http://conservativetribune.com/obama-letter-threat-sheriffs/

that is what this is

read the whole thing, it's not that long

How long will this continue?

you people voted for him

http://conservativetribune.com/obama-letter-threat-sheriffs/

that is what this is

read the whole thing, it's not that long

How long will this continue?

you people voted for him

This stuff is great. I've noticed that an alarming number of postings from conservative tabloid sites all lead with some form of

BOMBSHELL!!!

Yet never actually report on anything substantial or rarely even cite credible references.

The first link refers it's based on another report that doesn't say anything different.

So all this hype is over a local sheriff's Facebook post???

Really???

How about the innocent Americans killed by illegal aliens convicts?
Is that hype?
That is his doing, if they were not here, they would not murder Americans

Impeach him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spencer Golvach

Google it

The American tea party
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he reminds me of a snake oil salesman like on Josey wales.

This stuff is great. I've noticed that an alarming number of postings from conservative tabloid sites all lead with some form of

BOMBSHELL!!!

Yet never actually report on anything substantial or rarely even cite credible references.

The first link refers it's based on another report that doesn't say anything different.

So all this hype is over a local sheriff's Facebook post???

Really???

Hey Spence: Here is the letter from the DHS.GOV site:

http://www.dhs.gov/news/2015/02/03/statement-secretary-jeh-c-johnson-consequences-our-homeland-security-grant-making

Statement by Secretary Jeh C. Johnson on the Consequences of our Homeland Security Grant-Making without a DHS Appropriations Bill

Release Date:
February 3, 2015


For Immediate Release
DHS Press Office
Contact: 202-282-8010
In recent days I have repeatedly stressed the need for a DHS appropriations bill for FY 2015, unburdened by politically charged amendments that attempt to defund our executive actions on immigration reform. The President has made plain that he will veto a bill that includes such language.
As long as this Department -- which interfaces with the public more than any other -- is funded by a continuing resolution, there are a whole series of activities vital to homeland security and public safety that cannot be undertaken.
One of the many consequences of operating on a continuing resolution is our inability to fund new non-disaster grants to state, local and tribal governments, law enforcement, emergency response officials and fire departments. Every governor, mayor, police chief, county sheriff, emergency manager and fire chief should care about this. These officials know that the grants we provide help them protect their communities. For example, last week when I visited the multi-agency coordinating center in Phoenix responsible for the security of the Super Bowl, officials pointed out to me that almost all the surveillance and communications equipment there was funded by the Department of Homeland Security.
Here are some other examples of the types of state, local and tribal government activities vital to homeland security and public safety that are funded by grants from this Department:


salaries for state and local emergency managers in all 50 states, U.S. territories and the District of Columbia;
new communications equipment for over 80 public safety agencies in the Los Angeles area to replace aging and incompatible radio systems;
surveillance cameras and environmental sensors used by the New York City Police Department to detect in real time potential terrorist activity;
increased security for the MTA, PATH trains and tunnels in the New York City area;
improved campus security at K-12 public schools, colleges and universities in the state of Florida;
K-9 units to detect explosive ordinance in the state of Massachusetts;
upgraded oxygen masks and tanks for over 30 firefighter and law enforcement agencies in the Denver metropolitan area;
the Arizona Counterterrorism Fusion Center, which provides intelligence and information from this Department to state and local law enforcement there;
fifteen mobile command centers for possible catastrophic incidents in the state of Kentucky;
150 firefighter jobs in the city of Detroit; and
bomb squads in the state of Idaho.

On behalf of the men and women of this Department who work every day to keep the homeland safe, I urge that Congress pass an appropriations bill for this Department, free of politically charged amendments to defund our executive actions. Time is running short.
For more information, visit www.dhs.gov (http://www.dhs.gov/).
###



Review Date:
February 3, 2015





So DHS is pressuring end usergroups to support the DHS budget in its entirety while the House of Reps reviews how to put the budget through without funding the executive actions done on behalf of illegal aliens (constitutional term) by Obama. Does that sum it up sufficiently for you? The Right Wing Bombshell site of DHS.GOV?

How about the innocent Americans killed by illegal aliens convicts?
Is that hype?
That is his doing, if they were not here, they would not murder Americans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
What exactly is the administration "threatening" the local police with and how does this have any bearing on the Golvach killing?

What's the BOMBSHELL!!!!

it's a pattern with him
cause and effect
He wants to give amnesty and the public suffers, seems f'ed up to me so I say f him impeach him now

bombshell ? follow the evidence
John gave you a good example, did you see that?
strong arm politics Chicago style threatening local enforcement with budget cuts to get his way. seems pretty simple to me, your brain cannot see it though apparently.

I didn't know the Tea party site was a tabloid
most of the entire whack job Democrats are tabloid

http://conservativetribune.com/kelly-white-house/

watch the whole video

So DHS is pressuring end usergroups to support the DHS budget in its entirety while the House of Reps reviews how to put the budget through without funding the executive actions done on behalf of illegal aliens (constitutional term) by Obama. Does that sum it up sufficiently for you? The Right Wing Bombshell site of DHS.GOV?
The article linked stated...

BOMBSHELL: Obama Sends Letter Issuing Massive Threat to Sheriffs Across the Country

The DHS memo pretty calmly states to Congress that if they want to play politics with DHS funding it's going to have a direct impact on the people doing the work within their districts.

This isn't a "massive threat" and it's not a BOMBSHELL!!!

Bruce - don't backstep so fast when Spence lays out his response - sometimes he is correct, more often he is not, frequently falling into the space between.



I didn't know the Tea party site was a tabloid
most of the entire whack job Democrats are tabloid

BTW - what Tea Party site is Tabloid? or http://conservativetribune.com/

What Spence doesn't say is that MANY different Political sites can be considered Tabloid, he only says the Tea Party ones are Tabloid. He also meglects to mention that these sites - on both sides of the coin, like the political parties, like to cater to their base.

Bias is only bad if it is the other guys, right?

The article linked stated...



The DHS memo pretty calmly states to Congress that if they want to play politics with DHS funding it's going to have a direct impact on the people doing the work within their districts.

This isn't a "massive threat" and it's not a BOMBSHELL!!!


OMG, OMG, OMG, the used "BOMBSHELL" and then a colon to link to an article which references a true statement made by the DHS. Clearly they are evil and sensationalizing that topic because they used bombshell.

Did the post it in oversized font and in red?

What Spence doesn't say is that MANY different Political sites can be considered Tabloid, he only says the Tea Party ones are Tabloid. He also meglects to mention that these sites - on both sides of the coin, like the political parties, like to cater to their base.

Bias is only bad if it is the other guys, right?
I was responding to the link as posted, not making a broader analysis. My guess would be that there's nothing on the left that compares to the tabloid hype machine on the right.

Years from now when it's too late Dinesh D'Souza will say I TOLD YOU SO !
2 pretty powerful documentaries he made
Obama's America 2012 & America, Imagine the world without her, say everything about this communist POS !

I was responding to the link as posted, not making a broader analysis. My guess would be that there's nothing on the left that compares to the tabloid hype machine on the right.

"MY guess", Just another one of those favorite Spence's terms he uses when he can't document a statement. :hihi:

"MY guess", Just another one of those favorite Spence's terms he uses when he can't document a statement. :hihi:
I see, so my opinions need foot notes?

Now that's a BOMBSHELL!!!

and asterisks

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/02/07/another-american-dead-because-of-obamas-reckless-amnesty-policy/

you're either with us or against us

the Constitution is supreme and should be followed not tossed aside

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/02/07/another-american-dead-because-of-obamas-reckless-amnesty-policy/

you're either with us or against us

the Constitution is supreme and should be followed not tossed aside


It's pretty obvious Spence hates this country and the constitution
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.tpnn.com/2015/02/07/another-american-dead-because-of-obamas-reckless-amnesty-policy/

you're either with us or against us

the Constitution is supreme and should be followed not tossed aside
Tragic, but what does the Constitution have to do with it?

Also to your link, what about Obama's policy constitutes "amnesty" and what about it contributed to this death?

Woa, this seals the deal for me.

http://conservativetribune.com/did-obama-admit-hes-muslim/

maybe before he leaves office he will introduce an exsecutive order make shariah law the law of the land...that will be his gift to the country.

"MY guess", Just another one of those favorite Spence's terms he uses when he can't document a statement. :hihi:


Now I see why you chose to use My Guess rather than opinion as Guess is a judgment based on Special Knowledge given by an Expert. :D :buds:

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c66/ravenob1/AF1.png

It's pretty obvious Spence hates this country and the constitution
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Obviously.

maybe before he leaves office he will introduce an exsecutive order make shariah law the law of the land...that will be his gift to the country.
This is highly likely, almost inevitable when you think about it.

I was responding to the link as posted, not making a broader analysis. My guess would be that there's nothing on the left that compares to the tabloid hype machine on the right.

Ahhh, here is what you posted, I will bold it out though so you can see your broad brush ;)

"I've noticed that an alarming number of postings from conservative tabloid sites all lead with some form of

BOMBSHELL!!!"

. My guess would be that there's nothing on the left that compares to the tabloid hype machine on the right.

I'm sur ethat would be your guess, and as usual, it woul dbe demonstrably false.

Obama himself says that "republicans gotta stop just hating all the time".

If y ouwatch MSNBC for any meaningful amount of time, you will hear that conservatives are racists who hate women, are Islamophobic, anti-science, and only care about the rich and hate the environment, poor people, and old people, evidenced by our stated miussion to destroy social security and medicare. Nope, no sensationalkizing there...

It's so common on the left, you don't notice it any more than a fish takes notice of teh fact that it's wet. It becomes the norm.

Clearlt it exists on the right but don't tell me that MSNBC and the Huffiungton Post aren't right up there. The New York Times, for Gods sake, ran a baseless story suggesting that John McCain's adopted daughter, was actually the child produced by an affair he had.

It would be interesting to compare the number and content of negatives aimed at Bush from the left 10 ago vs the ones leveled at Obama currently.
Especially who lied the most between the two of them.

It would be interesting to compare the number and content of negatives aimed at Bush from the left 10 ago vs the ones leveled at Obama currently.
Especially who lied the most between the two of them.
10X

It would be interesting to compare the number and content of negatives aimed at Bush from the left 10 ago vs the ones leveled at Obama currently.
Especially who lied the most between the two of them.

10 years ago!! Just compare the number of negatives that Obama has said about Bush alone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It would be interesting to compare the number and content of negatives aimed at Bush from the left 10 ago vs the ones leveled at Obama currently.
Especially who lied the most between the two of them.

I agree it would be interesting. I don't think it would be close. The far left yelled at Pres. Bush but the mainstream right has joined the far right to hurl insults at Pres Obama.

What % of right tried taking his God and country away from him by lying about his religion and where he was born? A large % still believe that.

I agree it would be interesting. I don't think it would be close. The far left yelled at Pres. Bush but the mainstream right has joined the far right to hurl insults at Pres Obama.

What % of right tried taking his God and country away from him by lying about his religion and where he was born? A large % still believe that.

"I don't think it would be close." Me either, and I'd bet the other way...

"The far left yelled at Pres. Bush "

Do you remember the 2004 and 2006 elections? It was brutal, he was called a war criminal. Harry Reid called him a loser. All a metter of perception, I guess.

"What % of right tried taking his God and country away from him by lying about his religion and where he was born?"

I bet the % of conservatives who genuinely believed he was a Muslim, is a lot lower than you'd guess. Hell, I wish he was a Muslim, as that is a lot easier to understand than how anyone, and I mean anyone, could listen to Rev Wright for 20 years and have no issues with any of it, until it became a political necessity. I'd rather have a Muslim president than a President whoi is a disciple of something called "black liberation theology".

"A large % still believe that"

I don't know if that's true. But I bet a large % of liberals believe that Bush/Cheney got us into the Iraq war for money,. or oil, or to finish what Bush 41 started, and that Bush "lied", etc...Oh, and that Bush somehow stole the election from Gore. let's not forget that he's a fictional president, and a mental lightweight, all that stuff.

Kooks on both sides. I'd bet everything I have in return for the spare change you have in your pocket, that Bush got more personal attacks

Look at how much you post and insult the Pres. Is there anyone on here who insulted Pres. Bush that much?

I agree that there are kooks on both sides. It seems to me (as someone who voted for Pres. Bush for his first term) that the insults and complaints have bc more mainstream from the right.

So why/how did we get into Iraq? Was it a lie or the worse intelligence failure of our lifetime?

Don't you think getting us into a war would raises someone's hackles a lot more than providing them w/health insurance?

Look at how much you post and insult the Pres. Is there anyone on here who insulted Pres. Bush that much?

So why/how did we get into Iraq? Was it a lie or the worse intelligence failure of our lifetime?

True. But what I do is a reflection of me, it doesn't say anything about everyone else who happens to vote the same way as me. You have posted that Tea Baggers are racist. i don't hold anyone else accountable for that statement, just you.

"Is there anyone on here who insulted Pres. Bush that much?"

I didn't realize the question was limited to those who post here?

"So why/how did we get into Iraq?"

You don't know? The vast, vast majority of our leaders in DC authorized the use of force, because the vast, vast majority of them (including your party's next nominee for President, Hilary Clinton) were certain they had WMDs.

"Was it a lie or the worse intelligence failure of our lifetime"

It wasn't a lie, that's for sure. There's a big difference between being wrong, and lying. Did Hilary lie when she said Iraq had WMDs, and when she authorized the use of force?

It's fair to hold Bush accountable for his incorrect conclusion, but a large majority in DC (including Senators Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards) also looked at the same intelligence, and consluded that the invasion was justified.

So why is Bush criticized (which is fair), and those Democrats who reached the exact same conclusion as Bush, get a free pass? Hmmm?

10X

10x
Is that your guess or your opinion. :)

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/398283/print


the president brings a lot of this upon himself with his demeanor....his predecessor(whom he has criticized to no end), on the other hand, was for the most part an honest and decent guy

I believe the only person truly capable if disrespecting the office is the office holder...at that...he has exceeded expectations

True. But what I do is a reflection of me, it doesn't say anything about everyone else who happens to vote the same way as me.No but it is indicative of how the internet has made it easier for every Tom, #^&#^&#^&#^& and Harry to insult anyone they want. Is there any difference bt some troll who can't post anything more intelligent than insulting a Pres. name and a TV talking head besides the size of their audience? You have posted that Tea Baggers are racist. i don't hold anyone else accountable for that statement, just you.We all have seen the signs and until the leadership told their members to tone it down, the signs were very common at the early protests. You admitted that yourself previously.

"Is there anyone on here who insulted Pres. Bush that much?"

I didn't realize the question was limited to those who post here? Well the poster didn't state he was talking about the general public or here so I'll give you that one. But it is indicative of what has happened over the last # of years.

"So why/how did we get into Iraq?"

You don't know? The vast, vast majority of our leaders in DC authorized the use of force, because the vast, vast majority of them (including your party's next nominee for President, Hilary Clinton) were certain they had WMDs.

"Was it a lie or the worse intelligence failure of our lifetime"

It wasn't a lie, that's for sure So then it was the biggest intelligence failure of our lifetime?. There's a big difference between being wrong, and lying. Did Hilary lie when she said Iraq had WMDs, and when she authorized the use of force?She voted on what she was told - and the intelligence (or lack of intelligence) was all wrong.

It's fair to hold Bush accountable for his incorrect conclusion, but a large majority in DC (including Senators Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards) also looked at the same intelligence, and consluded that the invasion was justified.

So why is Bush criticized (which is fair), and those Democrats who reached the exact same conclusion as Bush, get a free pass? Hmmm?

BC, it was HIS admin. who provided that intelligence for congress to vote on.

Again, I'll ask -don't you think people are more justified about getting us into a war based on bad intelligence (and I think it went beyond that to some lies and some ignoring anything that didn't fit in w/the what the admin. wanted) and trying to provide health insur. for people who don't have it?

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/398283/print


the president brings a lot of this upon himself with his demeanor....his predecessor(whom he has criticized to no end), on the other hand, was for the most part an honest and decent guy

I believe the only person truly capable if disrespecting the office is the office holder...at that...he has exceeded expectations

I forgot about "Romnesia". Great article. It's this clear pattern of behavior (my favorite - "Republicans gotta stop just hating all the time") that's so un-dignified and beneath the office, that makes me despise the man. He's an embarassment and a disgrace.

Why do you guys bother , it's like talking to a wall.............

BC, it was HIS admin. who provided that intelligence for congress to vote on.

Again, I'll ask -don't you think people are more justified about getting us into a war based on bad intelligence (and I think it went beyond that to some lies and some ignoring anything that didn't fit in w/the what the admin. wanted) and trying to provide health insur. for people who don't have it?

Oh, the signs at tea party ralies mean that tea partiers are inherently racist?

A few signs among large groups. And we know for a fact, that some of th epeople holding those signs, were planted by liberal groups to fool people exactly like you into concluding exactly what you concluded...that a group that believes in fiscal responsibility, is racist, despite the fact that said groupo has endorsed monority candidates who support their agenda. You've been played for a sucker by those on you rside. If someone did that to me, I'd be upset, but that's just me.

"it was HIS admin. who provided that intelligence for congress to vote on"

Correct, and the large majority of people who looked at that evidence, arrived at the same conslusion he did. He didn't lie or manufacture evidence...if he did, I'd be the first one calling for his impeachment and arrest. He was wrong. Many, many people were wrong. They were equally wrong.

"I think it went beyond that to some lies "

The "Bush lied, people died" slogan makes for a great bumper sticker. There's no proof of it. You're entitled to your beliefs. Many people think 9/11 was an insoide jobm many people think Obama wasn't born here. All are very weak conslusions, IMHO...

"trying to provide health insur. for people who don't have it?[/"

Again, it's demonstrably false that only your side wants to insur emore people. My side wants to do it too, we just have a dfferent approach (using exchanges and vouchers, getting more people into good jobs, enacting tort reform, which unlike Obamacare would actually decrease costs and let more people get insurance).

Getting more people access to healthcare, in and of itself, is a good thing. Making free birth control (specifically for use in recreational sex) a part of that, and exempting union employees from taxes on cadillac plans becaiuse they happen to vote for democrats, and forcing Christians to abandon their religious beliefs in the process, is not a good thing.

Why do you guys bother , it's like talking to a wall.............

It is either this or work.

It is either this or work.

What he said...

"it was HIS admin. who provided that intelligence for congress to vote on"

Correct, and the large majority of people who looked at that evidence, arrived at the same conslusion he didThe admin ignored any bit of evidence that contradicted their view - curveball, aluminum tubes, etc. . He didn't lie or manufacture evidence..We really don't know that and that is why I asked the question. So who does the fault rest with - people who voted on info. which was incorrect or the people who developed that info.?.if he did, I'd be the first one calling for his impeachment and arrest. He was wrong. Many, many people were wrong. They were equally wrong.

"I think it went beyond that to some lies "

The "Bush lied, people died" slogan makes for a great bumper sticker. There's no proof of it. You're entitled to your beliefs. Many people think 9/11 was an insoide jobm many people think Obama wasn't born here. All are very weak conslusions, IMHO...So I guess it is that the admin had the biggest intelligence failure of our generation if not since our countries founding. Thanks

"trying to provide health insur. for people who don't have it?[/"

Again, it's demonstrably false that only your side wants to insur emore people. My side wants to do it too, we just have a dfferent approach (using exchanges and vouchers, getting more people into good jobs, enacting tort reform, which unlike Obamacare would actually decrease costs and let more people get insurance).

Getting more people access to healthcare, in and of itself, is a good thing. Making free birth control (specifically for use in recreational sex) a part of that, and exempting union employees from taxes on cadillac plans becaiuse they happen to vote for democrats, and forcing Christians to abandon their religious beliefs in the process, is not a good thing.

So what legislation has "your side" (since I guess it is either your side or my side) proposed? They have voted what - 55?? times to canc. the ACA but I haven't seen any alternatives.

So what legislation has "your side" (since I guess it is either your side or my side) proposed? They have voted what - 55?? times to canc. the ACA but I haven't seen any alternatives.

What chance would GOP-led legislation have of passing, when Harry Reid controls the Senate committees? Come on...

Now that the GOP has both houses, as you say, it's on them to put forth some common sense legislation, make Obama veto it all, then see how he likes being called an obstructionist...if the GOP doesn't make good use of this majority, they deserve to get the boot...

BC, it was HIS admin. who provided that intelligence for congress to vote on.

Sort of like it was Obama's admin. who must therefor have been responsible for the bad intelligence regarding the threat to our embassy in Benghazi.

Again, I'll ask -don't you think people are more justified about getting us into a war based on bad intelligence (and I think it went beyond that to some lies and some ignoring anything that didn't fit in w/the what the admin. wanted) and trying to provide health insur. for people who don't have it?

Hmmm. Comparing war to health insurance. Yeah . . . I can see some similarities. Winning a war would probably insure better health for the victors than the losers. On the other hand, abandoning the victory and letting enemies gain strength would probably threaten one's health.

But there is also another type of health that is affected by the innocent sounding "trying to provide health insur. for people who don't have it". The nature and method of the attempt was not just getting some uninsured folks insurance, but transforming the whole health care process for everybody, and creating a whole new power for government, enabling it for the first time to tax the people for not buying something. In other words, fundamentally changing the relationship of the individual to the government. And in such a way that it would have absolute power over the people rather being limited to power consented by the people. Now here, indeed, there might be a closer comparison to war. Rather than some admirable little attempt to get some folks insured, it turned out to be a war against liberty in the name of good.

I suppose there might also be a comparison with the nature of the "intelligence" gathered to justify a particular war or a particular health insurance. You believe that the intelligence used to justify the Iraq war was bad. And even manipulated to make it even more justifiable. So, then, how about the validity or truth of the "intelligence" justifying this insurance? Does the name Jonathan Gruber ring a bell. Were the lies told about what the ACA really was and how it worked and what its impact would be comparable to the lies that you imply the Bush administration told?

And how about a comparison of the results of the war and the insurance.

Yup. Thousands died and were maimed in Iraq. That is the nature of war. And justifying an offensive war to a free people, certainly to the people of this country, has always required some manipulation. Starting with the American revolution and with every offensive war we entered after, there was always needed some "twisting" or creating of facts and necessities. I'm not going to judge that here, though you probably do. It is hard to tell what was achieved with victory in Iraq, since we've tossed the victory out. Briefly, there was a retrenchment of the bad guys and the possibility of the growth of a more Western type of secular government, if we had stayed.

The ACA was supposedly for the purpose, as you say, of getting some people who had none, insured. That is, apparently happening. But the need for that was, supposedly, to take the burden off of the rest of us who were paying for the health care those same people were getting without insurance. And the rest of us would still, then, be able to keep the insurance we had, but with the lowered costs due to not having to pay for the other uninsureds. As it turns out, we indeed will still be paying for the previously uninsured, at an even higher rate than before. And in the process, we have become vulnerable, in a way never before imagined, to some further government demand that we must buy what it considers a necessity, or be taxed if we don't. It all may not seem to be much of a price to pay to get a few folks who could not afford insurance great health care, but it is huge in the annals of American individual freedom.

It is, of course, a huge step into socialism. Added to the other steps we've been taking. The problem of insurance for the few who didn't have it but deserved assistance could have been provided in a far less intrusive and liberty destroying way.

What chance would GOP-led legislation have of passing, when Harry Reid controls the Senate committees? Come on...
What chance is there of an ACA appeal have?
Now that the GOP has both houses, as you say, it's on them to put forth some common sense legislation, make Obama veto it all, then see how he likes being called an obstructionist...if the GOP doesn't make good use of this majority, they deserve to get the boot...

If the case that the USSC will rule in the next few weeks about the Fed run exchanges turns out like the Repubs. want, they will have to come up with some alternative for everyone whose insur. is canc.

Why do you guys bother , it's like talking to a wall.............

Where is that "someone is wrong on the internet" JPEG.

Don't you think getting us into a war would raises someone's hackles a lot more than providing them w/health insurance?

"providing" ????

Providing? or forcing Obama care upon us after many false promises
another example of abuse of power

Why do you guys bother , it's like talking to a wall.............


yes it can be
some people care about their country and hate to see it struggle

Sorry Jim BUT Repubs do not have enough votes in senate to oust Obamacare....would pass in the house but no further.

Tragic, but what does the Constitution have to do with it?

Also to your link, what about Obama's policy constitutes "amnesty" and what about it contributed to this death?

if he were not in this country, the victims would not be dead because of him. This is not a movie about butterfly effect, it's real life.


Constitution you ask??? Well the President is the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_UKqXmzY7g


truth
sad truth


keep your heads in the sand, I'll be with Andy gathering whatever means needed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT9K2shh3qk

this guy is wicked smaht

"providing" ????

Providing? or forcing Obama care upon us after many false promises
another example of abuse of power

So why isn't any legislation that passes forcing something on us and wouldn't that then be an abuse of power? I thought the SC took up this question?

Well - I guess you can compare Benghazi and ACA - there was intelligence on both predicting significant failures that were ignored by the administration.

D'oh!

if he were not in this country, the victims would not be dead because of him. This is not a movie about butterfly effect, it's real life.


Constitution you ask??? Well the President is the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid.
How does the executive action have any bearing on him being in this country illegally. Heck, if anything it will free up resources to prioritize criminals.

If the House de-funds the DHS as threatened how effective do you think our border enforcement will be?

Well - I guess you can compare Benghazi and ACA - there was intelligence on both predicting significant failures that were ignored by the administration.

D'oh!

And then you should read this...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/hca-king-burwell-supreme-court-obamacare-amicus-brief

And then you should read this...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/hca-king-burwell-supreme-court-obamacare-amicus-brief

So crony capitalism is GOOD. Especially for giant corporations.

How does the executive action have any bearing on him being in this country illegally. Heck, if anything it will free up resources to prioritize criminals.

If executive action makes it easier and more comfortable for illegals to stay here, it would logically make it attractive for more to come. It might well even give illegals an attitude of entitlement, of a right to be here. That would, of course, include the illegal criminals who might be induced to think they have as much right to be here as our legal criminals. As well, it would give the presidential imprimatur of legalizing illegality. But no matter, legal illegality is good for the economy. And it would be a windfall for the big crony capitalist insurance companies, or at least the super-sized ones, to have Obamacare subsidies kick in to pay for the legal illegals healthcare.

If the House de-funds the DHS as threatened how effective do you think our border enforcement will be?

Probably as effective as it is now. In fact, if the federal government would let the states patrol their own borders, the enforcement might be even more effective.

If executive action makes it easier and more comfortable for illegals to stay here, it would logically make it attractive for more to come. It might well even give illegals an attitude of entitlement, of a right to be here. That would, of course, include the illegal criminals who might be induced to think they have as much right to be here as our legal criminals. As well, it would give the presidential imprimatur of legalizing illegality. But no matter, legal illegality is good for the economy. And it would be a windfall for the big crony capitalist insurance companies, or at least the super-sized ones, to have Obamacare subsidies kick in to pay for the legal illegals healthcare.
Please explain how the action makes it any easier for criminals to come here, stay...or how they have any access to health care under the ACA.

Please explain how the action makes it any easier for criminals to come here, stay...or how they have any access to health care under the ACA.

My main point was not the criminals, but the other immigrants. The criminal bit was just a bit of sarc. But with some, though negligible, truth.

It is physically easy to cross the border. Psychologically it is not as easy. "Hiding in the shadows" is the more difficult part. Removing the fear of deportation makes it psychologically easier to stay. And though the action may only supposedly apply to the millions already here, the notion that we keep reneging on strict immigration enforcement is certainly not a deterrent to more coming. There is not only, among them, the perception that the next immigration "crisis" will result in the same forgiveness, but there is now a large and influential latino immigration lobby which will influence further immigration. Probably, the only thing, other than strict enforcement and border security, that can stop the flow, is lack of opportunity to find gainful employment. Though, from my personal observation in Southwest Detroit, which is heavily latino, many of them "undocumented," the immigrants don't depend just on jobs they can find, but on jobs they create. They can easily outbid indiginous Americans on all manner of construction, landscaping, repair work, and in creating restaurants and various service and retail outlets in the community. They do it cheaper, and live much more simply than the rest of us. My neighborhood, as well as most of Southwest Detroit, has been transformed into a Latino stronghold. They are far more prolific than others in making babies, and, demographically, their influence will grow.

It seems logical that if the reason for the ACA is supposedly to reduce the use of the ER, then millions of illegals who don't have insurance, and don't earn enough, will have to be subsidized.

BTW, executive action has been overused by Presidents, and it has been greatly misused. Executive action, constitutionally, would be appropriate only if it were action within the bounds of the President's enumerated powers. When it is used to create law, especially outside the scope of constitutional executive limitations, such as immigration law, rather than enforcing congressional law, it is unconstitutional. But that has just become a portion of the great flood of constitutional destruction which is washing away our legal foundation.

And then you should read this...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/hca-king-burwell-supreme-court-obamacare-amicus-brief

Spence, do you really support corporate welfare . . . crony capitalism . . . ?? And I thought you feared too much centralization of business. That you didn't like corporations getting too big. Too powerful.

Geeze, whoda thunk that the biggest healthcare corporation would actually like everybody to be forced to buy their stuff. And if they couldn't afford it, the government would subsidize or pay for it. And that the big corps. wouldn't mind at all if a bunch of their previous clients had to pay more and/or have higher deductibles, so long as they were forced to do so. No skin off the corporation's back, and more money, guaranteed, in their pockets.

It seems to me that the concept of insurance is changing. It used to be an advantage for the client to have insurance over those who didn't. Which made it worth buying. Just seems that when insurance is universal, mandated, there is no advantage to having it since everybody does. And it seems that for those who don't get subsidies, the insurance has now become a disadvantage.

Just an afterthought to the above. The biggest change in the concept of insurance, it seems to me, is government's increasing intrusion in and control of, various types of insurance. The overall effect is the continuing growth of government power over our lives. It is that growth which is being insured, or, assured.

Removing the fear of deportation makes it psychologically easier to stay. And though the action may only supposedly apply to the millions already here, the notion that we keep reneging on strict immigration enforcement is certainly not a deterrent to more coming.

There is not only, among them, the perception that the next immigration "crisis" will result in the same forgiveness, but there is now a large and influential latino immigration lobby which will influence further immigration.
I think the idea our "policy" creates a large draw is overstated. The US economy has improved but the job market is flat. The birth rate in Mexico is declining while their economy is improving. It's just not as an attractive proposition as it once was.

The surge in unaccompanied minors from Central America has shown to be due to regional violence, not a pull towards the US.

Probably, the only thing, other than strict enforcement and border security, that can stop the flow, is lack of opportunity to find gainful employment. Though, from my personal observation in Southwest Detroit, which is heavily latino, many of them "undocumented," the immigrants don't depend just on jobs they can find, but on jobs they create. They can easily outbid indiginous Americans on all manner of construction, landscaping, repair work, and in creating restaurants and various service and retail outlets in the community. They do it cheaper, and live much more simply than the rest of us. My neighborhood, as well as most of Southwest Detroit, has been transformed into a Latino stronghold. They are far more prolific than others in making babies, and, demographically, their influence will grow.
I'm not sure if they're more prolific, it's likely about demographics. The white population is aging and the birth rate is slowing. The rise of minority growth is a mega trend, policy isn't going to stop it.

It seems logical that if the reason for the ACA is supposedly to reduce the use of the ER, then millions of illegals who don't have insurance, and don't earn enough, will have to be subsidized.
I'd say "a reason" versus "the reason" and according to that article the health industry reports that the ACA is indeed reducing demand on the ER. This doesn't mean you have to subsidize illegals, they'd just be likely behave in a consistent manner.

This may be a bigger issue if the illegal population was growing dramatically, but I believe the net number of illegals is stable and predicted to remain flat.

BTW, executive action has been overused by Presidents, and it has been greatly misused. Executive action, constitutionally, would be appropriate only if it were action within the bounds of the President's enumerated powers. When it is used to create law, especially outside the scope of constitutional executive limitations, such as immigration law, rather than enforcing congressional law, it is unconstitutional. But that has just become a portion of the great flood of constitutional destruction which is washing away our legal foundation.
I think we'd all like to see bi-partisan reform but until the tea partay phenomenon fades I doubt there's much chance...

I think the idea our "policy" creates a large draw is overstated.

Our non or inadequate enforcement of "policy" permits the "draw."

The US economy has improved but the job market is flat.

That is a strange "improvement" indeed. The greatest number or percentage not participating in the work force in mucho time, yet they can't find a job in the improved economy. And a 4 trillion dollar federal budget requested by POTUS. And food stamps distributed in far greater numbers than ever. And national debt keeps soaring. Hey, but big health insurance companies are going to make even more than ever. And much of their expanding "earnings" will be through mandated client participation, (very helpful when government herds people into your store) and at higher rates and or deductibles for many in order to help defray the cost to other newbies. Or simply donated by the government--to be paid for in higher taxes by regular people ("folks,as Obama might say). Folks, who, btw, were supposed to be relieved by the ACA of the cost of the uninsured "folks" who had been free riders. Oh well, sometimes, often, always, things just don't work out as promised. Just one of those unforeseen and unfortunate consequences--oh wait, it WAS foreseen, just, somehow, didn't come out of the President's mouth in the right string of pretty words when he promised how wonderful the ACA was going to be. There seems to be this rather socialistic trend of job growth or economic "improvement" by government fiat or influence. Sort of like the government is the third party employer or stuffer of dollars into the pockets of the big money folks. I can see, by this formula, how an economy can get "better" (pumping money which has no relation to the market into Wall Street and mandating that "folks" buy stuff, even "subsidizing" the ones who can't afford it) but employment can remain "flat."

The birth rate in Mexico is declining while their economy is improving. It's just not as an attractive proposition as it once was.

You make that sound like a winner. Birth rate goes down as the economy improves. Sounds like that addition by subtraction stuff. Maybe we should try some of that. White "folks" seem to be doing their birth-rate part. And their immigration numbers are kept lower even though there are many on the waiting list. But somehow our population rises beyond that demographic . . . oh, yeah. There's those millions of illegals. And their birth rate here is higher than white folks. Hmmph. Might be part of the cause of that huge number not participating in the work force. But wait . . . the ACA mandates paid for birth control. And planned parenthood has certainly been doing yeoman's service in that area. Just can't seem to keep up with that pesky, unproductive, production of babies some folks just seem to want to participate in. Don't worry, the government will figure a way to make folks have only their limited fair share of children. Worked out well for China. We'll, no doubt, do it better.

The surge in unaccompanied minors from Central America has shown to be due to regional violence, not a pull towards the US.

Funny, I thought that regional violence has been going on for quite some time. How come those unaccompanied minors took so long to figure out it was good to surge? Maybe they recently heard about the success of the surge in Iraq. But the "pull" thing, though, that's a little trickier. In some respects, it was more like a "push." The unaccompanied minors from Guatemala or Honduras, forget which, weren't allowed to stay in Mexico (even though the economy was getting better there--well, all the more reason to keep the population down). It seems that the Mexican government was expecting them. Gosh I wonder how they could have been so prescient. We certainly weren't prepared. Well, that's right, our intelligence community just doesn't seem to get it right at critical times. And so the Mexican authorities put them on trains and directed them to the American border. It seems, though, and that's the trickier part, that there were some signals being sent that the unaccompanied minors would be welcomed here. Maybe why the parents of the unaccompanied minors weren't so worried as parents usually are of sending their unaccompanied minors unaccompanied to far off foreign lands with no certainty of how they would survive when, or if, they got there.

I'm not sure if they're more prolific, it's likely about demographics. The white population is aging and the birth rate is slowing.

Gee . . . it sounds like the demographics, indeed, say that their birth rate is more prolific than the white folks.

The rise of minority growth is a mega trend, policy isn't going to stop it.

Aw shucks! I thought that maybe the free birth control and planned parenthood and better economy would stop it. Well, if we are doomed to be defeated by the latino mega trend (I can relate--the Lions use the megatron, Calvin Johnson, to defeat their enemies) it might be a buffer against any mega trend by Muslim demographic war.

I'd say "a reason" versus "the reason" and according to that article the health industry reports that the ACA is indeed reducing demand on the ER. This doesn't mean you have to subsidize illegals, they'd just be likely behave in a consistent manner.

OK. Now you really got me. WTF is "a consistent manner"? If you don't want them going to the ER, and they don't make enough money to pay for health insurance, and they are not subsidized, in what consistent manner must they behave in order to stay out of the ER? Consistently not get sick?

This may be a bigger issue if the illegal population was growing dramatically, but I believe the net number of illegals is stable and predicted to remain flat.

Predicted!?! If that's the clincher, then we can rest assured that the number won't "remain flat." Anyway, the illegal population, has already grown dramatically. We don't even know how much. Since the last immigration "reform" the illegal population has grown by estimates anywhere from 11 to 30 million, or more. And if no more illegals were to come here, those millions already here will give birth at higher rates than other folks. And, either the job market will have to dramatically expand, or there will have to be a huge amount of "subsidization" on top of the already huge amount. I guess that just isn't a "bigger" issue. Certainly won't impact things like the Social Security bubble in the future if the demographic and government dependence trends continue. Just a teeny one that the proper "policy" can take care of.

I think we'd all like to see bi-partisan reform but until the tea partay phenomenon fades I doubt there's much chance...

What . . . you mean like the previous bi-partisan reform that did nothing to "fix" the problem? Bi-partisan=good? Bi-partisan can be, and usually is, more chitty than gridlock. Gridlock is good. When the parties get together, they just seem to conspire to keep taking us down the road to some cliff or other. Gridlock, as the Founders meant, prevents a lot of crap.

On the other hand, if it were a bi-partisan reform agreed to by truly opposing parties, such as the Democrats and the Tea Party, there might actually be some reform that got to some actual "middle" ground. There might actually be a halt to the constant drift to total government control. Maybe even a reversal if the Tea Party gained the political power that the Democrats and the Democrat lite Republicans have.