President Trump Rescinds DAPA – Obama’s Unlawful Executive Action Deferring Deportation…

An important point before the details: ♦The hero in this entire constitutional story is Federal Judge Andrew Hanen (Full Backstory)♦

Yesterday, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly announced the DAPA program was officially rescinded:

(VIA DHS) On June 15, Department of Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly, after consulting with the Attorney General, signed a memorandum rescinding the November 20, 2014 memorandum that created the program known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (“DAPA”) because there is no credible path forward to litigate the currently enjoined policy. (link)

D.A.P.A or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program – was the executive action Obama attempted in November of 2014 which was shut down by Federal Judge Andrew Hanen in February 2015 with the issuance of an emergency injunction.

It’s important to note the underlying constitutionality of the case was NEVER heard in Judge Hanen’s court. After Hanen put the emergency injunction in place to stop DAPA from being carried out, all of the Obama DOJ action was directed at removing the injunction.

However, in an unusual twist, in order to establish the scope of the state and federal argument, the Supreme Court did expand their June ’16 hearing beyond the injunction to listen to the underlying merit of the Obama administration’s arguments.  They issued a one sentence ruling:

“The judgement is affirmed by an equally divided court.”

judge andrew hanen scotus ruling

(Via Daily Caller) The Trump administration has fulfilled another one of Donald Trump’s campaign promises by rescinding the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program implemented under Barack Obama that could have allowed as many as five million illegal aliens with children who are citizens or lawful permanent residents to remain in the country if they met certain criteria. (more)

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Death By Illegal Alien, Decepticons, Deep State, Dept Of Justice, DHS, Illegal Aliens, media bias, Mexico, President Trump, Supreme Court, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

363 Responses to President Trump Rescinds DAPA – Obama’s Unlawful Executive Action Deferring Deportation…

  1. Sherlock says:

    Judge Hanen did a fantastic job on this case. He held them back until help arrived.

    Liked by 51 people

  2. Budman says:

    More winning! We love you President Trump! ……… Love saying President Trump don’t you?

    Liked by 24 people

    • hellinahandbasket says:

      @Budman – Yes I too, really really really LOVE saying “President Trump”!
      In fact, every day a slight tear forms in the corner of my eye when I see his face across all media – and then I blow small fleeting kisses toward the screen.
      It has become a secret, little feel-good ritual for me. {wink}

      Liked by 8 people

  3. joanfoster says:

    What happens if the parents are deported have anchor babies deemed to be U.S. citizens and Mexico refuses to take them? This is all the more reason both DAPA and DACA need to be rescinded simultaneously.

    Liked by 14 people

    • wrd9 says:

      Per Mexican law, those anchor babies are automatically Mexican citizens. Mexico can’t refuse to take them. Mexico has taken some steps to help out deportees once they are back in Mexico. Obviously, there is much more they can do. And that’s the main thing about Mexican anchor babies, there is NO sane reason not to deport the whole family.

      Liked by 23 people

      • WSB says:

        Bingo…I wonder how that leaves Judge Curiel and Nikki Haley’s family?

        /s?

        Liked by 3 people

      • Weather Watcher says:

        I’m confused….someone please explain – are babies born in the US from illegal parents are considered US citizens? Or have Clinton/Bush/Obama era government just treating them like they are US citizens?

        Liked by 1 person

        • WSB says:

          Watch CSR’s wonderful clip downthread interviewing Ed Erler. All will be revealed.

          Like

        • GaryT ✓ᴺᵃᵗᶦᵒᶰᵃˡᶦˢᵗ🇺🇸 says:

          I think it is/was yet another liberal interpretation of our US Constitution. The fourteenth amendment to be exact.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Mist'ears Mom says:

          Yes babies born to illegal parents are considered US citizens. This is the reason we have so many pregnant non-US citizen-women coming here to drop their babies. They think it ‘anchors’ them to the USA. The kids get all US benefits and the parents live off these they think they are ‘entitled’ to stay with their US citizen kids. Those parents-aunts-uncles-grandmas-grandpas-brothers-sisters et al all get to join their US citizen relative.
          They either get social security or find jobs-legal or illegal?
          One of the huge problems in CA is the premature and sick babies born in US hospitals to illegals without any insurance. Since the baby automatically becomes a US citizen-the taxpayer then gets to foot the bill for their care often for the rest of their life, depending on the disability.
          IMO the 14th amendment needs to be redefined that just because you are born here does not make you a US citizen-citizenship should be attached to the parental citizenship, not the country you are born in.
          This anchor baby problem is serious and needs to be reeled in.
          The rescinding of odummy’s DAPA is a step in the right direction. #MAGA

          Liked by 4 people

          • rashamon says:

            Operative word is “considered”. — by lobbyists, politicians, illegals and anyone else who makes money or increases power off this misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, which was meant to secure citizenship for slaves (who had not been considered citizens prior to the amendment) and their children. Slaves had been considered “property” for taxation purposes until then.

            Liked by 3 people

        • BebeTarget says:

          From what I have heard and read, there is no such thing legally, as an anchor baby.

          Like

      • joanfoster says:

        Then wrd9, am I to assume that anchor babies have dual citizenship? If so, they can come back into the country anytime, right?

        Like

        • WSB says:

          Joan, if we have a true assessment, dual citizenship in this country is unconstitutional.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Did Teddy Cruz know that ?
            Hehe .. I actually don’t think it is.”unconstitutional” .. just that we do not give a hoot.
            Example, I could be wrong, to quote ex-director Comey, born Swiss nationals never lose their Swiss status, even when becoming naturalized US citizens.

            Liked by 2 people

            • WSB says:

              Yes, I believe Cruz did. He is not actually allowed in TX to be a sitting Senator.

              And as far as Switzerland, they have a different system. More of a direct democracy. However, their system would not bear on ours.

              We just got sloppy in the late 1800’s and never corrected the wrong, IMHO.

              Liked by 1 person

      • LafnH2O says:

        Wouldn’t want to break up any families.
        Just ask Nancy P. and her crowd. 😂

        Like

      • carrie2 says:

        Mexico allows dual citizenship, so they can return home and hopefully while I am writing this. A whole family needs to be removed because their children are also with dual citizenship. Hopefully, we will see more than 5 million leaving and the more the better.

        Liked by 1 person

    • DACA does not provide citizenship. That is why Obama created it, for those born in their home country but arriving here before 18. The DACA folks are citizens of their home county by birth.

      Liked by 7 people

    • mopar2016 says:

      Anchor babies are subjects of the country that their illegal parents came from.
      They’re not American citizens no matter what the left says.

      Liked by 4 people

  4. Serpentor says:

    “with children who are citizens ”

    Why do we do this to ourselves? There’s no reason for granting anchors citizenship automatically.

    Liked by 17 people

    • BigMamaTEA says:

      “with children who are citizens ” ….Shall I say that there are two interpretations of the 14th Amendment?! One, is based on the actual Constitution; and the other, not.

      Liked by 25 people

    • noritadek says:

      I think they refer to children born in the USA soil from illegals immigrants.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Weather Watcher says:

      These anchor babies grow up to be Activists

      Liked by 7 people

    • G. Combs says:

      THEY ARE NOT CITIZENS!
      We think they are as a result of Progressive gaslighting.

      See Ann Coulter’s No, The 14th Amendment Doesn’t Guarantee Birthright Citizenship

      […]In 1884, 16 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, John Elk, who — as you may have surmised by his name — was an Indian, had to go to the Supreme Court to argue that he was an American citizen because he was born in the United States.

      He lost.

      In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not grant Indians citizenship.

      The “main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the court explained — and not for the first or last time — “was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this court, as to the citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black … should be citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”

      American Indians were not made citizens until 1924.[…]

      The authors of the 14th Amendment also made it very very clear that being born in the USA did not grant automatic citizenship.

      […]Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

      “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

      This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

      “[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…”

      The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship. […]
      http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

      Now all we need is an honest Supreme Court to reaffirm the older rulings and original intent.

      Liked by 15 people

  5. H Hutto says:

    ¡¡¡sʍǝu sᴉɥʇ ɹǝʌo dᴉlɟ llᴉʍ ʇɟǝl ǝɥ┴

    Liked by 26 people

  6. fleporeblog says:

    This election in November 2016 meant whether 5 million illegals would have rights to remain in this country and be completely integrated versus the reality they now face. Had she won, they would have won a future decision at the SC with a 5-4 decision. Now with Gorsuch, it would be a 5-4 decision in our favor. If Ruth Ginsburg decides to retire or if the Lord takes her home, you are talking about a 6-3 court and stopping all this damn nonsense for the next 30+ years.

    Liked by 14 people

    • It's 5 o'clock somewhere says:

      The Lord? How about beezlebub?

      Liked by 2 people

    • MaineCoon says:

      It’s coming. Not soon enough, but it’s coming.

      We are taking our country back and our President is leading the charge!

      Liked by 15 people

    • musicdoc2020 says:

      Really don’t think the “Lords going to take her home” -of course a deathbed conversion is technically possible..

      Liked by 6 people

      • G. Combs says:

        Snicker, My thoughts exactly.

        I will never forget the utter contempt she showed to the USA and our Constitution in Egypt.
        Ruth Bader Ginsburg To Egypt: Don’t Use US Constitution As A Model

        “You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”

        Time for her to retire to South Africa if she thinks it is so great. I understand they are about to kick all whites out of the country and go the same road as Rhodesia.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Weather Watcher says:

      I think the count is higher than 5 million….I live in Southern CA. The Anchor Baby capital of the US.

      Liked by 9 people

  7. quintrillion says:

    I, unfortunately have a rental house next to my home. Bought by a Mexican that has been renting to Mexicans. Called the city and was told the owner put down that he lives there (to pay lower property taxes). He told me himself he lives with his mother-in-law and wife elsewhere. I informed the city. He probably claimed he’s related to them. There is no way to prove with illegals who is related to who. This is his second set of renters. The older couple speak no English. The other four in their 20’s do. They have 6 cars with a single garage and narrow driveway. Like living next to a car lot in Mexico.

    Interesting, they have a Mexican mechanic that works out of his car and does house calls so this mechanic is obviously working for cash for illegals that don’t speak English. These illegals have many systems in place to evade being caught and sanctuary cities with bureaucrats that are protecting them.

    Liked by 17 people

    • WSB says:

      I hope that changes soon!

      Liked by 2 people

      • G. Combs says:

        It should.
        Sanctuary cities with bureaucrats that are protecting illegals are subject to Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of Law All we have to do is have judges that enforce the Rule of Law.

        Actually this is a FEDERAL LAW so it comes under ❤️ ⚖️ AG Jeff Sessions! ⚖️ ❤️

        Now we need people who have proved to have been harmed by illegals to invoke this law.

        Summary:

        Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

        For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.

        The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.

        Liked by 3 people

        • mopar2016 says:

          People need to start calling ICE to report the illegal invaders.
          I don’t remember voting to support illegal aliens with my tax dollars.
          But I do remember having to put my kids in private school after the grade school in our neighborhood started teaching in Spanish back in the early 1990s.
          Want to see Mexico? Come to Chicagoland.
          https://www.ice.gov/

          Liked by 2 people

    • K2P2 Ribbing says:

      Call ICE about them.

      Like

  8. CSR says:

    I am a daily reader of CTH since I retired in July of 2015 and began supporting then Candidate Trump for president. You have helped me get through some rough patches during the primaries and general election.

    I became interested in the language of the 14th amendment with all the talk of anchor babies. The following link is the best explanation I found.

    This is a very good interpretation of the 14th amendment regarding birthright citizenship. Ed Erler gives a good explanation of the language used in the 14th amendment and the thought process of those who crafted the amendment.

    I hope you are able to open this link. I am new to doing this.

    The Problem with Birthright Citizenship: Ed Erler on The American Mind – you tube

    Liked by 8 people

    • WSB says:

      That was awesome! By Mr. Erler’s study on the history of the 14th Amendment, the USA needs to rescind US Citizenship to anyone holding citizenship or being a current subject of another country…there can be no such concept as dual citizenship.

      Which nullifies Obama as even a US citizen, and thus his presidency. He is still a British subject and therefore not only not natural born, but not even a naturalized US citizen.

      Like

    • WSB says:

      Thank you for posting, CSR!! Will share immediately!

      Like

      • CSR says:

        You are very welcome. What Mr. Erler says makes a great deal of sense to me. I hoped it would to other tweeters.

        Liked by 3 people

        • WSB says:

          So now, I have another question for you. Does Congress have the jurisdiction of who can be ‘naturalized’, or only deciding on rules of how to uniformly TAX under the rule of naturalization?

          Article 1, Section 8:
          “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

          To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

          To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

          To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

          To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;”

          Like

          • WSB says:

            In other words, were the framers attempting to say that if the Congress laid and collected taxes, they had to do so through a uniform rule as to who a citizen was, whether they were natural born or not, meaning not foreigners?

            Like

            • Jlwary says:

              I think uniform means fair. One state wouldn’t be federally taxed more or less than another. I think naturalization here is separate from taxes. This article merely lists congress’ duties. I could be wrong though, lol

              Liked by 1 person

            • CSR says:

              WSB, I don’t know the answer to that. I do know anyone working in the USA is taxed. I was married to a German citizen I met while working in Saudi Arabia. We married after our contracts ended. We paid tax on any income he made here as well as any income made outside the USA.

              When my husband received his pension from the company he worked for in SA we had to pay taxes here on that money because it was considered worldwide income.

              I don’t think Congress can make any ruling on who is a citizen and who is not. That would probably be determined by the Supreme Court.

              If the Supreme Court ever takes up the issue of anchor babies I hope it is with a conservative court that will follow the constitution.

              Liked by 2 people

              • WSB says:

                I thank you for your post, though. Your history of taxation may indeed be what this clause is all about.

                We have all heard for years that Congress has jurisdiction over Naturalization according to this section, but as I reread it, this only seems to be about determining how taxation is applied per citizen. Will need to go to the Federalist Papers. They are impossible to read but there they are!

                Like

    • 7delta says:

      From my reading of original documents, I agree with Mr. Erler. “…subject to the jurisdiction thereof…” means sole jurisdiction. An alien temporarily within U.S. jurisdiction or residing within it, legally or illegally, are still citizens of their home country. Children born to them, outside their country’s jurisdiction, are naturalized, according the laws of their home country, into the citizenship of their parents. Neither the parents, nor the child, are under the sole jurisdiction of the U.S.

      Because U.S. law is confined to U.S. jurisdiction, we cannot control whether other countries will recognize expatriation from their jurisdiction, so dual citizenship happen. Used to be, and is probably still on the books, if a child has dual citizenship, they are required by our law to choose one or the other when they come of age. We still can’t control the jurisdiction of another country, but if a person chooses sole U.S. citizenship, then they are seen as only a U.S. citizen by us. We’ll use diplomatic resources to help them when visiting the other country, if needed. If they retain dual citizenship, then we don’t (there are probably some exceptions to that rule in extreme circumstances, but as a rule, we don’t). They are citizens of that country and while within its jurisdiction, they have the same rights and responsibilities as any other citizen there.

      Jurisdiction is also why the 1st Amendment protections do not, under any circumstances, apply to anyone, especially aliens, on foreign soil. Imagine going to London, then strap on your firearm to walk down the street, and see how far your 2nd Amendment protections go. Be sure to let us know the address of where you’ll be housed for a court-imposed number of years, so we can write.

      Dual citizenship is a bad idea and the 14th Amendment did not create blanket birthright citizenship. The founders were not feudalist, but it’s raised its ugly head again under the guise of globalism.

      Like

      • WSB says:

        According to Ed Erler’s study, though, in order to be a US Citizen, one cannot have allegiance to another country, because a ‘citizen’ has a responsibility to be an active participant in making government decisions. A ‘subject’ is not and therefore feudal.

        Ed Erler reminds us that We, the US, absolved ourselves from the Crown, so there can be no dual allegiance.

        The word ‘allegiance’ was intentionally not used in the 14th Amendment because this term is considered an ‘art of law’ with many definitions, and since the amendment framers did not want any question of which types of ‘allegiance’ was suggested, they used the term, ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof…’, meaning subject to then citizenship within individual individual states or as a current citizen of the United States.

        Liked by 2 people

    • harissalobo says:

      I am a proud naturalized American citize. There is something that needs to be exposed regarding naturalization, of which many natural born Americans are mostly unaware and should be changed, preferably by Congress or by US Citizenship and Immigration Services.
      It is offensive and incomprehensible that there are immigrants who are exempted from taking the oath/pledge of allegiance to the United States of America based on religious grounds–the reader can easily guess which religion. From what I understand, the previous administration did away with the oath altogether during ceremonies. Doing the math of an average of 500 people who participate in naturalization ceremonies which are being conducted in all major cities on a regular basis, this is not only unacceptable IMHO but frightening.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. tim glave says:

    Don’t worry about daca. When all of the dapa parents go where do you think most of the daca kids go. Back with their parents. Then they end daca for the older ones or just don’t renew their work permits and they go back.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. C. Lowell says:

    This reminds me of the guy who led the Battle of Britain;

    He was fighting the Germans half the day,

    And fighting political battles back in London the other half…

    Liked by 5 people

  11. Bubba Whiteholder says:

    Thank you PRESIDENT TRUMP!! Breitbart said a day or two ago that President Trump has allowed FIVE THOUSAND illegals to stay; fine; but he also told FIVE MILLION to ‘vamos a Mesico’…good job…

    Like

  12. SharkFL says:

    Now on to the 14th Amendment. I’ll call them Anchor Babies.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. bulwarker says:

    One step forward, two steps back. End the “Dreamer” protections then I’ll praise these decision.

    Liked by 2 people

  14. Question for treepers who understand legal system – why illegals get due process in court and can’t be simply deported if it is known and clear-cut case that they are here illegally? I find this to be waste of taxpayers money (attorney fees, judges salary wasted on these hearings, other court personnel’s salary funded by tax payers, etc.) by giving them opportunity to drag on the deportation process.

    Liked by 6 people

    • MK says:

      Because it keeps 2% of the population employed. Lawyers, judges, courts, corrections, local, state, federal police, probation, prisons systems, bondsmen.

      It is the hope of Democrats to remain in power while knowing the harm illegals do to the Republic. Subjugation by any means.

      Liked by 1 person

    • dayallaxeded says:

      Due process of law is a fundamental Constitutional and human right. Simple as that. Doesn’t mean everyone is due the exact same process, but it must be fair and equal to all who are similarly situated or it will be a tool of abuse and tyranny. A much more streamlined, time-limited process should be implemented for those who are in the USA illegally. Elimination of DAPA and hopefully soon, DACA as well as very strict narrowing of the various “asylum” and “refugee” exceptions should help immensely–the fewer excuses or exceptions an illegal can use, the better.

      Like

    • fred5678 says:

      I believe that you have to prove an illegal alien entered illegally — that is the crime, not just “being here”. So ICE has to prove that the alien did not enter at an authorized entry station.

      The immigration courts are clogged beyond belief.

      Like

    • Eileen says:

      They don’t have due process. The Constitution only applies to citizens and legal residents. The courts who say otherwise either don’t know the Constitution or are in a politicized court.

      Like

  15. magatrump says:

    God bless President Trump!!

    Liked by 1 person

  16. NJF says:

    Thank goodness. I followed the case here (lurking) as SD once again did an excellent job informing us to what was happening.

    The lawlessness under Zero is mind blowing!

    Liked by 4 people

  17. Thank the Lord for Patriots like Judge Hanen!

    Liked by 3 people

    • piper567 says:

      There are SO many manifestations of the evil ozero intended upon our great Country.
      Am very grateful for the TRUMPteamsters doing the heavy lifting of wading through ozero’s xos to uncover his subversion.
      My MAGA hat off to them all!

      Liked by 1 person

  18. MK says:

    All this winning is exhausting, time for a nap.

    Liked by 2 people

  19. fangdog says:

    Trump just stays focused on MAGA and other than what I call entertainment, Trump ignores the Left wing Socialist/Communist Libtards as Trump presses on. There are always two dynamics; the Libtards focus on fake minutiae while Trump focuses on what makes a difference for the American people……..sort of simple when you stop to think about it.

    Liked by 2 people

  20. another promice kept win win win I will never get tired

    Like

  21. Lenfb says:

    This is not DACA, so of course the Press is only emphasizing DACA.

    US keeps effort to shield young immigrants from deportation
    https://goo.gl/Gz48wV

    ‘Dreamers’ to Stay in U.S. for Now, but Long-Term Fate Is Unclear
    https://goo.gl/bxCJjE

    Like

  22. waltherppk says:

    Faux News is reporting that DACA is going to be left intact by Trump. If the families of illegals want to stay together, the children can accompany their deported parents and leave voluntarily and return to their country of origin with the deported parents, or I suppose they can be “deportation orphans” and go into foster care.

    Liked by 2 people

  23. Dale Fontana says:

    To Fangdog’s point, the libtards (as aptly named) chase the bunny around the yard all the time for one simple reason: LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER. That is a title from Michael Savage’s book and couldn’t be more spot on. The mental disorder is the disabling of the frontal cortex area of the brain which controls logic and reasoning. With this area disabled, the limbic system, which controls emotions, dominates the functioning, thus making logical reasoning all but impossible. That is why you see the idiocy on college campuses with safe spaces and why you cannot engage in any meaningful discussion anywhere in the press or in DC or in states for that matter. This malady is on full display for all to watch each and every day. Take an easy, careful look and it’s right in front of all to see.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. William F Buckley's Ghost says:

    If Trump wants to end the rediculous Russia investigations including the SC witch hunt he has to fight hard and dirty. That’s the only thing his enemies understand. First, go on the offensive and end DACA. Next, start using HSI, ATF and agencies like US Marshals Service to assist ICE in deportations. Not the bullshit 30 and 45 immigrants we see now which is utterly nonsense. Send in teams of federal agents into Los Angeles, New York City and Chicago to do what needs to be done until the Democrats cry uncle. Right now Trump is just kissing their assets while the media works to destroy him. His enemies are not paying a price for their transgressions. Trump started with DAPA and now escalate to DACA. Next stop the H1B VISA SCAM dead in its tracks. Hit the assholes hard until they scream. That’s the way he can survive, SD and you know it! 😉

    Liked by 4 people

  25. Kelly says:

    If you didn’t catch PDJT speech before signing the new US Cuba relations agreement, Youtube it. It is amazing.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner says:

    It feels so good to wake up in the morning and know that law and order is back.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. wyntre says:

    Hannon is a HERO!

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Removing DAPA is a strong indication of where the Administration stands ideologically on the whole issue regarding parents and children of illegals. Both DAPA and DACA go hand in hand. Yet patience is required even if some are not emotionally satisfied right out of the gate.

    Let me put it this way. I’m sure there are activists having fits right now.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. John Campbell says:

    AWESOME! Load em up and send them home!

    Like

  30. telerider says:

    Sad to see so many comments demanding a sledgehammer when a scalpel and finesse is what is needed.

    Like

  31. fred5678 says:

    I am looking forward to this scene in every bodega in every town in every state:

    Like

  32. Deplorable Alpha Vulgarian says:

    Are all the reports about Trump cucking on DACA true? Did he just keep Obama’s illegal DACA in place, thereby guaranteeing the demographic implosion of the US (and all else that comes with first world civilization)?

    Like

  33. navysquid says:

    I posted this explanation about 4-5 months ago…Here in PHX we have a couple of radio hosts on 960am The Patriot and one of them, Chris Buskirk, went back to DC and was invited to the WH with a small group of conservatives. I cannot recall if it was led by Bannon or who, however, he said they went into a room right off from the Oval Office. Buskirk said there was a white board and written on the white board was a list of ALL the campaign promises PE Trump had made. He said a few were already crossed off at that time.

    I believe that with the Cuba policy, DAPA, etc, is they are just going down this list and checking them off as they go. Pres Trump, as a businessman, likely operates this way, as many of us do, where we just go down a checklist and GET THINGS DONE. I am sure he wanted to already have Obamacare repeal and tax reform crossed off but you can thank the Swamp Congress for that delay. I believe we just need to give PDJT time and he will have his list checked off by the first four years and he will build another list for his next term.

    Like

  34. v4ni11ista says:

    I had a little Country, and nothing did it bear
    but a single Silver Nutmeg and a single Golden Pear

    The Spanish speaking peoples migrate north to visit me,
    and all for the sake of my fruit & nut trees.

    The Nutmeg’s Law & Order and the Pear, Free Enterprise.
    They can do it in their own homes if the shun the commie lies.

    The Spanish speaking peoples, now, must fix their own countries
    and tend with loving care their sacred Pear and Nutmeg trees.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. IMPLICATIONS of Secretary Kelly’s action to terminate DAPA:

    Hammer DOWN NOW on DAPA deportations, opening 5 million jobs to American Citizens (or reducing those on welfare).

    BLACKLIST DAPA parents, as IMMIGRATION LAWBREAKERS, from future entry into the United States and from American Citizenship if they don’t take their DACA children with them.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s