The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 Set Us Up For What We Are Witnessing Today

While our government is working to grant amnesty to tens of millions of illegal immigrants, we have to come to accept that the precedent for this was already set as far back as 1965. What many people don’t realize is that immigration laws were dramatically changed in this period by Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson. In fact, it might be safe to say that a little understood piece of legislation known as the Immigration Act of 1965, later paved the way for the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which was signed into law by conservative icon Ronald Reagan. This law gave legal status to nearly four million illegal immigrants, and it was signed by one of the most conservative presidents we have ever had. Reagan, according to Charlotte Iserbyt, is also responsible for signing agreements with the Soviet Union concerning education and the merging of the two nations. This is discussed in further detail in my article entitled Deliberately Dumbing Us Down to Affect Social Change

All we hear today is the need for diversity and multiculturalism. We are constantly being bombarded with accusations of racism and intolerance for cultures that are different than ours. As the struggle for human rights and equality raged in the 1960s, it seems that the same ideas of non-discrimination were being applied universally, especially when it came to immigration. Lyndon B. Johnson reformed the nation’s immigration laws to make it a universal “human right” to immigrate to the United States. This is highlighted in a paper entitled The Path to National Suicide. President Johnson claimed that America was not living up to its ideals of liberty and equality by keeping people from certain parts of the world from being able to immigrate here. This is the same argument we hear from the left today concerning the refugees from Syria.

You see, up until 1965, our immigration laws were based on a quota system. What this means is that immigration from certain parts of the world was limited to a number that was equal to the proportion of that population already living in the U.S. This was done for obvious reasons: to protect the cultural integrity of our nation. Today, seeking to preserve American culture is defined as racist and intolerant.   Never mind the fact that we were taking refugees from communist nations around the world that far exceeded any quota. The Asians are a prime example: only 100 per year were allowed from Asian countries; however, we took hundreds of thousands of people seeking refuge from oppressive communist regimes. It was also argued at the time that the law would not have a dramatic effect on millions of people in the U.S. and it would not change the demographic outlook of the nation. It was proposed that only immigrants with families already residing in the U.S. would be the beneficiaries of this law.  The reality of this law, however, has had dire consequences. Since its passage, there has been three times the number of immigrants admitted into the nation as the previous thirty years. This does not include the millions of undocumented, illegal immigrants.

As the quota system was eliminated and immigration was opened up to all corners of the world, many people with little education, employable skill, or desire to assimilate to U.S. laws and culture came into the country. I am not saying that all people who have immigrated here have not contributed to society. I happen to believe anyone of any race or ethnicity can succeed in this nation; however, that doesn’t change the fact that we are being overrun by people with no respect for our laws and values while demanding we bend over backwards in acceptance of their culture.

The point of this article was not to suggest “ who or who not” should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S.; rather, the point is to demonstrate that the issue of amnesty and immigration in general entails a great deal more than many people realize.

If you knew what Lyndon Johnson had done before this, you would have to think that this was part of a longer term strategy to secure the votes of minorities for the Democrat party. Many people know that President Johnson, a Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. What they don’t understand is that he voted against it when introduced in 1957 by Republican President Dwight Eisenhower. Lyndon Johnson, at the time, was the senate majority leader and was able to ensure that the senate would vote down Eisenhower’s bill. Given the fact that Blacks and Mexicans have voted primarily Democrat for the past four decades, and the Mexicans are a huge focus for Democrat campaigns, you have to admit that it does seem possible that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Immigration Act of 1965 actually worked hand in hand in securing a permanent voter base for the Democrat Party. As President Obama pushes towards what we fear is an inevitable granting of amnesty to people who are not interested in sharing our ideals, we have to ask ourselves, based on this information, if it wasn’t all part of the plan. If not, it sure turned out to be a beneficial coincidence for the Democrat Party.

Article reposted with permission from Propaganda News

Texas Leads 26-State Coalition Against Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty

Last week Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a brief with the Supreme Court representing a coalition of 26 states who reject Obama’s mandate to prevent deporting nearly 5 million illegals and also give them temporary work permits. The Supreme Court will hear the case on April 18, 2016.

“The Obama Administration has consistently demonstrated disregard for the rule of law in asserting that it has the legal authority to unilaterally change the immigration policy of the United States,” Paxton said in a statement. “Rewriting national immigration law requires the full and careful consideration of Congress, not the political will and assertion of one person. As the president himself said numerous times, he alone does not have the authority to grant millions of unauthorized aliens a host of benefits, including work authorization.”

Obama instructed government agencies not to follow existing immigration law in November, 2014. But, on the night before Obama’s illegal program was about to be implemented in February, 2015, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen blocked it. A complicated legal process followed in the lower courts, and in November, 2015, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld Judge Hanin’s ruling.

The 99-page legal brief argues that Obama’s unilateral actions impose an undue and unfair economic burden on the state of Texas, and all states, by compelling it to issue drivers licenses and other benefits to illegals, not to mention a host of other legal issues.

At issue:

  • Did Obama violate a federal statute, the Administrative Procedure Act?
  • Did Obama violate the separation of powers clauses outlined in the U.S. Constitution?
  • According to the Constitution, can the Executive Branch unilaterally decide whether or not to enforce broad aspects of immigration law, or any laws for that matter?

According to the Houston Chronicle, the brief was filed in response to the justices specifically asking the parties “to address the constitutional implications of the president’s executive action and whether it violates the separation of powers.”

In the brief, Paxton reiterates the coalition’s arguments, that Obama should have sought public comment because “public interest in providing input on one of the largest immigration policy changes in the nation’s history is extraordinarily high.” And, Obama’s plan is a mandate, not discretionary, according to each application, which means that the policy requires Congressional approval.

Article reposted with permission from Constitution.com

Cruz Bested Rubio in the Debate

If you are a Ted Cruz supporter like me, you thought he won the debate. The same goes for Trump and Rubio supporters. To supporters of all others – Rots-a-Ruck.

This time around, it seems more people are talking about the Cruz v Rubio battles than anyone else, including the Trumpster, concentrating on their immigration back and forth.

Cruz said during the debate that he is against the amnesty Rubio was pushing for, and then added, “I have never supported legalization, and I do not intend to support legalization.”

Many have jumped on this as some sort of “Gotcha” moment – like – now we have him – he’s waffling! He refuses to commit to a definitive statement. Well, only a stupid person, a politician, or liar (usually redundant) would ever be that definitive. A smart person would never say never.

Yesterday, Glenn Beck used the analogy of a president saying he would NEVER raise taxes – ever. Well, that’s a great sound bite, and it may garner a few votes, but what if we were to find ourselves in the next great war, without the additional funds needed, and taxes had to be raised, even temporarily, to pay for the war effort? There goes the President’s grand definitive pledge. Does this now make the president a liar?  Cruz is far too intelligent to make that type of mistake.

There are very few statements that can be said to be truly definitive. There is a God, I love my family, and we will all kick the bucket eventually. These are definitive statements.

Even the left-leaning Politifact is calling Rubio’s attack on Cruz’s immigration policy false, as they “noted before that Cruz was the only one among the GOP presidential field who never plainly supported something like a path to citizenship or another form of legal status.”

At an event in Iowa Cruz said: “Let’s demonstrate we can stop illegal immigration, we can protect our national security interests, we can protect our law enforcement interests. Then once that’s done, we can have a conversation at that point about whatever people remain here illegally.” Personally, knowing of Cruz’s voting record and stance on illegals, conversation or no, I don’t believe he would ever vote for legal status. His history, which is the only true measure on which to base future events, tells me he would fight against it.

As far as Rubio’s claims that Ted is in favor of greatly expanding H1B visas, which pertains to legal immigration, he was in 2013, but witnessing the many abuses of the broken system has since changed his mind. That, to me, is a perfectly reasoned and reasonable position.

There are even claims from the both the left and the establishment that Cruz voted against funding our troops. So now Cruz hates the military and must not care about our troops. Yet even the leftist of the left, Yahoo News, dispels this nonsense.

During the debate, Rubio stated: “Three times, [Cruz] voted against the Defense Authorization Act, which is a bill that funds the troops. And I have to assume that if you vote against it in the Senate, you would also veto it as president.”

So is Marco a liar or this ill-informed? As Yahoo notes, the NDAA does NOT fund the troops.  It merely “approves programs and general initiatives for the military.” Cruz has indeed voted against the NDAA because, as he said, “I told voters in Texas that I would oppose the federal government having the authority to detain U.S. citizens permanently with no due process.”

But this is the way things work in Washington. They present a huge bill that leave members constrained to voting up or down in its entirety.  Just like Speaker Ryan’s new 2009 page Omnibus / Porkulous spending bill.

The Hill reported: “Leaders on Capitol Hill late Tuesday announced they have reached a sweeping year-end deal on taxes and funding the government after days of intense negotiations.” A vote on the bill was to take place today, but is pushed until tomorrow. What a crock! Intense negotiations my butt!

Politicians don’t craft these bills. Armies of unelected bureaucrats write these 2000+ page bills on behalf of the weasel politicians, and the politicians are then given bullet points to make it appear that they know what the bill contains. Then they rush it out for a vote mere days later.

I’m reminded of what that leftist hack, Rep. John Conyers, snarkily said in 2009: “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill. What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” 

This is the reason Ted Cruz votes no on most of these bills – not because he hates the troops. His compatriot and fellow Constitutionalist Mike Lee put it best as he plainly stated that if he doesn’t know what’s in the bill, he votes no – every time.

Simple Suggestions Sound Serious

What is Occam’s Razor? 

According to the physicists at the University of California, Riverside Occam’s (or Ockham’s) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham.  Ockham was the village in the English county of Surrey where he was born. 

The principle states that “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.”   

Many scientists have adopted or reinvented Occam’s Razor, as in Leibniz’s “identity of observables,” and Isaac Newton stated the rule: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” 

The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is “when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.” 

This is the one that is generally used on the wall-to-wall news shows which so often describe our world for those who are information junkies and current event addicts, so this is the one I will go with today. 

Our ruling Elites try to convince us that America’s problems are too complex for us mere mortal taxpayers to understand.  They want us to allow them and their acolyte bureaucracy to decide everything behind a veil and then hand down their infallible decrees on stone tablets from Olympus on the Potomac. 

This arcane process raises the question, “If the running of our government is too complex for us to understand, how can we expect low information voters to choose who is best to do the job when we cannot even know what or how it needs to be done?”  If this is truly the case, then we have reached the limit of the American experiment, and government of the people by the people and for the people does not work. 

As the Historian of the Future, as someone who has spent more than fifty five years studying and thinking about History, Political Science, and current events, I believe this seeming conundrum is an illusion.  I believe we should apply Occam’s Razor to what remains of our social contract to preserve what is left of our heritage. 

Here are what I believe to be simple solutions to the threads the Lilliputians are using to bind the American Gulliver to an express to oblivion. 

First, jettison the Empire to save the Republic.  Currently, the United States has armed forces in over 130 countries.  We’re committed to defend most of these countries against aggression.  Where were these allies on 9-11?  Where were they in Afghanistan?   Why do we have treaties binding us to go to war to defend those who refuse to support us when we’re attacked?  If these policies are counter-productive, are there any alternatives? 

Close the foreign bases and bring our troops home.  Station them on the border to protect us from the on-going invasion of illegal immigrants who’re overloading our systems.  If we need to project American power, use the carrier battle-groups designed for that purpose.  Protect America and rebuild our infrastructure.  When asked what to do with the American Military after World War I, Will Rogers
said, “Get ’em all home, add to their number, add to their training, then just sit tight with a great feeling of security and just read about foreign wars. That’s the best thing in the world to do with them.”  Jettison the Empire to save the Republic!  

Second, declare our energy independence.  Did any President ever have an energy policy which effectively dealt with the problems of oil production and supply?  Did it work? 

Reagan said, “The best answer, while conservation is worthy in itself, is to try to make us independent of outside sources to the greatest extent possible for our energy.” 

Ronald Reagan also said, “Our national energy plan should not be a rigid set of production and conservation goals dictated by Government. Our primary objective is simply for our citizens to have enough energy, and it is up to them to decide how much energy that is, and in what form and manner it will reach them. When the free market is permitted to work the way it should, millions of individual choices and judgments will produce the proper balance of supply and demand our economy needs. ” 

As soon as he became president, Ronald Reagan ended the price controls on domestic oil first imposed by Richard Nixon; these controls had contributed to both the 1973 Oil Crisis and the 1979 Energy Crisis. Almost immediately the price of oil fell, and during the 1980s America didn’t experience the gasoline lines and fuel shortages of the 1970s.  In addition, the removal of price controls ignited a boom in domestic drilling which arrested America’s slide into energy dependence. 

As to the energy questions:  How do we end our dependence on foreign oil?  How can we achieve the energy independence which every President since Nixon has said is a matter of national security?  Using Reagan’s approach as a guide, stop wringing our hands and moaning about our situation, stand up like our ancestors and boldly declare our Energy Independence!  In practical terms we should: take the shackles off our domestic oil industry, build new refineries, develop better distribution of natural gas, expand the use of nuclear, wind, solar, and every conceivable form of energy, and drill baby drill! 

Third, end the de facto amnesty. Our President has made no secret of what his end game is.  Remember him with Joe the plumber?  Mr. Obama wants to spread the wealth around.  He is perhaps not an avowed socialist; however, based on everything he does, he is effectively one.  Yet, he has won two elections, one way or another, and he is coordinating the end game of the Cloward-Piven Strategy.   This is not a conspiracy…it’s a strategy to bankrupt America by overburdening the system….and it breaks my heart that, as America dozed on the couch watching the game, these Progressives have turned the American dream into a nightmare. 

Now the Southern border has been all but erased by pre-arranged catastrophes.  What does America’s Community Organizer in Chief do in response to these manufactured
assaults by the children’s crusade and others?  He unilaterally grants amnesty through executive edict to millions, if not tens of millions, while holding the door open for millions more.   

Does the GOP move to block these unconstitutional acts of national suicide? Do they mount a national campaign to harness the vast majority of citizens who want to save America for Americans?  No, the congressional Republican leaders let everyone know they are for amnesty too

How can they not know that amnesty for millions of undocumented democrats is suicide for the GOP?  Call it executive action.  Call it comprehensive immigration reform.  Call it anything you want.  Amnesty under any other name is amnesty, and amnesty with open borders is a siren call to the tens of millions who haven’t already come to come now.  Our leaders are actually working on a plan to merge the United States with Canada and Mexico into a new super state of North America.  Our children and grandchildren will grow up in a third world hellhole that was once the land of the free and the home of the brave.  Close the borders or we give away our country. 

Fourth, end the centrally planned welfare state.  The most insidious result that central-planning and the overabundance of government control that it requires is not the maladjustments that it inevitably creates in the economy.  It is not the crony capitalism and bureaucratic nepotism that it always fosters.  It is not the smothering blanket of nanny-state regulations that strangle creativity.  It is not even the tendency to one-party rule, even when camouflaged behind a two party system that is, in reality, two heads of the same bird of prey.  It is not a system which may actually contain only two parties, if you believe there is the government party and the country party.  

No, none of these missteps on the way to an illusionary utopia is the most insidious result of any system, no matter what it is called, that is some variation on the socialist theme of “From each according to their ability and to each according to their need.” Instead, the most insidious result of the effort by some to control all is a change in the character of the people.   

When government regulation becomes an all-embracing web of minutia that requires lawyers, accountants, and other translators of government-speak to comprehend, when safety-nets become hammocks, and when the do-gooders believe that they know what is best for everyone reaches a tipping point, people begin to expect others to do for them what they used to do for themselves.  A nation of self-reliant go-getters can be changed into a sea of slugs on the dole, constantly crying and voting for more.  

The descendants of the pilgrims and the pioneers are content to wait for their government check and their food stamps, as long as there is a game on their flat screen and minutes left on their Obama phone.  Militant apathy has ossified the sinews of a once great people.  So many people don’t care about anything beyond their creature comforts, the most basic of which are guaranteed, that the will to succeed has been squashed.    

Cut the strings of the hammock and people will learn to stand on their own two feet again. 

And though the list is much longer, the last entry for today is one last simple solution for what we are told is a complex problem.  Grow the economy instead of the bureaucracy to bring back prosperity, opportunity, and hope.   

Business is like water: it follows the path of least resistance. Afact which should birth shame in the hearts of all Americans is that, for the last decade, American Businesses have been in a mad rush for the door.  They’ve left America, once the epitome of free enterprise, choosing instead to establish them in Communist China.  Today, Federal red tape and taxes are strangling American free enterprise.  

Innovation is like lightning: it comes in a flash, burns white hot, and is impossible to bottle.  When free enterprise is stifled by government interference in the marketplace, the incentives to develop and produce are stunted.  Americans have always been the can-do people.  We’ve always been the leaders in invention and innovation.  Our entrepreneurs have traditionally led the world in new patents and processes.  Back in 2011, many
sources predicted China would take the lead in high tech patents applied for and new industrial processes pioneered, and now they do.  It takes thinking outside the box to find the new and provide the best.  In America today, the Federal Government has set to work making the box stronger, to weaving a mesh of regulations and taxes and turning the box into a cage. 

This isn’t rocket science.  We aren’t trying to figure out the orbit perimeters of a sling-shot around the moon to reach Saturn.  This is Political Science and Economics: the arcane arts of who gets what, when, and how. 

If we want manufacturing and innovation to grow, reduce taxes to the lowest in the world and take the steel boot of regulation off the throat of free enterprise and watch our manufacturing base and our industrial output soar.  If you want more jobs, stop stifling small businesses with uncertainty and watch the unemployment rate fall.  If we want more consumer spending instead of the next round of bail-outs and stimulus pay-offs to campaign contributors, give the American people a one-year federal tax holiday and watch consumer activity go through the roof.  In other words, grow the economy not the bureaucracy.  

The GOP Candidates Who Support Amnesty

“In the first place we should insist that the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equity with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man’s becoming an American and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language…and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.” Theodore Roosevelt in a letter to the American Defense Society in 1919.

Rick Perry He’s no longer a contender, but here’s what he believes. Rick Perry often gives speeches about illegal immigration, but when you look at the facts, he has been incredibly soft on the issue.  Eric Holder was soft on immigration and against AZ SB 1070. So was Perry. Eric Holder talked a tough game while loosening enforcement. So did Perry. A little ritual troop marching on the border does not block illegals from jobs and entitlements. Perry worked on watered down laws to please his Latino constituency. He did not plan to secure the border, and he should not be president because illegal immigration is absolutely devastating many areas of the southwest United States. Former Governor Rick Perry supports in-state tuition for illegal aliens, opposes the border fence, supports the Trans-Texas Corridor, and has refused to crack down on services to illegal aliens. He has even stated openly in the past that he has a moderate record on immigration.

