Amid Rumors Obama Mulling Sanctions Against Israel, Congress Unites to Denounce Hamas and Support Israel

Yesterday, the Senate unanimously passed a bipartisan resolution supporting Israel and denouncing Hamas. The timing of the move suggests it’s a reaction to rumors that the Obama administration is considering sanctions against Israel over their settlements in Jerusalem.

The Cruz-Gillibrand-Manchin Resolution supports Israel’s right to defend itself and condemns the use of human shields in Gaza.

 

WASHINGTON, DC – A resolution co-sponsored by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-New York, and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia unanimously passed the Senate yesterday to condemn the use of civilians as human shields by the terrorist group, Hamas.

“The Senate has sent a united signal that we denounce Hamas’ barbaric tactics and unequivocally support Israel’s right to self-defense,” said Sen. Cruz. “Even though Republicans and Democrats may be divided on many issues, there should be no daylight between us when it comes to standing up to radical Islamic terrorists including Hamas. I hope the international community will join America in condemning their deplorable use of human shields, which is a war crime. I thank my colleagues for their affirmation of our unshakable bond with the nation of Israel. We look forward to the passage of this resolution in the House or Representatives, where it has been led by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Florida and Rep. Ted Deutch, D-Florida and has 102 co-sponsors.”

Sen. Cruz’s resolution:

  • Strongly condemns the use of innocent civilians as human shields;

  • Calls on the international community to recognize and condemn Hamas’ use of human shields;

  • Places responsibility for the rocket attacks against Israel on Hamas and other terrorist organizations, such as Palestine Islamic Jihad;

  • Supports the sovereign right of the Government of Israel to defend its territory and its citizens from Hamas’ rocket attacks, kidnapping attempts and the use of tunnels and other means to carry out attacks against Israel;

  • Expresses condolences to the families of the innocent victims on both sides of the conflict;

  • Supports Palestinian civilians who reject Hamas and all forms of terrorism and violence, desiring to live in peace with their Israeli neighbors;

  • Supports efforts to demilitarize the Gaza Strip, removing Hamas’ means to target Israel, including its use of tunnels, rockets, and other means; and

  • Condemns the United Nations Human Rights Council’s biased resolution establishing a commission of inquiry into Israel’s Gaza operations.

Last week White House mouthpiece didn’t deny that sanctions against Israel were on the table.

But on Monday, Earnest’s tune had completely changed.

 Obama administration officials on Monday denied reports that the U.S. was weighing sanctions on Israel over settlement expansions in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, dismissing such speculation as “completely unfounded and without merit.”

“Reports that [we] might be contemplating sanctions against Israel are completely unfounded and without merit,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said Monday.

Still, Earnest suggested that Israeli and administration officials had a recent conversation about the issue and acknowledged that “settlement activity” continues to be a matter of disagreement.

As if it’s Obama’s business where Israelis build their settlements.

This video, highlighting Obama’s hostility toward the Jewish State was produced in 2011 by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Things have only gotten worse since then.

Krauthammer: “I’ve Waited Long Enough” Is Something A Banana Republic Leader Would Say

One of the more obnoxious things about Obama’s imperial decree on amnesty is the rationale he’s been using to go forward – which he has repeated over and over again and it didn’t sound any better the 10th time he (or one of his minions) said it..  Congress failed to pass “common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform” when Emperor Obama laid out his glorious principles for reform two years ago — and that’s why he must now act unilaterally.

That’s an obscene distortion of how our system of government works.

“The only rationale Obama is citing in doing this,” Krauthamer explained is “not lack of resources, it’s not a crisis, it’s not something new. As he said the system is broken, it has been for decades. It is one thing and one thing alone. ‘I’ve waited long enough.’ That’s what a caudillo says in a Banana Republic. ‘I waited long enough, and the National Assembly hasn’t acted, and so I’m going to issue a decree.’ That is not how it works in our system.”

Also, George Will throws cold water on liberal equivocations – Executive Amnesty = Institutional Vandalism:

UPDATE:

Weasel Zippers: WH Blames Boehner For Amnesty Order: “President Simply Isn’t Going To Tolerate” House GOP Refusing To Pass Amnesty Legislation…

“Just two weeks ago when Speaker Boehner was doing his post-election news conference, he was asked by reporters in that news conference if he would commit to bringing up immigration reform legislation in the next Congress, and he wouldn’t do it,” Josh Earnest said during an appearance on MSNBC.

