What separates Americans from Proles, Groundlings and Serfs.
Mr 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:
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:
by Charlie Spiering
When asked about the report at the White House Press Briefing today, Earnest referred Breitbart News to the USCIS for comment.
A 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.
From the HuffingtonPost.com:
by Paige Lavender
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke about her views on gun control Tuesday, saying she was “disappointed” Congress did not pass a universal background checks bill after “the horrors” of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
“I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation, we cannot let a minority of people — and that’s what it is, it is a minority of people — hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people,” Clinton said during a CNN town hall.
Translation: we cannot let those who cling to God and guns to stand in the way of the various Leftist goals of a completely defenseless society subject to — well — being nothing more than Subjects. Proles. Serfs. Groundlings.
For one thing, that’s working so well for Mexico — a country controlled by a corrupt government and drug cartels armed to the teeth and willing to set your children on fire.
It’s also working so well for the civilians in Africa. Name a nation. Any nation.
And the civilians in Iraq. Working really well there. Yes?
This is a shocking statement to me, frankly. This is Hillary Clinton kicking the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights aside. Which indicates to me that she has no concept whatsoever of the purpose and reasons for the existence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in the first place. This is the most disturbing point of all.
As I wrote here back in May of 2010, the issue is that of positive vs negative rights. I said:
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
And therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various items, and so forth.
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.”
Meaning: the conscription of bank accounts, and the redistribution of wealth. Not just of the so-called “wealthy,” but of you and of me.
In other words, the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights purposely constricts the government; it seeks not to expand the role of government.
But back to the present: Hillary Clinton cannot stand that the US Constitution is not a so-called “living document” that is subject to change but upon a whim. And in her mind, your First and Second Amendments are nothing but fairy dust subject to the temper of the times, as dictated by Leftists.
And that is so incredibly frustrating to her and fellow LeftProgs.
Just clinging to our God and our guns. As the barbarians we are. We: who believe in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Plus this from TheNewAmerican.com:
by Bob Adelmann
The Troutdale, Oregon, shooting on June 10 gave both the president and the liberal media another opportunity to rehash old arguments and repeat old lies about the need for more gun control in the United States. When Jared Padgett entered a boys’ locker room at Reynolds High School on June 10, he murdered a classmate before being confronted by armed officers. Following that confrontation, Padgett took his own life.
The fact that he stole the weapons from his family home, defeating various security measures, meant that he also defeated any background check measures that were in place to prevent such a shooting from occurring.
That simple fact escaped the attention of the president who, taking advantage of the tragedy, pushed his ongoing agenda for more gun control measures.
He (Obama) then reiterated the myth that gun confiscation measures implemented nearly 20 years ago in Australia had significantly reduced such mass shootings there and that, by implication, the United States should go and do likewise:
A couple of decades ago Australia had a mass shooting similar to Columbine or Newtown, and Australia just said, “Well, that’s it. We’re not doing — we’re not seeing that again,” and basically imposed very severe, tough gun laws, and they haven’t had a mass shooting since. I mean, our levels of gun violence are off the charts. There’s no other advanced, developed country on earth that would put up with this.
But here’s the rub: statistics are statistics.
Neither the president nor Washington Post referred to the latest report from Pew Research which showed that the gun homicide rate in the United States has declined by half since 1993. Said Pew:
Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew.
The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm — assaults, robberies and sex crimes — was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993.
Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
This startling downward trend was taking place at the same time that the number of firearms, and their owners, have been increasing. In just one year, for example, the percentage of American households owning at least one firearm has increased by five percent from 2012 to 2013.
Neither the president nor the Post noted that according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, “homicides that claimed at least three lives accounted for less than 1% of all homicide deaths from 1980 to 2008.” When using four deaths per incident, as a recent Congressional Research report did, there were a total of just 547 deaths from mass shootings in the United States in the 30 years from 1983 through 2012, far less than the “one per week” quoted by the president.
And yes. When gun crime is actually down, gun crime reporting is actually up and purposely so. For obvious reasons.
Again, more truth that no one wants to have exposed — but I shall do so now and here at Bloviating Zeppelin:
As far as Australia is concerned, the president also failed the Pinocchio test by suggesting that violent crime and gun homicides had declined there since that country confiscated long guns and bought back more than 70,000 handguns following passage of the National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in 1996. In August, 2008 the University of Melbourne published the results of its study of the matter (“The Australian Firearms Buyback and Its Effect on Gun Deaths”) and concluded that “the results of these tests suggest that the NFA did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.” But it most certainly did have an effect on relegating its citizens to second-class status. As Australian member of parliament David Leyonhjelm wrote in an email to Guns.com:
The gun laws have made no difference [in] the level of homicides, up or down….
The bottom line is [that] we are suffering under draconian gun laws that treat us like criminals in waiting, with zero public benefit but substantial public cost.
If President Obama genuinely believes Australia offers a model for reducing firearm crime … he is seriously misinformed.
In my mind, Memorial Day and the Second Amendment go hand-in-hand, as does the full Bill of Rights and our US Constitution.
More and more persons, Leftists and the ignorant and the naive, want to give and bargain away our freedoms for perceived security.
They predicate their decisions, opinions and philosophies but upon emotions and not facts or reality.
One man said:
There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right.”
Who was this man?
Martin Luther King, Jr.
One man said:
Who was this man?
Sir Winston S. Churchill.
Why is this country still safe? Its Constitution and Bill of Rights. And its military soldiers.