IRS Cartoon

Pelosi calls surge of illegal immigrant children an ‘opportunity’

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi argued Saturday that the surge of illegal immigrant children and families crossing into the U.S. is more of an "opportunity" than a "crisis" -- even as the Obama administration was scrambling to free up more resources to handle the influx.  
The administration itself appears to be treating the surge as a crisis, assigning a point person -- FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate -- to coordinate the federal response. President Obama also plans to appeal to Congress on Monday for more funding to address the surge on the border. 
But Pelosi, D-Calif., visiting the Texas-Mexico border on Saturday, suggested those crossing should be welcomed and not treated as a problem. 
"This crisis that some call a crisis, we have to view as an opportunity," Pelosi said. "If you believe as we do that every child, every person has a spark of divinity in them, and is therefore worthy of respect -- what we saw in those rooms was [a] dazzling, sparkling, array of God's children, worthy of respect." 
Pelosi acknowledged that the surge "does have crisis qualities," but again urged the public to use it as an "opportunity to show who we are as Americans, that we do respect people for their dignity and worth." 
Republican lawmakers have blamed the surge -- largely made up of illegal immigrant minors trekking from Central America, through Mexico and across the Rio Grande Valley in Texas -- on the Obama administration's policies, arguing that they've only encouraged more illegal immigration. 
The Obama administration, for its part, has tried to telegraph to Central American countries that their residents will not be given a free pass to stay in the U.S. 
Due to the backlog in the immigration system and other factors, however, the reality is that the U.S. government is housing many of those crossing for an indeterminate period of time. 
Obama reportedly plans to seek more than $2 billion to help respond to the crossings, and seek "fast track" authority for the Department of Homeland Security to more quickly screen and deport children crossing the border illegally.
A White House official confirmed to Fox News that Congress will be asked to approve more funding and "added flexibility" so the government can "deal with the significant rise in apprehensions of children and individuals from Central America who are crossing into the United States." 
The administration, according to the official, so far has deployed additional immigration judges, immigration attorneys and asylum officers to handle the glut of cases, and has been seeking additional space to hold some of those crossing the border.

Decision Day: Hobby Lobby team ‘very confident’ ahead of Supreme Court ruling

Supporters of the arts-and-crafts chain Hobby Lobby -- the business at the center of one of this session's most closely watched Supreme Court cases -- are sounding a confident tone ahead of Monday's expected decision in their case challenging ObamaCare's so-called contraception mandate. 
The court meets for a final time Monday to release decisions in its two remaining cases before the justices take off for the summer. 
The most contentious is that brought by Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby and a furniture maker in Pennsylvania. The for-profit businesses have challenged the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that employers cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans. It is the first major challenge to ObamaCare to come before the court since the justices upheld the law's individual requirement to buy health insurance two years ago. 
Supporters of Hobby Lobby cite a few factors potentially leaning in their favor, including the tone of oral arguments in March and a unanimous decision last week finding President Obama overreached in making recess appointments to a labor board. 
"Absolutely, we win -- we are very confident after oral argument in March that we will prevail in this case," Hannah Smith, senior counsel for The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Hobby Lobby, told Fox News. She suggested this, too, is a case of government "overreach." 
Citing recent unanimous decisions, she added: "We're hopeful we might see some unanimity here."   
Speaking on "Fox News Sunday," House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., also said he's hopeful the court will "uphold the rights of individuals for their expression of their religious freedoms." 
He, too, cited the ruling Thursday that Obama "exceeded his constitutional authority" in speculating that the court might deliver another blow to the administration on Monday. 
The court, though, has surprised onlookers before when it comes to ObamaCare. In the major Supreme Court challenge to the law's individual mandate two years ago, Chief Justice John Roberts cast the pivotal vote that saved the health care law in the midst of Obama's campaign for re-election. 
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., speaking on "Fox News Sunday," predicted the Supreme Court would rule against Hobby Lobby. 
"I believe that the Supreme Court will find that no business ... should be allowed to [discriminate] against women," he said. "The owner has a right to his or her religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean you get to discriminate against women if [they] have different beliefs than what the owner has." 
During arguments in March, Justice Anthony Kennedy, often seen as the pivotal swing vote, voiced concerns about the rights of both sides of the issue. 
At one point, though, he seemed troubled about how the logic of the government's argument would apply to abortions. "A profit corporation could be forced in principle to pay for abortions," Kennedy said. "Your reasoning would permit it." 
Dozens of companies, including Hobby Lobby, claim religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives. The methods and devices at issue before the Supreme Court are those the plaintiffs say can work after conception. They are the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, which can cost up to $1,000. 
The court has never recognized a for-profit corporation's religious rights under federal law or the Constitution. Indeed, if the court did here, the Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra told Fox News this would be an "entirely unprecedented step." 
But even some supporters of the administration's position said they would not be surprised if the court were to do so on Monday, perhaps limiting the right to corporations that are under tight family control. 
Both sides of the debate are gearing up for a major decision of some sort on Monday, lining up conference calls to press their points on the heels of the ruling. 
The Obama administration says insurance coverage for birth control is important to women's health and reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies, as well as abortions. 
Several justices worried at the argument in March that a decision for Hobby Lobby would lead to religious objections to covering blood transfusions or vaccinations. Prominent Washington lawyer Paul Smith said another important question is how the decision would apply to "laws that protect people from discrimination, particularly LGBT people." 
In the Hobby Lobby case, even if the court finds such a right exists, it still has to weigh whether the government's decision to have employee health plans pay for birth control is important enough to overcome the companies' religious objections. 
It is no surprise that this high-profile case, argued three months ago, is among the last released. 
The other unresolved case has been hanging around since late January, often a sign that the outcome is especially contentious. 
Home health care workers in Illinois want the court to rule that public sector unions cannot collect fees from workers who aren't union members. The idea behind compulsory fees for nonmembers is that the union negotiates the contract for all workers, so they all should share in the cost of that work. 
The court has been hostile to labor unions in recent years. If that trend continues Monday, the justices could confine their ruling to home health workers or they could strike a big blow against unions more generally.

Roger Stone’s new book marking the 40th anniversary of the Watergate scandal.

Hillary Clinton might be hoping no one buys “Nixon’s Secrets” — Roger Stone’s new book marking the 40th anniversary of the Watergate scandal.
 Stone — a Nixon staffer who is so partisan he has a tattoo of his old boss’ face on his back — reports that Clinton was fired as a staff lawyer for the House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee for “writing fraudulent legal briefs, lying to investigators and confiscating public documents.”

Yale Law School grad Clinton was 26 in 1974 when she started working for the committee that was investigating whether or not there was enough evidence to impeach or prosecute President Nixon for the Watergate affair.
 

Hillary Clinton Faces Heat Over Paid Speeches

Hillary Clinton is facing a backlash over her paid speeches, with students at the University of NevadaLas Vegas calling on her to reject the $225,000 that the school is paying her family charity, and Republicans saying her lucrative engagements demonstrate that she is removed from everyday voters.

Mrs. Clinton, a likely 2016 presidential candidate, has been giving a mix of paid and free speeches since leaving the State Departmentearly last year. She collected $300,000 for a speech at UCLAin March, a spokesman for the school said Friday, adding that the money came from a privately funded endowment.

She has also given paid speeches at Hamilton Collegein New York and the University of Miamiwhich wouldn't disclose her fees. A Hamilton spokesman said a private endowment covered her appearance on campus last year.

The UNLVfee for her appearance this fall will go to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation

The dispute at UNLV comes as Mrs. Clinton is making the case that she can empathize with struggling American families whatever her net worth.

Earlier this month, she told an interviewer that she and her husband left the White House in 2001 "dead broke." Yet they had put together the money to buy two houses in upscale neighborhoods and were never at risk of real financial distress. In post-presidency,

Hillary Clinton before a speaking engagement earlier this year. 

Mrs. Clinton has said she was "inartful" in describing her wealth, but stressed that she has spent much of her life advocating for poorer Americans.

Mrs. Clinton plans to deliver the keynote speech at a UNLV fundraising event in October. Her appearance fee is $225,000, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Her office declined to comment on the UNLV speech. A school spokesman wouldn't confirm the amount but said such fees are paid through private donations and that no university funds are involved.

That doesn't satisfy student leaders. Earlier this month, the state's higher-education system decided to raise tuition by 17% over four years. Some students said they would like to see Mrs. Clinton donate her fee to the school.

Daniel Waqar, 19 years old, a junior at UNLV and a spokesman for the student government, said students would be sending a letter to Mrs. Clinton asking her to "donate the money back to students."

"Donating the money back would be an example of her standing for higher education and standing for students," Mr. Waqar said. The $225,000 fee is enough to award 225 students scholarships of $1,000 apiece, he noted.

EPA spends $1.6 million on hotel for ‘Environmental Justice’ conference

Bailey: "We can talk and  complain all we want to about this, but it's not going to stop until the people of America clean all of the dishonest politicians out of our government. Which means there will be no more government."

WASHINGTON –  The Environmental Protection Agency will spend more than $1 million on hotel accommodations for an “Environmental Justice” conference this fall.
The agency posted its intention to contract with the Renaissance Arlington Local Capital View Hotel for its upcoming public meeting, for which it will need to book 195 rooms for 24 days.
“The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Office of Enforcement and Compliance, Office of Environmental Justice (OEJ) intends to award a fixed-price Purchase Order … to the Renaissance Arlington Local Capital View Hotel,” the solicitation said. “The purpose of this acquisition is to cover the cost of 195 sleeping room nights from Sept. 9 [to] Oct 2, 2014, at government rate for the 50th public meeting of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC), a federal advisory committee of the EPA.”
Rooms at the Renaissance Arlington run for roughly $349 a night. At 24 nights, the cost of 195 rooms will reach $1,633,320, or $8,376 per room.
The government per diem rate for lodging is $219 for September. If the EPA receives the per diem rate, the cost will come to $1,024,920 for the duration of their stay.
The NEJAC was established in 1993 to “obtain independent, consensus advice and recommendations from a broad spectrum of stakeholders involved in environmental justice.”
Click for more from The Washington Free Beacon.

Election-year fears slow Senate work to a halt

Bailey: "I wonder if the old tightwad millionaire has ever had to worry about a mortgage, car payments, electric, water,  gas, or food for the table? Why hell no!"

WASHINGTON –  A fear of voting has gripped Democratic leaders in the Senate, slowing the chamber's modest productivity this election season to a near halt.
With control of the Senate at risk in November, leaders are going to remarkable lengths to protect endangered Democrats from casting tough votes and to deny Republicans legislative victories in the midst of the campaign. The phobia means even bipartisan legislation to boost energy efficiency, manufacturing, sportsmen's rights and more could be scuttled.
The Senate's masters of process are finding a variety of ways to shut down debate.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., now is requiring an elusive 60-vote supermajority to deal with amendments to spending bills, instead of the usual simple majority, a step that makes it much more difficult to put politically sensitive matters into contention. This was a flip from his approach to Obama administration nominees, when he decided most could be moved ahead with a straight majority instead of the 60 votes needed before.
Reid's principal aim in setting the supermajority rule for spending amendments was to deny archrival Sen. Mitch McConnell a win on protecting his home state coal industry from new regulations limiting carbon emissions from existing power plants. McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, faces a tough re-election in Kentucky.
This hunkering down by Democrats is at odds with the once-vibrant tradition of advancing the 12 annual agency budget bills through open debate. In the Appropriations Committee, long accustomed to a freewheeling process, chairwoman Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., has held up action on three spending bills, apparently to head off politically difficult votes on changes to the divisive health care law as well as potential losses to Republicans on amendments such as McConnell's on the coal industry.
"I just don't think they want their members to have to take any hard votes between now and November," said Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb. And there's "just no question that they're worried we're going to win some votes so they just shut us down."
Vote-a-phobia worsens in election years, especially when the majority party is in jeopardy. Republicans need to gain six seats to win control and Democrats must defend 21 seats to the Republicans' 15.
So Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, probably shouldn't have been surprised when his cherished bill to fund the Labor, Education and Health and Human Services departments got yanked from the Appropriations Committee's agenda this month. Word quickly spread that committee Democrats in Republican-leaning states feared a flurry of votes related to "Obamacare."
"It's not as if they haven't voted on them before," Harkin griped. "My way of thinking is, 'Hell, you've already voted on it. Your record's there.'" Harkin blamed Senate Democratic leaders.
Two other appropriations bills have run aground after preliminary votes. The normally non-controversial energy and water bill was pulled from the committee agenda after it became known that McConnell would have an amendment to defend his state's coal mining industry. McConnell is making that defense a centerpiece of his re-election campaign and his amendment appeared on track to prevail with the help of pro-energy Democrats on the committee.
Again, after consulting with Reid, Mikulski struck the bill from the agenda.
McConnell pressed the matter the next day, this time aiming to amend a spending bill paying for five Cabinet departments. Democrats again headed him off.
Democrats privately acknowledge that they're protecting vulnerable senators and don't want McConnell to win on the carbon emissions issue. They also see hypocrisy in McConnell's insistence on a simple majority vote for his top — and controversial — priority while he wants Democrats to produce 60 votes to advance almost everything else.
Another measure, financing the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service, failed to get a committee vote last week after speeding through a subcommittee hearing. Mikulski blamed problems with timing. But it was known that Republicans had amendments on hot-button issues coming.
Fear of voting is hardly new. In the last two years of the Clinton administration, Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., blocked Democrats from offering a popular Patients' Bill of Rights, and more. At the time, Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois were among the Democrats who cried foul.
These days, Durbin and Schumer hold the No. 2 and No. 3 Democratic Senate leadership posts and now that their party is running the place, they're backing Reid's moves to clamp down on GOP amendments.
"You've always got senators on both sides of the aisle of all political persuasions and all regions whining and complaining how they don't want to vote on this amendment or that amendment," Lott says now. "It always frankly agitated me because I felt like these are big boys and girls." He said "it has gotten worse and worse and worse."
Republicans say Democratic leaders are trying especially to protect Mark Begich of Alaska, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana. Landrieu says she hasn't asked for such help.
"I've taken so many hard votes up here," Landrieu said. "I could take more."

King Obama