world

Obama administration says states lack authority to block refugees

77 Comments
By MATTHEW DALY

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

77 Comments
Login to comment

So states lack the authority to refuse refugees but so called 'sanctuary cities' are allowed to defy Federal law?

You can't have it both ways.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

You can't have it both ways.

If only that were true!

The amount of conflicted, hypocritical, two-faced, inconsistent laws, rules and thinking in the world is truly staggering. You can have your cake and eat it too if you have enough power to make it happen.

My question is how are they going to stop Syrian refugees from moving in? Is there anything in the bureaucracy of these states to facilitate such a thing?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So states lack the authority to refuse refugees but so called 'sanctuary cities' are allowed to defy Federal law?

Translation, "who cares what the people want?" Elections have its consequences.

You can't have it both ways.

You seem to forget we have laws that are just for the society and then there are laws for liberals only and they can break them whenever they feel like it.

-11 ( +6 / -17 )

My question is how are they going to stop Syrian refugees from moving in? Is there anything in the bureaucracy of these states to facilitate such a thing?

All they can do is gum up the works. For example, when a Syrian family (a couple with a five-year old child) were scheduled to settle in Indiana, Gov. Mike Pence threatened to withhold state funds, most of which are reimbursed by Washington. However, resettlement is generally carried out by private charities (most of them Christian). In the above case, the director of the charity in charge, Exodus Refugee Immigration, explained that the decision to redirect the family to Connecticut was made because Pence's refusal came less than 24 hours before their scheduled arrival, what the governor could do to disrupt services or benefits was unclear, so rather than giving the family an uncertain welcome, she chose to send them to another destination where resources were fully available. She also said, though, that if a resettlement group has more time to prepare, it can find private money to make up for state aid that is taken away, and there is no legal way for any state governor to stop it.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/37e9cae8b2874fc6824e105f9202a488/syrian-family-diverted-connecticut-indianas-request

3 ( +4 / -1 )

You seem to forget we have laws that are just for the society and then there are laws for liberals only and they can break them whenever they feel like it.

You seem to forget we have laws that are just for the society and then there are laws for right wing neocons only and they can break them whenever they feel like it. Case in point:

Conservatives will tell you that we have to invade a country, topple its leadership, destroy its infrastructure, render its people desperate and homeless, and imprison and kill the civilians. All in the name of humanitarian intervention. Yet when it comes to true humanitarian intervention, such as rescueing refugees, they are the first people to do a 180 and become isolationists.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

You seem to forget we have laws that are just for the society and then there are laws for liberals only and they can break them whenever they feel like it.

Yup, much better we let "leaders" that compare refugees to "rabid dogs", write our laws for us. LOL.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Obama shouldn't let the states and its people decide what they want to affect them directly.

The Federal Government is the only authority to be listened to.

The clever people in Washington who went to the best of the Ivy League colleges and live in gated communities know what is best for America.

Conservatives will tell you that we have to invade a country, topple its leadership, destroy its infrastructure, render its people desperate and homeless, and imprison and kill the civilians.

Not all conservatives.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

there are laws for liberals only and they can break them whenever they feel like it.

Please enlighten us as to what specific law the Obama administration is breaking in this case.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Not sure what the issue is here. If it's the law then those governors have no business breaking it. Time to move on.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The letter from the federal resettlement office said would-be refugees “are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States.” The screening process is “multi-layered and intensive” and involves multiple law enforcement, national security and intelligence agencies across the federal government, the letter said.

What kind of background information do they expect to get from Syria's government?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Sadly it has come to this point in US history where "authority" and "rights" are the issues.

It is a question of whether "authority" is of more important than "rights". Authority is "earned", and it is "given" by those with the "rights" to do so.

Therefore, Obama has no right to use authority when that authority is removed or taken away by those with the right to do so.

Now is the time to take that authority away from the President.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free... unless they are Syrian refugees. Republicans constant bloviate about "American exceptionalism" but when it comes to practice it they run like dogs.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Obama administration says states lack authority to block refugees

And I thing the administration are abusing their authority for allowing them in. . . . but hey don't blame me. I didn't vote for change.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

@Kaze... Therefore, Obama has no right to use authority when that authority is removed or taken away by those with the right to do so. Now is the time to take that authority away from the President.

Are you saying the US President is doing something that's unconstitutional, or are you saying the constitution needs to be changed? If he's going against the constitution, why are his opponents allowing it? What 'authorities' do you think future presidents should have?

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Yup, much better we let "leaders" that compare refugees to "rabid dogs", write our laws for us. LOL

Had NO idea that the president writes laws, but knowing Obama......

Conservatives will tell you that we have to invade a country, topple its leadership, destroy its infrastructure, render its people desperate and homeless, and imprison and kill the civilians. All in the name of humanitarian intervention.

What about the Democrats that also signed off on that? So initially you could say it's a bipartisan decision. Also, why are you not upset about the sectarian violence that was the main cause of death or Muslims killing other Muslims.

Yet when it comes to true humanitarian intervention, such as rescueing refugees, they are the first people to do a 180 and become isolationists

Well, I know liberals don't care and are willing to play roulette with everyone else's life. So now because the majority of Americans and a lot of prominent liberals are speaking out like Feinstein, Panetta, Merell, these people are not flaming conservatives and they even vehemently disagree with this looney lack of strategy.

Please enlighten us as to what specific law the Obama administration is breaking in this case.

Pretty much everything from Obamacare to the deal that is a joke with Iran and the list is just endless. But we'll eventually get back to that topic sure enough.

Not sure what the issue is here. If it's the law then those governors have no business breaking it. Time to move on.

Ahhh, so that's why we can never get the country in order, you just said that breaking the law is ok. So if Obama and Hillary can do it, then, the rest f the country can do it as well. Brilliant!

