Did you know that ‘Islam Has Been Woven Into the Fabric of Our Country Since Its Founding’?

Loading

800px-Islamic_Republic_of_America_svg

The latest fantasy from the fanciful imagination of Barack Obama:

We hear a lot about the United States’ Judeo-Christian heritage, but according to President Obama, “Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding.”

That’s what the president told a White House conference on “countering violent extremism” on Wednesday.

Obama has said similar things in the past:

“I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story,” Obama said in a June 2009 speech in Cairo, Egypt. “Islam has always been part of America,” he said in a 2010 statement marking the start of Ramadan. And in a 2014 statement marking Eid, Obama said the holiday “also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy.”

What the hell is he talking about? Then again, maybe he has a point. Islam did touch the United States of America early on in its history- in the form of piracy.

Over two centuries ago, the United States was dragged into the affairs of the Islamic world by an escalating series of unprovoked attacks on Americans by Muslim pirates, the terrorists of the era. These pirates preyed on unsuspecting trade ships. The hulk­ing merchant vessels of the period were no match for the Muslim pirate ships, which were built for speed and lightning strikes. It was simply a fact of life that- over the centuries-took its toll on countless mer­chant ships and their crews.

Contemporary scholars estimate that over 1 million white Christians from France and Italy to Spain, Hol­land, Great Britain, the Americas, and even Iceland were captured between 1500 and 1800. The blood­curdling tales of brutality and horror that awaited Christians unlucky enough to fall victim to the Bar­bary Pirates were widely known, although sometimes wildly exaggerated.

Muslims were pioneers in the slave trade:

The reality was often much more prosaic, although no less cruel. After seizing the cargo and scuttling the vessel, the pirates would strip the crew of anything deemed remotely valuable. The shaken, naked, terri­fied crewmen would then be dragged back to North Africa. There, they would be imprisoned and enslaved or, if they were lucky, ransomed back to their sover­eign or their family or the company they worked for.

Often enough, however, the victims of these mari­time hijackings would languish in fetid prisons, unsure of when, or even if, they would ever be redeemed. Many perished or simply disappeared in the White Slave trade. The only other escape was conversion. Embracing Islam-“turning Turk”-instantly changed one’s status and prospects. Indeed, from time to time, some of these victims would prove rather able-bodied adventurers and mercenaries, considering their national identity, their religion, and their foreskins a small price to pay as compared with life as a Muslim pirate in North Africa.

Please do read the while thing.

Then Obama fired off another salvo:

“Generations of Muslim immigrants came here and went to work as farmers and merchants and factory workers, helped to lay railroads and to build up America.”

Because you know how important railroads were during the Revolutionary War. He wasn’t done yet:

“The first Islamic center in New York City was founded in the 1890s. America’s first mosque, this was an interesting fact, was in North Dakota.”

Uh, no. It was 1929.

Let’s review the Obama version of the birth of our nation with some images. You remember the writing of the Declaration of Independence:

write dec of indepen

The signing of the Declaration of Independence:

sign dec of indepen

And there was Washington at Valley Forge

wash valley forge m

And, of course, the surrender of Cornwallis:

corwallis surrender m

Barack Obama always plays fast and loose with facts. in other words, he lies incessantly. He is arguably most dangerous at times like this- when he assumes the role of lecturer at the Michael Moore/ Oliver Stone School of American History. Besieging other to believe things are so simply because you say them might be fine for a community organizer but it is a poor character trait for the President of the United States. Does he really believe this crap?

Islam has been part of this country since its founding like you can keep your doctor and your plan. And we are at war with radical Islam. When even Vox sees it, Obama has a problem. And so do we.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
126 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@Greg:

Given that the Republican Congressional majority’s response to the growing threat of ISIS might well be to allow the Department of Homeland Security’s funding lapse, I think I prefer to have a Democrat in the White House.

Still pushing the meme that it is all the evil Republican’s fault, I see. Perhaps you would like to tell us all who killed the funding of DHS yesterday because we Republicans don’t want to fund Obama’s illegal amnesty for criminals? Are illegals so important to the Democrats that they are willing to vote against DHS funding, and put our nation in even more danger than it already is, just to pander to the illegals?

Meanwhile, you’re fixated on the fact that the Bozos you elected can’t seem to make Obama say “Islamic.” Perhaps you need to reexamine your priorities.

You need to read the speech that FDR gave the day after Pearl Harbor to a joint session of Congress. He didn’t back down and give a bunch of political correct pablum and tell Congress that we were not at war with the Japanese people, only the government of Japan. He stated, loud and clear, that we were in a state of war with the NATION OF JAPAN.

So listen up, fool; we are at war with a segment of Islam. You read The Atlantic article. Those groups are Islamic, and for our president to try to white-wash that is pure hyperbole. Did FDR care if he insulted those Japanese that did NOT want to go to war with the United States? Hell, no. Did he care if he insulted those Germans that were NOT Nazis? Hell, no.

Now, you can come here, day after day as you do, and continue your excuse making for the most inept president this nation has ever known. All you do is prove that without guislings like you, Obama’s approval rating would be less than 10%.

Obama’s ”Summit on Extremism,” fingered ”right-wing extremist groups” as our collective enemies.
But look around.
All of those mapped out areas where ”right-wing extremists,” live, shop and work have life going on as normal today.
One call from MUSLIM extremists (you know, Islamic extremists) and the Mall of America and there are over 100 times the number of real cops on site!
There are four (count ’em FOUR!) bomb-sniffing dogs on site.
All packages will be searched…..at a mall!

Obama can say what he likes, like ”Squirrel! Look Over There!” but actions say something different.
Islam is ”woven into the fabric of our country” but only recently. And in a mixed way, some good but some incredibly bad and expensive for all of us.

@Nanny G:

Islam is ”woven into the fabric of our country” but only recently. And in a mixed way, some good but some incredibly bad and expensive for all of us.

Could you please delineate the ‘good’?

@retire05, #51:

Perhaps you would like to tell us all who killed the funding of DHS yesterday because we Republicans don’t want to fund Obama’s illegal amnesty for criminals?

The people who deliberately entangled Homeland Security funding with their efforts to monkey wrench Obama’s immigration enforcement prioritization are obviously responsible for the problems that resulted. Republicans have repeatedly utilized tactics that have much in common with extortion. They contrive bills that essentially say, Give us what we want or something important will get broken, and then it will be your fault.

That they have used this approach repeatedly should be abundantly clear to anyone who has observed them over the past few years. They’ve done little or nothing useful to the nation, while threatening to create crisis after crisis in an effort to get their way.

So listen up, fool; we are at war with a segment of Islam.

What? A segment of Islam? There we go! Obama can proclaim that we’re at war with a segment of Islam. Rather than just stating that we’re at war with particular factions consisting of homicidal maniacs that have already affixed blood-drenched labels to themselves that everyone recognizes already.

This is probably important enough that Republicans should threaten to shut down some vital part of government if he won’t do it.

What I find most revealing at the moment is the argument Republican lawmakers are having among themselves about the possibility of letting Homeland Security go unfunded. The argument seems to revolve around who will get the blame if this happens, rather than what the consequences for the nation might be if this happens. They’re actually talking about this concern in public.

@Greg:

Republicans have repeatedly utilized tactics that have much in common with extortion.

When Republicans were in the minority and refused to vote in favor of the same “tactics” by the Democrats, they were called obstructionists. Now that Democrats are the obstructionists and demanding that Republicans include funding for Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty which the great majority of the public is against, you still want to blame the Republicans. Meanwhile the Republicans have put forth a bill that will pay for all of the DHS except for Obama’s amnesty program which a Federal Judges has deemed is illegal.

If Dems want to fund the DHS they should vote in favor of the bill instead of demanding it include something the people are against. The Republicans are doing the people’s will. You know where you can stick your hypocritical rhetoric.

@Ditto, #55:

Now that Democrats are the obstructionists and demanding that Republicans include funding for Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty which the great majority of the public is against, you still want to blame the Republicans.

Hell yes, I blame them. They’re the ones who wrote a bill deliberately making continued Homeland Security funding contingent on blocking the President’s prioritization of immigration enforcement activities.

Such administrative prioritization has always been within the scope of the Chief Executive’s authority. Latter day republicans, however, disagree. (Since it isn’t their own guy in the White House at the moment. The Bush administration was one continuous exercise in Unitary Executive Theory, which oddly didn’t seem to trouble them in the least at the time.) So, the dispute has been given over to the proper authority for eventual resolution: the Judicial Branch.

Apparently that Constitutionally prescribed remedy is not sufficient for these idiots, however. They’ve taken to plotting various ways and means of directly interfering with the Executive Branch’s performance of its duties and responsibilities. Meanwhile, they’ve put performance of their own Constitutionally defined governance responsibilities on hold. They won’t, for example, deal with immigration problems by way of legislation, even though their majorities in both the House and Senate would allow them to do so. They apparently want to maintain maximum dysfunction so that they can blame somebody else for it. This apparently seems like a safer political bet to them than doing something pro-active, and running the risk of offending one or the other opposing factions of constituents. Actually doing something requires you to take a fixed stand with deeds. It costs you the political wiggle room of insincere words.

@Muhammad Bilal Ahsan:#15

It sounds bit weird that People are following these notional sort thing in this even in this era where most of the human races of 21st century are entangle in managing their livings

What language is that? You might try English.

@Bill: 34

No doubt a fact.

I like that. Greg says ” Historians think” and Bill says “No doubt a fact”
see how easy it is to turn a thought into a fact?

@Budvarakbar: Could you please delineate the ‘good’?

Sure.
Most American Muslims who are assimilated in our nation make more than the average American in income.
They are less likely to be on welfare of any kind.
They are more likely to own their own business than average Americans.
They are considered to be ”apostate” by most active Islamist terror organizations and liable to be killed for that.

Even when the Twin Cities filled with Somali Muslims (at first) those Muslims assimilated.
It wasn’t until the Muslim Brotherhood came in and took over their Mosques and preached lawfare that those Muslims began pushing the public’s envelope by refusing to take blind people’s dogs in their taxis and by refusing to checkout bacon and alcohol at the supermarket.
Who has suffered the most because of the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Mosques in America?
Muslims who were well assimilated.

These Republicans are not crazy. Hopefully they’ll carry the argument and restore common sense in connection with Homeland Security funding. Immigration enforcement policy is a separate issue.

@Redteam:

I like that. Greg says ” Historians think” and Bill says “No doubt a fact”
see how easy it is to turn a thought into a fact?

Goodness, would Greg traffic in untruths?

@Greg: So Obozo vetoed the Keystone pipeline deal. Congress passed that, they thought it best for the country. Obozo disagrees(he doesn’t want lower gas prices) Why should congress pass something he wants when he won’t pass something they want?

@Bill:

Goodness, would Greg traffic in untruths?

Not our Greg. If Obozo says it, it must be true. Right?

@Greg:

The people who deliberately entangled Homeland Security funding with their efforts to monkey wrench Obama’s immigration enforcement prioritization are obviously responsible for the problems that resulted.

If the Democrats were so concerned with funding the DHS, they could have passed the bill and then argued Obama’s immigration enforcement prioritization illegal pseudo-amnesty for those who are guilty of violating our laws the minute they cross our borders. How does it feel to know that the Democrats care more about illegals, the citizens of other nations, more than they care about your security?

Republicans have repeatedly utilized tactics that have much in common with extortion. They contrive bills that essentially say, Give us what we want or something important will get broken, and then it will be your fault.

And what did the Democrats do when they forced Obamacare on us? So according to you, the Republicans are evil for opposing the Democrats when the Democrats are the majority and not going along with the Democrats but then the Republicans are evil for opposing the Democrats when the Republicans are the majority and not going along with the minority. To quote Obama, elections have consequences.

The Democrats had a choice. Other bills have been passed piecemeal, why not this one? Why not pass it without funding Obama’s illegal actions of having Jeh Johnson issue a directive that lost in a federal court and will now go to the 5th? If anyone is stomping their feet and acting like petulant children, it sure the hell isn’t the Republicans.

@retire05: It seems as if the Repubs are gonna throw in the towel and surrender to the Dims temper tantrum in the Senate. Fortunately no matter what the Senate passes, it has to go back to the House, and as of now, I don’t think they’re gonna cave.

@Greg:

Apparently that Constitutionally prescribed remedy is not sufficient…

You need a refresher course in Constitution 101. The power of the purse is one of the Constitutional prescribed remedies, for an executive branch that missuses agencies and the funds they operate under to achieve his political ends against the will of Congress (who had already refused to pass his amnesty plan when Democrats held the Senate). Which is why a piecemeal funding bill is an appropriate measure for reining in an organization that follows the agenda of the executive branch instead of following the law.

These Republicans…

“These Republicans” my ass. There was only one Republican mentioned in your link: [RINO and Long Island U.S. Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.)]. The other two mentioned were both Democrats. [Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) & Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.). One RINO Republican does not a “these” make.

@Ditto, #66:

If you really want to argue that there’s only one Republican who isn’t behaving like a complete idiot, I’ll concede the point.

@Greg:

If you really want to argue that there’s only one Republican who isn’t behaving like a complete idiot, I’ll concede the point.

It didn’t work Greg, you’re not funny. She certainly is not arguing that point, only that one Republican is a traitor. He’s obviously a liberal, always has been. RINO.

If the Democrats were so concerned with funding the DHS, they could have passed the bill and then argued Obama’s immigration enforcement prioritization illegal pseudo-amnesty for those who are guilty of violating our laws the minute they cross our borders.

The President has previously explained that it’s not the administration’s policy to meet the demands of extortionists.

So according to you, the Republicans are evil for opposing the Democrats when the Democrats are the majority and not going along with the Democrats but then the Republicans are evil for opposing the Democrats when the Republicans are the majority and not going along with the minority.

Whether opposition is a good thing or a bad thing depends entirely on what it is you’re opposing. I consider making health insurance available to millions of Americans who previously couldn’t get it to be a good thing. I consider threatening to deprive Homeland Security of funding just when the threat of terrorism is growing because you don’t approve of the Chief Executive’s administrative policy to a bad thing.

@Greg:

What I’m arguing Greg is that you are so disingenuous that you can’t seem to reply to anything without misrepresenting something. You posted a link, expecting us to accept it as supporting what you wrote. Going to the link we find that it was but one “Republican” RINO, not multiple Republicans as you inferred. You wasted our time with your fraudulent misrepresentation of the link and used it to bolster a false narrative of Republicans (plural) whom you want us to believe are in support of the Democrat position.

Such deceitfulness does not help your arguments, it only continues to let the readers here recognize you as untrustworthy.

@Greg:

The President has previously explained that it’s not the administration’s policy to meet the demands of extortionists.

Spare us your propagandizing BS. You are pointing one finger to the Republicans and claiming they are extortionists, while your other four digits are pointing back at your side. It is not extortion to use the power of the purse to deny funding to a specific portion of an agency set on enacting and enabling an imperial decree that the president has no authority to create, and which has already been rejected by previous Congresses and that the people do not want.

No, the only “extortion” is that of Obama and the Democrats who, in a temper tantrum, are rejecting funding any of the national security protection side of DHS unless Republicans also fund the illegal imperialistic Obama decree, who’s main purpose is to create an entitlement beholden underclass of feudalistic-loyalist serfs who will vote for Democrats. In effect, Democrats are holding the security of this nation hostage, unless we also fund an unlawful despotic act to undermine US worker and the sanctity of our elections.

@Ditto, #71:

Would all cases where Congress might exercise its “power of the purse” be of equal merit? I hardly think so. It’s not like Republicans have chosen to risk shutting off funds for the National Endowment for the Arts or the National Park Service to make a point. They’ve chosen to risk shutting off funds to the Department of Homeland Security, at a time when it’s generally recognized that there’s a heightened risk of terrorist attack. Why turn something that critical into a political football? The logic seems to be that if you’re threatening to disrupt something, you should threaten to disrupt something really important. I consider that sort of thinking totally irresponsible.

There’s also the fact that this is a strictly partisan exercise of power. They’re doing it to further a partisan political objective—an objective that doesn’t even make sense outside of that political context. Looking Obama’s immigration policy strictly in terms of what makes the most sense for effective governance, the wisest choice is clearly to prioritize enforcement so that limited funds and resources are utilized to deport the people whose continued presence is the most detrimental to the nation. The unwise alternative to that is to utilize the same funds and resources to deport people in whatever order they come to your attention. The degree of threat or benefit their continued presence represents then ceases to be relevant.

Can you explain how that second option can possibly be better for the nation?

@Greg:

They’ve chosen to risk shutting off funds to the Department of Homeland Security, at a time when it’s generally recognized that there’s a heightened risk of terrorist attack…

(Snip)

…There’s also the fact that this is a strictly partisan exercise of power. They’re doing it to further a partisan political objective—an objective that doesn’t even make sense outside of that political context. …

That’s not a “fact” you jackass, it’s opinion based political rhetoric. It’s also a ridiculously hypocritical claim, as you know full well that it is Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional amnesty power-grab which is the real political objective they are trying to stop.

You’re so full of bullcrap we could sell you for fertilizer. The Republicans are willing to fund the DHS. The House passed a bill to do so. The Republicans in the Senate have been trying to pass the same bill. It’s only Obama’s executive amnesty agenda that they are not willing to fund. No one is being fooled by the spin from the left. The DHS can be funded tomorrow if the Democrats will only vote for the bill, but they despicably prefer to blackmail Congress and the nation and put our nation at risk to force an amnesty program that a Federal Judge has already rules is illegal, that the people overwhelmingly do not want, and that will insure unemployment of our citizens stays high and wages low.

Your saying “it doesn’t make sense” doesn’t make it so. It’s actually laughable because we all know what a blindly partisan dissembler you are. Every day you parrot far-left talking points, spew the same radical Democrat propaganda and lies. The only reason anyone tolerates you is that you show everyone who visits FA how ridiculously pathetic and clueless Obama internet-troll foot soldiers are.

You are no longer adding anything of value to the discussion. All you are doing now is political masturbation.

That’s not a “fact” you jackass, it’s opinion based political rhetoric. It’s also a ridiculously hypocritical claim, as you know full well that it is Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional amnesty power-grab which is the real political objective they are trying to stop.

No, jackass, it’s an accurate description of the situation. Republicans are threatening to cause harm unless they’re allowed to override Obama’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion—an essential administrative power that has long been acknowledged as being within the scope of Executive Branch authority.

Deciding whether or not to prosecute individual cases of violations of any particular law is an entirely routine matter, normally made at much lower levels. Administrative positions are held by people that are empowered to exercise their own judgement in such matters. The highest such position in the federal government is that of president, where the greatest degree of individual administrative power resides. A president can exercise prosecutorial discretion in a much broader fashion than anyone at a lower level. A president cannot nullify or alter a law, but he or she can certainly direct a lower administrative unit where to focus their attention and resources, and what matters are to be given the highest and lowest priorities. Without the administrative power to make such determinations, it would be impossible to apply many laws made by Congress in the real world. In attacking prosecutorial discretion, Republicans are pretty much barking up the wrong tree.

Obama hasn’t exercised his unitary authority to issue presidential directives and orders to any greater degree than many presidents before him, and to a far lesser degree that some in very recent memory memory. Republicans just don’t like what he’s addressed with that authority: He has addressed a high-profile issue that they themselves have willfully neglected to deal with in their own Constitutional capacity, and it pisses them off. In response, rather than turning their own attention to the problem, they’ve decided to attack the person who’s attempting to deal with the real world situation as best he can.

You are no longer adding anything of value to the discussion. All you are doing now is political masturbation.

You’re getting ruder and cruder with every comment. Why don’t you try addressing the substantive points that are raised, rather than rolling out the right’s boiler plate assertions about illegality, unconstitutionality, and incompetence, and then sticking on some personal insult or vulgarity? I’m thinking the reason is because you haven’t got any argument.

@Greg: Actually, what Obama has done and what has been struck down by the Court is “change the law”. Obama has proclaimed as much (though earlier stating he couldn’t) and this is exactly what he has done which is illegal.

The President can say YOU (by name) will not be prosecuted for illegal immigration, but he cannot say EVERYONE gets amnesty for breaking the law; that makes the law ineffective and, in effect, changes it and how it applies.

So, let’s say a President chooses to have ICE import and distribute cocaine because he says coke users and distributors deserve amnesty; would it be proper for Congress to block funding for such an enterprise, assuring that they are not complicit in a crime? Same thing; by withholding funding, Congress is blocking the commission of a crime and preventing innocent ICE personnel from becoming complicit.

Had Obama not tied DHS to an illegal activity, he would have his funding. He knew the Republican Congress would block him somehow, yet he did it anyway. If you want to hold someone responsible (but you don’t), hold Obama responsible.

Besides, depending on what group Obama is speaking in front of, we don’t need DHS; bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is on the run and ISIS is JV.

@Greg:

No, jackass, it’s an accurate description of the situation. Republicans are threatening to cause harm unless they’re allowed to override Obama’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion—an essential administrative power that has long been acknowledged as being within the scope of Executive Branch authority.

You’re an idiot. Prosecutorial discretion does not allow the President to issue Social Security numbers, force states to issue driver’s licenses or any other mandate that was in Jeh Johnson’s directive. And if you knew your butt from a biscuit, you would know that prosecutorial discretion does not allow any law enforcer, including the president, to act in contrary to law.

Obama hasn’t exercised his unitary authority to issue presidential directives and orders to any greater degree than many presidents before him, and to a far lesser degree that some in very recent memory memory.

You’re making the “quantity over quality” argument, which is specious. Also, Obama has not completed the end of his second term, and you progressives always want to compare Bush to Obama by using Bush’s full 8 years and Obama’s 6 years. Just like you like to compare the number of deportations under Obama using even those that were turned away while wading in the middle of the Rio Grand while Bush did not count those numbers, as admitted to by Jeh Johnson.

Republicans just don’t like what he’s addressed with that authority:

What we Republicans don’t like is that Obama thinks he can override actual law with an E.O. or a cabinet head directive. He doesn’t have that Constitutional authority.

He has addressed a high-profile issue that they themselves have willfully neglected to deal with in their own Constitutional capacity, and it pisses them off. In response, rather than turning their own attention to the problem, they’ve decided to attack the person who’s attempting to deal with the real world situation as best he can.

Whoa, there hoss; the Democrats not only had total control of the Congress the first two years of Obama’s administration, they didn’t take on the issue of immigration during those first two years. They were too cowardly because they believed it would cost them votes. That mentality failed in both 2010 and 2014. Now they are the minority and are whining how the evil Republicans won’t just let them do whatever it is they want to do.

Now, if you can find anywhere in the Constitution that says the Republicans are required to kiss the butt of the Democrats, please provide that clause. And the “real world” situation is that no president has the Constitutional authority to ignore, or override, the law.

But alas, I feel you are so indoctrinated and such a lemming that you will never accept the law, as written, and think that Obama is King.

@retire05, #75:

You’re an idiot. Prosecutorial discretion does not allow the President to issue Social Security numbers, force states to issue driver’s licenses or any other mandate that was in Jeh Johnson’s directive.

Valid Social Security numbers have long been issued to aliens who have had a specific non-work need for them. In such cases, the fact that they’re not authorized to work hasn’t legally precluded them from being assigned a number and issued a card. The President has now directed that the Department of Homeland Security issue work authorizations to certain classes of previously undocumented aliens already living in the United States. Having such an authorization becomes another valid reason for a card to be issued.

Do you object to the fact that undocumented aliens will be working? They were working already, but in the shadows and frequently off the books. We’ll now know who and where they are, and who they work for. Opportunities for the evasion of taxes will be greatly diminished, both by formerly undocumented workers and unscrupulous employers. It won’t be so easy to unfairly compete with businesses and workers who play by the rules. It will become much harder to offer lower cost labor, goods, and services by breaking the law.

Do you prefer that undocumented aliens not have drivers licenses? The most irresponsible and dangerous people will simply drive without them, as they have always done. The question then comes down to whether or not you think it’s better for the majority of undocumented aliens to be encouraged to get valid licenses, which serve to document who they are and what they’re doing in a wide variety of activities, and which also make it necessary in many states to obtain the liability insurance that protects other drivers on the road.

I’m getting tired of being called an idiot by people who seldom seem willing to think a damn thing through. They believe they’ve got all the right answers and responses automatically, without any need to consider the facts and deal with them in a rational fashion. That’s nothing more than attitude.

@Greg:

I’m getting tired of being called an idiot

Then I’d recommend you quit acting as such.

@Greg:

Do you prefer that undocumented aliens not have drivers licenses? The most irresponsible and dangerous people will simply drive without them, as they have always done.

I prefer people to respect the law. Illegal immigrants are illegal. No, they should NOT be issued drivers licenses…. they should be deported.

By being here illegally, they are are ALREADY being irresponsible and, in many cases, dangerous.

This is about votes and political power, Greg, you know it and you mislead to support it.

I’m afraid if you’re waiting for the GOP to make any arrangements to round ’em up and move ’em out, you’ll be waiting for a very long time. That is about votes and political power. At the present moment, tough talk wins votes on the one hand, while not acting on the tough talk keeps political options open on the other. Republican strategists are very much conscious of the nation’s shifting demographics.

I think it’s a good general rule to make the best of how things really are. I tend to view Obama as a pragmatist.

@Greg: .

I tend to view Obama as a pragmatist.

So that’s how you define traitors?

@Greg:

Valid Social Security numbers have long been issued to aliens who have had a specific non-work need for them. In such cases, the fact that they’re not authorized to work hasn’t legally precluded them from being assigned a number and issued a card.

Where does anything on the SS website show that illegal aliens are eligible for a Social Security number?

The President has now directed that the Department of Homeland Security issue work authorizations to certain classes of previously undocumented aliens already living in the United States.

A directive that exceeds the authorization of the President. Only Congress, by the Constitution, is allowed to create immigration law.

Having such an authorization becomes another valid reason for a card to be issued.

Once again, an authorization that is not based on U.S. immigration law and a blatant violation of said law.

Do you object to the fact that undocumented aliens will be working? They were working already, but in the shadows and frequently off the books. We’ll now know who and where they are, and who they work for.

Once again you prove that liberalism is a mental disorder. You really think that an illegal, being paid under the table so not having to pay any taxes, is going to sign up for a Social Security card just so they can make less due to the tax deductions? Are you really that clueless?

Do you prefer that undocumented aliens not have drivers licenses? The most irresponsible and dangerous people will simply drive without them, as they have always done.

And they would bother why? They are already outside the law, a position they don’t seem to mind.

And you wonder why people call you an idiot.

@retire05:

And you wonder why people call you an idiot.

It not a mystery to me.

Where does anything on the SS website show that illegal aliens are eligible for a Social Security number?

Non-citizens who are authorized to work by the Department of Homeland Security can get Social Security cards. Note the second paragraph of this official Social Security publication.

Note also that the publication date of this edition of the document was August 2013. That predates Obama’s new directives about immigration policy and enforcement.

A directive that exceeds the authorization of the President. Only Congress, by the Constitution, is allowed to create immigration law.

The President hasn’t changed the law. He has established enforcement priorities, which is an administrative fuction. That sort of thing is what administrators do.

Once again you prove that liberalism is a mental disorder.

You tend to accuse people who don’t think as you do as having mental disorders. I believe that might actually be part of a spectrum of symptoms. Since I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist, I won’t speculate.

And they would bother why? They are already outside the law, a position they don’t seem to mind.

People who comply with licensing and registration requirements are far more likely to also carry required liability insurance. It’s better for the public that all drivers do.

It’s also better that undocumented aliens become documented. When they do, they become people with fixed identities that they value, and are consequently far more likely to comply with all manner of civil laws that we’re all subject to. Failure to do so suddenly has negative consequences that remain with them. I can think of no good reason why we would want the aliens living among us to remain anonymous, undocumented, and completely outside the law.

@Greg:

Non-citizens who are authorized to work by the Department of Homeland Security can get Social Security cards. Note the second paragraph

Sorry Greg, that doesn’t cover illegal aliens. It clearly says you have to have documentation. Aliens that have documents allowing them here are not illegal aliens. Try again

.It’s also better that undocumented aliens become documented.

See, even you recognize that undocumented aliens are not legal aliens.

I can think of no good reason why we would want the aliens living among us to remain anonymous, undocumented, and completely outside the law.

Since you admit you don’t have a clue, maybe you could check with the undocumented that have chosen for years to remain so.

@Greg:

Since I’m not a psychologist or psychiatrist, I won’t speculate.

Good. No sense making a bigger fool of yourself than you already have.

@Redteam, #85:

Sorry Greg, that doesn’t cover illegal aliens. It clearly says you have to have documentation.

I guess they would have something once they’d been processed, cleared, and issued an authorization to work by the Department of Homeland Security. There would be required steps that would have to have been completed before showing up at the Social Security office.

There are two categories of undocumented aliens who would be protected from deportation under Obama’s administrative policy:

Those who have lived in the United States for at least five years and are parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents; and

Those who arrived as children before 2010.

Republicans could always write legislation specifically targeting those two categories. That would certainly undo Obama’s effort to put some order and compassion into the situation. They could create create countless situations where young children who are U.S. citizens by birth would either be separated from their undocumented parents, or forced to leave the country with them.

Does that sound like a good plan?

@Greg:

I’m afraid if you’re waiting for the GOP to make any arrangements to round ‘em up and move ‘em out, you’ll be waiting for a very long time.

I’m afraid you are correct there, but not for the reason you say you believe. They won’t demand the laws be carried out because to do so would be vilified as “racist” by the left, a mantra that would be happily taken up by the left wing media. As long as Democrats politicize following the law for their own racist agenda (maintaining a large supply of minorities in poverty as a voting bloc) immigration reform cannot happen.

Democrats have ruined the chance for compromise in the past for this reason and will continue to do so.

The best solution is for potential immigrants to use the system. However, the left wing dedication to enabling and encouraging violating the laws makes this unlikely to be honored.

@Greg:

There are two categories of undocumented aliens who would be protected from deportation under Obama’s administrative policy:

That wasn’t the conversation, it was who is eligible for work permits and Social Security Cards. The source you cited clearly says they have to be ‘documented’.

Those who have lived in the United States for at least five years and are parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents; and

But, they still have to get their ‘documentation’ first. When aliens get their ‘documents’ they become legal aliens, they do not remain illegal aliens. But they still have to be ‘documented’ to get a SS card.

@Redteam, #90:

That wasn’t the conversation, it was who is eligible for work permits and Social Security Cards.

It’s precisely about that. For all practical purposes, those two classes of people are the only one’s that Obama’s policy change has any effect on. Unless you want to consider those who aren’t protected by his enforcement prioritization. I suppose those aliens would have even greater worries about deportation than before, since immigration enforcement resources would now be focused more tightly on them. They’ll be the ones who have no valid documentation of any kind.

When aliens belonging to the category Obama’s policy addresses establish to the satisfaction of Homeland Security that they meet the requirements for special status, they become documented, after a fashion. There’s nothing permanent about it. They would still be subject to any changes to Obama’s enforcement policy made by subsequent presidents, or to any legislation Congress passes that specifically addresses their situation—assuming Congress ever gets around to dealing with the problem. The only real guarantee is that they would be treated as a class of persons, rather than being subject to arbitrary enforcement that could theoretically result in the deportation of any individual at any time, for any reason.

@Greg: BUT….. Obama said of ICE agents who do not follow his administration’s stated deportation guidelines of only deporting felons, not families,”They’ve got a problem. If there are individual ICE officials, or border patrol, who aren’t paying attention to our new directives, they’ll be answerable to the department of Homeland Security. And, you know, right now, we’ve got some disagreements with some members of Congress, and some members of the judiciary in terms of what should be done. In the U.S. military when you get an order, you’re expected to follow it. ”

So, no papers, no problem.

@Nanny G: So, Obama to ICE personnel, either follow my illegal directive and break the law or be fired.

Obama won’t fire IRS administrators for violating the law, but you can be damn sure he would not stand in the way of a hourly immigration officer being fired for not subsidizing illegal immigration.

Thus is the third-world mentality of this administration. The power of subjugation.

@Nanny G, #92:

Felons, not families is a meme, not the full substance of the enforcement directives.

@Bill, #93:

Thus is the third-world mentality of this administration. The power of subjugation.

If a person works for a federal agency or is the military service, and willfully refuses to follow the directives of the Chief Executive or the Commander in Chief, there should be prompt and serious disciplinary consequences.

Individual employees or military service members are not allowed to behave as they wish based upon their own personal opinions regarding the Constitutionality of any particular policy or directive. They weren’t elected to or appointed to the offices that make those determinations. Thinking and acting otherwise is a manifestation of third-world mentality.

@Greg:

Members of the military and government workers are not required to follow unlawful orders. If their punishment or removal is contested in court, the administration will lose. A Federal Judge has ordered a injunction to Obama’s illegal orders

When will you recognize Obama is a tyrant? You would never support such behavior from a Republican and nor would we.

@Greg: Gang members can be as young as 7, according to arrests made in border states.
Obama’s families plan gives ”children” as old as 16 a free pass to stay because they are ”children.”
Even unaccompanied ”children” as old as 16 are allowed to stay.
The gang signs and gang tattoos are ignored by border agents because they will get fired if they even try to send them back.
You are ignorant of both Obama’s parsing-fine-print as well as how his policies are being practiced in the real world.

@Ditto: Members of the military and government workers are not required to follow unlawful orders. If their punishment or removal is contested in court, the administration will lose.

There is an old communist saying that whatever is not prohibited will be mandatory.
Here, in Salt Lake City, Utah, a policeman refused to perform a choreographed motorcycle routine with other PD officers in a ”gay” parade.
He was perfectly willing to protect the parade route, its participants and keep order, but that wasn’t enough for the police chief.
The chief of police actually said the mere fact that Moutsos disagreed with the message of the parade was problem enough to warrant his firing from his job.
Since when???
What has happened to personal conscience?
Mr. Moutsos is thinking about suing the City and PD for his firing over this issue.
If it were not for the fact that LDS rules this state (and the LDS float in the gay parade was awesome!) I think any jury would find with the officer.
More:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/27/policeman-claiming-he-was-forced-out-over-lgbt-controversy-mulls-lawsuit/

PS, the vast majority of the PD, it’s chief and even Mr. Moutsos are all LDS.

@Greg: As Nanny G says, unlawful orders need not be obeyed. So, the poor working sap is put in the position to either refuse to follow an illegal order and get fired or follow an illegal order and possibly be held accountable later.

Say an illegal immigrant is allowed in, per Obama’s direction to the immigration agent that he has to ignore the law and let this guy in. Then, this guy kills someone. Then, a lawyer gets involved. Then, the lawyer decides to sue everyone involved. This is the kind of position Obama puts people just trying to go to work, do a job and earn a living for their families. It is wholly unnecessary and all due to a political agenda to dilute the voting public with dependent, poverty-stricken wards of the state.

The unlawfulness of the orders in question has not been established, and in all likelihood won’t be. Obama’s actions are no more unusual than any number of other actions by any number of past presidents. Reagan and G.H.W. Bush both granted actual amnesty, purely by presidential decree. Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation entirely on his own authority, changing the legal status of millions of slaves with the stroke of a pen. Obama has only issued administrative directives. It’s within the scope of his authority as Chief Executive to do so. If Congress doesn’t like his pragmatic administrative solution to the immigration mess, they have the Constitutional authority to legislate the conditions they want. Republicans have majority control of both Houses. No one is stopping them from expressing their intentions in the form of a bill. At the very least, they could force Obama to veto legislation clearly expressing their intentions.

Civilian federal employees and military personnel don’t get to ignore administrative directives or orders from a president based on their own personal opinions. Doing so would be unlawful. If this were acceptable, politics would take over the actual daily workings of government. The partisan b.s. that has already rendered Congress dysfunctional would bring all of the working parts of government that actually do important things to a halt. Congress presently can’t even figure out how to fund something as important as Homeland Security without getting in their own way.

@Greg: I guess you think most people simply forget previous discussions? Obviously so.

Reagan compromised with Democrats on a law that granted amnesty (the Democrats, of course, lied). Bush had that same law more narrowly defined to address an issue with a certain sector of those granted amnesty.

Obama, on the other hand, simply issued a memo which states that laws in effect no longer have effect. That is illegal. Obama has no precedent.