Anyone who has a DACA permit expiring between now and March 5, 2018, can apply for a two-year renewal.Even those DACA recipients whose DACA permits expires after March 5, will be eligible for legal status for another two-plus year.

In other words, Pres. Trump is giving Congress what it wants most, the DACA amnesty decision to be postponed until AFTER the 2018 election. 

But all is not lost. I see yesterday's Fox News article* supporting what I have been calling for in relation to any DACA amnesty: birthright citizenship reform. And here's the best part: it can be addressed without a constitutional amendment, at least that's what Herry Ried said back in his S. 1351 (103rd): Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993, under TITLE X--CITIZENSHIP

SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.

"In the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth."

I agree. If Congress is going to offer DACA amnesty now to these lawbreaking illegal aliens, the very least they can do for their fellow law-abiding citizens in return is to restrict birthright U.S. citizenship to only those born exclusively under U.S. sovereignty, with no foreign allegiances or attachments at birth to ensure this type of breach of law doesn't happen again, and to finally put an end to the ludicrous situation where the offspring born here of illegal aliens are considered natural born U.S. citizens at birth.

* Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/09/04/trump-gop-should-keep-dac...

Views: 288

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

And that scripture is even more apt, Rom 1:28.

Thanks for pointing that out, Col. Nelson.

Actually, all of Ro 1:28-32 applies... whereby, every evil work is found among these reprobates, who find pleasure in their wickedness, as they cavort with those who engage in such malicious evil, laying up wrath against the day of wrath, and certain judgment in the Day of Revelation.

These reprobates thinking to make themselves judges and god's will soon find out that there is only One Righteous Judge and God of all Creation... Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Amen to that.

I recall this post made a few years back that seems fitting to repost it now.

A Word to the Wise

European Muslim Invasion -- Background (my title)
http://perezreverte.com ^ | Arturo Pérez-Reverte Posted on
10/21/2015, 11:31:27 PM by

In the year 376 AD, an enormous mass of men, women, and children appeared on the Danube frontier of the Roman Empire. They were refugee Goths who sought asylum, pressed by the advancing hordes of Attila. For several reasons - among others, that Rome was no longer what it had been - they were allowed to enter the territory of the Empire and were not exterminated, enslaved or conquered, as according to the custom of the time had happened to previous waves of immigrant peoples. In the following months, those refugees discovered that the Roman Empire was not Paradise, that the governors were weak and corrupt, that there was not wealth and food for all, and that injustice and greed were fattening upon them. And so, two years after crossing the Danube, these same Goths killed Roman Emperor Valens and destroyed his army at the battle of Adrianople. And ninety-eight years later, their grandchildren dethroned Romulus Augustulus, the last Roman Emperor, and liquidated what remained of the Roman Empire.

What the West faces has all happened before. But the thing is, we have forgotten it; irresponsible governments have erased the resources that would allow us to understand. Since the dawn of History, some peoples have invaded others due to hunger, no ambition, or because of the pressure of still others who were invading them or mistreating them; and all, until recently, defended and stood against invaders in turn: knifing them, taking their women and enslaving their children. Thus, those peoples survived until History finished them, and opened the way for other empires, that once again, suffered the same fate when their day was over. A problem confronts what we call Europe, or the West (the empire heir to a complex civilization, that has its roots in the Bible and the Talmud, with some relation to the Koran; the empire that flourished in the medieval Church and the Renaissance, that establishes the rights and freedoms of man during the Age of Reason and the French Revolution). The West is all that - Homer, Dante, Cervantes, Shakespeare, Newton, Voltaire - and the problem it faces is that it has reached the end of its timeline and is being liquidated through overthrow. It is incapable of sustaining its existence. It is incapable of defending itself. It only has money. And money only buys some time, nothing more.

We pay for our sins. The disappearance of the communist régimes and the war that an imbecile American president unleashed upon the Middle East - to install a Western-style democracy in places where the words Islam and Rais (religion mixed with tribal leadership) make it difficult for democracy set the pot to boil. The centurions who guarded our borders fell: barbarians themselves, as at the end of all empires. All those centurions were sons of bitches, but they were our sons of bitches. Without them now, our borders are overwhelmed with waves of desperate people, the vanguard of the modern barbarians -in the historic sense of the word - who ride in after them. This places us in a situation which is new to us, but as old as the world. A situation which is inevitably historic, for we find ourselves in the position of empires incapable of controlling waves of migration, peaceful at first but later aggressive: Empires, civilizations, worlds that were conquered because of their weakness, or else transformed and then died out. And the few centurions left today along the banks of the Rhine or the Danube are under the death sentence. They are sentenced due to our selfishness, our do-good hypocrisy, our ignorance of history, our cowardly incompetence. Sooner or later, again by the operation of a simple natural law, those last centurions will end by going over to the side of the barbarians for their elementary survival.
*Arturo Pérez-Reverte Gutiérrez (born 25 November 1951 in Cartagena) is a Spanish novelist and journalist. He worked as a war correspondent for RTVE and was a war correspondent for 21 years (1973-1994). His first novel, El húsar, set in the Napoleonic Wars, was released in 1986. He is well known outside Spain for his "Alatriste" series of novels. He is now a member of the Royal Spanish Academy, a position he has held since 12 June 2003.
It's about time we understand once and for all: these battles and this war are not going to be won. It cannot be done anymore. Our own social, religious and political dynamic will not allow it. And those who are pushing the Goths forward know it. The men who stopped invaders on the battlefields, slaughtering whole populations, cannot do that any longer. Our civilization, fortunately, will not tolerate such atrocities. The bad news is that we have over-reacted on the side of tolerance. European society today demands that its armies shall be "NGOs", not military forces. All vigorous action - and the only vigor is effective in certain dynamics of History - is avoided at its root, and not even Hitler would find a West so resolute in confronting him by warfare, as it was in 1939. All action against those who are pushing the Goths is criticized by pacifist forces who oppose such action with as much legitimate ideology as their lack of historical realism. Demagoguery takes the place of reality and its consequences. A significant detail: naval surveillance operations in the Mediterranean sea are not carried out to stop immigration, but rather to help the immigrants arrive safely on European shores. It is all one enormous and inevitable contradiction.

Today's European citizen is a better person than he was centuries ago, and will not tolerate a certain class of injustices and cruelties. The historic resource of cutting throats is therefore happily discarded. There can be no massacre of Goths: bad news for the empire. All this takes us to the heart of the question: Europe - or whatever we wish to call this warm realm of rights and freedoms, of economic and social welfare -is broken inside and threatened from outside. It neither knows how to, nor can, nor wants to and perhaps should not even try to defend itself. We are living in the absurd paradox of feeling sorry for the barbarians, even cheering them on, and at the same time pretending that our comfortable way of life will go on intact.

But things are not that simple. The Goths will go on arriving in waves, flooding borders, roads, and cities. They are within their rights, and they have just what Europe does not have: youth, vigor, resolve, and hunger. They are forcing us to the heart of the matter: the installation of the Goths, when they become too many, within the empire. The conflicts derived from their presence. The rights they acquire or should acquire, and which it is just and logical that they should enjoy. But neither in the Roman Empire nor in today's Europe was there or is there abundance for all - neither of work, nor of food, nor of hospitals, nor of comfortable spaces. And besides, even for good consciences, it is not the same to feel compassion for a refugee at the border, or for a mother with her son crossing a barb-wire fence or drowning in the sea, than to see them installed in a hut next to one's home, or garden, or golf course, and being outlaws, if they must, to survive in a society where fairy godmothers have broken wands; where not all of us, and every day less of us can obtain what we should like to have. And of course, there are those areas, those cities which are turning into barrels of gunpowder on a slow fuse. From time to time, they will explode, for this too is historically inevitable.

All the more so in a Europe where intellectual élites are disappearing, snuffed out by mediocrity, and where politicians who can't read and populists of all stripes take over power according to how the wind blows. The final measure will be a harder and more repressive policy, supported by those who have things to lose. That will give rise to new conflicts: the have-nots demanding what they want, furious citizens, reprisals and settling of grievances. We shall not wait too long now, and violent xenophobic groups will have multiplied all over Europe. And other groups of desperate people who choose violence to emerge from hunger, oppression, and injustice. It was also a part of the Roman population - not only the barbarians - who helped the Goths sack the Empire, either to ingratiate themselves with the barbarians or of their own accord. No Pax Romana (Roman peace) benefits all equally. The problem is that there is no way to halt History. "There must be a solution", say those who write editorials, the denizens of cafés and citizens incapable of understanding, because no one explains in the schools, that History is not "solved", but lived; and because for the most part, one reads and studies to foresee events that are never new; for often, in the history of Mankind, what is new is what has been forgotten. And what we forget is that there is not always a solution; sometimes things happen necessarily, obeying a simple natural law: new times, new barbarians. Much will remain of what is old, mixed in with the new; but the Europe that shed light upon the world is sentenced to death.

Perhaps in the course of time and with the mixture of races other empires may be better than this one, but neither you nor I will be here to find out. We are getting off at the next stop. On this journey, there are only two reasonable attitudes. One is the analgesic consolation of looking for an explanation in science and culture so that if we cannot prevent it, which is impossible, we can at least understand why everything went to Hell. I like to imagine a Roman gentleman at the window of his library, quietly observing the sack of Rome; for to understand always helps one to endure pain.

The other reasonable attitude is, I think, to prepare young people, with their children and grandchildren in mind. So that they may face clearly, bravely, humanely and with common sense, the world that is coming. So that they may adapt to the inevitable, keeping what they may be able to keep what good things this dying world may leave behind. To give them tools to live in a territory that for a certain period will be chaotic, violent and dangerous. So that they may fight for something in which they believe, or that they may resign themselves to the inevitable; but not through stupidity or passivity, but rather through lucidity, through intellectual peace of mind. Let them be what they may wish to be or may achieve: let us make them Greeks who think, Trojans who fight, or if the case should be such - Romans conscious of the proud dignity of suicide. Let us make them mixed-race survivors, willing to face a new world and to better it; but let us not confuse our children with cheap demagoguery and Walt Disney stories. It's time that we speak to our sons in the schools, in the home, and in life, looking them straight in the eye.

*Arturo Pérez-Reverte Gutiérrez (born 25 November 1951 in Cartagena) is a Spanish novelist and journalist. He worked as a war correspondent for RTVE and was a war correspondent for 21 years (1973-1994). His first novel, El húsar, set in the Napoleonic Wars, was released in 1986. He is well known outside Spain for his "Alatriste" series of novels. He is now a member of the Royal Spanish Academy, a position he has held since 12 June 2003.

Let reason command obedience and logic lead the way to peace and prosperity...

The World need not repeat the errors of our past, albeit humanity is stubborn when it comes to learning the lessons of history.  Like the law of nature certain aspects of the social order and human reaction are implicit and expected... universal and timeless.  It is therefore necessary that we examine those aspects of society that breed chaos and destruction to avoid their metastasizing.

Hope springs eternal when one believes in evolutionary faith... rather than becoming fixed the impractical and immovable events of fate.

THANK-YOU! This was very eye opening and something i could see but it happened before didn't it, that doesn't make it any better.

Clean out our schools of LIBERAL THINKING and restore teachers and professors to instruct the young about history so we can avoid this LIBERAL MIND SET. that if we do not protect this Country it will no longer belong to those patriotic to America.

BURN DACA!

CRUSH THOSE PUSHING THE PEOPLE FORWARD!

EDUCATE THE LIBERALS THAT WHAT THEY WANT WILL DESTROY OUR WORLD.

IF THEY REFUSE TO LISTEN---WE HAVE LIBERAL CAMPS WHERE THEY CAN LIVE....THEY WERE BUILT BY F.E.M.A!

Thank you for posting, Dale. Amazing description of what, where, why and when, along with to be.

Sounds like Obama messed with the laws over this.

Do ya think?

More fake news: Poll said Americans blame wild weather on Global Warming---

SHOULD SAY: DEMOCRATS WITH NO KNOWLEDGE OF WEATHER FORECASTING "THINK" GLOBAL WARMING IS CAUSING WILD WEATHER----

ITS NOT, we are at the change in seasons when all weather goes wild every year.

Talk about Fake news WHAT ABOUT THE ABC's DUFACE--"ROSS" WHO LIED AND AFFECTED THE STOCK EXCHANGE AND THEN GETS SUSPENDED---HE SHOULD BE FIRED THAT A-HOLE THAT HE IS.

ITS NOT HIS FIRST TIME EITHER.

ON TOP OF THAT ALL THE LIES ABOUT THE SENATE RACE IN ALABAMA.

TELL YOU WHAT ---ANYONE WHO VOTES FOR THAT OBAMA BUTT KISSING DEMOCRAT IN ALABAMA "WHO" [SHOULD BE LOCKED UP FOR ALL HIS LYING],

THEY SHOULD HAVE THEIR CITIZENSHIP REVOKED AND BE DEPORTED.

HIS PLTFORM WOULD DESTROY AMERICA

MOORE IS NOT WHAT THEY SAY!

 Good morning to all, I have noticed some feel as if this DACA Program can not be removed as Unconstitutional, we thats statement is wrong, President Obama used his Presidential Powers and by passed Congress on way to many things. So a long time ago my dad contacted Presidents Trump, advised him to to bring in the best for Legal Counsel for Constitutional Laws, which is Conventional Of States.

 So what President Trump did was use his Presidential Powers,  and block DACA.  He all ready knew that the court system was rigged, so he went through the legal process, all ready knew it would be shot down, but they the left did not see Convention Of States, so President Trump, had all ready turned it over to the Constitutional Authority of a Convention.

 Like Da !!!!!

Trump works with Democrats over DACA- YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdZ7bFFQHes

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Pub.L. 79–404, 60 Stat. 237, enacted June 11, 1946, is the United States federal statute that governs the way in which administrative agencies of the federal government of the United States may propose and establish regulations.


 The families behind  Administrative Procedure Act (APA) history- Sir George Warren (MP) (1735–1801), British Member of Parliament- google: https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b&ei=ytMrWvm8BIPqm...

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is listed as a Magna Carta, from the dig bats of the British Empire. If ya need to know anything else just let me know.

LOL Tif

RSS

LIGHTER SIDE

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

ALERT ALERT

FBI Text Should Alarm Every American

Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, the reported FBI lovebirds, are the poster children for the next “Don’t Text and Investigate” public service ads airing soon at an FBI office near you.

Their extraordinary texting affair on their government phones has given the FBI a black eye, laying bare a raw political bias brought into the workplace that agents are supposed to check at the door when they strap on their guns and badges.

It is no longer in dispute that they held animus for Donald Trump, who was a subject of their Russia probe, or that they openly discussed using the powers of their office to “stop” Trumpfrom becoming president. The only question is whether any official acts they took in the Russia collusion probe were driven by those sentiments.

The Justice Department’s inspector general is endeavoring to answer that question.

For any American who wants an answer sooner, there are just five words, among the thousands of suggestive texts Page and Strzok exchanged, that you should read.

That passage was transmitted on May 19, 2017. “There’s no big there there,” Strzok texted.

The date of the text long has intrigued investigators: It is two days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein named special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee an investigation into alleged collusion between Trump and the Russia campaign.

Since the text was turned over to Congress, investigators wondered whether it referred to the evidence against the Trump campaign.

This month, they finally got the chance to ask. Strzok declined to say — but Page, during a closed-door interview with lawmakers, confirmed in the most pained and contorted way that the message in fact referred to the quality of the Russia case, according to multiple eyewitnesses.

The admission is deeply consequential. It means Rosenstein unleashed the most awesome powers of a special counsel to investigate an allegation that the key FBI officials, driving the investigation for 10 months beforehand, did not think was “there.”

By the time of the text and Mueller’s appointment, the FBI’s best counterintelligence agents had had plenty of time to dig. They knowingly used a dossier funded by Hillary Clinton’s campaign — which contained uncorroborated allegations — to persuade the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court to issue a warrant to monitor Trump campaign adviser Carter Page (no relation to Lisa Page).

They sat on Carter Page’s phones and emails for nearly six months without getting evidence that would warrant prosecuting him. The evidence they had gathered was deemed so weak that their boss, then-FBI Director James Comey, was forced to admit to Congress after being fired by Trump that the core allegation remained substantially uncorroborated.

In other words, they had a big nothing burger. And, based on that empty-calorie dish, Rosenstein authorized the buffet menu of a special prosecutor that has cost America millions of dollars and months of political strife.

The work product Strzok created to justify the collusion probe now has been shown to be inferior: A Clinton-hired contractor produced multiple documents accusing Trump of wrongdoing during the election; each was routed to the FBI through a different source or was used to seed news articles with similar allegations that further built an uncorroborated public narrative of Trump-Russia collusion. Most troubling, the FBI relied on at least one of those news stories to justify the FISA warrant against Carter Page.

That sort of multifaceted allegation machine, which can be traced back to a single source, is known in spy craft as “circular intelligence reporting,” and it’s the sort of bad product that professional spooks are trained to spot and reject.

But Team Strzok kept pushing it through the system, causing a major escalation of a probe for which, by his own words, he knew had “no big there there.”

The answer as to why a pro such as Strzok would take such action has become clearer, at least to congressional investigators. That clarity comes from the context of the other emails and text messages that surrounded the May 19, 2017, declaration.

It turns out that what Strzok and Lisa Page were really doing that day was debating whether they should stay with the FBI and try to rise through the ranks to the level of an assistant director (AD) or join Mueller’s special counsel team.

“Who gives a f*ck, one more AD like [redacted] or whoever?” Strzok wrote, weighing the merits of promotion, before apparently suggesting what would be a more attractive role: “An investigation leading to impeachment?”

Lisa Page apparently realized the conversation had gone too far and tried to reel it in. “We should stop having this conversation here,” she texted back, adding later it was important to examine “the different realistic outcomes of this case.”

A few minutes later Strzok texted his own handicap of the Russia evidence: “You and I both know the odds are nothing. If I thought it was likely, I’d be there no question. I hesitate in part because of my gut sense and concern there’s no big there there.”

So the FBI agents who helped drive the Russia collusion narrative — as well as Rosenstein’s decision to appoint Mueller — apparently knew all along that the evidence was going to lead to “nothing” and, yet, they proceeded because they thought there was still a possibility of impeachment.

Impeachment is a political outcome. The only logical conclusion, then, that congressional investigators can make is that political bias led these agents to press an investigation forward to achieve the political outcome of impeachment, even though their professional training told them it had “no big there there.”

And that, by definition, is political bias in action.

How concerned you are by this conduct is almost certainly affected by your love or hatred for Trump. But put yourself for a second in the hot seat of an investigation by the same FBI cast of characters: You are under investigation for a crime the agents don’t think occurred, but the investigation still advances because the desired outcome is to get you fired from your job.

TEA PARTY TARGET

 Trump Poised To Take
 Control Of The Federal Reserve 

  • The Fed doesn’t stabilize markets and money — it does the opposite
  • President Trump sharply criticized the Federal Reserve this week, saying interest rate increases are hurting the economy.
  • Trump will have the opportunity to fashion the central bank in the image he would like as he has four vacancies to fill on the board of governors.
  • The result could be a more politicized Fed.

President Donald Trump has multiple reasons as to why he should take control of the Federal Reserve. He will do so both because he can and because his broader policies argue that he should do so. The president is anti-overregulating American industry. The Fed is a leader in pushing stringent regulation on the nation. By raising interest rates and stopping the growth in the money supply it stands in the way of further growth in the American economy.

First, He Can

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve is required to have seven members. It has three. Two of the current governors were put into their position by President Trump. Two more have been nominated by the president and are awaiting confirmation by the Senate. After these two are put on the Fed’s board, the president will then nominate two more to follow them. In essence, it is possible that six of the seven Board members will be put in place by Trump.

The Federal Open Market Committee has 12 members and sets the nation’s monetary policy. Seven of the 12 are the members of the Board of Governors. Five additional are Federal Reserve district bank presidents. Other than the head of the Fed bank in New York, who was nominated by the president, the other four can only take their positions as district bank presidents if the board in Washington agrees to their hiring. One of these, the Fed Bank president in Minneapolis, Neel Kashkari, is already arguing for no further rate increases.

Second, Regulation

Following the passage of the Dodd Frank Act in July 2010, the Fed was given enormous power to regulate the banking industry. It moved quickly to implement a number of new rules. The Fed set up a system that would penalize banks that failed to obey its new rules. These rules included setting limits as to how big an individual bank could be; how much money the banks had to invest in fed funds and Treasurys as a percent of their assets; which loans were desirable and which were not; where the banks had to obtain their funding and many, many, more up to and including how much a bank could pay its investors in dividends.

These rules have meaningfully slowed bank investments in the economy (the Volcker Rule) and they have had a crippling effect on bank lending in the housing markets (other agencies have had an impact here also).

Thus, of all of the government agencies the Fed has been possibly the most restrictive. The president has already moved to correct these excesses by putting in place a new Fed Governor (Randal Quarles) to regulate the banking industry.

Three, Killing Economic Growth

In the second quarter of 2018, the growth in non-seasonally adjusted money supply (M2) has been zero. That’s right, the money supply did not grow at all. This is because the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet ultimately by $50 billion per month. In addition, the Fed has raised interest rates seven times since Q4 2015. Supposedly there are five more rate increases coming.

This is the tightest monetary policy since Paul Volcker headed the institution in the mid-1980s. It will be recalled his policies led to back-to-back recessions. Current Fed monetary policy is directly in conflict with the president’s economic goals.

Moreover, the Treasury is estimating it will pay $415 billion in interest on the federal debt in this fiscal year. A better estimate might be $450 billion if rates keep going up. There are a lot of bridges and tunnels and jobs that could be created with this money.

Then there is inflation. It is likely to rise if the Fed eases its policies. If that happens paying down the federal debt becomes easier. On a less desirable note, higher interest rates lower real estate values. Lower rates that stimulate inflation increase real estate values.

Bottom Line

The president can and will take control of the Fed. It may be recalled when the law was written creating the Federal Reserve the secretary of the Treasury was designated as the head of the Federal Reserve. We are going to return to that era. Like it or not the Fed is about to be politicized.

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service