Posted by Tina
Ted Cruz filed legislation, according to Breitbart that would place a six month freeze on federal funding to transfer detainees from Guantanamo Bay prison. According to Cruz, “The legislation will provide that, should the president choose to disregard this law, as sadly has been the pattern so many other times, all funds expended in the transfer would be deducted directly from the budget of the executive office of the president.”
The bill takes into consideration changing conditions, as Cruz put it, that:
“…necessitate(s) the release of an individual prisoner and out of respect for the president’s role in international matters, the bill gives the appropriate means for the president to request from Congress a waiver of the six month bar in an individual case. But finally, because we believe that the release of detainees from Guantanamo, which holds some of the most dangerous people on the planet, is a matter of the gravest import, this legislation would require that for every order for release of a Guantanamo detainee, it must be personally approved by the president. This would ensure that the fullest consideration and deliberation goes into the process.
Like many things Congress has done in the past few years this is more a gesture than an attempt to make law since the President seems determined to do whatever he pleases. At least it serves to remind of what America was like back when we were free and our leaders respected the Constitution.
As beneficial as it would be to Americas better interest, any gesture such as this legislation which is only intended to hold Obamas desire in check, and slow or possibly stop his use of the remaining terrorist in Gitmo as pawns in creating his own legacy.
By doing so will it slow Obama because he would be fully accountable for his actions alone? I doubt it.
I will go so far as to “betcha” that Harry Reid WILL NOT even allow it to see the Senate floor for a vote.
I wonder how many Democrats will vote for this, if any.
It’s interesting to hear Democrats complaining about Obama now after they contributed to creating the dictator he’s become. A little too late. The damage has been done.
Are Democrats giving up on Obama?:
“Not on the record they aren’t, although they’re not exactly enthusiastic about Barack Obama when it comes to hitching their wagons to his central legislative achievement. Off the record, it’s a different story entirely, Ron Fournier writes at National Journal today. His most critical columns of the White House have come with Democratic rather than Republican sourcing, Fournier reveals, which reminds him a lot of the post-Katrina Bush administration:
The email hit my in-box at 9:41 p.m. last Wednesday. From one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, a close adviser to the White House, the missive amounted to an electronic eye roll. “Even I have had enough.”
Another Democrat had quit on President Obama.
The tipping point for this person was the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl case—not the soldier-for-Taliban swap itself as much as how the White House mishandled its obligation to communicate effectively and honestly to Congress and the public. More than that, Obama’s team had failed once again to acknowledge its mistakes, preferring to cast blame and seek cover behind talking points.
According to Fournier, this is not anything new:
“Dem Party is F****d,” wrote a Democratic consultant with strong ties to the White House and Capitol Hill during the botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act website.
A Democratic House member whose endorsement in 2008 helped lift the Obama candidacy told me in January, “He’s bored and tired of being president, and our party is paying the price.”
“Talented guy but no leader,” said a Democratic lobbyist and former member of Congress in March. “If he could govern half as well as he campaigns, he’d be a good-to-great president.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/09/are-democrats-giving-up-on-obama/
By my count, this site has posted 13 different articles regarding Obama’s release of 5 Guantanamo prisoners over the past two weeks.
I am curious as to where I can find the many articles this site has published regarding the 500+ Guantanamo detainees released by the Bush administration, one of whom was involved in the Benghazi attack.
http://freakoutnation.com/2014/06/02/more-than-600-gitmo-detainees-released-under-bush-one-suspected-in-benghazi-attack/
I assume given your reaction to this latest release that you must have published about 1300 articles regarding the releases under Bush. And given your focus on Benghazi I also have to assume that about half of those were about Bush’s role in freeing a terrorist who participated in the Worst Terrorist Attack Our Nation Has Ever Seen (That Conservatives Can Remember).
I have searched this website but can find no reference to the 500+ Guantanamo prisoners released under George W. Bush. Surely someone here can point me in the right direction?
I believe I’ve posted this before, but it appears it needs to be posted again for those who didn’t see it the first time.
Turley: Obama is the President That Richard Nixon Always Wanted To Be:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/06/03/turley_obama_the_president_that_richard_nixon_always_wanted_to_be.html#ooid=ZwY281bjo7AokopZ-0magejmW3xw-TjW
Yeah, you are some big budget busters … unless being the opposite is politically fruitful.
Geez.
We’re spending a smidgen under $500M a year to keep 150 fellows locked up. That’s over $3M a fellow.
Sigh.
$3M … you could get 100 16-year-old Central Americans an AA in Automotive Technology for that.
Chris: “I am curious as to where I can find the many articles this site has published regarding the 500+ Guantanamo detainees released by the Bush administration, one of whom was involved in the Benghazi attack.”
In the archives…do some of that research you are constantly admonishing others to do!
