U.S. government activities and the administration fully supports its repeal,” Rice wrote. “Such a repeal would go much further in giving the American people confidence that ground forces will not be sent into combat in Iraq.”

Eleanor Holmes Norton says 'you don't have a right to know' what's going on in government

By Sean Higgins | July 25, 2014 | 4:38 pm

Topics: Beltway Confidential White House Congress Eleanor Holmes Norton President Darrell Issa Transparency

Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting congressional delegate for the District of Columbia, angrily sputtered during a congressional hearing Friday that the White House should not be held up to scrutiny, saying that there was no right to know what it was doing behind closed doors.
"You don't have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government," Norton said during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing.
It was, to put mildly, a significant departure from the more traditional liberal stance that openness and transparency are must to prevent abuses of power by government officials. Instead the leading advocate for statehood for the District of Columbia literally argued that even the congressional committee charged with oversight shouldn't be asking questions in the first place.

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!

She made the comments while protesting the committee's Republican majority for voting to ignore a claim by the White House that David Simas, director of it's Office of Political Strategy and Outreach, was immune to a congressional subpoena to testify. Republicans believe the office is being used a political campaign operation, a violation of federal election law.
Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., noted he was not alleging any wrongdoing by Simas, but there was a history of violations involving that particular office in prior administrations that justified requesting his testimony.
Under President Obama, the White House has asserted sweeping executive powers, including the right to ignore pretty much all congressional inquiries. The administration has regularly ignored subpoenas from congressional committees.
Holmes was clearly down with that. She called Issa's subpoena a "showcase fishing expedition." She went on to argue that the Constitution's separation of powers specifically gives the people who work directly under the chief executive immunity from subpoenas. "The president's immediate advisor is not an agency and this is not a matter of policy," she said, before going to further clarify that we "don't have a right to know" everything that the administration does.
Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., top ranking Democrat on the Oversight Committee, thanked Holmes for her comments.
"I associate myself with your comments," Cummings added, thus making it clear that he doesn't believe the public has right to know what is going on inside the White House either.

Adviser Ignores Subpoena Again as White House Defies Issa... Dem: 'You don't have right to know' what's going on...

(The Washington Examiner) -- Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting congressional representative for the District of Columbia, angrily sputtered during a congressional hearing Friday that the White House should not be held up to scrutiny, saying that there was no right to know what it was doing behind closed doors.
"You don't have a right to know everything in a separation-of-powers government, my friend. That is the difference between a parliamentary government and a separation-of-powers government," Norton said during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing.
It was, to put mildly, a significant departure from the more traditional liberal stance that openness and transparency are must to prevent abuses of power by government officials. Instead the leading advocate for statehood for the District of Columbia literally argued that even the congressional committee charged with oversight shouldn't be asking questions in the first place.

<br/>

She made the comments while protesting the committee's Republican majority for voting toignore a claim by the White House that David Simas, director of it's Office of Political Strategy and Outreach, was immune to a congressional subpoena to testify. Republicans believe the office is being used a political campaign operation, a violation of federal election law.

Keep reading...

New IRS Form Proves Obama Lied About Individual Mandate Tax

New IRS Form Proves Obama Lied About Individual Mandate Tax

---

Posted by John Kartch and Ryan Ellis on Friday, July 25th, 2014, 10:59 AM PERMALINK

Send to Kindle

---

On Thursday the IRS released a slew of draft 2014 tax forms. The new draft Form 1040 shows a new surtax line has been created for the payment of the individual mandate surtax – see line 61 of the 1040:


President Obama has repeatedly denied that the surtax is in fact actually a tax. The most prominent example was a heated exchange on ABC’s This Week in Sept. 2009, when George Stephanopoulos confronted Obama with a dictionary:
STEPHANOPOULOS: I -- I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam Webster's Dictionary: Tax -- "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn't have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what...
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but...
OBAMA: ...what you're saying is...
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that.
Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but...
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it's a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion. [Transcript]

It was always obvious that the penalty for not complying with Obamacare’s individual mandate was just another surtax:

• The surtax is collected by, and enforced by, the IRS.
• As shown by the newly released draft Form 1040, the surtax is paid as part of normal income tax filing by taxpayers.
• The individual mandate surtax was written into tax law itself by the Obamacare statute.
• Revenues derived from the individual mandate surtax have always been scored by the Congressional Budget Office as tax revenue.

Famously, Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out that the individual mandate surtax is in fact a tax. However, that does not compel conservatives to agree that Obamacare’s individual mandate is Constitutional. The same decision declared the individual mandate unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. Conservatives can accept that this surtax is a tax increase without accepting the constitutionality of the individual mandate.
The Obamacare individual mandate non-compliance surtax is one of at least seven Obamacare taxes that violate the President’s “firm pledge” not to raise any tax on any American making less than $250,000 per year. Thorough documentation of Obama’s promise can be found here.

More from Americans for Tax Reform

“You’ve all gone insane!” Joan Rivers defends Israel

Israel: The Jihad Against the Jews ISRAEL: The Real War, Ignored by Jihad Media

27 Comments

Unfortunately your browser does not support IFrames.
“The BBC should be ashamed of themselves, CNN should be ashamed of themselves…”
Watch this whole clip. At last, some common sense. No wonder the ADL hates Joan Rivers. Will the ADL attack her again?
The fact that we have to look to Joan Rivers for moral clarity is indicative of the low state of the world.
Joan Rivers for Secretary of State.

TONY PALMER (UPDATE)

Who Thinks President Obama Will Be Impeached? The White House

Jul 25, 2014, 12:28 PM ET

BY RICK KLEIN

Rick Klein More from Rick »

Political Director

President Barack Obama speaks in this June 10, 2014 file photo in the South Court Auditorium in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on the White House complex in Washington.

Susan Walsh/AP Photo

Don't dismiss the possibility of the House of Representatives bringing articles of impeachment against President Obama, senior White House adviser Dan Pfeiffer said today.

"I think a lot of people in this town laugh that off," Pfeiffer said at a breaking with reporters in Washington hosted by the Christian Science Monitor. "I would not discount that possibility. I think that Speaker [John] Boehner, by going down this path of this lawsuit, has opened the door to Republicans possibly considering impeachment at some point in the future."

He went on to say that the executive actions being considered by the White House on immigration would probably “up the likelihood” of impeachment, making the point that lawmakers such as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, already have said the president is violating the law with his unilateral moves on immigration.

House Judiciary Chair Goodlatte Dismisses Calls for Obama Impeachment

Rep. Paul Broun Would Back Obama Impeachment

Pfeiffer noted that the House is set to file a formal lawsuit next week against the president over his executive actions. While the idea of impeachment is only being discussed by the likes of Sarah Palin -– and very few elected lawmakers –- that could change.

He went on to say that the White House views the lawsuit as “validation” of its “year of action” strategy, saying of executive actions: “If they were small-ball, the Republicans would not be suing over them.”

Asked whether impeachment would be good for the president, Pfeiffer said: “No, I don’t think so.”

Boehner, who has publicly ruled out impeachment, responded in a statement through his spokesman.

"We have a humanitarian crisis at our border, and the White House is making matters worse with inattention and mixed signals,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement. “It is telling, and sad, that a senior White House official is focused on political games, rather than helping these kids and securing the border."