Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Left’

Nullifying immigration law: Judge illegally puts injunction on ‘lesson plans’


Written by | July 11, 2019

Law

TimArbaev | Getty Images

The far-Left Democrats are trying to build momentum to abolish ICE and all enforcement of our sovereignty. Politically, it would take them 100 years to accomplish that goal, if ever. But the lower courts are doing it for them overnight with no pushback from the other branches of government.

Thanks to the fecklessness of the other branches, there is literally nothing a single forum-shopped district judge can do that will be regarded as out of bounds. They have nullified all immigration laws, they have abolished the essence of the census, they have commandeered Trump’s twitter account, they have taken control over issuance of press badges at the White House, and they have appointed themselves supervisors over which lawyers DOJ can send to represent the administration in their royal courts. Now they are going after lesson plans.

On Tuesday, Ketanji Brown Jackson, a district judge in D.C. who is often touted as the next liberal SCOTUS pick, issued an injunction on two potential deportations of illegal aliens because she questioned the legitimacy of a lesson plan at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for training asylum adjudicators. She said that the new lesson plans drafted on April 30 might make it tougher for credible fear claims to be granted, even though they were implemented to actually weed out fraudulent claims. Thus, two illegal aliens from El Salvador who were ordered deported through the expedited removal process after losing their bid for asylum petitioned the judge to block the deportations, even though statute stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to review such a case.

Never mind the fact that the sole discretion for guidance in dealing with initial credible fear interviews and appeals is up to the DHS secretary and the attorney general. Beyond that, U.S.C. § 1158(b)(2)(C) states, “The Attorney General may by regulation establish additional limitations and conditions, consistent with this section, under which an alien shall be ineligible for asylum under paragraph (1).”

The key issue here is that such determinations of credible fear for those placed in expedited removal are completely unreviewable by federal courts, because Congress barred courts from jurisdiction over the entire issue. As the Congressional Research Service explains of expedited removal, a statue that passed the Senate unanimously in 1996, “The jurisdictional bar applies to claims that an immigration officer improperly placed an alien in expedited removal proceedings; challenges to an immigration officer’s credible fear determination; arguments challenging the procedures and policies implemented by DHS to expedite removal; and claims contesting the expedited removal order itself.”

Those jurisdictional bars are spelled out very clearly in 8 U.S.C. §1252(a)(2)(A). Yet Judge Jackson, in an act of civil disobedience against immigration law, says she will review the case anyway because DOJ’s arguments “raise complicated questions of statutory interpretation that will require briefing and evaluation.”

But if she hasn’t determined that she even has jurisdiction to decide the case, how can she then definitively decide to issue an injunction? As Chris Hajec, director of litigation at the Immigration Reform Law Institute, told CR, “I have never heard that this ‘jurisdiction-to-decide’ includes the jurisdiction to issue injunctions. How can a court exercise a power it hasn’t yet decided it has? In fact, staying removal doesn’t help the court decide whether it has jurisdiction to stay removal.”

The law is so clear that even the Ninth Circuit said in 2011, “Congress expressly deprived courts of jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from an expedited removal order.” (United States v. Barajas-Alvarado (9th Cir. 2011))

Congress has plenary power over immigration. “Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is” over immigration (Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 792 (1977)). Congress also has plenary power over the jurisdiction of the courts. This holds true for even the Supreme Court and certainly for inferior courts, which, according to Edmund Randolph, the nation’s first attorney general, “must have slept forever without the pleasure of Congress.” There are multiple statutes added to the INA in 1996 stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear numerous cases regarding deportations. But the judge is violating the essence of the Constitution.

This is a growing pattern with the lower courts not only engaging in civil disobedience against immigration law, but blatantly violating Congress’ ironclad power to strip their jurisdiction. They did this in the case of TPS amnesty and in several deportation cases, as well as creating habeas corpus rights for illegal aliens explicitly barred by the 1996 law.

Waiting for the Supreme Court to police its own branch is no longer an option. SCOTUS allows the damage to percolate for years before considering the cases. Then, even when it overturns the lower courts, the litigators come back in 999 other cases and get the lower courts to ignore the Supreme Court. Just yesterday, a Michigan judge, Victoria Roberts, implied that she might place another injunction on Trump’s “travel ban,” even though it was categorically affirmed by the Supreme Court!

As acting USCIS Director Ken Cuccinelli observed:

This is also yet one more reminder that those Republicans suggesting that we need new laws to fix the border are living in an alternate reality. It is impossible to pass laws stronger than the expedited removal law in 1996, which categorically kicked the courts out of these cases. If our response to courts violating the law and hearing the cases they are forbidden to touch is to pass new laws that will be ignored by the courts, we are fiddling with a futile exercise while our border burns.

Author: Daniel Horowitz

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.

Getting Caught Up on Politically INCORRECT Cartoons by A.F. Branco


Inspector Clueless

According to the IG report, Comey is Basically an insubordinate bumbling fool as an FBI Director, but no “evidence” of political bias (cough, cough).

AG Report Comey Insubordinate

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

Raging Bull S#!%

A very petulant Immature Robert De Niro attacking President Trump with profanity while he’s negotiating with the other G7 counties.

Robert De Niro and Trump

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

Promises Promises

The Mainstream media and the Democrats are very worried this 2018 election that the Trump base is growing and not yet tired of winning.

Trump Base Not Tied of Winning Yet

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News” and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

 

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A,F, Branco


No Pain, No Gain

The Leftist Herd


Posted By E.M. Cadwaladr | November 14, 2017

The fundamental difference between ourselves and the left isn’t that we believe in smaller government and they don’t. Nor is it that we believe in the practical necessity of borders and they don’t. It is that we believe in a life with absolute standards… and they don’t.

Take the transgender issue for example. Ten years ago, the notion that a man should be allowed to use the women’s restroom simply on the grounds that he has “declared” himself a woman would have been an absurdity to almost everyone in this country, right and left. What we didn’t realize until recently is that the two sides believed the same thing for entirely different reasons. Conservatives have access to certain moral resources progressives lack. Most of us have at least one foot grounded in the Bible, which, despite the corrosive power of liberal churches, tendeth not to move around much on the fundamentals. Things that are Biblically wrong remain Biblically wrong — forever. Even nonreligious conservatives have a sort of visceral skepticism about change – a feeling in their bones that change is at least as likely to be for the worse as for the better. Conservatives who don’t believe in God, in other words, at least believe in not reforming what isn’t currently broken.

Progressives lack such standards to guide them. Cut off from any permanent underpinnings by a quixotic belief in change, they move as a herd guided only by their loudest members. Yesterday the herd believed that women’s rights were paramount, so any intrusion into a woman’s restroom by a male, especially a deviant one, was an outrage. But now — presto change-o! — the merely female has been outranked by the more trendy and interesting transgender, and women must shift a row toward the back of the progressive bus. For the progressive, any moral idea is merely a passing fashion — something to be discarded when last year’s victims start to get a little boring. To take a permanent stand on any issue would be to deny that we must follow our leaders down the perpetual road of progress — or, as an earlier generation of leftists put it a bit more honestly, a permanent state of revolution.

Progressives live on a kind of moral roulette wheel, ready to conform to whatever emotional imperative the ball happens to land on next. It was quite ironic that, during the 2016 elections, progressives launched a campaign to smear conservative Trump supporters as sharing one unique characteristic — a marked tendency toward authoritarianism. Really? This observation came from a leftist electorate so pliable to authority that they can believe even a person’s gender is merely a choice — if their opinion makers so decree.

I know of no one who supported Donald Trump because he was an authority figure. He wasn’t. If that was what we wanted we would have rallied behind some senior general — not behind a real estate tycoon with orange hair. Far from voting for a human master, we picked the first candidate in decades with the courage to articulate our standards — even if the man himself hadn’t always conformed to them. We will, no doubt, abandon Trump should he betray us.

We are not the people who backed Hillary Clinton, no matter how obviously crooked she was, on the grounds that, as a woman, she had a right to the presidency — at least as long as there wasn’t a candidate of color or a trendy pervert in the race. Far from being pro-authoritarian, we back those who are willing to fight for our interests and our deeply held beliefs. It is the left, not we, who grovel in cult-like groupie worship before their celebrity victim candidates du jour.

While they help themselves to a self-image of intellectual and ethical sophistication, progressives are often no more sophisticated than teenagers trying desperately to maintain their places in the “in” group. The ideal of the Christian is to live a Godly life — even in the face of humiliation, ostracism, and persecution.

The ideal of the progressive is to go with the flow. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” We should not be in the least surprised about any of the recent scandals in Hollywood. Such events are scandals only by our standards — not by theirs. It was precisely the general notoriety and acceptance of Harvey Weinstein’s sexual appetites that protected him. If his predations had been a secret, some woman would have had the courage to come forward much sooner. Since they were not secret, anyone coming forward had to be willing to risk fighting Hollywood itself — not a man, but an entire subculture of people who accepted both the man and his behavior.

The same phenomena has produced the Teflon-like immunity of the elites to prosecution. Any prosecutor or law enforcement agent, no matter how exalted his status, understands the risk entailed by proceeding against members of the political class. When there is no higher authority to whom one can appeal, humans succumb to their own weak and venal natures. This, too, is why progressive morality is often so amazing shallow — saying the right thing rather than doing the right thing. Keeping the dream of the welfare state on life support decades beyond its demonstrable failure. It does not matter what reality is, but only what the New York Times says reality is. The illusion, not the nation, must be protected at all costs. What is virtue to a progressive but a feeling of being in sync with of the anointed herd?

As a Christian, I am compelled to see the gulf that divides our country in Christian terms. The unity of God’s people lies in our common membership in the Body of Christ. Globally, we are genuinely diverse — yet we are all one people by the extraordinary mystery of God’s saving Grace. We all are guided by His immutable will.

Collectivism, in any of its forms, is merely a sham for the Body of Christ. It is a counterfeit community lead by a group of cynical human beings who exploit a real, God-given need for belonging. Progressivism, paradoxically, fills this spiritual void by dividing its followers into an ever-expanding catalog of interest groups — often groups who really have no natural basis. There really is no such thing as a “genderqueer” community in exactly the same way there has never been such a thing a “schizophrenic” community. There is only an uneasy herd of confused, unhappy individuals who, rather than being given help and firm direction, have been given the lie of their own unique but nonexistent polities. Left to their own devices, it would be only a matter of time before progressives actively and openly courted the pedophile vote. They’ve already stood in solidarity with felon community. What standard could there be to hold them back?

More Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Thursday November 9, 2017


The “loving left” attacked Melania Trump last night like a pack of woman-hating, rabid wolverines.


waving flagBy July 19, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://truthfeed.com/loving-women-centric-liberals-absolutely-trash-melania-on-social-media/12419/

Liberals-Trash-Melania-01

When tolerance becomes a one way street

The people claiming to support “WOMEN” took to social media and proceeded to call Melania every disgusting name in the anti-woman book – many times over, as the graphic below shows.

Anti-Melania-Hate-From-Liberals

Apparently, the “loving liberals” only care about women who believe in the same warped and hypocritical BS they do.

Sorry ladies, if you’re not all, “#ImWithHer” you’re just another plastic slut, bitch, whore, who acts like a skank-tramp. Remember that the next time a liberal refers to Trump as a sexist bigot. 

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Amy Moreno is a Published Author, Pug Lover & Game of Thrones Nerd. You can follow her on Twitter here.

Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

The Left Declares War on Christian Values… Here are 7 Examples


waving flagWritten by OneNewsNow.com May 3, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://www.gopusa.com/the-left-declares-war-on-christian-values-here-are-7-examples/?omhide=true

<!– Old line of code which forces 680×350 pic
Bible and Cross –>

Is there an increasing hostility to Christian values and religious freedoms in our country today? Here are seven representative examples, all from the last few weeks. Judge for yourself …

1. The NCAA announced that it will not hold any men’s and women’s Final Four basketball events in a city that “discriminates” against anyone based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

In its official statement, the NCAA declared: “The board’s decision follows the recent actions of legislatures in several states, which have passed laws allowing residents to refuse to provide services to some people based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. While proponents of the laws focus on how they protect religious beliefs, critics have voiced concerns that they create an environment of sanctioned discrimination.”

Not only, then, has the NCAA grossly mischaracterized these recent laws, but it is now guilty of discriminating against biblically based beliefs and declaring that no Final Four game will be held in any city that does not allow men to use women’s bathrooms or that protects a Christian photographer from being forced to shoot a same-sex “wedding.”Yes I am a Christian

2. The Colorado Supreme Court has chosen not to hear the case of Christian baker Jack Phillips who was previously ordered by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission “to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, re-educate his staff, and file quarterly ‘compliance’ reports for two years.”

According to Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom: “We asked the Colorado Supreme Court to take this case to ensure that government understands that its duty is to protect the people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally, not force them to violate those beliefs as the price of earning a living. Jack, who has happily served people of all backgrounds for years, simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message and event with which he disagrees, and that freedom shouldn’t be placed in jeopardy for anyone.”

The Court declined to hear the case, meaning that the state’s Civil Rights Commission not only has the power to require a bakery to make same-sex “wedding” cakes but also to require that baker to “reeducate” his staff and file regular reports proving that he is baking those cakes.

Chairman Mao would be proud of state-mandated “reeducation” like this.CP 01

3. Dr. Eric Walsh, the highly-qualified, newly-hired District Health Director with the Georgia Department of Public Health was fired because of the content of his sermons as a Seventh-day Adventist. As expressedby Jeremy Dys, an attorney with First Liberty, which has taken on Walsh’s case: “No one in this country should be fired from their job for something that was said in a church or from a pulpit during a sermon.”

As noted by attorney David French, “working for former President Bush and President Obama to combat AIDS, serving as a board member of the Latino Health Collaborative, and starting California’s first city-run dental clinic for low-income families dealing with HIV/AIDS wasn’t sufficient to overcome the horror at Walsh’s Christian views.”

How dare he preach what the Bible says and try to serve his country at the same time.Picture1

4. Several senators have introduced a bill that would deem “all efforts to change someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity an ‘unfair or deceptive act or practice’ under the Federal Trade Commission Act.”

That’s right. It would be illegal – a form of “medical malpractice” – to counsel someone struggling with same-sex attraction or gender identify confusion, but it would be perfectly legal to encourage someone to embrace those attractions or act on that confusion.We have been torn apart

Already in 2009, conservative journalist Matthew Cullinan Hoffman wryly observed:

A man goes to a psychologist with a problem. “Doctor,” he says, “I’m suffering terribly. I feel like a woman trapped inside the body of a man. I want to become a woman.”

The psychologist responds: “No problem. We can discuss this idea for a couple of years, and if you’re still sure you want to be a woman, we can have a surgeon remove your penis, give you hormones for breast enlargement and make other changes to your body. Problem solved.”

Gratified, the first patient leaves, followed by a second. “Doctor,” he says, “I feel terrible. I’m a man but I feel attracted to other men. I want to change my sexual preference. I want to become heterosexual.”

The psychologist responds: “Oh no, absolutely not! That would be unethical. Sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic!”

Family therapist Adam Jessel offered a similar observation: “In today’s climate, if Bill tells me that he is attracted to his neighbor Fred’s young child and he wants to reduce these attractions, I, as a therapist, can try to help him. If Bill has an unwanted attraction to Fred’s wife, this too is something I am permitted to help him with. But if Bill has an unwanted attraction to Fred himself, then it’s regarded as unethical for me to help.”Keys taken

If this new bill becomes law, it would not only be considered unethical to help Bill deal with his same-sex attractions, it would be illegal.

It would also be illegal to help a person get to the root of his or her gender confusion, but it would be perfectly legal for a counselor to recommend hormone blockers for a 10-year-old to stop the onset of puberty and then to prepare that child for sex-change surgery as soon as they were old enough.

Here are a few more examples, in shorter form, all from recent weeks:

5. The NBA announced that it will not hold next year’s All-Star game in Charlotte, North Carolina, unless the state changes HB2, the Bathroom Privacy Act. So, unless North Carolina agrees to let grown men use women’s locker rooms and changing facilities, and unless it removes protections for religious liberties, it will be punished.PC Trans

6. The Department of Education has decided that, “Religious schools that receive federal money yet obtain federal exemptions to [allegedly!] discriminate against LGBT students and employees will have their waivers posted online for public view.”

This means that any Christian institution receiving federal money and at the same time holding to biblical morality and sexuality could suffer adverse consequences.

“Led by Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the lawmakers said in December, ‘We are concerned these waivers allow for discrimination under the guise of religious freedom.’”

Oh, those terrible religious freedoms!Picture2

7. As reported on Breitbart News, “a federal court sided with a transgender student who insisted that the Obama administration’s reading of federal Title IX rules would allow her to choose her own bathroom at her Virginia high school.”

According to the exultant Virginia ACLU, “With this decision, we hope that schools and legislators will finally get the message that excluding transgender kids from the restrooms is unlawful sex discrimination.”

In other words, no matter of what kind of hardship or inconvenience this puts on the rest of the students, and without any type of scientific proof that a child is actually “transgender,” the perceived needs of the one or two struggling children will be imposed on the other 1,000, and the Obama administration will come after your school if you fail to comply.Foden20160303-TGender

What’s scary is that I could have listed quite a few more examples, all from the month of April.

Believers in America, if somehow you are still sleeping, it is high time you woke up.


Dr. Michael Brown, a Jewish believer in Jesus, is a biblical scholar, apologist, worldwide speaker, and activist. He is the host of the nationally syndicated, talk radio program “Line of Fire,” and he serves as president of FIRE School of Ministry in Concord, NC, as well as adjunct professor at a number of seminaries. He is the author of 25 books, most recently “Can You Be Gay and Christian?” 

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: