Sung to the tune of "The Mickey Mouse Club theme:
Who's the Greatest Husband that the world has ever seen,
B-I-L
L-Y-B
A-R-K-E-R
Billy Barker! Billy Barker! That loving husband who makes his wife beam...
(OK you pervs... YES... "beam"... as in SMILE...)
(Dirty minded little...)
(*JUST SHAKING MY HEAD*)
Anyway... ended the weekend by purchasing The Poops a new jacket... PURPLE... her favorite color... regularly $100 - final markdown... $20.
(Folks... you know my theory on Kohl's, right? It's not really a department store, it's a retail "front" for the drug cartels... they use it to launder money...)
(*GLANCING AT MY WATCH*)
Well... enough chit-chat! On to newsbiting...!!!
4 comments:
http://news.yahoo.com/phased-us-iran-nuclear-deal-taking-shape-112339907--politics.html
Edging toward a historic compromise, the U.S. and Iran reported progress Monday on a deal that would clamp down on Tehran's nuclear activities for at least 10 years but then slowly ease restrictions on programs that could be used to make atomic arms.
* SO OBAMA PLANS TO STILL BE PRESIDENT 10 YEARS FROM NOW...???
* FOLKS... OBAMA IS A TOTAL FAILURE... THIS IS TOTAL FARCE... (ONLY... FUNNY IT'S NOT!)
"We made progress," U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said as he bade farewell to members of the American delegation at the table with Iran. More discussions between Iran and the six nations engaging it were set for next Monday, a senior U.S. official said.
* SERIOUSLY, FOLKS... OBAMA... HILLARY... KERRY... THE INMATES HAVE BEEN RUNNING THE ASYLUM - INTO THE GROUND!
* OBAMA MAKES CARTER LOOK COMPETENT IN COMPARISON. (HELL... OBAMA MAKES "DUBYA" LOOK LIKE A STATESMAN!)
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/texas-governor-jan-1-we-have-had-more-20000-people-come-across-border
"We all saw what happened on the Texas border last summer, but we need to understand that the problem is not going away," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott told CBS's "Face the Nation" with Bob Schieffer on Sunday.
"Already this calendar year, since January 1, we have had more than 20,000 people come across the border, apprehended, unauthorized. And so we have an ongoing problem on the border that Congress must step up and solve."
(All told in fiscal year 2014, U.S immigration officials removed 213,719 individuals apprehended while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States.)
Schieffer reminded Abbott that there are some 800,000 illegal aliens living in Texas right now. "You don't have enough buses to send them back to Mexico, and I don't expect you can put all of them in jail. What are you going to do with them?" he asked Abbott.
* LET 'EM WALK...
(*SHRUG*)
"Well, two things," the governor responded. "One is, the president himself said as these people were coming across the border that he would repatriate them as soon as possible. So, we need to see whether or not the president himself is going to live up to the commitment that he made."
* HE WON'T; NEXT?
Abbott said the second thing is to let Congress - not the president - decide how to deal with the millions of people who are in the United States illegally: "And so we need Congress to have the latitude to fulfill its responsibility to solve the problem."
* JUST AS THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS!
Abbott said as governor, he has outlined a plan to secure the border: "I'm going to add more than 500 more Department of Public Safety officers, more Texas Rangers, more technology. We are coming out of our own pocket, Texas taxpayers' pockets, to secure the border and doing the job that the federal government must do.
"The first step that has to be taken in this whole process is to secure the border," he added.
Abbott filed a lawsuit on behalf of 26 states challenging President Obama's decision to go around Congress by unilaterally giving millions of illegal immigrants permission to temporarily stay in the U.S. and get Social Security numbers so they can work here as well.
* UNILATERALLY... AND... ILLEGALLY.
A federal judge recently put Obama's plan on hold, and Abbott said he expects the case to "continue through the court process all the way to the Supreme Court."
Abbott said it is "essential" to win on constitutional grounds, "because what we have here is a situation where the president has violated the rule of law and really contradicted the Constitution by actually making up the law and imposing his own standards on the immigration system.
* WHICH THE MSM BY AND LARGE WON'T ACKNOWLEGE BECAUSE OBAMA'S "THEIR" GUY.
"And so what Congress must do is to continue to ensure that the rule of law and the United States Constitution as constructed are fulfilled. And that means it's the Congress, not the president, that establishes what our immigration laws are."
* YEP! JUST AS THE CONSTITUTION DEMANDS...
Abbott noted that the lawsuit he filed doesn't deal with immigration -- it deals with "an overreach by the president."
In announcing his deferred deportation plan for millions of illegal aliens last November, President Obama said, "If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up." He said the new policy does not apply to recent border-crossers.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/regulatory-brushback-1424645979
Congressional Republicans remain all tied up over immigration, and the pity is that the melodrama is distracting from their other political ambitions. One promising possibility is the use of the Congressional Review Act to challenge President Obama ’s rule by regulation.
The CRA, which was passed by a previous GOP Congress in 1996...
* OK. HOLD IT. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE "CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT OF 1996," WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER TO SIMPLY GO BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION OF 1789...??? (IN OTHER WORDS, FOLKS, CONGRESS NEEDS NO "BILL" TO EXERCISE POWERS RIGHTLY IT'S OWN AS SPELLED OUT BY THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF!)
...allows lawmakers a process for an expedited vote to kill a new regulation. A simple majority in both houses can begin debate and pass the resolution of disapproval, though it can be vetoed by the President.
* IN A SENSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER HAD THE BILL NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED OR PASSED; NOW IT'S SIMPLY GONNA MUDDY THE WATERS CONCERNING SEPARATION OF POWERS - WHICH OBAMA CLEARLY DOESN'T BELIEVE IN.
The process has succeeded only once — in 2001, to kill an ergonomics rule rushed out in Bill Clinton ’s final days.
(*SHRUG*)
* SEE WHAT I MEAN...
But with President Obama trying to rewrite legislation by fiat, the CRA ought to get a rigorous workout in the next two years.
* AND THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF SHOULD BE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT TO STOP OBAMA... BUT WITH RINOs CONTROLLING THE HOUSE AND SENATE AND TODAY'S DEMOCRATS BEING WHO THEY ARE...
(*SIGH*)
House and Senate Republicans are starting things off with companion resolutions they introduced this month to block the National Labor Relation Board’s new quickie-election rule. Mr. Obama’s union-dominated board pushed through this 733-page regulation in December in a 3-2 vote.
The new rule makes it easier for unions to ambush companies by dramatically compressing the time for workplace union elections. Companies currently have an average of 38 days to respond after unions request an organizing election that they may have spent months secretly preparing for. The quickie rule would cut that response time to as few as 10 days, while postponing certain voter-eligibility disputes and other concerns until after the vote.
The point of this mandated acceleration is to force a vote before employees can hear the company’s view. A January lawsuit by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups argues that this violates an employer’s constitutional right to free speech and due process. The average worker deserves time to consider, for example, whether she wants to cede a big chunk of her wages to union dues that the union can then spend on things that have nothing to do with negotiating better wages or benefits — such as politics.
The rule includes an unprecedented requirement that companies provide unions with the telephone numbers and home and email addresses of company employees, as well as their shifts and work locations. This gives unions another leg up in organizing, while exposing workers and their families to intimidation if they don’t join the union party.
The rule also flouts Congressional intent. The legislative history of the National Labor Relations Act shows Congress wanted at least 30 days between a union petition and election, and no less than John F. Kennedy argued for the 30-day interval as a Senator in 1959.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to move for a Senate CRA vote on the quickie rule, and it will be instructive to see if Democrats Heidi Heitkamp (North Dakota), Claire McCaskill (Missouri) or Joe Donnelly (Indiana) vote to give workers the time to hear both sides.
The GOP ought to use the Congressional Review Act as often as it can in the next two years to force politically clarifying votes on Mr. Obama’s regulatory diktats. They may not be able to override his veto, but they will show voters who wants to raise regulatory burdens on the nation’s job creators.
* UNFORTUNATELY... THE WSJ JUST DOESN'T GET IT...
(*SIGH*)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/kim-strassel-the-clinton-foundation-super-pac-1424391547?tesla=y
With the news this week that Mrs. Clinton — the would-be occupant of the White House — is landing tens of millions from foreign governments for her shop, it’s long past time to drop the fiction that the Clinton Foundation has ever been a charity.
It’s a political shop.
This is an organization that in 2013 spent $8.5 million in travel expenses alone, ferrying the Clintons to headliner events. Those keep Mrs. Clinton in the news, which helps when you want to be president.
Most family charities exist to allow self-made Americans to disperse their good fortune to philanthropic causes. Bill and Hillary have simply done with the Foundation what they did with cattle futures and Whitewater and the Lincoln Bedroom and Johnny Chung — they’ve exploited the system. The Clinton Foundation exists to allow the nation’s most powerful couple to use their not-so-subtle persuasion to exact global tribute for a fund that promotes the Clintons.
Only last week it came out that Dennis Cheng, who raised money for Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 bid, and then transitioned to the Clinton Foundation’s chief development officer, is now transitioning back to head up Mrs. Clinton’s 2016 fundraising operation.
How much of Mrs. Clinton’s travel - or Clinton Foundation employees’ salaries - was funded by the Saudis?
(Or the United Arab Emirates, or Oman, or any of the other foreign nations that The Wall Street Journal Tuesday reported have given millions to the Foundation this past year?)
How many voters has Mrs. Clinton wooed, how many potential donors has she primed, how many influential people has she recruited for her campaign via the Clinton Foundation?
The Foundation claims none, but that’s the other Clinton stroke of brilliance in using a charity as a campaign vehicle — we can’t know. Poor Jeb Bush has to abide by all those pesky campaign-finance laws that require him to disclose exact donor names, and dates and amounts. And that also bar contributions from foreign entities.
Not a problem for Team Clinton!
The foundation does divulge contributors — after a fashion — but doesn’t give exact amounts or dates. Did Mrs. Clinton ever take any oddly timed actions as secretary of state?
(Who knows? Not the Federal Election Commission!)
The Foundation likes to note that it adopted self-imposed limits on foreign contributions during the period when Mrs. Clinton was at the State Department. Which is nice. Then again, that ban wasn’t absolute, and it isn’t clear it encompassed non-profits funded by foreign governments, or covered wealthy foreigners, or foreign corporations. Nothing is clear. This is the Clintons. That’s how they like it.
This is the baseline scandal of the Clinton Foundation — it’s a political group that gets to operate outside the rules imposed on every other political player.
Then comes the ethical morass. Republican National Committee spokesman Michael Short summed it up perfectly in a Wednesday WSJ story: “When that 3 a.m. phone call comes, do voters really want to have a president on the line who took truckloads of cash from other countries?”
The nation’s ethics guardians have gently declared the Clintons might clear this up with more disclosure, or by again limiting the Foundation’s acceptance of foreign money. What about the amounts already banked? The damage is done. If this were Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a likely GOP candidate, he’d be declared disqualified for office.
The benefit of being a Clinton is that the nation expects this, and the bar for disqualification now sits in the exosphere.
Post a Comment