Actually I do recall discussion on the subject and revelations that a percentage of those he released had gone back to the fight.
But you don’t get to throw stones that easily. Lefties were pressuring Bush to close Gitmo, left wing lawyers were disrupting and interfering in due process in every way possible clouding the situation, and the goal of the Bush administration, even though it was not perfect, was to transfer those who did not pose a serious threat.
Dumbo chose to set free the five most dangerous men who were also directly tied to 911 and planning terror attacks and negotiate with terrorists to do so.
“I assume given your reaction to this latest release that you must have published about 1300 articles regarding the releases under Bush.”
a stupid assumption for someone who KNOWS he is participating on an openly conservative blog. We don’t do fairness; we, as Jack puts it, tell it like we see it.
“Surely someone here can point me in the right direction?”
We’ve tried; it can’t be done.
We could point you to the nasty, unreasonable, accusations, condemnations and complaints you were allowed to express on the articles we did post regarding the events of the day during Bush’s two terms in office…I guess none of that counts, huh, Chris?
Once a hall monitor, always a hall monitor.
Libby: “you could get 100 16-year-old Central Americans an AA in Automotive Technology for that.”
Imagine what “we” might have accomplished had we spent the trillions for welfare on AA degrees and actually expected people to care for themselves.
Liberals don’t do sensible things…they don’t solve problems…they spend (waste) money in ways that create greater dependency and democrat votes.
You know that.
Libby, let me jar that memory of yours. It was Obama who waived the Welfare workforce requirement from Clinton/Gingrich’s 1996 law. He did so without Congress’ approval and tried to justify it by saying he was responding to what states wanted.
If the law had not been changed by Obama able bodied Welfare recipients would have been required to attend a community college to earn a certificate of degree to become employable as an auto mechanic or other vocation job.
When Obama waived that requirement he took away the mandate allowing those who didn’t want a job not to obtain the education and training to move off of the government handout.
From the House Ways and Means Committee.
Waiving Work Requirements for Welfare Recipients: One Year Later, Just another Law Ignored by the Obama Administration:
“Friday, July 12, 2013 marks one year since the Obama Administration first declared that it had the authority to waive the work requirements for welfare recipients. Work requirements were created in the 1996 welfare reform law, and they have been key to the success of welfare reform in increasing work and earnings and reducing poverty and welfare dependence. No prior Administration has ever claimed to have authority to waive these requirements, and for one simple reason – because it doesn’t exist in law.
Since the Administration first claimed to have this authority in July of last year, one of their key arguments has fallen apart. Although the Administration claimed their waiver policy was developed in response to states’ requests for more flexibility in 2011 and 2012, an internal HHS memo revealed that the Administration sought ways to waive work requirements and other key features of welfare reform as early as December of 2009. The House and Senate have acted to block the Administration waiver policy and – tellingly – not a single state has applied for a waiver from the work requirements. Even the Obama Administration appears to finally have seen the error of their ways, admitting in a Statement of Administration Policy on a House bill blocking HHS from waiving work requirements that “Ultimately, no State formally applied for State waivers.”
Commenting on the Administration’s earlier efforts to gut the welfare work requirements, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) stated, “If only we knew then what we know now. Looking back, it is clear that the Obama Administration’s attempt to unilaterally dismantle work requirements in welfare—requirements that have successfully lifted people out of poverty—is just one more example of an Executive branch that is out of control. That reality is only further reinforced by the Administration’s latest announcement that it will delay enforcement of the employer mandate included in the health care law, an action so questionable that even members of the President’s own party have challenged what authority permitted such a decision.”
Finance Committee Ranking Member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) , who has repeatedly called on the President to work in a bipartisan way to develop and submit a comprehensive and meaningful five-year TANF reauthorization proposal to Congress said, “The Obama Administration has an unfortunate track record of circumventing Congress and governing by Executive fiat instead. On this one-year anniversary, we are reminded of its unilateral decision to attempt to gut welfare work requirements, undermining the work-first approach that served as the foundation to the landmark 1996 bipartisan welfare reform law. The best way forward would be for the Administration to rollback this misguided waiver and instead work with Congress to conduct a robust reform and reexamination of this 17-year old program.”
Looking back: A Timeline of the Administration’s attempt to dismantle the welfare law.”
Continued..
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=342407
Get it Libby, we were already paying for them to go to school for that AA degree. Their enrollment fees were waived, their books were paid for and if they had small kids they were enrolled in the childcare centers available on each campus. But Obama took that all away from them leaving them stuck at home waiting for their Welfare check to arrive in the mail.
That’s the man you want to keep on that pedestal you created for him. He doesn’t want people to have a better life. He wants them to stay at home and to be so grateful for that check they’ll vote for him and his party to keep that “free” check coming.
Pathetic is what you are if you can’t see how harmful what he did to all of those people is and ultimately to our country.