Sen. Cruz’s Vote to Defund Obama’s Executive Amnesty Fails (Video)

Saturday night, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas raised a constitutional point of order against to defund Emperor Obama’s illegal executive amnesty. Via The Hill, his effort failed with 22 senators (less than half of the Senate’s 45 Republicans) voting with Cruz and 74 voting against his point of order.

Cruz explained the reason for his point of order in a statement, Saturday night.

“Forcing a vote on the constitutionality of Obama’s amnesty is important for two reasons. First, since President Obama enacted his unilateral amnesty after the elections, Democrats have never been made to answer for it. Tonight, they will and they will show America whether they stand with a lawless President, who is defying the will of the voters or the millions of Americans who want a safe and legal immigration system.

“Second, it allows Republicans to also show they are committed to ending Obama’s amnesty once and for all in the next Congress. If we agree it is indeed unconstitutional, we have no business funding it when the GOP controls Congress next  year.

“The Constitution matters, and we must defend it. That is why we have fought so hard to ensure this vote.”

Via The Blaze:

The only Republicans voting with Cruz were Sens. Roy Blunt (Mo.), John Boozman (Ark.), Richard Burr (N.C.), Mike Crapo (Idaho), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), John Hoeven (N.D.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Mike Johanns (Neb.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Rand Paul (Ky.), Rob Portman (Ohio), James Risch (Idaho), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Tim Scott (S.C.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), Jon Thune (S.D.) and David Vitter (La.).

That leaves the usual suspects voting against – Thad Cochran, Orrin Hatch, McCain, Gramnesty, Corker, Ayotte, Collins — who am I missing?

Of course – Murkowsi, Flake, Kirk, Coats, McConnell!, Wicker, Heller, Toomey, Cornyn, Alexander, Ron Johnson, Enzi, Barrasso.

Coburn, Chambliss and  Inhofe didn’t vote.

The rollcall:

Alphabetical by Senator Name

Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Ayotte (R-NH), Nay
Baldwin (D-WI), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Begich (D-AK), Nay
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Blumenthal (D-CT), Nay
Blunt (R-MO), Yea
Booker (D-NJ), Nay
Boozman (R-AR), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Not Voting
Coats (R-IN), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Not Voting
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Coons (D-DE), Nay
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Cruz (R-TX), Yea
Donnelly (D-IN), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Not Voting
Fischer (R-NE), Yea
Flake (R-AZ), Nay
Franken (D-MN), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Heinrich (D-NM), Nay
Heitkamp (D-ND), Nay
Heller (R-NV), Nay
Hirono (D-HI), Nay
Hoeven (R-ND), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Not Voting
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Johnson (R-WI), Nay
Kaine (D-VA), Nay
King (I-ME), Nay
Kirk (R-IL), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Lee (R-UT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Manchin (D-WV), Nay
Markey (D-MA), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Moran (R-KS), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murphy (D-CT), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Paul (R-KY), Yea
Portman (R-OH), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Rubio (R-FL), Yea
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schatz (D-HI), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Scott (R-SC), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Toomey (R-PA), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Nay
Udall (D-NM), Nay
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Walsh (D-MT), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Nay
Warren (D-MA), Nay
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

UPDATE:

SMH

Only 18 Republicans voted against CRomnibus.

UPDATE II:

Matthew Boyle, Breitbart reports that Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) was whipping votes, according to a congressional GOP aide,   against Cruz’s measure.

Toomey’s office hasn’t responded to a request for comment as to why he was whipping votes against Cruz’s measure, and in favor of Obama’s amnesty.

So bizarre.

UPDATE III:

The Hill: Rand Paul introduces bill to undo Obama’s immigration order

 Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has filed a bill seeking to repeal President Obama’s executive order that delays deportation of five million immigrants, the Courier Journal reported Saturday.

Paul’s bill, “Preventing Executive Overreach on Immigration Act,” is companion legislation to a House bill passed last week from Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.)

The Kentucky Republican’s proposal, posted on his website Friday, prohibits the president from using discretion when determining who to deport.

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.

New Pat Roberts Ad: “That’s an Interesting Question”

Conservatives have every reason to feel peeved at the Republican establishment in Washington for pouring big bucks in the Kansas primary race in order to defeat Milton Wolf – an excellent conservative candidate. This strategy of reelecting incumbents who are way past their prime –  by any means necessary – needs to be retired because it has led to bad blood within the party and a lot of disgruntled conservatives.

A recent PPP poll showed the “Independent” candidate Greg Orman leading  Senator Pat Roberts 41 percent to 34 percent. Now the party has to spend precious resources in a race that should be in the bag for Republicans in a Republican state like Kansas.

The good news is – there are still a lot of undecideds in this race, and many who currently favor Orman  just need to be educated about him.

This brutal new ad put out by the Roberts campaign does just that, highlighting Orman’s refusal to answer a Kansan’s question about repealing ObamaCare. “That’s an interesting question,” he answered as he scurried away.

Via The AoSHQDD:

 

Enough said.

…Or Not.

SEE ALSO:

Jim Geraghty of Campaign Spot has a message for the Loud ‘I’m Staying Home This Year’ Conservatives

 

Sessions: Obama’s Planned Amnesty “A Thunderous, Dramatic Abuse Of Presidential Power” (Video)

Immigration hawk Senator  Jeff Sessions (R-AL) took to the Senate floor today to chastise the president over his plans to unilaterally grant amnesty to 5 to 6 million illegal immigrants.

“He can not do that, colleagues… American people,” Sessions chided. “They’re unlawfully here! He has no power to reverse the laws passed by the Congress of the United States, and declare someone lawful,who is unlawful. It’s a thunderous, dramatic abuse of presidential power!”

On August 1, The House of Representatives passed a bill to block Obama’s executive amnesty overreach, but so far, not a single Dem Senator has supported the legislation.

 SESSIONS has called on  EVERY CITIZEN TO DEMAND TO KNOW WHERE THEIR SENATOR STANDS ON THE PRESIDENT’S PLANNED EXECUTIVE AMNESTY:

My message to the American people today is this: you can stop this. We can stop this. We will not let this stand. And that fight begins with a vote on the House-passed bill to block this new executive action. The Senate cannot be allowed to surrender to the President’s lawlessness. I am calling today on every Senator to support this bill, and to demand Majority Leader Reid call it up for a vote…

And to every member of the public, red state or blue state or purple state, call your Senator and ask them where they stand. Ask them if they support the House bill to block executive amnesty and if they will demand it receive a vote. You are a citizen of this country and you are entitled to a clear answer to this question.”

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) along with U.S. Representatives Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Roger Williams (R-TX), Ted Yoho (R-FL), John Carter (R-TX), Mo Brooks (R-AL), and Pete Olson (R-TX) held  a press conference encouraging action on measures to solve the crisis at our southern border and prevent President Obama from expanding amnesty.

Senator Cruz said, “The House of Representatives stayed here and did its work, and the only reason that DACA legislation hasn’t passed into law is because Harry Reid and Senate Democrats’ refused to vote on it. This means that when the President tries to unilaterally grant amnesty, and he has promised to do so, every single Senate Democrat who stood with Harry Reid bears the responsibility for the President’s illegal amnesty,” Sen Cruz said. “The decision to delay amnesty until after the election is an attempt to avoid accountability. I think the American people are a lot smarter than the President seems to give them credit for. Amnesty ensures that tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of little boys and little girls will continue to be victimized, to be physically abused, to be sexually abused. Amnesty is not compassionate, it is not humane. It is exacerbating a crisis at the border. It is lawless and it is wrong.”

 Prior to the August recess, Sen. Cruz worked with his Republican colleagues on legislation that would solve the crisis at our Southern border. He introduced the Protect Children and Families Through the Rule of Law Act, portions of which will prevent President Obama from expanding amnesty to millions of more immigrants who come to the U.S. illegally, as he has suggested he plans to do after the 2014 midterm elections. Representative Marsha Blackburn sponsored similar legislation that passed the House, which Senate Democrats refused to consider.

 

SEE ALSO:

Big Government: TED CRUZ HEADS FOR IMMIGRATION SHOWDOWN WITH HARRY REID: 

Ted Cruz (R-TX) said congressional Republicans in the House and the Senate should use “any and all means necessary” to stop President Barack Obama from granting an executive amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, which he said may include language to block the president from doing so in a stop-gap spending bill that could come to the House floor as soon as Thursday.

“I think we should use any and all means necessary to prevent the president from illegally granting amnesty,” Cruz said when asked at a Tuesday press conference if he’d support including a measure that the House of Representatives passed—a bill from Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), a companion to his Senate version of the bill—right before August recess. “That, certainly, I think would be appropriate to include [in] the CR, but I think we should use every tool at our disposal.”

“Let’s wait and see what’s in the CR,” Cruz added when asked if he’d oppose the CR if it didn’t include his anti-DACA bill. “I have a habit of actually seeing what’s in legislation before I make a decision of whether or not to support it or not support it.”

Obama previously mouthing words he clearly didn’t mean:

As compiled by FOX News:

 President Obama: November 25, 2013

“If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing them through Congress, I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws.”

 President Obama: March 28, 2011

“With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”

 President Obama: September 28, 2011

“I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. But we live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it.”

Inhofe: Reid Obstruction Endangering Troops And Allowing Terrorists To Gain Strength (Video)

Harry Reid’s obstinate refusal to permit a key defense bill from coming to a vote is endangering U.S. troops around the world and allowing terror groups to gain strength, says Sen. Jim Inhofe (R., Okla.), who is trying to shine a light on the increasingly delusional Majority Leader’s dangerous behavior before congress leaves town for the August recess.

Dingy’s behavior has been particularly “detached from reality” of late, causing Charles Krauthammer to wonder aloud if he’s off his meds.

Via The Washington Free Beacon:

The entire U.S. defense apparatus, as well as the U.S. military, depends on a key yearly spending bill known as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), a piece of legislation that outlines and funds the nation’s national security priorities.

The 2015 NDAA already passed the House, but has stalled in the Senate, where Reid has near absolute control over which bills receive a vote.

Inhofe, in a new video first provided to the Washington Free Beacon, outlines the danger posed by Reid’s obstruction and urges Americans to call the majority leader’s office and demand that the bill be voted on before Congress leaves town in August. If the current NDAA does not come to a vote before the end of the fiscal year, there will be a funding gap for national security priorities.

Inhofe released a new video outlining the danger posed by Reid’s obstruction and urging Americans to call the majority leader’s office and demand that the bill be voted on before Congress leaves town in August.

Shock: Dingy Spends Nearly 15 Minutes Railing On The Senate Floor And Doesn’t Mention The Koch Brothers Once (Video)

Harry Reid shocked the nation, today when he spent 15 minutes on the Senate floor complaining bitterly about John Boehner’s lawsuit against Obama. The newsworthy thing about it wasn’t the fact that he was taking up the Senate’s time to complain about the Speaker of the House’s lawsuit – we’ve all come to expect hyper-partisan mud-slinging  from the Majority Leader. It was that he didn’t mention the Koch brothers once during the entire rant.

Boehner spokesman Michael Steel responded on Twitter:

 

 

Senator Sessions: Harry Reid Is Demeaning The Senate (Video)

Speaker Boehner wasn’t the only Republican who went into BeastMode, today.

After Harry Reid blocked a slew of  votes on gun rights  that could have been a politically awkward for Democrats seeking reelection, Senator Sessions took to the Senate floor and let Dingy have it.

“The reason the Majority Leader will not allow amendments is because he wants to protect his members from actually being held accountable by the voters of the United States of America… That’s what it’s all about. It’s gone on way too long. It’s demeaning this Senate, and he demeans the loyal opposition who are doing the only thing they have as a tool, which is refuse to move forward with a bill if the Majority Leader is going to use parliamentary maneuvers to block anybody’s amendment…

It’s not a question of time. It’s a question of control [and] domination of the Senate. The Majority Leader is not entitled to do that. He’s just not. It is not going to continue, and this is going to be broken sooner or later.”

Harry Reid used “Senate procedures to prevent votes on any amendments to a bipartisan measure expanding hunters’ access to public lands”

The bill was co-sponsored by 26 Republicans, 18 Democrats and one independent, a measure of bipartisan harmony rarely seen at a time of sharp divisions between the parties.

But Reid said he’d been unable to reach agreement with Republicans on “a reasonable list” of amendments, which he said has been an oft-repeated pattern.

“They want to kill the bill like they’ve tried to kill everything the last six years,” Reid said.

Republicans complained that Reid’s move was the latest in which he refused to let GOP senators offer amendments because he wanted to protect Democrats from difficult votes that might be used against them in their re-election campaigns.