President Asshat Promises To Keep Doing Everything He Can For Illegal Aliens

Obama: I’m Going To “Keep Doing Everything I Can” For Illegal Aliens – Weasel Zippers

.
…………

.
Imagine if he actually felt that strongly about the rights of actual American citizens…

Via Washington Examiner:

After executive amnesty was blocked in the courts and in the House the last two days, President Obama used his weekly radio address to ridicule House Republicans for blocking a vote on immigration reform, while promising that he would keep up the fight for undocumented immigrants.

“I’m going to keep doing everything I can to make our immigration system more just and more fair,” Obama said. “Last fall, I took action to provide more resources for border security; focus enforcement on the real threats to our security; modernize the legal immigration system for workers, employers and students; and bring more undocumented immigrants out of the shadows so they can get right with the law.”

“Some folks are still fighting against these actions,” Obama said, without directly naming the legal hurdles his executive actions face. “I’m going to keep fighting for them. Because the law is on our side. It’s the right thing to do. And it will make America stronger.”

Keep reading

.

.

Thanks Barack… Obama Regime Released 3,700 ‘Threat Level 1’ Criminal Immigrants Last Year

Report: DHS Released 3,700 ‘Threat Level 1’ Criminal Immigrants Last Year – Big Government

.

.
More than 3,700 “Threat Level 1” criminal immigrants were released from custody last year, according to new data obtained by Congress and revealed by The Washington Times.

A report from The Times details how data from the Department of Homeland Security, obtained by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), show that the 57 percent of criminal immigrants released last year were discretionary – or the choice of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“Put aside the spin, and the fact is that over 17,000 of the criminal aliens released last year were released due to ICE discretion, representing 57 percent of the releases,” Goodlatte told The Times. “The Obama administration’s lax enforcement policies are reckless and needlessly endanger our communities.”

Last fiscal year ICE released more than 30,500 criminal immigrants from custody. Of the discretionary releases, The Times reports, more than 3,700 represented top threats.

The Obama administration has argued that many of the releases are due to a 2001 Supreme Court case, Zadvydas v. Davis, which prohibited the prolonged detention of immigrants if their deportation was unlikely in the near future, often in circumstances in which their country will not take them back.

The Times notes that with the new data, Goodlatte argues that releases due to the Zadvydas case were just 8 percent of the overall releases or 2,500 last year and the rest were either ordered by a judge or ICE failed to obtain travel documents.

ICE explained to The Times in a statement that each case is a judgement call.

“Not all Level 1 criminal aliens are subject to mandatory detention and thus may be eligible for bond,” ICE said to The Times.

“ICE personnel making custody determinations also take into consideration humanitarian factors such as deteriorated health, advanced age, and caretaking responsibilities. All custody determinations are made on a case-by-case basis taking into consideration the totality of circumstances in each case,” It added.

And while ICE looks to alleviate concerns by pointing out it continues to monitor those criminal immigrants it releases, according to The Times, the monitoring often fails to deter criminal immigrants from violating the terms of their release.

.

.

Obama Lackeys Defend Iran Over Alleged Nuclear Violations

Obama Administration Flacks Defend Iran Over Alleged Nuclear Violations – Big Government

.

.
The White House and the State Department are pushing back with unusual vigor against a New York Times article Monday that reports that “Tehran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel increased about 20 percent over the last 18 months of negotiations.” The revelation, based on the most recent reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Institute for Science and International Security, contradicts President Barack Obama’s repeated claims to have “frozen” Iran’s progress toward a nuclear weapon. The new information also suggests that Iran is, or will be, in violation of the interim nuclear deal.

Instead of expressing concern about Iran’s behavior, State Department spokesperson Marie Harf and White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes have tried to discredit, discount and deny the Times story.

Harf unleashed a series of angry tweets on Wednesday attacking the article and its author, while Rhodes tweeted his assurance that Iran has “consistently” lived up to its end of the bargain. Both are insisting that any apparent non-compliance by Iran is either inadvertent or mistaken, and that the Iranian regime will meet its obligations to reduce its nuclear stockpile drastically by June 30.

=============================================
Ben Rhodes
@rhodes44

Richard Nephew reaffirms Iran has not violated JPOA and has consistently met its obligation to cap stockpile on time
brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/p…

4:58 PM – 3 Jun 2015

——————–————————————————————————————-

Brookings
@BrookingsInst

Why Iran’s growing uranium stockpile won’t derail a nuclear deal

Recent media reports have raised questions about whether Iran is adhering to its commitments under an interim nuclear agreement, even as Tehran and six world powers enter the final weeks of negotia..

View on web
=============================================

(The report to which Rhodes refers actually admits that the Iranian non-compliance “is an issue,” but argues, unconvincingly, that the excess material is “not a bomb’s worth,” and that “there should be some understanding for the complexity of the task on the part of the Iranians,” through Iran committed to that task knowing how difficult it might be.)

The trouble for the Obama administration is that no one believes it anymore, least of all the State Department press gallery, which chafed at Harf’s evasions on Wednesday.

There are several reasons for the administrations fading credibility. One is that the interim deal turned out to be far more lenient than even senior national security officials had been led to believe (it does not cover ballistic missiles, for example).

Another reason is that the Obama administration itself has complained to the UN about ways in which Iran has violated the spirit of the agreement or the actual letter of the agreement itself.

But the most important reason that no one believes the Obama administration is that the president has taken the military option off the table, most recently in an interview on Israeli television in which he said that there is no military solution to the problem.

Obama has demonstrated that he will do anything to preserve the façade of a nuclear deal–even though the Iranians continue to insist that they will not allow spot inspections of known nuclear facilities, much less military sites, to ensure compliance, and even though Iran continues its war against American allies and calls for “death to America” itself.

Iran would behave quite differently if it really worried about complying with the interim deal, and assuring the world that it had only peaceful intentions.

The simplest explanation for Iran’s failure to freeze its enrichment of uranium, or to convert the excess enrichment material in time, is that Iran knows it has a unique chance to build a bigger stockpile, and that Obama will not walk away.

Obama’s PR flacks cannot admit what Iran is doing, because then they would admit Obama has lied to the world. They protect Iran because in protecting Iran, they protect Obama.

Effectively, they are now tools of the Iranian regime.

.

.

IRS Commissioner Admits Illegal Aliens Can Get Back Taxes Under Obama’s Executive Amnesty

IRS Finally Admits Illegals Can Get Back Taxes Under Obama Amnesty – Washington Times

.

.
IRS Commissioner John Koskinen has confirmed to Congress that illegal immigrants granted amnesty under President Obama’s new programs could claim back refunds even when they never filed returns to pay their taxes in the first place.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, who had pressed Mr. Koskinen over the issue, released written responses Wednesday in which the commissioner admitted he’d botched the question earlier and, in fact, illegal immigrants granted the amnesty will now be able to claim refunds on tax returns they never even filed, thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit.

“To clarify my earlier comments on EITC, not only can an individual amend a prior year return to claim EITC, but an individual who did not file a prior year return may file a return and claim EITC (subject to refund limitations under section 6511 of the Internal Revenue Code),” Mr. Koskinen said.

He insisted, however, that he doubts many illegal immigrants will take advantage of the loophole because they would have to be able to prove their earnings for those years they never filed returns.

“Filers would have to reconstruct earnings and other records for years when they were not able to work on the books,” he said.

Taxpayers must have Social Security numbers in order to claim the EITC, and illegal immigrants aren’t supposed to have numbers. But Mr. Obama’s new deportation amnesty grants illegal immigrants work permits, which are then used to obtain Social Security numbers.

IRS lawyers have ruled that once illegal immigrants get numbers, they can go back and refile for up to three previous years’ taxes and claim refunds even for time they were working illegally.

The lawyers said since the EITC is a refundable credit, that’s allowed even when the illegal immigrants worked off the books and never paid taxes in the first place.

“Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code requires an SSN on the return, but a taxpayer claiming the EITC is not required to have an SSN before the close of the year for which the EITC is claimed,” Mr. Koskinen said. “At your request, the IRS has reviewed the relevant statutes and legislative history, and we believe that the 2000 Chief Counsel Advice (CCA) on this issue is correct.”

Mr. Koskinen had initially said illegal immigrants could claim refunds, but only for years they’d filed returns and presumably had paid some taxes.

Most of Mr. Obama’s amnesty is on hold after federal courts ruled he likely broke the law by acting on his own without Congress‘ approval and without putting his policy out for public review and comment.

But a 2012 policy that applies to so-called Dreamers, or young adult illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, is in effect.

Homeland Security has approved 664,607 initial applications for Dreamers, and approved another 243,872 renewals over the last year, extending the initial two-year amnesty for another two years.

.

.

President Asshat To Release 10 More Gitmo Terrorists This Month

Up To 10 More Gitmo Terrorists Released This Month – Universal Free Press

.

.
The Obama administration intends to transfer up to 10 detainees from the Guantanamo detention center to other countries this month, even while the Senate debates freezing such transfers and keeping the prison site open. These would be the first transfers since the president stopped releasing the detainees the first of January amid anger on the part of Americans and a refusal of some countries to accept any more of them.

“You’re likely to see some progress in June,” a defense official said Wednesday. “I just talked to the National Security Council and people at State Department, and we could see as many as 10 be released. While there is no definite timeframe on this it would be sooner rather than later. The administration is actively engaged with a number of countries in additional negotiations regarding the 57 that are eligible. Of the prison’s 122 detainees, 57 have been cleared for transfer to other countries by the Pentagon as part of an interagency review.

Last year, the Obama administration sped up transfers in a race to empty the detention center before the Republican-led Congress could block attempts to close it. Those transfers came to a halt in January. In April, when the Washington Post reported they might start again, and today, the official said that some June transfers are likely.

These would be the first prisoners to leave Guantanamo under new Defense Secretary Ashton Carter. Carter replaced Chuck Hagel in February following his reluctance to back the administration on the releases of the terrorists. Ultimately, Hagel transferred 44 Guantanamo detainees – more than half of those in the weeks before he stepped down in November. Still, that was ten times more than his predecessor, Leon Panetta, who transferred just four.

Obama wants to close Guantanamo, and in Carter, he has found a willing accomplice. “He has also said that he wants to take a holistic approach,” the official said. “So he wants to focus on the 57 who are cleared for transfer, but he wants to see what we’re doing with the rest of those. So he’s thinking about all 122, not just the 57.”

The source said Carter was working hard on the issue. “I think it’s fair to say he’s fully engaged in all things Guantanamo – transfers, dealing with the Senate and the House and the Hill, talking with the White House on a regular basis”. “There’s a been a lot of oversight and follow-up on the Hill, explaining why a specific transfer meets the statute; why somebody, who hypothetically is in Guantanamo because they’re not a choir boy, that threat can be substantially mitigated.”

This week, the Senate began considering the 2016 defense authorization bill, or NDAA, which over the years has become the main battleground for the fight to keep or close the prison. Both existing versions of House and Senate NDAA would extend current restrictions on transferring prisoners to facilities inside the United States, and restore stricter provisions stripped out in past years. In some cases, they would also add new obstacles, essentially blocking many of the third-party transfers. The House version would withhold 25 percent of Carter’s budget as punishment for what House Armed Services Chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, called foot-dragging on providing documents related to the five terrorists swapped for accused deserter Bowe Bergdahl.

The Senate Armed Services Committee inserted a compromise provision drawn up by Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va.: the president can close the prison if he can draw up a plan that gets Congressional approval; if not, stricter restrictions go into effect.

“This legislation contains a bipartisan compromise on how to address the challenge of the detention facility of Guantanamo Bay,” McCain said in his opening statement on the floor Wednesday. “President Obama has said from day one of his presidency that he wants to close Guantanamo, but six and a half years into his administration, the President has never provided a plan to do so.”

SASC Ranking Member Jack Reed, D-R.I., voted against the bill and spoke against it on the floor. “One problem is the familiar, oft-debated and very complicated challenge of Guantanamo,” he said. “While we have had some carefully crafted compromise language in this bill, there are other provisions that reverse progress, particularly on the overseas transfers of detainees.”

The White House has threatened to veto the NDAAs as drafted, arguing they not only move backward rather than forward on closing the facility, but that portions are unconstitutional infringements on the executive.

“The bill also continues unwarranted restrictions, and imposes onerous additional ones, regarding detainees at Guantanamo Bay,” the administration policy statement on the Senate NDAA reads, repeating the veto threat. “These provisions undermine our national security by limiting our ability to act as our military, diplomatic, and other national security professionals deem appropriate in a given case.”

.

.

Federal Court Deals Blow To President Asshat’s Executive Amnesty Scheme

Federal Appeals Court Deals Blow To President Obama’s Amnesty – Washington Times

.

.
A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against President Obama’s new deportation in a ruling Tuesday that marks the second major legal setback for an administration that had insisted its actions were legal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, which had sued to stop the amnesty, on all key points, finding that Mr. Obama’s amnesty likely broke the law governing how big policies are to be written.

“The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction,” the judges wrote in the majority opinion.

Mr. Obama had acted in November to try to grant tentative legal status and work permits to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, saying he was tired of waiting for Congress to act.

The full amnesty, known as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, or DAPA, had been scheduled to begin last week, while an earlier part had been slated to accept applications on Feb. 18. But just two days before that, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued his injunction finding that Mr. Obama had broken the law.

Administration officials had criticized that ruling, and immigrant-rights advocates had called Judge Hanen an activist bent on punishing immigrants. But Tuesday’s ruling upholds his injunction, giving some vindication to the judge.

It also could mean Mr. Obama will have to appeal to the Supreme Court if he wants to implement his amnesty before the end of his term.

In the 2-1 decision, Judge Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Elrod ruled in favor of Texas, finding that the state would suffer an injury from having to deliver services to the illegal immigrants granted legal status, and ruling that it was a major enough policy that the president should have sent it through the usual rule-making process.

“DAPA modifies substantive rights and interests – conferring lawful presence on 500,000 illegal aliens in Texas forces the state to choose between spending millions of dollars to subsidize driver’s licenses and changing its law,” the judges wrote.

Judge Stephen A. Higginson dissented from Tuesday’s ruling, saying he would have left the fight over immigration policy to the White House and Congress, saying Mr. Obama should have broad discretion to decide who gets deported and how he goes about that.

Just Higginson also said the fight was a political battle, not a legal one

“The political nature of this dispute is clear from the names on the briefs: hundreds of mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, attorneys general, governors, and state legislators – not to mention 185 members of Congress, 15 states and the District of Columbia on the one hand, and 113 members of Congress and 26 states on the other,” he wrote.

.

.

Are Obama And The Hard Left Of The Devil? (Lord Christopher Monckton)

Are Obama And The Hard Left Of The Devil? – Lord Christopher Monckton

.

.
The devil, in the traditional theology of the Christian Church, is a fallen angel: the very personification and embodiment of evil. Perhaps the most frequent of the many descriptions of the devil is that he is the father of lies.

Most references to the devil in the Bible mention deceit as his hallmark. John 8:44, for instance, describes the devil thus: “He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own, for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

One who is “of the devil,” therefore, is one who is by nature and habit deceitful, because there is no truth in him.

Now, it has become apparent that the global totalitarian hard left, led by Mr. Obama, no longer make any pretense of speaking the truth about any of its favorite political topics.

Two of these topics are currently in the news: so-called “gay” so-called “marriage,” for which the once-Christian people of Ireland have recently and shamefully voted, and so-called “catastrophic” so-called “manmade” so-called “global” so-called “warming,” about which Mr. Obama last week preached a whining, heavily touted and in every material respect deceitful commencement sermon to Coast Guard cadets.

Even the names of these two topics are lies. There is nothing in the least bit merry about homosexuality, and marriage is by definition the union of a man and a woman, not of two of one or two of the other.

Likewise, there has been no increase in the planet’s average temperature for 18 years and five months; the rate of warming since we first might have influenced it in 1950 is far from catastrophic; no one knows what fraction of it is manmade; and it is not global, for – to take one example – there has been no warming of the Antarctic continent since the satellites began measuring temperatures there in 1979.

Why does speaking the truth about political subjects such as these matter? The reason is that the lies do real harm. They kill people.

Take homosexuality. Why does the Bible say homosexuality is wrong? Because it spreads disease and death, as Romans 1:26-27 makes explicit: “… for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”

On the epidemiological evidence – evidence that is often discussed with concern even in the “gay” journals – promiscuous male homosexuality will shorten the life of its average practitioner by about the same period as smoking: at least a decade and, in some cases, two. It is not a lifestyle but a deathstyle.

You can bet the ranch on the fact that not once was the well-established and repeatedly proven link between homosexuality, morbidity and mortality mentioned in any of the Marxstream media during the apology for a debate that led to the Irish referendum.

The hard left is the first to wax lyrical about the evil tobacco corporations that tried to pretend smoking is not dangerous. Yet they are tellingly silent about the fact that the “gay” deathstyle of which they are the chief political advocates is every bit as dangerous as smoking.

The result – I speak with feeling, because it happened to one close to me – is that people who see the state giving recognition and even promotion to what was once outlawed are drawn into becoming “gay” because they are not told how dangerous homosexuality is to them.

It is our Christian duty to love homosexuals. Yet it is no less our duty to love those who, foolishly trusting in the state and the law as the arbiters of morals, are lured by them into a misery that is a sin precisely because it leads in so very many cases to disease and even to death. It is a sin not because some half-crazed desert prophet said so many thousands of years ago but – like all sins – because of the deadly harm it causes.

The law now says that smoking must not be advertised or promoted and that anyone who buys a pack of cigarettes will have to read an in-your-face warning on the packet about the disease and death that smoking causes.

Yet the left, in advocating, promoting and now legalizing “gay” “marriage,” is deceitfully concealing the truth about the medical consequences of homosexuality. So much so that when I recently and mildly suggested to an otherwise quite sane and sensible friend that homosexuality is at least as medically dangerous as smoking and that people should surely be given as fair a warning of that fact as they are of the dangers of smoking, he said: “That may be true, but no sane person would say so.”

So much more politically “correct,” perhaps, just to let them infect and kill each other. Well, like it or not, that is not the Christian way. We should warn people fairly of the danger of promiscuous homosexuality, just as we warn smokers, so that they understand what they are letting themselves in for. Then, and only then, can they make a mature, informed choice.

What, you may ask, is all this to do with “global” “warming”? Well, one of the most frequent of the lying smears of the princes of deceit on the extreme left is to compare those of us who speak out against the monstrous exaggerations and outright falsehoods of the promoters and advocates of “catastrophic” “anthropogenic” “global” “warming” with the paid shills for the tobacco corporations who, for decades, tried to suppress or belittle the evidence that smoking kills.

Which brings us to Mr. Obama’s speech to the Coast Guard Academy about the weather. Even by his remarkably low standards, it was a dreadful speech. For a start, since this is a political hot potato, it was not an appropriate subject for the commander in chief to give to any branch of the nation’s defense forces. By iron convention, real presidents don’t make partisan political speeches. Just one more item of evidence, you may well think, that Mr. Obama is not a real president, just like BO’s BS WH HI ID (about which no one has done anything yet).

Seldom have I seen so many half-truths, untruths and outright lies crammed into a single speech. For a line-by-line, lie-by-lie analysis, follow this link to my detailed analysis at Wattsupwiththat.com, the world’s most visited climate website, run by a real weatherman.

Why are the climate lies of Mr. Obama and his fellow Marxists so serious? Because the cheapest and most reliable sources of electric and of motive power are coal and oil respectively. The fuel and power price hikes that have occurred solely because of these lies are already killing people.

In Britain, around 20-30,000 more people die in the winter months than at other times of year: further proof that it is cold, not warmth, that kills. In just one recent cold winter, there were 7,000 additional excess winter deaths. The extra deaths occurred not so much because the weather was cold as because their homes were cold. They could not afford to heat them.

Imagine how many more are dying worldwide because money that might have been usefully spent on giving them fossil-fuel power is being squandered on making non-existent “global” “warming” go away.

With that background, let us address the question of whether Mr. Obama and the “gay”-promoting, catastrophist hard left are, to use St. John’s phrase, “of the devil.”

The charitable conclusion is that they are of the devil, that they are under the controlling influence of the father of lies, that they are his unwitting or unwilling mouthpieces.

For if that be not the case, Mr. Obama and others like him who utter the wicked falsehoods on the basis of which they promote such fatal abominations as “gay” “marriage” and “catastrophic” “manmade” “global” “warming” are deliberately, willfully telling lies – lies that kill.

On the evidence, they are certainly not telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So far are they from the truth, so many are the deaths their interminable and often gross lies cause, that it is surely kinder to grant them the Hitler defense – that they are not in control of themselves either because they are collectively mad or because they are individually of the devil.

.

.