Bibi Netanyahu speaks with moral conviction and clarity. When he said Hamas would pay for the murders of the three Israeli teenagers, he wasn’t kidding.
And when Obama, who lacks anything like moral conviction, makes a statement urging “all parties to refrain from steps that could further destabilize the situation,” a serious leader rightfully ignores him.
Israeli soldiers broke into the homes of Hamas operatives and suspected kidnappers Marwan Qawasameh and Amar Abu Aisha in Hebron, Monday night.
According to Palestinian reports, the Israeli army detonated the houses. According to the report, around 8 P.M. the forces surrounded the houses, called on the families to evacuate and then blew them up. One Palestinian child was wounded by an explosion. Palestinian firefighters are attempting to distance the crowds from the burning houses. It was also reported that Israelis have attacked Palestinian in the Hebron old city in several different incidents. (Amira Hass)
The Israeli Defense Forces said the strikes were in response to rockets being launched earlier into Israel from Gaza.
The waves of rockets from Gaza and IDF retaliations have picked up since the teens were kidnapped and the Israeli crackdown began.
Hamas has not claimed responsibility for launching the rockets but Israel holds them responsible for everything coming out of Gaza.
The Palestinian leader, Abbas is now bawling to the Hamas- friendly Obama administration, the EU and Arab leaders to make the bad Jews stop bombing them back.
Palestinians report Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas talked with top officials in the U.S. and EU administrations, as well as with Arab leaders, in order to prevent Israeli action against the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
The bodies of three boys, abducted three weeks ago – were found dead in the West Bank, in the city of Hebron, where two suspects in the case — Marwan Qawasmeh and Amer Abu Aisha lived.
The families of Eyal Yifrah, 19, Gilad Shaar, 16, and Naftali Fraenkel, 16, have been given the grim news, according to Israeli broadcast reports.
Their remains were reportedly found in Halhul, in an open field just a 15-minute drive from where they went missing in Hebron. Jerusalem immediately blamed Hamas for the kidnapping, though the terror group has yet to claim credit.
Israeli officials have convened an emergency security cabinet meeting at 9.30 pm local time, amid new details in the ongoing search for the three teens with a statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expected afterwards.
Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) sent in troops in the Hebron area and set up roadblocks around the city, following the new developments in the investigation.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement: “Hamas is responsible, and Hamas will pay.”
“[The teenagers] were kidnapped and murdered in cold blood by wild beasts,” Netanyahu said.
Senator Ted Cruz issued the following press release: Hamas is a Terrorist Organization with Blood on its Hands:
The world should condemn Hamas for murder of three Jewish teenagers
WASHINGTON, DC—U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, today released the following statement regarding news that the three Jewish teenagers who had been kidnapped by Hamas have been found dead.
“The brutal murder Hamas carried out of three innocent Jewish teenagers is a terrorist-led atrocity that demands justice,” said Sen. Cruz. “While we lift Gilad Shaer, Naftali Frankel, and Eyal Yifrach and their loving families up in prayer, we must also act. Hamas is, unequivocally, a terrorist organization with blood on its hands that must be condemned on the world stage. There should be no path forward for Hamas to have any role in any future government formed by the Palestinian Authority, and no nation should accommodate, legitimize, or negotiate with this group that engages in the killing of innocent civilians. The Palestinian Authority should immediately renounce Hamas and actively work to expel Hamas from civil society. The United States should stand unequivocally with the Nation of Israel as it responds to this brutal terrorism and acts forcefully to protect its people.”
Because the House has wisely opted away from working on any immigration deal with an administration that doesn’t respect the laws it passes, Obama is now vowing to “go it alone.”
President Obama is charging ahead with a set of unilateral changes to the country’s immigration system, announcing Monday that he’s going it alone after Speaker John Boehner informed him the House will not vote on an immigration overhaul this year.
“America cannot wait forever for them to act,” Obama said from the Rose Garden. He said he’s launching a new effort to “fix as much of our immigration system as I can, on my own, without Congress.”
The president is pushing for new executive actions in defiance of Boehner’s threat last week to file suit against the president over alleged executive overreach. Even before Monday’s announcement, Boehner and his colleagues alleged that the president has gone too far in making changes without Congress to immigration policy, the Affordable Care Act, environmental regulations and other issues.
This new push would go further still.
A senior White House official said Obama will first direct the Homeland Security and Justice departments to “move available and appropriate enforcement resources from our interior to the border.” Further, the president has directed a team to “identify additional actions and send recommendations to him by the end of the summer on steps he can take without Congress, but within his existing authorities, to fix as much of our broken immigration system as we can.”
What can a president who refuses to enforce current immigration laws possibly mean by saying he’ll move enforcement resources to the border? As KS Sec. of State Kris Kobach recently said, the Obama administration is ordering ICE agents to break the law by not putting illegal immigrants into removal proceedings.
Albert Spratte, the sergeant-at-arms of the National Border Patrol Council, Local 3307 in the Rio Grande Valley, blamed the crisis on the border squarely on the Obama administration because the government made it “clear they’re not going to deport people.”
Spratte, who was speaking with CNSNews.com as a representative of the union, further said “we don’t have control of the border,” and if the Obama administration claims it is not in effect giving amnesty to the illegals, then “don’t believe them.”
Also, by allowing so many young illegal aliens to be released into this country, “the U.S. government has become a part of the smuggling business,” he said.
Ironically, Obama also asked for “increased penalties for persons who smuggle immigrants who are vulnerable, such as children,” today. Since the Regime is complicit in the smuggling of minors into the country, what penalties does it suggest for itself?
And what resources is he really going to send to the border? Radical DOJ lawyers fighting for their civil rights? (already done), Voter registration booths? ObamaCare navigators? Food stamp sign-up forms?
Think about how stupid this is: Obama is claiming that Congress’ choice not to pass a law constitutes an abandonment of constitutional power (rather than the exercise of it), and then that power flows precisely to the President.
Just how the Framers’ designed it, huh?
You have refused to grant me the power of Imperium. Therefore, you have irresponsibly abandoned your exercise of that power, and the power to declare myself emperor flows into my own hands.
Grant me power, or I will seize it. The choice is yours.
“It’s quite appalling to see the Obama administration use the border as a kind of shaming device,” D’Souza said, calling the existing policy an “Alinskyite strategy.”
In the mold of ‘Rules for Radicals’ author and community organizer Saul Alinsky, he said the federal government is playing on the sensibilities of good-natured Americans in subverting the nation’s laws.
He said the embrace of de facto amnesty is a way to “exploit the goodness … of ordinary Americans” who are genuinely concerned for the foreigners who show up at our border.
One of Alinsky’s methods of reshaping a person’s opinion, D’Souza explained, is to “constantly shame him and make him do what you want.”
Obama, he continued, is quite adept at employing that technique.
“Obama is encouraging people to show up at the border with arms outstretched,” he concluded. “This is then used as a pretext for violating our immigration laws.”
MORE:
Allapundit’s theory on Obama’s counter-intuitive executive action to beef border security – It’s a trap!!
Maybe he’s thinking strategically. He knows he’s eventually going to issue an order relaxing deportation protocols for illegals who are already here and he also knows he’s going to catch hell from Republicans for it. So he’s throwing them a curveball, using executive authority to temporarily improve border security to disarm GOP attacks. This achieves three things for him: It “proves” that he can be trusted to enforce new security provisions if Congress passes a comprehensive deal; it slows the flow of young illegals, which has become a major political obstacle on the path to a mass amnesty; and, assuming the GOP puts up no fuss, it sets a precedent that Republicans are just fine with bold executive action when it’s in the service of their own immigration goals. That’s a lame “gotcha” since there’s nothing objectionable about the president re-positioning security assets, but rest assured that O will bring it up when, not if, he eventually issues his executive order on deportations. “How come Republicans are whining about executive overreach today but didn’t whine when I sent more Border Patrol down south a few weeks ago?” Today is all about the laying the groundwork, I think. That’s why Luis Gutierrez is excited. He knows what’s coming.
In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that business owners can object on religious grounds to a provision of President Obama’s healthcare law that would require them to provide health insurance that covers birth control and abortifacients..
“We’re thrilled with the court’s decision today,” said Lori Windham Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund, in reaction to the news. “We think this is a great day for religious freedom.”
The decision means that employees who want certain types of birth control will have to find another way to obtain it – like Planned Parenthood – or Walmart.
In a majority opinion by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, the court said the ruling applies only to the birth control mandate and does not mean companies would necessarily succeed if they made similar claims to other insurance requirements, such as vaccinations and drug transfusions
In the majority opinion, Alito indicated that employees could still be able to obtain the birth control coverage via an accommodation to the mandate that the Obama administration has already introduced for religious-affiliated nonprofits. The accommodation allows health insurance companies to provide the coverage without the employer being involved in the process.
“The Hahns and Greens have a sincere religious belief that life begins at conception,” Alito said. “They therefore object on religious grounds to providing health insurance that covers methods of birth control that…may result in the destruction of an embryo.”
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joined with Alito.
Speaking to the to the Johnson County Elephant Club on June 17, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach declared that “something truly wrong and truly radical” is happening in this country regarding illegal immigration. He brought up two ways the Obama administration was subverting immigration law.
Kobach explained that the National Voter Registration act of 1993 – aka the Motor-voter law – was problematic because it took the power of voter registration away from the states, explaining that registering voters is when you assess whether they are qualified electors or not. Although states could still use the state voter registration forms, there would now be these new federal forms to deal with.
(I’ve always been under the impression that the entire purpose of Motor Voter was to facilitate voter fraud.)
In 2oo2, in the wake of Bush vs Gore, Kobach noted that congress created the election assistance commission – a federal agency that would be in charge of what was on the federal registration form, although if state laws changed, the federal forms would need to be changed, too. The act of congress mandates that the commission do must what the States request they do.
Fast forward to 2011 when, thanks to Kobach’s efforts, Kansas became the first state in America “to combine proof of citizenship, photo I.D. and equivalent security for mail-in ballots.”
