We are divided as a Country and as Christians.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”  Abraham Lincoln is most known for that quote, but actually Jesus Christ said if before Abraham Lincoln even thought of it.  

Our Nation is more divided today than I have ever seen it in my lifetime. It is worse than during the turmoil of the 60’s when Vietnam and Love-Ins were festering topics.

How are we divided well let us count the ways: 

We do not listen to one another any longer. If someone does not agree with us we question their motivation. Immediately anyone who does not agree with our religion or our politics or our views in general are judged stupid and evil. We are no longer willing to have reasonable discussions and reach a consensus on what we have in common and work from there.

There was a time when Republicans and Democrats had difference in opinions on how the country should be run. But, we did not hate one another and try to destroy one another. We had political differences and that was it – simple.  The elections came and went and the losers accepted their loss and we moved on as one supporting the elected candidates. What is ironic is there are far fewer differences in the two parties than ever before and we do our best to destroy each other before and after the election and nothing productive is ever accomplished.

One only has to follow social media to see that we no longer have thoughtful, and respectful discussions. We no longer are interested in trying to win anyone over to our way of thinking, instead with our words we do all we can to turn them away by attacking their sincerity, intelligence and faith.

What happen to LOVE!  Mention homosexuality to some Christians and you will see the most vicious, vile rhetoric come from their heart and their mouths. The Orlando massacre shined a light on the bigotry of some lay and some ministers within the church. For example, “I wish one Saturday night a group of people would organize all around the country and go to every gay bar in America and kill ever single queer in there and that would stop them from leading our children and grandchildren astray”, “They were not afraid in that restroom in that queer bar in Orlando. They were too busy having sex to be afraid”, “My only problem with the dumb terrorist in Orlando was he did not kill them all.”  The list goes on and on and on and the people vow up and down they are CHRISTIANS.

I think some Christians are going to be shocked when they reach the Pearly Gates and find them padlocked. I do not think the words some Christians are using in speaking of homosexuals are the words God wants them to use.  

I realize some Christians say they are  tired of being made into the bad guys. They’re tired of being called the bigots, the haters, etc. I was told by one Christian,  “If I do not speak out loud and clear now to stop the homosexuals one day I may lose my right to do so.” I do not think it is the agenda of homosexuals to prevent Christians from believing as they wish or to take away their right to free speech, but it is their agenda to be able to speak and live as they believe. There are bigots on both sides of the issue and if you do not want to be called a bigot then do not act like one.

At the Indiana Statehouse, Rev. Ron Johnson Jr. of the Indiana Pastors Alliance addressed a roaring crowd: “We’re not here today because we’re angry. We’re not here because we hate people. “We’re actually here,” he said, “because we love Jesus.” He went on to say, “How can government force people to act against their religious consciences — against an unshakable belief that marriage is between a man and a woman?” Has the government ask any Christian to do that?  There are laws about discriminating in a PUBLIC business. The government has only ask that we respect the rights of others to believe as they want, just as the Christians opposed to homosexuality do. 

I heard similar arguments at my Grandmothers church, First Baptist Church of Pratt City, Alabama against integration and interracial marriages. The only words coming from his mouth that I agreed with was, “I’m not asking for special protected class status. I’m asking to be left alone, for crying out loud.” Rev. Ron Johnson that is all the gay community really wants.

For some evangelical Christians, who are led by ministers like the Indiana Pastors Alliance there is no compromise. Expanding the state civil rights law to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes would effectively feel like a betrayal of their constitutional rights.

Not all Christians share their views. Some Christians agree with enacting nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people, including a coalition of mainline Christian denominations and a group of 141 faith leaders who signed onto a letter of support. Bishop William Gafkjen, who oversees Indiana and Kentucky congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, said he doesn’t feel that adding to the civil rights law threatens his religious freedom.

Christian’s are more divided today than ever before in my lifetime. There has always been some that thought if you did not belong to their church or denomination you could not go to heaven. There has always been some that thought they were the only ones that knew how to interpret scripture. But, there are some Christians today that are nearly or they are militant about their opinions.

If you believe me to be wrong then next Sunday after church start a conversation with those you just worshiped God with about immigration.  If one person does not explode like a stick of dynamite has been ignited in them - I would be shocked.  A recent National Public Radio report noted, “Immigration is shaping up to be one of the most contentious and emotional topics in the 2016 presidential race.”  Even among us Christians.

We seem to forget that all Americans have immigrants in their genealogy if they take time to go back far enough.  The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 banned racial criteria for immigration. From that time on, people would be admitted “on the basis of their skills and their relationship to those already here” and to find refuge from oppression. The problem is not immigration the problem is that our immigration laws are not being following by our politicians. The law never intended to allow illegal immigration into our country.

 There are approximately 11.3 million persons in the U.S. today without authorization—without some kind of Visa or Green Card. Of these, roughly half came here on a Visa or Green Card that has now expired, and half came into our country by crossing the border without authorization. The problem is not all immigrants the problem is illegal immigrants and whose fault is that they have freely crossed our borders and overstayed their visa’s without any repercussion. If I was from a depressed country and could get to the Promised Land legally or illegally I would. I would especially do so when the President of that country encouraged it. Now this is the question that will set fire under some - would it be legal or illegal today for the Jewish people to take the land of the Canaanites, which is now Palestine? Would the Jewish people at that time be consider illegal aliens today?

The Bible has many references to immigrants—in fact, foreigners, strangers, and aliens are mentioned more than 150 times.

In Leviticus, God says: “When immigrants live in your land with you, you must not cheat them. Any immigrant who lives with you must be treated as if they were one of your citizens. You must love them as yourself, because you were immigrants in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:33-34).

The question of immigrants is complicated today by the extreme radical Muslims. I think the main solution to that problem is strict enforcement of our Immigration Laws. I am not convinced discrimination against any one particular group of people is the answer.

All people that desire to enter our country should be vetted and required to meet stringent guidelines regardless of their religion or country of origin.  I think people should prove they can contribute to the betterment of the United States in the future in order to enter and that seems harsh to a lot of liberal thinking Christians. I think there should be set time limits as to when they must demonstrate they have a command of the English language.  But, I am no longer for discrimination against a certain group of people.  I once was because I feared radical Islamic Muslims.

I disagree with many other Christians on taking in refugees. I am for HELPING and protecting refugees in their own homeland. I do not think as Christians we can stand by and not offer assistance, but to bring their problems to our shores when we already face so many problems I simply cannot support it. If we do allow them to enter the United States I think we have a Christian obligation to treat then as  fellow citizens of the United States.

TO BE CONTINUED

What do I think of Ted Cruz.

Ted Cruz tries to appear as an uncompromising politician, but he is deal maker just like all other politicians.  His father has said over and over again his son, "Ted will not compromise." But, I think Ted Cruz will compromise on matters that do not matter to him regardless if they matter to others within the party or the Republican voters.

It depends on what audience Cruz is talking to if he is willing to compromise or not. In front of some audiences Cruz has said, "If they offer you half a loaf, you take it - and then come back for more."

Some students who were in college with him complained that Ted didn't have an off switch and that he lectured them all the time. Some claimed he was overbearing.  The Ted Cruz I see today affects me in much the same way as he did his college friends.  I have never felt he was talking to the American people it always seems to me he is lecturing us and prior to Donald Trump he was the most overbearing and smug politicians I had listened to.

Like Obama he knows what he wants and he wants everyone else to want the same thing.  In other words Ted Cruz like Obama thinks he knows what is best for us!  I get the impression if we do not agree with him he believes we must be stupid.

Rob Marks, a fellow student at Princeton, said this about Cruz, "There was no emotion. It was pure logic. In Ted's mind, he was never wrong. He viewed himself as ideologically pure."  I do not think Rob Marks would have a difficult time recognizing the Ted Cruz of today because it appears to me he has not changed.

Edward Bergman, a New Jersey lawyer who taught Cruz in a course on alternative dispute resolution, said Cruz's classroom manner and written work displayed a smugness that made him unpopular. I am glad I had an opportunity to read that article because that is the same feeling I get when Cruz addresses the Senate or in the recent debates. It's a smug, know-it-all attitude like he demonstrated on Greta Van Susteren show on 12/18/15 on Fox News. I now know I am not the only one that feels that way about him.

When Cruz filibustered in 2013 against Obamacare for 21 hours and 19 minutes, many conservative thought they saw a man standing up for their principles. I was and still am against Obamacare, but what I saw during the filibuster was an arrogant, uncompromising, hardheaded, stubborn man who thought his ideas were the only correct ideas. What did he accomplish with the filibuster theatrics, except get some television exposure? We still got Obamacare. If Cruz had been willing to work with others and compromise a little maybe he could have gotten some amendments to Obamacare that would have made the plan better.

To be in politics you must be willing to compromise. Politics is all about give and take in order to accomplish goals. Obama is a failure in politics because he does not understand the art of compromise.  Even though Cruz claims “half a loaf is better than none” his actions do not reflect that.  Like Obama Cruz loves intellectual arguments for the sake of arguing. Like Obama Cruz would perhaps make a better professor than politician. Like Obama Cruz could care less who criticizes him and he is not interested in finding out why they criticize him because he has already concluded he is right.

How tough will Cruz be on Wall Street since his wife Heidi Cruz is a managing director of Goldman Sachs in Houston? I know what Cruz says now, but if elected and he has real power over the economy what will he do then. 

His wife claims Ted has learned, “…not to preach at people. People don't want to be judged." She sees a different Ted Cruz than I do or he was so much worse than he is now the change has overwhelmed her.

I have noticed when he is in Iowa, a farm state, he skirts over the fact that he is against farm subsidies and feeds them bushels of political propaganda on, "Abolish the IRS"; the “EPA is completely lawless" and “over the past 17 years, the planet has seen "no warming whatsoever."

 Cruz likes to tell the story about a 6-foot-6 African American guard walking up to him and saying, “I didn't vote for you, but I'll say this: You've done what you said you'd do", if elected president the farmers of Iowa will be able to say, I did vote for you and you’ve done what you said you would do you took our subsidies away – we didn’t hear you say it, but we now know you said it to others.

Cruz still has excellent debate skills and he knows what to say and what not to say at the appropriate times. Cruz is to public speaking what Michael Phelps was to swimming. Cruz is the Republican Barack Obama. He is a Huckabee Christian Conservative. He can demonstrate he is a bit of Ron Paul when it serves him well. He is the Tea Partiers candidate because his goal is to push the Republican Party as far right as possible.

Ted Cruz truly believes the Declaration of Independence's promises people certain unalienable Rights. He believes certain freedoms are every human's birthright and that governments must protect those rights. Ted Cruz has always demonstrated that he is for the underdog. Cruz stands for many things I stand for, but what frightens me about Cruz is he is not flexible in his thinking, once he has decided he is right he seems to close his mind to further discussion.

I know Cruz is against abortion, but I am not clear why he is against abortion. Does he oppose abortion because it is murder (moral) or that terminating a pregnancy violates natural order and natural law is the basis of the Constitution (intellectual) — is it an intellectual or moral issue for Cruz? The difference speaks to his real evangelical roots. Evangelicals are against abortion for moral reasons regardless of any intellectual argument. Pro- right groups can argue for abortion based solely on intellectual reasoning. I know Cruz loves intellectual debates, but what about moral debates.

Cruz would be for a Constitutional Amendment limiting the Federal Governments power. At a 2010 Federalist Society panel he stated, "If one embraces the views of Madison...which is that men are not angels and that elected politicians will almost always seek to expand their power, then the single most effective way to restrain government power is to provide a constraint they can't change."  If elected and he pursued the Amendment change it would be divisive and it would take up valuable time an administration needs to deal with more relevant crisis.

As Solicitor General for Texas Cruz went before the Supreme Court eight times, five involved the death penalty, with Cruz arguing that Texas should be allowed to execute the mentally ill.  Was the argument a moral issue or an intellectual issue for him? You may ask what difference it makes. Again, I think it speaks to his conservative religious views he constantly touts.

 No one's is a bigger promoter of Ted Cruz than Ted Cruz. The Austin American-Statesman pointed out that he took credit for a case that was actually argued and won by Gregg Abbott, then Texas Attorney General, now Governor of Texas. He actually claimed the victory as one of his own high-court victories. Journalists who have interviewed him have commented “Ted Cruz loves to talk about Ted Cruz”.

Cruz should give credit to the super-PAC’s, and a flurry of barnstorming by national conservatives, including Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, and Sarah Palin for his runoff win for the Senate. Cruz dishonestly ran as an outsider even though his credentials—Harvard Law Review, Rehnquist court, Bush campaign, Perry administration did not truly fit that billing. Cruz can speak the language of established Republicans and Tea Party Republicans and that is one of his greatest assets – he can live in both worlds as needed.

Cruz can and will break out in a few lines of Spanish when he thinks it will benefit him even though he cannot carry on a conversation in Spanish.  Cruz is the typical educated politician, use car salesman, door to door vacuum cleaner salesman. He will say and does what he thinks will help him win. The argument he is having with Rubio at the moment over immigration/citizenship is an example of that.

Cruz touts the 10th Amendment theories most prominent during the civil rights clashes of the 1950s and '60s, when Southern governors touted their (nonexistent) right to invalidate federal laws. His social conservatism takes us back to the '90s, when the gay rights agenda (which Cruz has pledged to combat in DC) was seen lurking around every corner. His fear of international treaties as a gateway to the dissolution of American sovereignty might have fit right in during the Eisenhower era. Many of Cruz’s ideas are not new.

Cruz supports a Constitutional amendment mandating that Congress pass a balanced budget. He argues that this is the best way to cut down deficits and the debt. I agree that we must have a balanced budget. I think that politicians are so dishonest we can never have a balance budget unless the Constitution demands it. If politicians are going to seek an amendment change on the budget now may be the time to do it.  But, Cruz would most likely want to tie the 10^th Amendment argument to it and it would all be a waste of time and money.

Cruz wants to reduce corporate tax rates to 15 percent and cut federal subsidies for renewable fuels. I definitely could support lowering corporate tax rates because I believe it would improve the economy and create jobs. I am for stopping subsidies of all kinds to private for profit corporations. No one ever financed one of my business ventures and I do not want to finance someone else’s. Business ventures are always a risk and those who stand to profit from them should take the risk and not the taxpayers.

Cruz is a proponent of a simpler tax code. Politicians have been saying we need a simpler tax code for thirty years, but they take no action to accomplish it when in office. I do not think Cruz is any different.  Although he does claim he is for a ‘flat tax’ which I would support.

Cruz is for each individual states defining “marriage”. I am not a supporter of that. All Americans should be guaranteed the same equal rights in all States regardless of where they live in the United States. This could prohibit gay couples from seeking advancement in employment in other states. It could prevent gay couples from living where they want to live. It could prevent gay couples from living near their families. It could create problems for couples when traveling and sickness occurred. There are all sorts of problems with States defining marriage. I once supported what Cruz stands for, but now I see the problems it can and would create. I am not against a national vote to decide the legal definition of marriage, but I would oppose not offering gay couples the same rights as heterosexual couples in committed relationships. I understand that the term ‘marriage’ has traditional meaning to many Americans.

Cruz stand on gays is confusing because in April, he sounded more open-minded at a New York reception hosted by two gay businessmen. Cruz, an attendee told the New York Times reporter, "He would have no problem if one of his daughters was gay." It could be Cruz just trying to say the right thing at the right time to win once again demonstrating his ‘debate and public speaking skills’.

Like Cruz I am for requiring all judges to stand for election at least every four years, but I would exempt Supreme Court Judges from the law.  I still favor lifetime terms for Supreme Court Judges because I feel it brings more continuity to the legal system and American way of life. I do not want Supreme Court Judges making decisions based on the current whims of Americans because they have to stand for reelection.

Ted Cruz supports building the Keystone XL pipeline. I support Keystone XL pipeline and believe that any politicians that values the interest of the American people would support it. Obama allowed tree huggers to keep him from doing what was best for employment and the economy. Obama is responsible for many American families’ suffering needlessly for non-existent environmental concerns.

Ted Cruz favors deportation of unauthorized immigrants. It is not clear to me or to Greta on Fox News how he would accomplish the deportation. He wants those that want immediate round up and deportation to believe he would do that, while those, like me, who want illegal aliens deported as they are caught he wants us to believe he would proceed in that manner.

In 1999 Cruz urged Mr. Bush, to state his opposition to illegal immigration and to urge enforcement of border restrictions. At the same time, he reminded Mr. Bush we need to remember that many of those coming here are coming to feed their families, to have a chance at a better life. It is not quite the same as calling illegal immigration “an act of love,” as Jeb Bush did last year, but Mr. Cruz’s advice to Mr. Bush in 1999 was sharply different than in 2015 as he seeks to create distance between him and Mr. Rubio.

Cruz supports expanding foreign trade and voted to give President Obama fast-track authority for getting the Trans-Pacific Partnership through Congress. I did not like the typical Washington backroom deals that allowed the bill to get to the floor, but I to would support a bill that would create jobs, growth, and opportunity for struggling American families.

Latest polls put the candidates standing at: Donald Trump 34%, Ted Cruz 18%, Marco Rubio 13%, Jeb Bush 7% , Ben Carson 6% , Chris Christie 5%, 4% each for Carly Fiorina and Mike Huckabee, 2% each for John Kasich and Rand Paul, 1% each for Lindsey Graham and Rick Santorum, and less than 1% each for Jim Gilmore and George Pataki.

Can Cruz win in 2016?  The Tea Party supporters believe Cruz can win in the general election. I do not think ‘purest’ do well in the Republican Party in the end. Republicans tend to support more moderate candidates when it comes to the final vote. I do not think just nominating a ‘purest’ conservative is going to win the general election for the Republicans. 

Now that the field of candidates appears to be down to Trump, Cruz and Rubio I believe voters will start taking a more critical look at all the candidate and they will find Cruz is not all he claims to be. Cruz to me is just a more polished politician than Trump. Both are egotistical maniacs – in love with themselves. 

If I were to support either I would choose Trump because I see Cruz as a snake hiding in the grass waiting to attack.  I cannot get past my feeling that Rubio seems too young and too immature to be President of the United States. I was optimistic when the primary campaigns began, but not so optimistic now. Who is going to win I honestly do not know.

++Did Cruz not prove Cruz is for Cruz at the Republican Convention and is the snake that I always claimed he was.

Obama ignores U.S. Immigration Laws!

Do you remember Obama saying on March 28, 2011, "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 and I have to enforce them? Congress passes the law not me. The executive branch’s job is to 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 and for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President".

Maybe you recall Obama saying on September 28, 2011, "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 because we live in a democracy. You have to pass bills through the legislature, and then I can sign it. 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. And nobody will be a stronger advocate for making that happen than me."

On November 25, 2013 Obama said, “If, in fact, I could solve all these (immigration) problems without passing them through Congress, I would do so. But we’re also a nation of laws. That's part of our tradition.”

Obama knows the Constitution, he knows what his rightful role in government is, but his pride, arrogance and stubbornness gets in the way of him doing the right thing.

In politically correct terms Obama is good at giving ‘lip service’ to doing the right thing, but to truly be accurate in describing Obama you must call him a liar. Lying is the one area Obama is extremely proficient in and has proven it to the people of the world over and over again.

In a statement announcing his executive amnesty, President Obama reassured the American public that formerly illegal aliens would not qualify for “the same benefits that citizens receive.” How can that be because federal agencies are issuing Social Security numbers to millions of new residents? It’s only a matter of time before it becomes clear that the president’s words were misleading.

Formerly illegal aliens may not qualify for “the same benefits that citizens receive,” but they will likely qualify for tens of billions of dollars’ worth of generous benefits available to U.S. citizens. How much they will receive will soon be made clear.

The Earned Income Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit will certainly be available to them. This is a benefit designed to help low income 'American' wage earners. The average EITC payment to a family with children is $2,905, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. The Additional Child Tax Credit works in much the same way is paying an average of $1,800 to qualifying households.

These programs are administered by the Internal Revenue Service as part of the tax code, not as social-welfare programs. The IRS asks only one question as it processes an EITC: Does the credit-seeker have a Social Security number? For the ACTC, the standard is even laxer: Does the credit-seeker have a Social Security number or an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number? The ITIN is the substitute for a Social Security number widely used by illegal aliens. There is nothing standing in the way of illegal aliens abusing the programs.

ACTC already pays huge amounts to illegal aliens holding only ITINs—$4.2 billion in 2010, this figure was released by the Treasury Department’s own inspector general. Once those ITIN holders gain Social Security numbers, it will become even harder to distinguish between authorized resident aliens and illegal aliens.

Obama will not stop illegal aliens from participating in these programs. He wants them to be able to participate in them. The only thing that may slow the growth of these programs is illegal aliens may hesitate to apply for benefits fearing being identified and penalized in some way. If those anxieties are overcome, more than 40 percent of Mexican and Guatemalan born illegal immigrants will qualify for the ACTC, and about one-third of illegal immigrants from El Salvador and Honduras will qualify.

U.S. immigration law still forbids the president to grant residency to aliens likely to become “a public charge.” In other words the aliens allowed into the United States must be able to support themselves. Do you think Obama is enforcing that law, of course not?

If you support refugees being brought to the U.S. believing Obama when he says they will be fully vetted consider this: In April 2015, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services admitted that an illegal alien named Jesus Rangel-Hernandez, a gang member who was slated for deportation until he applied for DACA and was allowed to stay in the U.S., even though he had been charged with four counts of first-degree murder in North Carolina. Hernandez was supposed to have been fully vetted.

Obama promised Americans that those who qualify for his executive orders would meet a set of guidelines meant to keep criminals out of our country. We now know that isn’t true and that the agency tasked with implementing the President’s edict cannot effectively carry out the rules without compromising the safety of Americans. This is one more reason why the president’s habit of governing by edict is a poor replacement for actual law making.

When outgoing Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, who is of Mexican heritage, formally stepped down from his post in early February 2013, Obama suggested that the Hispanic Cabinet member was more authentically American than the Pilgrims of New England, Obama said, "Salazar’s ancestors were here before the Mayflower set sail. His family did not cross the border, the border crossed them. And that's why, when I needed somebody to lead the Interior Department, I didn't have to look very far." How many more times is Obama going to apologize for Europeans coming to the shores of the U.S. and making it a great country? Obama honestly thinks we should be ashamed of what we have accomplished.

 In February 2014, the Obama administration eased restrictions on asylum seekers who had loose ties to terrorist and insurgent groups. Specifically, the new policy allowed some individuals who had provided "limited material support" to terror groups to be considered for entry into the United States. Can anyone explain why anyone with any ties to terrorist or had given any support to terrorist would be allowed to enter the U.S.?

On March 10, 2014 Top administration officials directed 21,000 border patrol officers to retreat whenever illegal immigrants throw rocks at them, and to avoid getting in front of foreign drug-smugglers’ vehicles as they head north with their drug shipments.

The following instructions were issued March 7, 2014, under the signature of Michael Fisher, chief of U.S. Border Patrol,   “Agents shall not discharge firearms in response to thrown or hurled projectiles… agents should obtain a tactical advantage in these situations, such as seeking cover or distancing themselves.”

Agents were also directed to keep their weapons holstered when drug smugglers drive by. Agents can’t use guns against “a moving vehicle fleeing from agents,” according to the instructions. The new rules were issued at the direction of Jeh Johnston, the then head of the Department of Homeland Security. It appears Obama approaches the drug smuggler and illegal alien problems the same way he approached the terrorist problem – like a coward.

In March 2014, the Center for Immigration Studies reported that in 2013, U.S. immigration & Customs Enforcement had 722,000 encounters with potentially deportable aliens, most of who came to ICE's attention after they had been jailed in connection with a local arrest. ICE officials released 530,000 plus back to the streets of the U.S.  Because of current Obama policies that shield most illegal aliens from enforcement of immigration laws. Some of the illegal aliens released back to the streets had previous convictions for homicide, sexual offenses, kidnapping, aggravated assault, stolen vehicles, drugs, drunk or drugged while driving and  flight to escape conviction.

Studies have shown that less than a quarter of illegal aliens who are released from custody while awaiting the outcome of immigration proceedings will show up for immigration court to finish their case. Those who do not show up are put on a meaningless list for trying to escape conviction. They will never be apprehended unless they commit a more horrendous crime and are caught by local authorities.

I see no justification for the release of convicted criminals back into the U.S. communities, when they could have been removed to their home countries. It is a blatant abuse of authority by Obama that leads to public harm. There is no legal justification, for failing to deport tens of thousands of aliens with criminal convictions who have been encountered by an ICE officer.

Please do not forget Kate Steinle a young woman who was walking on a busy pier in San Francisco with her father when there was a single popping sound in the air. She fell to the ground, struck by a bullet, dead. Her accused killer was Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien with seven prior felony convictions. Obama took no action on his own to console the grieving family. I suppose he knew his ignoring our immigration laws made him in some ways responsible for her death.

On May 13, 2014, President Obama told a gathering of law-enforcement officials that they should be pursuing major criminals, and not illegal immigrants (aliens) who were living quietly and peacefully in their districts. Obama said, "You’ve got to stop spending time dealing with somebody who is not causing any trouble other than the fact that they are trying to make a living for their families. That’s just not a good use of our resources. It’s not smart. It doesn’t make sense...." 

In my opinion what does not make sense is Obama skirting the laws our legislator pass and he swore to uphold.

Obama is forcing Immigration Judges to tell deportable illegal aliens that the final deportation order they are issuing isn’t actually an impediment to receiving the President’s grants of deferred action. Even though the illegal aliens violated our immigration laws, they are now being advised by the sentencing judge, by Obama’s orders, that they can receive work permits, a social security card, tax benefits, parole, travel documents, and, if the illegal alien is from Central America, the opportunity to bring qualifying family members to the United States at taxpayer expense. And if they are not eligible for deferred action at the time the deportation orders are issued, they should simply sit tight because DHS may issue more policy memorandums expanding eligibility for deferred action and additional benefits.

There are an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens who have received final orders of deportation and have exhausted all appeals, but they are still in the United Sates. Nearly 175,000 of these aliens with final orders are convicted criminals and 167,000 of these criminal aliens remain at large.

We can all sleep well tonight knowing our president is looking after our safety and we know he knows what is best for us. If you believe Emperor Obama has made you safer then you should vote for Queen Hillary. Her administration will be more of the same.

Obama's immigaration policies leave much to be desired!

 The Department of Homeland Security as recently as 2014 was enforcing a secret Obama administration policy that prevented officials from reviewing the social media accounts of those seeking visas. If that practice had not been in effect it may have stopped the San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik from entering the country.

The New York Times reported that Malik, a Pakistani woman who moved to the U.S. with a fiancée visa in May 2014, "had made little effort to hide" her support of violent jihad, and her desire to be a part of it.

This activity was uncovered by the FBI shortly after Malik and her American-citizen husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, killed 14 people in San Bernardino.

Of three background checks conducted by immigration officials during the visa process, none uncovered Malik's activity on social media. Immigration officials do not routinely review social media as part of their background checks, and there is a debate inside the Department of Homeland Security over whether it is even appropriate to do so. Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson refused to end a secret Obama administration policy that prohibited officials from reviewing the social media accounts of visa applicants.

Obama is more concerned about what the Muslim world thinks than providing security for the people he was elected to protect. Obama was afraid the Muslim world would be offended if it was disclosed publicly that the U.S. was checking people’s personal social media pages before issuing a visa. This thinking is more than naïve it is stupid! There is no excuse for not using every resource at our disposal to fully vet individuals before they come to the United States.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, one of Obama’s party mates, demanded that the U.S. create a new policy that allows officials to check the social media accounts of visa applicants.  

It is ironic that Obama is lax, to put it mildly, on issuing visa’s but goes overboard on putting people on a ‘no fly list’.  The Obama guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations.  It gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire “categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly list. It allows government officials to “nominate” people to the no fly list based on vague incomplete information. The no fly list is so inaccurate that it contains many names of deceased people. I wonder if this is a designed way for Obama to abuse the no fly list program.

Obama has resisted disclosing the criteria for placing names on the no fly list even though the guidelines are officially labeled unclassified. Eric Holder, while still Attorney General, invoked the state secrets privilege to prevent no fly list guidelines from being disclosed in litigation launched by an American who was on the no fly list.

Obama is more concerned about being ‘politically correct’ than being an effective President. Obama appears to be more concerned about protecting Muslim causes than protecting Christian causes. So much so that he discriminates against Christians. Obama seems more interested in honoring and protecting the heritage of his father than his American heritage, if he has any.

In closing, I want to include some of the things Obama has said, supported and wanted to change regarding immigration, illegal aliens and issuing visas:

Obama in 2006 wrote that a vast influx of Immigrants could harm native-born blacks – that does not sound like the 2015 Obama.

Obama opposes immigration raids designed to identify illegal immigrants in workplaces. It appears he is more interested in protecting the jobs of low skilled illegals than low skilled Americans.

Obama supports a “path to citizenship” for illegal aliens. He wants them to have an opportunity “to fully embrace our values” and the benefits of living in America. I do not want illegal aliens in our country. We have immigration laws as all countries and I want them enforced. I have nothing against people immigrating to the U.S., but I do oppose any one entering our country illegally.

Obama favors permitting illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. Obama believes Illegal aliens should get a license and get insurance to protect the public. That is a valid argument, but they should not be here in the first place and if they were not here they would need a driver’s license.

Obama wants illegal aliens, even those who have returned home, who worked at jobs using phony or stolen Social Security numbers, to reap the benefits of whatever Social Security contributions they may have earned illegally.

Obama voted against a point system for immigration. A system that looks at a person’s skill and how their skills could contribute to the advancement of the United States and he voted in favor of  focusing on the reunification of family members, even if that meant permitting the relatives of illegal aliens to join them in the U.S.

Obama supported the DREAM Act, legislation that would have allowed illegal-alien students to attend college at reduced tuition rates normally reserved for in-state legal residents, and to earn conditional permanent residency and a path to citizenship.

In 2009, Obama expressed concerns that his health care plan would not cover illegal immigrants and argued that was all the more reason to legalize illegal aliens so they could get health coverage.

Obama's instructed the Department of Health and Human Services' to stop designating HIV as a "communicable disease of public health significance."  H.I.V. is manageable and I do not oppose those with H.I.V. from traveling to the U.S., but I question why Obama left other sexually transmitted diseases like syphilis, on the HHS no entry list. I agree with Obama that the ban on those living with H.I.V. is unfair.

 In September 2010, Obama instructed his Justice Department to sue Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio for establishing a hotline for the public to report immigration violations. Now Obama says if you see something suspicious report it – and if you do you risk being suited by the Obama administration.

In August 2011, President Obama issued an executive order to prevent potentially thousands of cases in federal immigration court from moving forward if they did not involve criminals or people with flagrant immigration violations. In other words he issued a free pass to the U.S. to the others. At the time Obama’s Homeland Security estimated there were over 300,000 immigration cases pending on illegal aliens that were criminals and had immigration violations.

In June 2012 President Obama, frustrated that Congress had thus far failed to pass the DREAM Act, issued an executive order that allowed a two-year deferral from deportation to the estimated 800,000 young illegal aliens who had entered the United States as minors and allowed them to apply for work permits. I believe unemployment records indicate native born black teenagers are the most unemployed in the U.S. Obama demonstrated once again that he if he dislikes a U.S. laws or a clause in the U.S. Constitution he is not above ignoring them.

In August 2012, Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, revealed that the Obama administration had “falsified” deportation records to artificially boost the number of deportations for which it took credit. Figures recently unearthed by a federal lawsuit in Texas cast serious doubt on the administration’s deportation claims. The number of deportations according to Obama appeared to have declined significantly (40%) during the president’s term in office which turned out to be false.

Some U.S. Immigration and Customs (ICE) agents are suing the administration over its use of “prosecutorial discretion” in dictating how immigration law is enforced — or not enforced. They claim they are being prevented from doing their job.

In 2005 the Bush administration initiated the construction of a virtual border fence, consisting of a network of cameras, ground sensors and radars designed to spot incursions and help determine where Border Patrol agents should be deployed. The project was slated to be completed by 2011. In early 2011 the Obama administration scrapped the plan after 53 miles had been completed.

Obama stopped requiring immigrants to be self-supporting. They can now start drawing welfare payments as soon as they are released by immigration authorities. Obama is aggressively trying to boost the welfare rolls among non-citizens.

In July 2007, presidential candidate Obama told the National Council of La Raza, opponents of illegal immigration were ugly and racist. Once again Obama employs his divisive tactics. Obama told the Hispanic at La Raza nursing mothers are being torn from their babies, children are coming home from school to find their parents missing and people are detained without legal counsel. Do you believe that? Babies being ripped from their mother’s breast, children left unattended because their parents have been taken away and Public Defenders are not being provided for illegal aliens.

A Judicial Watch investigation revealed that federal funding for the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) and its affiliates skyrocketed (7 million in one year) when Obama took office. I think you call it buying votes for the Democrat politicians.

I will pose more on Obama’s immigration ideology in a later post.

The U.S. has two land borders - what about our northern border?

We constantly are bombarded with news about the southern border with Mexico. When are our political geniuses in Washington D.C. going to start doing something about our northern border with Canada?

The new Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s is welcoming refugees to Canada. How long do you think it will take for some of them to try and escape the cold weather and move on into the United States?   We have two border problem and we had better start focusing on both and not ignore our northern border’s security.

Trudeau is another ultra-liberal - Obama.  He was a community organizer, fund raiser, advocate for liberal causes, climate control freak, who thinks he can solve all of Canada’s problems by taking money from the rich and giving it to welfare recipients. He opposes any type of bombing in the Middle East.  President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau have not directly addressed anti-Semitic incitement in Palestinian society and the stabbing and car-ramming terror attacks. They are more concerned with Syrian refugees than the security of Israel. Neither seems interested in protecting their borders from illegal aliens or stopping an influx of terrorist that have infiltrate the refugee movement. I know now why the two, Obama and Trudeau, were inseparable recently while in the Philippines and appeared to be best 'buds' at all casual functions.

Communities in Minnesota and New York, which are adjacent to Ontario and Quebec have recently, experienced apprehensions of individuals on terrorist charges. Trudeau, opening up his border to refugees is only going to increases our risk.

Our nation’s southern border continues to serve as an entry point for terrorists. refugees have already begun to come across our southern border into the United States from Mexico. Everyday Border Control Agents encounter the problem and with them facing a shortage of agents and being limited by the Obama Administration as to what they can and cannot do with illegals the problem grows worse by the hour.

Earlier this month, it was reported that immigration officials apprehended five young Middle Eastern men carrying stainless steel cylinders in backpacks in an Arizona town about 30 miles away from the southern border. Just days earlier, Border Patrol apprehended five Pakistani nationals and one Afghan national who had entered the U.S. illegally from Mexico.
 
How many are entering through our northern border where one only has to walk across at non-manned border crossings? Government figures (Homeland Security) reveals the following: in the year 2014 there were 3328 illegals apprehended trying to cross from Canada to the United States. I do not think people know that more trucks and trains cross our northern border from Canada to the United States than trucks and trains cross our southern border.

Another little known fact is many who are apprehended crossing from Canada into the United States have previously been caught and turned back at our Southern border with Mexico.

According to the Justice Department the northern U.S. border still has just one Border Patrol agent for every 16 miles. The border with Mexico, by comparison, has enough agents to assign one about every 1,100 feet and they are still understaffed. There is only 400 agent’s station on the U.S. northern border. They cover nine states bordering Canada: Idaho, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, New York, Vermont and Washington. Alaska has nearly 1,600 miles of border with Canada and does not have one border agent assigned directly to the area.

There are significant security concerns on the northern border, but little has changed in the distribution of Border Patrol agents since Sept. 11. This in spite of the fact President Bush stated before leaving office that, “The northern border has become an attractive gateway for potential terrorists.”

Perhaps one of the reasons more action is not taken on our Northern border is because the Canadians complain about any aggressive or increase attention by U.S. Border Patrol along our northern border. It seems that it interferes with their business and economy. It also seems to be inconvenient for Canadian citizens living along the border that want to shop and seek medical treatment in the United States to cross.

The 4,000 mile long U.S. / Canadian border has been described as the longest undefended border in the world. Anyone familiar with Canadian immigration policy will tell you that Canada is an immigrant haven and one especially desirable for those seeking some form of asylum. Permanent resident status in Canada is easy to obtain even for individuals from countries strongly suspected of supporting organized terrorism.

The Detroit Sector for instance, is responsible for 804 miles of total wilderness between Michigan and Canada. The Detroit Sector is home not just to wilderness, but to the city of Detroit which has the largest Muslim population anywhere outside of the Middle East. With a Muslim population exceeding 150,000, Detroit’s City Fathers are amending the city noise ordinance to allow mosques to use loudspeakers for the call to prayer and Obama last Sunday accused Americans of discriminating against Muslims. There are 76 suspected terrorist cells in that area.

If Montreal resident Ahmed Ressam, the Algerian-born Al-Qaida operative who was caught in 1999 by vigilant U.S. border inspectors, had simply walked across the Canadian border through the woods near Detroit, his bombs would have brought untold death and destruction to his planned target, LAX, and possibly killed more people than were killed on 9/11. His stupidity by trying to cross at a Port of Entry was his downfall.

The U.S. and Canada do not share information about people placed on their respective “no-fly” lists. As a result, individuals deemed a threat that flies into one country may then cross the land border into the other.

Congress and the President have both been advised repeatedly that in terms of a terrorist threat, the northern border is significantly more of a threat than the southern border. I guess our elected officials in Washington D.C. are waiting for another big terrorist attack to happen before they address the issue, but 9/11 was not a wakeup call, so I do not know what it would take to wake them up.

Can the United States survive Obama?

I hope all the Republican candidates realize the importance of closing our borders to illegal aliens. You read my statement correctly ‘ILLEGAL’ aliens. If they are in our country without the proper documentation they have broken our immigration laws and they are ‘ILLEGAL’.

Donald Trump started the conversation on illegal aliens, closing our borders and building a wall. I hope others will pick up the conversation and if elected see his ideas to completion. It would be difficult for me to support Donald Trump regardless of the fact that he supports many of the things I do. I have a difficult time voting for a man or woman whom I do not respect.

I would think because of the events from last week in Paris, immigration and our open border with Mexico should become the No. 1 issue in America. All the presidential candidates if they are smart will adopt Trumps ideas. Trump is now in command of the most important issue facing America.

Trump in my opinion is mean, vicious, combative, offensive, and bombastic, he doesn’t care about political correctness and he doesn’t care whose feelings he hurts. As much as I dislike him I am beginning to think he is the only person for the job.

It may become necessary to have a Trump for four or eight years not only to clean up the terrorist problems, immigration problems and border problems, but to clean up the messes our lame President Obama has made with his Executive Orders and his ignoring the U.S. Constitution.

I don’t think Trump believes he can deport 12 to 15 million illegals, but I do think he is using that as a negotiating tool to get what he will be satisfied with. Trump is not a fool.

What would Trump settle for in my opinion – closing the borders, the wall, no welfare for aliens, and Mexico agreeing to pay the cost of our housing their criminals in our prisons or we will send them back to Mexico immediately.  

You still do not think building a wall and closing our borders will work then tell me why the first thing the Socialist president of France did after a terrorist attack was close the borders. Even a Socialist understood how important it was to control the borders in order to help protect his citizens.

I do not think Donald Trump would allow the Obama-Kerry plan to import tens of thousands of Syrian refugees into America to stand. It’s insane to allow thousands of potential terrorists into America. It’s self-destructive. Everyone should know it is a lame idea if Obama and Kerry proposed it. Everything else they have done or proposed like the Iran agreement, withdrawing the troops, downsizing the military has proven to be lame. If taking in the refugees is such a great idea then Obama should tell us how many of them will be living with him and his family in the White House.

I have one more question for our lame President Obama - if we can afford to take in thousands of refugees, house them, clothe them, feed them and provide medical care for them why do we not have the money to take care of our OWN poor and homeless - why do we have homeless VETERANS?

It is the Muslim nation’s responsibility to take care of the refuges. I do think we should offer help to provide a safe haven for them in Muslim nations.

The day before the attacks in Paris, our lame President told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the Islamic State had been “contained”. Barack Obama has been thinking about his legacy from the beginning of his presidency. Obama’s aim to end “Bush’s wars” is in shambles. I think his legacy now is he contributed to the threats from the Islamic State. I think Obama’s legacy will be that he was the worst President since Jimmy Carter.

Obama is a speech maker, but he is not a decision maker. His lack of commitment has set the United States back a decade. Do you remember the “red line threat” he gave Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Obama’s position on Iran is dangerous for the United States. It has nothing to do with America’s security and everything to do with him desperately trying to build a legacy around it. The Nobel Peace Prize went to his head. He thought by being passive on terrorist his legacy would be that of a peace maker – he failed! He thinks his passive (cowardice) attempt to negotiate with Iran regardless of the cost will be the key to a legacy of peace maker – he will fail again.

Let us not forget how lowly Iran regarded Carter’s pathetic groveling, they only released the hostages minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn-in as president- a man who the Iranians knew would put a stop to the whole embarrassing episode.

Obamacare continues to fail and the worst is yet to come after Obama has vacated the office - his signature domestic achievement that bears his name is likely to be repealed or be shown to be a disastrous piece of legislation. He thought that would add to his legacy – he failed again.

With his foreign policy in shambles and Iraq being conquered by Islamic fanatics, and his economic agenda having damaged the U.S. significantly and Obama’s dealings with Iran guaranteed to fail his only hope may be Cuba for a legacy.

Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like George Patton. Until Obama is out of office we should hang a sign in all U.S. airports “Terrorist Welcome!”