30 Aug

Obama’s War on America Continues [Reader Post]

                                       

You really have to wonder if destroying this country is Barack Obama’s intent. His war on America continues.

Violence at the Mexican border is becoming horrible.

Mexico has seen unprecedented gang violence since President Felipe Calderon stepped up the fight against drug trafficking when he took office in December 2006, deploying thousands of troops and federal police to cartel strongholds.

In 2008, a war began between the Juarez and Sinaloa drug cartels. Since then, more than 28,000 people have been killed in violence tied to Mexico’s drug war.

In our backyard

Dona Ana County with about 53 miles of international boundary is one of three New Mexican counties that borders Mexico.

While Obama takes a “what me worry?” attitude towards this issue, he persecutes those who would uphold the law. Obama has joined a foreign nation in suing Arizona.

Obama calls out Arizona in a report to the UN Human Rights Commission.

Joe Arpaio, a stalwart defender of the border of the United States, finds himself under federal investigation.

Arrests of illegals is way down.

But under President Obama, the numbers of arrests and deportations of illegals taken into custody at work sites plummeted by more than 80 percent from the last year of the Bush administration. In the current fiscal year 2010, which ends Sept. 30, ICE has arrested 900 workers.


Backdoor amnesty looms

Outlining ways in which the government can provide “relief” to illegal immigrants, the memo suggests delaying deportation for some (perhaps even indefinitely) or granting green cards to others. A spokesman for the agency told the Associated Press that this document shouldn’t be “equated with official action or policy,” and represented only “deliberation and exchange of ideas.” But that’s a hard sell: This memo has all the hallmarks of the administration’s refusal to pursue its policy agenda in an open and democratic way.

As noted here at FA, Obama knowingly killed off 23,000 jobs in the Gulf. This action has made the United States even more dependent on foreign oil, not less.

Obama can’t wait to make our electricity rates “skyrocket” with his Crap and Trade plans.

Obama’s Pentagon granted MOVE waivers so states can ignore the votes of those in military service.

I have written previously here at PJM that all waiver requests should be denied. Unfortunately, if you are an overseas servicemember from Delaware, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, or Washington, the protections in the MOVE Act aren’t going to apply to you this year. And if you are from one of the states who still aren’t in compliance with MOVE — like Colorado, Wisconsin, or Alaska — don’t be surprised if you get scant help from Attorney General Eric Holder.

It’s really difficult to find anything that Obama has done that has been good for this country.

And just wait until he raids your 401K to fund union pensions.

About DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education. DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed. Except for liberals being foolish.
This entry was posted in Anti-Americanism, Anti-military, Barack Obama, Economy, Law Enforcement, Obama Euphoric-Rapture Syndrome, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Monday, August 30th, 2010 at 8:13 am
| 705 views

57 Responses to Obama’s War on America Continues [Reader Post]

  1. johngalt says: 1

    @DrJohn

    And just wait until he raids your 401K to fund union pensions.

    I am not a violent person, although I enjoy violent movies and UFC fights. If that particular statement ever comes to pass, the time and money I devote to building my own personal arsenal for my protection will be staggering.

    Doing a little research on this topic left me dumbfounded, and angry, that anyone could even suggest this as a viable option.

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/will-obama-seize-americans-401k-and-ira-funds.html

    http://imkane.wordpress.com/2010/02/04/is-obama-planning-to-seize-private-pension-plans-to-finance-deficit/

    http://www.businessweek.com/investor/content/jan2010/pi2010018_130737.htm

    I’m not sure how much traction this plan has right now, as most of what I’ve seen is from earlier this year, but I plan to remain as vigilant on this issue as I am on others.

    ReplyReply
  2. drjohn says: 2

    Oh yeah:

    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/08/kellogg-school-of-business-prepare-for.html

    65% underfunded. And that money has to come from somewhere.

    ReplyReply
  3. Sponge says: 3

    Worst.President.Ever.

    :roll:

    ReplyReply
  4. Old Trooper 2 says: 4

    Let’s Follow Our Allies’ Immigration Enforcement Policies

    http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/08/27/lets-follow-our-allies-immigration-enforcement-policies/

    posted at 11:51 am on August 27, 2010 by Howard Portnoy
    printer-friendly

    When it comes to most matters, liberals believe the U.S. should behave more like its European allies. They are eager to point to England’s single-payer health care system as the model we should emulate, never mind that that country’s National Health Service has been such an appalling failure that in July leaders there announced plans to decentralize health care.

    The only area where liberals here are at odds with our neighbors across the pond is in immigration enforcement. Our Democrat majority-controlled Congress and administration both adamantly refuse to secure our southern border, even as violence along it on the Mexico side heats up. Perhaps this is one occasion where we could genuinely benefit by following our allies’ lead.

    Again take the case of England. Since 2008, people seeking citizenship legally have been required to show a “demonstration of commitment,” which includes passing a test for English proficiency and providing proof of assimilation into communities. Here the thought of requiring immigrants to learn English is viewed as abject racism.

    France makes no bones either about enforcing its borders. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has on several occasions met with South African Parliament members to ask for their help in curbing immigration from Africa. Sarkozy has stated that 65 percent of the 200,000 foreign nationals that take residence in France every year come from Africa, which he unabashedly notes has put a strain on the nation’s economic resources.

    We of course are no strangers to the financial burdens imposed each year by illegals helping themselves to “free” taxpayer-funded services. These include $28.6 billion for education, $3.2 billion for health care, and — saving the best for last — $376 million to incarcerate illegals who have committed felonies or misdemeanors. Yet make mention of any of this to liberals and the charges of nativism come flying.

    Maybe the country whose immigration policies we would be wisest to copy is Japan. Foreigners entering the country must agree to be fingerprinted and photographed. The reason given by the government? To fight terrorism, plain and simple. Anyone who refuses is denied access into the country.

    Finally, let’s not forget our venerable neighbor to the south, which is the source of our immigration problem. Let’s not forget either that this country’s president, Felipe Calderon, had the effrontery to criticize the Arizona immigration enforcement law while standing on American soil. Then again, he was in Congress when he made these inflammatory comments and received a standing ovation from Democratic members of that august body.

    So what kind of immigration policy does Mexico enforce? One that includes jail time for anyone entering the country illegally. Mexico also reserves the right to deport any foreigner who is deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violates Mexican law, is not “physically or mentally healthy,” and lacks the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. Sounds pretty racist to me.

    Just one issue but significant.

    ReplyReply
  5. Romeo13 says: 5

    The FIRST thing we need to do is get rid of Dual Citizenship. You should either be a US citizen, or somthing else… but should not be both.

    Mexico actualy sends abscentee ballots to those living in America… who are “dual” citizens… and as long as you still own property in Mexico? You can pay Mexican income taxes instead of US… get Social security, then move back to Mexico.

    Add in the Dual Citizens from Islamic countries, who have questionable loyalty?

    The Supreme Court is the one who decided Dual Citizenship was OK, but it could be fixed through LAW if Congress would do somthing about it…

    ReplyReply
  6. Greg says: 6

    If Governor Brewer is primarily concerned with protecting citizens of Arizona, perhaps she shouldn’t be diverting the limited manpower and resources of Arizona police to an activity that’s actually the responsibilty of the federal government.

    If Arizona police act agressively on a public menace’s illegal immigration status, well and good. That’s another legal tool they can use to get a dangerous criminal off the streets.

    If they’re mandated to devote time, energy, and resources to the matter of screening, detaining, and processing people for their immigration status alone, however, it’s that much less time, energy, and resources being focused specifically on the investigation of dangerous criminals.

    Brewer is apparently more concerned with using illegal immigration as a political wedge issue than with making the most effective use of law enforcement personnel under her authority to protect the people of Arizona.

    Why are arrests and deportations of illegals taken into custody at work sites way down? Consider the current state of the economy. The number of jobs for which employers were illegally hiring are also way down.

    So is Arizona’s tax base. You would think this would be a time when a governor would want to make the most effective possible use of law enforcement to perform their most essential public service tasks–not burden them with an expensive, time-consuming diversion.

    Arizona cops already knew what their real job was, and when it was and wasn’t effective to use a tool they already had at their disposal.

    ReplyReply
  7. Patvann says: 7

    Dangit..

    I hate when I read a comment reeking of idiocy. I just felt 5 IQ points drop away.

    ReplyReply
  8. Romeo13 says: 8

    @Greg 6

    So, they are here illegaly… and its a FELONY to knowingly harbor an Illegal Immigrant… but its your propostition that they are not breaking the law?

    If you don’t LIKE the law, then get it changes… but ignoring the Law or not enforcing the Law… is a direct assault on our identity as a Republic.

    You know, that Republic.. which we all pledge alliegence to?

    ReplyReply
  9. Greg says: 9

    @ Romeo13, #8:

    I didn’t say they weren’t breaking the law. What I’m suggesting is that it might be better for the people of Arizona if limited time and resources were focused on illegal immigrants who pose a danger to the public, rather than arresting, detaining, and processing illegal immigrants who come to police attention because they’re J walking. I’ve got a feeling most Arizona cops might agree.

    This is just one more example of partisan political posturing getting in the way of what’s actually in the best interests of the people.

    ReplyReply
  10. minuteman 26 says: 10

    The goal of all Marxists is to destroy this country. Can there be any doubt that Obama and his regime are trying to do just that?

    ReplyReply
  11. Romeo13 says: 11

    @Greg 9

    And thus not following the FEDERAL law?

    Not to mention paying for their schooling, and healthcare (via emergency rooms), and all the other public sector resources they use?

    You say its a Federal Problem, yet the STATE has to bear the burden of cost.

    As to whether the STATE is willing to use those resources for this? Seems that the Arizona citizens have spoken, and SUPPORT this law… its just folks like you who wish to don’t seem to want the Law enforced.

    It seems YOU are the partisan… YOU are the one who does not want the LAW enforced, for some political reason.

    Since when did it become a Political statement, to say its a good thing to enforce the LAW?

    ReplyReply
  12. Old Trooper 2 says: 12

    @ Greg…

    Now, what part of Illegal do you Not comprehend?

    When the Pretender in Chief bears full responsibility for that enforcement but his DOJ has failed to do that task? What Federal Law should I ignore today?

    When a Governor must defend His/Her Citizens and State Borders because the Morons whose Duty to enforce the Law are not up to that task or want to make a political statement to attract votes and create extra-legal voters from those who are here illegally?

    H. L. Mencken was 100% right on this one…

    As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

    Apparently You side with the Morons on this issue.

    Read the Laws before you pontificate further:

    http://www.nvo.com/beaulier/usimmigrationlaws/

    I applaud Governor Brewer for doing something that Fed.Gov refuses to do and side with her 100% on this issue.

    ReplyReply
  13. OLDPUPPYMAX says: 13

    Why in the world would you have to WONDER if Hussein is deliberately trying to destroy the nation?

    ReplyReply
  14. GREG: hi, DO you think the criminals have a tatoo on their forehead?,
    OF course you’r right in the officer to arrest them, easyer than done, because they dont have the tatoo, so the officers have to find them in a crowd of illegal which are criminal by their actions of invading the country with the okay from the president and all the government agreement and their devoted MEDIAS
    SHE is admired by all citizens.

    ReplyReply
  15. Old Trooper 2 says: 15

    @ ilovebeeswarzone:

    Only Fidel Castro and the Old KGB tattooed their criminals.

    As proven by the Mariel Boatlift:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariel_boatlift

    http://russianmafiatattoos.com/russian-mafia-in-america/

    ReplyReply
  16. savage24 says: 16

    Obama’s war against the American people is going better then his non-existent war on terrorism. I read that in Terrell County Texas, the Border Patrol only has $90 worth of gas a day to patrol the area. That is for more then a dozen vehicles. I’ll bet that the Obama family ate more in lobster tails a day while on vacation then that. All I can say is “thanks ” to the “useful idiots” for this stain on the American way of life.

    ReplyReply
  17. Greg says: 17

    @ post #12:

    “When the Pretender in Chief bears full responsibility for that enforcement but his DOJ has failed to do that task? What Federal Law should I ignore today?”

    I don’t see that the Obama administration has been any less diligent concerning immigration law enforcement than the administration that immediately preceded it. As a matter of fact, the overall rate of deportation of illegal aliens has thusfar been 10% higher under the Obama administration than it was under that of George W. Bush, and for the current year is running 25% higher than it was during 2007.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790_pf.html

    Governor Brewer’s partisan political ploy has had nothing whatsoever to do with that, and only serves to gum up the workings of improved federal efforts by overloading it. As far as I’m concerned, if Brewer wants to overstep the constitutional jurisdiction of immigration policy enforcement by rounding up illegals as a “gift” to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Obama administration, she can keep them, house them, and feed them on the Arizona taxpayers’ dime. Arizona is already running a $3.2 billion deficit for 2010.

    ReplyReply
  18. GREG: IT’S a federal responsability, SO ARIZONA can send thoses illegals back to WASHINGTON
    FAIR ENOUGH?. HASSEL for HASSEL. REMEMBER when she ask the FEDERAL to do what they are require to do?.

    ReplyReply
  19. OLD TROOPER 2: I was just saying how difficult it must be to separate the bandits from the illegals, because they dont have a tatoo. I did not mean to tatoo them,
    although that could help the officers but they wont do it. thank you for the 2 interesting links
    bye

    ReplyReply
  20. Tom in CA says: 20

    Off the subject, but love the Drudge Report comparison photo of Greg, oops, I mean Obama and Putin.

    ReplyReply
  21. I just read on my GOOGLE side bar” MARKET COLLAPSE on 8/31/10.
    THAT’S tomorrow, scary.

    ReplyReply
  22. Dr.D says: 22

    “You really have to wonder if destroying this country is Barack Obama’s intent.”

    Why ever in the world would you have to wonder? It is plain as the nose on your face that this is his intent. He just can’t get there fast enough!

    ReplyReply
  23. DR.D: hi, YOU know, it remind me of previous post about them SEEking to promote THE WORLD ORDER: I have read a couple of names that are in the GOVERNMENT now which are” BERNANKEY and GEITNER THERE was others that the name slip my mind, but the fact that they actualy are within the operations of the GOVERNMENT and looking at what the downfall we are seeing,
    IT’s weird strangely come into mind. bye

    ReplyReply
  24. DID you read, 2 muslims on a flight from CHICAGO arrested in AMSTERDAM for preparation of terrorist attack

    ReplyReply
  25. johngalt says: 25

    @Greg

    Governor Brewer’s partisan political ploy has had nothing whatsoever to do with that, and only serves to gum up the workings of improved federal efforts by overloading it. As far as I’m concerned, if Brewer wants to overstep the constitutional jurisdiction of immigration policy enforcement by rounding up illegals as a “gift” to federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Obama administration, she can keep them, house them, and feed them on the Arizona taxpayers’ dime. Arizona is already running a $3.2 billion deficit for 2010.

    Get off of the dead horse already. I cannot believe you think Gov. Brewer is using partisan, political ploys, and that Obama is the rational one here. I suppose you believe then that since 55% or so of Americans support her state’s law, that you think 55% of America is acting partisan as well? Or, since over half of the states are considering similar laws, that those states are acting partisan as well?

    Do you live in AZ? Or any other border state? Have you dealt personally with the violence, or the overloading of school and hospital services? The AZ legislature passed a bill, and the Governor signed it into law based on curbing all of that and more, and you, Mr. Self-Righteous, question her motives? The only partisan hacks seen politically during this whole episode has been that of the federal government. Read the damn law, genius! Then tell me how the law steps on the toes of federal responsibility.

    ReplyReply
  26. Greg says: 26

    @ johngalt, post #25:

    I’ve read the Arizona law. Perhaps you might read the article linked in Post #17.

    Under Obama, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is on target to process and deport 400,000 illegal aliens this year. How many has the Governor of Arizona deported?

    I.C.E. prioritizes people for deportation, with those having criminal records going first. There’s a system. There are limited federal funds involved, budgeted to operate that system.

    The Governor of Arizona seems to think that she should be able to round up and hold undocumented aliens according to her own state’s criteria–that now being the mere fact of their undocumented status–and have an agency of the federal government that is not under her legal authority obligingly deport them for her–not at the expense of Arizona, but at the expense of all American taxpayers. Gov. Brewer evidently assumes I’ll have no problem with my tax dollars being used to pay the federal costs of her state’s immigration enforcement policy.

    That assumption is incorrect.

    ReplyReply
  27. johngalt says: 27

    @Greg

    You have misstated the purpose of the law in AZ. The goal is not to “round up and hold undocumented aliens according to her own state’s criteria”. It is to identify illegal aliens living in her state and report them and transport them to ICE or the Border Patrol. Quite a big difference in those. And, what’s more, genius, the law specifically states that undocumented aliens are identified as per Federal Immigration Code, every time it talks about the detention of suspected illegal aliens.

    The law, which you obviously have not read, does not change, in any way, the legal, federal definition of an illegal alien. So, that being said, she does not assume that you who live in a different state, will have to pay your tax dollars for her own state’s immigration policy. She assumes that transference and deportation of the illegal aliens, identified per federal law, is the purview of ICE and/or Border Patrol, and that her law enforcement agencies in-state, are directed to help identify those illegal aliens who pass through, or reside, in the state of Arizona.

    There is not even any talk of demands of deportation in the law, just the transport of arrested illegal aliens from local or state, to federal custody.

    No, you haven’t read the law, despite your claims to the contrary. You made a claim of Gov. Brewer signing and defending the law for purely partisan politics, yet you fail to provide any support for that statement. My questions about you and Arizona itself are meant to imply that unless you live there, you cannot hope to comprehend the extent of the border violations and their impact on the society locally and state-wide. Yet, you make an offhand judgment on the law, and the Governor herself based not on intelligent, rational thought, but something that sounds like it came from HuffPo or DailyKos.

    You can claim you’ve read the law all you want, but when you continue to make claims about it such as “her state’s immigration enforcement policy”, or “her own state’s criteria”, it shows that you have not read it. It is as plain and simple a written document as I’ve seen in a law, and is hardly a difficult document to understand.

    ReplyReply
  28. Smorgasbord says: 28

    Joe Arpaio has a $1,000,000 bounty on his head from the Mexican drug dealers. He will be sued by King Obama. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place!

    http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/obama-justice-department-after-sheriff-joe-arpaio/

    During Obama’s campaigning to be the democratic runner for the presidency he said he wanted a civilian police force as strong as the military and equally funded. Right then I knew he wanted to be king, but you can’t be king in a republic, so he has to tear down the republic so he can build his kingdom and be crowned. Look at it this way and EVERYTHING he does makes sense.

    Curt, I am guessing you know that Obama has already been talking about taking over the 401K money and only giving you 3% interest on it. I am glad I am retired and don’t have to worry about that part of Obama’s kingdom.

    http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2009/03/19/is-obama-going-to-nationalize-401k-plans/

    ReplyReply
  29. Smorgasbord says: 29

    @Greg: #17 Greg,
    I have a simple question for you. Do you want the police to arrest a burglar BEFORE they break into your house or wait until AFTER they break in?

    ReplyReply
  30. dscott says: 30

    In 2008, a war began between the Juarez and Sinaloa drug cartels. Since then, more than 28,000 people have been killed in violence tied to Mexico�s drug war.

    For what reason did these two drug cartels start a war amongst themselves? Has there been any discussion on this point?

    IMO, the start of this drug war between the cartels in 2008 seems to coincide with the dive in our economy in 2008 or am I conflating this linkage? It seems to me that the cartels are fighting not over the Mexican government’s attempt to secure their country but that the government is merely a incompetent bystander to an economic war for market share. In this view the cartels are fighting over a diminishing market in the US. Their response to a drop in US consumption is either to lower the price of illegal drugs or kill off the competition to keep up their profits. If this is true, border enforcement has little to do with the problems in Mexico even though they use illegals as drug mules.

    Can anyone confirm whether the consumption of illegal drugs like cocaine and heroin and (imported) marijuana have dropped?

    ReplyReply
  31. Missy says: 31

    @Greg:

    . As a matter of fact, the overall rate of deportation of illegal aliens has thusfar been 10% higher under the Obama administration than it was under that of George W. Bush, and for the current year is running 25% higher than it was during 2007.

    Not. Washington Post article debunked:

    Apparently John Morton, the head of ICE who was interviewed for the article, does not often visit his agency’s website. Neither does the article’s author, reporter Peter Slevin. (email him)

    But we did. And after clicking on “FY2007-FY2010 Removal Statistics”, the problem with these assertions became stark:

    Mr. Rubenstein offers a graph at site and lots and lots of sources.

    (a) From same period of the prior FY. Data source: ICE Removals 2007-2010 Excel Spreadsheet

    In FY2008—George W. Bush’s last full fiscal year—deportations rose a whopping 26.8% from the prior year. But growth slowed to 5.6% in FY2009, the last eight months of which were on Obama’s watch.

    And now the rate of deportations in has actually turned negative. As things stand now, Fiscal 2010, which started on October 1, 2009 and is Obama’s first full year, is on course to be the first since FY2002 in which deportations will have declined.

    And it’s very hard to see how Morton’s blithe estimate of “about 400,000” deportations can be reached.

    In six of the first nine months of FY2010, deportations have declined from the corresponding month of the prior year. The largest decline—16%—occurred in May.

    As of this writing the ICE website provides deportation numbers through July 22, 2010. Prorating the 22 days of July you get a full month total of 19,200 deportations, which is 45% below the 34,819 deportations recorded in July 2009.

    There is a lot of seasonal noise in deportation activity. Deportations seem to spike in summer months and sink in the winter. This is why it is useful to compare monthly deportation activity over the course of a year with that of the same month in the prior year.

    One graphic is worth many thousands of words:

    Heh, “inherited.”

    Mr. Morton credits Obama’s “rational” immigration policy for this, adding: “You’ve got to have aggressive enforcement against criminal offenders. You have to have a secure border. You have to have some integrity in the system.”

    Reality check: most of the rise in criminal deportations is attributable to the “Secure Communities” program, a Bush initiative inherited by Mr. Obama. While ICE takes full credit for expanding the program, the real impetus comes from state and local governments. They are sick and tired of footing the bill for holding illegal aliens in their lock ups.

    State and local governments…..Gov. Jan and Sheriff Joe immediately come to mind. 8)

    More:

    http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/100809_nd.htm

    Hmmm, what have we here?

    ICE’s Mission Melt: Agents Vote ‘No Confidence’ in Leadership
    By Janice Kephart, August 4, 2010

    In an unprecedented move within the Department of Homeland Security, the detention and removal officers and agents responsible for and sworn to enforcing our nation’s immigration laws issued an exhaustive, scathing letter simply titled “VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN ICE DIRECTOR JOHN MORTON AND ODPP ASSISTANT DIRECTOR PHYLLIS COVEN” on June 11, 2010. The letter, acquired through sources, provides a litany of examples of how ICE’s mission is being skewed towards supporting an unflinching goal of amnesty by refusing to allow agents to do their job; allowing criminal aliens to roam free;depleting resources for key enforcement initiatives that preceded this administration; and misrepresenting facts and programs, demeaning the extent of the criminal alien problem and geared to support amnesty.
    ~~~~

    On June 11, 2010, the National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council and its constituent local representatives from around the nation, acting on behalf of approximately 7,000 ICE officers and employees from the ICE Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), cast a unanimous “Vote of No Confidence” in the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Morton, and the Assistant Director of the ICE Office of Detention Policy and Planning, (ODPP), Phyllis Coven.

    http://www.cis.org/kephart/ICE-mission-melt-1

    “exhaustive, scathing letter”

    http://www.cis.org/articles/2010/259-259-vote-no-confidence.pdf

    New Immigration Policy to Halt Some Illegal Immigrant Deportations

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/27/new-immigration-policy-halt-illegal-immigrant-deportations/

    Yeah, that Obama Administration is quite a crew.

    BTW, did you hear the one about NOT trying the Cole bombing mastermind? Pulled off the docket due to the upcoming election….politics. 10 years the families have waited for justice, Obama personally promised them they would have it at a special meeting they were invited to in the OO. Under the bus they go.

    ReplyReply
  32. Missy says: 32

    I have no idea what happened to the block quote function in my post #31.

    ReplyReply
  33. MISSY: hi, IT’S not me, I did’nt take it; BUT maybe GREG took it, or SMORGASBOARD,
    OR CURT, OR AYE CHIHUAHUA: bye

    ReplyReply
  34. Smorgasbord says: 34

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #33 I wouldn’t know a “block quote function” if I saw one. I searched my Mac Help menu and I don’t have one listed on my iMac. Should I have one installed? Do they even make one for a Mac?

    ReplyReply
  35. suek says: 35

    Here’s my article for Greg:

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/542394/201008021857/Backdoor-Amnesty.aspx

    Smorg…I’m not big on the HTML either…and maybe the comment section appears different on your computer than mine but…

    In my screen (I use Firefox), there are 7 small boxes immediately above the comment section in which you put your comment. The first is b (bold), the second is italics, the third is a strike through, then link, then b-quote – which, I assume, is the block quote code. I don’t use them, but I think that’s what you’d use if you’re not familiar with HTML code. My guess is that you highlight the material you want affected, then click on the appropriate little box.

    Obviously my computer skills are somewhat lacking in sophistication, but that’s my contribution…!

    ReplyReply
  36. Smorgasbord says: 36

    #35 I was just having fun with Bees’ comment #33. I still can’t get past the idea that my processor does all that it does without any moving parts. If I don’t have any moving parts, I don’t get anything done. I too use Firefox.

    I usually write my comments in another program then copy-and-paste it into the comment window. I have accidentally deleted what I wrote in the comment window several times somehow, so I write it someplace else first. I have the same boxes.

    ReplyReply
  37. SMORGASBOARD: hi, WHEN I read your 34, I said to me, GEEZ I dont understand that what you say, SO what can I ANSWER, to look less stupid, and than I saw your next one on 36,
    AND I said to me OUF,I’ m okay,
    bye

    ReplyReply
  38. Smorgasbord says: 38

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #37 Sorry about the confusion. I forgot about your different way of talking up there and having to figure out our way of saying some things. I should have put a “Ha Ha” at the end so everyone would know I’m just having a little fun like you did. Ha Ha.

    ReplyReply
  39. SMORGASBORD: yes I should have put AH AH with MISSY,THAT I was just KIDDING with her, BUT SHE catch very quickly, after those comments she can mustard here at FA; FOR myself I dont miss a chance on humor, to cover up my ingnorance with a group of BRAINS we have here,
    I love to be here, and I love to protect them in my humble way. bye

    ReplyReply
  40. Greg says: 40

    @ johngalt, #27:

    “The law, which you obviously have not read, does not change, in any way, the legal, federal definition of an illegal alien. So, that being said, she does not assume that you who live in a different state, will have to pay your tax dollars for her own state’s immigration policy.”

    As I said, I’ve read Arizona SB 1070. The fact that it doesn’t change the definition of an illegal alien isn’t the relevant point. The relevant point is that it deliberately establishes a state law enforcement policy that could profoundly affect the efficient workings of a federal agency actually having constitutional authority over the matter.

    @ Missy, #31:

    “One graphic is worth many thousands of words.”

    Yep. And one bogus chart , not carefully analyzed, results in a totally misleading impression. I presume you’re referring to Mr. Rubenstein’s graphic entitled “Deportations, October 2007-June 2010″, which appears on his website here:

    http://vdare.com/rubenstein/100809_nd.htm

    The first indication of deliberate misdirection that I noted with the chart was the subtitle: (percent change from the same month of the prior year; ICE data).

    “Percent of change” for selected pairs of months diverts attention from the only comparison that actually matters with regard to the question of more or less: The total counts for the entire periods being compared. The percent of change calculated by comparing the same 2 months from different years tells you nothing. An increase from 1 deportation last June to 4 deportations this June would be a 400% increase; an increase from 3,000 deportations last July to 4,000 deportations this July would be only a 25% increase. Obviously the smaller percentage of increase actually represents a far better month. Thinking otherwise makes no sense, but that’s the sort of fractured logic of percentages that Rubenstein’s chart is selling.

    On top of that illogic, all percentages of change that the chart shows as “Bush months” represent Bush compared with himself. Since the chart deals in percentages of change rather than totals, the big upward spikes for some months may simply reflect a very low total for the same month one year prior. In which case, the bar for the corresponding “Obama month” one year later is being compared with something that wasn’t particularly meaningful to begin with.

    I.C.E. has posted the actual monthly numbers and totals here:

    http://www.ice.gov/doclib/dro/removals2007-2010.pdf

    There are no “helpful” graphs or charts involved to spin what the numbers mean. The numbers and totals are prefectly capable of speaking for themselves.

    ReplyReply
  41. Smorgasbord says: 41

    @ilovebeeswarzone: #39 I knew you were joking. I was too, but didn’t do it right for a French speaking Canadian. I hope to bring my IQ level up high enough some day that it will be on the left side of the decimal point. Ha Ha.

    ReplyReply
  42. SMORGASBORD: it was me who did not figure it, not you, I think your IQ is high enough,matching the group OF fa BRAINS, and more of. bye

    ReplyReply
  43. MISSY: IT WAS GREG, NOW he’s returning it to you; GREG admit it ,it was you who took MISSY”s BLOG QUOTE.

    ReplyReply
  44. Smorgasbord says: 44

    @ilovebeeswarzone: Anyone who spends a reasonable amount of time on FA is “Smarter than the average bear” when they leave, even if they didn’t want to be.

    ReplyReply
  45. SMORGASBORD: yes very true; THE AUTHORS give us challenging POSTS,
    SO we all bite big chunk of it, but it’s discussions are very polite, I find unless you get the
    visit of the libtards who try to disrupt the group with their attacks and phony DIATRIBES.
    I always wanted to use that last word somewhere, bye.

    ReplyReply
  46. johngalt says: 46

    @Greg

    As I said, I’ve read Arizona SB 1070. The fact that it doesn’t change the definition of an illegal alien isn’t the relevant point. The relevant point is that it deliberately establishes a state law enforcement policy that could profoundly affect the efficient workings of a federal agency actually having constitutional authority over the matter.

    That whole statement is a cop-out from what you originally posted. And, what is more, the policy enacted by the law allows the state or local law enforcement agencies to do that which Feds have asked for from local law enforcement agencies prior to the law. The only thing that the law did was to allow, per state law, the ability of a law enforcement officer to request proof of citizenship, from suspected illegals, only after having been arrested or stopped for any violation of law.

    May I remind you of:

    according to her own state’s criteria

    Post #26

    And now it’s:

    The fact that it doesn’t change the definition of an illegal alien isn’t the relevant point

    Post #40

    How do you expect us to have a debate on the subject when you continually change your argument, and what you are arguing about, based on being proven wrong on the issue? I still contend that you haven’t read the bill. It is simple, plain language, easy enough for my high schooler to understand, yet you make up things about it that aren’t in the bill.

    ReplyReply
  47. Patvann says: 47

    @Smorg

    If you want to “blockquote” a section of text (even with your Mac), do the following:

    At the very beginning of your chosen text, type the following with no spaces, (and horizontal, not vertical.)

    At the very end, type (again with no spaces):

    I’ve typed it vertically so that you can see what I’ve typed without the HTML code activating.

    For bolding, a similar thing is done:

    at the beginning of what you want bolded:

    And at the end:

    For italics:


    and:

    ReplyReply
  48. Old Trooper 2 says: 48

    Greg is hopeless. An Obama Lobotomy patient. Responding to his postings is like a date with
    my Ex Wife.

    Repetition of talking points without a scent or hint of logic.

    ReplyReply
  49. Greg says: 49

    @ johngalt, #46:

    “The only thing that the law did was to allow, per state law, the ability of a law enforcement officer to request proof of citizenship, from suspected illegals, only after having been arrested or stopped for any violation of law.”

    The way I read it, “any lawful contact” could initiate a sequence of events potentially leading to the contactee being turned over to federal authorities for deportation. Police are instructed to determine the the contactee’s legal status if any suspicion exists that he or she is undocumented. If the contactee is undocumented, he or she can be convicted of breaking the state trespassing law that’s included in section 13-1509, based on mere presence in the state. If convicted of breaking a state or local law, you’re to be turned over to the feds for deportation after paying your fine or serving your sentence. Any routine contact with Arizona police could ultimately result in arrest and deportation.

    “It is simple, plain language, easy enough for my high schooler to understand, yet you make up things about it that aren’t in the bill.”

    It is plain and simple language, which I understand perfectly well. I’m also able to understand how the pieces fit together, and the unstated implications.

    ReplyReply
  50. Curt says: 50

    @Missy: Missy, it was a missing / on the closing blockquote tag….I fixed it for you.

    For all discussing the html formatting, the coding of the new site is in the works with a new redesigned comment section wrapped around Intense Debate so the commenting should be easier. Should be going live in the next month or so.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>