In its quest to implement stealth amnesty, the Obama Administration is working behind the scenes to halt the deportation of certain illegal immigrants by granting them “unlawful presence waivers.”
The new measure would apply to illegal aliens who are relatives of American citizens. Here is how it would work, according to a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announcement posted in today’s Federal Register, the daily journal of the U.S. government; the agency will grant “unlawful presence waivers” to illegal aliens who can prove they have a relative that’s a U.S. citizen.
Bottom of Form 1
Currently such aliens must return to their native country and request a waiver of inadmissibility in an existing overseas immigrant visa process. In other words, they must enter the U.S. legally as thousands of foreigners do on a yearly basis. Besides the obvious security issues, changing this would be like rewarding bad behavior in a child. It doesn’t make sense.
But the system often causes U.S. citizens to be separated for extended periods from their immediate relatives,” according to the DHS. The proposed changes, first announced in January, will significantly reduce the length of time U.S. citizens are separated from their loved ones while required to remain outside the United States during the current visa processing system.
The administration also claims that relaxing the rule will also “create efficiencies for both the U.S. government and most applicants.” How exactly is not listed in the Federal Register announcement, which gives the public 60 days to comment. That’s only a formality since the DHS has indicated that the change is pretty much a done deal. (KFYI)
Way to Go Janet. Gotta look out for those future Democrats and 2012 Votes!
Here’s a good one:
While President Obama reportedly was outraged at the lavish party and gift spending by the General Services Administration, a controversy that prompted agency chief Martha Johnson to resign, the same White House blocked the GSA from releasing records related to questionable spending by the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice.
Rice widely is reported to be on a short list to succeed Hillary Clinton as secretary of state in a second Obama administration.
At issue is the construction of the new office complex hosting the U.S. mission to the U.N., which sits directly opposite U.N. headquarters on Manhattan’s First Avenue.
Insiders allege almost $250,000 was squandered by the U.S.ambassador on cosmetic changes to her new suite of offices.
GSA confirmed that Rice ordered changes but needed State Department approval to publicly release the corresponding files.
The U.S. mission has refused comment on the move to block access to the records in question. Inquiries to the State Department were briefly responded to by the under secretary for management, Patrick Kennedy.
Kennedy confirmed that the decision to block access to the building records was his. (KFYI)
Ah, that liberal sense of selective “outrage”….
A Candidate for the Obama Administration
The Ann Arbor News crime column reported that a man walked into a Burger King in Ypsilanti , Michigan at 5 A.M., flashed a gun, and demanded cash. The clerk turned him down because he said he couldn’t open the cash register without a food order. When the man ordered onion rings, the clerk said they weren’t available for breakfast… The frustrated gunman walked away.
If he was black maybe they could charge Burger King with racism. It might be an urban legend, but at the very least that level of incompetence must be rewarded with some Cabinet level position.
Santa Monica College students angry over a plan to offer high-priced courses tried to push their way into a trustees meeting, authorities said.
Raw video posted on the Internet Tuesday evening showed students chanting “Let us in, let us in” and “No cuts, no fees, education should be free.” (AP)
Ah the fruits of liberal socialists education labor. 🙂
Obama on the Paul Ryan budget: “We wouldn’t have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat. Cuts to the FAA would likely result in more flight cancellations, delays and the complete elimination of air traffic control services in parts of the country. Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn’t be able to afford to launch new satellites and that means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane. That’s just a partial sampling of the consequences of this budget.”
Is this from now, 2011,2010,2009? Can you tell? 🙂
2011: “My plan says we’re going to put teachers back in the classrooms, construction workers back to work,” President Obama said at a campaign event today. “Tax cuts for small businesses, tax cuts for hiring veterans, tax cuts if you give your workers a raise –- that’s my plan.”
The Republicans plan, Obama says, boils down to this: ‘Dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance.’
2012: “As all of you are doing your reporting, I think it’s important to remember that the positions that I am taking now on the budget and a host of other issues. if we had been having this discussion 20 years ago or even 15 years ago … would’ve been considered squarely centrist positions,” Obama said.
Whoa! someone has been smoking his own hubris! Yikes!!
“This is supposed to be paying down our deficit? It’s laughable. The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission that I created, which the Republicans were for until I was for it, that was about paying down the deficit. I didn’t agree with all the details. I proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and $600 billion — I am sorry, it proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and $600 billion more in defense cuts than I proposed in my own budget. But Bowles-Simpson was a serious, honest, balanced effort between Democrats and Republicans to bring down the deficit.
That’s why I trashed it and ignored it because it was a sincere effort!! 🙂
WARREN BUFFETT: I think what happened with Simpson-Bowles was an absolute tragedy. I mean here are two extremely high-grade people. They have somewhat different ideas about government but they’re smart. They’re decent. They’ve got good senses of humor, too. They’re good at working with people.
They work like a devil for ten months or something like that. They compromise. They bring in people as far apart as Durbin and Coburn to get them to sign on and then they’re totally ignored. I think that’s a travesty.” (CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” 11/12/11)
Whoops! But remember liberals don’t have any standards so the contradictions are to be ignored and you are only to react to their new “outrage” and forget about what came before.
Ignore, the partisan behind the curtain!
NEW YORK (Reuters) – In a move that threatens to further inflame concerns about the rationing of medical care, the nation’s leading association of cancer physicians issued a list on Wednesday of five common tests and treatments that doctors should stop offering to cancer patients.
The list emerged from a two-year effort, similar to a project other medical specialties are undertaking, to identify procedures that do not help patients live longer or better or that may even be harmful, yet are routinely prescribed.
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The group of more than 200 oncologists released the list from a report in its Journal of Clinical Oncology.
“I think this is a great effort from ASCO,” said Dr. Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. “They are putting their patients ahead of their own financial interests,” since in the existing fee-for-service health-care system physicians make money on every test and treatment they order.
Brawley does not see the effort as leading to health-care rationing. “This is the rational use of health-care, not rationing,” he said.
ASCO recommends against routine use of four other procedures: chemotherapy for patients with advanced cancers who are unlikely to benefit; advanced imaging technologies such as CT and PET or bone scans to determine the precise stage of both early breast and prostate cancers at low risk for metastasis; and drugs to stimulate white blood cell production in patients receiving chemotherapy if they have a risk of febrile neutropenia, an often-fatal condition marked by fever and abnormally low numbers of certain white blood cells.
One recommendation likely to stir controversy, and even revive charges of “death panels,” is to not use chemotherapy and other treatments in patients with advanced solid-tumor cancers such as colorectal or lung who are in poor health and did not benefit from previous chemo. (yahoo)
It’s a wild Socialist Frontier.