Why are Illegal Aliens Processed to a Lower Standard than Legal Applicants?

Does Obama think Mexicans and Central Americans are inferior intellectually to the legal immigrants from rest of the World, so they need "special" treatment? m/r

USCIS Officials Reveal Feds Processed 7 Million Immigration-Related Applications in One Year - Breitbart

by TONY LEE  3 Mar 2015

… “Our current immigration system leaves us vulnerable to terrorist threats and terrorism in general by providing entry avenues for people sworn to destroy America,” Palinkas said in a Tuesday statement. “This is accomplished by lessening the vetting of each and every alien who applies for permanent residency or citizenship in the U.S.”

Palinkas added that “it is more than likely that any attack from terrorists will come from within the borders of the U.S, and it is further likely that ISIS or Al Qaeda would try to launch these attacks by obtaining a visa or working with elements already here on visas.”

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who chairs the subcommittee, pointed out that lawful immigrants who apply for visas in various countries around the world have to be personally interviewed, and that illegal immigrants who are seeking temporary amnesty are processed with “less standards” and less scrutiny than those trying to come to the United States legally. Sessions noted that Palinkas has also criticized the agency’s assembly-line adjudication process that often rubber-stamps applications.

When Renaud said that there is a “layered” process to reading and processing applications in which different officials look at different parts of the application, Sessions said that is a “dangerous” system. He said that because one official does not read the whole file, it removes the responsibility on the certifying officer because he can claim that another official “did not pick up something” in the application.

Sessions told the officials that they have been “asked to do more than is physically possible” in trying to vet all of the executive amnesty applicants for ties to gangs or other past criminal activity. …

-go to links-

Anointed Liar and Communist, much like Alger Hiss

Obama has the Left's HooDoo to protect him from evil facts and the truth. m/r

Articles: What Whittaker Chambers Tells Us about the Age of Obama

3-2-15  by  Jack Cashill

… Hiss would eventually be convicted of perjury -- the statute of limitations having expired on espionage -- and would serve nearly four years in a federal prison.

At the time, none of this was a foregone conclusion. The media and Hiss’s prominent friends continued to back Hiss despite the evidence. Chambers beautifully describes the liberal mindset, a mindset that has changed little in the sixty-plus years since.

It was, not invariably, but in general, the “best people” who were for Alger Hiss and who were prepared to go to any length to protect and defend him. It was the enlightened and the powerful, the clamorous proponents of the open mind and the common man, who snapped their minds shut in a pro-Hiss psychosis, of a kind which, in an individual patient, means the simple failure of the ability to distinguish between reality and unreality, and, in a nation, is a warning of the end.

I came across this paragraph days after the media unloaded on Giuliani for daring to say the obvious about the Harvard Law grad in the White House, namely that he does not love America, at least under any useful definition of the word “love.” When Giuliani followed up, saying, “From the time he was nine years old, he was influenced by Frank Marshall Davis, who was a communist,” he was introducing evidence to people who had long since snapped their minds shut about Obama. Most, even in the media, had likely never even heard of Davis.

Those of us who have tried to share uncomfortable truths about Obama, no matter how obvious, have experienced some of the frustration Chambers felt and likely endured at least a sliver of the abuse. Then as now, it is what Chambers called “the great body of the nation” that keeps its mind open “waiting for the returns to come in.”

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/what_whittaker_chambers_tells_us_about_the_age_of_obama.html#ixzz3TV11otwj

Obama the Fool's Mate, the Cumulative Appeaser - Kasparov: Putin Is An Enemy

There is little understanding of the "Ratio of Fear" of Putin in the US. m/r


Kasparov Putin Is An Enemy - Cavuto - YouTube

Mar 3, 2015

Kasparov Putin Is An Enemy - Cavuto

The Desperate and Irrelevant Obama - Executive Order On Taxes? - King Obama?

Executive Order On Taxes? - King Obama? - Judge Andrew Napolitano - Stuart Varney - YouTube

Mar 3, 2015

Executive Order On Taxes? - King Obama? - Judge Andrew Napolitano - Stuart Varney

Good Question: Do We Need the Money Sucking, Superfluous DHS?

The answer is self evident: NO! 

The two Bush presidents created more problems domestically than they solved in their inimical do-gooder-government-is-the-answer way. Bush 41 advocated and signed into law the "American Disabilities Act." This effort to do good has added regulations, requirements and costs into the uncounted billions with limited benefits to the handicapped that didn't already exist. 

Bush 43, in his effort to show protective action following 9/11, created the every growing, bloated, inefficient velum overlay of a massive bureaucracy that made redundant existing, inept and inefficient enforcement bureaucracies that failed to work before 9/11. The Department of Homeland Security is good at one thing: Protecting Itself. 

The President's Oath of Office needs to incorporate the phase from the Hippocratic Oath: Primum non nocere (First, Do No Harm).  Not that Presidents have paid much attention to their oath in the last century. m/r

Do We Need the DHS?

by MICHAEL TANNER March 4, 2015 4:00 AM 

We might well ask what the DHS is doing to further our national security. 


So House Republicans have accepted the inevitable and passed a clean bill funding the Department of Homeland Security. 

We always knew how this would play out. The media, congressional Democrats, and President Obama deluged us with tales of impending disaster, as if ISIS were about to wade ashore in Miami, despite the fact that, according DHS’s contingency plan, 86 percent of the department’s workers would be exempt from any furlough, including virtually all employees at key security agencies like customs and border protection, the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service. 

On the other hand, the Republicans really had no end-game. The provision defunding the president’s executive order on immigration could not pass the Senate or be signed into law, meaning that sooner or later the House Republicans had to give in. Of course, being Republicans, they had to do maximum political damage to themselves first. 

But amidst all the noise and drama, there is one additional question someone might ask: Do we really need a Department of Homeland Security in the first place? 

The creation of the DHS was a classic example of how Washington reacts to a crisis. In the wake of 9/11, the pressure was on Congress and the Bush administration to “do something,” or at least look as if they were doing something. The result was a new Cabinet-level agency that cobbled together a host of disparate agencies, ranging from the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Nearly every federal employee who wore a badge was simply swept up and dumped into the new bureaucracy. From a simple management or “span of control” perspective, lumping together so many unrelated functions is an invitation to failure. 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414782/do-we-need-dhs-michael-tanner

Why Wouldn't this Happen With Obama the Narcissist, He Cares Nothing About US, Just Himself

In the next two years he is going to be an out of control petulant, totalitarian child. m/r

Gov't Union: Obama Inviting Attack Worse Than 9/11 | The Daily Caller

Say What, Bitch?!

Proper English Grammar Is Now Racist

By Patricia L. Dickson March 3, 2015

It seems like not a day goes by without my reading about some new absurdity. I ran across an article written by some left-wing lunatic who purports to be an English teacher and who is part of what she calls the “social justice movement”. She writes for a blog called Everyday Feminist. She claims that demanding that everyone speak proper English grammar is “grammar snobbery” and is oppressive and racist. Why is it oppressive and racist? Because the dictionary was written by a white supremacist, heteropatriarchal system:

“As educated (and - okay - snarky) activists, we’re quick to respond to “According to the dictionary” arguments with “Who wrote the dictionary, though?”

“We understand that a reference guide created by a white supremacist, heteropatriarchal system does nothing but uphold that status quo.”
“Similarly, we have to use that line of thinking when talking about the English language: Who created the rules? And who benefits from them?”

The author, Melissa A. Fabello, introduced two schools of thought on what she calls successful communication: prescriptive and descriptive grammar. Prescriptive grammar is the true, honest pure language that is correct and acceptable (oppressive grammar). Descriptive grammar is however a language is being used to communicate effectively is correct because that is the basic purpose of language (to communicate). She contends that the ability and desire to speak proper English grammar comes down to privilege:

“As per usual, what this comes down to is an issue of privilege (of course!). In fact, grammar snobbery comes down to an intersection of multiple privileges.”

The multiple privileges are Educational Privilege, Class Privilege, Race Privilege, Native Language Privilege, and Ability Privilege. Her discussion of race privilege is what struck me as condescending.  She claims that it is racist to demand that black Americans speak proper English Grammar because the use of “standard” English is considered a white attribute and is a form of Identity Erasure. 

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/03/proper_english_grammar_is_now_racist_.html#ixzz3TP5hxY2d
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

Jew Hating Never Goes Away - Bill de-Nye, the denial guy

▶ Gutfeld Bill Nye, the denial guy - YouTube

Feb 26, 2015

Gutfeld: Bill Nye, the denial guy| Latest News Videos | Fox ...
Video for Gutfeld Bill Nye, the denial guy▶
video.foxnews.com/v/.../gutfeld-bill-nye­-the-denial-gu...
12 hours ago
'The Science Guy' scoffs at threat to European Jews.
Gutfeld Slams Bill Nye 'The Denial Guy' for Comments on ...
insider.foxnews.com/.../gutfeld-slams-bi­ll-nye-denial-guy-his-comments-...

"Progressive" Jew-Hating, Racist, Black Caucus Members Boycott Netanyahu's Speech

At Least 18 Black Caucus Members Boycotting Netanyahu's Speech

Herr Comrade Obama, doing away with checks and balances!

"I have the legal authority to take as president"

No You Do Not you worthless usurper! Obama cites no precedents, legal or otherwise, because there are none, except that he is a small minded, mean poltroon.  m/r


Articles: Is it okay for Obama to Ignore the Constitution?

By Warren Beatty  3-3-15

Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama thinks it's permissible to rewrite federal statutes, like immigration laws and ObamaCare's employer mandate and signup deadlines. Example: Regarding laws governing U.S. immigration policy, when Obama signed the executive amnesty order barring prosecution (and subsequent deportation) of something like 4 million illegal immigrants, he said "I just took an action to change the law." He was never concerned that his action was illegal. He just saw 4 million Democrat voters.

Obama's rationale for unilaterally changing the immigration law: the fact that Congress was hopelessly gridlocked on immigration issues and wouldn't pass laws he favored, the intolerable legal limbo that illegal aliens found themselves in, and that a crisis existed that demanded that he act, that he sign an executive order.  The fact that the aliens were (by current law) illegal never was a consideration for him. It was just crucially important that he immediately act unilaterally. So he did.

About his action, Obama said:

There are actions I have the legal authority to take as president -- the same kinds of actions taken by Democratic and Republican presidents before me -- that will help make our immigration system more fair and more just. [emphasis mine]

What we've done is we've expanded my authorities under executive action and prosecutorial discretion as far as we can legally under the existing statute, the existing law. 

Notice that Obama cited no specific precedents, legal or otherwise. He just said he had the authority. And he tried to make his actions sound legitimate by saying that Republican presidents took similar actions. And he said that "we've expanded my authorities."  

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/is_it_okay_for_obama_to_ignore_the_constitution.html#ixzz3TOr6g8UA
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook