on: Today at 06:45:34 PM
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
Again what planet is Ingraham from? Obama done? Why, he is just starting. Who is going to stop him? A coup of Treasury agents? The MSM? Hollywood? Silicon Valley? Wall Street? The hapless and truly helpless Republicans?
****Obama to Unilaterally Admit 100,000 Haitians Without Congress
By: Daniel Horowitz
October 20th, 2014
While Republicans are playing defense on immigration – curled up in the fetal position waiting for the transformational executive amnesty – Obama is already issuing “smaller” unilateral immigration edicts to the detriment of the country.
As noted before, Obama has already issued several executive orders expanding immigration or implementing incremental amnesty since Congress left town to hit the campaign trail. This time, he plans to admit 100,000 more impoverished immigrants from Haiti without input from Congress.
At a time when hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from Central America - which has demonstrated public health concerns - that will place additional burden on our already overextended welfare system are being dispersed throughout our country, Obama’s Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson announced on Friday that they will extend the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Honduras and Nicaragua. On the same day, DHS announced that it would expand chain migration from Haiti with the Haitian Family Reunification Parole (HFRP), allowing as many as 100,000 more Haitians into the country beginning next year.
Obama is exploiting the generosity of our nation’s citizens and taking it to suicidal levels – all for his personal agenda of remaking America.
This is yet another example of Obama putting the priorities of Americans last by opening our doors to the third-world at a time when we have record legal and illegal immigration from some of these countries. Obama is exploiting the generosity of our nation’s citizens and taking it to suicidal levels – all for his personal agenda of remaking America.
Long before the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, we opened our doors to this very poor and uneducated country. According to the 2013 American Community Survey of the Census Bureau, we have almost 600,000 immigrants from Haiti. We’ve given out roughly 169,000 green cards to Haitian nationals since 2007, based on a quick glance of the most recent DHS yearbook on immigration. Remember this is a tiny country with a population just under 10 million.
Americans have been extremely generous to impoverished countries, particularly those from Latin America. Americans have always pitched in with charity and adoptions more than any other country in the world. And yes, we have opened our immigration system to these countries over the past few decades like never before. Now, Obama is taking that generosity and categorically expanding it across the board so that the remaining relatives of those recipients of our generosity can come here – without any regard for their qualifications.
Section 212(a)(4) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) clearly states that barring temporary, catastrophic situations, immigrants must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to ensure that they do not become a public charge.
(B) Factors to be taken into account.- (i) In determining whether an alien is excludable under this paragraph, the consular officer or the Attorney General shall at a minimum consider the alien’s-
As we all know, Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world. More than 50% of the population is illiterate. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, Haiti and Honduras are among the countries from which the immigrant population has the lowest rate of entrepreneurship.
They [Republicans] must use all their leverage, including the budget process, during the lame duck session to execute their first duty: protecting Americans first.
Temporary Protective Status and parole were only designed for a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. Categorically importing the third-world, especially given our current situation, certainly does not constitute a significant public benefit and it definitely is not being done on a case-by-case basis. Something this consequential must certainly not be done without the input from the American people through their elected representatives.
Contrast the current leadership under Obama and situation with the past. During a speech before a group of newly-arrived immigrants in 1924, President Calvin Coolidge asserted a basic premise supported by both political parties: “As a nation, our first duty must be those who are already our inhabitants, whether native or immigrants.”
Between Obama’s continued unilateral acts breaking our immigration system, his backward policy with the threat of infectious diseases, and his incoherent policy dealing with the threat from Islamic terror, it’s time for House Republicans to reconvene in an emergency session of Congress. They must use all their leverage, including the budget process, during the lame duck session to execute their first duty: protecting Americans first.
on: Today at 06:36:18 PM
Started by G M - Last post by ccp
The illegals are more brazen the ever. They know this will happen. And not darn thing we the people can do about it.
What war on the rule of law? The President has full pardon power.
We are so screwed. OK who here wants to bet any of these immigrants will vote for Republicans?
Savage today was asking why can't Congress just arrest POTUS for this? To inflict millions of illegals on the backs of US citizens in a country that is in financial trouble?
Much of my pay is already confiscated. I see people every week walking into my office claiming disability. It used to be maybe 50% was unreasonable. It is not more like 80%. Every darn little thing.
Yeah I sure do resent this. Now I am going to pay for their benefits now.
At the same time Silicon Valley and Hollywood are overwhelmingly giving to the Democrat Party. Let me know when we start a new country. I am in.
on: Today at 06:29:03 PM
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by ccp
Oh really? (This woman is definitely from Venus.) Think again. He will do grave damage to this country for 26 more months. Then we have Hillary to contend with. And the rest of the left machine.
