NO NEED TO PASS AMNESTY, NITWITS: Obama signed unlawful Executive Orders nullifying immigration law

Of course, none of this outrageous behavior will stop the unions and corporatists who are bound and determined to destroy the United States of America. Breitbart‘s Matthew Boyle reports:

Fully 98 percent of individuals deported from the United States in 2013 were either criminals, apprehended while illegally crossing the border, or had been previously deported, according to a new analysis from Senate Budget Committee ranking member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)… “The evidence reveals that the Administration has carried out a dramatic nullification of federal law,” Sessions said…

Obama’s well-known executive action granted virtual amnesty to so-called DREAMers – individuals who claim to have entered the country as minors under their parents’ guidance… Two are lesser known executive actions include an Aug. 23, 2013, DHS directive “expanding that [summer 2012 executive DREAM Act] amnesty to illegal immigrant relatives of DREAM Act beneficiaries” and a Dec. 21, 2012, DHS directive “reinforcing that almost all immigration offenses were unenforceable absent a separate criminal conviction.”

…Only 0.2 percent of an estimated 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. who were actually placed into removal proceedings in 2013 in 2013 did not have a violent or otherwise serious criminal conviction on their record. Only .08 percent of the total number of illegal aliens placed into removal proceedings were neither repeat or serial immigration law violators nor convicted of a serious crime. Even with that .08 percent of removals who were not caught crossing the border or being a serial immigration law violator or being convicted of serious crimes, Sessions’ staff notes that ICE officers who communicate with his office say that there is likely some other serious security risk for allowing them to stay in the country that is cause for their removal.

The findings stand in stark contrast to liberal calls on Obama to reduce deportations. Top Hispanic Democrats recently met with Obama at the White House recently about the issue, prompting an announcement about a review at the Department of Homeland Security about how to deport illegal aliens in a more “humane” fashion.

The report was enough to prompt a chorus of outrage from Sessions’ like-minded colleagues in the House, who slammed the Obama administration for enacting amnesty by fiat.

This is another clear warning to anyone who thinks immigration reform is possible under President Obama,” said Rep. John Fleming (R-LA). “He has repeatedly shown a willingness to enforce the law selectively, while looking the other way when it doesn’t fit his agenda.”

As Sen. Sessions observes, “The Administration’s actions are breathtaking and without precedent. American citizens have both a legal and moral right to the protection our immigration laws afford; those rights have been systematically ignored, resulting in a massive loss of income and wages for the most vulnerable Americans. The Administration has abandoned its duty to faithfully execute the law and protect U.S. sovereignty, resulting not only in a collapse of immigration enforcement but a grave jeopardy to the American system of law and justice itself.”

This is truly criminal behavior on the part of this president, his party, and this administration. Remember in November.

Hat tip: Mark Levin

Doug Ross @ Journal

New Executive Order: “Obama Has Just Given Himself the Authority to Seize Your Assets”

shredding-the-constitution

On Monday the U.S. government took steps to seize the US-based assets of Russian lawmakers and anyone else that the US government deemed complicit in supporting the Crimean secession movement.

We’ve seen the U.S. government do this in countless cases surrounding drug and financial crimes, and sometimes even against foreign leaders like Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega.

What makes this particular instance so unprecedented and terrifying is that President Obama went so far as to issue a new Executive Order to give himself the authorization to do so, because the laws of the United States are such that our government is not allowed to simply take someone’s bank assets, home or business without due process.

Here’s the kicker.

The new Executive Order doesn’t just apply to just Russians or foreigners. It gets blanket coverage, so even American citizens could now face asset forfeiture if their actions are deemed to be “contributing to the situation in the Ukraine.”

Be careful what you say. Be careful what you write. President Obama has just given himself the authority to seize your assets.

According to the president’s recent Executive Order, “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine” (first reported by WND’s Aaron Klein), the provisions for seizure of property extend to “any United States person.” That means “any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.”

Via: The Ron Paul Institute

Like most Executive Orders and government legalese, the definitions for why an individual would have their assets seized under this directive are extremely broad and they could, for all intents and purposes, be used against anyone who supports Russian interests, or simply argues against those of the United States.

You can read the full Executive Order at the White House web site. The key points are noted below:

All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:

(i) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:

(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Ukraine;

(B) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, sovereignty, or territorial integrity of Ukraine; or

(C) misappropriation of state assets of Ukraine or of an economically significant entity in Ukraine

This new Executive Order has crossed a very dangerous line. It’s one that turns the notions of property rights and due process upside down by effectively bypassing the U.S. Constitution.

While we’re sure the President and his staff would argue that such a law would never be used against Americans who are protected by free speech, the fact is that the Executive Branch now believes it has the self-manifested authority to target any individual who engages in activities that undermine US interests abroad or at home.

If a President of the United States believes he has the authority to make it illegal for you to provide support to Russia by way of political commentary, charitable donations or other methods, could he also use similar directives to push forward other agendas?

President Obama has already re-authorized an E.O. giving him the ability to seize farms, food, processing plants, energy resources, transportation, and skilled laborers during national emergency.

The next Executive Order could come in the form of restrictions on firearms advocacy or target those who speak out against policies like government mandated health care. All it would take is the declaration of a national emergency and they can essentially do as they please.

Is it prudent to give a single person the ability to force such actions down the throats of the American people without Congressional oversight or Judicial review?


SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You

GOOD NEWS: Obama “Executive Action” Eases Immigration Restrictions on Terrorists

It wasn’t enough to have an Attorney General whose law firm gleefully defended terrorists involved in 9/11. And it wasn’t enough to have Muslim immigration to the United States skyrocket.

No, now Islamists who support terror are welcome, too. Which is pretty much the Wall Street Journal position on immigration.

The Obama administration has eased the rules for would-be asylum-seekers, refugees and others who hope to come to the United States or stay here and who gave “limited” support to terrorists or terrorist groups… The change is one of President Barack Obama’s first actions on immigration since he pledged during his State of the Union address last month to use more executive directives…

The Department of Homeland Security and the State Department now say that people considered to have provided “limited material support” to terrorists or terrorist groups are no longer automatically barred from the United States.

…Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, called the change naive given today’s global terrorist threats… “President Obama should be protecting U.S. citizens rather than taking a chance on those who are aiding and abetting terrorist activity and putting Americans at greater risk,” said Goodlatte, R-Va.

As an up-and-coming politician, Mr. Obama feted terrorists and marinated in anti-semitism.

Which makes this unlawful “executive action” on the part of the president all the less surprising.

And when innocent Americans die — and they will — remember who Obama is and what his administration did.

Hat tips: Dan from New York and BadBlue News.

Doug Ross @ Journal

Dems Push Executive Orders For Full Employment: “Should Be Our Number One Agenda”

workers-rights

The honorable Congresswoman from Texas, who recently argued that welfare should be renamed to a transitional living fund, has another brilliant idea up her sleeve. Given the overwhelming success of the Patient Affordable Care Act in reducing premiums, providing high quality health care to all Americans, and improving the economy, Congressional democrats have established a “Full Employment Caucus” which aims to give every American who wants to work a job.

According to Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) you’re either going to support it, or President Obama will use his Executive Powers to push it through without Congressional approval.

This one is straight out of the Communist Manifesto and like any good collectivist approach it will be mandated by our benevolent central leadership committee:

Democratic Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee said that the new Congressional Full Employment Caucus will “give President Obama a number of executive orders that he can sign.”

Jackson Lee added that writing up executive orders “should be our number one agenda.”

“We will be answering the call of all of America because people need work and we’re not doing right by them by creating work,” the Texas congresswoman said.

“I believe this caucus will put us on the right path and we’ll give President Obama a number of executive orders that he can sign with pride and strength”…

“In fact, I think that should be our number one agenda. Let’s write up these executive orders — draft them, of course — and ask the president to stand with us on full employment,” Jackson Lee added.

According to a recent commentary by Rep. Fredrica Wilson and Rep. John Conyers, who are part of the Full Employment Caucus, this is an absolute necessity in America because of the widening income inequality gap:

We need a movement for a full employment society.

Every American has a stake in stopping unemployment. So it’s time to kindle a new movement built on a simple vision: Every American who wants to work should have the right to either employment or training.

Someone may want to get in touch with these Congressional Representatives, because last time we checked, every legal resident and citizen who wants to work already has a right to work in the United States of America. That’s been the case for quite a while, but we understand if these Congressional democrats weren’t aware of it because it appears in an obscure little document called The Constitution of the United States of America.

Wilson and Conyers continue, in an attempt to educate us about how big government isn’t really big government, and this regulatory environment is necessary for the optimum functioning of capitalism:

A 21st Century New Deal would establish public trusts to create work opportunities and training programs in needed areas including construction, infrastructure repair, energy efficiency, education, health care, and neighborhood renovation.

Some of our conservative colleagues in Congress might call this approach “big government.” To the contrary, we know it’s the way to optimize free-market capitalism. When every person is trained, working, earning a salary, and contributing to the tax base, we have less need for government assistance and higher levels of consumer demand and investment. We therefore have less debt and more economic growth.

This sounds great on paper. Free health care and 100% employment always do. But as we’ve seen throughout history, it doesn’t always work out that way in the real world.

You cannot mandate full employment, otherwise you end up with mega-cities that lack people. Or, as was often done behind the Berlin Wall in the East Bloc during the cold war, tens of thousands of products would be built, only to be destroyed later because no one could afford to buy them. Everyone was employed, but the economies of these communist nations collapsed in on themselves because market participants were not free to do what the market demanded. They were forced to do what government demanded.

Here’s a thought for Sheila Jackson Lee and her Caucus colleagues. Since the idea is to establish a “New Deal” for the 21st century, perhaps we could get all of those folks on “transitional living funds” and instead of doling out thousands of dollars in government distributions to people who essentially sit on their butts all day waiting for their next check, we have those folks earn their keep. We’re already shelling out billions of dollars a year to cover their “salaries,” so why not do with welfare what Ms. Jackson Lee suggested by making it a truly transitional and temporary government assistance program?

Let’s transition those folks from their couches into actual productive human beings.

If you want a check from the government and you have two functioning arms and two functioning legs, then get to work!

Here’s an example of someone who’s itching to transition right now:

Shock Interview: Welfare Recipient: “I Get to Sit Home… I Get to Smoke Weed… We Still Gonna Get Paid”

While workers out there are preaching morality at people like me living on welfare, can you really blame us?

I get to sit home… I get to go visit my friends all day… I even get to smoke weed…

Me and people that I know that are illegal immigrants that don’t contribute to society, we still gonna get paid.

Our check’s gonna come in the mail every month… and it’s gonna be on time… and we get subsidized housing… we even get presents delivered for our kids on Christmas… Why should I work?

Ya’ll get the benefit of saying “oh, look at me, I’m a better person,” but when ya’ll sit at home behind ya’lls I’m a better person… we the ones gettin’ paid!

Full employment mandates are so going to work. Let’s break out the pens and Executive Orders and get this economy fixed!


SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You

Executive Order on Gun Research Backfires on Obama

Guest post by Kyle Wintersteen

In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy, President Obama issued a list of Executive Orders. Notably among them, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) was given $ 10 million to research gun violence.

“Year after year, those who oppose even modest gun-safety measures have threatened to defund scientific or medical research into the causes of gun violence, I will direct the Centers for Disease Control to go ahead and study the best ways to reduce it,” Obama said on Jan. 16.

As a result, a 1996 Congressional ban on research by the CDC “to advocate or promote gun control” was lifted. Finally, anti-gun proponents—and presumably the Obama Administration—thought gun owners and the NRA would be met with irrefutable scientific evidence to support why guns make Americans less safe.

Mainstream media outlets praised the order to lift the ban and lambasted the NRA and Congress for having put it in place.

It was the “Executive Order the NRA Should Fear the Most,” according to The Atlantic.

The CDC ban on gun research “caused lasting damage,” reported ABC News.

Salon said the ban was part of the NRA’s “war on gun science.”

And CBS News lamented that the NRA “stymied” CDC research.

Most mainstream journalists argued the NRA’s opposition to CDC gun research demonstrated its fear of being contradicted by science; few—if any—cited why the NRA may have had legitimate concerns. The culture of the CDC at the time could hardly be described as lacking bias on firearms.

“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes,” Dr. Mark Rosenberg, who oversaw CDC gun research, told The Washington Post in 1994. “Now [smoking] is dirty, deadly and banned.”

Does Rosenberg sound like a man who should be trusted to conduct taxpayer-funded studies on guns?

Rosenberg’s statement coincided with a CDC study by Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay, who argued guns in the home are 43 times more likely to be used to kill a family member than an intruder. The study had serious flaws; namely, it skewed the ratio by failing to consider defensive uses of firearms in which the intruder wasn’t killed. It has since been refuted by several studies, including one by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, indicating Americans use guns for self-defense 2.5 million times annually. However, the damage had been done—the “43 times” myth is perhaps gun-control advocates’ most commonly cited argument, and a lot of people still believe it to this day.

So, the NRA and Congress took action. But with the ban lifted, what does the CDC’s first major gun research in 17 years reveal? Not exactly what Obama and anti-gun advocates expected. In fact, you might say Obama’s plan backfired.

Here are some key findings from the CDC report, “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence,” released in June:

1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker:

“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies.”

2. Defensive uses of guns are common:

“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year…in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.”

3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining:

“The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons.” The report also notes, “Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010.”

4. “Interventions” (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce “mixed” results:

“Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue.” The report could not conclude whether “passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime.”

5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime:

“There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002).”

6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime:

“More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market.”

7. The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides:

“Between the years 2000-2010 firearm-related suicides significantly outnumbered homicides for all age groups, annually accounting for 61 percent of the more than 335,600 people who died from firearms related violence in the United States.”

Why No One Has Heard This

Given the CDC’s prior track record on guns, you may be surprised by the extent with which the new research refutes some of the anti-gun movement’s deepest convictions.

What are opponents of the Second Amendment doing about the new data? Perhaps predictably, they’re ignoring it. President Obama, Michael Bloomberg and the Brady Campaign remain silent. Most suspicious of all, the various media outlets that so eagerly anticipated the CDC research are looking the other way as well. One must wonder how media coverage of the CDC report may have differed, had the research more closely fit an anti-gun narrative.

Even worse, the few mainstream journalists who did report the CDC’s findings chose to cherry-pick from the data. Most, like NBC News, reported exclusively on the finding that gun suicides are up. Largely lost in that discussion is the fact that the overall rate of suicide—regardless of whether a gun is involved or not—is also up.

Others seized upon the CDC’s finding that, “The U.S. rate of firearm-related homicide is higher than that of any other industrialized country: 19.5 times higher than the rates in other high-income countries.” However, as noted by the Las Vegas Guardian Express, if figures are excluded from such anti-gun bastions as Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington, D.C., “The homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country.”

The CDC report is overall a blow to the Obama Administration’s unconstitutional agenda. It largely supports the Second Amendment, and contradicts common anti-gun arguments. Unfortunately, mainstream media failed to get the story they were hoping for, and their silence on the matter is a screaming illustration of their underlying agenda.


Hat tip: BadBlue Gun News

Doug Ross @ Journal