Why has Barack Obama been releasing thousands of illegal immigrants that have been convicted of crimes back on to the streets of our cities? According to U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, more than 36,000 were released from custody in Fiscal Year 2013 alone. These individuals were actually convicted of committing crimes, and many of them went on to commit new crimes once they were released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In fact, Senator Grassley says that 121 of the criminals that were released during Fiscal Year 2013 were subsequently charged with committing murder. That means that more than 100 American citizens are now dead because of Obama’s foolish policies. Why is Obama doing this? He knows that one out of every five illegal immigrants has a criminal record, and he knows that many of these convicted criminals that he is releasing will go on to commit new crimes. What possible justification could Obama have for...Wednesday, July 8, 2015
Illegal Immigration Nightmare: Obama Has Been Releasing 1000s Of Convicted Criminals Back Into Our Communities
Why has Barack Obama been releasing thousands of illegal immigrants that have been convicted of crimes back on to the streets of our cities? According to U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley, more than 36,000 were released from custody in Fiscal Year 2013 alone. These individuals were actually convicted of committing crimes, and many of them went on to commit new crimes once they were released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. In fact, Senator Grassley says that 121 of the criminals that were released during Fiscal Year 2013 were subsequently charged with committing murder. That means that more than 100 American citizens are now dead because of Obama’s foolish policies. Why is Obama doing this? He knows that one out of every five illegal immigrants has a criminal record, and he knows that many of these convicted criminals that he is releasing will go on to commit new crimes. What possible justification could Obama have for...
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Sorry, Slate: Oregon Did Put a ‘Gag Order’ on Those Christian Bakers
On Monday, Slate published an article criticizing The Daily Signal’s coverage headlined “No, Oregon Did Not ‘Gag’ That Anti-Gay Bakery.”
While that’s a great, provocative headline, Slate’s headline is simply not true.
In fact, the Kleins are now legally required, as a result of the order issued Thursday, “to cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation,” as The Daily Signal’s reporter Kelsey Harkness wrote in her article Friday.
Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern writes:
Rather than fine the Kleins further, [Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad] Avakian wrote that the couple must ’cease and desist’ stating that Sweet Cakes would continue to turn away gay couples. As individuals, the Kleins may declare that Oregon’s anti-discrimination law should not protect gay couples. But when speaking publicly about the future of their own business, they must not opine that they will maintain a policy of anti-gay discrimination.
But here’s what Stern overlooks: Commissioner Avakian recites in detail the statements the Kleins made that he is upset about and that his agency claims violate Oregon law. What led to his “cease and desist” order is the key to understanding why it’s accurately called a gag order that prevents the Kleins from speaking about their faith and their intent to “stay strong” and fight this harassment by the Oregon state government.
For example, on page 23 and 24 of Avakian’s Order, his agency claims that the following statements in an interview on the Christian Broadcasting Network on Sept. 2, 2013 violate Oregon law:
Monday, July 6, 2015
Blogs With Rule 5 Links
These Blogs Provide Links To Rule 5 Sites:
The Pirate's Cove has:
Proof Positive has:
The Woodsterman has:
The Other McCain has:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)