We didn't even win midterms yet. And even if we do we can't stop what he is about to do to us. Yup. He screwed this country over good.
***seen on Fox and Friends
President Obama told Al Sharpton's radio show that Democrats who are avoiding him before the midterm elections actually do support his agenda.
“The bottom line though is, these are all folks who vote with me, they have supported my agenda in Congress. ... This isn’t about my feelings being hurt, these are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me,” said Obama, citing agreements with these candidates on issues like the minimum wage, fair pay, infrastructure spending and early childhood education.
"I tell them, I said you know what, you do what you need to win. I will be responsible for making sure that our voters turn out."
The comments come after the president said that his policies are on the ballot on Election Day.
Laura Ingraham rejected Obama's comment about his feelings, arguing "it is all about his feelings being hurt."
She said the president can't get over the fact that he's "finished" and that his policies have failed.
on: Today at 05:47:03 PM
Started by G M - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Don’t Be Fooled: Obama’s Agenda for Amnesty Has Already Begun
It would be refreshing if the Obama administration would do something right on the issue of immigration. Unfortunately for America, some hopes never result in change. Lawlessness continues to dominate White House policy.
To be clear, Barack Obama continues to completely disregard Rule of Law when it comes to immigration. He has usurped authority in order to keep our borders open to whoever wants to enter. He has refused to pressure the agencies tasked with enforcing laws on immigration to find and deport those who are here illegally. He has not only allowed tens of thousands of children from Central America to be transported into America illegally, but he has then redistributed them to cities throughout the U.S.
Last month, we reported that Obama, at the request of several prominent Democrats, delayed action on immigration reform (read: amnesty) because too many congressional seats might be lost over the issue come November. For the moment, it's on the backburner with the timer set to ring after the election. Yet the issue of immigration, specifically illegal immigration, is on the minds of voters who love this country enough to try and save it from a rogue administration bent on permanently changing the demographics of the nation in order to ensure a permanent Democrat voting bloc.
The president has every intention to move forward with his agenda of allowing illegal immigrants to flood the country. A new report highlights actions the Obama administration has already undertaken.
Recently, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) started soliciting bids for a contractor to produce nine million identification cards in one year -- five million more than the annual requirement so as to meet a possible “surge” scenario of new immigrants. The new ID cards will consist of Permanent Residency Cards (also known as green cards) or Employment Authorization Documentation cards, which, according to the report, “have been used to implement President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.”
The request for so many new ID cards to accommodate the “surge” indicates Obama is planning executive action. But the immigration reform policies he wants to impose on the nation will be overwhelming for our struggling economy, as well as schools and medical facilities across the nation. This, however, is just part of the path to amnesty for illegals.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services also quietly announced last Friday that, as National Review's Mark Krikorian puts it, "Certain illegal aliens from Honduras and Nicaragua are having their amnesty extended, and USCIS is establishing the 'Haitian Family Reunification Parole Program.'” These illegal immigrants, estimated to number 90,000, have already had Temporary Protected Status since 1999, which was granted to them following Hurricane Mitch in 1998. Fifteen years of “Temporary Protected Status?” Sounds more like Permanent Protected Status, which is exactly what the new parole program will allow. It’s another frequently deployed deceitful Obama tactic -- just change the meaning of words in order to accommodate the agenda.
To make matters worse, another recent report from the Center for Immigration Studies reveals, “[D]eportations from within the United States dropped 34 percent from last year and the number of criminal alien deportations declined by 23 percent.” Further, of the 900,000 immigrants who received a final order of removal, “167,000 are convicted criminals who were released by ICE.” Why aren’t the agencies tasked with enforcing the law on illegal immigration doing their job?
The answer is simple: When a president has an agenda to fundamentally transform America, he will do whatever it takes to accomplish it. He must be stopped. But who will stop him? The current Congress has done little because Democrats control the Senate, and they continue to appropriate money for Obama's agenda. That must change on Election Day, or amnesty will steamroll ahead, to the peril of our already fragile Republic.
on: Today at 05:40:25 PM
Started by Crafty_Dog - Last post by Crafty_Dog
Liberals attack First Amendment in Wisconsin, Illinois, Texas and Idaho
Published by: Dan Calabrese
Speech isn't free if politicians don't like it.
The Wall Street Journal has lately been performing a real public service by chronicling the efforts of Wisconsin lawmakers, prosecutors and some judges to basically obliterate the First Amendment as it pertains to political speech. No one has passed a law saying you can be arrested for what you say. The usurpation of liberty never works like that. Rather, a complicated web of bureaucracies and legal authorities have established regulations in the name of "fairness" or "good goverment" or "transparency" or what-have-you.
The real-life impact is set traps for advocacy groups who aren't trying to do anything but speak and be heard, and in the process are liable to find themselves in trouble with the law because they failed to follow a Byzantine set of rules and restrictions established by the very politicians who don't want them speaking too effectively - or spending too much of their own money to advocate things that might not be in these politicians' best interests.
The particular rules in play here concern "collaboration" between independent advocacy groups and political candidates. To a normal person, that's the simple exercise of your free-speech rights. To the political class, that's cause for a jailin':
It’s important to understand that this political attack on “coordination” is part of a larger liberal campaign. The Brennan Center—the George Soros-funded brains of the movement to restrict political speech—issued a report this month that urges regulators to police coordination between individuals and candidates as if it were a crime.
The report raises alarms that independent expenditures have exploded since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, as if trying to influence elections isn’t normal in a democracy. The political left wants to treat independent expenditures as a “contribution” to candidates limited under campaign-finance law to $2,600 per election. That would essentially ban independent issue advocacy, since you can’t buy much air time for $2,600.
Such regulation is also an assault on freedom of association. If like-minded people can’t pool resources to influence elections, they are essentially shut out of modern political debate.
All the more so if citizens who do join together can be harassed by regulators or prosecutors. That’s clearly the intention of the Brennan speech enforcers, who survey state efforts to regulate speech and urge others to pick up the truncheon.
By the way, lest you try to blame Gov. Scott Walker for this, be aware that his allies have been the fattest targets for Democrat prosecutors trying to use these regulations to control who can say what in Wisconsin.
But Wisconsin is far from the only state where politicians are trying this gambit. IllinoisPolicy.org reports that politicians in their state are taking direct aim at the First Amendment, under the guise of limiting evil corporate spending on political races:
On Thursday, the Illinois Senate’s Executive Committee passed a resolution by a vote of 11-4 that calls for a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The Citizens United decision simply held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from limiting anyone’s independent political speech. The court held that, although the government can place certain limits on campaign contributions, it cannot limit how much someone spends independently to speak (or write) about a candidate or political issues.
And that makes perfect sense. If the right to free speech means anything, it must mean that you are free to speak as much as you want, as long as you’re spending your own money.
Incumbent officeholders don’t like that, though, because they would rather not face unlimited criticism.
This sentiment is shared by party leaders on both sides of the aisle in Illinois. This week alone, Senate President John Cullerton co-sponsored the Senate resolution, while House Minority Leader Jim Durkin lashed out against independent groups and said they should face greater legal restrictions.
It’s not surprising that Cullerton and Durkin in particular would feel that way. Along with House Speaker Mike Madigan and Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno, they are the only people in the state who are legally allowed to direct as much money as they want to the political campaigns of their choosing, through the political parties and “legislative caucus committees” they control. Everyone else in Illinois is limited in how much they can give by the campaign-contribution caps the General Assembly passed in 2009.
Meanwhile, as we told you yesterday, Christian pastors in C'oeur D'Aline, Idaho are being threatened with fines and jail time unless they agree to perform gay "weddings." Once again, no one is going to pass a law outlawing Christianity. They know they can't get away with that. Instead, they impose requirements - ostensibly in opposition to "discrimination" or whatever - that threaten you with sanctions if you run your business in a way that actually adheres to your faith. The impact is the same. You have freedom to practice religion in theory, but in reality you can only practice it to the extent that the state deems acceptable.
And of course, in Houston, the city is attempting to subpoena the sermons of local pastorslest they find they criticized the lesbian mayor or a "human rights ordinance" the mayor favored. This is ostensibly about enforcing election laws in relation to churches' tax exemptions, but that's a crock. It's about outlawing speech politicians don't like.
All of this is the inevitable result of a government that grows in scope and influence because a majority of the electorate expects it to solve every problem that ever existed, even if the problems only affect politicians.
If politicians don't like others spending money to criticize them, too bad. If a Christian wedding chapel doesn't want to perform a gay "wedding," then the homosexuals need to go ask someone else. (And the same applies to bakers, florists, photographers, etc.) We don't need a system in which they react to such a rebuke by complaining to authorities. If pastors encourage people to vote in a certain way, then they do. No one needs to do anything about it.
Of course, the tax code becomes an issue here. The tax code is so onerous that organizations like churches can't hope to survive unless they get an exemption, and applying for the exemption gives the IRS de facto control over how they operate. The solution is not to change the rules governing exemptions. It's to throw out the entire tax code and adopt a new, simple, non-oppressive one that doesn't require anyone to get an exemption.
The bottom line is this: A government so big that it can provide you with everything puts you in a position where you need things from government, and then you're at the mercy of your provider to set rules you can live with. A government that thinks it's responsible for solving every problem will go ahead and "solve" the "problem" presented by your exercise of your rights.
It used to be that liberals claimed to love the First Amendment, but that was before it threatened their power. People of faith especially threaten their power because we answer to a power higher than them, so they try to use their rule-making authority to bring us under control.
If the First Amendment is a casualty, well, that was only valuable to them when it was useful to them. And when you think about it, the same is true of you.
You know, you just might like Dan's books too! Go here to get his series of Christian spiritual thrillers - Powers and Principalities, Pharmakeia and Dark Matter - in print or e-book form, or read his teaching on spiritual matters. You can follow all of Dan's work by liking his page on Facebook.
on: Today at 05:22:35 PM
Started by DougMacG - Last post by ccp
House of Representatives
Supreme Court allows Texas to enforce new voter ID law, sparking mixed reaction
Published October 18, 2014·
Feb. 26, 2014: An election official checks a voter's photo identification at an early voting polling site in Austin, Texas (AP Photo/Eric Gay, File)
The Supreme Court said Saturday that Texas' new voter-ID law can remain in effect for the November election, sparking mixed reaction.
In a rare weekend announcement, a majority of the high court’s justices rejected an emergency request from the Justice Department and civil rights groups to prohibit Texas from requiring voters to produce certain forms of photo ID to cast ballots. Three justices dissented.
The law was struck down by a federal judge last week, but a federal appeals court had put that ruling on hold.
The judge found that roughly 600,000 voters, many of them black or Latino, could be turned away at the polls because they lack acceptable identification. Early voting in Texas begins Monday.
"We are pleased the Supreme Court has agreed that Texas' voter ID law should remain in effect,” the state’s Attorney General’s Office said. “The state will continue to defend the voter ID law and remains confident that the district court's misguided ruling will be overturned on the merits.”
The high court’s order was unsigned, as it typically is in these situations. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan dissented, saying they would have left the district court decision in place.
"The greatest threat to public confidence in elections in this case is the prospect of enforcing a purposefully discriminatory law, one that likely imposes an unconstitutional poll tax and risks denying the right to vote to hundreds of thousands of eligible voters," Ginsburg wrote in dissent.
The law sets out seven forms of approved ID -- a list that includes concealed handgun licenses but not college student IDs, which are accepted in other states with similar measures.
"Hundreds of thousands of eligible voters in Texas will (now) be unable to participate in November's election because Texas has erected an obstacle course designed to discourage voting,” said Sherrilyn Ifill, president and counsel for the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund. “A federal court has found that the obstacles erected by Texas were designed to discriminate against black and Hispanic voters. This is an affront to our democracy. "
The 143-page opinion from U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos called the law an "unconstitutional burden on the right to vote" and the equivalent of a poll tax in finding that the Republican-led Texas Legislature purposely discriminated against minority voters in Texas.
Texas had urged the Supreme Court to let the state enforce voter ID at the polls in a court filing that took aim at the ruling by Ramos, an appointee of President Obama. Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican who's favored in the gubernatorial race, called Ramos' findings "preposterous" and accused the judge of ignoring evidence favorable to the state.
The defense fund, which is separate from the NAACP, presented testimony and oral arguments in the lower court trial.
“This battle isn’t yet over, said Natasha Korgaonkar, a lawyer for the group’s political arm.
Two years ago, the group and Justice Department joined other organizations in blocking the implementation of a photo-ID law in Texas.
The court had intervened in three other disputes in recent weeks over Republican-inspired restrictions on voting access. In Wisconsin, the justices blocked a voter ID law from being used in November. In North Carolina and Ohio, the justices allowed limits on same-day registration, early voting and provisional ballots to take or remain in effect.
Ginsburg said the Texas case was different from the clashes in North Carolina and Ohio because a federal judge held a full trial on the Texas election procedures and developed "an extensive record" finding the process discriminated against ballot access.
Texas has enforced its tough voter ID in elections since the Supreme Court in June 2013 effectively eliminated the heart of the Voting Rights Act, which had prevented Texas and eight other states with histories of discrimination from changing election laws without permission. Critics of the Texas measure, though, said the new ID requirement has not been used for an election for Congress and the Senate, or a high-turnout statewide election like the race for governor.
Ramos' issued her ruling on October 9. Five days later, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans put her decision on hold and cited a 2006 Supreme Court opinion that warned judges not to change the rules too close to Election Day.
The challengers in Texas said that the last time the Supreme Court allowed a voting law to be used in a subsequent election after it had been found to be unconstitutional was in 1982. That case from Georgia involved an at-large election system that had been in existence since 1911.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.