Tag Archives: illegal immigration

Obama on ‘Gang-Bangers,’ Hoodies, and Illegals Emptying Bedpans

GangwayOriginally posted at American Thinker

It’s classic Cloward-Piven strategy.  First you foment a crisis, and then you rush in with a left-wing cure.  That is exactly what the president did during an interview on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos, who is not to be confused with Sesame Street’s Mr. Snuffleupagus.

That’s right – Barack Obama, who, when it comes to himself, regularly contravenes the rules and regulations, is now suddenly an expert on how law enforcement should comport themselves in tense situations.

According to the president, minority community sensitivity is needed for police officers, who Obama has said in the past can “act stupidly.” The president feels the goal should be to teach law enforcement how to differentiate between a gang-banger and an innocent child, who, if wearing a hoodie, could be Obama’s son.

What the president’s counsel did not include was advice on how to deal with gang-bangers wearing hoodies or innocent children foolishly emulating gang-bangers.

Nonetheless, Obama did tell a totally transfixed George:

… [t]hey want to make sure the police are trained so they can distinguish between a gang banger and a kid who just happens to be wearing a hoodie, but otherwise is a good kid and not doing anything wrong.

The president should be familiar with that type of mix-up. In 2008 and 2012, thanks to his emitting a “new car smell,” candidate Obama benefited because Americans were not trained to distinguish between a qualified candidate and a Chicago community organizer/socialist rabble-rouser who decided being black was the only criterion needed to run for president.

Now, just a few weeks after America expressed views Obama ignored when he lawlessly and unilaterally extended executive amnesty to those who defy the rule of law, he told George Stephanopoulos, “You know, this is a country that allows everybody to express their views. But using any event as an excuse for violence is contrary to rule of law and contrary to who we are.”

It sure would have been nice if George had asked the president, who just the other day said that “[m]ass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character,” how the rule of law reflects who we are in some circumstances, but in others, following the rule of law contradicts our character?

After a break, Obama came back to discuss why lawless behavior is acceptable when he deems it necessary. Stephanopoulos asked the president how he justified exercising “administrative flexibility” when he circumvented Congress to grant amnesty to 5,000,000 illegal aliens.

First the president denied being emperor; then he explained that his job is to execute the laws he doesn’t keep, and then applied the gang-banger/hoodie argument to immigration when he told George that America has to:

…[p]rioritize felons, criminals, recent arrivals, folks who are coming right at the border and acknowledge that if somebody’s been here for over 5 years, they may have an American child or a legal permanent resident child[.]

In other words, the president was sort of saying that when it comes to immigration, Americans have to put the law aside and be able to “distinguish between” gang-banging illegal ISIS terrorists, MS-13 gang members, pedophiles, murderers, and rapists and hoodie-wearing unaccompanied minors who just happen to be infected with Enterovirus D-68, but otherwise are good kids and “not doing anything wrong.”

Then, after citing prosecutorial discretion as the reason he did what he erroneously thinks Democrat and Republican presidents have done before with bipartisan Congressional approval, the president went on to give a laundry list of things that we have to do but will never do nor be able to enforce.

Things like securing the border, deporting criminals similar to the ones the Obama administration has already released, and believing that illegals will willingly submit to criminal background checks and U.S. tax law.

Then, point guard Stephanopoulos provided an opportunity for Obama to block any argument that might suggest that his so-called prosecutorial discretion on immigration could open the door for future presidents to target Democrat favorites like abortion and taxes.

According to Barack Obama, it’s different when it comes to taxes because, he says, “The vast majority of folks understand that they need to pay taxes. And when we conduct an audit, for example, we are selecting those folks who are most likely to be cheating.”

Wait! Sneaking over the border isn’t dishonest? And when he says “we,” does he mean himself and Lois Lerner auditing conservatives, Tea Party activists, and right-wing media types?

Either way, apparently for Obama it’s not the same when illegals flagrantly break the law as it is for American citizens whom Obama wants to abuse with Chicago-style intimidation.

Clearly, the president feels his time is better spent “going after” millions and millions of Americans who disagree with him politically than it is pursuing illegals who Obama believes “we’re taking advantage of … as they mow lawns or clean out bedpans.”

When it comes to tax law, Obama, who’s proven to be the lawless one and who doesn’t expect bed-making, fruit-picking, lawn-mowing, bed-pan-emptying illegals to follow the law either, said that although not every person is audited, “we,” (as in he) “still expect that people are going to go ahead and follow the law.”

So there you have it. According to Barack Obama, black teenage boys in hoodies are off-limits to police officers. Similarly, when it comes to illegal aliens, the hoodie test should also be applied, lest those daring to suggest deportation as an option end up being legally audited by a president who doesn’t respect the law.

 

Barack Obama Exalts Wading across the Rio Grande

images (2)Originally posted at American Thinker

Barack Obama’s pre-Thanksgiving discourse on immigration gave five million people, including the president’s thrice-deported Uncle Omar, frequenter of Framingham’s Chicken Bone Saloon, something to be thankful for.

Besides instigating a constitutional crisis, Obama’s dictatorial decree justified the unjustifiable by doing things like leaving out explicatory facts.

Take for instance the statement that “our tradition of welcoming immigrants … has given us a tremendous advantage over other nations. … But today, our immigration system is broken – and everybody knows it.”

What Obama conveniently forgot to mention was that for the greater part of 200 years, immigrants entered America with deference and respect for America’s laws.  For immigrants eager to work, this nation was never viewed as a “golden ticket” promising preferential treatment and entitlements.

Furthermore, “everybody knows” that our so-called “broken immigration system” is really politics morphing into an opportunity that benefits lawlessness.

Even so, the president did weakly denounce the prejudicial practice of allowing illegals to cut the line.  But then he quickly shifted the focus to the sad plight of those who busted through the nation’s border like hungry vagrants crashing an all-you-can-eat buffet.

Obama also took the time to remind America that he’s always been “committed to fixing this broken immigration system.”  Unfortunately, when Barack Obama threatens to fix something – such as the economy, joblessness, or health care – Americans had best take heed.

After all, border agents have been murdered, 75 percent of the most wanted criminals in Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Albuquerque are illegal, and disease, terrorism, and anti-American sentiment have crossed the border in droves.  Yet like a spaced-out hippie on LSD, Obama bragged that “we have more agents and technology deployed to secure our southern border than at any time in our history.”

Careful not to omit the “brief spike in unaccompanied children being apprehended at our border,” Obama claimed that the number is actually “lower than it’s been in nearly two years. … Those are the facts.”

Sure, they’re Grubama facts.

Anyway, Obama didn’t squander the opportunity to blame Republicans for a “broken system” that he refuses to enforce and prefers broken.

Lest anyone doubt it, Barack “I won” Obama insisted that he has the “legal authority to take as President – the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican presidents before [him],” which he thinks “will help make our immigration system more fair and more just.”

“More fair and just” for whom exactly?

Holding his nose, Barack Obama spoke of Reagan and G.W. Bush, the latter of whom, for the first time in Mr. Obama’s adult life, wasn’t blamed, but was instead exploited.

Obama promised to “deal responsibly with … millions of undocumented immigrants who already live in our country,” such as ISIS terrorists, gang members, murderers, rapists, and pedophiles, as well as those spreading contagious diseases.

The president also stressed that America’s laws are rooted in a document that everyone knows he, as its defender, considers “fundamentally flawed.”

To reassure America that the administration that released onto America’s streets 36,000 illegal-immigrant criminals in 2013 is going to focus “enforcement resources” on “Felons, not families. Criminals, not children… [and] Gang members, not … mom[s],” Obama employed alliteration.

Then the guy who’s never “straight” with anyone said, “[L]et’s be honest – tracking down, rounding up, and deporting millions of people isn’t realistic. Anyone who suggests otherwise isn’t being straight with you.”

But if five million people can’t be tracked down, how are work permits and entitlements going to be distributed?

Either way, sort of like believing that criminals will hand over illegal guns, Barack Obama insisted that lawbreakers who came to America fraudulently will “come out of the shadows” and willingly “submit to a criminal background check.”

Nonetheless, except for the “pass a bill” line, the funniest line in Obama’s whole speech was when he said that he’s going to fix our broken immigration system, and then said that fix “does not apply to anyone who might come to America illegally in the future.”

Then, sounding like enforcing the law is contrary to his character, the president reminded America that “[m]ass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character.”

Clearly, in Obama’s morally relativistic world, he believes that if illegals “work hard … support their families … [and] … worship at our churches,” this somehow justifies a president discounting the oath he took to defend the U.S. Constitution.

Still, tough-talking Obama took the time to warn future Death Train travelers that “[i]f [they] plan to enter the U.S. illegally, [their] chances of getting caught and sent back … went up” – sure, from minus zero all the way to zero.

Then the owner of a spanking-new birth certificate signed by Dr. Ukulele, Obama, favored son of Kenya and Moneygall, restated his eligibility to be president by saying that “[m]illions of us, myself included, go back generations in this country, with ancestors who put in the painstaking work to become citizens.”

Obama expressed the opinion that “immigrants are a net plus for our economy,” which is a sentiment the families of Brandon Mendoza and Drew Rosenberg, two of many thousands killed by illegal immigrants, might disagree with.

Oops!  Then the president left out manicurists, landscapers, bus boys, and produce handlers by saying it’s hypocritical to not give amnesty to illegal fruit-pickers and bed-makers.

Speaking of hypocrisy, America’s melodramatic president who supports ripping 3,000-4,000 unborn babies from mothers’ wombs every day asked, “Are we a nation that accepts the cruelty of ripping children from their parents’ arms?”

And by implying that immigrants legally crossing the Atlantic or the Pacific are similar to illegals wading across the Rio Grande, Obama injected moral equivalency into the debate.

Moving right along, and right before sharing a tale of a poor unfortunate from Mexico named Astrid Silva, yet again Obama cited Scripture out of context.

Scripture was an attempt to convince Americans to support an executive order that half the country rejects.  That’s also why Obama mentioned Astrid’s crucifix, doll, frilly dress, poor English skills, domestic-worker parents, and her fear of being outed as an illegal.

Funny how Barack Obama mentioned Astrid but ignored those who died as a result of the recent wave of illegal unaccompanied minors from Central America who, with Obama’s knowledge, carried with them the deadly Enterovirus D-68.

Winding down his defense for issuing an unconstitutional edict, Sovereign Ruler Barack Obama proclaimed that “[w]hat makes us Americans is our shared commitment to an ideal – that all of us are created equal, and all of us have the chance to make of our lives what we will.”

No, Mr. Obama!  What makes us Americans is our shared commitment to a founding document and unifying philosophy that, by going it alone on immigration, you clearly reject.

Time for Congress to Declare War on Obama

obama-2Originally posted at American Thinker

Article I, Section 8, Clause II of the U.S. Constitution states the following: “The Congress shall have Power to …declare war.” Currently, America is at war — not only with the ISIS types, but also with a president whose flagrant actions against our nation’s interests indicate that he is, in essence, at war with us.

Historically, when it comes to declaring war, presidents tend to defer to Congress. A declaration of war affects legalities and duties related to acts of aggression against America. Regrettably, right now we have a president who defers to absolutely no one and he’s the one guilty of committing those aggressive acts.

America’s Styrofoam-cup-saluting leader is supposed to be “repelling sudden attacks,” not coordinating them. That’s why, however unconventional it may sound, Congress should consider this illegal raid against our sovereign nation, regardless of who the alien army’s leader is, an act of war.

During the Constitutional Convention, framer James Madison wrote that Congress should be given the power not to “make war” but to “declare war.” If promoters of congressional power are correct, doesn’t Congress — whether they like it or not — then have a moral responsibility to “declare war” on any force that initiates hostilities against the United States?

In 1863, the Supreme Court argued the Prize Cases. At the time, the court determined that the president “has no power to initiate or declare a war,” and yet 150-plus years later it’s President Obama who has initiated and declared war. Unfortunately the war he’s declared is against America.

That’s right — the U.S. is grappling with a leader whose greatest achievement thus far is ruining the world’s finest healthcare system. Next on his agenda of destruction is to outdo himself by completely rejecting the clear midterm election message conveyed to him by the American people concerning immigration.

America has a Commander in Chief who’s gutting our armed forces, and although one aspect of the president’s stated powers is to repel invasions, this president is aiding and abetting an all-out invasion against our homeland. As a matter of fact, as each minute passes Barack Obama is adding numbers and manpower to an apostate force.

Barack Obama, “who is [Constitutionally] bound to resist by force” an invasion by land, sea, and air, has plans to ignore the will of the people and instead favors the desires of trespassers who continue to disrespect the laws of the land they’re in the process of illegally claiming as their own.

In other words, the very person with the “executive power” and the express commission to protect this nation from outside incursion is helping to incite what he was elected to prevent.

Maybe someone should remind the Enemy Within the Oval Office that the 2014 election resoundingly declared that the direction in which America is being pushed is not the path the people of this Constitutional republic want to take.

Meanwhile, a new Congress has been voted in whose unspoken charge is to thwart an army of invaders being guided by a renegade president planning to unilaterally grant amnesty to untold millions of illegal aliens, a formidable number of whom Americans know harbor ill will and/or carry with them infectious diseases.

Constitutionally, to prevent unbridled actions that veer dangerously close to treason, there are orthodox means for Congress to deal with loose-cannon presidents who refuse to submit to the balance of powers instituted by our Forefathers.

But in this case, the self-appointed Commander of Illegal Immigrant Forces has made it quite clear that as far as he’s concerned, for his purposes, America’s founding document has a “fundamental flaw” and is irrelevant. Therefore, although Congress declaring war on a president is not possible, based on Obama’s disregard for the fidelity of the Constitution, doing so seems like an acceptable option, however far-fetched.

Why? Because never in the history of the republic have we witnessed a leader who has commenced hostilities against his own nation with such vigor, determination, and pigheadedness. Moreover, right under our noses the person responsible for repelling invasions is exploiting one to create eclectic armies of individuals, some of whom have threatened to one day subjugate our nation’s citizens physically, economically, spiritually, and culturally.

By declaring war on a president who is clearly an adversary of America, the Congress can then exercise the legal power to round up, detain, and deport ISIS terrorists, MS-13 gang members, illegal alien criminals of every stripe, as well as the thousands of human time bombs harboring deadly diseases that have already sickened and killed scores of our people.

Based on his subversive actions, by definition Barack Obama is indeed making war against America, and it’s high time Congress responded by declaring their own war on a man who became a domestic enemy the day he violated his oath by refusing to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Under different circumstances, Barack Obama’s contempt for the very document that protects him would make him subject to a separate set of rules. As tempting a fantasy as it might be, we do know that Congress cannot literally declare war on a sitting president. But then again, Obama’s uncompromising refusal to defer to the U.S. Constitution does warrant a historic rebuke.

Either way, it is incumbent upon the new U.S. Congress to rise to the occasion and save this Republic. That’s why congressional consent is now needed for an entirely new purpose: to stop the one exercising the use of force against America from within. Congress must do whatever is necessary to deprive Barack Obama of the power to continue his ongoing attack against the nation he was elected to protect.

PROTECTING THE PRESIDENT–From What Threatens America

23d5bc8c4bfb4c3883c5bd887f23aeb6-e1312336036269Originally posted at Clash Daily

In response to Omar Gonzalez running across the North Lawn to the North Portico of the White House and entering the executive mansion, the Secret Service is now locking the doors so it doesn’t happen again.

Thanks to Omar Gonzalez breaching the White House border, the Secret Service is also considering screening all visitors at designated checkpoints before allowing them to enter public areas outside of the president’s home. That means if Granny wants to tour the People’s House, there’s a good chance she may have to endure an extensive TSA-style pat down.

But obviously what holds true at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue does not apply everywhere else.

Think about it: trespassers who jump the fence on our Southern Border are not tackled and hauled away in a police car. Instead, despite some of them being a threat to defenseless Americans, illegal immigrants are given a warm welcome by the man the Secret Service is scrambling to protect.

What’s ironic is that laws are in place at the White House, and well they should be, to protect the safety and well-being of the man who purposely puts American lives at risk.
Maybe Obama hasn’t experienced it, but it’s an awful feeling when one realizes they’re being victimized needlessly.

And awful is how most Americans feel right about now.

Our children and loved ones are being overrun, and in some cases even hurt, by those hopping the border fence. Moreover, thousands of American children are being infected with rare viruses and bacterial diseases that are being imported by illegal fence-jumpers Obama has encouraged to swarm our streets, cities and classrooms.

Worse yet, undocumented gang members, teenage assassins, ISIS, and all manner of social detritus continue to have free movement in American communities. Meanwhile, to ensure that such trouble stays far from the White House door, checkpoints – that don’t even exist on a large part of our Southern border – are being set up so that innocent American tourists can be screened.

The White House already had procedures in place to stop intruders, but because none of those measures were employed, Omar Gonzalez may end up spending 10 years in prison. However, for the rest of us, there is still no ironclad protocol or increased security measures in effect, or even up for discussion, to ensure our safety. Therefore, unlike the president, every American remains vulnerable.

Why? Because what’s good for the Big Goose does not apply to the little ganders.

Recently, 40,000 convicted criminal aliens were released by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These people, all of whom had jumped a fence like Omar Gonzalez, but unlike him are now wandering free, taxing our healthcare and economic system, infecting our children, and, in essence, threatening everyone’s lives except Barack Obama’s.

Moreover, thus far there is no coordinated effort to deter threats like MS-13 gang members, ISIS terrorists and other dangerous characters on the Southern Border from doing what Omar just did on a smaller scale. So basically, outside the White House grounds the citizens remain defenseless and the message to America is that one person matters and the rest don’t.

Case in point: For a 16-year-old girl in Washington state, things didn’t go as well as they did for Sasha and Malia, who had just lifted off by helicopter together with their father for a weekend getaway at Camp David, when clearly disturbed Iraqi vet Gonzalez, with a car full of ammunition, two machetes, and a serrated knife with a three-inch blade arrived on the North Lawn.

The teen in Washington State had no one to protect her from an illegal alien named Roger Emilson Acosta-Pagoada, who illegally crossed the Rio Grande and spent 120 days in jail, then managed to find and subsequently rape a young girl and threaten to kill her and her family if she reported what happened to the police.

Mr. Acosta-Pagoada’s victim didn’t have the luxury of Belgian Malinois attack dogs, Secret Service agents, roof snipers, or alarms. Quite the contrary – she was needlessly placed in a dangerous position by a president whose progressive political ideology takes priority over the safety of American children.

As the rest of America endures the plight of the dangerous immigration policy he’s imposed, it must be comforting for Barack Obama to know he doesn’t have to worry that in the future Omar Gonzalez, or an illegal immigrant like Roger Emilson Acosta-Pagoada will show up on his doorstep to threaten him and his young daughters.

Connecting the Dots on Enterovirus EV-D68 Spreading Among Our Children

UnknownOriginally posted at American Thinker

First I’d like to say that I am not a medical doctor, so critics can refrain from mockingly referring to me as “Dr. DeAngelis.”

My credentials lie solely in my experience as a mother and grandmother who’s lived on this planet for more than a half century. That, along with a modicum of common sense and the ability to apply reason and logic, has helped me to connect some dots about many things, the most recent being the outbreak of Enterovirus EV-D68, which is currently affecting thousands of American children.

Recently, I wrote an article entitled “The Invasion of Enterovirus EV-D68.”  Most readers agreed with the premise of the piece, which suggested that “unaccompanied children” who, with the help of President Obama, have infiltrated our nation by the tens of thousands, might have brought with them a rare influenza-like disease that hasn’t been seen in America for 40 years.

However, there were those who argued that my article was pure speculation and conjecture.  That particular group is made up of people who hear an asteroid is heading toward earth and rather than accept the truth choose to focus on discussing the beauty of the planet Uranus.

Although what I wrote did not suggest that I was certain the virus that’s turning American children blue in the face and requiring them to be intubated with breathing tubes originated from illegal children, it certainly posed a question that could be interpreted that way.

For me at least, logic dictates that if a rare virus is absent for 40 years and then suddenly appears in states that illegal children have been recently relocated to, it’s fairly safe to assume that at some point a host carrying the virus showed up in a place where no prior Enterovirus EV-D68 had appeared.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but to be infected with a virus one does need to be exposed to a virus.  So from a non-M.D. point of view, it makes sense that children who migrated illegally to America suffering with respiratory illnesses are the ones infecting previously-uninfected children.

It just so happens that Latin America is home to a fairly long list of scary infectious diseases.  So logic tells us that if people harboring communicable diseases are brought into our midst there’s a good chance those contagions will be passed along to us.

But, if scientific evidence is required, some additional research seems to provide that evidence, because as it turns out my theory that the Enterovirus came to America from Latin America (mainly Central America) is supported by a medical study conducted in 2013 at a U.S. Naval Medical Research Unit in Lima, Peru.  The study, published in Virology Journal, was entitled “Human rhinoviruses and enteroviruses in influenza-like illness in Latin America.”

Although Enterovirus EV-D68 had not surfaced here in America in 40 years, the research team concluded that:

In Latin America as in other regions, [Human rhinovirus] HRVs and [Human Enterovirus] HEVs account for a substantial proportion of respiratory viruses identified in young people with ILI [influenza-like illness], a finding that provides additional support for the development of pharmaceuticals and vaccines targeting these pathogens.

In other words, as of 2013, one year prior to the Obama administration encouraging and facilitating an influx of children from Latin America (primarily Central America) across the border, the U.S. government was well aware that when these children arrived they would be carrying with them a pathogen that accounts for a “substantial proportion of respiratory viruses identified in young people” living in Latin America, as well as a whole host of other viral maladies.

Interestingly enough, while pediatric Enteroviral infections are most commonly spread through a fecal-to-oral route, they can also be transmitted via “respiratory and oral-to-oral route,” which is “more likely to occur in crowded living conditions.”  Unfortunately for those not yet afflicted, “Enteroviruses are quite resilient… remain viable at room temperature …[have an]… incubation period [of] usually 3-10 days… and can survive the acidic pH of the human GI tract.”

That means if little Humberto, who has not yet learned the ins and outs of post-potty hand-washing, shares a doorknob with a kid from Kansas, depending on the practices of the facility, that doorknob could retain the capacity to infect healthy children for the next 3-10 days.

A July 3, 2014 memo from DHS Inspector General John Roth addressed to Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson also confirmed the doorknob theory.  In the memorandum Roth pointed out the following about “unaccompanied children” (UAC):

  • Many UAC and family units require treatment for communicable diseases, including respiratory illnesses, tuberculosis, chicken pox, and scabies.
  • UAC and family unit illnesses and unfamiliarity with bathroom facilities resulted in unsanitary conditions and exposure to human waste in some holding facilities.Respiratory illnesses and “unfamiliarity with bathroom facilities” as well as many other unappetizing facts have been repeatedly confirmed concerning “unaccompanied children” being dispersed throughout America.  That’s why it doesn’t require a medical degree to figure out that the rare-in-America Enterovirus EV-D68 arrived here with children harboring Third-World diseases whose Third-World bathroom habits now share contaminated classrooms with once-healthy American children.

Respiratory illnesses and “unfamiliarity with bathroom facilities” as well as many other unappetizing facts have been repeatedly confirmed concerning “unaccompanied children” being dispersed throughout America.  That’s why it doesn’t require a medical degree to figure out that the rare-in-America Enterovirus EV-D68 arrived here with children harboring Third-World diseases whose Third-World bathroom habits now share contaminated classrooms with once-healthy American children.

Barack Obama: Waging Bio Warfare Against the United States?


bio-405x227In December 2008, just one month after Barack Obama was elected, a bipartisan commission study briefed Vice President-elect Joe Biden and warned him that “The United States can expect a terror attack using nuclear or more likely biological weapons before 2013.”

The 112-page study was entitled A World at Risk and alerted the newly-elected “fundamental transformer” that efforts needed to be stepped up to counter the inevitable terrorism threats headed America’s way. The report stated that “Our margin of safety is shrinking, not growing.”

The “At Risk” report was the work of the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism of the United States Congress also known as the Graham/Talent WMD Commission, led by former Senators Bob Graham (D-FL) and Jim Talent (R-MO).

More concerned about a biological threat, the commission’s report warned:

The biological threat is greater than the nuclear; the acquisition of deadly pathogens, and their weaponization and dissemination in aerosol form, would entail fewer technical hurdles than the theft or production of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium and its assembly into an improvised nuclear device.

At the time, Senator Graham cautioned that “anthrax remains the most likely biological weapon.” However, the senator also advised that “contagious diseases, such as the influenza strain that killed 40 million early in the 20th century, are looming threats.”

Read more at The Clash Daily

Ya Don’t Say? Obama Says America’s Success Depends on Illegal Kids


illeg-imm-300x180Originally posted at The Clash Daily

As U.S. vets waste away on VA waiting lists and one half of working-age Americans remain unemployed, the southern border devolves into orchestrated chaos, the gains made through blood and treasure disintegrate in the Middle East, and jihadists released from Gitmo prepare to pick up where they left off, Barack Obama focuses on more important issues, such as addressing a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee fundraiser held in the tony home of big Democrat donors Joanne and Paul Egerman of Weston, Massachusetts.

After giving the commencement address at Worcester Technical High School, Obama reminded big-money donors that America’s “future rests” on the success of those whose lawbreaking parents brought them to the U.S. illegally as children and who he thinks should be eligible to become citizens if the DREAM Act is passed by Congress.

Funny, isn’t it? Barack Obama, Kenya’s favorite son, holds the opinion that illegality should not hinder one from transforming America’s future.

As if high percentages of illegals being in a particular school should be the influence that overrides the law, America’s consensus builder reminded his audience that “About 30 to 40 percent of the kids in [Worcester Tech], by the way, are DREAM kids.”

Then Obama pointed out that “You wouldn’t know it looking at them, because they are as American…” as burritos made with flour tortillas versus the more preferable corn… er, I mean “…as apple pie.”

Not to suggest that illegal immigration is on par with serial murder, but no one would have guessed just by looking at him that in his spare time rapist/kidnapper/necrophile Ted Bundy murdered 30 women. So what do a person’s features have to do with deciding whether or not to uphold the law?

Moreover, if facial characteristics are the standard the president uses to condemn or exonerate a criminal, it might be wise to remember that fresh-faced Palestinian suicide bombers toting explosives-filled backpacks could pass for any one of those innocent-looking Central American refugees being housed in Nogales, Arizona.

Nevertheless, Barack Obama pointed out that “every single one of these kids, you might not be able to tell the difference, but a whole bunch of them — they’re worried about whether or not they’re going to be able to finance their college education of their immigrant status [sic].” Despite being incoherent, that statement clearly illustrates that the president either doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the worried, college-age children of millions of unemployed American citizens, let alone the millions of ailing Americans unable to finance their healthcare thanks to Obama’s assistance via healthcare reform.

Concerned primarily about illegal immigrants – unlike the vast majority of American citizens – Obama told donors that DREAM kids are “worried about whether, in fact, this country that they love so deeply loves them back and understands that our future rests on their success.”

Maybe someone should inform the self-described Constitutional scholar that the future of this country does not depend on sappy stories about criminals’ offspring getting a free pass; the future of America rests on whether the rule of law is enforced and whether those who Obama claims supposedly “love… [this country]…so deeply” love it enough to place the future of America ahead of selfish interests that include defying the law.

In his remarks, Mr. Obama sent a message disguised as a question when he asked Democrat donors, “Why wouldn’t we want to give them that certainty that you are part of the fabric of this nation, we’re counting on you, and we’re going to make sure you succeed?  Why wouldn’t we want to do that?”

Referencing the Worcester grads again, Obama persisted:

So these young people are graduating, ready to go to college, but also certified nurses, EMT folks.  Many of them are choosing to join the military and will contribute to our country in this way. And looking out as I was speaking to them and then shaking their hands, and giving them hugs and high-fives and all the things that kids do on a graduation, I thought to myself: How could we not want to invest in these kids?

A better question is this: Why does Obama refuse to invest in America by reinforcing U.S. sovereignty in the minds of those who disrespect it, and by negating his sovereign oath to uphold the law?

Moreover, why wouldn’t Barack Obama want to encourage the illegals he calls DREAM kids to emulate those who migrated from every corner of the globe, entered the U.S. in a lawful manner, and then depended on personal hard work, not a bloated, federal Nanny State, to achieve their success?

Could the answer to that question be that the president is a hybrid DREAMer himself? After all, many still believe Barack Hussein Obama may be enjoying the perks of a fraudulent presidency, which would explain why he works so hard to advocate on behalf of those who are equally opposed to obeying America’s laws.

Either way, Barack Obama suggesting that our nation’s future depends on the government making sure that illegal immigrants succeed says a lot about this particular president’s low opinion of the law-abiding citizens who may not be able to afford a Democrat fundraiser, but truly do make up the “fabric of this nation.”

Our Future President? ‘Acts of Love’ and Other Illegal Activities

jebOriginally posted at The Clash Daily

Bank robbers, kidnappers, and rapists rejoice! There’s a new definition for criminal behavior, and it’s called an “act of love”.  Ergo, robbing a bank is an “act of love” for someone else’s money.  Kidnapping a child? Don’t fret; it’s just an “act of love” for someone else’s child.  As for rape, why not dumb it down to an “act of love” for someone else’s body? If you burglarize a house or carjack someone, why, that’s just an “act of love” for other people’s stuff.

This new definition has been provided compliments of former Florida governor and present member of the Bush Dynasty, Jeb Bush, who said that the illegal immigrants who sneak into our sovereign nation, build underground railroads, throw rocks at and try to out-race border agents to bust into the United States and then proceed to misuse and abuse the system, only do these things as an “act of love”.

At an event celebrating the 25th anniversary of his father’s presidency at the George H.W. Bush Library and museum, Jeb thought he’d share some deep insights. First he said, “There are means by which we can control our border better than we have. And there should be penalties for breaking the law,” although currently, for all intents and purposes, there are not.

Family advocate and potential 2016 presidential hopeful Jeb Bush argued:

But the way I look at this … is someone who comes to our country because they couldn’t come legally, they come to our country because their families — the dad who loved their children — was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table. And they wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family.

The rationale behind that statement seems to be that Mom and the kids sneak over the border and Dad stays behind in, let’s say, Mexico, and then when Mom and the kids get here and start to bilk the system, Dad suddenly gets worried and sneaks over too to make sure the family has enough to eat.

So according to Jeb Bush, concern over hungry children and intact families justifies illegal behavior, and the excuse of “no other means to work to be able to provide for [a] family” now justifies breaking the law.  If that’s true then if a man has “no other means to…be able to provide for [his] family,” armed robbery shouldn’t be a punishable crime.

Moreover, maybe some of the illegal immigrants, who comprise 30% of the federal, state, and local prison populations and cost the American taxpayer more than $1.6 billion annually, are just fathers concerned about the welfare of their families.

Either way, sounding like a moral relativist on steroids, Jeb then said:

Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family. I honestly think that that is a different kind of crime that there should be a price paid, but it shouldn’t rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families.

If Jeb, God forbid, should make it to the White House, judging from that statement criminal mischief and misdemeanors will no longer be considered criminal behavior – only felonies, and even then only some felonies.  And apparently those felonies will be separated, categorized, and penalized based on how Bush III ‘”feels about things”.

For instance, people overstaying visas get the polite Bush Boot, because according to Jeb, “A great country ought to know where those folks are and politely ask them to leave.”

Mr. Bush is of the persuasion that pursuing criminals, er… I mean folks who overstay visas “would restore people’s confidence” in the nation’s immigration system, even though 30 million are still here and 7,000 are crossing over the border every day.  Let’s face it – that number, which is likely a conservative figure, is a whole heck of a lot of concerned fathers seeking out their familia.

In other words, apply for a visa, overstay the visa, and you’re outta here.  Sneak in, and you can stay indefinitely!

So to sum up, if a person from another country wants to come to America and gets caught after coming here illegally and defrauding US taxpayers for years, let’s hope Jeb Bush is president. Then, to avoid prosecution, be allowed to stay, and get rewarded with a lifetime of free benefits, all you have to say (in very broken English, of course) is:  “I am a concerned padre. I love my niños.  I want to make sure there is comida on their tabla.  Is my familia ‘intacto‘?  I come here proveer para my children.”

And you’re good to go!

Do ‘Very Different Views’ Threaten the Sanctity of Life?

cecileOriginally posted at The Clash Daily

The current excuse for justifying illegal immigration is that amnesty benefits our nation’s fiscal health. The thinking is that the economic strength gained by legalizing those who’ve defied America’s rules of entry far outweighs any moral or ethical benefits of upholding the rule of law. Supposedly, that’s why the millions of illegals infiltrating the borders of our sovereign nation are being advocated for by the current administration.

What’s disturbing about that mentality is that if the health of the economy dictates the direction of policy decisions, then the elderly and the infirm have potentially joined the ranks of the unborn, whose lives are already at risk.

Unlike young illegals, older and chronically ill Americans do not contribute to fiscal solvency. While the argument is that amnesty will foster economic strength, it seems that not far behind is the argument that the ailing and the aged add to economic weakness.
Here’s the problem: In America, for 40+ years personal opinion, political leaning, and economic convenience have justified 60+ million Americans not making it out of 60+ million wombs alive.

For four decades, the life of every baby conceived has been at the mercy of one person’s choice. Now, with a political party in power that has wrested the reins of control over healthcare decisions from the individual as well as the free market, older, dependent Americans are potentially also on the precipice of being at the mercy of a renegade government’s “choice.”

Think about it – isn’t “Am I still allowed to do this, or am I still allowed to say that” the question that once-free people are asking themselves more and more lately, especially since government has positioned itself to be as integral to sustaining life as an umbilical cord is to the life of a fetus?

That’s why, as the authority of those whose fundamental agenda is toxic to the sanctity of life continues to grow, in the minds of alert, intelligent people the next question that should arise is: “What happens to those who burden the economy?”

Add to that scenario an imperial president who, with the stroke of a pen, is actively whittling away the right to “life,” – underscore “life” – “liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Recently, the danger of putting the economy before a principled ethos, be it in the form of a mother over child, or potentially the government over whole segments of society, took center stage when the daughter of the late Governor Ann Richards of Texas, Cecile Richards – proud President of Planned Parenthood – gave America a free tour of the “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” mindset.

Speaking to Jorge Ramos of the new ABC/Disney/Univision Fusion network, Richards revealed an attitude that should send shivers up the spine of every involuntary recipient of government largesse.

Ramos asked Richards a question reminiscent of the “above my pay grade” human-rights question that Saddleback Church Pastor Rick Warren asked Barack Obama prior to the 2008 election. Ramos to Richards: “So for you, when does life start? When does a human being become a human being?”

Clad appropriately in blood-red, Richards punted to the centuries-old debate/moral relevancy corner when she basically refused to answer, saying, “This is a question, I think, that will be debated through the centuries, and people come down to very different views on that.”

Alarmingly, in liberal circles “very different views” are the new standards that determine ethical verdicts, which are then either sanctioned or deemed illegal by dictatorial rule.

Ramos pressed on: “Why would it be so controversial for you to say when you think life starts?” Attempting to skirt the issue Cecile said, “I don’t know that it’s controversial. I don’t know that it’s really relevant to the conversation.”

The old and sickly especially should take note of Richards’ unwillingness to answer Ramos’ question, because for organizations that receive government support to snuff out human life, the point of viability is apparently not relevant in discussions about life-and-death.

Remember that America is currently being governed by a president who defines “healthcare” as something that includes the right to terminate life. Worse yet, behind closed doors Obama has consistently elevated his “very different views” above the safeguards of the U.S. Constitution.

Richards went on to say that (just like the liberal view that the illegality of sneaking over the border should not be part of the amnesty conversation) fetal life is not really relevant to the abortion conversation.

Translation: Purposeful deprivation of life isn’t the issue, because according to Ms. Richards, for her three children who miraculously made it out of her womb alive, her “very different view” is that “life began when I delivered them.”

The question then becomes: How long before the government’s “very different view” is that, along with economy-boosting illegals being granted legal amnesty, undue economic stressors should be legally eliminated?

With that in mind, it’s not hard to imagine that one day, when asked if it is ethical to terminate or grant life based solely on economic standards, the answer from people like Barack Obama could be, “That is not something government feels really should be part of this conversation.”

 Roe-v-Wade-1

The Border Busting Right to Citizenship

illegalborder

Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Former Secretary of Homeland Security and Border Czar, Janet Napolitanois on her way to Sochi with Billie Jean King.

Supposedly Janet has earned the right to lead a group of American delegates to Russia to irritate Vladimir Putin, who would rather people of her purported ilk skip the Winter Games altogether.

And while Ms. Napolitano jets off to the Olympic games, the man who replaced Ms. Napolitano, Jeh Johnson, is wasting no time ‘representing’ yet another group.

Seems Ms. Napolitano’s replacement hasn’t heard about Vladislav Miftakhov, the Russian national attending Penn State who was found in Pennsylvania with WMD.

Instead, while speaking at the United States Conference of Mayors, Johnson, the person who’s supposed to be watching out for the ‘homeland’s security,’ said that he believed the lowball figure of 11 million of Miftakho’s illegal friends, none of whom he knows anything about, have “earned the right to be citizens.”

In one of his first public speeches since being confirmed in December, Jeh told the 270+ mayors that enforcing immigration law was one of the main missions of DHS.

According to Johnson:

“The five core missions of the Department of Homeland Security are guarding against terrorism, securing our borders, enforcing our nation’s immigration laws, safeguarding cyberspace and critical infrastructure in partnership with the private sector, and supporting emergency preparedness and response efforts at every level.”

Johnson is clearly confused, because “guarding against terrorism, securing our borders, enforcing our nation’s immigration laws” does not jibe on any level with an earned path to citizenship for those currently residing in this country illegally and the DHS beckoning lawbreakers to “come out of the shadows.”

Johnson also said:

It is also, frankly, in my judgment, a matter of who we are as Americans to offer the opportunity to those who want to be citizens, who’ve earned the right to be citizens, who are present in this country–many of whom came here as children–to have the opportunity that we all have to try to become American citizens.

Concluding his bizarre and dangerous remarks, Secretary Johnson called for “comprehensive, common sense, immigration reform.”

And even though the illegals that Jeh feels earn citizenship are streaming over the border in droves every day, he actually had the nerve to tout increased border security.

Maybe, on a break from giving speeches to likeminded socialist types like newly-elected Bill ‘National Urban Consensus’ de Blasio, the Secretary of DHS should read the US Border Control Mission Statement.

Isn’t Johnson aware of the dangers posed by illegal aliens hiding in the shadows who have infiltrated our cities and who daily threaten the wellbeing of our people?  Wouldn’t it be logical to assume that if an illegal immigrant feels free to disregard US immigration law, then all US laws might be something they’d disrespect?

Then again, these are the same people who will use one insane shooter to justify eliminating the Second Amendment. And the same crowd who continue to push amnesty while ignoring a Russian national riding around in Pennsylvania with a suitcase bomb.

Moreover, how is it that the figure of 11 million illegals, cited by liberals, has remained static for six years when 4,000 to 10,000 people a day are sneaking across the border?  Correct me if I’m wrong, but that ups the illegal immigrant tally to anywhere between nine and 22 million additional individuals earning the ‘right to citizenship’ by border-busting.

How illegal entry into a sovereign nation is now considered “earning the right” to be an American citizen proves the perversion and thick-headedness of the  Obama administration. Especially considering those who work hard to obey the law and earn an honest living are being punished economically for what used to be viewed as good citizenship.

In addition, the penalty imposed by those who are supposed to be protecting Americans includes having 11+ million people who broke the law foisted upon our nation.

Then, to add insult to injury, the US government is justifying the confiscation of hard-earned wages through higher taxes to support the needs of wrongdoers whom liberals view as having “earned the right to citizenship.”

%d bloggers like this: