dagblog - Comments for "One vote"

Did you help Newt write these

artappraiser — Fri, 05 Dec 2014 01:50:28 +0000

In reply to The executive branch is not

Did you help Newt write these Tweets reproduced over at The Weekly Standard? Sounds just like you!

Your illustration is so

Resistance — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 05:00:14 +0000

In reply to Discretion is a fact of life

Your illustration is so ridiculous.

America was invaded and you want to put it on par with speeding tickets?

Ego?

Obama asked Congress for $3.7

Resistance — Tue, 25 Nov 2014 04:22:56 +0000

In reply to Discretion is a fact of life

Obama asked Congress for $3.7 billion

Why should Congress, vote to approve a request by a President, whose main agenda was not Border Security but instead; the President was going to squander over 2/3 of the requested $3.7 billion on a NON - Border Security agenda.

Of the requested $3.7 billion; $1.8 billion was to be directed towards basic necessities like food and shelter for unaccompanied immigrant children;

As I wrote earlier, I suspect these unaccompanied immigrant children was always a scheme/ design to overwhelm the Border and to enfeeble immigration enforcement;

By design, very little money to be directed towards Securing the Border and then overwhelm the system, Then claim "see it's broken, we need a new one" .

Of the requested $ 3.7, at most; $1 Billion dollars would actually be applied for Border Protection.

Your claims of “discretion” are true.

In the “discretion” of the President, he doesn’t want to enforce the law and stop illegal immigration. The President talks about a new law, but the old law works, if the president would enforce the law

What would a new law do, to remedy non- compliance by a President who could claim discretion? His discretion over the Will of the People?

So please don’t give us this BS, that Congress wouldn’t allocate the money.

The American people are not as stupid as His majesty Obama believes, we know how Washington works.

How long before this President and Democrats figure out; the House is not going to squander taxpayer money on the President and his Party’s agenda.

Blackmailing the House of Representatives and the American taxpayers

President: “Give me money for what I want and I’ll think about Securing the Border”

House of Representatives: Mr. President you swore and oath to defend the United States from invaders and to faithfully execute the laws deliberated and enacted by the Congress

President: “Screw that, I am the executive and I’ll decide what laws I’ll defend”

Illegals: To hell with the immigration laws.

Obama: To hell with the immigration laws.

Open Border advocates. “Right on Mr. President, you have our full support”

Discretion is a fact of life

ocean-kat — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 20:34:11 +0000

In reply to Wikipedia:Civility

Discretion is a fact of life in government from top to bottom. We experience it everyday. For example Most of us speed or if not us we see people speeding. And in most cases speeders don't get stopped or ticketed. Its not the chief of police who's at fault. With limited resources many crimes must be ignored or lightly enforced. The chief of police could order all city cops to focus totally on stopping people speeding and put no resources on arresting murderers, rapists etc. Even if all the city's cops did nothing but ticket speeders they still could not catch them all. Some choices must be made to allocate those limited resources.

We have disagreements over matters of opinion. For example I favor a path to citizenship, you want all illegal immigrants deported. That's a matter of opinion. Then there are matters of fact. The fact is Obama is enforcing the law to the limit that it is possible given the amount of money congress has allocated. There is only enough money to deport 400,000 illegal immigrants a year. If you want more deportations congress must pass a law authorizing more resources. We disagree about what that law should be, that's a matter of opinion. That a new law must be passed for there to be changes in immigration beyond shifting limited resources around is a matter of fact.

These facts are irrefutable. Anyone with reasonable intelligence can see that. Anyone sane would admit their error. I have some patience for those so lacking in intelligence they can not see these simple facts. I have no patience what so ever with people who are so attached to their ego they are incapable of admitting an error.

Wikipedia:Civility

Resistance — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 14:24:50 +0000

In reply to OK, I read your link. First a

Wikipedia:Civility

Prosecutorial discretion

I guess this explains why the Obama administration will not investigate, prosecute and seek convictions against:

Banksters, torturers, intelligence community liars, those who violated privacy laws, police who violate civil rights laws or IRS harassment

Appears to me ”Prosecutorial discretion” allows the President (any President), to escape the charge, of not enforcing the law.

As I wrote, Obama refused to enforce the law, and all your insults and excuses of why; doesn't change that fact.

Edited to make changes and add

Should the Republicans find him more money, or do you think the Executive can't find cuts in other areas?

Or maybe some of the money allocated to Border Security should have gone for that purpose rather than lawyers, for the surge of unaccompanied minors, as a result of DACA . Or money asked for Border Security, instead was going to be directed towards fighting fires.

"Prosecutorial discretion" BS

A tool used by autocrats to circumvent the law ?

An autocrat gets to decide what laws they'll enforce?.

Resistance — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 09:50:44 +0000

In reply to OK, I read your link. First a

Removed duplicate

OK, I read your link. First a

ocean-kat — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 04:36:39 +0000

In reply to Obama is refusing to enforce

OK, I read your link. First a lawsuit is not proof of anything. It may be thrown out of court. Right wing idiots have been fileing lawsuits for the past six years for example: claiming Obama is not eligible to be president because he was born in Kenya. They have all been thrown out of court because they are lies. This lawsuit might also be false.

But let us assume it's true. This lawsuit does not claim the ICE or Obama is not enforcing the law. The lawsuit claims some lawyers were harassed "for not implementing "prosecutorial discretion"" to their boss's satisfaction. It claims that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's chief counsel in Houston ordered "attorneys to review all new, incoming cases and thousands already pending on the immigration court docket and to file paperwork to dismiss any that did not meet the agency's "top priorities.""

" ICE legal offices across the country were encouraged to consider measures to better use the agency's limited resources to target dangerous criminals."

Not only is prosecutorial discretion legal it is absolutely necessary as congress has not allocated sufficient resources to prosecute all illegal immigrants. Since only 400,000 out of 11.4 million can be deported I favor focusing on dangerous criminals. How do you think the limited resources should be deployed, against illegal immigrants with a parking ticket?

I suppose it's possible that some attorneys were harassed for not obeying directives on how to use the agency's limited resources. Harassment, especially sexual harassment is unacceptable. But a directive on the manner in which limited resources are deployed does not in any way even suggest that the law was not being enforced. I suspect that you didn't bother to read your own link, or more likely, you are too ignorant to understand it.

You posted, "BTW The decree by his Highness through his Executive decree, will apply by default to all 12-20 million illegals in the country as well as the millions more who will now come here to enjoy the permanent cessation of borders and sovereignty."

That too is false. All reporting on Obama's executive order clearly states that it only affects people who have been in the country more than five years. I'm sure that there is a specific date in the order, as that's the way such legislation is written.

When people choose to spout off in public they should remember Lincoln's maxim, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." If anyone here was in any doubt as to your foolishness your posts in this thread has removed all doubt.

Obama is refusing to enforce

Resistance — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 03:23:00 +0000

In reply to Look dude, you posted an

Obama is refusing to enforce the law.

His policies reflect that determination.

Not only does he refuse to enforce the law; he tramples upon them by refusing to accept his limited delegated powers; conferred upon him by the People and their Constitution and its safeguards from authoritarian rule. A president can't confer privileges to illegals. A king can do that. not a President of the United States

Obama Anti-Enforcement ...

Lawsuit by Career ICE Attorney Exposes Obama Anti ...

Nov 11, 2014 - Lawsuit by Career ICE Attorney Exposes Obama Anti-Enforcement ... with the Obama administration's immigration enforcement suppression ...

Granting 5 + million amnesty, is not enforcing the laws, it is a dereliction of his duty to enforce the law.

BTW The decree by his Highness through his Executive decree, will apply by default to all 12-20 million illegals in the country as well as the millions more who will now come here to enjoy the permanent cessation of borders and sovereignty.

Just as his DACA order led to an influx of minors to our borders, requiring Biden to address the issue after its enactment.

To draw to a conclusion, further insults by you DUDE .

Was it ignorance on your part that you couldn't type in "Obama anti enforcement".

Or is your boredom satisfied by insulting others?

In the future, if you can't be civil.... KMA

Look dude, you posted an

ocean-kat — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 01:55:10 +0000

In reply to A suggestion

Look dude, you posted an ignorant rant stating that there's no need for a new law and that Obama is refusing to enforce the law. I'm simply trying to address that comment. You claim Obama is using that lack of enforcement to blackmail the congress. Everything you wrote is totally false.

Resistance posted:

There is already a law in place and just because Obama doesn't want to enforce that law; doesn't change the fact there is already a law in place.

What good is the law, if the Executive sworn to uphold the laws, decides he'll ignore the laws the executive dislikes.

Blackmailing the House to give this President a new law; when its obvious the problem exist because the previous law was enfeebled by the Executive Branch

None of this is true. Every sentence is completely false. I'd call you a liar but I think you're so ill informed and ignorant that you believe it.

So once again, In what way is Obama not enforcing the law? Stop trying to obfuscate. Either answer the question or admit you're wrong.

A suggestion

Resistance — Mon, 24 Nov 2014 01:47:27 +0000

In reply to Where was the United States

A suggestion

The Commander and Chief should have declared an Executive order?

Claiming National Security had been compromised "give me more money to deal with this problem"

Problem for American workers and those opposed to this invasion, Obama had no plans to deal with the problem, other than give Amnesty to millions of tomorrows workers