That got the American left worried, he said, describing their reaction thus; ‘wait a minute, we can’t have this. We can’t have people actually requiring proof of citizenship to vote in their state — that could really impede some of our efforts.’
So the election assistance commission did something it’s never done, before, he said.
When Arizona and Kansas and Georgia changed their laws, they requested that the changes be put on the federal forms and the Obama election assistance commission said, no.
“So Kansas and Arizona sued in August of last year…and we won in federal court on March 19 in the Dist. of Kansas.It was a big victory, but the Obama Justice Department immediately appealed to the 10th Circuit. And that’s where we are now,” kobach said. “We’re fighting for our constitutional right to control the qualifications of electors. And the Obama Justice Department is fighting tooth and nail against us.”
The second way Obama is subverting immigration law is through his “Dream Act” executive order, which Kobach claims is the direct cause of the influx of illegal alien teenagers who have been pouring across the border.
“In June of 2012,” Kobach said, “Obama created this Dreamer directive”- it was basically the Dream Act, which congress has rejected 24 times – an amnesty for younger people who claimed they came to the United States before the age of 16…It’s that Dream Act amnesty jammed into the skin of an administrative regulation, Kobach continued. “Obama created by executive order something which Congress can only do. And it says, we are not going to deport you if you claim you entered the country before the age of 16 and you claim (you don’t have to prove it, you just have to claim it) that you are under the age of 31 right now. You make those claims and a couple of other minor things and you’re good. We will not deport you if you make those claims. It’s outrageous!”
“But word got out,” Kobach went on, ” that if you are young, you just say that you’re eligible for this, even though you may not be – they’re not going to deport you. And that’s been the policy of the administration. They will not deport you. And why do we know that this is why they’re coming? Because this latest influx of illegal aliens is not doing what people normally do – evading law enforcement as soon as they cross the border – they’re crossing the border and walking straight up to the border patrol and saying, I’m thirsty and I need a meal. I’m here. And oh – by the way – I’m under the age of 16. They know they won’t be deported. They were told by the smugglers that they won’t be deported and the smugglers are right. They’re put on buses and shipped to different parts of the country. The federal government is complicit in them coming into the United States.”
Kobach called what is going on at the border is “lawlessness.”
“The Obama administration is ordering ICE agents to violate the law. There’s a provision that Congress created in 1996 that said, if you’re an ICE agent, and you come into contact with someone who is clearly inadmissible to the United States, you MUST put him into removal proceedings. Well, the Obama administration is ordering ICE agents to break the law. That should have happened in 2012, and now – those people should be put into removal proceedings, and they’re not being,” he concluded.
Albert Spratte, the sergeant-at-arms of the National Border Patrol Council, Local 3307 in the Rio Grande Valley, said the Obama administration is largely to blame for waves of illegal immigrants that have been flooding the Southwest U.S. border since February, saying the government opened the door for the crisis by making it “clear they’re not going to deport people.”
Spratte, who was speaking with CNSNews.com as a representative of theunion, further said “we don’t have control of the border,” and if the Obama administration claims it is not in effect giving amnesty to the illegals, then “don’t believe them.”
Also, by allowing so many young illegal aliens to be released into this country, “the U.S. government has become a part of the smuggling business,” he said.
Republican congressman Bob Goodlatte and Democratic Rep. Xavier Becerra joined Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, this morning to debate Obama’s executive overreach and House Speaker John Boehner’s recent lawsuit against the Obama administration to address the problem. Wallace, in no mood for the rote left wing talking points Becerra was spouting, ended up doing a lot of the heavy lifting for Goodlatte, who barely go a word in edgewise..
After listing several executive actions Obama has taken without Congressional approval, Wallace turned to Becerra and asked, “What is the president’s legal authority to take all of these unilateral actions without going back to Congress?”
Becerra tried to argue that because all of the actions taken by Obama were (arguably) popular, that means the American public approves of the executive overreach. “The list you showed are all things the American public wants to see,” he said.
Becerra then tried to explain how the president decided to take action since Congress wasn’t doing “its job.” This prompted the Fox host to cut him off before he finished his statement to state that the Constitution does not grant power based on popularity.
“The Constitution does not say ‘Hey if its popular, you can exceed your authority.’ It’s kind of irrelevant,” Wallace said over a razzled Becerra.
Becerra restored his composure and went on to focus on the issue of raising the minimum wage for federal contractors as a justifiable action for the president. This didn’t satisfy Wallace and he repeated his original question that he felt Becerra was sidestepping.
“What is his legal authority for taking this action without going back to Congress?” Wallace repeated.
“The president has the authority — as the executive — to implement the laws,” Becerra answered. “If there is a law that says that we will pay a federal contractor money, the president can say ‘ok federal contractors, you can’t gouge your workers because you’re getting federal taxpayer money to do the work.”
Wallace quickly shot back “But is he implementing the law?”
“Absolutely, he’s implementing the law,” the California congressman responded.
“Or is he rewriting the law?” Wallace prodded.
“No, he’s not rewriting it because he is simply implementing it,” Becerra said.
Sometime around 2017 or 2018, we may get a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court on that question. But of course, by then – it won’t matter.
Nice Deb 