Earnest said that GOP leadership was scared to allow a vote because “they know, as we do, that if that bill were allowed to come up for a vote it would actually pass in bipartisan fashion.”

“The president simply isn’t going to tolerate that,” Earnest said.

SEE ALSO:

Joseph Curl, The Washington Times: Obama sets off on scorched-earth rampage

After his party’s historic losses, he refused to even acknowledge the thrashing. Instead, he said the real lesson from that day was that Americans want everyone in Washington to “work together.”

Yet behind the scenes, the president was busy directing his team of lawyers to find real or perceived loopholes in the law — even the Constitution — in order to wave his royal scepter and instantaneously turn as many as 12 million illegal aliens into America citizens. Already he had quietly ordered the federal government to stop deporting aliens and unilaterally allowed some 60,000 “unaccompanied minors” to enter the U.S.

So he never had any intention of “working together” with Republicans, who in six weeks will control both chambers of Congress. Instead, he set off to circumvent Congress by granting amnesty to millions. Throughout, he knew that he would be, as GOP leaders said, “poisoning the well” and “waving a red flag in front of a bull.”

On Wednesday afternoon, the president announced — on Facebook — that he will be delivering a speech Thursday night detailing his intent to change U.S. law by executive fiat. The timing is deliberately designed to throw gasoline on an already blazing fire.

With just weeks to go before the end of the 113th Congress, and with funding for Ebola, a continuing resolution to keep the government open that expires Dec. 11, and a slew of others set to come up, the president has made unilateral action on immigration his top priority.

Despite his vow to work with Republicans, he will shove his executive order down their throats, intent on bringing conflict with the soon-to-be ruling party.

Gabe Malor, The Federalist: No, Reagan Did Not Offer An Amnesty By Lawless Executive Order:

Today is the big day, and the Progressive media is in full spin to mitigate the anger Americans are expressing about President Obama’s decision to offer legal status to millions of people who broke the law. That spin has taken many forms, including the novel arguments that the executive branch is empowered to act whenever the legislative branch declines and that the executive branch’s enforcement discretion includes the affirmative grant of benefits not otherwise authorized by law. Most recently, however, Progressive columnists have settled on an old favorite tactic: justify Democratic misbehavior by claiming (falsely, as you will see) that a Republican did it first.

Democrats across print, web, and cable media have been repeating the claim that Obama is doing nothing more than what Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 did first. They point to executive actions taken in 1987 and 1989 that deferred the removal of certain aliens. But, as usual for Progressive commentators, they elide the crucial facts that distinguish those actions from Obama’s. The sign that you’re being swindled isn’t so much what the con artist tells you, but what he does not tell you. What the Progressive commentariat is not telling you is that the Reagan and Bush immigration orders looked nothing like Obama’s creation of a new, open-ended form of immigration relief.

 SEE ALSO:

Byron York, Washington Examiner: Government shutdown? GOP has a better strategy

Gateway Pundit: Rick Perry May Fight Obama’s Lawlessness – Sue Over Executive Amnesty

John Hayward, Red State: Amnesty and the minimum wage make strange bedfellows

Red Alert: MSNBC Host: I can’t find ‘a single Democrat in Washington’ who says Obama’s amnesty is legal

The Right Scoop: Mark Levin: Democrats are legalizing illegals not to help America, but to help themselves and their own damn party

Weasel Zippers: Pelosi: “Everybody Will Have A Happier Thanksgiving” Because Of Obama’s Executive Amnesty…

Peter Wehner, Commentary: Obama Is About to Commit an Act of Constitutional Infamy:

What is about to happen may be the low point in a presidency filled with them. Mr. Obama is acting in a way that he himself knows–that he himself has said–is unconstitutional and indefensible. No matter. In an act of unmatched narcissism and selfishness, the president will create–he is thirsting to create–a constitutional crisis that is utterly unnecessary and will further polarize our political culture.

Mr. Obama is about to commit an act of constitutional infamy. This is a stain that will stay with him.

 

Video: The Ultimate #GruberGate mashup

In two and a half minutes American Commitment lays bare the dishonesty, hypocrisy and corruption employed by the Democrat party. If only they were capable of embarrassment….

 

By the way, American Commitmen coined the term, “GruberGate” back in July:

Krauthammer: Exec Immigration Action ‘A Flagrant Assault on Constitution’ and ‘An Impeachable Offense’

On “The Kelly File” tonight, Charles Krauthammer once again blasted the president’s planned executive action on illegal immigration, going so far as to say it is “an impeachable offense” but without recommending that he be impeached for it.

After Megyn Kelly showed a clip from 2011 of Obama telling a liberal audience that he can’t suspend deportations via executive actions because there were laws on the books and to not abide by those laws would not conform with bis “appropriate role as president.”

“It is very clear that what he’s doing now as he has said many times in the past, is a flagrant assault on the Constitution, on the separation of powers,” Krauthammer said of the president.

Krauthammer noted that he’s sure Attorney General Eric Holder was able to find lawyers who say that this action is OK.

“As we know, if you’re a district attorney, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, and this is the equivalent,” he said.

He advised Republicans to fight it tooth and nail but not to lose their heads over it and shut down the government.

“We’re in unprecedented territory, Kelly noted, making the point that no president has ever done anything like this, before, and that’s why people want congress to call out that perceived lawlessness and do something as politically unpopular as impeachment.”

Krauthammer agreed with the premise, saying, “look, I believe it is an impeachable offense.” But he stopped short of recommending impeachment, which in the past he has said wouldn’t work and make the president a martyr.

He continued, “this idea of prosecutorial discretion is really a travesty. It is intended for extreme cases – for a case where you want to show mercy for an individual or two where it’s unusual… circumstances and you say, okay we’re going to give this person a pass. It was never intended to abolish a whole class of people subject to a law and to essentially abolish whole sections of the law.”

Megyn Kelly expressed her disgust with Obama’s excuse for taking the illegal action, whining “we really want this, it’s time. The Republicans didn’t do it. We tried to get it passed in congress and we couldn’t. Therefore the president must act.”

“That’s they way the system works in Venezuela. Krauhammer declared. “If the Caudillo isn’t able to get stuff done through congress, he issues a decree –  and that’s it –  and he’ll arrest anyone who gets in the way. The whole American system is designed so that there has to be a collaboration between congress and the president. Congress has to pass it and he has to sign it. That’s the way the damn thing works.”

He added, “you can’t say I waited and waited”  which Krauthammer noted is cynical of the president given the Democrats held congress for two years, and it didn’t get done.

SEE ALSO:

Breitbart.com: FOURNIER: ‘SIT DOWN, SHUT UP’ EXEC AMNESTY WILL HURT HISPANIC TURNOUT

The Hayride: Our Fundamental Problem Is That We Do Not Have An American President…

HotAir: Obama promises his deeply unpopular views on amnesty, Keystone won’t change

 

Democrat Responses To Gruber are Gruberrific (Video)

There are several ways  libs are handling “the endless flaming bags of sh*t being left on their doorstep by Gruber,” as Allahpundit so elegantly put it. Democrat officials, consultants, strategists and pollsters have been called upon to work their magic and the one thing all their excuses have in common is they all involve some degree of “gruberism” – i.e. lying to people they think are too stupid to know any better.

 One is the White House route, i.e. polite distancing despite the plain, painful fact that ol’ Grubes is only guilty of stating what all progressive mandarins believe.

The White House sought Wednesday to distance itself from Gruber and his comments.

“The Affordable Care Act was publicly debated over the course of 14 months, with dozens of Congressional hearings, and countless town halls, speeches, and debates,” White House spokeswoman Jessica Santillo said in a statement. “The tax credits in the law that help millions of middle class Americans afford coverage were no secret, and in fact were central to the legislation. Not only do we disagree with [Gruber’s] comments, they’re simply not true.”

Nancy Pelosi demonstrates her contempt for the American people by pretending that she’s never even heard of Jonathan Gruber. Other liberals like Angus King have run with this one, too.

Because we’re too damn stupid to remember four whole years ago, or dig up old videos like the one Fox News highlighted below.

Another gruberrific response is to pretend to be offended by Gruber’s serial dishonesty and smugness,  while simultaneously claiming that it’s commonplace to hide key provisions in bills and oh, by the way,  Republicans lie too – like when they say ‘ObamaCare is the takeover of 1/6 of the economy.'” (It is.)

As exemplified by Alan Colmes – with a big crisis management style mea culpa from Gruber at the beginning and a little Alinsky rule #4 thrown in for good measure, before Megyn (having none of it) cut him off:  “What happened to Christian forgiveness? Don’t we forgive people who make mist–” Oh shaddap.

If all else fails, there’s always liberal obfuscation. Bury Gruber’s (and by extension the Obama administration, Democrats and their willing accomplices in the media) offenses under a blizzard a liberal happy talk about how well the law is working and pretend everyone is too stupid to remember how it was passed four years ago. Gruberism at its finest as demonstrated by Dem pollster Bernard Whitman:

Yes, a 4th Gruber video came out today, and it is a bit of a disappointment because it doesn’t pack the same insulting,  Gruberistic punch as the last three.

But as Allapundit notes, “this video, although perhaps lacking the infuriating smugness and contempt exhibited by Gruber in other venues, might be more of a problem for Democrats.”

The architect of the bill isn’t just mocking stupidity and celebrating deceit and dishonesty in the process; he’s admitting that the bill itself is just an uncontrolled experiment. On Outnumbered, the panel discusses the strategies that Republicans can employ with Gruber in a discussion that took place prior to the emergence of this video. It’s time to get Gruber under oath and talk about his earlier admission that the bill intentionally prevented subsidies from being paid out of a federal exchange, as well as an explanation of his “spaghetti approach” and experimentation with tens of millions of people who already had the health insurance they wanted.

Fox News Reveals Documents Detailing Obama’s “Constitutionally Odious” Amnesty (Video)

I’m gonna start calling it “cram-nesty” because that’s what it is – the usurper cramming another grossly unpopular policy down the nation’s throat.

Via Fox News Insider:

As part of the 10-point plan, up to 4.5 million illegal immigrants living with their American born kids would be allowed to stay in the U.S., an expansion of deferred action. The plan would also expand deferred action for DACA children. There is also a proposal to raise pay for ICE officers to boost morale.

The plan would also allow family members of illegal immigrants another avenue for citizenship through the military’s delayed entry program. Sources say this avenue will likely be exploited, with people joining the military, then not showing up for boot camp.

Other proposals include a 50-percent discount to the first 10,000 naturalization applicants, 500,000 technology jobs through the State Department visa program, and increased border security.

Later during the panel discussion, Charles Krauthammer called the plan “constitutionally odious.”

He said the proposal is an advertisement to the world that you can come into America illegally, and if you wait long enough, we will legalize you.

Can we talk about impeachment now? Empty talk and huffing and puffing is not going to do a thing to stop a tyrannical president.

SEE ALSO: 

Twitchy: Executive action on amnesty? Laura Ingraham braces for ‘war on America’s middle class & working poor’ 

Apparently the ass-kicking they received a week ago wasn’t strong enough.

Big Government: Father Asks Obama to Use Executive Order to Bring Son Slain by Illegal Alien Back to Life

“While your Executive Order pad is out, can you write one to bring my son and the tens of thousands (actually over 100,000) killed by illegal aliens back to life and to bring our destroyed families back together?” asks Don Rosenberg in a letter to Obama. His son Drew was killed by an illegal alien who ran over him in 2010.

In the letter, Rosenberg notes that President Obama’s administration refused to deport the illegal alien who killed his son.

Must Read: Desert Storm Vet Hammers Obama Administration For Abandoning Iraq

fsib

The approach of Veteran’s Day got Desert Storm vet Michael Banzet to ruminating about his decision to retire from the Air Force after the elections of 2008. He wrote a powerful oped, Why I quit… Desert Storm vet explains decision to leave Air Force after 22 years that was published in his hometown newspaper in Montana, The Daily Inter-Lake in November of 2010.

Four years later, he says, “the thing that prompted me to attempt to put thought to electrons was, oddly enough, the recent massacre of 770 young men around Camp Speicher, Iraq.”

Via The Daily Inter-Lake:

I served 22 years in the Air Force, and without a doubt, the most rewarding year in my career was the year that I spent on the ground in Iraq. I was able to witness the results of the sacrifice made by so many young Americans, young and old, men and women, of all colors. I was humbled by what I found. The desperately courageous Iraqis, who had to operate in the most dangerous of circumstances, depended on the steady presence of the American armed forces. And of course, the numerous allies.

I noticed that the news coverage didn’t match what I saw with my own eyes and heard with my own ears. Everything was negative. Every setback was trumpeted, every advance muffled or ignored. There were “grim milestones” for casualties updated daily. Even an esteemed senator from Nevada claimed, while young Americans were engaged in active combat, that they were losers. I was in Baghdad for some of that. Awesome. That used to be unheard of. But it gets you re-elected today.