Lindsey GrahamSenator Graham is on a mission to convince Republicans that, despite devastating unemployment, meltdown of the “Illegal Immigration State,” border laxity, and rising violence in Mexico, they should vote for an amnesty bill that would legalize twenty million illegal aliens setting off a flood of new illegal immigration. This is a fool’s errand indeed. (Folks, they’ve been saying 12 to 20 million for over 15 years, it’s really more like 50 or 60 million illegals in this country. They are basically just replacing all the murdered/aborted babies with illegal aliens.)

Dr. Ben CarsonDr. Ben Carson said America’s borders must be sealed to protect against terrorism and told a prominent group of Latino elected officials that he also supports giving illegal immigrants a path to legalization and eventual citizenship . . .

Regarding the country’s illegal immigrants, Carson said, “many of them have never known any other country … so where are you going to send them?”

I don’t know what Ben is thinking, but I am not for giving any lawbreaker a path to citizenship.

Rand PaulPaul also supports a pathway to legalization for illegal’s, with the prospect of eventually earning citizenship. Republican Sen. Rand Paul said that illegal immigrants should be allowed to become U.S. taxpayers and ultimately get a shot at citizenship.

Marco RubioRubio said Obama’s executive amnesty “can’t be terminated because there are already people benefiting from it.” What? Any law can be undone.

Rubio’s statement was made in Spanish on the Spanish-language network Univision, which is reason enough to eliminate him from serious consideration. When somebody is running for president of the United States, why should we have to get somebody to translate his remarks into English?

Ted CruzWhen it comes to immigration reform, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz has made it abundantly clear what he opposes: giving citizenship to people who broke the law to come here. What has not been as evident is what he supports: legal status for millions of people here already, while making it easier for immigrants to come here through the front door. Asked about what to do with the people here illegally, however, he stressed that he had never tried to undo the goal of allowing them to stay.

Chris Christie 4467250

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has straightforwardly refused to answer questions about his stance on immigration recently, saying that “he won’t have anything to say on immigration unless and until I become a candidate for president of the United States.” But earlier in his tenure as governor he was singing a different tune.

“The president and the Congress have to step up to the plate, they have to secure our borders and they have to put forward a commonsense path to citizenship for people,”
he told ABC News in 2010.

Scott Walker Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has been somewhat elliptical in recent months when discussing his position on immigration, but the bulk of the evidence seems to suggest he does support a pathway to citizenship as part of overhauling America’s immigration system. When National Review sought to pin the governor down on the issue, a spokesman for Walker said the governor believes it “makes sense” to provide a pathway to citizenship as long as certain conditions are met.

Jeb Bush During a Spanish interview with Telemundo, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush endorsed amnesty for what he referred to as the “11 million” illegal aliens living in the U.S. in defiance of the law.

“For the 11 million people [who are here illegally], they must come out of the shadows, receive a work visa, start paying taxes and also pay a small fine, learn English, don’t receive government benefits, but they come out of the shadows and they receive legal status after some time,” Bush said on Monday, according to a translation provided by CNN.

Bush starts out on the wrong foot by claiming only 11 million illegal aliens are in the country. That number, repeated ad nauseam by the Washington establishment and mainstream media, assumes that illegal aliens responded to the Census at all, let alone admitted they were here illegally, which isn’t even asked on the Census.

Aliens who forge green cards and steal Americans’ Social Security numbers aren’t likely to suddenly start filling out government forms truthfully. As professor of economics and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School George Borjas put it: “These are people who don’t want to be found.”

In July of 2015, Bush told a Hispanic audience he wanted to grant legal status to every illegal immigrant who broke into the country, saying that enforcing immigration law with deportation — or even encouraging lawbreakers to leave — is not an “American value.”

John Kasich – At the Republican Governors Association meeting last fall, Ohio Gov. John Kasich said a pathway to citizenship may be necessary. “My sense is I don’t like the idea of citizenship when people jump the line, [but] we may have to do it,” he said. “It may be a laborious and tough process. I would never say we would never do it. … At the end of the day it may be necessary.”

Bobby Jindal – The Governor of Louisiana is a less reluctant supporter of a pathway to citizenship. “Once the border is secure, and not before, we should provide an opportunity for those who came here illegally seeking to work for a better life to gain legal status rather quickly, if and only if they are willing to do all that is required,” he wrote in National Review in 2013. “We should deport immediately those who engage in criminal activity. We should bar those seeking public assistance from receiving welfare or unemployment benefits for a substantial period of time.”

He continued: “As for a pathway to citizenship: For folks who came here illegally but are willing to gain proficiency in English, pay a fine, and demonstrate a willingness to assimilate, we should require them to work here and pay taxes for a substantial period of time after obtaining legal status before they have the opportunity to begin the process of applying for U.S. citizenship.”

Mike Huckabee – The former Arkansas governor who supported legislation that would have provided in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, has recently been most vocal about not punishing illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. by their parents as children. But though the immigration plan he ran on in the 2008 GOP primary did not provide for a pathway to legalization for undocumented immigrants, in 2013 he hinted he would support a pathway to some type of legalization for a larger population of illegals residing in the United States.

“I do think there should be a way that people who have been here for a while, who have lived decent clean lives like our ancestors did, can have a path to be able to work,”
he told The Christian Post in 2013.

Donald TrumpSo far, his stance sounds good to me, and I would hope he holds to it. He says, “We need strong borders; we need a wall. Citizenship for illegal immigrants is a GOP suicide mission. 351,000 illegal aliens are in our prisons; costing us $1.1 Billion. Anchor babies were NEVER the intent of the 14th Amendment. Invite foreigners graduating from college to stay in US. Put a triple-layered fence & predator drones on the Mexican border. Control the borders; even legal immigration should be difficult. Limit new immigration; focus on the people already here.”

What I’d like to see is all our military brought home and put on our southern borders with Barrett 50 caliber rifles…no one gets across. Trying to invade us ends in death. Sounds cruel doesn’t it, but again, these are lawbreakers, and the Mexicans who came here legally don’t like it one bit either.

Conclusion

In 2005, two portfolio managers at Bear Stearnes looked at several factors that didn’t rely on illegals’ self-reporting, including remittances and housing permits handed out in illegal alien enclaves, and estimated that 20 million illegals were present in the U.S. On top of that, Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele estimated in a 2006 TIME article that three million illegals entered the country every single year. Author Ann Coulter, who laid these numbers out clearly in her book Adios America, estimates there are at least 30 million illegals residing in the U.S.

Second, illegal aliens are now enthusiastically out of the shadows and busy filming “documentaries” of white liberals crying about their “privilege” when they’re not storming bookstores to rip up books they don’t like.

For over 15 years, we have heard 12 to 20 million illegals are in America. If you watch any of the border films, you know there is a constant influx of these illegals day and night, 24/7. How anyone can still use the figure of 12 to 20 million, or even 30 million, is beyond me. I would bet there are at least 50 to 60 million illegals residing in this country, and many of them are gang members, criminals, and terrorists, and they bring diseases we no longer have in America. According to an old FBI statistic that I can no longer find on the web, approximately 10,000 American citizens are murdered every year by illegal aliens.

The elitist Republicans running for president don’t have to worry about being accosted by them in their guarded empires, but the American people deal with this every day. Every one of them lied about this issue during their second debate. Trump is the only one who is right on this issue.

State of Texas Being Sued by Foreign Citizens with Mexican Government Support

Things get more bizarre by the day. Last night, a conversation between some friends regarding religion, weapons and self-defense occurred, due to the shooting incident in Virginia of two news crew individuals on live TV. It ended friendly with one friend stating he would give up freedom and liberty if it meant government would make it harder for people to get firearms. The very same person indicated he didn’t need a “book” to tell him right from wrong, as his mother had done that, and he did whatever would keep him from being jailed; but, he never declared where she got her guidance or where he thought individual rights originated. There was no surprise there, since, despite my friend declaring no affiliation with any politics or ideology, he clearly believed the propaganda peddled to many Americans, while claiming a “free thinker” position.

This morning, The Daily Caller reports the Mexican government filed a brief attached to a current suit filed against the State of Texas because Texas refused to accept foreign birth certificates and foreign passports of children born to illegal Mexican aliens. In the 19 page amicus brief, Mexico claims “friendly nations” should accept these foreign passports or government-issued IDs to avoid introducing a “troublesome and discordant element into bi-national or transnational relations” by expressing doubt regarding their authenticity. Texas count registrars are refusing to accept these forms of identification as valid without a valid visa or consular document. Mexico claims Texas registrars are in violation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Texas Civil Rights Project and Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid, who represent the seventeen families from Mexico and Central America, claim Texas violated the Equal Protection Clause, as well as the Supremacy Clause.

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O’Malley declared citizenship a “human right” on Twitter, while commenting on the case. And, Hillary Clinton never fails to take the opportunity to attack Republicans who do not support the “anchor baby” provision in US immigration law.

The Texas Attorney General’s office has moved to have the court dismiss the case, citing the litigation protection under the 11th Amendment, declaring, “States cannot be taken to federal court under its sovereign immunity provision.” It is likely the case will move forward.

The 14th Amendment and its clauses is one of the most perverted and usurped amendments to the Constitution. Using flawed logic, the Supreme Court used this amendment to invent rights where none existed. Even when faced with the words declaring intent and definition of terms by the very author who wrote it, some still disregard the original intent, preferring the usurped definition by nine justices who were not alive when Jacob Howard penned the amendment to address slaves after the civil war (See screenshot). Mexico’s own constitution declares that babies born to Mexican citizens abroad are Mexican citizens (Chapter 2, Article 30, document dated 2005). US immigration law recognizes “anchor babies” as citizens. Unfortunately, Mexico doesn’t return the favor.

According to the 11th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, “The judicial power of the united States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”

Various searches on the meaning produced a consensus on the intent — to shield states from lawsuits brought by citizens of other states or foreign countries. The amendment intended to overrule the Supreme Court decision in Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), where the court ruled a citizen of one state could sue the government of another state. Additionally, Congress feared that the decision could allow foreign creditors to sue the individual states for debts incurred during the American Revolution. Without the amendment, foreign nations/government could sue financially struggling states, who would then bear the burden of the debts. The Supreme Court determined four exceptions whereby state governments could be sued in federal court. However, the courts have not applied the amendment uniformly or in a clear manner. The theory of interpretation muddies the waters even further. In searching for various references to citizens of foreign nations bringing a lawsuit against a state or a foreign government/country entering into a lawsuit against a state, the various search engines used returned no results for that specific criteria.

So, why are we even discussing this in the United States of America? Simple. An agenda is afoot with the deck stacked against the Constitution through the appointment of biased, agenda-driven judiciaries and government officials. Those in opposition to the destruction of our long-held founding documents are relegated to descriptions of “supporting antiquated ideology of dead old white men,” while these name-callers forget these men were anything but old when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. Freedom and liberty have become “old and stale.” Government control is “where it’s at,” despite what will have to be relinquished or at what cost the government will extract.

Under the declaration of the “right of citizenship for everyone,” the idea of “sovereign nations” becomes fallacy. Funny, an individual is born with certain unalienable rights endowed by their Creator, but nowhere in God’s word is there anything indicating that “citizenship” is a right. Citizenship is bestowed by nations through government — not God. Government makes the rules on citizenship, meaning government can deny, approve, or strip citizenship, according to law. If US citizenship is a “right,” it means anyone can declare citizenship status in the US from wherever, under the auspices of “rights.”

This idea of “citizenship for everyone” removes the idea of the US as a sovereign nation that determines, as other nations, who is a citizen under the law. While these charlatans proclaim “US citizenship” as a right, they will uphold the laws of other sovereign nations to determine citizenship status. This exposes them as nothing more than insurrectionists intent on destroying this nation. For if citizenship is a “right,” it is universal, meaning everyone has it, everyone is born with it, and everyone can declare citizenship to any nation of their choosing.

Rights come from God, not government. Government establishes “privileges,” which can be taken away. Citizenship is a privilege. By declaring citizenship a “right,” it moves the government into the one establishing rights, being the grantor of rights, and the authority to inhibit rights. It then can declare who can and cannot have rights.

God endowed individuals with the unalienable “right” to self-defense and the right to defend one’s family. If anyone in government declared that “right” to be illegal, would citizens who support “right of citizenship for everyone” go along because government declared it to be no longer acceptable? The answer is found looking at the baby murder mill operating in America. While no law exists that legalizes baby murder, government courts determined the “right” existed to kill the unborn.

Would individuals who support amnesty support amnesty for those who commit murder, rape, incest, or kidnapping? It is exactly what these people support for illegal aliens who violated our immigration law, committed crimes, and then re-enter communities through release programs. It is exactly what sanctuary cities are supporting.

When federal court entertains the idea of allowing foreign citizens or nations to sue a State, it establishes a precedent that could produce a maelstrom of problems for every State in this nation. It could end the sovereignty aspect of each State, what little is left, meaning what falls under State jurisdiction now could be eradicated, essentially removing the guarantee of a republic form of government through financial and economic destruction. The slippery slope downward is hard to rescale upward.

No matter whom Americans elect as the next president, it will be difficult to change this “stacked judiciary and elected official” deck without using impeachment, which is unlikely at any level of government considering the occupants of those offices. When some individuals call for eradication of freedom and liberty based on lies and support those decisions, no education, using the truth, will convince them otherwise. It’s the same when it comes to illegal alien invaders, citizenship, immigration law, amnesty and “rights.” When talking and education fail, what’s left?

Soap Opera TV Decorum Plagues Political Process

I will admit to experiencing mild annoyance at the prospect of featuring billionaire TV personality and Republican presidential contender Donald Trump here two weeks in a row, but I believe that doing so will serve us well in illustrating both the abject corruption that has overtaken our party system and the press, and their brazen (as opposed to subtle) attempts to manipulate the electorate.

Last week, during the Republican candidates’ debate, it became apparent that elements of the Republican Party brass had enrolled Fox News as a proxy in their efforts to drive Trump out of the running. Given the sentiments expressed by GOP contenders in recent weeks, it is obvious that this is one of their higher priorities. During the last election cycle, they used a good old-fashioned bimbo eruption to eliminate Herman Cain; at the time, he was perceived as a credible threat by the GOP establishment, as is Trump at present.

Such action may not be necessary with regard to Trump; it is altogether possible that he’s only interested in the business objective of increasing his visibility, which he did successfully the last time around. I know some may not appreciate hearing this, since the tycoon is articulating America’s current problems quite well and consequently has ingratiated himself to a lot of people.

That said, I do not know Trump’s real objectives; what’s important is that the RNC believes he is a danger to their plans for the nomination (which probably involve ramming Jeb Bush down the throats of rank-and-file Republicans as the nominee).

All right, so Fox News proved once and for all that it is the “GOP Leadership Channel” of sorts – but we’d pretty much come to that realization already, hadn’t we? Like the GOP leadership, it appears that Fox has been offering token resistance to the far left and big-government progressives to lull mainstream America into a false sense of security – the belief that communists and big-government progressives don’t really control the press in its entirety.

When it comes to advancing conservatism, or even balancing the scales away from the inordinate influence the far left has gained over the last several years under Obama, however, Fox has come up far short. We may identify with one or two of their hosts, but no matter how outraged they get, the network isn’t going to change its overall policy, and it isn’t going to countenance discussion of the most glaring instances of criminality and corruption at the highest levels of our government. They’ll continue to trot out Karl Rove and other establishment GOP hacks who claim they’re conservatives, so that by default that’s where the bar for conservatism will rest for those gullible enough to believe them.

In addressing such manipulation, we come full circle – back to Donald Trump. The antipathy evidenced by the Fox anchors (yes, Megyn Kelly in particular) toward Trump during the debate was painfully evident and had the GOP’s fingerprints all over it – but let me pose this question: A week later, don’t you think we have bigger fish to fry than the Donald Trump-Megyn Kelly feud?

Well, of course we do – but Kelly’s inane “War on Women” debate questions, how Trump responded, his serial excoriation of Kelly on Twitter, how Kelly responded, the wrath of the pundits, what each and every one of the other GOP presidential wannabes opined, and whether Trump ought to apologize is nothing but bread and circuses – distracting bafflegab calculated to keep Americans operating in a superficial, Daytime-TV modality.

Instead, how about applying a little critical analysis to the fact that a few of those rock-ribbed conservative heroes over whom some folks are all a-twitter supported Premier Obama’s amnesty for illegal aliens?

How about examining why, a year after a double-Y chromosome psycho teen thug robbed a store, attacked a cop and got killed for his efforts, the community of propagandized, community-organized residents where it occurred have nothing better to do than hold protracted demonstrations in honor of the double-Y chromosome psycho teen thug?

Or how about we engage a little gray matter in considering the orange water sluggishly churning down the Animas River in Colorado after a 3 million gallon toxic waste spill perpetrated not by some shadowy, money-grubbing corporation, but by President Obama’s out-of-control Environmental Protection Agency?

Anyone want to consult the guys in Vegas on the odds of the EPA, with all of their scientific acumen and technological resources, bringing about something on that scale accidentally?

While we’re at it, should we discuss how the EPA and other federal agencies, like the Bureau of Land Management, have unilaterally and unconstitutionally exercised unwarranted authority over citizens and the private sector, and armed their personnel with military-grade firepower?

If we get bored with that, we could always talk about the growing influence of al-Qaida and ISIS in the Middle East thanks to our Islamist-in-Chief, or the implications of the Iran nuke deal the weasels in the GOP leadership will never address despite their macho bluster, or we might confer over the indictable offenses with which Hillary Clinton hasn’t been charged.

But why bother with all that rubbish when we could have so much more fun talking about the effect of the lunar cycle on Megyn Kelly’s professional deportment, The Donald’s hair, or whether they’ll sign
Jerry Springer and
Kim Kardashian to moderate the next round of debates?

Source

Obama’s Executive Order Means Amnesty for 80 Percent of Illegals

With a court-ordered hold on Obama’s order, we do not have to worry about many of the illegal aliens being given a free pass.  But, we do have to worry if this hold is somehow overturned.  There is a study that shows that the president’s executive order covers more people than he had represented in his November announcement.

The Washington Times reports: 

President Obama’s executive actions on immigration shield more than 80 percent of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country from any danger of being deported, a top immigration think tank reported Thursday.

We should not be shocked at this stage that the president is a liar.  That he has misled or sought to mislead the people he works for.  This is a normal thing for Obama.  He thinks that he knows better than the people.  But, he went one step further.

The Times continued:

As part of his November amnesty Mr. Obama announced a program to proactively grant a temporary deportation amnesty to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants. But he also directed immigration agents not to bother deporting millions of others, even though they weren’t eligible for the official amnesty, which grants work permits and other benefits.

What this means is that the president had told the public one thing and had told law enforcement another.  What this means is that the president of the United States advised—no, ordered law enforcement not to enforce the law.  Obama wanted the people in charge of enforcing the law to ignore, essentially, his own orders.

Follow me on this.  Obama told the American people that only 4 of the 11 million Illegals would be affected by his executive order.

U.S. News and World Reports said:

Last night, President Barack Obama unveiled a broad plan for the nation’s immigration challenges, to be enacted by executive order. By all accounts, the president’s plan would affect nearly 4 million undocumented individuals in this country.

So, then, this is less than half of those currently here illegally.  But, what the president did not say was that over half of the remaining number was not going to be dealt with because they were not going to face enforcement.  The president had no intention of seeing those not meeting the eligibility for amnesty being deported.

The Times reports:

The directions to immigration agents were deemed enforcement “priorities” and instructed agents not to bother arresting or deporting anyone who didn’t meet the top priority levels.

“Implementation of the new enforcement priorities is likely to affect about 9.6 million people,” MPI’s Marc Rosenblum, author of the new study, said.

The president is meeting none of the requirements he set on his own policy and continues to allow illegals to snub their nose at our laws.

Source

The ENLIST Act Is More than Just Amnesty

Around this time last year, members of Congress from both parties began pushing the ENLIST Act. Heritage wrote at the time that the act “would give illegal immigrants near instant citizenship if they volunteer for military service.”

ENLIST stands for “Encourage New Legalized Immigrants to Start Training.” I’ve heard some lame acronyms, but that’s a whopper. I wonder who was charged with crafting the name and what he or she was told it must invoke. Maybe it went something like: “We want to find a backdoor amnesty program and thought we could use (or abuse) the military, but we have to lie about what our true intentions are. So we need you to come up with a clever, yet patriotic acronym.” Something like that.

As Heritage writes: “it provides virtually instant backdoor citizenship. The proposed ENLIST Act encourages more illegal immigration, flouts the rule of law, and has the potential to harm national security. Thus, if the ENLIST Act were passed in its current form, illegal immigrants who signed up for military service would obtain LPR [Lawful Permanent Resident] status immediately and, after one day of service during conflict, could apply for expedited citizenship. That process takes only a matter of months.”

In other words, one could be illegal today and be a citizen by Christmas. Ridiculous!

Thankfully, at the time, ENLIST could not garner enough support, but as progressives do, they stuck with it. And in April of this year, it was reintroduced with several cosponsors, both Democrat and Republican, including Trey Gowdy and Darrell Issa.

It’s bad enough that both parties wish to use our military as a backdoor amnesty program, but there’s another component to consider – employment.

How often have we on the right been harping on the fact that we already have staggering unemployment in this country and that allowing more and more illegals in will further exacerbate the problem. Too often to count.

And now, the idiots in Washington appear to have the same plan for the military. The Obama administration is determined to shrink the military and the plan is to trim our fighting force down below pre-World War II levels.

Reuters reported: “A reduction to 450,000 would be the Army’s smallest size since 1940, before the United States entered World War II, when it counted a troop strength of 267,767, according to Army figures. The Army’s previous post-World War II low was 479,426 in 1999.” And Military.com reports: “The Army alone would lose 15,000 soldiers…”

Many servicemen and women are quite worried that the military career they chose could be in jeopardy as they are forced out, right into the unemployment line where “recent data by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows unemployment among young veterans is over 13%.”

But why should our elected representatives care about their legal constituents? Why should they care that patriotic Americans, who volunteer to fight on our behalf, will have to compete with illegal aliens who will no doubt be advised by advocacy groups to join up just to get on the citizenship fast track? But I’m sure they love America too. Right!

I’m also sure any proud American would happily accept being refused enlistment because so many slots of the shrinking armed forces are reserved for DREAMers. I’m sure that will be just fine. “No hard feelings, but your slot was given to an illegal alien. Better luck next time.” No doubt the same goes for a current member being forcibly retired to make way for an aspiring undocumented Democrat.

The Courts Have Stopped Obama’s Amnesty Plan—For Now…

After Obama issued an executive order stopping the processing and deportation of millions of illegal aliens, a Texas judge granted 26 states a temporary injunction against his order. The Justice Department asked for a stay of the injunction, but the Fifth Circuit Court refused to grant the stay. According to the opinion, of the 1.2 million persons who qualify for Deferred Action against deportation, approximately 636,000 non-citizens have been accepted as of 2014. That’s 636,000 Republican votes nullified, 636,000 US citizen jobs lost, and the enormous loss of Social Security, disability, health, education, and other benefit resources that are supposed to be reserved for legitimate US citizens.

US law does not permit illegals to vote or even to register to vote, under penalty of prison and heavy fines. Yet, Obama continues to encourage illegals to flood our borders in the hope of converting them into a massive new voting block for Democrats. Although their votes would not be legal, millions of illegal votes would overwhelm and entangle the electoral process and make an honest vote count difficult, if not impossible. Democrats want this because their entire agenda is wildly unpopular with American voters.

This attempt to defraud legal US citizens of their right to control elections has gone on for decades, but only in the past 6 years of the Obama Administration has it reached such threatening proportions. A review of author Ann Coulter’s new book Adios America, states “Voter fraud has been the most destructive issue facing the stability of the Republic, it has been perpetrated to elect politicians who would assist Obama to change the Free Enterprise System into a Socialist State.” This book should be read by all US citizens who value their right to elect their representative politicians.

Some key excerpts from the “Stay opinion” are clear and will be difficult for the Justice Department to challenge.

  1. The district court held that the cost to issue driver’s licenses to DAPA beneficiaries would be prohibitive; the government has exclusive authority over a particular policy area but declines to act. Texas is likely to meet its burden of evidence. Texas has likely asserted an injury that is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent.” In fact, all the States named in the brief are likely to satisfy all three requirements of “injury, traceability, and redressability,” so the government’s challenge to standing is without merit.
  2. The United States government has not rebutted the strong presumption of reviewability. DAPA’s version of deferred action, is more than non-enforcement, it is the affirmative act of conferring “lawful presence” on a class of unlawfully present aliens. The action at least can be reviewed to determine whether the agency exceeded its statutory powers.
  3. The United States government has no legal precedent. We would expect to find an explicit delegation of authority to implement DAPA, a program that makes 4.3 million otherwise removable aliens eligible for lawful presence, work authorization, and associated benefits, but no such provision exists.
  4. The United States government has not shown “prosecutorial discretion.” The DACA Memo instructed agencies to review applications on a case-by-case basis and exercise discretion, but the court found that those statements were “merely pretext” because only around 5% of the 723,000 applications have been denied. A declaration by Kenneth Palinkas, the president of the union representing the USCIS employees processing the DACA applications, said that “DACA applications are simply rubberstamped if the applicants meet the necessary criteria” and that “The [g]overnment has publicly declared that it will make no attempt to enforce the law against even those who are denied deferred action.” It further states that “[R]outing DAPA applications through service centers instead of field offices…created an application process that bypasses traditional in-person investigatory interviews with trained USCIS adjudications officers” and “prevents officers from conducting case-by-case investigations, undermines officers’ abilities to detect fraud and national-security risks, and ensures that applications will be rubber-stamped.” The United States government has not made a strong showing that it was clearly erroneous to find that DAPA would not genuinely leave the agency and its employees free to exercise discretion.
  5. The United States government has not shown that DAPA does not require notice and comment. Texas has a quasi-sovereign interest in not being forced to choose between incurring millions of dollars in costs and changing its laws. DAPA establishes the “substantive standards by which the [agency] evaluates applications which seek a benefit that the agency has the power to provide,” a critical fact requiring notice and comment, and receipt of those benefits implies a “stamp of approval” from the government.
  6. The United States government has not shown how the USCIS, nor any other agency within DHS, confers public benefits on DAPA beneficiaries.

In summary, Justice Department made a weak case that was unlikely to succeed. This is hopeful for citizens who likes the US as it is and does not want it turned into a third world country by Liberal Progressive Elites who see themselves as an aristocracy running over us ordinary people. The Justice Department has declared it will not continue its appeal. However, the Democrats have more tricks up their sleeve, to create more legislative power through redistricting.

An article entitled “Crucial Texas Voting Case to be Heard, the American Civil Rights Union Brief Urged Supreme Court to Consider Challenge to Counting Illegal Aliens in State Senate Districting” (May 26, 2015) asserts that Democrats’ next ploy is to giving more political power to areas with high illegal alien populations by offering asylum to illegals posing as refugees. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 assigns legal designations for asylum to certain classes of refugees, allowing them lawful US residence. After remaining in the US for a single year, these non-citizens can get a green card. Thereafter, they may be put on a fast track to become citizens, as DACA/DAPA beneficiaries would receive. Not all aliens coming to the US qualify as refugees, but, as DHS busses Somalis across our southern border and relocates them among the US population, the legalities are being deliberately blurred.

The illegal alien issue is of major importance to the status of US elections. As Governor Abbot of Texas stated against the lawlessness of Obama’s Justice Department, “Sheer incapability of laws barring entry into this country, coupled with the failure to establish an effective bar to the employment of undocumented aliens, has resulted in the creation of a substantial ‘shadow population’ of illegal migrants—numbering in the millions—within our borders.” Americans are only now becoming aware that Liberal Democrats are using illegal votes to defraud US citizens of their right to run our country. Liberal Democrats have all but ruined cities such as Baltimore and Detroit, where lawlessness dissipates into riots, high murder rates and other crimes that destroy the fabric of American society. If citizens fail to recognize the danger of massive illegal immigration and illegal voting, the Liberal Democrats will establish a permanent majority, inflicting even more devastation upon not only cities, but upon American civilization itself.

Ted Cruz’s TPA Amendment Won’t Stop Obama Trade’s Backdoor Amnesty

In an exclusive interview with TruthInMedia.com’s Joshua Cook, Curt Ellis, who heads a Washington think tank, said that he was pleased to see Sen. Rand Paul and other presidential candidates oppose the secret and controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (ObamaTrade).

The problem with the Trans-Pacific Partnership is that most in Congress doesn’t know what is in the agreement. According to Ellis, it includes an entire chapter on immigration. “It is a Trojan horse for Obama’s immigration agenda,” writes Ellis in his latest article at TheHill.com.

According to AmericanThinker.com, “Senator Ted Cruz plans to propose an amendment that would prevent Obama from using his Fast-Track power to change federal immigration law.”

But Ellis takes issue with Cruz’s strategy.

“The thing to remember about Ted Cruz’s amendment is that it’s meaningless,” said Ellis, “Ted Cruz’s amendment becomes trash.”

“That’s a well-known Supreme Court doctrine that this Congress can’t tell a future Congress what to do. You can’t write a law to say that this law can never be changed.”

Ellis told Cook:

“‘Obamatrade’ is the name we’ve given to the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which is one of the so-called free trade agreements the Obama folks have been negotiating on their own, in secret, without consulting Congress for the past six years,” explained Curtis Ellis.

“We call it ‘Obamatrade,’ because like ‘Obamacare’ it’s a situation where Congress is going to have to pass it, to find out what’s in it. It’s so complicated. It’s so dense. And it’s so involved,” he explained.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is indeed complicated. Obama is also asking Congress to fast track trade promotion authority, which fundamentally changes how the American government conducts business.

“Congress would not be able to amend as much as one word of what the president writes,” he said.

“What this fast track trade promotion authority does is it turns the Constitution on its head where you’ve got the President writing this massive agreement that affects our entire economy. And he writes it and all Congress can do is vote it up or down. They can’t amend it. They can’t do their due diligence and do the deliberation necessary.”

Therefore, the best thing for Cruz to do is join other presidential candidates like Sen. Rand Paul, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Carly Fiorina, Former Gov. Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump who all openly oppose Obama’s secret trade deal, which critics call NAFTA on steroids.

If the TPP is passed, its regulations would override U.S. law, stripping the U.S. of its sovereignty and open the way for “backdoor” amnesty.

Listen to the interview here:


 

For more information, please visit www.ObamaTrade.com. For more news related to the 2016 Presidential election, click here.


 

Source

Ted Cruz Breaks with Scott Walker on Legal Immigration

Governor Scott Walker recently made some waves when he started talking about the possibility of limiting legal immigration, in an effort to help American workers. Speaking before the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Senator Ted Cruz stood in stark contrast to Governor Walker on legal immigration. The candidate for President from Texas said that he believes immigration reform is necessary but he is a strong “advocate for legal immigration.”

 “I think [Democrats] are treating immigration as a political cudgel where they want to use it to scare the Hispanic community and their objective is to have the Hispanic community vote monolithically Dem as unfortunately they succeeded in scaring the African-American community.” 

We need to focus where there’s agreement: securing the border and improving legal immigration,” he said. “And once we demonstrate we can secure the borders, I think then we can have a conversation about people who are here illegally.”

Cruz added that he tried unsuccessfully to pass an amendment to the bipartisan immigration bill that passed the Senate in 2013 that would have barred undocumented immigrants from receiving citizenship but still allowed them to obtain permits to live and work in America. Its failure, he said, showed Democrats were unwilling to compromise on citizenship at all costs.

Source

Is Someone Trying to Destroy Our Country?

Everything considered, this is a reasonable question. In spite of our President’s apologies and our First Lady’s lack of pride in the United States of America, multiple records have shown that we have been, and still are, the most generous people ever to have populated this earth.

How has this been possible? Well, first, we were richly blessed with a continent that provided abundant natural resources, and then with a government whose founders, many believe, were divinely inspired. No nation has ever invited others to their shores as we have and then invited them to come in and dine at our tables. And it has been a good thing in the establishment of our nation.

But there must be reason in all things. Phyllis Schlafly, founder of the Eagle Forum, who has seen much come and go during her 91 years, has sounded an alarm in Investor’s Business Daily, calling attention to the fact that apparently no one is totaling up the financial costs of our hospitality.

Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation
testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee (which performs neither function), that the lifetime costs of Social Security and Medicare benefits to the 3.9 million immigrants covered under the President’s new “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents” program will cost $1.3 TRILLION.

This was confirmed by IRS Commissioner John Koskinen, who told Congress on Feb. 11 that immigrants who haven’t paid any taxes or who used fake Social Security numbers will nevertheless be able to claim back refunds under the “Earned Income Tax Credit” provision once they get new Social Security numbers under Obama’s amnesty program. Koskinen said that he doesn’t know how much these tax refunds will cost and that the White House never checked with him before announcing the amnesty.

We are told that most immigrants are members of hard-working families, and do not depend upon welfare for assistance. But the fact is that most welfare benefits go to households with children, headed by low-income adults with less than a 10th grade education, and that the average Somali immigrant mother, for example, has six children. So “means-tested” benefits are required in a civilized society such as ours, which includes food stamps, school lunch (and breakfast), Medicaid, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, etc., etc.

The agency charged with approving the applications for Obama’s new amnesty program is getting ready for more than 800,000 applications in just the first couple of months, consisting of at least 4 million pieces of mail. And, just to make it “fair,” all applications are supposed to be opened in the presence of two workers; one with a “secret” security clearance!

Minnesota now has the largest population of Somalis outside of Somalia, estimated to be between 60,000 and 70,000, and the average Somali mother has six children. Nashville has the largest Kurdish population outside of Kurdistan. Under Obama’s current immigration plan, California’s Hispanic population is almost equal to the white population, and almost 50% of babies born in California are Hispanic. The Pew Research Center reports that by this fall, white children will be in the minority in our public school system!

So why are we doing this. Are our members of Congress—over half of whom are already millionaires—really that concerned about the welfare of the less fortunate? Surveys show that the two factors everyday Americans are most concerned about are jobs and voter fraud. Since the year 2000, according to federal data, the U.S. has accepted two new immigrants for each additional job created. So jobs are already non-existent for most of the immigrants, with millions more on the way. Thus, the necessity of increased welfare benefits becomes obvious.

But expert witnesses have testified that once the amnestied immigrants are given Social Security numbers and driver’s licenses, there will be no way to stop them from registering to vote.

Now do you get the idea?

Socialist Democrat Tool Luis Gutierrez Releases Toolkit to Aid Illegal Alien Criminals in Not Getting Deported

I’m the first to admit that I’m a bit slow. My conservative and liberal friends both tend to make fun of me for being naïve or idealistic. I’m not “pragmatic” enough for some conservatives, and I’m too trusting for others, but I truly believe the things I say I believe. One of those naïve beliefs usually has to do with liberals… I happen to think that many liberals really do love our country and only want what is best for our people. They just have the worst ideas on how to accomplish what is best. One example of that is Democrat Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois.

Rep. Gutierrez has become the leader of the amnesty faction in Congress. In fact, Gutierrez has become so pro-illegal that he is now publishing books to teach people how to break our laws! This is an example of where a liberal who wants to do “good” has lost sight of what is “good” and has settled in on success by “any means necessary.” Sadly, the truth of the matter is that the “ends” don’t always “justify the means.” Rep. Gutierrez has gone too far in his support of illegal immigrants and has begun to openly tutor them on the best means of flouting our laws and escaping prosecution.

The Democrat Representative has produced what he is calling a “toolkit” to help illegals avoid deportation. He has also put together a short video explaining to illegals how his toolkit works. In his video he implies that by following his advice, illegals can somehow avoid the long arm of the law and skip out on the just prosecution they deserve for their crime. However, while Gutierrez’s advice may work, illegals should keep in mind that his plan is not foolproof and that law enforcement may still deport illegal criminals for their crimes. While immigration officials may be overtaxed, that does not mean they’ll simply give every illegal criminal a free pass to stay in our country illegally.

“Only pull [the card] out when you’re detained by an immigration official; it explains in English and Spanish that you’re eligible for DACA and DAPA. By using this card after you’ve been arrested or detained, you can explain that [according to] the policy in place today, you should be released because you’re not a priority for deportation…

I hope that you never have to use this card, but if you do, don’t be scared, because you’re prepared. Soon enough the DACA and DAPA applications will be available.”

I believe that Rep. Gutierrez means well for our country, but I’ve been wrong before and I’ll probably be wrong again. Rep. Gutierrez, if you love our nation, as I hope you do… please stop this insane defense of crime and of citizens of another nation, and please remember that you are supposed to be upholding the law and representing the citizens of your district. Do they want you teaching people how to break the law? I think not.

Source

Scott Walker Backs Illegals Becoming Citizens – Claims He Doesn’t Support Amnesty

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, a potential GOP presidential candidate for 2016, has flip-flopped over the issue of illegals and amnesty. In fact, at a recent, private dinner with New Hampshire Republicans, he advanced the idea of allowing those who are illegally in this country to stay and become eligible for citizenship. Obviously, this is at odds with statements he has made earlier this year on the issue.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Mr. Walker’s remarks, which were confirmed by three people present, vary from the call he has made for “no amnesty”—a phrase widely employed by people who believe immigrants who broke the law by entering the country without permission shouldn’t be awarded legal status or citizenship.

The statements by Mr. Walker, a likely candidate for the GOP presidential nomination, show the difficulty that some in the Republican Party face as they try to appeal both to the conservative GOP primary electorate—which largely opposes easing immigration laws—and business leaders and general election voters who have been more supportive of granting legal status to undocumented immigrants.

Mr. Walker’s “no amnesty” position, first articulated earlier this year, was a change from his prior decadelong support for a pathway to citizenship. He has explained in public that his shift to a more restrictive view came after consulting with border-state governors and hearing from people opposed to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

But during the March 13 private dinner, organized by New Hampshire Republican Party Chairwoman Jennifer Horn at the Copper Door Restaurant in Bedford, N.H., Mr. Walker said undocumented immigrants shouldn’t be deported, and he mocked 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s suggestion that they would “self-deport,” according to people who were there.

Instead, they said, Mr. Walker said undocumented immigrants should be allowed to “eventually get their citizenship without being given preferential treatment” ahead of people already in line to obtain citizenship.

“He said no to citizenship now, but later they could get it,” said Bill Greiner, an owner of the Copper Door. Ken Merrifield, mayor of Franklin, N.H., who also attended, said Mr. Walker proposed that illegal immigrants should “get to the back of the line for citizenship” but not be deported.

Kirsten Kukowski, a Walker spokeswoman said on Thursday, ““We strongly dispute this account. Gov. Walker has been very clear that he does not support amnesty and believes that border security must be established and the rule of law must be followed. His position has not changed, he does not support citizenship for illegal immigrants.”

Walker has backed a “path to citizenship.” He has also supported granting “legal status” to illegals in the past. However, the matter in question is not his flip flopping, nor is it which opinion he has at any given moment. The issue is what does the law state? We already know that Barack Obama decided to ignore immigration law, something that is entrusted to Congress to legislate and something in the power of the office of the executive to enforce.

WSJ went on to report:

At a 2002 Mexican Independence Day event in Milwaukee, Wis., Mr. Walker, then the county executive, signed a resolution that praised the economic and civic contributions of undocumented immigrants and called for “a new program similar to the Federal amnesty program enacted by Congress in 1986.”

In 2006, he signed another county resolution backing the immigration proposal written by Sens. John McCain (R., Ariz.) and Edward Kennedy (D., Mass.) that would have granted legal status to many illegal immigrants.

 

As late as 2013, Mr. Walker told Politico he backed a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and told the Wausau Daily Herald more border security wasn’t necessary. “You hear some people talk about border security and a wall and all that,” he told the Wisconsin paper in a videotaped interview. “To me, I don’t know that you need any of that if you had a better, saner way to let people into the country in the first place.”

 

Mr. Walker has shifted his stances on other aspects of immigration law. In May 2010, after Arizona lawmakers passed tough restrictions on illegal immigrants, he told the Associated Press he had “serious concerns” about the law because it “impedes on the inherent right of the federal government to do its job and to protect our borders, and also because in America we don’t want our citizens getting pulled over because of how they look.”

Hours later, Mr. Walker, then in a GOP primary for governor, reversed himself. “I too would sign the Arizona immigration bill,” he said, after conservatives inundated his Facebook page to criticize his first position.

On the 2016 campaign trail, Mr. Walker has sought to portray himself as an unabashed conservative. This year, he has signed right-to-work legislation, which is vigorously opposed by labor unions, and signaled support for a state ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy. In a 2014 campaign advertisement, Mr. Walker had said he backed abortion legislation that “leaves the final decision to a woman and her doctor.”

 

And why is Walker doing these things? That’s right. He’s politicking! Just like every other politician. He can say he is not for amnesty, but allowing a “pathway to citizenship for those here illegally is amnesty. He may claim he is pro-life, but his stance to claim the final decision to murder an unborn baby is between her and her doctor is actually a pro-death stance. He can claim that federal judges have unconstitutionally told states that they must redefine marriage to include those who practice sodomy, but that is not a Constitutional, but rather a tyrannical position since the federal government was given no authority to tell the states how they deal with sodomy.

So, here’s a guy that supports rewarding unlawful behavior, the murder of the unborn, the redefinition of marriage (and yes, he is supporting it by going along with the federal court) and apparently is not willing to stand us for state’s rights. But I can hear the cries now, “Those are social issues, and he’s been great on economic issues.” Maybe, but just remember, social issues have economic consequences.

Amnesty Injunction Being Challenged Through Appeal Court

Despite a Texas judge issuing an injunction against Obama’s amnesty (Obamnesty), the administration has approached a federal appeals court to allow the administration to continue their unconstitutional action declaring the lower judge’s ruling “unprecedented and wrong” claiming illegals will suffer.

Texas, along with 25 other states, filed a lawsuit to halt Obamnesty. Judge Andrew Hanen halted the action through an injunction; however, the attorneys for the Justice Department claim they should not have been granted standing. They claim that Judge Hanen should allow the administration to continue to process illegal alien invaders for amnesty in states who did not object.

Justice Department attorneys assert, “In short, the preliminary injunction is a sweeping order that extends beyond the parties before the court and irreparably harms the government and public interest.”

But, isn’t that how similar lawsuits work? It doesn’t take everyone to participate in a lawsuit when individuals, in this case, states, are harmed. Class action lawsuits only require a certain percentage of individuals to claim harm in order for a lawsuit to be filed on behalf of the “class” of individuals seeking relief. And, wasn’t it this administration who sued the state of Arizona regarding that state’s immigration laws arguing there could not be a “patchwork of policies for different states?”

Judge Hanen ruled that Texas had standing to sue because of harm incurred by Obamnesty in the issuing of driver’s licenses to the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants. The administration counters this by claiming “the policies Mr. Obama announced were only guidelines that don’t need to be shared for public comment.”

The administration has asked the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to allow the continuation of the amnesty decree while at the same time they were apologizing to Judge Hanen for “misleading” him in the case. Illegal alien invaders were being processed for Obamnesty, to the tune of 100,000 “dreamers,” after it was announced in November; but, attorneys for the administration implied they were not doing so to Judge Hanen.

According to The Washington Times:

Mr. Obama, however, has seemed eager to begin processing applications, telling audiences that once his program is up and running, he doubts it can be stopped.

As many as 4 million illegal immigrants could qualify for the policy, announced in November, that would grant tentative legal status, issue work permits and Social Security numbers to illegal immigrant parents whose children are either U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Hundreds of thousands of so-called Dreamers could qualify under a separate policy Mr. Obama announced in 2012 but expanded in November, which applies to illegal immigrants brought to the US as children.

The policy allows immigrants a three-year stay of deportation rather than the two-year stay included in his 2012 policy.

Kyle R. Freeney, a lawyer in the Justice Department’s federal programs branch, stated “the three year versus two year questions don’t affect the fundamentals of the case, which have to do with whether Texas has standing to sue and whether Mr. Obama broke the law or violated the constitution by trying to write laws himself.”

Freeney also extended “regrets” for any confusion while telling the judge they are circumventing him by requesting the appeals court to get involved.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton stated he was focused on clearing up the confusion that has permeated the district court.

In a statement, Mr. Paxton said, “The most pressing issue at hand is the extent to which the Obama administration has already issued expanded work permits to illegal immigrants, in direct contradiction to what they told the district court.”

Obama claims his actions are based on the powers of prosecutorial discretion – the power to decide whom to deport. While Judge Hanen did agree with that power, he asserted that Obama went overboard when a program was created that extended beyond deportation and granted tentative legal status and work permits to illegal alien invaders. In Judge Hanen’s opinion, the safest course is to halt Obamnesty and hear the case in its entirety, which is the prudent thing to do. However, the Obama administration complained to the appeals court that it would be difficult to “ramp the amnesty back up now.”

The administration has basically deceived the lower court and now invokes the appeals court to get involved claiming that the states have no standing to file a lawsuit. While the president does have the authority to decide whom to prosecute, the president does not have the authority to change law, create new law or legislate in any manner. That power is vested in the legislative body – the House and Senate chambers.

If the legislative body refuses to counter unconstitutional executive action regarding illegal alien invader amnesty resulting in the issuance of work permits and Social Security numbers, do the states then have standing to file a lawsuit against the administration when the states are harmed through expending their resources because of a unilateral executive action outside the powers of the executive? This is the question that hangs in the balance with the appeals court.

It is contended that by extending work permit visas and Social Security numbers to illegal alien invaders, Obama created new or changed existing immigration and naturalization laws via an executive action. According to the US Constitution, the power to establish rules and regulations related to Immigration and naturalization rests with Congress – Article I, Section 8. Congress has not changed the law; however, Obama’s programs to issue work permits and Social Security numbers to those excluded from deportation violates the current immigration and naturalization laws.

States should have standing to file a lawsuit as they are harmed by the action of the administration since Congress has not legislated any change. And, funding of an unconstitutional action does not alter the law.

The administration would have everyone believe the office of the president has the authority to do so. However, our Constitution indicates otherwise. Only countries headed by dictators have rule and law by decree, not a constitutional republic. But, proponents for amnesty, and the programs that came into existence because of it, care not for the rule of law. As has been stated before, this is not about compassion or “doing the right thing” as this administration touts. This is about changing the demographic of this country and attempting to secure Democratic votes – nothing more.

Obama will not stop should this executive action be allowed to play out without a change in law by Congress. He is already considering a change in the tax law to raise taxes by executive fiat. All of his actions are directed at “transforming” further an America that has been altered from its once great state.

It would seem the United States has now started to operate more like a dictatorship than the constitutional republic established by our Constitution. While some members of Congress chide Obama for his trampling of the Constitution as Obama lectures Congress on the Constitution, that would be Sen. Rand Paul, no one in Congress, Democrat or Republican, will make a move to stop him using impeachment or the 25th Amendment. Since Congress has failed in its duty, Texas and 25 other states have stepped up to try and block the administration action.

The citizens of the United States now look to one federal judge willing to take a stand in order to reign in Obama. Should the judge find Obama exceeded his authority and the appeals court stand with the lower court, will Obama relent? That’s an easy question to answer. The harder question to answer is what will be done about it if he doesn’t relent? Worse still, what if Obama’s actions are upheld?

CPAC 2015’s Conservative View of Immigration Focused on “Consensus”

“We are not a nation of immigrants, we are a nation of citizens.” – Mark Levine to CPAC

Among the glitz and conservative rhetoric of CPAC 2015, one important panel discussion was barely attended by 40-50 people – “Immigration: Can Conservatives Reach a Consensus?” It is in my estimation an issue that is going to fundamentally alter the makeup of our society forever.

The panel was moderated by Charlie Gerow of Quantum Communications and consisted of three panelists: Representative Jeff Duncan (SC-3), Alfonso Aguilar of the American Principles Project and Mario Lopez of the Hispanic Leadership Fund.

Alfonso Aguilar presented an argument for a conservative solution that respects the rule of law and focuses on border security, but recognizes the need that our economy has for foreign workers, dealing at the same time with “the undocumented population without doing amnesty.” Amnesty, in his view, and self-deportation that does not work, are “false choices.”

Because the status quo is not an option, Aguilar said, we must encourage those Republicans who share his view and convince the rest of the Republicans that “the status quo is not acceptable.” People are staying here illegally because “Big Government encourages de facto amnesty.” Additionally, “people come here to work, they are not coming here to have children and to become citizens, no mother brings her child so they can pay instate tuition at Texas A&M.” They come here because there is no way for them to enter and exist legally, Aguilar continued.

Yes, we need border security, strategic fencing, and more resources in places like the Rio Grande Valley where there is lawlessness; we need expanded use of sensors, of drones, and an exit registry, Aguilar proposed.

“We believe in the free market. If American Big Business cannot find workers, why should the government tell an American employer that they cannot bring a foreign worker that they need? Let the market determine,” continued Aguilar. “The Braceros program worked, but liberals opposed it because of the unions.”

Aguilar argued for family reunification, that we cannot break up families. There are entire towns in Mexico that have dislocated populations, he said. We have become a social featherbed for the poor Mexican population. Aguilar argued that “children” traveled last summer on top of trains to be reunited with their families. Yet there is factual information that many among these travelers were not children, were known gang members, and transportation and housing were arranged and paid for by our government.

The panel emphasized that we need a market-based guest worker program that will work as long as operational control and border security are under control. We cannot grow the economy, Aguilar said, if there are no American workers willing the do the job and we do not have foreign workers. What about millions of American citizens who are currently unemployed and have no prospects of getting a job in this terribly mismanaged and depressed economy? Why does the government only care for the fate of illegal aliens and not the future of our own American citizens?

What can we do with the millions of “undocumented” currently residing in the United States? “We cannot deport millions of people,” Aguilar said, and self-deportation does not work. Actually deportations have occurred in the past successfully. He proposes a penalty for the path of legal status, but no citizenship.

In light of the hurried Social Security cards which were issued to the five million amnestied by executive fiat, these people will vote illegally for those who brought them into our country. Contrary to what Aguilar said, “Latinos are not natural-born Democrats,” they do come from third world nations whose citizens look up to big government for their salvation and wellbeing even though they may be conservative with their families and with religious views. They look up to the Pope with reverence, a political figure, who has criticized capitalism in favor of Marxism and has interjected himself in the issue of global warming and population control.

Mario Lopez pointed to a chart from Reason.com, showing the backlogged legal immigration system as a proof that our immigration system is broken. He mentioned Obama’s executive overreach in reference to amnesty and how he voted five times as a senator for poison pill amendments to kill the immigration reform bill proposed long before he became President.

Pointing to the visa lottery, the country quotas, and the bureaucratic nightmare that backlogs family integration visas, he said, “It is almost impossible to immigrate legally to the United States.” My question is, how many members from an extended family in Mexico should be allowed to integrate with one illegal family member who successfully jumped our border, while millions from other countries are waiting to bring one spouse and/or child into the United States?

“People are dying every day to get a piece of the American dream. ” They are not coming here for handouts, welfare checks. People come because America is the shiny city on a hill.” I say, it is a shining city on the hill with generous welfare programs at the border. This mass exodus into the United States created “legacy voters” who are loyal to Democrats who promise and deliver more welfare.

“Why is the system broken? It is not broken, it is not enforced,” said a member of the audience. “What has to be changed, radically changed?” Aguilar answered that the immigration track, the quota system based on the country of origin, treats other countries unfairly, and it must be stopped. The H2B visas for non-agricultural unskilled workers should not be capped at 65,000 per year, he argued, because employers cannot find American workers and the labor market should be allowed to prevail.

Do politicians and immigration lobbyists care how millions of unskilled and unemployed Americans are supposed to find jobs? The tired explanation that Americans won’t do jobs that illegals do is a convenient fantasy created for those in need of cheaper labor. Additionally, not all illegals are paid lower wages.

Rep. Jeff Duncan interjected that we have an unsecure border and a broken sovereignty. “The American people do not trust the administration to enforce the law so why should we have another law for the President to pick and choose winners and losers; the President has poisoned the well to have a conversation in Congress because no one trusts the administration to actually do the job that it is charged to do. We have to uphold the law.”

Rep. Duncan said that the robust welfare system incentivizes people not to take the jobs. In order to redress the immigration problem, welfare reform must also be addressed concurrently. Rep. Jeff Duncan’s partying words were, “I don’t agree with everything the panel has said, but we should have a debate and listen to the American people.”

People should come here legally and then go back to their countries. The American people should decide how much immigration we have. Mario Lopez argued that “Labor is an economic commodity. Overpopulation is not an issue if you complain that you are bringing in too many illegals. There is a demand of labor.”

Panelists agreed with one audience member that citizenship should be outlawed if a person has committed a crime in the United States and the offenders should be sent back to their home countries.

To the question, could labor unions be a hindrance to the proposed immigration system, Mario Lopez answered that labor unions are generally against it with the exception of a few such as the SEIU. “Operatives in unions are generally Democrats.” He continued that “we cannot keep people out” and “the Chamber of Commerce wants cheap labor.”

The question remains, if illegals who refuse to assimilate do not come to the United States for welfare, why have so many received over $4.1 billion in earned income tax credit, who claimed children of relatives in Mexico, and why recently amnestied illegals, who have not paid taxes at all, will receive retroactively for 2011-2013 as much as $35,000 per family in earned income tax credit?

Would it not be cheaper for the American taxpayer to enforce e-verify and adopt $5 biometric cards that would match prospective foreign employees with prospective employers and stop all welfare to illegal aliens? Would it not be safer for the American people to stop bringing in “refugees” from countries that are hostile to our culture, to our western civilization, to our legal system, and to our way of life?

Illegals Who Receive Amnesty Also Will be Eligible for Tax Refund

It is not hard to spot an amateur. They are prone to making unforeseen errors. The amateur makes errors that would have been recognized by those who did the job on a regular basis. Simple things become complicated, and related things seem to be overlooked. This is the case with the executive order by President Obama. He might have actually made his decision based on pure motives. If he did, then he did not see the whole picture and his advisors missed some things—such as the fact that these law-breakers will receive compensation for tax evasion.

The Washington Times reported:

The IRS is defending its decision to let illegal immigrants claim up to three years’ refunds on income even if they never paid income taxes, telling Congress in a new letter last week that agency lawyers have concluded getting a Social Security number triggers the ability to go back and ask for previous refunds.

What this will mean is that those illegals who will not be prosecuted for coming here illegally will now be rewarded for committing tax evasion. If they can prove that they worked and hid their earnings from the IRS by not filing, they can check and see if they have missed receiving benefits for three years. But what if there is no benefit?

The Times further reports:

But the IRS lawyer’s ruling creates an odd circumstance where illegal immigrants who cheated by not paying taxes before can see if they would benefit from refunds. If they do benefit, they could file; but if they don’t benefit, they could continue to avoid taxes for those years.

How is this even possible? Well, it is simple. According to the executive order, up to 4 million illegals could receive Social Security Numbers. As we have seen from the report, this will automatically make them eligible to file for three years of Earned Income Tax Credit. But if they were not eligible, they do not have to file or pay back-taxes.

“Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code requires an SSN on the return, but a taxpayer claiming the EITC is not required to have an SSN before the close of the year for which the EITC is claimed,” IRS Commissioner John Koskinen wrote in his letter to Sen. Charles E. Grassley on Wednesday.

Once again, the hard-working American citizen sees his money given to a cheat. She/he has managed to do everything the wrong way, and yet we reward him/her.

Fox News reports:

Here’s how. A recent Homeland Security Committee hearing on immigration revealed an alarming consequence of President Obama’s executive amnesty—that illegal immigrants with deferred status may be able to receive the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Moreover, this person, who is here in the U.S. unlawfully, could be able to file an amended tax return for up to the last three tax years, possibly receiving upwards of $24,000 in tax credits.

How is this not theft? In what world is it okay to take money taken at the point of a gun from those who seek to obey the law and give that money to a criminal?

Mr. Grassley said that made a mockery of the law and said he’ll try to write a bill specifically prohibiting it.

“The tax code shouldn’t reward those who broke our immigration laws,” the Iowa Republican and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said in a statement.

But is this not the Republican Senator conceding that the executive order will stand?

Source

While Democrats Support Amnesty, So Do All 2016 GOP Contenders

In the upcoming 2016 presidential campaigns of the GOP contenders, Americans will have many issues they expect the next president to address, such as Obamacare, taxes and illegal immigration, to name a few. As it gets closer to election time, the candidates’ stance on issues pertinent to Americans will be delineated and will evolve as the polls shift. However, one issue that potential GOP runners for the office have already developed a stance is illegal immigration and what to do with the 11 million illegal aliens residing in the United States.

Some individuals in this country demand that no “amnesty” be given to those who have broken US immigration laws, while others support some form of immigration reform that would include some pathway to legalization for these 11 million lawbreakers. According to The Daily Caller, “every major candidate supports an immigration policy that includes an ‘amnesty,’ at least as defined the GOP’s most ardent and vocal immigration hawks.” While these candidates who support an ultimate pathway to citizenship or at least some process of “normalization,” they “condition their support on things like further securing America’s Southern border and making illegal immigrants pay a financial security.” In general, nearly all support the general principle that most of the 11 million illegal alien invader lawbreakers should be allowed to remain in the country and work as long as they have committed no other crime – other than breaking the immigration law.

At this point in time, the potential GOP candidates’ stance breaks down as follows:

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Florida Senator Marco Rubio support a pathway to citizenship for most illegal alien invaders that reside in the United States.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz supports ultimately legalizing most of the illegal alien lawbreakers, but without providing a means toward citizenship.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, writing in a Washington Times column in 2013, stated, “After ensuring border security, then I would normalize the status of the 11 million undocumented citizens so they can join the workforce and pay taxes.”

Paul continued, saying, “Most of these undocumented immigrants are poor and may not be able to ever pay back ten years of back payroll taxes. I would be willing to forego the fines and back taxes in exchange for a longer and significant time period before these folks are eligible to enter into the green card line.”

Ohio Governor John Kasich, who is considering a 2016 GOP presidential sprint toward the White House, said a “pathway to citizenship may be necessary.

“My sense is I don’t like the idea of citizenship when people jump the line, [but] we may have to do it. It may be a laborious and tough process. I would never say we would do it. … At the end of the day it may be necessary,” Kasich stated.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal appears to be a “less reluctant supporter” of the citizenship pathway for illegals.

Writing in the National Review in 2013, Jindal said, “Once the border is secure, and not before, we should provide an opportunity for those who came here illegally seeking to work for a better life to gain legal status rather quickly, if and only if they are willing to do all that is required. We should deport immediately those who engage in criminal activity. We should bar those seeking public assistance from receiving welfare or unemployment benefits for a substantial period of time.”

“As for a pathway to citizenship: For folks who came here illegally but are willing to gain proficiency in English, pay a fine, and demonstrate a willingness to assimilate, we should require them to work here and pay taxes for a substantial period of time after obtaining legal status before they have the opportunity to begin the process of applying for US citizenship,” Jindal wrote.

Mike Huckabee, former Governor of Arkansas, supported legislation in his state that “would have provided in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.” Recently, Huckabee has been quite vocal about not punishing illegal aliens who were brought to the United States as children by their parents. Speaking to The Christian Post in 2013, Huckabee stated, “I do think there should be a way that people who have been here for a while, who have lived decent clean lives like our ancestors did, can have a path to be able to work.”

In recent months, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has been difficult to pin down regarding his stance on immigration as it seems to go in a somewhat circular pattern. However, a spokesman for Walker stated “the governor believes it ‘makes sense’ to provide a pathway to citizenship as long as certain conditions are met.”

One candidate who has refused to even answer questions surrounding his stance on all of this New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. His defense: “[I] won’t have anything to say on immigration unless and until I become a candidate for president of the United States.” However, Christie told ABC News in 2010, “The president and Congress have to step up to the plate, they have to secure our borders and they have to put forward a commonsense path to citizenship for people.”

The most ambiguous potential candidate so far is Texas Governor Rick Perry. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal in January, Perry stated, “I think a candidate better be talking about securing the border and having a plan to secure the border before they ever have a conversation about what’s next.” Perry signed into law a bill that provided in-state tuition to illegal aliens and called anyone who opposed the bill as having no heart during the 2012 GOP presidential primary.

Only two candidates oppose “any path to normalization” for illegal alien invaders without them leaving the country first: retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.

Carson explained his stance as follows:

“People already here illegally could apply for guest-worker status from outside the country. This means they would have to leave first. They should in no way be rewarded for having broken our laws, but if they are wise, they will arrange with their employer before they leave to immediately offer them a legal job as soon as their application is received. When they return, they still would not be US citizens, but they would be legal, and they would be paying taxes.”

Santorum offered a similar approach back in 2006.

Another possible contender, Indiana Governor Mike Pence proposed a similar plan to Carson’s and Santorum’s: illegal immigrants should return to their nation of birth before applying to return as guest-workers.

Regardless of how it is stated, each of these candidates support some type of “amnesty.” They offer no criminal repercussions to those who have broken the US immigration law. Likewise, these candidates are under the impression that our legislative branch is not complicit in the current illegal alien invasion underway in this nation. According to a portion of the documentary, “They Come to America,” by Dennis Michael Lynch, the federal government is assisting illegal aliens, along with the drug cartels, to enter America by making holes in sections of the border fence to assist them.

In another interesting video produced by Lynch that shows him talking with illegal aliens, he discovered that many illegal alien invaders here in the US counter the Obama propaganda of being “dreamers” – they do not want to be an American citizen, only work here then return home.

Democrats need a larger “voter base” and Republicans need to satisfy corporate America’s demand for “cheap labor.” Illegal alien invaders, who are offered “amnesty” or are allowed to stay with green cards, driver’s licenses, and Social Security numbers, provides the answer to increasing the Democratic voter base and providing corporations with cheap labor. Both sides have sold American citizens “south” in order to accomplish their goals. This affects the liberal voting base as well as the conservative voting base.

It seems many Republicans are willing to assist in the destruction of America and their own party, which should not be surprising, as the goal is one party rule leading to a one world government. Democrats have made no secret about their goals; but, Republicans are still attempting to “schmooze” their voter base while stabbing them in the back. There can be no assurances that a Republican in any elected capacity will stand for the laws of this nation as they cave to support every issue their voter base opposes while pandering the “we did all we could” rhetoric.

So, regardless of which potential GOP candidate someone may like, it is obvious their stance on illegal alien invasion goes along somewhat with the Democratic Party line – supporting some type of amnesty. Americans can count on each of the candidates to waffle on their stance with this issue depending on public polling and outcry of citizens. But, as we all know, it will be just another line of rhetorical fodder they expect citizens to swallow in order to get them elected, assuming anyone’s vote actually counts in a national election.

At this point in time, Congress is impotent, Obama is out of control, and Republicans have been neutered. Theories abound that the next president has already been chosen by the puppet masters, which is probably not far off base. The 64 million dollar question is “what are Americans to do at this point?”

The problem is not simple and neither will be the solution. Some Americans need to wake up in a hurry. Those who are awake need to continue to work to wake others, expose these political charlatans in order to get them out of office and keep other charlatans from being elected. All of this is dependent on there being a 2016 election. After all, we have two years of Obama left, unless we can remove and replace the members of the House and Senate, and who knows what that lying, deceptive, usurper and his puppet masters have planned.

GOP Offers Little Resistance to Democrat Push on Illegal Amnesty

Americans need to brace themselves for the coming “cave-in” from the GOP regarding Obama’s illegal amnesty. As most know by this point, appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security to continue functioning minus the funding for Obama’s illegal amnesty is now stuck in the Senate due to Democratic filibuster. This fight regarding funding for amnesty comes at a time when the “crummy bus” resolution is coming to an end. Voters can thank John “Spineless” Boehner for the initial cave regarding the temporary funding for the illegal amnesty.

According to the Daily Caller, the Senate Democrats have used every tool they have to defend Obama’s illegal, unconstitutional action on amnesty, “including emotional threats to civil society, dire warnings of another 9/11 atrocity, and campaign-style hits against four wavering Republican senators.”

Surely, Democrats aren’t indicating some type of “event” would occur should the Department of Homeland Security lose the amnesty funding. After all, DHS has received funding for all of their “other” activities that “keep Americans safe” and have thwarted untold numbers of terrorist attacks. What a joke. DHS has thwarted about as many “terrorist” attacks as my Aunt Fanny.

While the Democrats are using the big gun style of arguments, the GOP responds with “cap gun” tactics that have failed to sway the several Democrats who partially opposed Obama’s amnesty action. Their use of stoic floor speeches, continually highlighting Obama’s amnesty as illegal and unconstitutional, along with their drama-free press conferences with a media that eats from the hand of Obama and Democrats, have done little to make a “nick” in the Democrats’ triple-filibuster of the DHS 2015 budget. No Democrats have changed their position on amnesty, even though Democratic seats were lost in the Senate in November partially over the unilateral amnesty action by Obama.

Compared to the aggressive fight waged by the GOP to win the Keystone Pipeline, the GOP fight on funding the DHS minus appropriations for amnesty looks like almost no fight at all. One Hill staffer amounted the GOP’s action to “nothing, nada, zilch.” This has cause many Republican representative in the House to become angry at the Republican impotence in the Senate.

Alabama Rep. Mo Brooks said, “Senator McConnell has engaged a half-hearted effort to date… in a policy of surrender without fighting.”

The ineffective strategy by Senate Republicans gained the spotlight when Illinois Senator Mark Kirk reversed his stance. On Tuesday, Kirk “sharply criticized the Democrats’ opposition to any defunding of Obama’s amnesty.” Kirk stated, “If there is a successful attack during a DHS shutdown – we [Republicans] should build a number of coffins outside each Democratic office and say, ‘You are responsible for these dead Americans.'”

In only one day, Kirk flipped and repeated the sentiment of Sen. Chuck Schumer stating, “I generally agree with the Democratic position here. I think it’s the wrong battle for us at the wrong time.”

Well, Sen. Kirk, when is it a good time to battle for Americans’ jobs and the sovereignty of our nation – after, it’s been given away?

Not surprisingly, Kirk relented because of video attack-ads and “rolled out push-polls” by a coalition of progressive groups.

Kirk told Talking Points Memo that the GOP shares the blame for the impasse over DHS. Kirk stated, “Had I been consulting, which I wasn’t, I don’t think we should have ever attached these issues to DHS funding. I always thought the burden of being in the majority is the burden of governing.”

Kirk faces a tough 2016 re-election battle in Illinois and indicated this battle over DHS immigration funding would not hurt his re-election bid.

Someone needs to educate Kirk that the “burden of governing,” according to our founding principle, is to secure individual unalienable God-given rights, legislate within the enumerated powers outlined in the US Constitution, and secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens of this nation, whether or not one party or the other holds the majority. What arrogance to think his position cannot be jeopardized. But, again, is this not the prevailing attitude in our elected officials – arrogance?

Unfortunately, the GOP has not responded with the same tactics against vulnerable Democrats, even though Obama’s amnesty allows millions of jobs that could be awarded to Americans to go to illegals, “huge tax payments to go to illegals for the work they did illegally while they were in the country illegally,” and provides enrollment into the Social Security program. This amnesty debacle favors companies’ use of legal and illegal immigrants over American workers when Americans are experiencing a high rate of unemployment.

But, what can Americans expect when the big corporations make huge campaign donations to both Democrats and Republicans. In order to keep their cushy positions, both parties will pander to the “wants” of big money while appearing to advocate for “we the people.” Is there any other explanation for the almost passive opposition by Republicans to the aggressiveness by Democrats on unconstitutional, illegal executive amnesty? As someone has so eloquently pointed out, “follow the money.” Is it any wonder the GOP sticks to the “technical” reason to oppose Obama’s amnesty – unconstitutional and illegal by executive order – instead of condemning this high immigration policy as detrimental to Americans? We all know that increased immigration is favored by the GOP business donors and Democrats need to expand their voting base to crush the opposite party.

The GOP has no one to blame but themselves for this battle occurring in the Senate. Last year, public opposition and Speaker John Boehner blocked the Obama amnesty, which catapulted Republicans into Senatorial seats. However, Boehner caved when Obama announced illegal, unconstitutional amnesty by executive fiat on November 20th by not including language in the “crummy bus” resolution to defund amnesty.

Heritage Action for America stated in a Feb. 11 memo that the GOP “must deliver a single, unified message: President Obama and Senate Democrats are willing to deny border patrol agents their paychecks to ensure illegal immigrants get Social Security numbers.”

The GOP should also deliver the message that unconstitutional, illegal, executive amnesty would “provide work permits to five million illegals and end repatriations for 12 million, even though millions of Americans have fallen out of the workforce since 2000.” Companies are experiencing near record profits while Americans’ wages have stalled. While Obama’s economy has only created 9.3 million jobs since 2009, “Obama has flooded the labor market by adding more than 11 million working age migrants to the economy” during the same period.

The GOP should continue to out Obama’s amnesty as unconstitutional and illegal, since the executive does not have the authority to make legislation. But, at the same time, GOP leadership must expose Obama’s amnesty as being unfair to Americans and detrimental to the nation. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue, but an American issue that will affect both Democrat and Republican supporters.

While many Democratic Senators tout these are “dreamers” or “distraught child valedictorians” that must be saved, parade vivid images, issue threats of death and slaughter, and accuse Republicans of “holding a gun to the head of America and saying unless you do it our way, we’ll shut down the government,” the GOP continues on the “high road,” only without so much as a peep of the repercussions to American workers.

Even though Americans are “overwhelmingly” opposed to Obama’s amnesty, their voice is not being heard by the GOP and is being flat out ignored by Democrats. But, what else is new when illegal alien invaders can occupy the offices of Rep. Jeff Session of Alabama and Senator Ted Cruz of Texas with impunity while Americans are lucky to get staff members to “hint” at citizens being able to see their elected officials with a “we’ll let them know and get back to you” response. If anything, this speaks to how far the House and Senate have sunk. No longer are duly elected officials in Washington representing the citizens who elected them; they are now representing millions of illegal alien invaders to the detriment of the voters who placed them in office.

Would any American, Democrat or Republican, be willing to forego or relinquish a job to an illegal alien invader or one who receives executive amnesty? One would hope not. By the same token, would an unemployed American, Democrat or Republican, choose to remain unemployed to champion illegal unconstitutional amnesty for illegal aliens? Again, one would hope not; but, a coalition of progressive groups are pulling out all the stops to make sure amnesty sticks. You can bet that big money corporations, the lame stream enemedia corporations, and head in the sand Americans will continue to push for amnesty and get it.

America has ceased to be a constitutional republic; we are not even a democracy. America has transformed into an oligarchy with Washington being controlled by mega-corporations, the banking cartel, and big money donors. Our duly elected representatives shun citizens while they cater to lobbyists, campaign donors, terrorist groups, and illegal aliens.

It’s time to flood our Senators with faxes, emails, and phone calls and demand opposition to Obama’s illegal, unconstitutional amnesty by pushing our Senators passing the DHS funding that excludes appropriations for Obama’s amnesty. Then, Americans who are interested in taking our country back from the hands of the oligarchy should join AmericaAgainNow and support efforts to hold these charlatan politicians accountable. Think of it this way: are you as American citizens, regardless of political party, willing to allow illegal aliens and the oligarchy to oust you as the rightful “government for the people, by the people and of the people?”

The Big Lie

While the country is busy blaming the measles outbreak at Disneyland on the official story line that it came from “overseas,” and the main stream media is pushing the agenda of vaccination, blaming the outbreak on the statistically insignificant number of Americans who refuse to vaccinate their children, the media is deliberately ignoring the elephant in the room: the illegal aliens bussed and flown in continuously since last year by this administration from countries where measles is endemic because of lack of vaccination and poor or non-existent healthcare.

The media is also gloating over the 5.6% unemployment rate which the Chairman and CEO of Gallup, Jim Clifton, described in his article as “The Big Lie: 5.6% Unemployment.” “The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanently unemployed as well as the depressingly underemployed, amounts to a Big Lie.”

While Americans have been told that their refunds may be delayed due to Obamacare penalties and calculations for those who may owe money to the IRS for overpaid subsidies, illegal aliens, as usual, are getting the red carpet treatment with taxpayer dollars. American taxpayers have to file an additional form, 8962, with 12 rows, and 6 columns (72 boxes), to compute subsidies for each month of 2014.

“Consumers may be subject to tax penalties for any month in which they had neither insurance coverage nor an exemption.”

Do not expect speedy service or prompt answers from the IRS as they are busy with other issues. Thirty types of exemptions from penalty have been set up by the federal government, including for those in states that did not expand Medicaid, religious beliefs, or premiums higher than 8% of household income. Documentation must be provided to the IRS for such hardships.

Illegal aliens, who were working under the radar of the IRS were encouraged to pay taxes via the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). Many illegals took advantage of this loophole and claimed numerous children in the country and outside of the country under the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) to the tune of $4.2 billion in 2010.

According to Washington Times, “IRS Commissioner John Koskinen confirmed Tuesday that illegal immigrants granted amnesty from deportation under President Obama’s new policies would be able to get extra funds from the IRS for money they earned while working illegally, as long as they filed returns during those years.”

The new amnestied illegals, will receive official Social Security numbers, enabling them to file retroactively three years for Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), “potentially claiming billions of dollars in additional payments they were ineligible for before the amnesty.” The Earned Income Tax Credit was established in 1975 for American citizens whose income fell below the federal poverty line.

Likely 4 million illegal immigrants are going to receive this administration’s “deferred action” or “deportation stay,” and thus work permits. Supporters of ITINs and EITCs say that it would be “unfair” to withhold billions from children who are likely U.S. citizens anyway because they became “anchor babies” when their illegal moms gave birth in this country.

In the meantime, while you lost your doctor, your premiums skyrocketed, the deductibles went through the roof, co-pays were larger than ever, your medical care took a dive, had to see a nurse practitioner, and you had to drop your good health insurance and accept substandard insurance on the Obamacare exchanges, the illegal aliens are receiving income tax refunds and free medical care, while you are trying to find three jobs to replace the one full-time job you lost because of the Affordable Care Act mandates. But, on the bright side, if you are a man, you now have free contraceptives.

Merry Christmas from Your Government

In this Christmas season, I deeply consider giving and…well…shouldn’t we all? I was taught as a child that to give is better than to receive. At IOTC, we follow the example of our founders: we believe God is above all power, especially Government. God gave you and I an amazing gift called rights – rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – and he set Government to protect those rights.

Government is supposed to be filled with individuals who, like our veterans, are to sacrifice their “lives, fortunes, and sacred honor” to preserve our rights.

The un-Christian view of Government is simple. The state is Divine, unlimited, and demands worship and obedience to all its Laws made under the authority of itself. It sounds like Caesar Augustus who called on all the world to be taxed.

In America today, our government resembles Caesar rather than our founders. Let’s take a look at what they have “given” us this Christmas…

Congress joined forces with the White House just four weeks after the American voters unequivocally used their voice to speak out against the policies of President Obama, and what did they join forces to bring us? The gift of a new budget that far exceeds the limitations of Article 1 Sec. 8. of the United States Constitution.

Obama gifted Islamic extremists with direct military and financial support. Congress also signed this Christmas card with a silent concurrence.

Congress and Obama delivered the American citizens hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to provide for. After America responded with such enthusiasm, Obama used an Executive Order to circumvent the U.S. Constitution, federal law, and 50 State Constitutions by giving illegal immigrants amnesty so we could have more new friends and neighbors. Then America was absolutely “blessed” by the newly elected Congress who voted to fund this new Christmas gift to America.

Congress gave us the gift of “security” when they approved and funded the Obama Intelligence Authorization Act of 2015 granting the Executive Branch unlimited access to the communications of every American without PROBABLE CAUSE.

Time does not permit me to speak of the other wonderful gifts of taxes, excessive spending, bail outs, nationalizing American companies, and criminalizing health-care in America. All funded by a concurring Congress through continuing resolutions.

Why is our government embracing tyranny, robbing citizens of their God-given rights? Because man has forgotten that there is a God who sent His only Son to redeem mankind. They act as if they are God and fail to acknowledge that the government rests on His shoulders.

God gave his only son as a sacrifice to save His people from their sins. Mary sacrificed her life and her reputation when she said to the angel Gabriel, “let it be so.” It was a capital crime to be pregnant with no husband. Joseph’s reputation as an honorable Israelite was sacrificed when he married pregnant Mary and raised the God Child who would save the world.

Christ came and gave all. We remember that gift during Christmas and, as Americans, must hold our elected officials accountable to God and our Constitution.

Learn more about your Constitution with Jake MacAulay and his Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

George Washington University Students Support US Citizen Deportation & Importing Illegal Aliens

Obama’s amnesty has fueled much debate in America. Those who support the immigration laws of our nation have been dubbed as “having hatred toward immigrants” by none other than some George Washington University students who signed a fake petition urging the deportation of one American citizen for one undocumented (illegal) immigrant.

The Campus Reform news outlet hit the campus of the university with a fake petition that read:

Please sign our petition for President Obama to deport one American citizen, in exchange for one undocumented immigrant. Everyone must be allowed a shot at the “American Dream.” Americans should not be greedy. Let us right the wrongs of the past and make another’s dreams come true.

Luckily, these students’ responses were videoed.

More than two-thirds of the individuals approached by the news outlet agreed with the petition statement. Two-thirds! America, these are the future leaders of our nation.

A university sitting in our nation’s capital bearing the name of one of our founding fathers who became the first President of our nation is attempting to educate individuals who cannot even comprehend law. Let me rephrase that, as the educational system in America has long since abandoned the idea of education. Since the government take-over of the educational system, it has changed to one of indoctrination – an indoctrination that has led the children of our nation to disregard law and operate on “what feels good.” The university system expanded on that idea placing liberal, Marxist, Alinsky-ite, tree-hugging individuals in tenured positions to continue the indoctrination of the nation’s future generations.

When my sister was in college at the University of Georgia, she had responded to a question by her professor with “Yes, Sir.” In our family, immediate and extended, all children were taught to respond to individuals with respect, using “Sir” or “Ma’am” as appropriate. The professor proceeded to chastise my sister saying, “Don’t say ‘Sir’ to me. That’s a sign of weakness.” Strong in her convictions, my sister responded, “That’s what I was taught as a sign of respect, which is anything but weakness.”

That incident occurred about 24 years ago, meaning the universities were being staffed then with individuals who would attempt to undermine parental teachings. Needless to say, it has only gotten worse. Now, the future of our nation would gladly support the deportation of American citizens in order to “welcome” illegal aliens, breakers of our immigration law, into this country to partake of the “American Dream.”

Since these “college” students think deportation of American citizens is such a good idea to allow law-breaking illegal aliens access to our country, maybe they would “volunteer” to be deported. If not, maybe they would volunteer one of their parents, a sibling, an aunt, an uncle, a cousin, a niece, or nephew. My suggestion would be to track down each one of these students who supported this and tell them Obama agreed with the petition, approved it via executive order, and they were selected for deportation via a lottery to allow one illegal to stay. Wonder what kind of crying, whining session would ensue with them invoking “their rights?” Or, inform them that one of their parents were selected for deportation via lottery. Guarantee you their position would change in a heartbeat with these uninformed, uneducated youngsters hollering “deportation was against their parents’ rights as a citizen.”

It is the typical liberal stance – as long as it’s not me being the one affected, I’ll support it.

Basically, these “kids” are under the impression that law-breaking illegal aliens are worthy of the citizenship they so freely take for granted. This uniformed generation may also be under the impression that criminals who commit murder, rape, theft and assault are deserving of amnesty as well.

Liberals operate under the premise of “degrees.” Breaking an immigration law is minor, while breaking a law by committing murder should be prosecuted. After all, they are not the same. In no way should a murderer receive amnesty; but, an illegal immigrant should not be held responsible. One student even had the nerve to state, “It’s not necessarily their fault,” while another stated, “Everybody deserves a shot and we shouldn’t rule anybody out.” Maybe these two kids would consent to deporting one of their parents in exchange for an illegal alien rapist, thief, or murderer.

Breaking the law is breaking the law, and those who engage in unlawful behavior are deserving of prosecution to the fullest extent of the law.

This is a prime example of some parents not educating their children and leaving that education up to the government indoctrination centers known as schools and universities. However, there are times when no matter how much parents try to educate their children, the children adopt, not the values and principles taught by parents, but, the indoctrination spewed by some professor who has earned their misplaced trust. It is the mindset of these “rebel against the parent teaching kids” that they know more than their parents, or the professor/teacher knows more, since the child perceives the professor/teacher has received broader education. This exercise by Campus Reform news outlet proves that some kids are definitely ignorant, whether by choice or indoctrination.

Wonder how these coddled, immature, unrealistic “younguns” would feel on the repeal of the Twenty-sixth amendment? They are the perfect example of the “low information” to “no information” voter. From their own actions and admissions, these individuals are definitely too immature to engage in a practice that places individuals in a position to legislate and lead. Whatever they are thinking with, it isn’t that bump located three feet above their derriere. These kids are operating on a disengaged brain.

The parents of these “kids” should definitely stop funding their education, since they are not being educated and ask for a refund of the money they have shelled out so far. Obviously, they aren’t learning anything except to sell American citizens into a tyrannical, despotic government and would support the deportation of citizens in exchange for lawbreakers.

Executive Amnesty Tramples Our Constitution

Amnesty for illegal aliens – a very hot topic to which the majority of Americans are opposed, but one which the government, supposedly “for the people, by the people and of the people,” seems hell-bent and determined to allow the occupier of the Oval Office to enact by dictatorial edict.

Supporters of amnesty for illegal aliens would say that Obama is only doing what is contained in his DREAM Act – an act that never passed Congress, making anything Obama does regarding that act outside the current law. But, that is not something anyone should be concerned about, as Congress has failed to pass legislation, meaning that Obama should act unilaterally to “change” laws Congress doesn’t pass. Along with this amnesty, Obama’s plan puts millions of illegal aliens on a “fast track” to citizenship.

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah stated that Obama and the administration “have cleared the pathway to citizenship for millions of people who have crossed our borders illegally.”

In a speech on the Senate floor, Lee stated this amnesty allows illegals, who have US-born children, to leave the country, “perhaps for a business meeting in Canada, and then be given ‘advanced parole’ by border officials that lets them legally return to the United States.” Upon their return, they are eligible to be immediately sponsored for a green card and citizenship by their adult children. Lee announced this as a violation of current US law that requires illegals to leave the country for 10 years before being eligible for sponsorship by their US-born adult children.

Lee contended, “They know what they have done, and it is illegal.”

According to Lee, Congress has “narrowly defined” when “advanced parole” can be offered to foreigners; it is extended to these individuals “on a case by case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.” Some examples would be for the funeral of a relative or to testify as a witness at a trial. However, under the “new” unilateral changes, an individual could attend a business meeting in Toronto, after obtaining permission to leave, then return to be immediately paroled into the country thereby being eligible for sponsorship. This means that five million illegal aliens could get citizenship through this new “parole” technique.

The amnesty, which is in essence bypassing of constitutional immigration laws, will reward illegal aliens with work permits, drivers’ licenses, Medicaid, Social Security, and other programs normally reserved for citizens.

The “fast track to citizenship” also means that illegal aliens, who have skirted the system, will be cleared to vote in elections.

By what authority is the occupant of the Oval Office allowed to grant amnesty to law breakers or authorize illegal aliens a “work around” the US immigration laws? Being that a search of the Constitution has not revealed this authority under Section II, and Section I grants authority to Congress as makers of the law, Obama’s actions are clearly unconstitutional. However, Boehner and his RINO cronies have colluded with this administration and Democrats to fund this unconstitutional action for a year.

This Cromnibus should be known as “throw U.S. under the bus” and Obama’s actions as “the second reign of King George III.”

Since the Congress, the executive, and judicial branches have effectively thrown out the Constitution, what are these individuals following as the law? Nothing, as many can see. Our government has become a “free for all.” They are all “free” to do as they please while we the people must do their bidding. Our nation has ceased to be a constitutional republic and moved into the “rule of the elitist politicians.” We have become a nation of subjects instead of a nation of citizens.

Congress is full of individuals who have violated laws but they remain immune to prosecution and removal. The Constitution, which provides for the arrest of any member of Congress for treason, felony, and the breach of peace, has been perverted by these charlatans in order to keep criminals in positions to make law. Members of Congress turn a blind eye to their own colleagues’ transgressions – crimes any ordinary citizen would be subjected to prosecution. Congress then extends this impunity to the executive and those under it. Following in the glorious tradition, Congress is funding, indicating consent with unlawful executive action, citizenship for criminals.

One could bet, should millions of legal citizens march on Washington in first amendment protest demanding the removal of these lawless, corrupt, treasonous slime in Congress, or defunding of executive amnesty, that Congress would invoke the Constitution, wrongly, to declare such an act an insurrection, or at the very least, unlawful. It would most assuredly be guaranteed the man occupying the Oval Office would relish such a declaration. If Congress didn’t or wouldn’t declare it as such, he would. As Americans have seen, illegal alien criminals can meet with Congress with impunity, ride with the executive, protest against our immigration laws, and garner support from criminals such as Guitterez. Legal citizens should be so supported and entertained.

In effect, our government has turned its back on the citizens of this nation in favor of illegal alien criminals, non-citizens, big business, and world opinion. Citizens are now considered “collateral damage,” fodder, a source of funding for their agenda (a paycheck with feet), and insignificant. Our government has become a government for the minority and themselves, instead of a government securing individual rights and the sovereignty of our nation. Unfortunately, many, if not all, of our state governments are about the same.

Basically, one could say many of us that we are a nation devoid of representation. Even though there is a body charged with the task of representing the people, this body has not for some time represented the people; nor, has anyone in this government honored their oath of office. Instead, members of this body violate their oath and represent their own interests, the interests of money, illegal aliens, theocracies anti-thetical to our founding, and such inequities that violate the sanctity of our constitutional laws.

“We have no government armed with the power of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry [some sources contend “and licentiousness” in place of gallantry] would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other.” John Adams, letter to the officers of the First Brigade of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798.

John Adams summed it up nicely in 1798.

House Passes Bill to Block Executive Amnesty – Obama Promises Veto

The House of Representatives voted on Thursday to block President Obama from changing immigration law by using his Executive power.

The final vote was 219-197 with 3 Republicans voting present. All but 3 Democrats voted against the House bill, thereby siding with the President’s use of Executive power to create new laws and basically crown himself king. Interestingly, 7 Republicans also voted no with the Democrats. You can see the Roll Call for the House vote here.

It seems patently ridiculous that this type of vote is necessary considering the length that the Constitution goes to instructing us that it is the legislatures job to make law, not the President’s… but apparently we forgot this somewhere along the line. Now, the President will veto this attempt by House Republicans to block him from amnestying 5 million illegals without the consent of Congress. So, what will the GOP do next?

Probably nothing.

John Boehner said he would not commit to bringing up a bill to strip critical funding from the Department of Homeland Security in the next Congress. Instead, the speaker of the House says there are “lots of options” for blocking President Obama’s executive order on immigration. At a Thursday press conference in the Capitol, Boehner did not guarantee the House would vote to block or cut off funding from DHS once Republicans had control of both houses of Congress in 2015.

“There are a lot of options on the table,” said Boehner in response to a question from THE WEEKLY STANDARD. “I’m not going to get into hypotheticals of what we could or couldn’t do. But I do know this. Come January, we’ll have a Republican House and a Republican Senate, and we’ll be in a stronger position to take actions.”

Boehner and House Republican leaders are pushing to pass a short-term funding package before the end of the current budget resolution next week. 

In plain English, Boehner is saying that the GOP is powerless for now. In the Senate conservatives like Ted Cruz are pushing to pass a bill that would defund the President’s amnesty efforts – but the establishment GOP (embodied by Boehner) are terrified that another shutdown could doom the GOP’s newly won momentum. The concern is valid, but more than a little disheartening. If GOP leaders will constantly be acting from a position of fear rather than a position of leadership… what can we ever hope to accomplish?

It seems, for now, that our current crop of GOP leaders have decided that staying in power is more important than stopping the terrible actions the Democrats have committed over the past few years… Obamacare and Amnesty included.

Source

Mitt Romney Joins Obama – Pushes For Permanent Amnesty

I have a friend in Texas who owns a business. He tells me that every night, illegal aliens sneak into his offices to sleep. On cool nights, they turn up the heat; and on warm nights, they crank the air conditioner, which costs him a lot of additional money.

He said he went to the authorities, and they said that not only would they not do anything to stop them or arrest them, but that he could not beef up the locks on his buildings. The authorities said he could hire security, but that they could only observe and not intervene.

Okay – that didn’t happen, although I do have a friend in Texas who does own a business, but he would just shoot anyone trying to break in.

I am, however, demonstrating that anyone, conservative or liberal, would never stand for people breaking into their businesses, let alone accept it if authorities told them what they couldn’t do to keep the illegals out.

Yet, somehow it’s just fine to allow the same thing to happen to our country. It defies logic, yet Mitt Romney, who is rapidly reestablishing himself as the titular head of the establishment Republicans, is officially “on board” the Obama amnesty express – not that he was ever off.

As was reported yesterday by Tony Lee at Breitbart, Mitt Romney wants to one up the Prez by pushing permanent amnesty, not just that paltry, temporary kind Obama has decreed.

Yes, Mitt – that’ll show ’em!

Of course, Romney doesn’t call it what it is – amnesty. He says it would be a “permanent clarification of our immigration laws so that people know where they stand.”

I know where they stand – in our country!

Mitt insists that his establishment suggestions would “make some improvements to the immigration system.”

Romney’s proposals are typical of soft-shell Republicans – replete with vague generalities that sound great to the uninterested and ignorant. Phrases like “You’re going to see a provision first of all to secure the border, second of all, to deal with those who have come here illegally…”

Establishment types always start with the tough talk like securing the border, which again sounds good until you realize that “secure” doesn’t equal “close” and never will.

Romney is setting all this up now to soften the blow when McConnell takes over as leader of the Senate.

A month ago on his radio show, Rush Limbaugh reported that Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday was discussing this topic with Romney. Wallace said “The Senate, on a bipartisan basis, past comprehensive immigration reform. House Republicans blocked it.”

But this time, it will be different. Both McConnell and Boehner in the House will officially toss conservatives and the Tea Party overboard. A deal between the two has already been crafted – I guarantee it. As Rush says: “Don’t doubt me.”

This is why Romney is out there – this and he need to remain relevant for a run in 2016. Yes, I think he’ll try again.

The deal has been made by the establishment and most likely even before this last election. That’s why Romney could say emphatically that “You’re gonna see a bill actually reach the desk of the president if we finally have someone besides Harry Reid sitting in the Senate. That’s going to happen.”

So make the calls – melt the phone lines conveying your discontent. It’s not going to matter this time. The establishment appears no longer afraid of us conservatives, judging by Mitt’s bold, on-camera appearances.

Obama Bribes US Companies to Break the Law – Offers $3,000 to Hire Illegals instead of Americans

Wow. President Obama and his Democrat cronies have done it again. They are once again showing the nation the incredible amount of disdain they have for the American people. This time, it’s the perfect storm of Obamacare, Amnesty and Unemployment

The Democrats under Obama have created a perverse system of incentives that give companies 3,000 reasons to hire illegal aliens who have been amnestied instead of unemployed American citizens…

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) said, “If it is true that the president’s actions give employers a $3,000 incentive to hire those who came here illegally, he has added insult to injury. The president’s actions would have just moved those who came here illegally to the front of the line, ahead of unemployed and underemployed Americans.”

A spokesman for Senator John McCain said that there is an easy answer to this mess… Get rid of Obamacare’s Employer Mandate because that “would eliminate the incentive to hire people who are ineligible for Obamacare subsidies.”

Dick Morris explained the issue in an Op-Ed for the Hill last week.

Those granted amnesty will not be eligible for ObamaCare. The amnesty will merely keep them safe from deportation; it won’t make them legal. And ObamaCare can only go to citizens and legal noncitizens living in the U.S.

But the employer mandate in ObamaCare requires large companies to offer insurance to each of their full-time workers or pay a hefty fine to the government for failing to do so.

Combine these two programs and you have a huge incentive for employers to dismiss any blue-collar workers on their payroll and replace them with illegal immigrants covered by amnesty. These folks are allowed to work but not to get ObamaCare. An employer can’t be fined for failing to offer ObamaCare to employees who are ineligible to receive it. It’s an employer’s dream!

By creating a pool of work-legal/ObamaCare-illegal workers, the president will make the incentive to replace citizens with illegal immigrants practically irresistible.

Do you get it, folks? There are now 5 million newly amnestied illegal immigrants who can now find work, but whose employers will legally be allowed to compensate at a rate of $3,000 less every year.

Do you understand the gravity of that?

That’s 15 BILLION DOLLARS! This is a huge incentive for companies to hire illegals who’ve been amnestied over Americans who are out of work… and it’s all thanks to the Democrats two “greatest achievements” – Obamacare and Amnesty.

Source

Obama’s LIE on Amnesty Shows He LIED About Protecting First and Second Amendments

After Barack Obama announced that he would be signing an executive order to grant legal status to 5 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S., videos began to surface that showed him adamantly asserting he couldn’t do it. He told Americans and international audiences the Constitution prevented him from doing exactly what he did earlier this month (in a moment of unscripted candor, he even admitted it).


 

On September 25, 2012, just two weeks after the Benghazi attacks, Obama spoke at the United Nations and again referred to the “Innocence of Muslims” video and its role in causing violence throughout the Middle East. He then spoke to people who wanted criticism of Islam to be banned by pointing to the… wait for it… Constitution as the reason why such videos cannot be banned:

“I know there are some who ask, ‘why don’t we just ban such a video’? and the answer is enshrined in our laws. Our constitution protects the right to practice free speech.”

If Obama asserted the constitution prevented him from signing an executive order on amnesty, what makes anyone think he’s sincere when he points to the first amendment to defend speech?


 

Back in the summer of 2011, the Operation Fast and Furious scandal was beginning to make some news (mainstream media avoidance of it notwithstanding). At a press conference, Obama was asked by an ignorant Mexican reporter if he had the power to veto the second amendment.

Here is how Obama answered that question:

“The second amendment in this country is part of our Constitution and the President of the United States is bound by our Constitution so I believe in the second amendment.”

Obama then spoke about his administration stopping gun traffickers. The problem is that it was his administration that was facilitating gun trafficking. ATF agents told gun store owners to sell the weapons to straw purchasers who would then walk them into Mexico and give them to cartels.

Again, though, when it comes to the second amendment – like his executive order on amnesty – Obama said the constitution prevented him from doing anything about it.


 

Regular readers to Shoebat.com know that there is probable cause to suggest that the Obama administration was involved in the production of the Innocence of Muslims video and the gunwalking operation to launch assaults on the first and second amendments, respectively.

Source

*Article by Ben Barrack

Obama Wrecks Tax Cut Compromise

President Obama wrecked a $440 billion tax cut deal between Senate Democrats and House Republicans Tuesday just as negotiations were wrapping up.

More than 50 expired and expiring tax breaks — including a cherished research and development tax credit for businesses, charitable deductions and an earned income credit for low income workers — must be extended by Congress by the end of the year. Otherwise, businesses and individuals won’t be able to claim them on this year’s tax returns.

Republicans want to make several of the cuts permanent, but Democrats argue permanent cuts are too expensive and would prefer to extend all of them for another two years. (RELATED: Congress Set To Expend More Than 50 Tax Breaks)

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Rep. Dave Camp, Ways and Means Committee chair, were about to strike a compromise Tuesday that would have made ten of the cuts permanent and extended the rest. But President Obama intervened and threatened a veto, saying the deal favored corporations at the expense of the working class.

Most of the proposed permanent cuts would have benefitted businesses, although Republicans threw in a few favored by Democrats, including a deduction for state and local sales tax favored by Reid, a break for commuters and a break that helps students pay college tuition, reported the Wall Street Journal.

Two of the Democrats favorite cuts were not included because of Obama’s recent executive order granting amnesty to an estimated five million illegal immigrantsreported The New York Times. Republicans announced Friday they would not make the child tax credit or the earned income credit permanent, because they could be claimed by the newly legal immigrants.

The deal also would have phased out a wind energy credit hated by Republicans.

The White House was “livid” over the deal, Democratic aides told The Hill. “The president has consistently stated his opposition to giving hundreds of billions of dollars of tax cuts primarily geared to corporations while leaving middle class families and those struggling to get into the middle class behind,” White House Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jason Furman told The New York Times.

The president’s veto threat angered Republican aides, who told The New York Times he’s reversing prior support for some of the cuts, such as the research and development tax credit for businesses.

Congress now has until December 11, when it’s scheduled to wrap up for the year, to come up with a new deal. One option is for Republicans to push through a very short term extension of all of the cuts through 2014, and then revisit the issue when they’ve gained the majority.

Source

Obama’s Executive Amnesty is Only the Beginning

Now that BHO has decreed that deportations will cease and work permits and other privileges of legal immigration will be granted to those who chose to enter our country illegally, what’s next?

In less time than it takes to say “Fundamentally transform America” the chorus of usual suspects, Charles Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and their fellow travelers will start saying “It isn’t fair for all these people to pay taxes and not receive the full benefits of Obamacare, and the rest of the social hammock. Then along comes voting. Of course thanks to President Clinton and his motor voter law, if our newly legalized guests can drive, they can vote already.

Here’s the plan: inundate Texas and Florida with imported voters and turn the electoral map blue for at least a generation. By then we will have a nanny-state bureaucratic yoke firmly in place on the neck of anyone crazy enough to continue producing anything that can be expropriated. Tax and spend will be refined into TAX and SPEND on steroids as what was once the land of the free and the home of the brave careens into the third world.

This reminds me of the people who will flee red tape strangulation and try to blend into their new found haven by demanding all the government services that were the catalyst of their previous State’s meltdown. As we discard our freedom for the shabby paternalistic embrace of a fuzzy warm Progressive dystopia our newly legalized guests will feel right at home. Our once super-successful nation will be that many steps closer to the failed states they have left.

For a long time, the best practical advice I could give anyone asking how to succeed in America has been learn Spanish and get a government job. That may soon be progressed to change your name to Juan del Pueblo and get in line. Uncle Sugar is about to raise your standard of living for free while he charges John Doe to lower his.

Now don’t get me wrong—I am in no way saying that the vast majority of Hispanic people are not hard-working family people who want to better their lives. I love Hispanic culture and find español para ser un lenguaje muy hermoso, or Spanish is a beautiful language. However, there right ways to do things and wrong ways to do things. For those who have come here legally, welcome. For those who chose to come here anyway, not so much. It is the difference between inviting someone to dinner and how you feel about meeting their needs and making sure they are comfortable and how you would feel about someone who broke into your house, sat themselves down at your dinner table, and demanded to be served. As a matter of fact, they want you to take the food off your own children’s plates and give it to them. That’s a big difference.

Just look at the imperial decree. It lists strictures on who this applies to and who it doesn’t apply to. If the Emperor has decreed that you must have been here for X number of years to qualify how many years do you think everyone will say they have been here? Since they were in the shadows, who knows? Obviously, we don’t.

Here’s a question that always bothers me, “If, in order to gain citizenship, you have to pass a written test on American History in English, why does anyone need a Spanish ballot?” Yet, Spanish ballots are issued in all 50 states. Of course this is just like asking, “If you need a photo ID to get into the Democratic National Convention, what is wrong with asking for a photo ID to vote?” If you ask either of these questions, the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media brand you as a racist and marginalize you as a denizen of the radical right-wing fringe.

Was BHO’s imperial decree unconstitutional? Everyone knows it is. Are his examples of other Presidents’ executive orders relating to immigration fait comparisons? Everyone knows they aren’t. Will anything meaningful be done by the loyal opposition? No. They are too loyal to the Progressive, big-government, tax and spend agenda of the twin-headed bird of prey which is our degraded two-party system.

So what happens next? Anything BHO wants. Our system of constitutionally limited government has run aground on the rock of a bureaucratically-dominated, collectivist, self-aggrandizing central government supported by an oligarchy of perpetually re-elected hacks and their crony capitalist friends. The descendants of the colonists, the great grandchildren of the Founders and Framers, have become the vassals of an egomaniacal narcissist and a gang of two-bit jesters riding on donkeys and elephants in a parade to the ash heap of History.

Amnesty: Justifying the Dishonor of Illegal Immigration

The amnesty by executive fiat is a fait accompli – five million law breakers are now going to become American citizens with all the benefits American taxpayers are forced to provide, including Obamacare.

The “fiscal cost of immigration” will include: Medicaid, unemployment insurance, Social Security, workmen compensation, TANF, earned income credit, WIC, SNAP, free phones, SSI, free education, free lunch programs, kindergarten programs, day care, and other services such as police protection, fire protection, military protection, libraries, parks, highways, and over 80 different welfare programs that already provide cash, food, utilities, education, and housing to 100 million low-income Americans.

Young Americans and their families will pay hefty health insurance premiums for Obamacare, with high deductibles and diminished benefits on the bronze, silver, and gold levels, while illegal aliens will pay nothing or $2.71 per month.

After all, we are such a rich nation; why not spread the wealth around the globe to millions of illegals and to the chain migration that will soon follow. The veterans can wait months to get a doctor’s appointment and American children can be denied entry to colleges or federal grants because minorities and their quotas must be protected and served first. They are the “Dreamers” of tomorrow’s America, the chosen citizens of the new America.

Thumbing their noses at the 4 million foreigners awaiting proper documentation to immigrate legally to the U.S., large groups of illegals bussed into D. C. by Casa de Virginia, a subsidiary of Casa de Maryland, celebrated this week the reward to their lawlessness, waving small American flags handed out to them on the prior-organized buses and at the rally.

Dr. Savage explained on his show that, “while some immigrants work hard, they have large families at home who do not work at all,” subsidized by the American taxpayers. To make matters worse, 30 percent of the prison population in our country is comprised of recidivist illegal aliens, some of whom have committed horrendous crimes.

We are a nation of immigrants, but the fundamental difference between the last century’s immigrants and today’s immigrants is that the 20th century immigrants assimilated, came here to take advantage of the opportunity to make a better life for themselves, learned English the best they could, did not accept welfare, and worked very hard to make this country a better place.

The current immigrants come here for the economic opportunity of government welfare, are not interested in assimilating or learning English, and generally do not like America, they want to transform it into the dictatorships they came from, where the corrupt culture is a culture of government dependency, survival through dishonesty, and breaking the law is a way of life. They are interested in a better life provided to them by our taxpayers with no allegiance to our nation, or respect for our country, borders, culture, language, and the rule of law.

Can we financially afford 5 million amnestied illegal aliens and the remainder 29 million that will follow? No, but the administration will continue to print more worthless money to add to our already unmanageable and exploding national debt, cut more benefits to seniors, cut the military even more, and cut education to fund Medicaid for the new arrivals.

Once illegal immigrants overwhelm the social safety net and bankrupt various programs, there will be chaos. The people most affected by this flood of illegal aliens are not going to be the middle class or the upper middle class, those affected will be the lower middle class and the people at the bottom, who will be competing with illegals for unskilled employment and other government benefits.

This amnesty will benefit the greed of employers seeking employees who will be paid lower wages. Obamacare made sure there was a provision within that protected from penalty employers who hire illegal workers. Amnestied illegals will depress wages for existing legal immigrants and for American citizens and the unemployment numbers and the welfare rolls will swell to unmanageable levels.

There was a pride and joy in waiting patiently for four years to get a green card legally, then another four years to become a naturalized American citizen. There was an honor to be sworn in as an American citizen.

There is no honor in crossing the border in the dead of night, sneaking into our country illegally like bandits, bringing in untreatable diseases, accepting undeserved amnesty and eventual citizenship from a President who single-handedly decided to alter the meaning of citizenship with the stroke of a pen, break the laws of the United States in the process, and forever “fundamentally transform” America into a banana republic mocked by the world.

Breaking into America’s house in the middle of the night, demanding ownership of the deed of trust is dishonorable. If the Congressional Republicans are serious about representing the interests of the American people who rejected amnesty vociferously in the November election, they should veto the discretionary amnesty and refuse to fund it.

Left Rewrites Cesar Chavez’s History

Obama and the left have a habit of distorting and rewriting history to bend it to their warped views of how the world should look and how history should have been recorded.

I’m starting to wonder if maybe they are that deluded, that like Dorothy clicking her ruby slippers together, if you wish hard enough for something to be so – if you want badly enough for it to be – you may then record that fantasy as factual history.

“Auntie Em, Auntie Em.” “Oh little Barack – it’s okay now – we’re all here.” “But Auntie Em – I had the most horrible nightmare. Reverend Wright – you were there, and you Mr. Ayers. Frank Marshall Davis was there.” “Here I am son. No need to fret.” “And Mr. Alinsky…” “Don’t worry son. You’re awake now. The Constitution was just a bad dream.”

Yeah, it’s like that. Or maybe it’s like the wife of a deceased union leader and activist completely turning history on its head to fit the current narrative.

Frankly, I was more stunned at this revision of history that almost anything Obama has said. MoveOn.org strikes again.

I received an e-mail blast last week from Helen F Chavez, the widow of famous farm labor leader Cesar Chavez. Helen F (F is for fraud) Chavez wanted to thank Emperor Obama for his unilateral action on immigration.

She writes: “Unlike my husband, I never got involved in politics until October 2012, when president Obama came to dedicate the Cesar E Chavez National Monument at the Tehachapi Mountain town of Keene, California. That’s where Caesar lived and worked his last quarter century, and it’s where he is buried. As we walked away from paying our respects at my husband’s grave site, with the president holding my arm, I asked, ‘Mr. President, will you promise you will do something on immigration reform?’ ‘Yes, Mrs. Chavez, I promise I will,’ he said.”

Yes, I have no doubt that’s what happened (he said tongue in cheek).

Although she never clearly states it, in the e-mail, she wants to convey the impression that her late husband was a champion of illegals and would have approved of Obama’s action. And this just shows the arrogance and hubris of the left because nothing could be further from the truth.

Chavez was virulently opposed to illegal immigrants. As I wrote in my 2012 article “Immigration Transformation,” Chavez “strongly opposed illegal immigration, saying that it undermined his ability to unionize farm workers and improve conditions and wages for the American worker. The union would even report illegals to the feds. How far we’ve come in a short 47 years, eh? In 1969, Chavez, along with Walter Mondale (yes, that Walter Mondale), organized a march on the southern border protesting farmers’ use of illegals. Imagine that happening today. That’s progress, I guess.” Progress indeed.

Now, I knew this about Cesar Chavez as did you most likely. Just how little does MoveOn think of their supporters to imply something completely opposite of historical fact, and get away with it?

Well, the answer is obvious by just listening to the left’s leadership. Most of what they say and write is crap and completely distorts if not attempts to rewrite history. Yet they do so with impunity.

The leadership of the left is the ones that think we are all stupid – they simply figure that we are all too ignorant or lazy to find out for ourselves the easily discoverable fact that Mrs. Chavez is either a liar or a senile old woman who is no longer in touch with reality.

Amnesty for Unamerica

Obama’s excuse for his illegal amnesty will be that the immigration system is “broken,” forcing him to act. But when Obama says that the system is broken, he means that some parts of it still work, so he intends to break immigration all the way through to benefit his own corrupt political allies.

That will hurt his own voters the most, but the Democratic Party has a notoriously masochistic relationship with its voting base. It beats them up and then it gaslights them by hugging them and telling them that it was really the mean Republicans who punched them in the face.

When African-American unemployment rates rise, the workers who can’t find jobs because of all the brand new DREAMERs won’t blame the White House, they’ll blame the evil Republicans for income inequality, assuming Sharpton manages to read the term correctly from his MSNBC teleprompter.

According to Obama, our immigration system is broken because it doesn’t allow illegal aliens who illegally crossed the border to take American jobs. That’s not a broken system, that’s what the system is supposed to do.

When illegal aliens aren’t allowed to legally take American jobs, that’s how you know the immigration system is working. In the language of progressivism, helping means ruining and fixing means breaking. A system that fulfills any useful purpose must be reformed out of all usefulness. If the tattered shreds of the immigration system still keep a single Democratic voter from legally cashing a welfare check and casting a vote, then immigration must be reformed and helped and fixed until it is completely destroyed.

The immigration system is broken because it was reformed so many times that it makes as much sense as an outhouse on a space shuttle. Its main function now is to bring millions of people without jobs to a country where millions are out of work. Obama wants to fix that by adding millions more people.

Our system of immigration is a perfectly good system for importing lots of low wage workers. The only problem is they’re being imported into a country where there are a lot more low-wage workers than there are jobs. The cost of providing food stamps and social services for the immigrants and the Americans they put out of work is passed on to the shrinking middle class, which kills more jobs.

Some Republicans would like to modify it to help Mark Zuckerberg bring cheaper third world programmers and engineers to replace the Americans over at Facebook. Why settle for just wiping out the working class, when you can also take out chunks of the middle class?

Our immigration system made perfect sense back when we were opening factories everywhere. It made sense when new ranches needed hands and land needed working. It makes a lot less sense when the government is fighting a war on carbon, when ranches have to get out of the way of the spotted red toad and farms are starved of water in the name of the environment.

The million immigrants a year are not entering booming industries, but serving as cheap labor in declining ones. And they’re doing it in a country where declining industries and poor workers are already being subsidized by taxpayers in a dozen different ways. Why then should taxpayers also be subsidizing the replacement of American workers with Somali and Honduran workers?

Who benefits from that except the Democratic Party which not only killed the industries, but is now managing to kill the American workforce? The glorious future of the new economy is a government subsidized Chinese factory using foreign workers to make subsidized solar panels in Oklahoma while taxpayers remain on the hook for the subsidies which used bonds sold to Chinese investors.

Declining industries tighten their belts by cutting costs. They find the cheapest employees they can. Those cheapest employees become a constituency for the nanny state. The nanny state makes it even more expensive to operate. The cycle spins on until the only industries left are state subsidized and everyone directly or indirectly works for the state. And the only items of collateral with which to borrow more money to subsidize them with are the land and the people. That’s not America. That’s Africa.

The Obama economy has created mostly low wage jobs. Those jobs continue to be filled by immigrants. There still aren’t enough jobs, so Obama is proposing to create even fewer jobs by adding more immigrants by legalizing more illegal aliens.

There is something broken here, but it’s not so much immigration as Obama and his party.

Last week, I spoke to a British immigration lawyer who described how difficult it was for seniors in the United Kingdom to retire in the United States. While most countries welcome wealthy retirees, our system makes it difficult for them to move and bring their money over here.

Meanwhile, in his 2013 State of the Union address, Obama had praised Desiline Victor, a 102-year-old Haitian woman who had moved to the United States at around 80 and never learned to speak English, but did spend hours waiting in line in Florida to vote for Obama. There are plenty of senior immigrants coming through family reunification for a big bite of a social welfare system they never paid into.

But the Democratic Party would rather have a voter than a worker. And so what we have is not an immigration system, but a migration system.

That’s why Obama and his people fought so hard against an Ebola travel ban. It’s why the New York Times editorialized against allowing Cuban doctors to defect because of the “brain drain” but instead urged that “American immigration policy should give priority to the world’s neediest refugees.”

America certainly takes in plenty of needy people, but what the New York Times is emphasizing is that we should be taking in people with nothing to contribute and keeping out those who do. Its ideal immigrant will at best be a low-wage worker and at worst a permanent welfare case. We don’t want Cuban doctors. We want Somali muggers and Liberian Ebola cases and Pakistani terrorists.

Immigration is not meant to serve American interests. America is meant to serve immigration. The end result of this immigration policy will be a stratified society with a permanent lower class and a thin upper class whose leftists can always start a riot by shouting about income equality without ever being able to offer it. Without social mobility what we will have left is social instability. There will be lots of young men with time on their hands to build bombs or throw stones.

If the left doesn’t win through the system, they’ll have their revolutionary constituency standing by. The only way we can afford the immigration policy that we have now is with a lot more industry and a lot less welfare. Instead, our immigration rates were widened and rerouted to the Third World even as our actual industries declined. We kept on taking workers we didn’t have jobs for. We built ghettoes and rust belts and our politicians kept on reciting robotic speeches about being a nation of immigrants.

Immigration requires opportunity. We still have it, but less of it than we used to. Our immigration system is not based on opportunity. It’s based on a migratory flow of Democratic Party voters.

What broke the system was making it as open as possible to those who had the least to offer while closing it tightly to those who had the most to offer. Now Obama wants to import illegal aliens while deporting American jobs. He wants to trade American jobs to illegal aliens for Democratic votes.

If the immigration system is to work again, it should work for America… not for Obama.

Source

A Christian American’s Response to Obama’s Speech on Immigration

The illegal residing man in the Oval Office announced his “immigration” plan last night, which, not coincidentally, was not aired by any lame stream enemedia station; but, it was aired by Univison and Telemundo. Interestingly, these stations are largely watched by those of hispanic geneaology. There was a strategic reason for that move – the majority of US citizens and those who arrived in this country legally are opposed to the plan.

The illegal alien leader of this country claims “our immigration system is broken; everyone knows that.” Again, the question to be answered has lingered – “How is the US immigration system broken?” Still, no takers have stepped forward to answer that question.

Many claims have circulated that it isn’t easy to become a US citizen. Well, it’s not supposed to be easy. Our immigration laws serve to protect this country and its natural born, naturalized, and legal citizens from an erosion of our national sovereignty, collapse of the US economy, contagious deadly disease pandemics, and entry of subversives and criminals into our nation. Put simply, immigration laws serve to protect the interests of legal citizens. If those who enter this nation in order to become citizens have to jump through many hoops, so be it. The freedom of this nation was forged with the blood of individuals who believed in the people’s right and ability to self-govern. Citizenship, for those who are not natural born citizens, is a privilege, not a right, extended to those who come to our nation seeking freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; sharing our founding principles; and valuing the Constitution as the supreme law of our land.

Congress and the President, past and present, have altered our immigration laws to appease the “squeaky wheel” known as illegal aliens, breakers of our immigration laws, and some of their families. US citizens have seen the debacle created with “anchor babies.” Citizens have accepted, some reluctantly, the first grant of “amnesty” to law breakers and were presented with broken promises for their compromise. The southern border was never secured, nor was it ever going to be. Citizens have been subject to the rise of criminal gangs originating from illegal alien invaders from every nation around the world that have infiltrated our country. Who hasn’t heard of some form of the Russian, Chinese, or Cuban mafia along with the ruthless number of Latino gangs that engage in gross criminal activity?

The only thing “broken” about US immigration law is the government’s lack of enforcement and creation of “exceptions” that have harmed legal US citizens. It has not been about “protecting the interests of legal citizens” at all; but, a surge to “stack the deck” against citizens in order to bring about a political agenda detrimental to the founding principles of this nation. Illegal alien invaders confidently protest in the streets of our capitol, meet with members of Congress, and partake of programs reserved solely for citizens without any fear of arrest, deportation, or punishment. This has happened in the past as well as recent times to the utter amazement of many citizens. Citizens born in the US, as well as those who legally participated in immigration and naturalization, are outraged at the favoritism exhibited toward lawbreakers, instead of the interests of the citizens.

So, in response to the illegal alien resident in the Oval Office, there is much to be said.

Barack, you are appealing to the emotions of US citizens on the issue of immigration, particularly excusing those who have broken the laws regarding immigration and naturalization. Whether you realize it or not, US citizens extended an “excuse” many years ago, only to be betrayed by promises made by politicians who sought only to get their way instead of protecting the interests of legal citizens. This is not a “political” issue and there is no politics involved when you talk to the average citizen. There is no “fear” as you put it when it comes to immigration. US citizens have never had a problem with immigration or immigrants, as long as these individuals follow our immigration laws. Let me repeat that for you.

US citizens have never had a problem with immigration or immigrants, as long as these individuals follow our immigration laws.

While you claim that “we need reasonable, thoughtful, compassionate debate that focuses on our hopes, not our fears,” you yourself fail at any of these qualities refusing to even debate or entertain any idea but your own. You refuse time and again to ensure the laws are “faithfully executed” which means that laws are enforced – not just the ones you like. You are not sitting in a position of authority to be the “advocate” or “leader” for the immigration community. Your job, Barack, is to function as the leader of this nation, a nation of legal citizens, upholding the interest of citizens through the respectful enforcement of the constitutional laws of this nation.

You have no authority to create legislation or even attempt to do so. You have no authority to circumvent the legislative or judicial branches, and you certainly have no authority to act against the citizens of this nation. You, sir, are not a king or a dictator, despite what you may believe or how you may view your role as the occupant of the Oval Office.

Yes, our country welcomed immigrants. The US welcomed those who shared our founding principles of being created equal; being free from tyrannical, monarchical, dictatorial rule to self-govern; being able to pursue our happiness with limited government intrusion; sharing the self-evident truth that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights; believing that governments are instituted among men to protect those rights, deriving their power from the consent of the governed,being dedicated to upholding, defending, supporting, and protecting the Constitution of the United States, and upholding personal responsibility, along with moral and ethical behavior. Citizens of the US do not welcome those whose philosophy is antithetical to any of these ideas regardless from which country an individual originates.

Immigration is not an issue of race, politics, gender, or religion. Immigration is a tool that protects this nation from harm from within. Granted, it is a concept with which you are familiar and a concept that you abhor. Your actions speak louder than your words, Barack – it is visible for all the people to see.

No amount of appealing to the “sentimental” side of US citizens will persuade them otherwise on immigration. That side of citizens was taken advantage of, abused, and used up long ago. No longer can citizens afford sentimentality. Our right to exist as a free nation is being challenged on all fronts. Citizens are throwing off the chains of sentiment, choosing to operate in the practical, thinking of the future instead of the here and now. Citizens are beginning to see the facade, the false face of this administration. They are not pleased, Barack.

Your “hope and change” for this country was to transform it into some communist/socialist/Marxist/Muslim dictatorial tyranny that would be sold to the highest foreign country bidder – a total destruction of the United States. Immigration, for you, is just another tool in order to do that. By allowing every Tom, Dick, and Harry access to the US, your hope is to bring this country to a full economic collapse ripe for the taking. Instituting martial law against civil disobedience would allow for total usurpation of power, genocide by government decree, and a splitting of this nations’ land to nations that would destroy it through war to gain territory. While Congress may not have the courage to stand strong against your planned “reign of destruction and tyranny,” not all citizens are like Congress.

While you may have thought yourself “slick” quoting scripture, many citizens recognize it for what it is. For as Christians know, the devil is well versed in the scripture. You have proclaimed the most beautiful sound to you as the “Muslim call to prayer.” Now, you defile the Lord our God by quoting His word. Let me educate you, Barack. The most beautiful sound is the voice of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. You would know that if you were a Christian, which you are not. Further, no one has oppressed or is oppressing a stranger. Expecting someone to follow the law is not oppression but following in the commandments of Our Lord. Again, you would know that were you a Christian.

As has been revealed, you are a Muslim; a Christian would not celebrate Muslim holidays or their sacrilegious traditions. It is well-known that you hold fast to hosting Muslim events in the People’s House.

You, sir, are not the voice of those who did not vote. You are not even the voice of those who voted. You, Barack, are not the voice of anything except your own vile thoughts and ideology.

So, while you push forward with your “decree,” remember the scripture Romans 12:19, Deuteronomy 32:35, Proverbs 20:22. Hebrews 10:30, and 1 Thessalonians 4:6. Since you are so “versed” in scripture, Barack, these are surely recognizable to you. But, just in case:

Romans 12:19 – “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”

Deuteronomy 32:35 – “To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time; for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.”

Proverbs 20:22 – “Say not thou, I will recompense evil; but wait on the Lord, he shall save thee.”

Hebrews 10:30 – “For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, the Lord shall judge his people.”

1 Thessalonians 4:6 – “That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.”

Rest assured, or better yet toss and turn, Barack, the Lord will exact his vengeance on those who trespass against His people. Sometimes, that vengeance is done in the hereafter for eternity and sometimes it is exacted here on earth and for eternity.

Senator Warns of Amnesty Backlash: “You Could See Anarchy, You Could See Violence”

As President Obama’s executive order providing de facto amnesty to millions by shielding them from deportation becomes official news, heated and angry responses are flaring up into all out fighting words.

And that’s just from his political opposition in the media and halls of Congress:

anger-against-obama-immigration-300x170
 

Oklahoma’s Republican Senator Tom Coburn, who is personally friends with the Obama’s but politically opposed to his immigration decree warned of the potential for violence stemming from anger against amnesty:

Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn warns there could be not only a political firestorm but acts of civil disobedience and even violence in reaction to President Obama’s executive order on immigration Thursday.

“The country’s going to go nuts, because they’re going to see it as a move outside the authority of the president, and it’s going to be a very serious situation,” Coburn said on Capital Download. “You’re going to see — hopefully not — but you could see instances of anarchy. … You could see violence.”

Compile that with all the potential for in response to the Ferguson grand jury decision, and the United States has become a tender box – ripe for revolution, revolt, unrest… and ultimately martial law and autocratic control.

With more doses of unilateral and very broad executive action, Obama claims his crown as emperor, the Constitution is further shredded, and the fabric of the nation is more degraded, torn, and worn out than ever.

Source

Obama on Amnesty for Illegals: I’m going to break the Law until Congress Agrees with me… then I won’t be breaking the Law

On Thursday, Barack Obama addressed cable viewers in America and the Spanish speaking culture in the Northern Hemisphere. While the title of the article is not his exact words, they are the very principles he was espousing. Obama declared he would further ignore United States immigration laws, the US Constitution and Congress and just make up a law on his own to embrace millions of law breakers inside the United States in an executive amnesty proclamation.

While Obama began by recounting America’s history of welcoming immigrants, which we have done, he then went on to say, “But today, our immigration system is broken, and everybody knows it.”

The problem with that statement is that everybody doesn’t know it. Immigration laws are not broken. What we know is that his administration won’t enforce immigration laws. That is what is broken. His administration violates the law. That is what is broken. Congress is complicit in his violation and unenforcement of the laws because they will not impeach him for the stupidest of reasons, like the one provided by South Carolina Representative Trey Gowdy. That’s the part of the system that is broken.

To add insult to injury, Obama said, “Families who enter our country the right way and play by the rules watch others flout the rules. Business owners who offer their workers good wages and benefits see the competition exploit undocumented immigrants by paying them far less. All of us take offense to anyone who reaps the rewards of living in America without taking on the responsibilities of living in America. And undocumented immigrants who desperately want to embrace those responsibilities see little option but to remain in the shadows, or risk their families being torn apart.”

Keep in mind that there are not only those that entered the country lawfully, but millions who are still waiting and have been waiting, even for years, to enter the country lawfully. They watch illegal aliens enter and then, on top of that, they listen to this man tell them it’s ok for them to be here and they don’t have to hide in the shadows any longer. Talk about an insult!

Obama then said he had done all he “could to secure our borders.” Yet, it was his administration that knowingly orchestrated the crossing of the border by tens of thousands of illegal aliens, including convicts, gang members and diseased persons, even limiting Border Patrol agents’ ability to enforce the law and defend themselves. Obama has released tens of thousands of convicted illegal aliens onto American streets. In what way has the man secured the border? He hasn’t. He’s just said that he has and hopes America will believe him.

Obama even had the audacity to claim that the numbers of those crossing the border illegally were cut in half. However, he failed to cite any reputable source for such a claim of “facts.”

Because the unconstitutional amnesty legislation
put forth by the Senate met a timely death in the House of Representatives, Obama declared he was announcing actions that he said he had the “legal authority to take as President” that would “make our immigration system more fair and more just.” He failed to mention where he gets such authority because it doesn’t come from the Constitution (and doesn’t matter if other presidents did it or not in either party). He also doesn’t speak to the injustice of not holding illegals accountable to the law or the unfairness against those still waiting to enter the country, does it?

No, Obama’s announcement was one of lawlessness, injustice and unfairness. Here’s what he announced in his own words:

  • First, we’ll build on our progress at the border with additional resources for our law enforcement personnel so that they can stem the flow of illegal crossings, and speed the return of those who do cross over.
  • Second, I will make it easier and faster for high-skilled immigrants, graduates, and entrepreneurs to stay and contribute to our economy, as so many business leaders have proposed.
  • Third, we’ll take steps to deal responsibly with the millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country.

In dealing with the last element of his unlawful executive actions, Obama said, “Even as we are a nation of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws. Undocumented workers broke our immigration laws, and I believe that they must be held accountable – especially those who may be dangerous. That’s why, over the past six years, deportations of criminals are up 80 percent.”

There is no accountability to the law going on here at all. Obama is allowing those who have broken the law to merely come into the light, but not bring justice upon their lawlessness. That’s not accountability. It’s being complicit in their crime.

As for Obama’s deportation claims, this is quite simply a lie. There is no truth to this claim. In fact, as I mentioned, Obama’s Justice Department has released convicted illegal aliens onto the streets by the thousands. Deportations are down and he is facing a lawsuit from Immigration and Customs Enforcement for keeping them from doing their job. I’ll ask Mr. Obama a more specific question, if what you say is true, then why is Farzad Dastmalchi, an illegal Iranian who works for US government defense contractors, still in America over a decade after 9/11? It’s because this is all a lie. Perhaps Mr. Obama wants to address Don Rosenberg about the illegal alien Obama failed to deport, who ran over his son and killed him. I’m doubting he’ll have anything to say since he has not responded to either of Mr. Rosenberg’s letters.

While Obama presented emotional arguments about families their desire for a better way of life and such, he picked and chose whom he will allegedly apply immigration laws to and whom he would not. If you’ve been here five years or more illegally, you’re safe, but apparently if you’ve been here illegally one day shy of five years, you’re not.

Now here’s the thing: we expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes – you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law.

That’s what this deal is. Now let’s be clear about what it isn’t. This deal does not apply to anyone who has come to this country recently. It does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future. It does not grant citizenship, or the right to stay here permanently, or offer the same benefits that citizens receive – only Congress can do that. All we’re saying is we’re not going to deport you.

One point I want to make here is this: Anyone, legal or not pays taxes. They pay taxes on everything they buy and every service they receive. They may not pay income tax, but let’s be honest, many citizens don’t pay income tax and frankly, that is a good thing. We should be seeking to abolish the income tax, not draw more people into it, but that’s what Obama is proposing.

He also lied about what amnesty is and isn’t. “I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty. Well, it’s not. Amnesty is the immigration system we have today – millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time.”

Again, illegals pay taxes. They just aren’t playing by the rules and Obama isn’t going to enforce the rules, so he grants them amnesty. Is Obama not, in essence, granting those who have broken the law a pardon of some sorts as long as they come forward and fork over some money? He can add all the other caveats in his speech he wants to, but, in essence, that is what he is doing.

Barack Obama is violating the authority given to the Executive Branch under our Constitution. He is to be an enforcer of the law, not a lawmaker.

The most upsetting part of his speech was to somehow gloss over his lawlessness by referencing the Bible by saying, “Scripture tells us that we shall not oppress a stranger, for we know the heart of a stranger – we were strangers once, too.”

The problem is that we do treat strangers (immigrants) in America well and don’t oppress them. However, that is very different from welcoming those who are opposed to America, who wish her harm and have taken advantage of her and sought to undermine her foundations in their violation of law. This is ultimately what Barack Obama is proposing, and he believes that if he can twist Congress into violating the law by writing pretended legislation in favor of Obama’s lawlessness, then his actions will magically become lawful.

It is now Congress’ job to impeach the man, regardless of who the Vice President is. Obama has long shown that he has not faithfully executed the office of the President nor has he defended the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. That is largely due to the fact that he is a domestic enemy.