when we have a entire world running around DEMANDING their rights, and then when demands don't work, believing physical violence is mentally justified so then acting upon it...

which would not be justified within so acted out if it "rights" were not pumped into their heads as irrevocable...

then it is obvious words chosen to "protect freedom", actually did not do so, but rather created "entitlement", which STOLE FROM THE FREEDOM OF ALL, as it bred as correct THE ENTITLEMENT OF 1, and creates the belief in entitlement to grow in the mind until a monster has been created in human form...

No doubts entitlement for self was pumping through the head of all who imprisoned another as Ariel Castro did, beat another as the KKK loves, raped other as the many fraternities love...

the actual events of any society are the proof of what words create.

it is obvious such notions were first created, fostered, perpetuated into the conscious minds of humankind so than directing the actions committed, by the notion "rights" are inherent, so exist no matter what one self does...

freedom of all is not a "right".

freedom of and for all is an "agreement", entered into by one or some or all, whom wish to live in a place of freedom...

but then "freedom" would need to be defined...

freedom exist until the moment "mutual consent" has been violated and stolen from another.

and the fact that the words "mutual consent" was no where to be found in our founding documents, TOTALLY belie's the fact that these documents were drafted by people who did not give two cents about MUTUAL CONSENT...

they wanted to RULE OVER, and seem them self as more wise than the average individual, and so fit as overlords to enslave and shackle the "underlings"...

just as those whom still bow at their feet and swear allegiance think of them self...

and would do to the entire world if given the chance...

IT IS A TOTAL MISNOMER THAT SOMEHOW THESE FOUNDERS WERE AS BENEVOLENT CARERS OF HUMANITY...

AND SOMEHOW MORE CARING BEYOND ALL OTHERS...

total propaganda dosed out by these fuccks who wanted that to be believed, to ensure their lasting rule over all who believed it...

what they penned and instituted created a slow death of equality, creativity, freedom of mind, economic equality, an entire country of peoples divided and at war with each other...

of course, to divide the populous with ambiguous notions will always create a divided populous, so than ensure omnipotent rulers keep a job...

they were greedy, power hungry, monopolistic wannabe rulers who gathered together in an agreement to share ruling together...

just because mankind was not advanced enough mentally back then to recognize such, in no way means it was or is not so.

<~~~~~~~~~no, Ann has a point.

Taking my credit as an alt again?

Twist it, dued, twist it.

uh, I disallowed KKK fanatics that are of an occult in my point.

Al has a historical point. Granted, white folks in the USA haven't recently rioted for racial reasons.

I actually agree with Al on this point.

The claim of "being targeted" is just an attempt deflect.

Anyway, can we let this thread die now?

I can agree with THAT statement, but that's not what fleta said, which had been called into question. I think everyone can agree we all want world peace, but that wasn't being discussed here, either.


Fleta said 'whites don't riot, break stuff, and burn stuff due to racially-charged motivations'.


Before my quote was completely bastardized, THAT was the sentiment I'd agreed to; as long as 'white folk' enjoy White Privilege in a nation built upon and catering TO it,


there is no reason FOR 'white folk' TO "riot, break stuff, and burn stuff" due to racially-charged motivations.

Al wrote:



I just disparaged "anyone who refers to the president as Odumbo", and then you raise something which hadn't occurred to me, but should have occurred to me.

But I don't agree with your logic, because people aren't always of the position that X is true or X is not true.

There could be two different thresholds of 'estimates of how likely something is true'.

mrld_ii,

Can I suggest a way to keep things civil yet humorous?

Simply do what I do. When someone is being a pest like a fly, use this computer key:

Still can't cite a legitimate, credible source SINCE Vietnam, can you?

waiting for the,... copy and paste the from Passio again too.

Whoops! Gotta do make up now.

Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.

I have always thought it rather interesting to follow the involuntary movements of fear in clever people. Fools coarsely display their cowardice in all its nakedness, but the others are able to cover it with a veil so delicate, so daintily woven with small plausible lies, that there is some pleasure to be found in contemplating this ingenious work of the human intelligence.

The Dark Ages still reign over all humanity, and the depth and persistence of this domination are only now becoming clear. This Dark Ages Prison has no steel bars, chains, or locks. Instead, it is locked by mis-orientation and built on mis-information. Caught up in a plethora of conditioned reflexes and driven by the human ego, both warden and prisoner attempt meagerly to compete with God. All are intractably skeptical of what they do not understand. We are powerfully imprisoned in these Dark Ages simply by the terms in which we have been conditioned to think.

We are the vehicles by which truth operates in the world. Therefore, it is our shared responsibility at this time to help to awaken others by continuously speaking the truth, even if we feel burdened by this task, and even if it makes all the those involved feel uncomfortable.

Obamacare offers firms $3,000 incentive to hire illegals over native-born workers

Under the president’s new amnesty, businesses will have a $3,000-per-employee incentive to hire illegal immigrants over native-born workers because of a quirk of Obamacare.

President Obama’s temporary amnesty, which lasts three years, declares up to 5 million illegal immigrants to be lawfully in the country and eligible for work permits, but it still deems them ineligible for public benefits such as buying insurance on Obamacare’s health exchanges.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that means businesses who hire them won’t have to pay a penalty for not providing them health coverage — making them $3,000 more attractive than a similar native-born worker, whom the business by law would have to cover.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/

I have rewritten my commentary that I cite in my OP.

Now, after the word "Finally", I say the following:

Not everything that President Obama says or does is wrong or illegal. So, criticisms of President Obama should be taken with a grain of salt ...



... or if you have high blood pressure, with a shot of whisky.



* * * * * * * * * *

Some critics of President Obama (and me) need the shot of whisky, methinks.

22 Times Obama Said It Was Not Possible To Create Immigration Law Without Congress

http://benswann.com/22-times-obama-said-it-was-not-possible-to-create-immigration-law-without-congress/

1. On March 31, 2008, during a presidential campaign speech:

“I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with the president trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.”

2. On May 19, 2008, during a presidential campaign speech:

“We’ve got a government designed by the Founders so that there’d be checks and balances. You don’t want a president who’s too powerful or a Congress that’s too powerful or a court that’s too powerful. Everybody’s got their own role. Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it or he can sign it. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”

3. On May 5, 2010, during a speech at a Cinco de Mayo celebration:

“Comprehensive reform, that’s how we’re going to solve this problem. Anybody who tells you it’s going to be easy or that I can wave a magic wand and make it happen hasn’t been paying attention to how this town works.”

4. On July 1, 2010, during a speech at the American University School of International Service:

“There are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are here illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.”

5. October 14, 2010, during a Question-and-Answer session at an MTV/BET Town Hall Meeting:

“I do have an obligation to make sure that I am following some of the rules. I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there. I’ve got to work to make sure that they are changed.”

6. On October 25, 2010, during an interview for a Univision radio program:

“I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I’m committed to making it happen, but I’ve got to have some partners to do it,” said Obama. “The most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I’m president, I’m not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there’s a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That’s what the Executive Branch means. I can’t just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.”

7. On March 28, 2011, during a Question-and-Answer session at a Univision Town Hall meeting:

“America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the President, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job. But I can advocate for changes in the law so that we have a country that is both respectful of the law but also continues to be a great nation of immigrants,” said Obama. “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed. We’ve got three branches of government. Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”

8. On April 20, 2011, during a Question-and-Answer session at a Town Hall Meeting in Palo Alto, California:

“We’re going to have to have bipartisan support in order to make it happen,” said Obama. “I can’t do it by myself. We’re going to have to change the laws in Congress, but I’m confident we can make it happen.”

9. On April 29, 2011, during a commencement address at Miami Dade College:

“I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works. See, democracy is hard. But it’s right. Changing our laws means doing the hard work of changing minds and changing votes, one by one.”

10. On May 10, 2011, during a speech at the Chamizal National Memorial in El Paso, Texas:

“Sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That’s what I’m committed to doing.”

11. On July 25, 2011, during a speech at the National Council of La Raza:

“I swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books,” said Obama. “Now, I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own. Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you. Not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

12. September 28, 2011, during roundtable discussion session titled Open for Questions:

“So what we’ve tried to do is within the constraints of the laws on the books, we’ve tried to be as fair, humane, just as we can, recognizing, though, that the laws themselves need to be changed,” said Obama. “The most important thing for your viewers and listeners and readers to understand is that in order to change our laws, we’ve got to get it through the House of Representatives, which is currently controlled by Republicans, and we’ve got to get 60 votes in the Senate. Administratively, we can’t ignore the law. I just have to continue to say this notion that somehow I can just change the laws unilaterally is just not true. We are doing everything we can administratively. But the fact of the matter is there are laws on the books that I have to enforce. And I think there’s been a great disservice done to the cause of getting the DREAM Act passed and getting comprehensive immigration passed by perpetrating the notion that somehow, by myself, I can go and do these things. It’s just not true. … We live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. And if all the attention is focused away from the legislative process, then that is going to lead to a constant dead-end. We have to recognize how the system works, and then apply pressure to those places where votes can be gotten and, ultimately, we can get this thing solved.”

13. On September 20, 2012, during a Question-and-Answer session at a Univision Town Hall Meeting:

“Now, what I’ve always said is, as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do. Part of the reason that deportations went up was Congress put a whole lot of money into it, and when you have a lot of resources and a lot more agents involved, then there are going to be higher numbers. What we’ve said is, let’s make sure that you’re not misdirecting those resources. But we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally. And that’s why this continues to be a top priority of mine. … And we will continue to make sure that how we enforce is done as fairly and justly as possible. But until we have a law in place that provides a pathway for legalization and/or citizenship for the folks in question, we’re going to continue to be bound by the law. … And so part of the challenge as President is constantly saying, ‘what authorities do I have?’”

14. On October 16, 2012, during a speech for a presidential debate:

“We are a nation of immigrants. … But we’re also a nation of laws. So what I’ve said is, we need to fix a broken immigration system. And I’ve done everything that I can on my own.”

15. On January 30, 2013, during an interview for a Univison radio program:

“I’m not a king. I am the head of the executive branch of government. I’m required to follow the law. And that’s what we’ve done. But what I’ve also said is, let’s make sure that we’re applying the law in a way that takes into account people’s humanity. That’s the reason that we moved forward on deferred action. Within the confines of the law we said, we have some discretion in terms of how we apply this law.”

16. On January 30, 2013, during an interview with Noticiero Telemundo:

“I’m not a king. You know, my job, as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And, you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law. When it comes to the dreamers, we were able to identify that group and say, ‘These folks are generally not a risk. They’re not involved in crime. … And so let’s prioritize our enforcement resources.’ But to sort through all the possible cases of everybody who might have a sympathetic story to tell is very difficult to do. This is why we need comprehensive immigration reform. To make sure that once and for all, in a way that is, you know, ratified by Congress, we can say that there is a pathway to citizenship for people who are staying out of trouble, who are trying to do the right thing, who’ve put down roots here. … My job is to carry out the law. And so Congress gives us a whole bunch of resources. They give us an order that we’ve got to go out there and enforce the laws that are on the books. … If this was an issue that I could do unilaterally I would have done it a long time ago. … The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. I then get an opportunity to sign it and implement it.”

17. February 14, 2013, during an interview at a Google Hangout session:

“This is something I’ve struggled with throughout my presidency. The problem is that I’m the president of the United States I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.”

18. On July 16, 2013, during an interview with Univision:

“I think that it is very important for us to recognize that the way to solve this problem has to be legislative. I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus. … And we’ve been able to provide help through deferred action for young people. But this is a problem that needs to be fixed legislatively.”

19. September 17, 2013, during an interview with Telemundo:

“My job in the executive branch is supposed to be to carry out the laws that are passed. Congress has said ‘here is the law’ when it comes to those who are undocumented, and they’ve allocated a whole bunch of money for enforcement. And, what I have been able to do is to make a legal argument that I think is absolutely right, which is that given the resources that we have, we can’t do everything that Congress has asked us to do. What we can do is then carve out the DREAM Act folks, saying young people who have basically grown up here are Americans that we should welcome. … But if we start broadening that, then essentially I would be ignoring the law in a way that I think would be very difficult to defend legally. So that’s not an option. … What I’ve said is there is a there’s a path to get this done, and that’s through Congress.”

20. On November 25, 2013, during a speech on immigration reform:

“If, in fact, I could solve all these problems without passing laws in Congress, then I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition. And so the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend like I can do something by violating our laws. And what I’m proposing is the harder path, which is to use our democratic processes to achieve the same goal that you want to achieve. … It is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law. That’s not our tradition. The great thing about this country is we have this wonderful process of democracy, and sometimes it is messy, and sometimes it is hard, but ultimately, justice and truth win out.”

21. On March 16, 2014, during an interview with Univision News:

“I am the Champion-in-Chief of comprehensive immigration reform. But what I’ve said in the past remains true, which is until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do. What I’ve done is to use my prosecutorial discretion, because you can’t enforce the laws across the board for 11 or 12 million people, there aren’t the resources there. What we’ve said is focus on folks who are engaged in criminal activity; focus on people who are engaged in gang activity. Do not focus on young people, who we’re calling dreamers,” said Obama. “That already stretched my administrative capacity very far. But I was confident that that was the right thing to do. But at a certain point the reason that these deportations are taking place is, Congress said, ‘you have to enforce these laws.’ They fund the hiring of officials at the department that’s charged with enforcing. And I cannot ignore those laws any more than I could ignore, you know, any of the other laws that are on the books. That’s why it’s so important for us to get comprehensive immigration reform done this year.”

22. On August 6, 2014, during a speech at a press conference following the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit:

“I think that I never have a green light [to push the limits of executive power]. I’m bound by the Constitution; I’m bound by separation of powers. There are some things we can’t do. Congress has the power of the purse, for example. … Congress has to pass a budget and authorize spending. So I don’t have a green light. … My preference in all these instances is to work with Congress, because not only can Congress do more, but it’s going to be longer-lasting.”

I have added the following to my commentary cited in my OP.

* * * * * * * * * *

Also, in a commentary dated 20 November 2014, George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin writes, "Obama's decision to defer deportation is in line with those of past presidents, and well within the scope of his authority." He also writes, "I am no fan of the Obama administration's approach to constitutional interpretation. In too many instances, the president really has acted illegally and undermined the rule of law -�� most notably by starting wars without congressional authorization. But today's decision isn't one of them."

Apparently, they have me blocked, then. The majority of what I see in this Community is a bunch of emotional, knee-jerking reactionism with limited - if any - citations to legitimate sources which is passed off as "factual".

When I ask others for citations to legitimate sources to back up their emotional posts, most times nothing is provided. On the VERY FEW occasions that a citation IS provided, it's to sites *like*

BillyBob'sAllThingsGreatAnd'Merikan.net

Actually, plenty of others here are factual.

I've been saying exactly what the "law professors and lawyers who teach, study, and practice constitutional law and related subjects" have said.

I've even provided hotlinks and excerpts to legitimate sources TO back up what I've been saying.

I've also said - and pointed out the President Obama himself has said - that the actions he's taken go away in three years OR when Congress passes a bill of their own, whichever comes first.

My money's on when President Obama leaves office, because the nation just voted in more "more-of-the-same" TO Congress for the next two years.


I have a tendency to only discuss things factually while on discussion boards. It's the number one reason so many want to *argue* with me: their *arguments* are borne out of a fear of all things factual and which are based in reality.

(Please read to the very end of OP before reacting.)

Folks, I want to give everyone here at Mingle2 a preview of a commentary of mine that will be published at a different website on the 28th of November 2014.

Sometimes, I edit my posts on that site after reading the replies posted here on this Mingle2 discussion board. I recently did so after reading a reply that msharmony gave to one of my previous commentaries.

I like it when I get feedback from the Mingle2 Minions ...err... Members.

Anyway, here is my commentary for that other site.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Obama's Immigration Plan: Legal or Illegal?

President Obama's recently-announced policy pertaining to illegal immigrants certainly has caused an uproar among certain populations within the USA. Republicans and/or Conservatives who opine for pay aren't hesitating to give their opinions on Obama's new use of prosecutorial discretion. Some such pundits even opined about President Obama's new policy before Obama announced it.

For example, hours before President Obama gave his 11/20/14 televised address about illegal immigration, Andrew C. McCarthy proclaimed the following:



Well, I listened to President Obama's televised address (and read it, too), and I discovered that McCarthy was wrong about it. I did not hear what McCarthy said I would hear.

What President Obama said was this (paraphrasing): His administration would use prosecutorial discretion by refraining from deporting certain non-threatening illegal immigrants so that they can move out of the shadows and get right with the Law. President Obama specifically said that he favored a bill passed by the U.S. Senate that would require such illegal immigrants to pay a fine, to start paying taxes and to go to the back of the line of the legal immigration process.

One reason that President Obama has announced this policy is because he doesn't want to needlessly break-up families, depriving children of their parents.

President Obama is trying to conform to the teaching of the ancient Jewish prophet Micah, who said the following:

"He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." -�� Micah 6:8 (NIV)

By the way, if you want to know what gives President Obama the legal authority to do what he is doing, then I suggest that you read the joint letter that ten prominent legal scholars wrote about that subject. Here is how that letter begins:



Finally ...

As far as I know, every current _______ [website] writer is a layman when it comes to legal issues, including me. So, everything that you read on this website about legal issues should be taken with a grain of salt ...



... or if you have high blood pressure, with a shot of whisky.



* * * * * * * * * *

Personal Note:

Folks, I have no particular love for President Obama, and I certainly have never been one of his political supporters. Nevertheless, my heart isn't filled with blind hatred for the man, which is why I am able to say something in his defense when I perceive that there is just cause to defend him.

* * * * * * * * * *

That other website that I write for is a conservative Republican-leaning site with writers who usually display civility when criticizing President Obama and/ or Democrats. However, the site's newest writer frequently goes beyond the pale in his rants.

I am doing what I can to counteract the blind hatred spewed by that particular writer, just as I am doing what I can to counter the blind hatred that is often expressed in this Mingle2 forum.

* * * * * * * * * *

OK, what do you think about Obama's recently-announced plan pertaining to illegal immigrants? Does it make you want a shot of whisky?

First. To all cases in law and equity, arising under the constitution and the laws of the United States. This corresponds with the two first classes of causes, which have been enumerated, as proper for the jurisdiction of the United States. It has been asked, what is meant by "cases arising under the Constitution," in contradiction from those "arising under the laws of the United States"? The difference has been already explained. All the restrictions upon the authority of the State legislatures furnish examples of it. They are not, for instance, to emit paper money; but the interdiction results from the Constitution, and will have no connection with any law of the United States. Should paper money, notwithstanding, be emited, the controversies concerning it would be cases arising under the Constitution and not the laws of the United States, in the ordinary signification of the terms. This may serve as a sample of the whole.

It's a shame really. I thought he was an excellent role model for black youth ... then this stink rose. Sounds like too many voices to ignore.

Awww, c'mon now...the Grand Ol' Party loved it when they offered up their poster boy for the 2012 elections.

Let's not engage in revisionary history now, 'kay?


http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970203914304576627683818892932

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0929/Romneycare-vs.-Obamacare-Lessons-for-today-s-shutdown-debacle-video

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/27/why-the-right-turned-its-back-on-the-individual-mandate.html


There's plenty more to satiate your curiosity; simply Google (as I did) "Did republicans back romneycare?" There's a wealth of information one only need know HOW to find to become better informed of things they were once oblivious to.





Oh, and...thanks for noticing my post.

Insurance premium rates have decreased dramatically under RomneyCare. One thing we are hearing about ObamaCare is that rates will go up, the RomneyCare model tells us that this is not the case. Most independent studies of ObamaCare show that it will help to decrease these sorts of costs saving the taxpayer money and helping to decrease the deficit by trillions over the next two decades.