And eventually, with the “heads it’s negative, tails it’s not positive” coverage, people began to believe that we should leave. And why not? It was the “wrong war,” it was going badly, at least until we needed a justification to leave, and then it was “strong and stable.” So the United States elected a man who promised that he would declare victory and leave. And for those of you who are sputtering, “But BUSH!” consider this:

So completely wrong was the “declare victory and leave” position that the current administration is not only using Bush’s 2001/2 Authorizations for Use of Force for legal justification, they are also embracing the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption. For gosh’ sake, the carrier that launched some of the first airstrikes is the USS George H.W. Bush. Talk about complete reversal.

Of course, anyone with the ability to think deeply about the subject would realize that changing a culture is a long proposition. Far longer than merely the end of combat. And that really should be the end game of any war that the U.S. gets involved in. The end game of war, for us, is supposed to be a free, potentially prosperous people emerging from the carnage of war. Someone who will make a good ally in the future. And that’s what was happening in Iraq. 

Iraqis, for the first time in their lives, were able to trust. That may be a small thing for you. You, who have never feared for your life from your government. You, who have never wondered if something you say is going to get you killed at the hands of your government. You, who have been able to trust your friends, neighbors and associates; if you haven’t, it wasn’t because you thought they were a government informant, ready to turn you in at the slightest misstep, perhaps to be fed into a paper shredder.

But as the year of my duty in dusty Baghdad wore on, they were starting to trust. They were starting to timidly reach out to report IED emplacements, rocket set-ups, and bad guys in the neighborhood. The thing that moved me to write my book, “A Flowershop in Baghdad,” was this simple fact. The Iraqis who had been bombed, shot at, and we had tried to kill (in one case, actually being shot down by us), all referred to us the same way: 

“The Friendly Side.”

I wrote 341 pages about the exceptionalism of this country, and how much we were changing the young men and women who were clever enough to avoid being killed for the audacity to sign up for service in the Iraqi Air Force. The 20-somethings were great at absorbing the moral compass that guides our military operations. But I also wrote about the challenge of the older officers. It’s pretty hard to change from a life of selfishness, self-preservation and fear to one of selflessness and courage. But it’s do-able; just takes some time to reinforce the goodness in the ones who can change, and supervise the transition out of power of the ones who cannot. All the while nurturing the new generation, keeping them from harm until they can take over. It’s not an easy process.

I know that it would be pretty hard for me to completely change my world view at my age. I can certainly take in new facts, but to change a significant part of my belief system would take constant reinforcement, both in issues big and small. That requires “presence.” The simple act of being around influences behavior. That’s why the police don’t all just sit at the station, waiting for a call to come in. They actively patrol; for presence. It doesn’t cost them any more to patrol; you’ve already hired them. It’s common sense. Constant reinforcement and influence until good behavior is the norm.

Due to the type of reporting from Iraq, you never knew the progress that was being made; the connections that were being completed, the goodness that exposure to the U.S. military brings. Trust. Selflessness. Leadership. Followership. Courage. And yet you voted all that away; leaves blowing in a dishonest wind. Which brings us back to the 770 young men massacred around Camp Spiecher.

iraqi-soldiers-massacred-RIPjpg

I knew those faces. Those confused, terrified young faces. About 175 of them were Iraqi Air Force recruits; the others, Army. This was precisely the process that I helped set up. Did I know personally this group? No. But they were the same young men, full of promise and hope. Capable of immense good, ready to be molded by whatever of our influence remained. But I wondered, as I looked at some of the pictures, why were they captured without uniforms? Without weapons? Why no resistance? It wasn’t until there were a couple of witness testimonies that it all snapped into place.

They were abandoned. First by us, then by the leaders, no longer influenced by “the friendly side,” that had fallen into their old habits.

One survivor talked of the young military recruits being told to change into civilian clothes, take no weapons: they would be loaded into trucks and sent to Baghdad. Another talked of their senior officers just disappearing. In both cases, the next organization that they met was ISIS. And then, they were taken out into the desert, and as an inevitable consequence of U.S. policy, slaughtered. Did ISIS pull the triggers, draw the knives across young throats? Absolutely. Did the rush to leave, for no reason other than it was Bush’s war enable them to do it? Absolutely.

If the police patrolling your neighborhood let it be known that they would no longer be patrolling your neighborhood, but that the neighborhood watch would be taking over, do you think bad behavior would go up or down? Is that because new people moved in? And in the absence of a strong presence for good, what will happen to evil?

 Read the rest, here.