Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Report: Obama Plans Executive Action By Giving 34 Million Work Visas to Illegal Immigrants

Lets think about this. How will this fix Immigration? It won't. Again it looks like a Band-aid. Also this IDIOT is doing this after the Election.....Why? So he don't hurt his liberal Hacks their jobs! But he doesn't care about the people of this country and the Middle class! So don't let them feed you a line of Crap on how they are out for the Middle class!

For years we've heard President Obama berate Congress for failing to pass his version of comprehensive immigration reform. This Spring Obama promised his far-left, open borders base he would take executive action on the issue by the end of the summer, but has since pushed that promise until after the midterm elections to avoid a Democrat bloodbath at the polls. 
Now, a new report shows President Obama could be planning to issue 34 million work visas to illegal immigrants. More from Watchdog.org
The Obama administration wants 34 million blank work permits and green cards as the White House prepares to issue an executive order on amnesty after the November election.

An online solicitation by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigrations Services seeks vendors that can produce a minimum 4 million cards per year for five years, and 9 million in the early stages.

 There many problematic issues to address here. The first is whether Obama is overstepping his authority in this area through the use of executive power. Second, politicians on both sides of the aisle have been saying for years there are roughly 11-12 million illegal immigrants in the country. The 34 million number brings up questions about how many people are really living in the United States unlawfully. Further, 34 million work visas for non-American citizens will only continue to crush and devastate the middle class and low-income American workers, something Democrats claim they want to avoid.
Exit question: If 34 million work visas are issued to illegal immigrants will they then be eligible for taxpayer funded benefits? Most likely.

Obama: Let's Face It, These Vulnerable Democrats Support Me and My Agenda

Narcissistic or Stupid?  I say Keep talking!

In which the President of the United States serves up another damaging soundbyte on a platter for national Republicans.  Several weeks ago, Barack Obama informed the nation that although he may not be on the ballot this fall, his policies most certainly are, in the persons of Democratic candidates.  That remark birthed a flurry of GOP ads warning (accurately) that a vote for Democrats is an endorsement of an unpopular president.  With two weeks remaining until election day, Obama expounded further on his political standing vis-a- vis vulnerable Democrats in an interview with Al Sharpton:

"The bottom line is, though, these are all folks who vote with me. They have supported my agenda in Congress, and they are on the right side [of issues]…these are folks who are strong allies and supporters of me."

Mary Katharine Ham jokes (?) that these blunt assertions are enough to drive endangered red- and purple-state Democrats to drink.  They've been contorting themselves into verbal pretzels trying to convince highly skeptical electorates that meaningful daylight exists between their 'independent-minded' candidacies and the Obama agenda.  But here's Obama swooping in during the campaign's homestretch to highlight the fact that every last one of them has voted with him, supported his agenda and served as a "strong ally" in Washington, DC.  The only way this clip could have been more valuable to Republicans is if the president had personally named every Democrat in a close race.  ("Kay Hagan is a strong ally and supporter of me!")  MKH also tries to make sense of Obama's stunningly maladroit comments, especially in light of his vaunted political acumen.  Her spitballed conclusion?  Between most of his party spurning his "help" for months, and dozens of Democratic partisans streaming out of his event in Maryland mid-speech, Obama is struggling to process some serious ego bruising.  And he's doing so publicly, in a way that is counter-productive to his longer-term interests.  On the House side, Democrats are engaged in defensive triage, trying to avoid surrendering more seats than they're already projected to lose.  In the Senate battle, National Journal's Josh Kraushaar surveys the late-game landscape and wonders if a true red wave is amassing.  Read the whole thing, as it's packed with interesting tidbits, including why the Georgia race remains so close, and why Iowa Democrats are feeling anxious about Bruce Braley's troubles at the top of the ticket.  RealClearPoliticsTom Bevan summarizes Kraushaar's overall conclusion:
If you click through, you'll see the map to which he refers.  The nine 'toss-ups' include Alaska, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, New Hampshire and North Carolina.  Arkansas, by the way, has been relocated to the "leans Republican" pile -- joining South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana among the Democrat-held seats likely to flip into GOP hands this fall.  If Republicans managed to sweep the "toss-ups," with all else being equal, they'd net 10 seats.  That's…very bullish.  Though North Carolina has been trending toward Thom Tillis, Kay Hagan is still clinging to a tiny lead in that race. And while Scott Brown is certainly keeping things interesting, he's by no means the favorite in the Granite State.  Plus, none of those other races are 'gimmes' at this stage either, including several contests in which Democrats have at least a realistic shot of hooking a GOP-held seat into their column.  Eliminate North Carolina and New Hampshire from the "sweep," give Democrats, say, Kansas, and underperform in places like Colorado and Iowa, and Republicans could find themselves on the outside looking in when the Senate gavels back into session in early 2015.  But at this point, a serious red tide feels more likely than an implosion, especially with Obama gift-wrapping quotes that confirm the GOP's overriding message as the campaign winds down.  As it stands, the party's realistic Senate performance ranges from a gain of five seats to a gain of nine seats, net.  The likeliest outcome is somewhere in between, of course, and anything higher than five would slap Harry Reid with a demotion. 

This is What You Get When You Reduce Everything to 'Activism'

Suppose you were the President Obama, in the Oval Office, or more likely at the golf course, wondering how to save the Obola administration before Ebola flushes it down the toilet. You would think: I need someone who is a cool head in a bad situation. He would be someone that has a history of turning around failing operations. He needs to be a man that inspires trust, and he needs to be the kind of person that would be prepared to set everything aside to help his country.
“There is only one man in public life who fits the bill,” the president might say to his golfing buddy. “And that man is Mitt Romney. So what if he's a Republican and thinking of running for president? If I ask him to be the Ebola czar he will do it because he is a mensch.”
Instead, of course, the president has chosen Ron Klain to be the Ebola czar. Because for Obama the best man for the job is always a political fixer.
Really, nobody should be surprised. Joseph Schumpeter said it all when he wrote in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy that the amazing thing is that politicians do any governing at all given the demands their real job, which is winning elections.
With Obama, we are spared the amazement. He spends all his time doing politics, raising money and dividing people, and sensibly resting up on the golf course in between his exhausting fund-raising gigs. To hell with governing.
It's not surprising that this average product of an Ivy League education thinks and acts this way. The whole culture of the modern university confirms the president in his worldview. His worldview even has a name. It is called “activism.” In our government-funded secular seminaries they teach young people that the highest of callings is to become an activist and advocate for global justice as a social justice warrior.
We all know how it works. A young Ivy League graduate goes to South Chicago for a season and riles up the workers laid off from the local steel plants. A white policeman shoots a young black man and activists pour in to Ferguson, Missouri, riling up the locals against the “system.”
A universal feature of this activism culture is that after the activist has provoked the local mob into burning down the local economy, after he's bonked the local babes, after he's ginned up a local civil war, then he heads out of town, off to his next activism gig, leaving the local community in ruins.
I have a woman friend of a certain age that told me over lunch that she'd always wanted to do “activism.” Of course she did; that's what they teach bright young women in our secular seminaries these days.
The problem with activism is its notion that you can solve the world's problems with the ritualized violence of the demonstration or the peaceful protest. Really? All questions of human society are to be adjudicated by “non-negotiable” demands and shows of force on the streets?
These activists do not understand that there is always a danger that their fake civil war might turn into a real one. The real skill in politics is finding a way to create a sunshine of “consensus” out of the dark clouds of discord.
To paraphrase Marx, It is high time that people of good will should openly, in the face of the whole world, publish their views, their aims, their tendencies, and meet this nursery tale of the glory of “activism” with the truth: that “activism” is pure reaction, turning back the clock in a mindless attempt to recreate the feudal system, its great lords and its servile peasants.
Only now the great lords are the great political families and their fixers and their media courtiers. And the servile peasants are the soldiers in the Benefits Brigade looking to feed off the crumbs from the great lord's table.
In practice, activism means the graduates of our secular seminaries, the little darlings of the ruling class, going out and demonstrating on behalf of other little darlings of the ruling class: African Americans, Hispanics, Moslems, women, and gays. They call it speaking truth to power.
Something is wrong with that picture.
Back in the 1980s our lefty friends came up with a cunning label for the armed activists of Central American regimes that were battling the lefty guerrillas up in the hills. They called them “death squads.”
We are conservatives, so we need to describe regime supporters with something a little less offensive than that, but a little more pointed than the ironical “social justice warriors.”
Let's give the liberal activist enforcers of the ruling class a name that tells our fellow Americans who they really are: “liberal fascists.”


Obamacare Epidemic is Out of Control

Today, I received my corporate based healthcare benefits package in the mail.  Turns out, it’s more ominous and reality-based than the much-hyped Ebola could ever be.
Starting in 2015 my annual out-of-pocket maximum will shoot up another $3,200 to $9,200. Specialty drug copays up 20%; my annual deductible for family coverage doubled and my employer will no longer make contributions to employee Health Reimbursement Accounts(HRA’s) as an incentive for staying healthy.
Next, the report says we “can’t guarantee you won’t see any increase in your paycheck deductions.” I will find out what those increases are in November. In 2014 the amount I paid per paycheck for medical insurance doubled from the previous year, so I am not holding out much hope for 2015. For those of us with at least one chronically ill family member, Obamacare is a plague on our households. Beginning in 2015, we will not be able to afford the life-saving drugs, regular CT scans, outpatient diagnostic procedures and inpatient surgeries our sick loved ones depend on.
Why the changes, according to my benefits manager? Obamacare.
“The government will impose a $125 million “Cadillac Tax” on employer plans that are too generous...we had to adjust our plans so that people who use more benefits pay more.”
Campaigning for his buddy Maryland  Lt.  Governor Anthony G. Brown on Sunday, the man who said we could keep our plans and our doctors, Barack Hussein Obama,  urged the crowd to get out and vote.
“There are no excuses. The future is up to us,” he said.
Yeah, well, we have seen the future, Mr. Obama, it just came in the mail, like it did for individual policy holders last year. Now those of us covered under employer-based plans are faced with a similar dilemma.  Do we keep our high cost company plans with less than minimal coverage and head to the exchanges? Or do we drop insurance altogether, pay the mandated tax penalty and take our chances? The tax penalty for not having health insurance in 2015 is about double the cost of last year’s penalty.  What an oppressive, deathly, deceptive trap the government has set for its own citizens.
No wonder a recent Politico poll had 64% of American people say America is “out of control.” In August, 87% of the people said they don’t “trust the government.” It’s probably fair to say the majority of Americans have lost all respect for their  government officials. Why not? As Obamacare infects family after family, and decimates the world’s best healthcare system, politicians in DC are still trying to decide if they should vote to “fix” the diseased and deadly Affordable Care Act or “repeal” it.   
With 150 million Americans on employer-based plans, 2015 could be a game-changer.  The question is: will we hit bottom with this socialist law?  Or will we sit around until 2016 when  Hillary “universal coverage” Clinton or Elizabeth  “Canadians, Japanese and Europeans have better healthcare than us’” Warren finish what Obama started?

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/obamacare_epidemic_is_out_of_control.html#ixzz3GpNpypJE

GOP candidate in Cook County, IL discovers voting machine casts his vote for the Democrat he is running against

Holy Crap, we have voter fraud already at the election boxes!
The Democrat mantra that voting fraud is rare takes another blow today with the stunning story of a GOP candidate unable to vote for himself in Cook County Illinois. The Illinois Political Review reports:
Admitting his confidence in Cook County ballot integrity is shaken, State Representative Candidate Jim Moynihan (R-56), was shocked today when he tried to cast a vote for himself and the voting machine cast it for his opponent instead.
“While early voting at the Schaumburg Public Library today, I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent,” said Moynihan. “You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat."
While using a touch screen voting machine in Schaumburg, Moynihan voted for several races on the ballot, only to find that whenever he voted for a Republican candidate, the machine registered the vote for a Democrat in the same race. He notified the election judge at his polling place and demonstrated that it continued to cast a vote for the opposing candidate’s party. Moynihan was eventually allowed to vote for Republican candidates, including his own race. It is unknown if the machine in question (#008958) has been removed from service or is still in operation.
Well, they don’t call it Crook County for no reason.


Surveillance video captures man stuffing ballot box with hundreds of ballots


Monday, October 20, 2014


So if he gives millions so called amnesty, and does not secure the border, THIS IS NOT IMMIGRATION REFORM! Its  changing the voting demographics! I have no respect for this guy by doing what is not good for the country but only thinking about Power!


Despite no official action from the president ahead of the election, the Obama administration has quietly begun preparing to issue millions of work authorization permits, suggesting the implementation of a large-scale executive amnesty may have already begun.

Unnoticed until now, a draft solicitation for bids issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Oct. 6 says potential vendors must be capable of handling a “surge” scenario of 9 million id cards in one year “to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements.”
The request for proposals says the agency will need a minimum of four million cards per year. In the “surge,” scenario in 2016, the agency would need an additional five million cards – more than double the baseline annual amount for a total of 9 million.
“The guaranteed minimum for each ordering period is 4,000,000 cards. The estimated maximum for the entire contract is 34,000,000 cards,” the document says.
The agency is buying the materials need to construct both Permanent Residency Cards (PRC), commonly known as green cards, as well as Employment Authorization Documentation (EAD) cards which have been used to implement President Obama's “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) program. The RFP does not specify how many of each type of card would be issued.
Jessica Vaughan, an immigration expert at the Center for Immigration Studies and former State Department official, said the document suggests a new program of remarkable breadth.
The RFP “seems to indicate that the president is contemplating an enormous executive action that is even more expansive than the plan that Congress rejected in the 'Gang of Eight' bill,” Vaughan said.
Last year, Vaughan reviewed the Gang of Eight's provisions to estimate that it would have roughly doubled legal immigration. In the “surge” scenario of this RFP, even the relatively high four million cards per year would be more than doubled, meaning that even on its own terms, the agency is preparing for a huge uptick of 125 percent its normal annual output.
It's not unheard of for federal agencies to plan for contingencies, but the request specifically explains that the surge is related to potential changes in immigration policy.
“The Contractor shall demonstrate the capability to support potential 'surge' in PRC and EAD card demand for up to 9M cards during the initial period of performance to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements,” the document says.
A year ago, such a plan might have been attributed to a forthcoming immigration bill. Now, following the summer's border crisis, the chances of such a new law are extremely low, giving additional credence to the possibility the move is in preparation for an executive amnesty by Obama.
Even four million combined green cards and EADs is a significant number, let alone the “surge” contemplated by USCIS. For instance, in the first two years after Obama unilaterally enacted DACA, about 600,000 people were approved by USCIS under the program. Statistics provided by USCIS on its website show that the entire agency had processed 862,000 total EADs in 2014 as of June.
Vaughan said EADs are increasingly coming under scrutiny as a tool used by the Obama administration to provide legalization for groups of illegal aliens short of full green card status.
In addition to providing government approval to work for illegal aliens, EADs also cost significantly less in fees to acquire, about $450 compared to more than $1000. In many states, EADs give aliens rights to social services and the ability to obtain drivers' licenses.
Vaughan noted there are currently about 4.5 million individuals waiting for approval for the green cards having followed immigration law and obtained sponsorships from relatives in the U.S. or otherwise, less than the number of id cards contemplated by the USCIS “surge.”
USCIS officials did not provide additional information about the RFP by press time.









Over It: 'Steady Stream' of Democrats Leave Campaign Rally During Obama Speech

My Liberal Buddy said they were racist. That shows the pathetic mind of a Liberal. They need to get a clue!

In 2008, they were passing out. In 2014, they're walking out.  These tweets come from mainstream media correspondents who watched in puzzlement as "lots" of Maryland voters departed a campaign rally over the weekend while President Obama was still talking Change:
Lots of people, at least up front near where journalists are sitting, appear to be leaving this rally now that Obama has started speaking.