Obama Administration Gives Administrative Amnesty to People in the U.S. Illegally, but Not Committing Other Crimes

It's called selective enforcement of the laws of the United States of America, and it is not something the director of the Department of Homeland Security or the Executive office should be engaging in - and especially not announcing it to the world. "Oh, we won't be enforcing these particular laws, so... you're good." The people behind this outrage are sworn to uphold the laws and Constitution of the U.S. I state here and now that it's treacherous and treasonous, because it erodes the rule of law and the power of Congress and the Constitution. It is plain circumvention to support a liberal political intention. What they could not get through the legislative process last year, because it was unpopular, they have initiated by executive fiat.

Why can't the liberal numbskulls in this country get it through their heads that illegal is illegal? Why also do they insist on calling illegal aliens (or illegal immigrants) just plain immigrants, as if they had gone through the same legal process of getting into this country that legal immigrants do? Or they are often referred to as "undocumented" immigrants, as if they somehow overlooked getting a visa or passport, or as if some bad Tea Party person came along and stole these poor, downtrodden people's documents. It really is like we're in Bizarro World!

Do we want laws that enforce the borders of our country or not? If it is OK for people to come to the United States and stay at will, then change the law to reflect that idea. But as it stands now the laws make it illegal for foreign nationals (aliens, as they are called to the left's annoyance) to come into this country without asking whether they may do so. What's wrong with that? And do you know why we don't make it legal for people to cross the border at will and stay here legally? Because the vast majority of Americans want border security and additionally don't want to throw their tax dollars away supporting every down-on-their luck poor person that breaks into this country expecting to get rich. We just cannot afford it.

But this "rule change" from the Obama administration is going to make coming here illegally MORE ATTRACTIVE to people outside this country, since it is now de facto okay for them to do so. There won't be consequences for being illegal. And the burden on the taxpaying citizens of this country will increase.

On top of not pursuing the illegal immigrants, they will be allowed to apply for work permits, which will allow them to compete legally for jobs with the 30 million Americans looking for work. Good news for job hunters! Not.

My suggestion to La Raza, Robert Menendez(D) NJ, Janet Napolitano, and every other illegal alien supporter, if you don't want to break up families, then suggest they don't do something that's illegal in the first place. Don't rob a bank, don't commit tax fraud, don't commit document fraud, and don't break into a sovereign nation expecting that the citizens of that nation will look the other way.

Let's get out of Bizarro World before it becomes the New World Order.

Don't Be Shy If You Want to Fly

John Tyner, to my mind, is a hero defending liberty and decency. He is the young man who refused to be screened by TSA airport scanners which can peer through clothes at someone’s naked body. Then after hearing how he would be felt-up and groped by the “enhanced pat-down” instead, he refused to do that also, saying famously “But if you touch my junk, I’m gonna have you arrested.” After long discussions with TSA officials, he then was escorted from the airport because they wouldn’t allow him to board his flight without the personal intrusion first. (Video of encounter)

And for his refusal to submit to these invasions he is now threatened with an investigation and a $11,000 fine! You must be kidding. For what? Did he break a law? Hey Ms. Napolitano, how about a moratorium on enhanced stupidity? And I hear you’re considering a waver for Muslim women. WHAAAAT?? Good idea. Pretty much the ONLY female suicide bombers that have ever existed have been Islamic extremist women. That would sort of leave a gaping hole in airline safety if you ask me. How about we exempt everyone from personally intrusive searches, unless through investigatory means we find them to be suspicious or to fit an FBI-style profile of a potential bad guy? Let’s look at how a country successful at counter-terrorism does it, ie., Israel. They are more targeted in their screening process, and have been pretty successful in keeping bombers off of their airplanes. Or how about using more bomb-sniffing dogs?

I think we are going to see a lot of bipartisan furor over this policy in the coming days and rightly so. A consumer protest has been suggested for next Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving where people will refuse the scan, opting for the “enhanced patdown” which will have the effect of slowing down passenger screening and gumming up an already slow travel day. Something needs to be done, but accepting the patdown is accepting the equal of two bad equals. Everyone who flies on that day should refuse both screening techniques. If 2,000,000 travelers did that, no planes would fly. Would Janet Napolitano and the TSA be happy then? We the citizen need to be heard again. These are outrageous policies which need to be replaced .

"Those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin