Sanctuaries for illegals, bullets and crime for citizens.

Sanctuary cities — my new term is Sanc-cities.

Byron York has an article in the Washington Examiner reporting what Obama, Clinton and Biden said in debating it in 2008.
Clinton said:

So this is a result of the failure of the federal government, and that’s where it needs to be fixed.

The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.

Read more here

Its the one thing they all had in common, each blame federal government for being derelict in its duties. According to them, this is the reason we have sanctuary cities to begin with.

Now that they are the ones running federal government, the problem is immigration is so broken. But they won’t say what exactly is wrong with the laws, or why they are broken, they just propose “immigration reform”. Why would anyone not be suspicious about what they are doing? They even claim that the sanctuary policies make the cities safer. Creating a huge magnet to attract illegals, and release them to recommit crimes makes cities safer?

Notice how progressives blame federal government, like ICE, but yet they don’t want ICE to be able to do their job. No they don’t want any cooperation between local communities and ICE. Actually, the dems would have all sanctuary cities, towns, communities. But they would still blame the federal government for being derelict in their duties — to enforce the law. It’s equivalent to a dog or cat chasing its tail endlessly. How can they get away with this since the Dems are in control of both the sanctuary cities and the federal government? (via executive branch)

The Constitution never gave cities or towns the ability to write immigration laws…or ignore them completely. They have policies like don’t ask don’t tell on immigration. They don’t want authorities to ask immigration status nor illegals to say they are undocumented.

We have a full-court blame fest going on. Sanc-cities blame feds, feds blame the cities, Obama says we need more funding for the laws they aren’t enforcing. All say that the system is completely broken that we need reform to fix the problems.

In other words, we cannot fix any problems without creating another bureaucratic expansion of federal government– and funding it the same. So they want more laws for Sanc-cites to refuse to enforce. Or until they get ones they like. Border agents blame administration for threatening them not to enforce the law.

All these oath takers cannot keep their oath of office. You might as well call it civil disobedience. But if they were really in civil disobedience, you would think they would just quit the job in protest then if they cannot do it. Instead, they defy their oath of office by not following the law despite what the consequences of that brings.

RightRing | Bullright

House Divided – 2: place your bets

[Pt #1]
Now leftist “progressives” want to cuckoofy anyone supporting traditions, values, founding principles, or our ability to speak up for them. Publicly or privately makes no difference. While those things are only reasonable to us, they turn even those ideas on their collective heads. So it’s a logical leap, to the left anyway, to plunge another step down the ladder to declare that any reluctance to support the LGBT agenda is either prejudiced or hate speech. Now they claim courage is best defined by Bruce Jenner in his sex change.

Never mind that for centuries we thought we knew how courage was defined. And dare you call courage something related to the military or war, or standing for freedom. Then the Left gets all bent out of shape at using the term courage toward soldiers. Use the term courage toward Chris Kyle, or American Sniper, and you get the ire of the left. How many other names or labels did they define him with?

Now it’s even gone another step lower on the integrity scale, to endorsing a field trip to a sex shop for middle school students. They will probably define that as a courageous stand — and no apology needed. Who do those parents think they are? What’s it to them?

A while back a public school teacher was compelled to apologize for having 5th grade kids send get well cards to a convicted cop killer in prison, and filling them in on his circumstances. But when she made her “apology,” people in the crowd yelled “you have nothing to apologize for”. Is that not revealing? Another thing to call courageous. People cannot even be outraged about that without getting attacked for their outrage.

But if you want to make a statement against police or call an entire police department or city “structurally racist,” be their guest and you’re applauded. No proof needed… surely you cannot deny it is. But when a Christian family criticizes leaking sealed reports about two under age victims for political purposes, then you are the bigot for complaining. The world, it seems, has been reversed and cranked to mach speed.

I posted an old report on Harry Reid taking an anti-illegal immigration stand in the early 90’s. Well, it seems hypocritical enough alone. But in the rhetoric Reid used lies the disturbing truth. Back then what Harry Reid was pushing in his bill was called “immigration reform”. He also took issue with the anchor baby policy. However, as evidenced in the last several years, the term immigration reform has been spun around to apply toward amnesty supporting illegal immigration, even open borders. See how the term changed? Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of the redefinition.

It turns out that things have reversed even in the past 20 years. So what was then considered “immigration reform” is now: “straight up racism. We want amnesty NOW!!! (and the votes that come with it) Borders are for bigots!” What happened? Anyone that can deny the change just isn’t living in this country.

Today doing something unconstitutional rallies applause. Calling a branch of government obsolete and irrelevant is in vogue. People demand more executive orders. Attack the Supreme Court in a SOTU address, bonus points and turn the attack into a campaign fundraiser. Years ago a national police would have been protested. Today progressives and activists demand the federal government take over the local police departments.