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

@Bass

Please enlighten us as to what specific law the Obama administration is breaking in this case.

Pretty much everything from Obamacare to the deal that is a joke with Iran and the list is just endless.

Please explain how he has broken the laws in these cases, and given the US's checks and balances why has he been allowed to do so? On an aside, I'm glad to hear you've come around and are no longer using 'progressive' as a pejorative; it really is a positive word, isn't it. Re your use of 'liberal', do you mean 'anyone whose opinions I don't like'?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Re your use of 'liberal', do you mean 'anyone whose opinions I don't like'?

With an extreme rightist like Bass who disagrees with anything liberal, it ends up being the same thing.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I really don't see why conservatives are angry with Obama about this law? He didn't write it. If the governors made promises that they couldn't keep to the constituents in their state then it's their problem. I have no idea what there is to get upset about.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

--Please enlighten us as to what specific law the Obama administration is breaking in this case.

Pretty much everything from Obamacare to the deal that is a joke with Iran and the list is just endless. But we'll eventually get back to that topic sure enough.

This is the answer I was expecting to get. You simply can't or don't want to deal with the issue. ODS or something else is hindering your neural networks.

Let me try again, just for fun.

What specific law is the Obama administration breaking in this case? (Specific in this case does not include matters related to Obamacare or Iran, as journalists at the Washington Post would undoubtedly know.)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

CONLAWPROF uses FEDERALISM. It's SUPER EFFECTIVE!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please explain how he has broken the laws in these cases, and given the US's checks and balances why has he been allowed to do so?

Trying to legalize 5 million Illegals by bypassing congress, operation fast and furious, Obamacare and way too many others to list and we don't need to get off topic, but it would be safe to say, the list is a lengthy one.

On an aside, I'm glad to hear you've come around and are no longer using 'progressive' as a pejorative;

Maybe, you have been absent recently, I still do.

it really is a positive word, isn't it. Re your use of 'liberal', do you mean 'anyone whose opinions I don't like?

What?

With an extreme rightist like Bass who disagrees with anything liberal, it ends up being the same thing.

No, I just disagree with looney far-left progressive liberalism.

This is the answer I was expecting to get. You simply can't or don't want to deal with the issue.

No, I do and have. I have repeatedly have stated my objections to Obama's benign plan to force the people against their will to take in refugees with individuals planted among them that want to kill us.

ODS or something else is hindering your neural networks.

Hmmm. Not really, I think this is though the problem with the liberal progressive brain.

Let me try again, just for fun.

I agree, let's!

What specific law is the Obama administration breaking in this case? (Specific in this case does not include matters related to Obamacare or Iran, as journalists at the Washington Post would undoubtedly know.)

Plastic, Sad to say this, but liberal pot shots are a waste of time, seriously.

Obama last week slapped down as the House GOP The vote was 289-137 and surprisingly with 47 Democrats joining with the 242 Republicans in favor of the bill. Not to mention, you have about 32 Governers that do not want these refugees to come in. This is a bipartisan issue, you libs can't...sorry...don't want to face the truth to this that over 52% of Americans polled, think the president is out of bounds for forcing the issue. These Governers are looking out and need to follow their constituents wishes, in doing so, is defying the will of the people! E should definetly take in the people that were persecuted the most which are the Christian and Yazidi minority first and foremost and then take our time vetting the Muslims and making sure that in no way shape or form our security is jeopardized. That shenanigan games you guys play at calling anyone a racist simply because they are worried about a possible terror attack which can and will happen if we all are not vigilant. The garrulous name calling the left engages in calling the GOP racists is really falling on dead ears, When the likes of Diane Feinstein and Leon Panetta (some of the bluest liberals) come out and tell this idiot his policies are making the country less safe is a complete mind blower! But I wouldn't expect you libs to talk about that part. Just lets fall off the cliff with the president. You libs are all in lock step with this guy.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

it would be safe to say, the list is a lengthy one.

No, the list is zero. The administration hasn't broken any laws.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

The vote was 289-137 and surprisingly with 47 Democrats joining with the 242 Republicans in favor of the bill. Not to mention, you have about 32 Governers that do not want these refugees to come in. face the truth to this that over 52% of Americans polled, think the president is out of bounds for forcing the issue.

Good data bass. Clearly the american people don't want them here.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Trying to legalize 5 million Illegals by bypassing congress, operation fast and furious, Obamacare and way too many others to list and we don't need to get off topic, but it would be safe to say, the list is a lengthy one.

What bass is convenietly hoping is that we all have incredibly short memories and have forgotten the fact that "The Gang of Eight", a bi-partisan group of lawmakers, including four Republicans, came up with a comprehensive immigration plan/bill, and it passed in the Senate. But, Boehner, knowing it would also pass a vote in the House, refused to bring it to a vote, for fear of the "haters" like bass --aka The Tea Party types. But what is really funny, is that Marco Rubio is also hoping the "haters' will forget about this, since he was one of the Gang of Eight, but has had to run from that, since he needs the "haters" votes to get the nomination. And bass says it is Obama who cannot be trusted. LOL. The majority of Amercians support immigration reform, and a path to citizenship. And, the vast majority also expect Congress to do their job. But, when a lousy 40 of so members of the "Freedom Caucus" keep that from happening, the President needs to act. Plain and simple.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Trying to legalize 5 million Illegals by bypassing congress

Then:

What bass is convenietly hoping is that we all have incredibly short memories and have forgotten...

Bass is hoping we've forgotten that not only are executive orders legal, they have been done by pretty much ever president ever.

But it's only when the president is black that the some people think it's illegal.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Obama is handling this situation masterfully. Precisely what ISIS wants is to portray their statelet and their suicidal war as a titanic struggle between incompatible cultures, thus forcing pious but non-violent Muslims to choose sides. Shamefully, the majority of the GOP and a small minority of Democrats are aiding the ISIS to achieve their purpose.

A major goal of the ISIS is to attract Muslims from around the world and to retain those already there - not just fighters, but doctors and engineers and other professionals. It is precisely those who are fleeing, or at least trying to. No doubt, the biggest cheer for the intransigence of Republican governors and the shameful vote of the House comes from the ISIS leadership.

The ISIS is bleeding cash; reportedly, half of its previous cash came from one-off raiding of Iraqi banks, and its oil revenues are depleting rapidly - not least due to a lack of skilled technicians. Obama is quietly watching them bleed. Not drawing attention to them - emphasizing the ephemeral nature their movement is destined to be - is the most efficient and effective way of bringing the conflict to a close. They've already hit their high-tide mark, and just like the Roman Empire, cessation of expansion guarantees collapse.

Trust in Obama's Hawaiian roots: no drama, results.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Obama was also saying the other day that they could put boots on the ground to defeat ISIS - but that they'd have to stay there indefinitely to hold that ground after ISIS was defeated. The people calling for boots on the ground want to ignore this little fact. Particularly when you consider that being there would just cause more animosity against the US, which would lead to more terror which leads to the cycle continuing over and over.

Blood begets blood, violence begets violence, hatred begets hatred.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

How 'bout that Texas commission's name??? Texas Health and Human Services Commission? Do they have a commission of other than human services? Like Texas Health and Cattle Services Commission? Texas Health and Snake Services Commission??? What kind of services does Texas provide to non-humans? What a joke of a name. I'd be embarrassed to have that commission's name on my business card.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Remember LAWS are man-made. So is the Constitution. The key is in the "interpretation" and "implementation" of it all.

Therefore what is important is in the rules, regulations, policies and procedures and who makes and implements them.

While Mr. Obama "plays" communication games with the world those he has placed into the various Departments from IRS to the Military, especially the Justice Department continues to "damage" the safety, security, the economic strength of the USA.

Therefore, the first thing is to take away his power to assign the Department heads, then immediately eliminate (fire) each and every one of those he placed into the departments and every one of those that they hired since their appointment, and replace them with those that can be properly screened and verified as being not only competent but are true Americans at heart with the moral and ethical values that will ensure "serving" the public and not themselves or the political parties. Do all that in the open with the entire media openly covering every minute of it. The public must know.

Then find ways to take away the Presidents power to control IRS (the economic base of the country) and the Judiciary. The President is now controls the lives and livelihood of the people.

Then the policing power of the Federal government must be limited to international and interstate levels and not state levels with the criteria that on national disasters and certain limited extreme situations the President has no place to control. The idea is to take away the dependence of states and individuals on the Federal Government which in essence give power to the President himself in the current system. That in fact takes away the "value" and "power" of the VOTE.

There are many more ideas, but then the current election is of concern. There is a great possibility for the President to declare "Martial Law" prior to the election to ultimately turn USA into an autocratic system with him in control. The open Mexican border, the infiltration of terrorists, etc. in a already disorganized and divided religiously and racially nation seem to point to a major "incident" of crisis levels to occur. Election as a whole is the "prime time" of divisiveness in any country. It is also the weakest time for the nation. The Republican debates indicate the problem and the President is laughing about it. WHY?

He and his people are moving and doing things which the election and the ISIS/ISIL problem both act as "cover" or "distraction". All the problems Mrs. Clinton faces is also a great "cover" for anything he may be doing behind the scenes. That is exactly what is happening with the massive migration of refugees from all over. And those with possible threat are even given "sanctuary". WHY?

He is always laughing at everyone's problems. WHY?

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The people calling for boots on the ground want to ignore this little fact.

No boots on the ground. Just stop the refugees from reaching a land and opportunity that isn't theirs in the first place.

Particularly when you consider that being there would just cause more animosity against the US

And likewise, some americans have more than enough animosity against the refugees. Why aren't the rich gulf nations accepting any of them? Why does everyone to come the america? I know its a great country, but how about trying to make your own country great. How long does it take for these ancient countries to get their act together?

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

@kazetsukai

There is a great possibility for the President to declare "Martial Law" prior to the election to ultimately turn USA into an autocratic system with him in control.

I can understand your desire to roll back the powers of the "Imperial Presidency", but doesn't the above strike you as, uh, a tad insane?

As for taking away the President's power to appoint cabinet heads, that is, frankly, a terrible idea. The President is vested with the executive power of the United States. The cabinet heads are more or less his arms and legs. You'd be crippling the executive to the point of non-functionality by imposing cabinet heads on the President.(or is that what you want?) The government was never set up to work that way.

Also this:

are true Americans at heart with the moral and ethical values

is kind of frightening. Look, I'm all for morals and ethical values, but who are you to decide who is a "true American at heart." The specter of McCarthyism looms large. I'd be very reluctant to give the majority the power to define "true American values" in a country that's supposed to embrace pluralism.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

No, the list is zero. The administration hasn't broken any laws.

Sure and Obama is the first White president, Bill Clinton never had sex with Monica, Bush never invaded Iraq, Hillary NEVER lied about anything EVER in her life and Reagan didn't defeat communism. See, when you live in the progressive unicorn paisley universe, reality is always what you want it to be.

What bass is convenietly hoping is that we all have incredibly short memories and have forgotten the fact that "The Gang of Eight", a bi-partisan group of lawmakers, including four Republicans, came up with a comprehensive immigration plan/bill, and it passed in the Senate. But, Boehner, knowing it would also pass a vote in the House, refused to bring it to a vote, for fear of the "haters" like bass --aka The Tea Party types.

Yup and why is that? Because after 7 years with this president and lies after lies after lies, why on Earth would the GOP trust Obama when throughout history Obama has never ONCE kept his word and before the GOP will make any concessions to this president, they need to good will and intent and they haven't. But to progressives wanting to have closed borders, wanting to have safety and security, wanting to have legal immigration, you are by definition a hater. This is the typical hollow cry the left uses to instill guilt and shame where there needs to be full condemnation of how liberals think that safety is back burner and NON-important issue.

But what is really funny, is that Marco Rubio is also hoping the "haters' will forget about this, since he was one of the Gang of Eight, but has had to run from that, since he needs the "haters" votes to get the nomination.

You mean the same way that Hillary wants everyone to forget about Benghazi and her emails?

And bass says it is Obama who cannot be trusted. LOL.

Yeah, I sure did.

The majority of Amercians support immigration reform, and a path to citizenship.

Americans support LEGAL immigration but they have to wait their turn and NOT jump ahead of everyone else that have followed the laws and they also demand that our borders are closed once and for all, particularly the people living in the border states.

And, the vast majority also expect Congress to do their job. But, when a lousy 40 of so members of the "Freedom Caucus" keep that from happening, the President needs to act. Plain and simple.

I see, so you want, the opposition to go against their constituents and against their principles, essentially abandoning them and become quasi-liberals in oder to suck and the tit of the Obama milk? Tow the liberal line in order to appease Democrats? I'll put it to you like this: When has Harry (trusted loyal dog) Reid EVER met with the GOP down the middle of ANY particular issue.

Bass is hoping we've forgotten that not only are executive orders legal, they have been done by pretty much ever president ever.

Oh, give me a break! NOT like this! If the shoe was on the reverse, Democrats would lose their minds! This president has overused his executive powers to circumvent the laws in order to pass his progressive radical agenda. I'll say this, I'm not sure what the outcome will be, but with this and with Gitmo, he does have a serious fight on his hand. The peoples prerogative is that they have made it clear about the fears and apprehension they have about letting refugees in against their will. Heck, the WH doesn't even know where the majority of those children are that came in from South America, the Children that Obama thought he could just wave his magical Obama wand and grant instant amnesty to 5 million illegals unit the Supreme Court had to splash some ice cold water in his face reminding him, we have 3 branches of government and Obama cannot do whatever he wants, even if the thinks he can.

But it's only when the president is black that the some people think it's illegal.

Carson is Black. Strange! Seriously, don't go there.

Obama is handling this situation masterfully.

If the broader definition of that is that he is telling the American people to screw off and couldn't care less what the people think and worry about their concerns and fears, then I guess, Yes.

Precisely what ISIS wants is to portray their statelet and their suicidal war as a titanic struggle between incompatible cultures, thus forcing pious but non-violent Muslims to choose sides. Shamefully, the majority of the GOP and a small minority of Democrats are aiding the ISIS to achieve their purpose.

So what you are saying is that denying the refugees legal status in the US is a recruiting tool? ROFL How so? Taking in refugees will help keep us safer? Good Lord, thank God for the medical advances for hallucinations.

A major goal of the ISIS is to attract Muslims from around the world and to retain those already there - not just fighters, but doctors and engineers and other professionals. It is precisely those who are fleeing, or at least trying to. No doubt, the biggest cheer for the intransigence of Republican governors and the shameful vote of the House comes from the ISIS leadership.

Wow!

The ISIS is bleeding cash; reportedly, half of its previous cash came from one-off raiding of Iraqi banks, and its oil revenues are depleting rapidly - not least due to a lack of skilled technicians. Obama is quietly watching them bleed.

Obama isn't even watching his daily foreign policy briefings and lost track of all those kids from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Well, so much for that....

Not drawing attention to them - emphasizing the ephemeral nature their movement is destined to be - is the most efficient and effective way of bringing the conflict to a close. They've already hit their high-tide mark, and just like the Roman Empire, cessation of expansion guarantees collapse.

And now I truly understand as to why ISIS was able to gain ground the way they did. When liberals think like this, it's understandable that Obama thought just out of sight and out of mind and perhaps it will go away. I guess we can all say with certainty that NOT only did ISIS NOT go away, but the caliphate has grown in size and strength and that the recruitments of ISIS members has grown and expanded throughout the ME.

Trust in Obama's Hawaiian roots: no drama, results.

Now I see why Trump is ahead and giving excellent to his base.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Laguna: Obama is handling this situation masterfully. Precisely what ISIS wants is to portray their statelet and their suicidal war as a titanic struggle between incompatible cultures, thus forcing pious but non-violent Muslims to choose sides. Shamefully, the majority of the GOP and a small minority of Democrats are aiding the ISIS to achieve their purpose.

Let's not forget that those 10,000 people will speak with their friends and families back in the Middle East where they will have positive things to say about the US which will change a lot of hearts and minds of the people there. It's one of the most powerful methods of overcoming the rhetoric of the extremists in the region.

bass: Obama has never ONCE kept his word

Ah, I see you've reached Stage II where you just start swingingly blindly. After you've talked yourself into a corner you'll hit Stage III where you abandon all of your talking points for a calm kind of "I win because I don't care that I've been proven wrong". Should take another 12 hours or so.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

No, the list is zero. The administration hasn't broken any laws.

I'm not sure Bass & Co. have a firm grasp on the concept of "laws."

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I get the same idea, Triumvere. The concept of laws seems to be getting mixed up with the concept of polling, or something to that effect.

As for the laws we could fill and entire thread about GOP laws/methods that have been struck down by the courts including voter suppression laws, the new abortion laws, "religious freedom" positions, the refugee positions in this thread, etc. Their challenges to Obamacare have all failed, their rhetoric about impeachment suddenly dropped by the wayside when they got the majority in the Senate, investigations into Clinton and the IRS showed no laws were broken, etc. The list of legal failures (that should never have gone forward in the first place) is astonishing.

As for polling, the GOP has blocked measures that have overwhelming support like stronger background checks for gun purchases. In addition, their positions on gay rights, same sex marriage, abortion, immigration reform, etc., all put them on the wrong side of national polling.

They are in the minority in both polls and legal opinions and I suspect this is the reason for a lot of the "take America back" statements.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Let's not forget that those 10,000 people will speak with their friends and families back in the Middle East where they will have positive things to say about the US which will change a lot of hearts and minds of the people there. It's one of the most powerful methods of overcoming the rhetoric of the extremists in the region.

Uh-huh...and once the liberals stop smoking the reefer, the unicorns will eventually disappear.

Ah, I see you've reached Stage II where you just start swingingly blindly.

Until a Dem/lib steps in my field of vision

After you've talked yourself into a corner you'll hit Stage III where you abandon all of your talking points for a calm kind of "I win because I don't care that I've been proven wrong". Should take another 12 hours or so.

If that were true, I prefer to deal with reality and stay out of the unicorn paisley realm, it's safer that way.

I'm not sure Bass & Co. have a firm grasp on the concept of "laws."

When it comes to this particular law that was passed and what the public is saying, I do. I think anyone that deals with reality, NOT the extreme liberal reality, but the real tangible reality, they would understand this is the worst move the president could make and just when you thought the president scorched the Earth and can't do further damage, he pulls another card out of his sleeve. Nope, not down yet!

I get the same idea, Triumvere. The concept of laws seems to be getting mixed up with the concept of polling, or something to that effect.

No, they're not.

Obama last week slapped down as the House GOP The vote was 289-137 and surprisingly with 47 Democrats joining with the 242 Republicans in favor of the bill. Not to mention, you have about 32 Governers that do not want these refugees to come in.

As the polling is concerned. Over 54% of Americans are against letting the Syrian refugees. The language is very clear and very direct.

Now, let's move on. But who cares right? I mean, Diane Feinstein and Leon Panetta, so they are on intelligence committee and have the knowledge and the access to some of the most vital intel and so what if they are concerned and they know more than the president combined and will be around even after the president is gone (thankfully) soon. Obama is all knowing, all seeing Omnipotent and how dare these mortals defy the one true master?

As for the laws we could fill and entire thread about GOP laws/methods that have been struck down by the courts including voter suppression laws, the new abortion laws, "religious freedom" positions, the refugee positions in this thread, etc.

Voter suppression? Wow! When you guys were panicking about having IDs drawn for every person voting? What was the excuse of the day...in doing so would indicate that the GOP are racists? As for abortion, wait until next year when the funding runs out, the provisions that fund the sale and distribution of fetal parts will be omitted from the new planned budget. Libs are on the clock and Obama got slapped in the face on immigration and thank God for that, otherwise we would be in a bigger mess.

Their challenges to Obamacare have all failed, their rhetoric about impeachment suddenly dropped by the wayside when they got the majority in the Senate, investigations into Clinton and the IRS showed no laws were broken, etc.

So what you are trying to say, the DOJ who's boss is Obama and Obama doesn't like Hillary, can't stand the woman and had she been convicted would have been a great thing for Biden, if he would have jumped in the race, he was more popular and more of a threat than Hillary and was endorsed by the president, but because Hillary, like her husband is one of THE best liars that I have ever seen on this planet, she slipped the noose once again, Biden knew, if she's not convicted and jumps into the race late, he would have had to raise all kinds of money and at that point, it would have been too difficult, not to mention, the man is still mourning the loss of his son. Obama had NO other choice then, but to back up Hillary. There was a reason why Obama backed Biden. He liked him, trusted him to continue the Obama policies and not Hillary. Hillary has been changing positions to keep up with Bernie and on issues even she wouldn't normally agree with. So now what is Obama to do? For one thing, he can't allow her now at this point and time to be indicted, so he told the DOJ to back off. How do we know this? Lois Lerner after everything she did and with all the evidence, she just walks, just like that. Now if you deal with reality seriously and honestly, if Lerner gets off free as a bird, there is no way on Earth that Hillary is going to be indicted on anything in that case. Now the president HAS to put all of his eggs in one basket with her, she is for sure the Democratic nominee. That's why they both walked

The list of legal failures (that should never have gone forward in the first place) is astonishing.

How about the illegal attempts by libs to circumvent the system which brought on the legal wrangling would have never happened if the libs weren't too greedy for power.

As for polling, the GOP has blocked measures that have overwhelming support like stronger background checks for gun purchases.

You think ANYONE trusts THIS guy with any of our information?? Of course, they would block the measure. I don't blame them. Obama did enough damage and then on top of that allowing his minions to know how many guns I have? None of their business!

In addition, their positions on gay rights, same sex marriage, abortion, immigration reform, etc., all put them on the wrong side of national polling.

We have ISIS killing people, we just see growing tensions between Turkey and Russia, Russia and the US, losing face with all of our allies, Obama refuses to help another NATO ally, This president wants to shove a bunch of unverified muslim refugees down our throats without properly vetting them and you guys are worried about gay rights and same sex marriage? Wait, let me pinch myself if I just heard this correctly.

They are in the minority in both polls and legal opinions and I suspect this is the reason for a lot of the "take America back" statements.

Maybe that's why Trump is killing the Dems and as nutty as he is and the crazy things he says, the country is so sick and tired of this president, Mickey Mouse could win as long as he ran as a conservative. Trump can say anything and his poll numbers keep going up. Is Hillary still in the race? Haven't seen her recently on TV? You libs need to be careful. This might all come back and bite you so damn hard in the rear. I think now the people want their country back from the looniness of the liberal universe.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

@Bass,

When it comes to this particular law that was passed and what the public is saying, I do. I think anyone that deals with reality, NOT the extreme liberal reality, but the real tangible reality, they would understand this is the worst move the president could make and just when you thought the president scorched the Earth and can't do further damage, he pulls another card out of his sleeve. Nope, not down yet!

So, the accusation was that the administration was "breaking laws," yet no specific laws have been cited. "Breaking laws" has a rather specific meaning, and it isn't "I don't like what the president is doing",or " I don't think what the president is doing is advisable." At the most charitable, "I don't think what the president is doing is constitutional" might work, but the connotation is quite different.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

bass, it's Thanksgiving, so I'm going to call a truce and wish you and your family a happy holiday. Hope it went well for you.

Moderator: You'll observe the truce permanently and refrain from bickering on this discussion board.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

So, the accusation was that the administration was "breaking laws," yet no specific laws have been cited. "Breaking laws" has a rather specific meaning, and it isn't "I don't like what the president is doing",or " I don't think what the president is doing is advisable." At the most charitable, "I don't think what the president is doing is constitutional" might work, but the connotation is quite different.

It is breaking the law theoretically if the majority of the voters feel that as tax paying US citizens their rights are being purposely ignored by a president that refuses to listen to the very people that put him into office. We all know, if this situation happened when he first became he would have never made it to a second term, but since he's running out the clock, he's going to do whatever he likes regardless if he breaks or bends the laws or step in some toes.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

It is breaking the law theoretically if the majority of the voters feel that as tax paying US citizens their rights are being purposely ignored by a president that refuses to listen to the very people that put him into office.

No it's not.

How to determine whether or not a law has been broken: Compare what someone did to a law, and if it is against that law, the law has been broken.

It has absolutely nothing to do with opinion.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It is breaking the law theoretically if the majority of the voters feel that as tax paying US citizens their rights are being purposely ignored by a president that refuses to listen to the very people that put him into office.

Not to belabor the point, but this is neither a theoretical or actual breaking of the law. The law comes in many forms: the constitution, treaties, statutes, regulations, etc. Voter dissatisfaction is not one of these. There is no law that requires the President do what the public wants. If you are not happy with the administration has been doing it's job, then the appropriate countermeasure is, as it always has been, to vote your opposition to president and his party. I suggest you consider not voting the Democratic ticket in the next election cycle.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

No it's not.

Sure it is, come on, let's not sugarcoat this and dance around this. Please don't do a Bill Clinton.

How to determine whether or not a law has been broken: Compare what someone did to a law, and if it is against that law, the law has been broken.

Ok, so now we have to listen to more liberal euphemisms?

It has absolutely nothing to do with opinion.

Ohhhh, yes it does, indeed it does.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

...you really don't understand what laws are, do you?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

...you really don't understand what laws are, do you?

Apparently not. I'm honestly flabbergasted at his last post, I didn't think anyone really would have that little clue as to how laws work.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

...you really don't understand what laws are, do you?

What I want to know is, do YOU understand what euphemisms are?

Apparently not.

I live in California, you know the world Capitol of lawsuits.

I'm honestly flabbergasted at his last post, I didn't think anyone really would have that little clue as to how laws work.

They laws in the country worked well until this administration decided to take a hatchet chop it up and mold it into whatever they see would fit their progressive agenda. But when you have a giant government controlled apparatus things do get mucked up and convoluted.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

euphemism: noun. a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.

I understand what a euphemism is. I'm just not sure how you think euphemisms fit into the conversation. Are you trying to imply that your use of the term "breaking the law" was a euphemism? If so, then I would like to refer you to the definition above.

While you are at it, you might also take a loot at the following;

law noun. the system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.

I'm still waiting on an explanation as to what laws were broken by the President.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Might as well throw in the definition of Capitol as well.

What's probably happening is that the bubble is making some imaginary case of laws being broken (see their previous comments about impeachment) and one of their members is here to repeat it. Now he's being challenged and he's forced to make up answers to questions he never though to ask himself.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What I want to know is, do YOU understand what euphemisms are?

Hard to know how to answer that because of one of two possibilities:

1) You don't know what a euphemism is, since you haven't actually used one in this thread

2) You do know what a euphemism is, and are bringing up an entirely unrelated topic for some unknown reason

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I understand what a euphemism is. I'm just not sure how you think euphemisms fit into the conversation. Are you trying to imply that your use of the term "breaking the law" was a euphemism? If so, then I would like to refer you to the definition above.

That's ok, you don't need to.

I'm still waiting on an explanation as to what laws were broken by the President.

Uhh-huh...And here we go beating around the mulberry bush once again? Look, even I can't cut through the liberal fog make believe.

What's probably happening is that the bubble is making some imaginary case of laws being broken (see their previous comments about impeachment) and one of their members is here to repeat it.

Impeachment, now that would be nice. But we'll get this year over soon enough.

Now he's being challenged and he's forced to make up answers to questions he never though to ask himself.

"I'm being forced??" Are you serious?! Buddy, I already gave an explanation and hey, it doesn't matter how you may want to split hairs, Dems do this constantly and if they think they are the smartest living creatures in the entire universe and everyone else is subhuman, If Obama wants to break the law and defy the very people that put him into office, since he is on his way out (yippee) he's definitely poisoning the well for the Dems in this next election cycle.

Hard to know how to answer that because of one of two possibilities:

1) You don't know what a euphemism is, since you haven't actually used one in this thread

...Or I do, but you want to see Obama as the person that is a president that would never bend or contort the law in any fashion to fit his progressive agenda.

2) You do know what a euphemism is, and are bringing up an entirely unrelated topic for some unknown reason.

...Or I just want Liberals to be honest and forthcoming about this president and his lack of will and care to achieve his progressive ideology instead of putting the country and the people first.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

...Or I do, but you want to see Obama as the person that is a president that would never bend or contort the law in any fashion to fit his progressive agenda.

Hillary Satan LOL ROFL!

2 ( +2 / -0 )

administration says states lack authority

Okay. So does the US Constitution give them the "right" to enter the United States of America? The american people say, "No." And in the wake of the events unfolding, I say too, "Hell No."

The United States of America is "NOT" for islam refugees. The USA, UK, Sweden, France, Germany, Belgium (western societies) owe them absolutely NOTHING!!

Why can't obama and his henchmen get it straight? Why force it down the states, state governors and american taxpayers throats?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Uhh-huh...And here we go beating around the mulberry bush once again? Look, even I can't cut through the liberal fog make believe.

OK.

To beat around the bush. Fig. to avoid answering a question; to stall; to waste time.

I am familiar with this idiom; it is employed when one refuses to answer a question directly, or avoids directly mentioning a topic in favor of hints and innuendo. Kind of like what you are doing when you refuse to provide a straight answer to a simple question.

So, I'll ask you again, directly: what laws do you believe were broken? I would appreciate if you would reply directly, citing an actual, specific law that you believe has been broken by the administration. You obviously believe there are many such laws, so it should be easy for you to cite one.

A simple, clear answer is all I'm asking for.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The United States of America is "NOT" for islam refugees.

America is not for weak people like yourself. Get some backbone and realize it's an odds game that is so skewed in your favor that your fears are irrational. And un-American.

Anyone who can pass a refugee check can much more easily pass a tourist visa check and just fly over themselves. That was true yesterday and it will be true tomorrow. If you are as scared as you say you are, and I believe you are, then your actions make no sense at all.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

It is alarming how quickly they will abandon American values after a terrorist attack. I'm guessing ISIS is surprised at how easy it was.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Hillary Satan LOL ROFL!

That cackling alone is enough to put morbid fear in any human.

A simple, clear answer is all I'm asking for.

I already did.

Anyone who can pass a refugee check can much more easily pass a tourist visa check and just fly over themselves.

So what you are really trying to say it doesn't matter what we do, we should just take the chance and if they attack us, well, they just attack us and that can't be helped, regardless, we should still take them in. This is exactly the reason why our enemies absolutely love it when we get ourselves a weak Democratic president. That kind of talk is just mind boggling scary to the deepest core.

That was true yesterday and it will be true tomorrow. If you are as scared as you say you are, and I believe you are, then your actions make no sense at all.

Block them and take your time vetting them, monitor them and track them is the best solution.

I'm inclined to think Wc626 isn't a true Americans at heart; he lacks the requisite moral and ethical values.

I think anyone that would blindly allow thousands of Muslims into the country KNOWING that there are Jihadists IMBEDDED amongst these people, it would be sheer suicidal to just irresponsible to let them all in without vetting them properly and as we have seen with the children refugees, NO one knows where they all are now and after that mess, the people have confidence and think, sure, why not? Let's try this again. The people are past that and this time with seriously good reasons as they should, If you have 31 governors both Repub. and Dem telling the president they don't want these refugees and their constituents don't want them, a good leader, a wise leader would listen. Obama doesn't apply to that logical thinking. A true and real American would know this,

It is alarming how quickly they will abandon American values after a terrorist attack. I'm guessing ISIS is surprised at how easy it was.

I can't believe that you just had the audacity to say that when Obama abandoned American values from day one of his presidency. Good Lord! Talk about alarming. This is just BS madness! 346 more days left until the psychotic reign of this Tyrant is finally over.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

I already did.

Oh, I beg your pardon. i must have missed it. Which post are you referring to?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Bass I can't believe that you just had the audacity to say that when Obama abandoned American values from day one of his presidency. Good Lord! Talk about alarming. This is just BS madness! 346 more days left until the psychotic reign of this Tyrant is finally over.

ourselves a weak Democratic president.

I'm curious how the US president can be both a tyrant and weak.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The United States of America is "NOT" for islam refugees. The USA, UK, Sweden, France, Germany, Belgium (western societies) owe them absolutely NOTHING!!

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

MY America is greater, more generous, braver than you would have it be. Your version of America is nothing special, petty, mean, bigoted, cowardly.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Oh, I beg your pardon. i must have missed it. Which post are you referring to?

The one where I answered your question.

I'm curious how the US president can be both a tyrant and weak.

To his subjects face, strong and defiant, but when the chips and the stacks are high, whining like a scared child. Kind of like Dr. Smith from "Lost in Space."

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

@Bass I'm curious how the US president can be both a tyrant and weak.

I think I understand. You're a logician, like a modern Lewis Carroll.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.”

2 ( +3 / -1 )

bass: Block them and take your time vetting them, monitor them and track them is the best solution.

Nah, that'll never happen in my country. I don't care how afraid you are, we will stop you from destroying American values with your "Christian only" immigration system and national Muslim registry. You are better off carrying a little pillow around so you can curl up into the fetal position if you see a Muslim.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”

We may have to start calling him Humpty Bassy.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

In the bubble:

“But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked. “Oh, you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.” “How do you know I’m mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, “or you wouldn’t have come here.”

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Or maybe "Basslice"

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The one where I answered your question.

Sigh. You are making this conversation very difficult. Could you please indicate which post you are referring to? All posts are conveniently marked with a time-stamp. All you have to do is give me the time stamp of the post in which you provided your response.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.

Wasn't quite to what I was eluding to, but if you can make it work for you.....

Nah, that'll never happen in my country. I don't care how afraid you are, we will stop you from destroying American values with your "Christian only" immigration system and national Muslim registry.

We? Who's we? The people of California or Vermont...perhaps NY? The US is a big country and there are states you probably never heard of where Americans live that would fight tooth and nail to NOT see you progressives further damage the country. Obama is on the clock and enjoy it while you can, true, no one can predict who will be the president in 2016, but one thing is for sure, it ain't gonna be Barack and that's fine with me, in fact, it's a blessing....a much needed one...

You are better off carrying a little pillow around so you can curl up into the fetal position if you see a Muslim.

I don't have to. I never had a problem with Muslims and that is not the issue, I know, I know, liberals need to pull out the race card to give legitimacy as well as validity to their arguments or they just will go nowhere. The problem has always been in taking in refugees blindly without vetting them and without knowing exactly who these people are, given the fact that radical Islamists want to kill us, it would be a foolish mistake to NOT be suspicious especially to refugees and not knowing anything about the background of these people.

We may have to start calling him Humpty Bassy.

Keep trying, strange, you might make a funny joke just yet.

I think it is pretty safe to assume that bass does not believe a word of what he is writing.

But I do, safe to say.

He is just having us on, looking for attention. Better to ignore his rants.

News Flash: we are all on JT! It's pretty safe to say, we are all looking for a bit of public attention, otherwise, why be on here?

The South has a long tradition of hating the United States.

California is in the South?

It is a mindset of fear -- fear of the Union, fear of minorities, fear of gays, fear of diversity, fear of science, fear of intellectuals, fear of open and honest discourse, fear of progress --

Clinton and Carter and James Carville are from the South. Are they racists?

that has now engulfed areas outside the South. It has become the heart of the GOP. The Republican opposition to accepting Syrian refugees has less to do with the policy itself than to a hatred of anything Obama does.

Now I know you don't believe what you just said. That was an absolutely ludicrous statement.

To the GOP fringe, Obama represents the 'other', that which threatens their insulated little fantasy world.

If that were only true.

Or maybe "Basslice

Or Bass4funk would be even better.

Sigh. You are making this conversation very difficult.

No, you just want to see what you want to see. Keep looking.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

The problem has always been in taking in refugees blindly without vetting them

The zombie lie that won't die.

Several times the vetting process has been put right in front of your eyes and every time you've ignored it. I can't make you debate with facts but I can surely stop you from putting Muslims into internment camps based on your lies.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Wasn't quite to what I was eluding to

Freudian slip?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Bass, could you please indicate which post you are referring to giving me the time stamp of the post.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The zombie lie that won't die.

Don't worry in 13 months we don't have to worry about him biting us, problem solved

Several times the vetting process has been put right in front of your eyes and every time you've ignored it.

So that means more than half of the country, Leon Panetta, Dianae Feinstain and other top Pentagon senior advisors failed to see that there is a vetting process established. So once again, Obama is the all knowing president and us mere mortals know nothing, but the community organizer with NO real legislative expierence is smarter than anyone sitting on the intelligence community.

Liberals and their obsessive love for unicorns

I can't make you debate with facts but I can surely stop you from putting Muslims into internment camps based on your lies.

Impossible, I don't believe in unicorns and I hate paisley,

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Obama has outlined a goal of bringing 10,000 more Syrian refugees to the U.S.

. . . . But, but I thought they hated "Infidels". So how can they bring themselves to tolerate us (american citizens) on our own soil. After all, aren't we the "Great Satan"?

I can surely stop you from putting Muslims into internment camps based on your lies.

Nobody is suggesting that. Just simply, (even if obama is allowing them in) just don't come here to US. It's not for them.

Liberals and their obsessive love for unicorns

. . . .LoL- along w/ Narnia, floating magical castles and hobos.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Since you are bass I know you got your info from the bubble with no research of your own, so I dug up Feinstein's statement on Syria:

"I believe there are a few areas where we can quickly prioritize our security. First, we must continue the rigorous, interagency screening process already in place for potential refugees. We also must collaborate with our European allies so they can better screen refugees and migrants and share key information with us. The Paris attacks will certainly alter the debate about Syrian refugees, and it’s clear to me we must prioritize the safety and security of the American people.

“At the same time, we can’t completely abandon innocent Syrian civilians in need. America must do its share to find safe haven for the millions of children and adults who have none at present time. As temperatures drop, terrible things could happen, so a prudent and carefully-executed refugee admission process is in order. The Syrian people are the ones suffering the most from both ISIL and the Assad regime, and the international community has a responsibility to protect those fleeing the depravity.” Source: Senator Dianne Feinstein:

(End)

That's her statement and you have been running around saying Feinstein believes there is no vetting process. The bubble made you look the fool and your only option is to double down, so lets see what you got.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

. . . But, but I thought they hated "Infidels".

There's your mistake. Muslims don't hate infidels, fundamentalists hate infidels. You seem to be confusing the two groups.

It's like saying Americans hate black people. No, the KKK hates black people. The two groups are not interchangeable.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Leon Panetta, Dianae Feinstain and other top Pentagon senior advisors failed to see that there is a vetting process

Oh boy. What did the bubble tell you Feinstein and Panetta said? And do you really think there is no vetting process or are you just saying that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh boy. What did the bubble tell you Feinstein and Panetta said? And do you really think there is no vetting process or are you just saying that.

Can you please tell me where all those children are that Obama brought in last year from South America? So where are they now?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

You don't want to share your info?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You seem to be confusing the two groups.

I see ur point Strangerland . . . Yes, I am confusing the too. I'm not the only american confused too.

Just like they often confuse our western values (which might be evil or unclean) conflicting with theirs. I love my pulled pork bbq sandwiches smothered in bbq sauce. Washing it down with a cold beer.

So to simplify the whole thing, just keep them out. They're coming into my country. Why should I make an effort to or be burdened discerning if those "fundamentalists" or "muslims" hate infidels like myself??

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites