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.
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.
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.
Category Archives: Liberals
Reimagining the First Amendment:
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) says the 1st Amendment’s religious liberty protections don’t apply to individuals.
On MSNBC last week, Wisconsin’s junior Senator claimed that the Constitution’s protection of the free exercise of religion extends only to religious institutions, and that individual’s do not have a right to the free exercise of their own religion.
The exact quote form Senator Baldwin is somewhat less dramatic but more worrisome:
Certainly the first amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that. We’ve seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception. Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled, or in this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country. I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.
So you can have freedom of religion in Sen. Baldwin’s America, you just have avoid talking about your religious views in public. It’s a definition of freedom so narrow it could easily fit within the confines of an authoritarian state. Even the nominally communist oligarchs who rule China don’t really care what you think, so long as you don’t offend the party with your words.
What is being established, under the cover of the gay marriage debate, is a new set of hate crime laws directed at Americans of faith. The Left has done a superb job of framing this issue as one about the rights of homosexuals. This automatically paints any critics as bigots regardless of their personal values or beliefs. Once the dust settles gay marriage will be an established legal and cultural fact. What will become apparent shortly thereafter is that freedom of speech has been dramatically narrowed in modern America.
We Interrupt Our Regular Trump Programming to Announce America’s Surrender to Iran and Global Governance
…In sum, the Obama administration has acceded to these demands by foreign sovereigns – some of which are enemies of the United States, and none of which guards the interests of the United States – that legal action imposing obligations on the American people be taken by those sovereigns not only before action is taken by the American people’s representatives but in violation of our Constitution.
I warned in March that this was where we were heading. Back then, Senator Tom Cotton was under attack by the Obama administration and the media for pointing out that the Constitution did not permit the president to impose enforceable international legal duties on the United States in the absence of congressional authorization (i.e., a treaty or laws enacted under the Constitution’s legislative procedure). Senator Cotton explained that, without congressional authorization, Obama’s deal would be a mere executive agreement which could be rescinded at any time by a future president (indeed, by Obama himself).
As I pointed out at the time, though, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif could not help himself but reveal the transnational-progressive, jihadist-friendly, anti-constitutional strategy:
According to Zarif, the deal under negotiation “will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the U.S., but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.” He hoped it would “enrich the knowledge” of the 47 senators [whos signed the Cotton Letter] to learn that “according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement.” To do so would be “a material breach of U.S. obligations,” rendering America a global outlaw….
Clearly, Obama and the mullahs figure they can run the following stunt: We do not need another treaty approved by Congress because the United States has already ratified the U.N. charter and thus agreed to honor Security Council resolutions. We do not need new statutes because the Congress, in enacting Iran-sanctions legislation, explicitly gave the president the power to waive those sanctions. All we need is to have the Security Council issue a resolution that codifies Congress’s existing sanctions laws with Obama’s waiver. Other countries involved in the negotiations — including Germany, Russia, and China, which have increasingly lucrative trade with Iran — will then very publicly rely on the completed deal. The U.N. and its army of transnational-progressive bureaucrats and lawyers will deduce from this reliance a level of global consensus that incorporates the agreement into the hocus-pocus corpus of customary law. Maybe they’ll even get Justice Ginsburg to cite it glowingly in a Supreme Court ruling. Voila, we have a binding agreement — without any congressional input — that the United States is powerless to alter under international law.
This is the scheme that is going forward … today … at the Security Council.
At the U.N. today, the Obama administration is colluding with our enemies and other foreign sovereigns to deprive the American people – through their elected representatives – of the power to determine what obligations they will accept under international law. The Obama administration has taken the position that Russia, China, and, yes, Iran, have a vote on our national security, but we do not. And in this betrayal, Congress has, at best, been a witless aider and abettor.
There’s nothing quite like the look of a jerk whose smug omniscience gets shattered by a singular sound — that of a reporter asking a serious question. Normally, the only sound President Obama experiences from journalists is the slurping one hears when boots are being licked.
So yes, when CBS News Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett asked a serious question during Mr. Obama’s Iran-dealappalooza press conference, it rattled the president, the legacy media and all who so enjoy Mr. Obama’s shiny, shiny boots.
Mr. Garrett, well-respected by his colleagues with a reputation for being a serious and solid news reporter, dared to ask about something on the minds of most Americans. He was blunt in his phrasing because, no, the president is not an infant:
“As you well know, there are four Americans in Iran — three held on trumped up charges according to your administration, one, whereabouts unknown. Can you tell the country, sir, why you are content, with all of the fanfare around this [nuclear] deal to leave the conscience of this nation, the strength of this nation, unaccounted for, in relation to these four Americans?”
The look on Mr. Obama’s face was priceless — a combination of rage, shock and surprise. At one point he actually looked down and away. Was he taking a time-out from the overwhelming affront posed by the pesky Mr. Garrett? Was he going to cry because someone mentioned he had no clothes? Had Major not received the memo that one does not ask obvious questions about monumentally important issues lest they embarrass Mr. Obama?
Rolling Stone has confirmed for the first time in a court filing that a University of Virginia sexual assault victim advocate, who also served on an Obama administration White House task force, introduced the student who became the centerpiece of the magazine’s now-retracted story about a gang rape on campus.
The move could open the door for the magazine to try to shift blame to the university for a journalism debacle that continues to reverberate across the country.
Rolling Stone’s legal filing late last week came in response to a $7.5 million libel lawsuit filed by U.Va. Dean Nicole Eramo, who claims she was unfairly depicted as the “chief villain” in the now discredited article about a woman nicknamed “Jackie” who claimed she was gang-raped at a fraternity. Police who investigated the claim said they found no evidence of such an attack.
There is a disturbance in American politics. But no one in the political class seems to be pinpointing the correct source.
Donald Trump gets all of the credit for it from journalists, pundits and academics. They could not be more wrong.
They are looking only at the surface, seeing the response to his harangues as an affirmation of the man. If they looked beyond the cartoonish image of Trump, they would understand that the true disturbance is the frustration of Americans, not the bluster of one man.Americans are just tired of it all. Tired of no one speaking honestly to them, tired of being told they cannot speak honestly.And don’t even think about expressing your values if those are outside the elite’s standard of everyone deserving equality and fairness (unless, of course, you disagree with that elitist viewpoint, in which case hatred and character destruction are your reward).
No accountability, no transparency — just a pattern of bureaucratic failure that has cost lives and has fueled anger against government.
This is the tip of the iceberg. If you are “out here” — outside Washington, outside of the coastal elites — you are overwhelmed by the incompetency; if you are “inside” those, you don’t understand folks’ skepticism about everything related to government, including cutting a deal with Iran.
When CBS News reporter Major Garrett pressed President Obama at a news conference last week, asking why American hostages in Iran weren’t addressed in the nuclear arms “deal,” the president was insulted that someone would interrupt his victory lap. Garrett’s peers, supposedly all balanced, hard-nosed journalists paid to ask tough questions, retreated predictably; they failed to practice good journalism by pressing the president on that point, perhaps because they are cloistered in their polarized world.
Donald Trump is going nowhere in this election cycle; neither is Bernie Sanders. But there is nothing wrong about the nomination races being a spectacle right now, because it demonstrates the volume of unrest among people looking for leadership.
Populism is lightning in a bottle. It is always bottom-up and always about people looking for a leader, not a circus barker leading a parade of tigers and jugglers on a small-town promenade.
Trump and Sanders are reflections of the unrest, not the leaders we are seeking.
A key part of President Obama’s legacy will be the fed’s unprecedented collection of sensitive data on Americans by race. The government is prying into our most personal information at the most local levels, all for the purpose of “racial and economic justice.”
Unbeknown to most Americans, Obama’s racial bean counters are furiously mining data on their health, home loans, credit cards, places of work, neighborhoods, even how their kids are disciplined in school — all to document “inequalities” between minorities and whites.
This Orwellian-style stockpile of statistics includes a vast and permanent network of discrimination databases, which Obama already is using to make “disparate impact” cases against: banks that don’t make enough prime loans to minorities; schools that suspend too many blacks; cities that don’t offer enough Section 8 and other low-income housing for minorities; and employers who turn down African-Americans for jobs due to criminal backgrounds.
Big Brother Barack wants the databases operational before he leaves office, and much of the data in them will be posted online.
So civil-rights attorneys and urban activist groups will be able to exploit them to show patterns of “racial disparities” and “segregation,” even if no other evidence of discrimination exists.Obama is presiding over the largest consolidation of personal data in US history.
What gun-control advocates fail to explain are two things: How their proposed laws would stop rampages? Why there are more guns but less gun crime? Despite the proliferation of guns, firearm crime has fallen precipitously over the past few decades—49 percent, according to Pew. And though permits for concealed-carry handguns have risen by 178 percent in the last eight years, murder rates have dropped, according to Crime Prevention Research Center.
Yet, every time there is a shooting, we act like gun violence is soaring, rather than focusing on the problem of mental illness, or domestic terrorism, or whatever it is that drives these people to murder. Instead, we have pundits who have an aversion to the Second Amendment plunge us into a pointless political squabble over ideas that would do nothing more than restrict access to guns for law-abiding c
On Thursday, a Muslim man killed four U.S. Marines in attacks on military recruiting facilities in Chattanooga, Tenn.
The man, identified as Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez, then died in a pitched gun battle after he led police on a high-speed chase in a rented Mustang convertible.
Abdulazeez, 24, was a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Kuwait. He was an electrical engineer who grew up in Chattanooga in a conservative Muslim family.
U.S. Attorney Bill Killian said during a press conference that this week’s shooting was an “act of domestic terrorism.”