Take issue with the death of one person by cops and hold rallies in cities; shut down bridges, roads, traffic, or shopping centers at peak holidays. Hold marches chanting death to cops. Complain about police departments and politicize them. We saw how it works. Have mayors and officials tell cops to stand down while crowds loot and riot. Then ask the government for money to pay for damages. Tell store owners they should shut down and abandon their property. Pay for the political policies of leaders with the property of private store owners. Must be some form of reparations for slavery or something. Meanwhile, the slavery we are seeing is from thugs in the streets. HANDS UP…DON’T LOOT!

Finally, a stand-up comedian with a great reputation says the college campuses are too politicized, or politically correct, for his jokes. Yet an elitist political creature of Washington is paid 250,000 dollars to speak at Universities. No one bats an eye at that. Obama ran his campaign from Universities. The same colleges and Universities declare people speaking about Human Rights abuses are way too controversial for campuses and called trigger warnings. Organized anti-Semitic groups petition Universities to boycott Israeli students — persona non grata.

Protest a man be thrown out of Mozzila because he happens to hold traditional personal beliefs. A pizzeria makes a theoretical statement to not cater a fictional same-sex wedding and activists want it shut down, and threaten its owners. Don’t bake a cake for gay couple and you are shut down, hauled to court, threatened and defamed. Give to certain groups or try to support causes you agree with and you’re singled out if not by radicals as a bigot, potentially by a radicalized IRS. Sell the wrong legal merchandise in your store the government doesn’t like, wham you have big problems.

Try to start a 501-c3 to educate people and be attacked by mountains of regulations with bureaucrats from every alphabet agency of Government, which would make King George blush. Then the federal government seizes entire business accounts because it does not like your business. So do you ever hear liberals and progressives complain about these abuses or actions? You already know.

This is just a short list of examples. All have something in common. What once might have been taboo, perverse, abuse, harassment is now standard protocol. Want justice? Yea, they’ve sort of redefined that to proving your innocence first. King George would have been elated and rolling on the floor.

So the progressive left has big problems with people wanting to have some pride in our country and the rule of law, or its founding documents?

Sorry, I needed a new word – cuckoofy, I like it.

RightRing | Bullright

Fleeting election and “immigration”

As soon as the election was over almost everyone was talking about “immigration”, which it is not anyway. But why?

It’s even less understandable if you look at the history. Last year is when approval polls really started going down, just as they were haranguing over “immigration reform” and the Senate was moving a bill. So what have we learned? People really were not happy or interested in doing what they wanted to do. Did they learn the lesson?

Another example of big government. Politicians saw some euphoric “bipartisan support” for it in the Senate, but the unpopularity or dislike for amnesty among the people was high and growing.(blaming them) There were some other events at the time, too, though disapproval spiked from that point remaining to date.

And yet here we are in the 2014 midterm election and its the very first thing they want to talk about. It is now Obama’s unilateral threat, as soon as he can do it.

In my view, it is chief among reasons people are/were angry and distrust pols, yet they are chomping at the bit. Even after we just had an insurgency of over 60,000 more illegals, and people were really ticked off at that. Within 24 hours they were back at it.

We have so many problems: the border is Swiss cheese, enforcement a problem and our security is at risk, yet they are worried about people besides voters. Isn’t that typical? At least by now you would think they could try to call it something besides “immigration”.

RightRing | Bullright

SOS Jeb Bush on the road again

While trying to sound tough, he was only repackaging the same old circular logic.

Jeb Bush on border: Send the kids home

By JONATHAN TOPAZ | 7/24/14 | Politico

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush says in a new op-ed that the vast majority of children who have crossed the border illegally must be sent back home, and he called on House Republicans to take action on immigration reform.

“Now is the time for House Republicans to demonstrate leadership on this issue,” Bush wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed published Wednesday evening that he co-authored with Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute. “Congress should not use the present crisis as an excuse to defer comprehensive immigration reform.”

Bush said the influx of 50,000 undocumented children along the U.S.-Mexico border “is the latest consequence of the failure of President [Barack] Obama and Congress to overhaul America’s broken immigration system.”

“The best antidote to illegal immigration is a functioning system of legal immigration,” he wrote.

The potential Republican presidential candidate in 2016 called for “compassion” in the op-ed, harking back to his comments in April that many illegal immigrants come to the U.S. out of an “act of love.”

“Except for those deserving few who may demonstrate true cause for asylum or protection from sex trafficking, these children must be returned to their homes in Central America,” Bush wrote.

hRead more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/jeb-bush-immigration-crisis-children-border-109321.html

Let me try to unpack his statements.

“Now is the time for House Republicans to demonstrate leadership on this issue,”

You don’t get it, do you? This is a crisis of Obama’s making. We have zero trust in him to enforce law. Now you want a new one. Congress cannot even trust him with a new law, much less enforce the ones we have.

“the latest consequence of the failure of President [Barack] Obama and Congress to overhaul America’s broken immigration system.”

Obama took the liberty to change the law already. That’s what caused this crisis.

“The best antidote to illegal immigration is a functioning system of legal immigration.”

Look, Jeb, you seem like a smart guy. You do realize these people ignore and break our law now? Shouldn’t someone be blaming “enforcement” of the law? (lack of)

“Except for those deserving few who may demonstrate true cause for asylum or protection from sex trafficking, these children must be returned to their homes in Central America.”

Sounds like an enforcement problem to me. Or lack thereof. Instead, we’re sending signals of non-enforcement and halting deportations, and the smoke signals have hovered for a few years. They are coming in the hopes of changing the law and receiving amnesty. So the only answer then is changing the law?

Someone please show Jeb to the door. Two people in one family was quite enough. He sounds like Obama, for Pete’s sake, blaming Congress for what Obama did. That’s right, he wants to run alright but he doesn’t want to be stained by the current political environment. He wants the road cleared and paved ahead of him.

RightRing | Bullright

Boston bombing and immigration

Why the Boston bombing problems could matter to the immigration issue

If you listened to the pundits and strategists on the left, and lamestream media, you heard the outcry about bringing the bombing into the debate over illegal immigration. Well, what debate, it was actually a private deal being crafted by a group in Congress. And just as they were ironing out their plan, the Boston Marathon bombing took place.

Almost immediately came the cries Republicans better not use this against the “immigration” proposal coming down the pike like a 90 mph fastball. You better not, they said. But there are legitimate ties and questions about immigration reform related the bombing. They were from a satellite Russian region, who came here around ten years ago. The parents returned to Dagestan.

Suspect #1 was the subject of a tip from Russia warning of radical ties, which we still haven’t got the details about. He had traveled back to the area for a six month tour, which is still being questioned.

But things seemed to fall apart as to connecting him to the bombing early on. It seems some intelligence or connections were missed. There are questions if information was shared. Then, in fact, they had a hard time connecting the pictures on a guy the feds had already questioned in detail. Someone who was on a watch list at one time anyway. Why? It looks now like something was not connected or followed through.

And now the left is adamant that “you cannot tie immigration to what happened in Boston.”  And why not, why is it suddenly off the table? The truth may be closer than you think.

One little irrelevant thing no one has mentioned is Boston had been listed as a sanctuary city in 2005, and Cambridge has long been a proud sanctuary city, something they boast about. Ah, and the bombing debacle has nothing to do with immigration?

Well, sanctuary cities have a long pattern of not working with ICE or federal immigration authorities. They consider it almost a matter of protest. Now it starts to make a little more sense. Likely a glaring reason why Libs did not want the immigration issue with the bombing investigation.

Could that have been a big part of the problem? Could it be these lax policies, and politics, played some role in the original investigation of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, suspect #1? Maybe those are the dots that didn’t connect they way they should have?

This matters if information was not shared regarding Tamerlan Tsarnaev, or others that may have known or cooperated with them — like visa violations. If the mindset was to withhold sharing of certain critical info, or not to cooperate with ICE or Feds where immigration is an issue, how far does it go? Does it impact on national security?

Policy Order Resolution
O-16
ORIGINAL ORDER
IN CITY COUNCIL
May 8, 2006

Cambridge has a proud history as a Sanctuary city, as declared by City Council Order Number 4 of April 8, 1985; and
(Whereas) There are now approximately 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States /… …
(Whereas) Current US immigration policy does not reflect our standards of what is just, humane and moral; and
Both undocumented and documented immigrants in the U.S. fuel our economy and those of their countries of origin;

NBC Firstread Aug, 2011

In at least 2005, however, Boston was identified as a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants by a former lawyer for the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service.

 

Spring 2005: Sanctuary cities, states undermining the Republic

James H. Walsh

Recent proclamations by certain U.S. cities and
states offering sanctuary to all immigrants, despite
their legal standing, demonstrates contempt for federal
laws. Among the new sanctuaries or civil liberties safe
zones are the states of California, Maine, and Oregon.
Sanctuary cities include Anchorage, Baltimore,
Durham (NC), Madison (WI), along with Boston,
Houston, Los Angeles, and New York City. These
renegade governmental entities, which challenge the
validity of U.S. immigration laws, are spreading like a
cancer rotting the sinew, muscle, and bone of the
American Republic. The result, intentional or not,
promises to be a balkanized network of warring city-states.

Sanctuary Cities: What are they?

By Steve Salvi, Founder, OJJPAC.org

Despite a 1996 federal law [the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act ( IIRIRA )] that requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), many large urban cities (and some small) have adopted so-called “sanctuary” policies. Generally, sanctuary policies instruct city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens living in their communities. The policies also end the distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens–so illegal aliens often benefit from taxpayer funded government services and programs too.

A formal sanctuary policy is a written policy that may have been passed by a local government body in the form of a resolution, ordinance, or administrative action–general or special orders, or departmental policies. Formal sanctuary cities are the easiest to identify because their sanctuary policies are in writing, often get the attention of the media, and subject to public records requests by citizens and the press.

http://www.ojjpac.org/index.asp