Mr Obama: “fundamentally transforming the United States of America”

US and MEXICO Border DelineatorMr Obola (not unlike many in Islam who wish to convert us or kill us) told citizens precisely what he was going to do upon his election: “we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

And transform he has.  Charles Krauthammer illustrates but a few of the topics run-roughshod by Obama’s Executive abuse:

Make no mistake, Mr Obola is in the process of this action.

Obama makes no bones about saying he’ll unilaterally enable national amnesty for Mexicans:

Feds Getting Ready for Executive Action on Immigration

by Suzanne Gamboa

(Leon) Rodríguez’s agency (USCIS) will be front and center once President Barack Obama announces the executive action he’ll take on immigration. Obama said he would take executive action after the elections but before the end of the year.

“We’re going to be ready,” Rodríguez said. “Our agency will be shouldering the primary responsibility for executing whatever it is.”

Rodríguez declined to elaborate when he was asked by a reporter to give more details on what types of preparations he is making.  

Indeed; what kinds of preparations?  How about these types of preparations:

White House Punts on USCIS Request for ‘Surge’ of Immigration ID’s

by Charlie Spiering

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest declined to address a Breitbart News report about a “surge” of immigration ID’s requested by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

When asked about the report at the White House Press Briefing today, Earnest referred Breitbart News to the USCIS for comment.

draft solicitation for bids issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Oct. 6 says potential vendors must be capable of handling a “surge” scenario of nine million id cards in one year “to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements.”

I’m sure you can do the mathematical political forecasting on that one.  As in: Imperial Obola Edict = get thy shit in gear.

The Washington Times already indicates Mr Obola is ready to open the proverbial illegal immigrant floodgates despite the concurrent problems of terrorism, Ebola and lesser-but-still-important diseases recently brought into this country (and previously eradicated with much effort) by illegal children:

EDITORIAL: Green cards on the table
President Obama lets slip his scheme for a permanent majority

by THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The White House intended to remain silent about its plans for immigration. Revealing a scheme to open the floodgates of amnesty would be disastrous on the eve of the critical midterm elections. But this is the gang that can’t shoot straight.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services on Friday threw open the door to as many as 100,000 Haitians, who will now move into the United States without a visa. Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, rightly and accurately denounced enabling Haitians awaiting a U.S. visa to enter the country and legally apply for work permits as “an irresponsible overreach of the executive branch’s authority.”

That was just the beginning. The immigration agency earlier this month had solicited a printer able to handle a “surge” of 9 million green cards “to support possible future immigration-reform initiative requirements.” In an ordinary year, about 1 million green cards are issued, and over the life of this contract the company is expected to produce up to 34 million cards, a figure representing an increase of the population of the United States by 10 percent.

The cards do not come with automatic voter registration, but that’s obviously what the scheme portends. President Obama’s promised “executive actions” to bring about this enormous wave of amnesty constitute a transparent and cynical ploy to expand the Democratic voter base, creating a permanent majority.

For those of you who just tuned in, let me open the door to the Department of Redundancy Dept:

“President Obama’s promised ‘executive actions’ to bring about this enormous wave of amnesty constitute a transparent and cynical ploy to expand the Democratic voter base, creating a permanent majority.”

A “permanent majority.”

So where did honesty and fairness and equality go, pray tell, Lefitsts?

Ah yes, that’s correct; it never existed.

The Washington Times pointedly continues:

In economic terms, importing millions of unskilled workers creates competition for the diminishing number of available jobs. Combine a flooded job market with the Democratic proposals for a doubling of the minimum wage to $15 an hour, and millions more American citizens will be without a job. Those who do have jobs will pay to provide federal freebies, from Obamaphones to Obamacare, to the formerly illegal aliens now with a green card.

As the recent influx of minor children over the southern border demonstrates, word of amnesty on the way travels fast. Handing green cards to those who cheated the system and entered the country illegally creates an incentive to millions more to follow in their path, collecting as many benefits as possible along the way. It’s a disaster in the making — indeed already here — for public health and national security, straining the welfare state to its limit.

This also brooks the question: what about the rest of America?  What if some various groups of Americans decide they will obey some specific and chosen laws and not others?  There will be precedent now, you see.

Most Americans want no part of this. A Gallup survey finds that 74 percent of Americans want the level of immigration to stay where it is, or reduce it. Mr. Obama has no support for his amnesty scheme except from those who want to transform America into a nation that no one would recognize. Voters can get to work on stopping the transformation on Nov. 4.

Further, since the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, Congress has passed seven amnesties:

1. Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), 1986: A blanket amnesty for over 2.7 million illegal aliens

2. Section 245(i) Amnesty, 1994: A temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens

3. Section 245(i) Extension Amnesty, 1997: An extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994

4. Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty, 1997: An amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America

5. Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA), 1998: An amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti

6. Late Amnesty, 2000: An amnesty for some illegal aliens who claim they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty, an estimated 400,000 illegal aliens

7. LIFE Act Amnesty, 2000: A reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty, an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens

But now?  Millions and millions of Mexicans.  Others will squeeze through too.  You know; people who belong to ISIS and al Qaeda and various and sundry marginalized groups who simply need more understanding and sympathy.

With that, apparently we require another amnesty?  The prior seven were somehow insufficient?

Mr Obola makes it clear that his fundamental transformation disincludes you, if you happen to be Caucasoid.  Parenthesis: you evil aged racists and sexists, no matter your age.  And your hated spawn.  End of parenthesis.

Yes.  Fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

BZ

 

Pushback pushes Marxist Houston Mayor Annise Parker BACK?

Mayor Annise Parker, HoustonI wrote about the situation originally here, where Mayor Parker wanted to remove the free speech of religious organs in Houston.  Please read the post first.

That said, Thursday, from WashingtonTimes.com:

Bully pulpit: Houston subpoenas pastors’ sermons, then backs off amidst outcry

Pastors had slammed demand from Mayor Annise Parker, city, as a threat to religious freedom

by Valerie Richardson

After calling church sermons for subpoena, Mayor Annise Parker backed down Wednesday from the city’s effort to force local pastors to turn over speeches and papers related to a hotly contested transgender rights ordinance.

The city had asked five pastors for “all speeches, presentations, or sermons” on a variety of topics, including the mayor, and “gender identity.”

The subpoena prompted a storm of criticism when it became public Tuesday. The pastors are involved in legal efforts to overturn the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, also known as the “bathroom bill.”

First Amendment FlagWait.  Is it just me?  Is this writer attempting to gloss over the fact that the mayor was attempting to set her Stasi Rottweilers upon those persons with which she simply disagrees?  In one word: yes.

Closely examine how the headline and sub-headline are written.  Any slant there you see?

However, Ms. Parker, a self-declared lesbian, defended the subpoenas after she was aware of them, according to her Wednesday afternoon statement.

In a post on her Twitter feed late Tuesday, around midnight, Parker said that issuing subpoenas for sermons was appropriate if the pastors had been active in promoting the signature-gathering effort to overturn the ordinance.

Frankly, nothing more than a naked abuse of power writ large.

Ms. Parker’s office initially doubled down in the face of such criticism but issued a statement late Wednesday saying the mayor “agrees with those who are concerned about the city legal department’s subpoenas for pastors’ sermons.”

But all is not won; in fact, public opinion isn’t having the effect many would like.

The statement says the city will “move to narrow the scope during an upcoming court hearing” and that city and that City Attorney David Feldman “says the focus should be only on communications related to the petitions to overturn the ordinance.”

Translated: there will still be a focus on the abrogation of the First Amendment in Houston proper.  We will still go for e-mails and other forms of communications.

Mark this now.  For a state that allegedly declares itself uninfluenced and independent and self-reliant and worthy of a lone star flag, Tejas proves itself more aligned with Fornicalia than many other states.

The five pastors targeted by the subpoenas are Hernan Castano, Magda Hermida, Khan Huynh, Steve Riggle and David Welch, all of whom opposed the ordinance.

Mr. Welch, executive director of the Texas Pastors Council, said city officials appear to be interested in “demonizing” the pastors by finding something politically incorrect in the stacks of sermons, emails, presentation notes and other communications requested under the subpoenas.

Tolerant LeftistsA story in flux and transition.  And not yet entirely solved in favor of logic or even the founding documents of our great nation.

Marxist Lesbian Mayor Annise Parker ain’t done yet.

Not until she grinds religion under her heel.

BZ

 

Leftists in America: suppressing Free Speech and Christian beliefs in Houston, TX

Brown Shirts MarchingJust when you were wondering: “how much worse can the attack on the First Amendment get?” — it gets worse.

From FoxNews.com:

City of Houston demands pastors turn over sermons

by Todd Starnes

The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.

Read that again and begin to fully and truly digest its meaning.

Annise D. Parker is a Stalinist mayor in America.  This is the re-creation of the Stasi and Brown Shirts all over again within the borders of the United States of America.

The subpoenas are just the latest twist in an ongoing saga over the Houston’s new non-discrimination ordinance. The law, among other things, would allow men to use the ladies room and vice versa.  The city council approved the law in June.

The Houston Chronicle reported opponents of the ordinance launched a petition drive that generated more than 50,000 signatures – far more than the 17,269 needed to put a referendum on the ballot.

However, the city threw out the petition in August over alleged irregularities.

After opponents of the bathroom bill filed a lawsuit the city’s attorneys responded by issuing the subpoenas against the pastors.

But here’s the Crux of the Biscuit:

The pastors were not part of the lawsuit. However, they were part of a coalition of some 400 Houston-area churches that opposed the ordinance. The churches represent a number of faith groups – from Southern Baptist to non-denominational.

Therefore, you can chalk the subpoenas up to nothing more than retribution.  And jackbooted authoritarianism.

The lawsuit and subpoenas were designed to intimidate, quash and chill the free speech of pastors and base religious freedoms themselves.

Mayor Parker will not explain why she wants to inspect the sermons. I contacted City Hall for a comment and received a terse reply from the mayor’s director of communications.

“We don’t comment on litigation,” said Janice Evans.

However, ADF attorney Stanley suspects the mayor wants to publicly shame the ministers. He said he anticipates they will hold up their sermons for public scrutiny. In other words – the city is rummaging for evidence to “out” the pastors as anti-gay bigots.

Pages ripped from the playbooks of both Saul Alinsky’s “Rules For Radicals” as well as Stalin and Marx:

Among those slapped with a subpoena is Steve Riggle, the senior pastor of Grace Community Church. He was ordered to produce all speeches and sermons related to Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuality and gender identity.

The mega-church pastor was also ordered to hand over “all communications with members of your congregation” regarding the non-discrimination law.

“This is an attempt to chill pastors from speaking to the cultural issues of the day,” Riggle told me. “The mayor would like to silence our voice. She’s a bully.”

No kidding.  The response:

David Welch, director of the Houston Area Pastor Council, also received a subpoena. He said he will not be intimidated by the mayor.

“We’re not afraid of this bully,” he said. “We’re not intimidated at all.”

He accused the city of violating the law with the subpoenas and vowed to stand firm in the faith.

“We are not going to yield our First Amendment rights,” Welch told me. ‘This is absolutely a complete abuse of authority.”

Tony Perkins, the head of the Family Research Council, said pastors around the nation should rally around the Houston ministers.

“The state is breaching the wall of separation between church and state,” Perkins told me. ‘Pastors need to step forward and challenge this across the country. I’d like to see literally thousands of pastors after they read this story begin to challenge government authorities – to dare them to come into their churches and demand their sermons.”

Pastor Welch said: “We can no longer remain silent. We must stand together – because one day – the government might come for your pastor.”

This, of course, reminds me of the classic quote from another pastor named Martin Niemoller:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Final question: do you think this would have occurred with regard to Islamic sermons in America?  Do you think Islam “loves” gays?

I know my answers.

BZ

 

Last day to weigh in on “Net Neutrality” — i.e., government-controlled communications

Laptop ExplodingToday is the last day the FCC will allow you to express your opinion on so-called “net neutrality.”  You can go to the FCC website here.

A nice phrase, except that “net neutrality” isn’t.  Neutral, that is.

It is a ways and a means for the government to control and regulate something that doesn’t require controlling and regulating — all it requires is what it currently has: a free market.

When “net neutrality” exists, two things primarily occur: 1) rates go up and 2) innovation plummets.

The bulk of Western Europe has a version of NN and those precise things have occurred: rate hikes and a lack of entrepreneurship and cutting-edge technology.  Not to mention general overall lower internet connectivity speeds.

For the obvious reason that, in order to get anything accomplished, a new idea or upgrade has to be proposed to an entirely new and large bureaucracy that will do its best to sit on and table said idea or upgrade, simply to exhibit its power and “prove” its worth.

Public utilities are regulated because everyone needs water and power.  Those things aren’t merely “suggestions.”  They are mandatory for survival.  The internet, however, is not “mandatory” for survival.  It’s a “nice” thing to have but you won’t die due to its removal from your life.

So-called “net neutrality” is a specious solution for a problem that doesn’t even exist.  It gets our government into an area where it doesn’t belong.  And I go back to some of my foundational Libertarian bents here, which occasionally get the best of me:

When the government, any government, intrudes into the primary source of communications today — the internet — it can shut you down when you proffer speech that IT doesn’t care for.  Which is what Socialist and Communist countries do, and nations run by dictators.

Signing off on “net neutrality” will not only allow the government to have its hands upon the spigot, but will allow it to silence you and potentially prosecute you as well.  For speech that it does not approve — on the Left or on the Right.

Leftists in the government are already working to revamp the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights but, specifically, the First and Second Amendments.  Facts in evidence.

Note to self: continue to look around.

BZ

P.S.

What does Free Speech protect?  It assures the worst of speech; it assures the most challenging of speech.  It does not exist for milktoast speech.  It embraces truth and emotion and change and shocking speech.  Sometimes older speech can be the most shocking, the most challenging, and the most warranted.

 

Harry Reid wants to REMOVE our First Amendment from the Bill of Rights

Harry Reid LG

Harry Reid = short eyes.

I never thought I’d see this in my lifetime.

I never envisioned having to actually write about the topic.

I never thought that there would be even one American politician that would want, in any way, to reduce Our American Freedoms.

Until now.  Until today.

Someone in American politics actually wants to amend the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights.  The actual United States of America Bill of Rights.

Which states, beautifully and succinctly:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

I don’t suspect that there could be a more plain directive than that.

Who is the person who wishes to amend such a simple and beautiful foundational precept?

Demorat Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

In my opinion, the Wall Street Journal nails the problem and the issue:

Harry Reid Rewrites the First Amendment

When politicians seek to restrict speech, they are invariably trying to protect their own incumbency.

by Theodore B. Olson

Liberals often deplore efforts to amend the Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights and especially when the outcome would narrow individual liberties. Well, now we know they don’t really mean it.

Forty-six Senate Democrats have concluded that the First Amendment is an impediment to re-election that a little tinkering can cure.

Yes.  Tinkering can cure that aged and so-“yesterday’s news” tragic document.

Because, after all, the US Constitution and its concomitant Bill of Rights need to be “living documents.”  Read: documents that need to be changed when it is convenient to the purpose and agenda of Leftists.

They are proposing a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and state legislatures the authority to regulate the degree to which citizens can devote their resources to advocating the election or defeat of candidates. Voters, whatever their political views, should rise up against politicians who want to dilute the Bill of Rights to perpetuate their tenure in office.

And oh yes, oh they should.  And that rising up should include black powder and brass and torches and pitchforks.

Led by Majority Leader Harry Reid, these Senate Democrats claim that they are merely interested in good government to “restore democracy to the American people” by reducing the amount of money in politics. Do not believe it. When politicians seek to restrict political speech, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.

And let us examine, fundamentally, the foundational precepts of the Constitution and what it protects and what it doesn’t.

This scheme is doomed to fail when it comes to a vote in the Senate, perhaps as soon as Monday. The Constitution’s Framers had the wisdom to make amending the Constitution difficult, and Mr. Reid’s gambit won’t survive a filibuster. But Senate Democrats know their proposal is a loser. They merely want another excuse to rail against “money in politics” and Supreme Court justices they don’t like.

But there’s a point here.  What’s the point?

The rhetoric of these would-be constitutional reformers is focused on two Supreme Court decisions: Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014). In Citizens United, the court struck down a law prohibiting unions and corporations from using their resources to speak for or against a candidate within a certain time period before an election.

In other words, money can find itself supporting what it will, and — with teeth-gritting enamel flecks populating the various keyboards of Leftists — corporations are still considered as “people.”

The Obama administration conceded during oral argument that the law would permit the government to ban the publication of political books or pamphlets. Pamphlets and books ignited the revolution that created this country and the Bill of Rights. In pushing to overturn the court’s decision, Mr. Reid and his Democratic colleagues apparently wish they had the power to stop books, pamphlets—as well as broadcasting—that threaten their hold on their government jobs. 

Ban the publication of books and pamphlets.  That translates, these days, to BANNING MY BLOG and blogs of a like mind.

Under this proposal, I would have to face jail if I continued writing.

Let me quote a so-called “lion” of the Demorat Left:

“In the entire history of the Constitution,” the late Ted Kennedy once stated on the Senate floor, “we have never amended the Bill of Rights, and now is not the time to start. It would be wrong to carve an exception in the First Amendment. Campaign finance reform is a serious problem, but it does not require that we twist the meaning of the Constitution.”

One important notation: Saturday Night Live, look out.

You’d best not poke fun ever again.

And let me quite plainly make — as I wrote earlier — the argument regarding Positive vs Negative Rights.

Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures.

It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment.

By our current Constitution, it does NOT “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.

Let me make this abundantly clear: “RIGHTS THAT PLACE UPON THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM.”

The First Amendment should NEVER be touched.  EVER.

Have I made myself sufficiently plain?

BZ