Article I delegates all law making authority to Congress alone. Section 8 – the Enumerated Powers of Congress delegates all authority over Immigration and Naturalization rules to Congress alone as well.
So, any unilateral Executive action on immigration by Barack Obama is a blatant subversive act and an open attempt to usurp the constitutional authority of Congress. It may in fact rise to the level of an act of treason against the U.S. Constitution and the American people, as an overt breach of trust and violation of Barack Obama’s oath of office.
There is nothing in Article II of the U.S. Constitution granting the Oval Office the power to usurp, subvert or ignore the laws of the United States as established by Congress.
The Jeopardy answer is : Nothing. Doodly-squat.
The question is… what will members of Congress and the American people do about it?
In this case, Obama’s unilateral action on immigration meets the following test…
· Such an action is beyond the legal authority of the Executive Branch
· As a result, it is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution
· The act is of, by and for La Raza and millions of illegal aliens, not the American people
· As such, it is an overt act of war against the American people
· The act directly threatens both national sovereignty, security, and the rule of law
· As such, it is again, an overt act of war against the American people and national security
· Congress has placed Obama on OFFICIAL NOTICE in advance of the act
· As a result, the act will be with the prior knowledge that it is unconstitutional and illegal
Obama: “we expect people who live in this country to follow the rules” as he breaks the rules to announce a deal for rule breakers
“We’re a nation of laws” said the guy who’s stomping on the Constitutions’s separation of powers.
If someone who isn’t even a citizen can be rewarded for breaking the law why can’t I get rewarded for breaking the laws?
If he’ gonna pretend to make the law, we should pretend to obey it.
Obama should have just flipped America the middle finger for 15 minutes straight.
The rivers of tears keep flowing, but tears don’t protect against murder. Neither do peace treaties. No amount of tears from the tens of thousands mutilated, tortured, crippled, wounded, orphaned and widowed by the PLO in all its front groups, splinter groups and incarnations, including its current incarnation as a phony government, has been enough to stop Western governments from supporting, arming and funding the terrorists.
… In 1972, the year of the Munich Massacre, there were three Security Council resolutions condemning Israel. Not a single one condemning the massacre of Olympic athletes at an international event.
Tears don’t protect against murder. Bullets do.
There are no Palestinians. There are no moderate Syrian rebels. There is only Islam.
The axe that fell on the head of a Rabbi in Jerusalem was held by the same hand that beheaded Yazidi men in the new Islamic State. It is the same hand that held the steering wheel of the car that ran over two Canadian soldiers in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Quebec and the same hand that smashed a hatchet down on the skull of a rookie New York City cop in Queens all in a matter of months.
A thousand foreign policy experts are dug out, suited up and marched into studios to explain what specific set of un-Islamic Muslim grievances caused this latest beheading and how the surviving non-Muslims need to appease their future killers. And then another tree falls. And another head rolls.
It is never the Muslim terrorists who are at fault for not being appeased by any compromise and any concession. It is the fault of their victims for not appeasing them hard enough.
» Feminists Protest for Abortion at The Vatican
The pro-abortion fanatics from the activist group Femen are at it again. This time they took to St. Peter’s Square at the Vatican to make their views known and grab attention. Not only did they bare their breasts at the home of the Catholic Church, they simulated anal sex using crucifixes.
Rumor has it that the Femen’s next performance will be on the steps of the largest mosque in Sweden. That makes a lot more sense since the muslim ‘faith’ is responsible for actual oppression of women … daily …. by the thousands.
But no, there is no such rumor. I had to make that up. I had to tell a lie because these ‘feminists’ don’t care about the millions of women living under the laws of islam that don’t get to tout their ta-tas in public and don’t get to stick korans in their butts and yell nasty things about the beloved prophet moohamed (piss be upon him).
The Vatican is not going to put these hags through a gang rape, beat them to a pulp, and hang them in public. Not gonna tie them to a pole and throw rocks at them till dead. Not gonna saw their head off and drag their naked corpses through the city streets all day.
In the liberal culture, black skin privilege has created an optical illusion, persuading progressives that white-on-black attacks are commonplace events, rather than the other way around.
Racial bias is now such an integral part of America’s political culture that in 2008 black skin privilege elected a president of the United States. Absent this privilege, is the career of our 44th president conceivable? What political novice, lacking notable legislative or professional achievements, having spent his entire career on the radical fringes of American politics, and having encumbered himself with an unrepentant terrorist and a racial bigot as his close political collaborators, could even think about winning a major party presidential nomination, let alone being elected? Absent black skin privilege, what candidate with such a checkered past could go virtually un-vetted by the national press, or receive a pass from his political opponent on matters that would sink the fortunes of a candidate of any other race?
Black skin privilege guarantees not only exemptions from intellectual and political standards that others are required to meet, but from moral standards as well. What white celebrity, having shot his brother as a juvenile, dealt cocaine as an adult, and stabbed a rival business executive with a five-inch blade could count an American president among his friends and be invited to host his political fund-raisers? But rapper Jay‑Z did exactly that during Obama’s 2012 re-election run, and both he and the president could remain confident that no one would suggest it was a problem.
… It would be hard to imagine a white counterpart boasting that he had voted on the basis of skin color, characterizing non-whites as racists, and repeatedly using the word “nigger” to salt his wisdom. When this outrage was committed by black actor Samuel L. Jackson, however, nobody gave his racism a second thought. In February 2012, Jackson told Ebony magazine, “I voted for Barack because he was black. ’Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people—because they look like them…. That’s American politics, pure and simple. [Obama’s] message didn’t mean [bleep] to me. When it comes down to it, [whites] wouldn’t have elected a nigger. Because, what’s a nigger? A nigger is scary. Obama ain’t scary at all…. I hope Obama gets scary in the next four years, ’cuz he ain’t gotta worry about getting re-elected.”… This ignorant and repellent outburst (whites do vote for blacks) resulted in no consequences for Jackson; he didn’t even lose his job as spokesman for Apple’s popular iPhone
… and Capital One …
What white spiritual leader could support the torture-murders of South African blacks, compare Israel to Nazi Germany, and still be regarded as a moral icon? A black cleric like Bishop Desmond Tutu can. What racial arsonist and convicted liar, whose incitements led directly to the incineration of seven individuals, could be regarded by the national media as a civil rights spokesman, and then hired as a TV anchor by NBC? Only a black demagogue like Al Sharpton.
By threatening major corporations with racial boycotts that he alone can prevent, Jackson has been able to extort lucrative ransoms not only for the organizations he runs but for himself and his immediate family. In one celebrated case, he called off his threatened boycott of Anheuser-Busch after the company agreed to sell his sons one of its beer distributorships at a specially reduced price, making them millionaires in the bargain
… During his first presidential outing, he referred to Jews as “Hymies” and New York as “Hymietown,” indiscretions that would have ruined other politicians but only caused a hiccup in his campaign. He received 3.5 million votes during the primaries—enough to earn him a keynote speech at the 1984 Democratic convention
In a free society composed of unequal individuals, the drive to level the playing field is a totalitarian desire and a threat to freedom because it empowers government to confiscate the talents and earnings of some for the benefits of those it favors. The expansion of governmental power into every individual sphere whatever its justification entails a loss of freedom for all. Since the targets of the levelers are the creators of society’s wealth, an inevitable result of social justice is generalized poverty and economic decline.
There’s an important point being missed in the boiling Grubergate scandal. When(THHO) Obama and all his little Grubers refer to the ‘stupid Americans’ they’re not talking about you or me.
The whole thing is about having lied, obfuscated and twisted facts to get their socialist healthcare scam passed – to garner enough support from their voters to persuade the ObaGrubers congressholes to vote with them.
By 2010 it was undeniably evident that conservatives were not going to be persuaded, especially the thousands that surrounded the Capital screaming, hollering and stomping our feet in protest the day Obamacare was passed.
So when they refer to the stupid voters, they’re talking about the ones that voted for them, the ones that expressed their support for what they were trying to do.
So, technically, Gruber was right to use the term ‘stupid Americans’.
~~ Earl of Taint : Obama: “We Paid Gruber To Do Nothing”