Posts
The Jovana Deas Case:A former Nogales, Arizona port inspector, promoted to investigations, was convicted for compromising classified information. We will never know exactly what all she divulged, or how much damage was done as a result.
"The judge said Deas' crimes undermined the credibility of American law enforcement while throwing Deas' agency into turmoil to determine the degree of damage done."The U.S. is lucky to have law enforcement agencies that are held in high esteem, Jorgenson said, noting other countries' police forces are viewed as criminals.”
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/us-agent-in-nogales-accused-of-helping-cartels-gets-yrs/article_9918246b-db31-57db-80ab-045e0cbf54a9.html“
How can any sane and scrupulous person in the Justice Department have faith in it? Just yesterday, a U.S. Attorney refused to prosecute his boss, Eric Holder, after Holder was cited by Congress for contempt for refusal to cooperate in a Congressional investigation of the DOJ's apparent complicity, along with Mexican cartels, in the murder of at least two federal officers.
ICE Investigator Deas is apparently a naturalized U.S. citizen from Agua Prieta, Sonora, Mexico.
Our naturalization requirements have hit rock bottom as far as allowing aliens to become U.S. citizen. This is not an isolated case. We are not only getting the dregs of Mexican society for immigrants (who mostly "immigrate" illegally), but making them Federal officers. This comes on the heels of exposing the rotten-to-the core executive branch we have now, and its choice of Attorney General.
This latest scandal of POE corruption just scrapes the tip of the iceberg. The Nogales POE has long been a corridor for illegal drugs, humans and other contraband. It has been manned mostly by personnel who, at best, have one foot in Mexico and one in the U.S. as far as patriotism is considered.
One Nogales port director committed suicide a few years ago after he got caught co-conspiring with the Unitarian Universalist Racketeers. They were, and apparently still are, involved in a huge smuggling operation of illegal aliens that they, along with other churches, call a “sanctuary movement” --a euphemism to try to justify an illegal way of increasing their political power through increased membership and revenue, while illegally maintaining their tax-exempt status as a "non-profit" organization. Abuse of "freedom of religion" by pseudo-religious groups will eventually bring about the downfall of this nation.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
The Arizona Conflict May Affect Texas
A stronger word than "reciprocate" might be "retaliate."
Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano have declared war upon Arizona. However, they did not think this thing through, just as they fail to do in almost everything they do.
8 USC 287(g) was not passed by the U.S. Congress solely to assist state's to help control illegal immigration; it was also meant to foster essential cooperation between the Federal Government and State agencies in many other areas where mutual cooperation is necessary.
Almost every federal agency depends heavily on state support to carry out their duties. Federal law enforcement agencies are particularly dependent on state law enforcement agencies for information, records, witnesses and on the ground back-up in criminal pursuits and other physical take-downs of criminals.
The Social Security Administration could not operate without state cooperation for records and information, particularly in welfare fraud cases. In fact, just as in narcotics violations, the states have taken a load off the federal Government to help them from having to go through a Federal Grande Jury for lesser violations that can easily be prosecuted in state courts with minimal time and expense. The DEA, ATF, FBI and ICE all are heavily dependent upon State law enforcement agencies and upon the cooperation of all state record sources.
Governor Jan Brewer should stop cooperating with the Federal Government and start requiring a court order for every record that the Federal Government applies for. She should stop prosecuting cases for the Federal Government in order to let them save the expense of engaging the Federal Grande juries. The areas where she can stop cooperating are endless. The Federal Government stands much more to lose that the State of Arizona in this conflict. Governor Brewer does not have to violate and Federal laws to teach the Feds a lesson; she just needs to stop facilitating the function of all Federal Agencies in Arizona by unnecessary cooperation. She should also seek the assistance of the other border states, for this fifth-column tactic of the perfidious Obama Administration is bound to spread outside the confines of Arizona.
Barack Obama, Eric Holder and Janet Napolitano have declared war upon Arizona. However, they did not think this thing through, just as they fail to do in almost everything they do.
8 USC 287(g) was not passed by the U.S. Congress solely to assist state's to help control illegal immigration; it was also meant to foster essential cooperation between the Federal Government and State agencies in many other areas where mutual cooperation is necessary.
Almost every federal agency depends heavily on state support to carry out their duties. Federal law enforcement agencies are particularly dependent on state law enforcement agencies for information, records, witnesses and on the ground back-up in criminal pursuits and other physical take-downs of criminals.
The Social Security Administration could not operate without state cooperation for records and information, particularly in welfare fraud cases. In fact, just as in narcotics violations, the states have taken a load off the federal Government to help them from having to go through a Federal Grande Jury for lesser violations that can easily be prosecuted in state courts with minimal time and expense. The DEA, ATF, FBI and ICE all are heavily dependent upon State law enforcement agencies and upon the cooperation of all state record sources.
Governor Jan Brewer should stop cooperating with the Federal Government and start requiring a court order for every record that the Federal Government applies for. She should stop prosecuting cases for the Federal Government in order to let them save the expense of engaging the Federal Grande juries. The areas where she can stop cooperating are endless. The Federal Government stands much more to lose that the State of Arizona in this conflict. Governor Brewer does not have to violate and Federal laws to teach the Feds a lesson; she just needs to stop facilitating the function of all Federal Agencies in Arizona by unnecessary cooperation. She should also seek the assistance of the other border states, for this fifth-column tactic of the perfidious Obama Administration is bound to spread outside the confines of Arizona.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
The Sedition of the Unitarian Universalist Church
In today’s news, we read about a large demonstration designed to subvert the law enforcement efforts of Joe Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, one of a dying breed who believes in enforcement of all laws, including immigration laws. It is no coincidence that this demonstration to intimidate Arpaio comes the day before the Supreme Court is expected to uphold the main thrust of Arizona’s state immigration enforcement law, since state authorities are already empowered to enforce federal immigration laws by Federal statute(1). This movement is led by the traditionally subversive and seditionist Unitarian Universalist church(2).
In the 1980s there was an enormous movement afoot, especially in our Mexican border states, to totally wreck the concept of our national sovereignty, destroy majority rule, subvert our moral values and wreak political havoc and bring about the type of anarchy necessary to impoae upon us a communist-type government. It was the so-called sanctuary movement.
At its peak, Sanctuary involved over 500 congregations across the country that, by declaring themselves official “sanctuaries,” committed to providing shelter, material goods and often legal advice to Central American refugees. Various denominations were involved, including the Lutherans, United Church of Christ, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Jews, Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, and Mennonite(3).
May “sanctuary” people were tried and some convicted, but the penalties were not severe enough to cause them to cease and desist. If they had been charged with treason, it would have been more in line with what they are actually doing, than what they were charged with (mostly harboring and transporting illegal aliens(4).) Regardless of their stated pretexts, and their claims of altruism, they are all engaged in activities to enlarge their church membership and to gain more economic and political power. I have always every religion, since the beginning of time, cannot be separated from political activities. Some are more blatant than others, such as the United Church of Christ of Chicago which Barack Obama once attended. That religion, by the way, is also historically unitarian in doctrinal beliefs, and not of the same faith as the traditional Church of Christ.
Historically, the concept of “sanctuary” was an agreement between old European kingdoms and the Catholic Church. The idea of the churches harboring criminals, including murderers, rapists and seditionists was amazingly tolerated by sovereign European states up until the fall of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, following the military victories of Napoleon. In the 1980s, a new version of “sanctuary” evolved in the U.S., and its primary goal was to smuggle and harbor millions of illegal aliens that invaded our southern Border States.
The primary leadership of the “sanctuary movement” has been the Unitarian Universalist church. At this point I should point out that I am not and never have been a member of any congregation of Unitarian Universalists, a church that has actually been in existence only since 1861.
At this point I should point out that I am not and have never been a member of any UU congregation, although I did attend a few of their “services,” if you can call them that. I am an enthusiast of the Transcendentalist literary movement of the early 1800s in the U.S. and still strongly believe in their concept of self-reliance as described in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay, Self-Reliance(5). In recent years, I have learned to point that out when describing myself as a unitarian, to point out that it is spelled with a small “u,” and it is, for me, a persuasion (mostly philosophical), not a religion. I am not associated with the modern, Unitarian Universalist Church, which has been in existence only since 1961 when the Unitarians and Universalists united, probably more for economic survival reasons and to build up membership than for any similar beliefs. In fact, I believe that schisms and changes in the course of a religion’s doctrines are more often associated with economics and practicality than any epiphanies or divine “messages.” If you study the sources of the hundreds of different congregations in the U.S. and other countries, you will eventually come across proof of my beliefs. My personal unitarian persuasion is influenced more by those founding fathers as Adams, Madison and Jefferson; not the wacky, seditionist beliefs advanced by modern Unitarian-Universalists ministers and members of their congregations. I should also point out that there are many other “unitarian” religions, including some Pentecostals, The Church of God (7th), the Jehovah’s Witnesses, The United Churches of Christ (the religion of Jeremiah and Barack Obama, mentioned above) and many others. However, I do not subscribe to any of their varied concepts of unitarianism. None, however, adhere to the self-reliance doctrines of our founding fathers, and certain they do not share the intense patriotism for our nation. From my years on the border, I have observed that all of these advocates of “sanctuary” hold common belief in the welfare state and open borders.
The Unitarianism of of our founding fathers bears no more resemblance to the Unitarian Universalist Church than modern Mormonism resembles the fundamentalist “Mormon” sect of Warren Jeffs who not sits in prison, convicted of child rape. The modern, Unitarian Universalist church was an early participant of conducting the” rites of matrimony” to people of the same sex, and I find that most repulsive to my conservative beliefs. The Unitarianism of our founding fathers was politically liberal, but certainly not morally bankrupt--like the Unitarian-Universalists.
Policies of the United Nations and our nation’s immigration laws have very liberal asylum(6) and refugee(7) laws to serve those who are really fleeing from despotic governments because of their political, religious or other “qualifying” beliefs that do not conflict with our laws. The “sanctuary” movement has no such screening device to keep their “refugee” program from harboring criminals and common vagrants who are simply looking for a free ride. We need a president who will vigorously enforce our laws if we are to remain a free nation and not one taken over by a bunch of invaders that have no respect for our laws, or the rule of law. We also need to punish those who, in the name of altruism, use these invaders to advance their own economic and political agendas; i.e., those involved in the illegal and subversive “sanctuary movement.”
__________________________
NOTE: Some of the law sources cited below may have been renumbered, but the sources cited should refer you to the latest codification of the reference law.
(1) http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/local-enforcement-immigration-laws-through-287g-program
(2) http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-24/thousands-protest-arpaio-tent-city/55788638/1
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary movement
(4) Title 8, United States Code, 1324.
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism
(6) 8 USC 1253(h)
(7) 8 CFR 108
In the 1980s there was an enormous movement afoot, especially in our Mexican border states, to totally wreck the concept of our national sovereignty, destroy majority rule, subvert our moral values and wreak political havoc and bring about the type of anarchy necessary to impoae upon us a communist-type government. It was the so-called sanctuary movement.
At its peak, Sanctuary involved over 500 congregations across the country that, by declaring themselves official “sanctuaries,” committed to providing shelter, material goods and often legal advice to Central American refugees. Various denominations were involved, including the Lutherans, United Church of Christ, Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, Jews, Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, and Mennonite(3).
May “sanctuary” people were tried and some convicted, but the penalties were not severe enough to cause them to cease and desist. If they had been charged with treason, it would have been more in line with what they are actually doing, than what they were charged with (mostly harboring and transporting illegal aliens(4).) Regardless of their stated pretexts, and their claims of altruism, they are all engaged in activities to enlarge their church membership and to gain more economic and political power. I have always every religion, since the beginning of time, cannot be separated from political activities. Some are more blatant than others, such as the United Church of Christ of Chicago which Barack Obama once attended. That religion, by the way, is also historically unitarian in doctrinal beliefs, and not of the same faith as the traditional Church of Christ.
Historically, the concept of “sanctuary” was an agreement between old European kingdoms and the Catholic Church. The idea of the churches harboring criminals, including murderers, rapists and seditionists was amazingly tolerated by sovereign European states up until the fall of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, following the military victories of Napoleon. In the 1980s, a new version of “sanctuary” evolved in the U.S., and its primary goal was to smuggle and harbor millions of illegal aliens that invaded our southern Border States.
The primary leadership of the “sanctuary movement” has been the Unitarian Universalist church. At this point I should point out that I am not and never have been a member of any congregation of Unitarian Universalists, a church that has actually been in existence only since 1861.
At this point I should point out that I am not and have never been a member of any UU congregation, although I did attend a few of their “services,” if you can call them that. I am an enthusiast of the Transcendentalist literary movement of the early 1800s in the U.S. and still strongly believe in their concept of self-reliance as described in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s essay, Self-Reliance(5). In recent years, I have learned to point that out when describing myself as a unitarian, to point out that it is spelled with a small “u,” and it is, for me, a persuasion (mostly philosophical), not a religion. I am not associated with the modern, Unitarian Universalist Church, which has been in existence only since 1961 when the Unitarians and Universalists united, probably more for economic survival reasons and to build up membership than for any similar beliefs. In fact, I believe that schisms and changes in the course of a religion’s doctrines are more often associated with economics and practicality than any epiphanies or divine “messages.” If you study the sources of the hundreds of different congregations in the U.S. and other countries, you will eventually come across proof of my beliefs. My personal unitarian persuasion is influenced more by those founding fathers as Adams, Madison and Jefferson; not the wacky, seditionist beliefs advanced by modern Unitarian-Universalists ministers and members of their congregations. I should also point out that there are many other “unitarian” religions, including some Pentecostals, The Church of God (7th), the Jehovah’s Witnesses, The United Churches of Christ (the religion of Jeremiah and Barack Obama, mentioned above) and many others. However, I do not subscribe to any of their varied concepts of unitarianism. None, however, adhere to the self-reliance doctrines of our founding fathers, and certain they do not share the intense patriotism for our nation. From my years on the border, I have observed that all of these advocates of “sanctuary” hold common belief in the welfare state and open borders.
The Unitarianism of of our founding fathers bears no more resemblance to the Unitarian Universalist Church than modern Mormonism resembles the fundamentalist “Mormon” sect of Warren Jeffs who not sits in prison, convicted of child rape. The modern, Unitarian Universalist church was an early participant of conducting the” rites of matrimony” to people of the same sex, and I find that most repulsive to my conservative beliefs. The Unitarianism of our founding fathers was politically liberal, but certainly not morally bankrupt--like the Unitarian-Universalists.
Policies of the United Nations and our nation’s immigration laws have very liberal asylum(6) and refugee(7) laws to serve those who are really fleeing from despotic governments because of their political, religious or other “qualifying” beliefs that do not conflict with our laws. The “sanctuary” movement has no such screening device to keep their “refugee” program from harboring criminals and common vagrants who are simply looking for a free ride. We need a president who will vigorously enforce our laws if we are to remain a free nation and not one taken over by a bunch of invaders that have no respect for our laws, or the rule of law. We also need to punish those who, in the name of altruism, use these invaders to advance their own economic and political agendas; i.e., those involved in the illegal and subversive “sanctuary movement.”
__________________________
NOTE: Some of the law sources cited below may have been renumbered, but the sources cited should refer you to the latest codification of the reference law.
(1) http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/local-enforcement-immigration-laws-through-287g-program
(2) http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-06-24/thousands-protest-arpaio-tent-city/55788638/1
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctuary movement
(4) Title 8, United States Code, 1324.
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism
(6) 8 USC 1253(h)
(7) 8 CFR 108
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
The Cinderella Factor
In order to understand the media’s coddling of Barack Obama, we might start by studying the psychology of the “Cinderella” story. By the media, I mean all the main television networks, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Fox News and other cable networks that carry “news” stories. The “media” for the purposes of this essay also include all the major national newspapers, magazines (including the tabloids), and some of the lesser known periodicals that convey local and national “news,” often grotesquely distorted, and nearly always liberally biased, to the American public.
The coddling of Obama will go down in history as a national disgrace where the media has violated every moral code that once made our press the envy of other countries in integrity. Our present, tightly-controlled, liberal bias in the media hearkens back to the Cold War when The USSR kept tight control over its two principal news sources: TASS and Pravda. Remember, the Bolsheviks described themselves as socialist and liberals until they led Russia to a totalitarian dictatorship (and so did Hitler before he took over Germany).
Almost every published news story in our mainstream media shows Obama in a favorable light; every published photo is carefully selected to flatter him and reinforce their fantasy of him as congenial and sympathetic. They contribute their own enchanting remarks, and we the public are oriented to believe that he is “handsome,” in spite of the over-sized, protruding, cupped outer ears that have caused us to describe certain people of the white race as “homely.” In fact, the long hair of the 1960s hippie movement was said by some to hide “homely” ears. If we mention the flared nostrils, the shortly-cropped, kinky hair and the large mouth, we risk being called “racists.”
However, it is just because of the above-mentioned, physical features that cause our black population to have their own, exclusive “beauty contests” for African-Americans only, such as the Miss Black America Pageant. Whites are not eligible for entry into the “Miss Black America” contest for one obvious reason: our concept of “beauty” is different from that of African-Americans. There have been some black females that won the Miss America Pageant, but remember: physical beauty is only one of many criteria that the judges consider. We should remember that the Miss America Pageant, and other similar “beauty contents” are not under government-control, as some people actually believe, and I have heard more than one young female say, “Miss America represents America.” The “Pageant,” is of course, a privately-owned organization that makes its own rules, and its winners represent the pageant. However, it is obvious that the Miss America Pageant bends sharply to political pressure in selecting its “winners,” and we see the influence of the globalist’s influence of “diversity” entering into their criteria for selection of winners.
To understand the Cinderella Factor, we must understand that the media certainly is not using the traditional, Anglo concept of beauty (or handsomeness) when they describe Obama as “handsome.” However, there are many other areas other than physical appearance where the media shows its bias in defending and nurturing their “Cin-derella.” The media, in tandem with the Democrat Party, had been grooming Obama as a “Cinderella Story” for a long time before the election of 2008. However, the real, fairy tale that we use as a template for “Cinderella stories” does not end when Cinderella becomes the princess of her land. She and the people of the kingdom lived happily ever after. In America’s “Cinderella story,” starring Barack Obama, it appears that someone other than the real Cinderella disguised himself and now turns out to be an impostor. It would be like re-writing the original fairy tale with a new twist, where, at the end, we reveal that Cinderella actually was one of her mean, ugly stepsisters in some kind of modern, Hollywood-type of disguise.
When finally exposed, the impact of our faux Cinderella will have much more effect than just exposing a charlatan in the White House. His influence is much more than just being the media’s poster boy and standard for a dubious, “beauty” template; his policies and his legacy will change American in a deleterious way for the rest of our “fairy tale;” that is, posterity. We will not know everything about “Cinderella” until after Obama leaves office when we finally gain access to records, especially school records, including closely-guarded theses that will tell us much about his thoughts and his concept of American and how he would like to change it. We may even see the original autobiography, for some strange reason not published, that had an editor’s introduction that said he was born in Kenya. The original was not titled, “Dreams of my Father,” but “Journeys of Blacks and Whites.”
We already know much of Obama’s philosophical outlook due to Freudian slips, when, early in his Presidency, he frequently used the Marxist phrase, “redistribution of wealth.” Truly, we have a President that is at war with capitalism and one who is nurturing national class warfare as evidenced by the radicals that surround him, and mentors, such as Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, in concert with the media that have groomed “Cinderella” to “rule” our nation “from day one.”
The coddling of Obama will go down in history as a national disgrace where the media has violated every moral code that once made our press the envy of other countries in integrity. Our present, tightly-controlled, liberal bias in the media hearkens back to the Cold War when The USSR kept tight control over its two principal news sources: TASS and Pravda. Remember, the Bolsheviks described themselves as socialist and liberals until they led Russia to a totalitarian dictatorship (and so did Hitler before he took over Germany).
Almost every published news story in our mainstream media shows Obama in a favorable light; every published photo is carefully selected to flatter him and reinforce their fantasy of him as congenial and sympathetic. They contribute their own enchanting remarks, and we the public are oriented to believe that he is “handsome,” in spite of the over-sized, protruding, cupped outer ears that have caused us to describe certain people of the white race as “homely.” In fact, the long hair of the 1960s hippie movement was said by some to hide “homely” ears. If we mention the flared nostrils, the shortly-cropped, kinky hair and the large mouth, we risk being called “racists.”
However, it is just because of the above-mentioned, physical features that cause our black population to have their own, exclusive “beauty contests” for African-Americans only, such as the Miss Black America Pageant. Whites are not eligible for entry into the “Miss Black America” contest for one obvious reason: our concept of “beauty” is different from that of African-Americans. There have been some black females that won the Miss America Pageant, but remember: physical beauty is only one of many criteria that the judges consider. We should remember that the Miss America Pageant, and other similar “beauty contents” are not under government-control, as some people actually believe, and I have heard more than one young female say, “Miss America represents America.” The “Pageant,” is of course, a privately-owned organization that makes its own rules, and its winners represent the pageant. However, it is obvious that the Miss America Pageant bends sharply to political pressure in selecting its “winners,” and we see the influence of the globalist’s influence of “diversity” entering into their criteria for selection of winners.
To understand the Cinderella Factor, we must understand that the media certainly is not using the traditional, Anglo concept of beauty (or handsomeness) when they describe Obama as “handsome.” However, there are many other areas other than physical appearance where the media shows its bias in defending and nurturing their “Cin-derella.” The media, in tandem with the Democrat Party, had been grooming Obama as a “Cinderella Story” for a long time before the election of 2008. However, the real, fairy tale that we use as a template for “Cinderella stories” does not end when Cinderella becomes the princess of her land. She and the people of the kingdom lived happily ever after. In America’s “Cinderella story,” starring Barack Obama, it appears that someone other than the real Cinderella disguised himself and now turns out to be an impostor. It would be like re-writing the original fairy tale with a new twist, where, at the end, we reveal that Cinderella actually was one of her mean, ugly stepsisters in some kind of modern, Hollywood-type of disguise.
When finally exposed, the impact of our faux Cinderella will have much more effect than just exposing a charlatan in the White House. His influence is much more than just being the media’s poster boy and standard for a dubious, “beauty” template; his policies and his legacy will change American in a deleterious way for the rest of our “fairy tale;” that is, posterity. We will not know everything about “Cinderella” until after Obama leaves office when we finally gain access to records, especially school records, including closely-guarded theses that will tell us much about his thoughts and his concept of American and how he would like to change it. We may even see the original autobiography, for some strange reason not published, that had an editor’s introduction that said he was born in Kenya. The original was not titled, “Dreams of my Father,” but “Journeys of Blacks and Whites.”
We already know much of Obama’s philosophical outlook due to Freudian slips, when, early in his Presidency, he frequently used the Marxist phrase, “redistribution of wealth.” Truly, we have a President that is at war with capitalism and one who is nurturing national class warfare as evidenced by the radicals that surround him, and mentors, such as Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, in concert with the media that have groomed “Cinderella” to “rule” our nation “from day one.”
Monday, June 18, 2012
Obama's Impeachable Offense Against the Constitution
The last President to be impeached for Usurpation of Powers was Andrew Johnson. After impeachment, Johnson was saved from conviction and imprisonment by one vote in the Senate in 1865. Bill Clinton was impeached for blatant perjury and saved from conviction by a corrupt Democrat Senate, ignoring the evidence and thus marking a downward spiral in national moral values. Clinton was a self-described “relativist” who seemed to believe that moral values have no legitimate, historical bases.
Comes now Barack Hussein Obama who has clearly committed the offense for which president Andrew Johnson was impeached: Usurpation of (Congressional) powers. Naturalization and immigration laws, come exclusively under the purview of Congressional authority pursuant to Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Obama has illegally assumed the power to grant stays of deportation, and possibly suspension of deportation, to certain classes of illegal aliens without consultation or approval by Congress. Authority to grant Suspensions and stays of deportation authority are found in Title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This Act has been in force, with minor amendments, since December 24, 1952, when Congress passed it over Democrat President Harry Truman’s veto. It is also known as the McCarran-Walter Act. The override of Truman’s veto is prima facie evidence that Congress has exclusive authority over naturalization and immigration (Title II and Title III of the McCarran-Walter Act, respectively).
Authority to grant stays of deportation is part of Title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See:
Stays of Deportation: 8 C.F.R. 241.21
Also see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/241.21
Suspension of Deportation: Title 8 United States Code 12.40.20 and 1240.21.
See: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;rgn=div5;view=text;node=8%3A1.0.2.5.19;idno=8;sid=2c360611d2b73751c04fccbc4e9d5c29;cc=ecfr#8:1.0.2.5.19.2.1.1
The Impeachment of President Johnson for Usurpation of Powers: http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/09impeachmentandacquittal/vi-37.htm
Comes now Barack Hussein Obama who has clearly committed the offense for which president Andrew Johnson was impeached: Usurpation of (Congressional) powers. Naturalization and immigration laws, come exclusively under the purview of Congressional authority pursuant to Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Obama has illegally assumed the power to grant stays of deportation, and possibly suspension of deportation, to certain classes of illegal aliens without consultation or approval by Congress. Authority to grant Suspensions and stays of deportation authority are found in Title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act. This Act has been in force, with minor amendments, since December 24, 1952, when Congress passed it over Democrat President Harry Truman’s veto. It is also known as the McCarran-Walter Act. The override of Truman’s veto is prima facie evidence that Congress has exclusive authority over naturalization and immigration (Title II and Title III of the McCarran-Walter Act, respectively).
Authority to grant stays of deportation is part of Title II of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See:
Stays of Deportation: 8 C.F.R. 241.21
Also see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/241.21
Suspension of Deportation: Title 8 United States Code 12.40.20 and 1240.21.
See: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;rgn=div5;view=text;node=8%3A1.0.2.5.19;idno=8;sid=2c360611d2b73751c04fccbc4e9d5c29;cc=ecfr#8:1.0.2.5.19.2.1.1
The Impeachment of President Johnson for Usurpation of Powers: http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/09impeachmentandacquittal/vi-37.htm
Sunday, June 17, 2012
Is Obama’s Executive Order Constitutional?
The Constitution does not mention the word “immigration,” but in Article I, Section 8, it clearly limits naturalization to Congress. Immigration is the preliminary, qualifying stage for naturalization; that is, for becoming a foreign-born citizen of the United States.
Naturalization comes under Title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. It follows Title II of that Act, which is titled “Immigration.” This Act was passed by Congress (not by executive order) on June 27, 1952. It became law on December 24, 1952 after Congress overrode a veto by then President Harry Truman. The fact that Democrat President Truman unsuccessfully tried to stop the Act from becoming law, by veto, is prima facie evidence that immigration laws fall exclusively within the purview of Congressional authority. Although there have been amendments to the Act, it is basically the same as it was in 1952 as regards the qualifications for naturalization. See the McCarran-Walter Act.
In order to become naturalized, an immigrant must first be LAWFULLY ADMITTED to the United States. This means that he/she must first comply with Title III of the Act. Among the qualifications: The applicant must complete a period of LEGAL residence (normally five years); must be proficient in English, U.S. History and not have any felony convictions.
Clearly, Obama’s executive order, granting advance clemency to aliens illegally in the United States, is an attempt to abnegate Title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Obama’s advance clemency for illegal aliens, before any charges of deportation have been filed against most of them, is clearly a step to help them circumvent our immigration and naturalization laws. Its timing says it all, as far as Obama’s motive is concerned. The Supreme Court is expected to rule as early as Monday, June 18, 2012 as to the Constitutionality of Arizona’s law regarding State enforcement of immigration laws. Joe Arpaio, Sheriff of Arizona’s most populous county, Maricopa, says that he will begin enforcement of Arizona’s law as soon as it is declared Constitutional. It is inconceivable the AZ law would be declared unconstitutional, since there is a federal law already on the books authorizing state and local law enforcement officers to arrest illegal aliens. See title 8, United States Code 1357(g), or simply 8 USC 1357(g).
Obama’s illegal clemency act for illegal aliens is obviously a measure to garner support of the so-called Latino community. His, and the Democrats’ concept of the “Latino,” lumps them all into one group. It ignores that most of them have complied with our laws and want to be able to compete for jobs in the U.S. as traditional, law-abiding citizens without being discriminated against because of their Hispanic surnames. Obama’s act will have a negative impact for law-abiding U.S. citizens with Hispanic surnames. He fallaciously assumes that radicals, who are self-appointed spokespersons for illegal aliens, speak for ALL Hispanics in the U.S., when in fact they are self-serving political activists who are seeking more political power for themselves and more government handouts and grants for their organizations.
Naturalization comes under Title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. It follows Title II of that Act, which is titled “Immigration.” This Act was passed by Congress (not by executive order) on June 27, 1952. It became law on December 24, 1952 after Congress overrode a veto by then President Harry Truman. The fact that Democrat President Truman unsuccessfully tried to stop the Act from becoming law, by veto, is prima facie evidence that immigration laws fall exclusively within the purview of Congressional authority. Although there have been amendments to the Act, it is basically the same as it was in 1952 as regards the qualifications for naturalization. See the McCarran-Walter Act.
In order to become naturalized, an immigrant must first be LAWFULLY ADMITTED to the United States. This means that he/she must first comply with Title III of the Act. Among the qualifications: The applicant must complete a period of LEGAL residence (normally five years); must be proficient in English, U.S. History and not have any felony convictions.
Clearly, Obama’s executive order, granting advance clemency to aliens illegally in the United States, is an attempt to abnegate Title III of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Obama’s advance clemency for illegal aliens, before any charges of deportation have been filed against most of them, is clearly a step to help them circumvent our immigration and naturalization laws. Its timing says it all, as far as Obama’s motive is concerned. The Supreme Court is expected to rule as early as Monday, June 18, 2012 as to the Constitutionality of Arizona’s law regarding State enforcement of immigration laws. Joe Arpaio, Sheriff of Arizona’s most populous county, Maricopa, says that he will begin enforcement of Arizona’s law as soon as it is declared Constitutional. It is inconceivable the AZ law would be declared unconstitutional, since there is a federal law already on the books authorizing state and local law enforcement officers to arrest illegal aliens. See title 8, United States Code 1357(g), or simply 8 USC 1357(g).
Obama’s illegal clemency act for illegal aliens is obviously a measure to garner support of the so-called Latino community. His, and the Democrats’ concept of the “Latino,” lumps them all into one group. It ignores that most of them have complied with our laws and want to be able to compete for jobs in the U.S. as traditional, law-abiding citizens without being discriminated against because of their Hispanic surnames. Obama’s act will have a negative impact for law-abiding U.S. citizens with Hispanic surnames. He fallaciously assumes that radicals, who are self-appointed spokespersons for illegal aliens, speak for ALL Hispanics in the U.S., when in fact they are self-serving political activists who are seeking more political power for themselves and more government handouts and grants for their organizations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)