Posts Tagged ‘sanctuary cities’

As Democrats Come Psychologically Unglued Over Judge Gorsuch, Remember What Dishonest Hypocrite Pieces Of Rat Filth They Are

April 4, 2017

As we see Democrats now going completely batpoop over an eminently qualified judge who received a unanimous confirmation vote when he was confirmed to the federal judgeship that was his stepping stone to the Supreme Court because he was so obviously qualified and so obviously a great choice, let’s take a trip down memory lane to examine whether Democrats have any legitimate moral grounds whatsoever to oppose – let alone try to block or filibuster – his nomination.

Let’s call those days “B.O.” for “Before Obama.”  Because Barack Obama brought a spirit of division over this nation that will literally likely be the death of this country.

Barack Obama is THE most bitterly polarizing, divisive force this nation has ever seen.  And now what he’s doing is being called a “government in exile.”

The Nazis called it a “Fifth Column.”  I call it “treason” against the United States and against the will of the people as expressed according to our democratic values and principles.

The Democrats are now “justifying” their attempt to sink this nation to a new, bitter, divisive, polarizing low because Republicans refused to call Obama’s pick (Judge Merrick Garland) for a full vote after the death of sitting Justice Antonin Scalia.

The Democrats would have you believe that they would NEVER EVER have EVER done anything like this.  Let’s see if that’s true, or if Democrats truly stands for “DEMOnic bureauCRATS” as I maintain it does.

I wrote this a couple of months ago.  It’s a good time to quote the actual, factual record again:

But let’s get back to Obama and the vile, vicious tactics that he inspired as our nations very first “community organizer” president.

Back in 2009 I was pointing out what a total, abject LIE the heart of the Obama promise to America had turned out to be.  This guy was so damn partisan that it was beyond unreal from the moment he took office.  And yet  The New York Times had written of Obama as candidate:

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

But this promise leads, inevitably, to a question: Can such a majority be built and led by Mr. Obama, whose voting record was, by one ranking, the most liberal in the Senate last year?

Was Obama EVER a man capable of rising above partisan politics?  No.  Not even CLOSE.  Absolutely not.  As an easy example of that, as a Senator he was one of THE most radical liberal-progressives and unsuccessfully tried to filibuster Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court.  Even Obama’s own party at that point acknowledged that what Obama tried to do was way, WAY too radical.

And so:

However, the truth is that, when they were senators, Obama, Biden, and Clinton all tried to filibuster Justice Alito’s nomination to the court – and other Democratic party leaders such as NY Senator Chuck Schumer reveled in the idea that they were able to block every Bush #43 nomination to the federal courts.

But the Democratic Party went über-fascist radical, and thus the toxic, divisive, polarizing Obama became the nominee of the Democratic Party and ultimately the president.  And the similarly über-fascist radical Joe Biden became vice president; and then the likewise über-fascist radical Hillary Clinton would sure-enough be the following rabid candidate for the Democrat Party machine.

Through his press mouthpiece, Obama as president would ultimately – and cowardly – come to say he “regretted” his decision to be one of the most leftist partisan members of the U.S. Senate when his own damn tactics were brought up in his face to reveal the utter and abject moral hypocrisy that is “Democratic Party.”

So it’s morally evil now to do what Obama did, you see.  Obama ought to be able to do it and get away with it, and later on when it becomes politically inconvenient, well, Obama ought to be able to retreat behind a press secretary mouthpiece and say that he now regrets it.  Such that Republicans have no right to do exactly what Obama himself did.

Let’s go back to Joe Biden: Because We also have the example of Obama’s vice president, Joe Biden who in 1992 said when there was just a POSSIBILITY that George H.W. Bush MIGHT be able to nominate a Supreme Court Justice:

“It is my view that if the president goes the way of Presidents Fillmore and Johnson and presses an election year nomination the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until ever — until after the political campaign season is over.” — Sen. Joe Biden, June 25, 1992

President George H.W. Bush was in office until January 20, 1993.  So Biden didn’t even say this in a presidential election year – the way it was when our Hypocrite-in-Chief Obama demanded the divine right to replace conservative Scalia with a leftist of his choice – rather Biden said the Democrat garbage tactic applied even in the year BEFORE the election year.

Only Democrats are hypocrite enough to not be able to see what abject hypocrite roaches they are.

As we talk about the Republican response to Obama’s selection of Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia in an election year and the consequences of the Republican response today, allow me to take you on a trip down hypocrite Democrat lane from what I wrote at that time:

Democrats have a LONG history of doing the very thing they now claim is so evil:

While Democrats in the upper chamber – including Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and former Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, both of which called for blocking former President George W. Bush’s nominations – have slammed the GOP for its decision not to consider a nominee until after a new president is elected, Democrats have not always held that stance. The Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution in 1960 preventing a recess appointment, much to the dismay of Republicans.

As first reported by The Washington Post – S.RES. 334, also known as Expressing the Sense of the Senate That The President Should Not Make Recess Appointments to the Supreme Court, Except to Prevent or End a Breakdown in the Administration of the Court’s Business – passed the Senate in a 48-33 vote in an attempt to prevent former President Dwight Eisenhower from filling a seat last-minute.

Democrats have frequently played this same game.   New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, now the Senate Minority Leader and leader of all the Senate Democrats, said when a Republican was president that the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

And so this incredibly dishonest claim from Obama and the Democrats is so much nonsense it is beyond unreal: if anything, it IS unprecedented, other than all the damn times THEY did the very thing they now so loudly and dishonestly and hypocritically insist that Republicans would be violating sacred precedent to do.

Let me keep going from my same article on just what hypocrite pieces of dishonest roach filth Democrats are:

Here’s another thing: the Senate is now firmly in Republican hands (after disgraceful Democrats were caught being evil maybe a million times too often).  But when Democrats owned the Senate, they shoved their crap right down the Republicans’ throats and changed the damn Senate rules to do it with a process that was so toxic to the Constitution that it was called “the nuclear option.”

On November 21, 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid declared that “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” by Republican filibusters had made the confirmation process “completely unworkable.”[1] As a result, he said, Democrats were forced to eliminate virtually all nomination filibusters. […]

For nearly all of its history, proceeding to a final vote on a matter before the Senate required a supermajority.

But not when Democrats stole the show.  No, no, no, the rules of all propriety and decency and civility go right out the damn window every damn time it pleases them.  Just like the Nazi Party and Jews, the Democrat Party calls the Republicans “evil” and then justifies the most wildly partisan and cynical “final solutions.”

Ever since the Supreme Court became a “super legislature” thanks to the wicked Democrat Party, where they ruled by imposing massive societal change by finding “penumbras and emanations” that justified whatever the HELL they wanted to do, the SCOTUS has become a political branch.  And Obama just started another vicious war while blathering dishonest words that he was somehow above doing the very thing he is clearly doing.

Who “fundamentally transformed” “nearly all of the Senate’s history”???  Don’t EVER forget it was the DEMOCRATS.  Just as it was the DEMOCRATS who invented Borking and it was the DEMOCRATS who are the ones who actually FILIBUSTER judicial appointments.  Bill Clinton and Barack Obama BOTH did NOT have a Republican filibuster.  The ONLY two judges sitting on the court who didn’t receive sixty votes are Justice Thomas and Justice Alito.  Because the Democrat Party has been the official party of Butthurt for decades.

If you want to see what “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction” truly looks like, look at what Democrats have done since Trump got elected.  These butthurt fascists are psychologically unhinged with rabid acts of “obstruction” taking place at every corner that no, you demon-possessed liars, the Republicans NEVER did.

It’s really not the “nuclear option”; it’s the “Harry Reid option”; it’s the “Democrat Party option.”  And it is a GOOD thing Republicans are now willing to use the same tactics Democrats used against them.  And it’s an evil, wicked thing that the mainstream media is FINALLY seeing this as an “extreme tactic” given that they somehow failed to think that way when their beloved Democrat Party was using the tactic to impose their will when THEY ran Washington.

And so, in that same vein, Charles Schumer – now the leader of the Democrat minority – controls a party that literally announced they were going to object to ANYONE Trump nominated simply because on their view, anyone who doesn’t think exactly like they do is “unqualified” to serve.

Democrats actually swore they would filibuster Trump’s nominee even before Trump nominated anyone.

Democrats promise they will use the slander-tactic that they invented now known as “Borking”: This infamous Ted Kennedy slander was the worst of the slanders:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.”

Robert Bork was a good man and eminently qualified to sit on the Court.  But Democrats are truly breathtakingly evil and hypocritical people.

In the same manner, Justice Clarence Thomas literally faced down the Ku Klux Klan as a child who grew up as the child of a poor sharecropper in a house with a dirt floor – only to find the Democrats’ more evil and more psychotic and more dishonest.  As an example, the modern Klan monsters are BLACK Democrats who were willing to lynch Thomas for the sin of having a white wife.  And Democrats said in their vote, “You don’t get to do that and survive, uppity negro.”  They manufactured the very first “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves” by finding a backstabbing woman who had followed Judge Thomas from job to job for YEARS only to claim that he sexually harassed her the entire time that she had willingly kept following him.

And so, all the Obama crap about it being beyond the pale for a Senate to treat a nomination to the Supreme Court this way, all I can say in response is that now you get to eat Republican fecal matter right out of the toilet bowl, you wicked hypocrite butthurt LIARS.

When Barack Obama – after trying to community organize a filibuster against Bush SCOTUS appointees – appointed two far-left liberal progressive radicals to the Court, Republicans responded by allowing their nomination to go forward and even allowing their members to vote for her in a spirit of bipartisan compromise.  Because they believed a president ought to have a right to nominate judges out of his philosophy, especially on the Supreme Court, even when they personally disagree with those judges’ philosophy of jurisprudence.

So Democrats never had to exploit their own Harry Reid-invented “Democrat option” – a.k.a. the nuclear option – to get a vote for Obama’s SCOTUS picks because Republicans respected the process in a way that Democrats have now proven over and over again they are not capable of respecting.  It was Democrats who invented and then repeatedly used the politics of personal slander-destruction against Republican nominees.

Democrats are not human beings worthy of the name; they have abandoned as a matter of wicked philosophy any concept of the imago dei.  Democrats are evolved bugs, and they only capable of bug morality.  You could rescue a cockroach, nurture it back to health, feed it, but the moment it was time to reciprocate, that roach would happily EAT YOU ALIVE.

So what goes around comes around, Democrats.  What went around a few months ago – when Republicans refused to consider replacing the most conservative justice with an Obama-picked liberal that would overthrow the balance of the SCOTUS in an election year when the will of the people as expressed in the presidential vote was the best way to determine what the balance of the court should be – went around BECAUSE YOU DEMOCRATS STARTED IT.  Just like every other outrage, YOU did it FIRST.  Republicans didn’t do anything relating to Judge Garland that Democrats didn’t announce that they were going to do.  So let what you said you would do be done according to your word, Democrats.  Only it’s NEVER fascism when a fascist does anything, is it?  And what is now going around is the nuclear option that your side invented to use against the Republicans who are using your damned “Democrat option” now.

There is NOTHING worse than hypocrisy.  And Democrats prove every nanosecond of every day that they are the living, breathing embodiment of abject moral hypocrisy.

We are now watching Democrats across the country openly defying the laws of our land, which makes them by definition “lawless.”  If Democrats like a law, then they demand everyone else be compelled to follow that law.  Consider the Christian baker and the Christian wedding photographer who were bankrupted by Democrats because they didn’t believe in homosexual marriage and didn’t want to be forced to participate in it or endorse it.  Democrats rabidly threw EVERYTHING that hate could throw at those people whose crime was trying to live according to their faith that was the foundation for America from day one.   Consider the county clerk who refused to certify gay marriages: this woman was literally put in JAIL by Democrats for following her conscience.  Consider the Arizona law and Obama suing the state and saying immigration was the jurisdiction of the federal government and states and lower districts simply don’t have a right to interfere with the president’s federal policies.  Remember the Democrats’ argument back then that federal law PREEMPTS state law and that the federal government had the right to impose its will onto the states when it came to immigration enforcement.  Remember all that?  And now look at Democrats turn on all of that with a feral, rabid snarl when it comes to illegal immigration and our LAWS and say that they should have a right to have sanctuary cities and sanctuary states and that Donald Trump should be compelled to give them federal money in spite of their defiance of the law.

We are either a nation of laws or we are not.  The same liberals who say that Christians have no right whatsoever to a religious conscience in spite of the 1st Amendment very clearly saying something different now say that the ONLY right one can have is based on a LIBERAL conscience.  Or what I call a cockroach conscience.

Democrats are more than just genocidal baby-murdering sexual perverts today: they are true fascists who are as rabidly and even violently intolerant of anyone or anything they disagree with as the Nazis were.  They now claim that they have the right to “safe-spaces” which amounts to anyone who disagrees with them having the right to cease to exist.  Meanwhile they show up at rally after rally with VIOLENCE even as they cry that they are the victims of “intolerance.”  Because they are the very worst hypocrites in the history of the world.

Use the nuclear option.  Seat Justice Neil Gorsuch.  And next time, understanding that we are in a war to the death with liberals in this country, that we are literally fighting over whether this nation WILL survive and whether this nation even DESERVES to survive, next time get a far-rightwing pick who will truly be to the right what ACLU hero Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been to the left.  The next judge should believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document subject to change, believing that a judge ought to be the determiner of whether our society changes or not, and impose his hard right conservative Republican will on the law.  Because, after all, he’s a judge, and the law is after all whatever the hell a judge says it is.  And we should keep forcing judges like that now until the left finally understands that the only hope for this nation is a return to what our founding fathers demanded from judges: that they interpret the law according to the unchanging standards of the Constitution of the United States unless and until the Congress amends it according to the system the founders provided, rather than cite “penumbras” and “emanations” as their basis for imposing their preferences onto the law of the land.

Advertisements

Finger Pointing Over Murdered American Woman: San Francisco, Obama Say It’s Other’s Fault. BOTH Are Utterly EVIL. As Is Hillary Clinton.

July 10, 2015

As we speak, the Sheriff of San Francisco County says it’s all Obama’s ICE’s fault that the illegal immigrant who had been convicted of seven felonies and deported five times before he found his heart in San Francisco and realized he was immune from justice and from whatever you want to call “the law” when liberals are in charge.

And, of course, the Sheriff is absolutely right.  Barack Obama has the blood of Kathryn Steinle – along with at least 121 other murdered Americans – on his hands due to his wicked policies that free vicious criminals because they are illegal immigrants and Obama is the very worst kind of cynical partisan demagogue.

This murderous turd Juan-Francisco Lopez-Sanchez is merely ONE of more than 347,000 illegal immigrant criminals that Obama has released.

We know that Barack Hussein Obama is completely responsible for this vile policy of catch and release criminals whenever they happen to be illegal immigrants for several reasons: 1) is that he’s already done it hundreds of thousands of times; 2) is that he viciously went after the Arizona Law claiming that the federal government has sole and solitary sovereignty whenever it comes to any matter involving our borders, border security or the treatment of illegal immigrants, but there are more than 200 cities, counties and states in America that are considered “sanctuary cities” – and REQUIRE a refusal to cooperate with federal authorities seeking to deport an illegal immigrant – and Obama has done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to go after these lawless liberals the way he made an example of the ONE conservative state that actually tried to stop the flood of illegal criminals from pouring into Arizona; and 3) is this:

The head of ICE, Ms. Saldaña, was very clearly ordered by the Obama administration to completely reverse herself after she made the mistake of representing her agency and her officers as opposed to the partisan political agenda of Obama:

Thank you. Amen, yes. Crack down on the sanctuary cities is what she said, but the very next day, Friday March 20, a complete reversal after the ACLU, immigrants rights groups and others pressured the White House and presto, the head of ICE makes a shocking about face. This time in writing, though, saying, quote, ‘[a]ny effort at federal legislation now to mandate state and local law enforcement’s compliance with ICE detainers will, in our view, be a highly counterproductive step and lead to more resistance and less cooperation in overall efforts to promote public safety.” What happened to thank you, amen yes a day earlier? And now, after clear evidence that it is not interested in a sanctuary city crackdown, this administration tells reporters it can’t comment on whether the President backs the sheriff or the policies in this case?

The Obama White House refuses to answer questions. They say talk to Homeland Security – having of course ordered Homeland Security not to answer any questions or to pass the buck to San Francisco.

So Obama and his lawless thugs are trying to point fingers at San Francisco, but their fingers, their toes, their heads, and everything else are coated in BLOOD.  And it is not only irrational but immoral for the Obama White House to try to dodge responsibility for their ONGOING SUPPORT OF THESE SANCTUARY CITY POLICIES.

There’s also a 4) and here it is presented by Megyn Kelly:

This sheriff himself a convicted criminal says, he stands by the city’s policy. Kate’s murder has since exploded into a national debate on illegal immigrant, sanctuary cities in crime. With the White House ducking the issue of its own acquiescence in these city’s decision to flout the federal immigration laws which were duly enacted. When asked repeatedly this week to speak to this case, White House Spokesman Josh Earnest declined to weigh in other than to refer folks to the Department of Homeland Security. A stark contrast to what we saw after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri. A man we now know was attacking a police officer at the time of his death. His funeral saw three Obama officials in attendance, his death drew comments from President Obama personally. And the administration also sent in the DOJ and 40 FBI agents dispatched to Missouri after Michael Brown was killed.

Where is the swarm of agents in San Francisco? Then there was Freddie Gray in Baltimore, a repeat drug offender who was killed in police custody. Here again his funeral was attended by three Obama administration officials and again the President spoke personally to Freddie Gray’s death. And again, sent the DOJ in to investigate. When Trayvon Martin was killed in Florida, the President spoke to his death which was later ruled to be in self-defense. But Kate Steinle, nothing. No comments, no swarm of FBI agents, no DOJ investigation, nothing. Why?

And just in case you think I’ve run out of reasons why Barack Hussein Obama is entirely to blame for this murderer being released to murder and frankly ought to be impeached for the high crime and misdemeanor of aiding and abetting in the commission of a felony murder, there’s a 5):

Barack Hussein Obama is a lawless criminal thug who has ordered his top immigration enforcement officials to refuse to cooperate with the law. After a judge specifically ordered these officials to stop doing what was illegal, they continued to do their wicked Führer’s wicked and flagrantly criminal bidding. Obama criminally and illegally issued some 2,000 unlawful work authorizations in flagrant violation of federal law and continued to do so even after being ordered to cease and desist.

Which simply is one more example of many examples of a strategy that our lawless thug in chief routinely employs: to only bother with enforcing or allowing to be enforced laws that our naked ideologue fascist thug-in-chief wants to enforce, and to hell with all the laws he doesn’t like.  As Politico reports:

Obama’s policy strategy: Ignore laws
By STEVE FRIESS | 6/16/12 7:02 AM EDT  Updated: 6/16/12 8:21 PM EDT

President Barack Obama returned Friday to a trusted tactic — satisfying his political allies by not doing something.

Conservatives were angry when Janet Napolitano announced the administration would stop deporting certain undocumented immigrants, but they should have seen it coming. On issue after issue — gay rights, drug enforcement, Internet gambling, school achievement standards — the administration has chosen to achieve its goals by a method best described as passive-aggressive

Rather than pushing new laws through a divided Congress to enact his agenda, Obama is relying on federal agencies to ignore, or at least not defend, laws that some of his important supporters — like Hispanic voters and the gay community — don’t like.

“If the president says we’re not going to enforce the law, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it,” University of Pennsylvania constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt said. “It’s clearly a political calculation.”

I hope you notice how prominent a far leftist approach to illegal immigration is to Obama’s lawless criminal thuggery.  I also hope you notice that being a lawless, fascist THUG is the core of Obama.  The Bible calls it “the mystery of lawlessness” that we would see in the very final days just before the ultimate political beast otherwise known as the Antichrist comes.  We were told in advance that wickedness and lawlessness would abound and the righteous would be stunned at the inability to do a damn thing about it.

But I suspect there’s a liberal out there who thinks, “No WAY he’s got a sixth reason to blame Kate Steinle’s murder on my messiah.”  Well, I actually do.  So here’s reason 6):

Obama has said at least 22 times that he didn’t have the power to shield illegal immigrants: and then did in blatant and criminal defiance of the Constitution what he himself said he didn’t have the power to do.  According to Obama’s despicable and treasonous actions – again, not according to me but to Obama’s own previous statements – Barack Obama is not a president, but a KING, he’s not a president of the United States, he’s an EMPEROR.  And he is entirely responsible for the mess that he has created as our tyrannous emperor god-king.

Again, the day Barack Hussein Obama raised his demon-possessed fingers and took the oath of office, Kate Steinle’s murder became a fait accompli.  Obama and liberalism murdered that woman, straight up.

Now, mind you, the Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi is a liberal, and therefore evil, and San Francisco is as evil and therefore as liberal as it gets.  So it should surprise NO ONE that Sheriff didn’t even bother to acknowledge the murdered victim until he was nearly finished with his smarmy lecture – and when he finally deigned to do so, he mispronounced her name.

Realize that the liberal, wicked city of San Francisco ACTUALLY REQUESTED THIS MURDEROUS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT TURD FROM FEDERAL CUSTODY JUST SO THEY COULD RELEASE HIM:

A bitter dispute over who bears responsibility for the release of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, the five times-deported illegal alien who fatally shot Kathryn Steinle last week in San Francisco, has taken a surprise twist with the revelation that the San Francisco sheriff’s department asked the Federal Bureau of Prisons for custody of the 45-year-old Mexican national back in March.

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting that the San Francisco sheriff’s department, which is headed by progressive sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, submitted a letter to the Bureau of Prisons on March 23 asking to be notified “when [Lopez-Sanchez is ready for our pick-up.”

Lopez-Sanchez was at the end of a 46-month sentence in a federal prison in Victorville, Cal. for felony illegal re-entry. But San Francisco had a $5,000 bench warrant from 1995 on Lopez-Sanchez for a marijuana possession for sale case, and the sheriff’s department sought to take custody of him.

And then there is Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Right now this cynical political whore who stands for NOTHING but her own naked power and self-enrichment at the tit of big government and the worst kind of crony capitalism is piling on the evil sanctuary city policies that led to this unholy murder. But let’s take a look at the real Hilllary Rodham Clinton who dove into Kate Steinle’s blood and did a “blood angel”:

Hillary Clinton Supports Sanctuary Cities That Protect Dangerous Illegal Immigrants, Would Expand Similar Policies
Clinton’s past support of sanctuary cities, along with her recently stated intention to expand President Obama’s immigration actions, indicates that if elected president, she probably won’t crack down on the more than 200 state and local jurisdictions that have policies that call for not honoring ICE requests.
By Taylor Tyler | Jul 07, 2015 10:57 AM EDT

Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton is taking heat from pundits over her previous unabashed support of sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and thereby afford deportation protection to illegal immigrants.

Kate Steinle’s tragic murder could likely have been prevented if the city of San Francisco had notified U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of 45-year-old Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez’s release from its custody, yet due to the city’s decades-long sanctuary policy, he was released onto the streets without a word, where he went on to kill 32-year-old Steinle. Sanchez had already been deported five times and convicted of seven felonies.

Clinton’s past support of sanctuary cities, along with her recently stated intention to expand President Obama’s immigration actions, indicates that if elected president, she probably won’t crack down on the more than 200 state and local jurisdictions that have policies that call for not honoring ICE requests, notes The Daily Caller.

It was in September 2007 when then-Sen. Clinton said during a presidential debate that she supported sanctuary cities because they help ensure the “personal safety and security of all the citizens.”

“If local law enforcement begins to act like immigration officers, what that means is that you will have people not reporting crimes,” she said. “You will have people hiding from the police. And I think that is a real direct threat to the personal safety and security of all the citizens. So this is a result of the failure of the federal government and that’s where it needs to be fixed.”

Debate moderator Tim Russert then asked Clinton, “You would allow the sanctuary cities to disobey the federal law?”

Clinton responded, “Well, I don’t think there is any choice. The ICE groups go in and raid individuals, but if you’re the local police chief and you’re trying to solve a crime that you know people from the immigrant community have information about, they may not talk to you if they also think you are going to be enforcing immigration laws. Local law enforcement has a different job than federal immigration enforcement. The problem is the federal government has totally abdicated its responsibility.”

Clinton expressed her support again in 2008 in an interview with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News:

“Are you going to crack down on the sanctuary cities,” O’Reilly asked, to which Clinton responded, “No, I’m not.”

More recently, in May, Clinton pledged to expand President Obama’s executive immigration actions, which have further legitimized sanctuary cities.

“If Congress refuses to act, as president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further,” Clinton said, reported The Washington Examiner. “I will fight to stop the partisan attacks on the president’s executive actions.”

Jessica Vaughan, policy director of the Center for Immigration Studies, explained to The Daily Caller what a Clinton White House could look like.

“Hillary Clinton’s recent public statements indicate that she intends to outdo the Obama administration in dismantling immigration laws, so there is good reason to be concerned that this problem would get worse under a Clinton administration, and that more local governments would either be encouraged or coerced into obstructing ICE,” Vaughan said. “I would expect another Clinton administration to stoop to the same kind of legal hi-jinks, abuse of authority, disregard of safety and security, and then evasion of accountability, much as we witnessed when she was Secretary of State.”

Yes, there was a time when Hillary Clinton took the exact OPPOSITE view, just like she took many other exact opposite views such as leading the support for the Iraq War before being one of the most hypocritical turncoats on the very war that she supported to the betrayal of the American serviceman who had to continue to fight the war she betrayed.  Here she is saying she was opposed to sanctuary cities because as a liberal progressive NAZI all Hillary Clinton really gives a damn about is her own power and she will betray any one or any thing or any principle to grab that power:

“I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants.” — Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2003

Note that when it was politically expedient to do so, Hillary Clinton wasn’t just “adamantly against illegal immigration,” NO: she was against IMMIGRANTS.  The leftist propaganda media loves to frame Republicans as “anti-immigrant,” but here’s the POSTER BITCH for being “adamantly against immigrants.”  Further, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are only “adamantly against” anything that would get in the way of their god Lucifer taking over the United States of America after they’re finished kicking Jesus Christ to the curb; that’s the ONLY thing they’re “adamantly opposed” to.  For anything else, they’ll be adamantly against it before they’re just as adamantly for it before they’re adamantly against it again.  And all that matters to them is that they can lie, lie, lie their way to power and to more power.

Basically, liberalism is evil.  Liberals are evil.  And every resident of San Francisco and frankly every single American deserves to die because the people we put in power are fascist cockroaches from hell.

Here’s an idea: make sanctuary cities the next Confederate flag: ban them, ban anyone who now does or ever HAS supported them, burn them all down to the ground.  Or just wallow in your disgusting hypocrisy.

New Obama ICE Plan Refuses To Deport Illegals Without ‘Serious’ Criminal Record

September 2, 2010

There was a time in this fair land, back when there was something called “common sense” and “basic moral reasoning” when “illegal immigrant” meant one had broken the law.  There was a time when saying “criminal illegal alien” amounted to a tautology, the needless repetition of an idea.

But in today’s Bizarro Obama universe, there are non-criminal illegals.

Just listen to the new rules:

The memo directs ICE attorneys to check cases of detained illegal immigrants for any “serious” or “adverse” factors weighing against dismissal, including criminal convictions, fraud, national security and public safety considerations.

“If no investigations … or serious adverse factors exist, the offices of chief counsel should promptly move to dismiss proceedings,” the memo reads. “Once the Field Office Director is notified, the FOD must release the alien.”

If the illegal immigrants continually streaming in from Mexico voted Republican, Obama would be doing everything imaginable – including breaking the law – to keep them out.  Instead, on the one hand, Obama is allowing illegal aliens into the country to curry favor with the Hispanic vote, even as he helps blue states from counting the votes of our soldiers overseas to suppress their overwhelmingly conservative vote.

Bizarro, just bizarro.

New Immigration Policy to Halt Some Illegal Immigrant Deportations
Published August 27, 2010
FoxNews.com

ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton, seen here, wrote the Aug. 20 memo to Peter Vincent, principal legal adviser and head of the agency’s removal operations.

Federal authorities have issued a new policy aimed at stopping deportation proceedings for some illegal immigrants, according to a memo issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The memo, which ICE released on Aug. 20, could affect up to tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who are married or related to a U.S. citizen or a legal resident who has filed a petition on their behalf. Illegal immigrants with criminal convictions will not qualify under the plan. ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton wrote the memo to Peter Vincent, principal legal adviser and head of the agency’s removal operations.

The memo directs ICE attorneys to check cases of detained illegal immigrants for any “serious” or “adverse” factors weighing against dismissal, including criminal convictions, fraud, national security and public safety considerations.

“If no investigations … or serious adverse factors exist, the offices of chief counsel should promptly move to dismiss proceedings,” the memo reads. “Once the Field Office Director is notified, the FOD must release the alien.”

The change in policy could affect thousands of the estimated 17,000 pending removal cases. According to ICE data, nearly 40,000 immigrants obtained U.S residency status due to sponsorship of relatives who were legal residents in fiscal year 2009. By comparison, more than 393,000 illegal immigrants were deported during that same span.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, likened the change to a “free pass” for illegal immigrants, a characterization federal authorities denied.

“Actions like this demoralize ICE agents who are trying to do their job and enforce the law,” Grassley told The New York Times. “Unfortunately, it appears this is more evidence that the Obama administration would rather circumvent Congress and give a free pass to illegal immigrants who have already broken our law.”

A Department of Homeland Security official told Fox News that the new policy was designed in July 2009 to improve docket efficiency.

Richard Rocha, ICE’s deputy press secretary, said the agency remains focused on removing foreign nationals who have criminal convictions.

“This administration is committed to smart, effective immigration reform, prioritizing the arrest and removal of criminal aliens and those who pose a danger to national security,” Rocha said in a statement. “In 2010 to date, ICE has removed more than 150,000 convicted criminals — a record number.

“ICE is not engaged in a ‘backdoor’ amnesty and has placed more people in immigration proceedings this year than ever before.  ICE has implemented a new policy to expedite the removal of criminal aliens and those who pose a danger to national security by ensuring these cases are heard.”

“Improve docket efficiency”?  Hey, I have an idea: let’s refuse to deport the illegal immigrants guilty of terrible violent crimes.  That would “improve docket efficiency” even MORE.

Don’t worry.  That’s coming next.

Oops.  Too late.  It’s already here right now.

The patchwork array of sanctuary cities around the country is leaving dangerous criminal illegal aliens on America’s streets.

Local municipalities in these sanctuary cities prevent their officials from reporting illegals—even those with criminal records—to Immigrations and Customs enforcement (ICE), and it is costing American lives.

Obama wasn’t content to personally and publicly demonize Arizona as a racist state.  He wasn’t content to invite Mexican President Calderon to the Capital to demonize Arizona as a racist state.  He wasn’t even content to sue Arizona for a law identical to the U.S. law (while ignoring all of those sanctuary cities which specifically break U.S. law).  No, he proceeded to bring Arizona before the United Nations Human Rights Council.

But don’t worry.  Justice will be done at the Human Rights Council, where highly repressive regimes as China, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, and Vietnam have served.  Not to mention Zimbabwe, Algeria and Pakistan.

In 2003, Bush confronted a UN Human Rights Commission which at the time consisted of Libya, China, Sudan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Vietnam and Russia.  That’s the kind of human rights champions we’ve got.

Currently, Iran is on the UN panel for women’s rights.  Because Iran gives such great rights to women, after all.

Except for THIS woman, of course.  Okay, and maybe this one.

Obama threw a state of the union to the wolves.  And hoped the vicious international big government totalitarian regimes would tear Arizona a new one.  Because that’s just the kind of guy this man who cozied up to a Venezuelan dictator thug and literally bowed down before the king of Saudi Arabia (one of the nastiest purveyors of human rights abuses on the planet) truly is.

The Arizona border is totally out of control.  The Obama administration – which refuses to lift a finger to help the state even as it prevents it from being allowed to do anything to help itself – put up signs warning US citizens that swaths of Arizona were basically no longer safe for Americas.  It was rather restricted for use by violent criminal illegal aliens.


Boy, I hope all these drug and human smugglers Obama gave Arizona to have well-known criminal records.  Because otherwise Obama invites them to stay as long as they like.

Soon we’re going to be able to “deport” Democrats from office.  They’re the ones who made travesties like this possible.