Press release: Judge to rule on petition ordering Obama to produce the executive order, which cannot be found and the court to rule on constitutionality on Obama’s immigration order
Posted on | November 25, 2014 | 21 Comments
Press release
Law offices of Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
Judge to rule on petition ordering Obama to produce the executive order on shield from deportation and work permits to 5 million illegals, which cannot be found, and the court to rule on constitutionality of Obama’s immigration order
DR. ORLY TAITZ, ESQ
29839 SANTA MARGARITA, STE 100
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, CA 92688
PH 949-683-5411 FAX 949-766-7687
US DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
TAITZ, ) Case # 14-cv-00119
V ) HONORABLE ANDREW S. HANEN PRESIDING
JOHNSON, ET AL )
SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, STAY, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF DUE TO NEW RELEVANT FACTS
SUMMARY OF THE MOTION
On November 20, 2014, President Obama, defendant herein, announced in a televised address from the White House that he issued an executive order, which granted legal status to some five million illegal aliens, allowing these illegal aliens to take jobs of millions of law abiding US citizens and tax payers.
Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ, Plaintiff herein, has done an extensive search in Federal Register of the National archives (Exhibit 1), WhiteHouse.gov and other sources and there is no executive order to be found anywhere. While typically one can obtain documents from Federal Agencies under FOIA 5 USC 552, the office of the President is exempt from FOIA and, as such, a court order is required to receive the actual order from the President, if it exists.
Plaintiff is seeking an order by this court instructing President Obama to Produce the actual executive order for examination of its’ existence and its’ legitimacy.
Until such order is produced by Defendant Obama, Plaintiff is seeking an emergency STAY and Preliminary injunction instructing defendants, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson and Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell, to STAY any actions in furtherance of this allegedly existing Presidential executive order.
Specifically, she is seeking and order of STAY to Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security, defendant herein, from issuance of any work permits, visas or any other identification and legal status documents to illegal aliens until alleged executive order is produced to the court and deemed by the court as valid, legal and constitutional.
Further, Plaintiff is seeking a STAY to be issued to Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), defendant herein, instructing her to stay issuance of Social Security cards to any and all illegal aliens until this court receives the order in question and deems it valid, legal and constitutional. Social Security cards are issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA), which is a part of HHS.
Additionally, Plaintiff is seeking a declaratory relief from this court. Even if such a Presidential Executive order exists, plaintiff petitions for a declaratory order deeming it null and void and illegal and unconstitutional, as this alleged order was issued by a fiat, without any constitutional basis and without any authorization by the U.S Congress.
ARGUMENT
Plaintiff filed legal action at hand as both a party, who was specifically affected by the actions by the defendants, and as a taxpayer. Plaintiff asserts that defendants are engaged in issuance and implementation of illegal and unconstitutional amnesties, originally DACA and now additional alleged Executive order of November 20-21 2014, orders, which illegally defer deportation of millions of illegal aliens, grant them jobs, which becomes a magnet and an incentive for an invasion, a stampede of illegal immigrants, which brings with it multiple infectious disease, crimes and trillions of dollars of damages to the tax payers. If current executive order is not stayed, it will cause irreparable harm to the US taxpayers in the form of a complete collapse of the US economy and bankrupting of the US treasury.
TAXPAYER STANDING
Plaintiff herein is a U.S. taxpayer. She has a taxpayer status standing based on Flast v Cohen 392 U.S. 83 (1968)precedent. In Flast, Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the US wrote in the majority opinion:
” …our point of reference in this case is the standing of individuals who assert only the status of federal taxpayers and who challenge the constitutionality of a federal spending program. Whether such individuals have standing to maintain that form of action turns on whether they can demonstrate the necessary stake as taxpayers in the outcome of the litigation to satisfy Article III requirements.
The nexus demanded of federal taxpayers has two aspects to it. First, the taxpayer must establish a logical link between that status and the type of legislative enactment attacked. Thus, a taxpayer will be a proper party to allege the unconstitutionality only of exercises of congressional power under the taxing and spending clause of Art. I, 8, of the Constitution. It will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute. Secondly, the taxpayer must establish a nexus between that status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. Under this requirement, the taxpayer must show that the challenged enactment exceeds specific constitutional limitations imposed upon the exercise of the congressional taxing and spending power and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, 8. When both nexuses are established, the litigant will have shown a taxpayer’s stake in the outcome of the controversy and will be a proper and appropriate party to invoke a federal court’s jurisdiction.
The taxpayer-appellants in this case have satisfied both nexuses to support their claim of standing under the test we announce today. Their constitutional challenge is made to an exercise by Congress of its power under Art. I, 8, to spend for the general welfare, and the challenged program involves a substantial expenditure of federal tax funds. In addition, appellants have alleged that the challenged expenditures violate the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment”
So, using Flast, Taitz has standing as a taxpayer as Obama’s actions are funded through the appropriations received by Obama and Federal agencies under the taxing and spending clause of Article 1,8 of the Constitution.
At the same time Obama’s actions are flagrantly illegal and unconstitutional. Firstly, those actions were taken through an Executive order, which is yet to be seen, which was issued without any authorization of the U.S. Congress. Under Article 1,8 only Congress has plenary power on immigration.
Secondly, Obama’s actions are flagrantly violative of Title 8, which expressly prohibits granting residence and employment to illegal aliens.
Based on the above Taitz has standing and the court should issue required injunctive relief.
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)
“Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.”
Section 274 felonies under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 274A(a)(1)(A):
8U.S.Code§1226(b)-Apprehensionanddetentionofaliens
(a)Arrest,detention, andrelease
OnawarrantissuedbytheAttorneyGeneral,analienmaybearrestedanddetained pendingadecisiononwhetherthealienistoberemovedfromtheUnitedStates.Exceptas providedinsubsection(c)ofthissectionandpending suchdecision,theAttorney
General-
(1)maycontinuetodetainthearrestedalien;and
(2)mayreleasethealienon-
(A)bondofatleast$1,500withsecurityapprovedby,andcontaining conditions prescribedby, theAttorneyGeneral;or
(B)conditionalparole;but
(3)maynotprovidethealienwithworkauthorization(includingan”employmentauthorized” endorsement orotherappropriateworkpermit),unlessthealienislawfullyadmitted forpermanentresidenceorotherwisewould(without regardtoremovalproceedings)beprovided suchauthorization.(emphasisadded).
BASED ON THE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF REQUIREMENTS SET BY THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, STAY SHOULD BE GRANTED
As shown in the recent decision by the Fifth Circuit granting a stay in the Voter ID case Voting for America, inc v Andrade 488 Fed.Appx. 890, Fifth Circuit looks at four parameters:
(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he
is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.
STAY IS WARRANTED AS PLAINTIFF IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs as if fully pled herein.
On November 20, 2014 Obama announced his executive order in violation of Title 8 and Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution to shielded from deportation millions of illegal aliens and grant them work permits, whereby depriving millions of US citizens and taxpayers of jobs and trillions of dollars in total cost to taxpayers. The text of the announcement is in the link below[1] , however the actual executive order is nowhere to be found. Taitz submits a true and correct printout of the Federal Register at the National archives, which lists all Executive orders and there is no Executive order from November 20 or 21, 2014 listed there. Plaintiff, who filed her legal action not only as a doctor, who was injured by lawless actions of defendant Obama, but also as a taxpayer, is seeking an order by the court instructing defendant Obama to provide to the court the actual executive order, he alleges he signed. Without having the actual order, taxpayers are deprived of their property, trillions of dollars of taxpayers moneys, their jobs and sources of income, without any due process, which is a flagrant violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
As argued previously, aforementioned executive order is illegal and unconstitutional , as it flagrantly violates Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, which gives US Congress a plenary power in immigration. “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Article I, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution. “The Congress shall have Power . . . To establish an uniform Rule of
Naturalization,” Article I, Section 8, of the U.S. Constitution. There is no legal or Constitutional authority for the US President to defer deportation of millions of illegal aliens and grant them work permits depriving millions of Americans of Jobs and depriving taxpayers of their taxpayer monies.
As stated previously such executive order is flagrantly violative of Title 8, specifically 8USC 1226 which expressly forbids granting job permits to illegal aliens.
PLAINTIFF WILL SUFFER IRREPARABLE HARM
As a taxpayer she is greatly affected by such a major executive order. Some of the ways plaintiff, as a taxpayer, will be affected:
- Millions of American citizens will be thrown out of work as a result of this executive order. Instead of being taxpayers, they will become recipients of the taxpayer dollars. This is a flagrant theft of taxpayer dollars.
b. Obama’s pronounced shield from deportation of millions of illegals, also, translates into a theft of billions of taxpayer dollars, which will be spent on education of illegal aliens instead of deportation.
c. Obama’s pronounced shield from deportation translates into billions that will be spent by emergency rooms of hospitals and other health care facilities on care of millions of illegal aliens, who are allowed to stay in the U.S. instead of being deported. Taxpayers, as Taitz, are affected twofold: the hospitals are getting federal grants to care for indigent patients, which includes illegals. Additionally, taxpayers are forced to pay much higher fees for their health care and hospital treatment to offset care of illegals, many of whom simply walk out of the hospital emergency rooms without paying a cent. As an example, 70% of birth in Los Angeles county last year were births of children of illegal aliens. Most of the cost of those births were dumped on U.S. taxpayers. Recently, Taitz was in the emergency room and received nearly a $10,000 bill for about 2 hours in the emergency room. Such exorbitant bill reflects padding by the hospitals of bills sent to US citizens and taxpayers in order to cover lack of payment by illegals.
d. Many illegals participated in mortgage schemes, buying multiple properties with NINJA loans (no income, no job, no asset verification loans). Later banks dumped those loans on federal agencies, such as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and taxpayers were left holding the bag. Additionally, many taxpayer were forced out of the real estate market by speculative hike in prices or were forced to pay inflated prices or ended in bankruptcies and foreclosures as a result of these schemes. Obama’s shield from deportation assures that such schemes will continue.
- Based on Obama’s pronounced executive order (which is yet to be seen), illegals will be receiving work permits. Under this scheme, not only they will be taking American jobs, they will also get unemployment benefits, if they can’t find jobs, which robs taxpayers yet again.
f. Obama announced that illegals will pay taxes, however vast majority of them are indigent, have large families, have low income jobs, which means, that most of them will not pay any taxes but will actually get tax credits paid to them, which is further theft of taxpayer dollars.
These but a few ways in which taxpayers are affected by Obama’s pronounced executive order.
According to Stephen Moore, Chief Economist at Heritage Foundation, taxpayers will lose yearly tens of billions of dollars. According to Charles Payne, financial analyst for FOX news, if Obama defers deportation of 5 million illegals, the ultimate cost to taxpayers will be 6 trillion.
Additionally, reinvigorated stampede of illegal aliens will mean more crime and more infectious diseases brought into this country, which will further place her as a health care provider at risk.
Due to the fact that this executive order affects the plaintiff, she is seeking an order by the court ordering Defendant Obama to produce to the court this specific executive order with full wording, which explains specific steps Obama is seeking to undertake and explains under which legal and constitutional authority, is he issuing such an order.
BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS IS IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF
OBAMA’S CLAIM OF PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION IS OF NO MERIT
Obama claims that he has prosecutorial discretion to shield millions of illegal aliens from deportation and grant them work permits. There is no basis to such assertion.
“Contrary to contention that President had “inherent” power to be exercised in public interest, the president’s power to issue Executive Order directing Secretary of Commerce to take possession of plants of steel companies involved in labor dispute would have to stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer Supreme Court of the United States June 2, 1952343 U.S. 57972 S.Ct. 86330 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2172
This very court in US v Nava Martinez wrote that one cannot claim prosecutorial discretion in flagrantly not following the law or outright engaging in illegal actions:
“…Finally,theCourtisawarethatprosecutorsandlawenforcementofficers,includingthose hereontheborder,frequentlyusetheirdiscretiontodefertheprosecutionorarrestofindividuals. ThisCourtisnotopposedtotheconceptofprosecutorialdiscretion,ifthatdiscretionisexercised withasenseofjusticeandcommonsense. Nevertheless, itisnotawareofanyacceptedlegal principle, including prosecutorial discretion, that not only allows the Government to decline prosecution,butfurtherallowsittoactuallycompletetheintendedcriminalmission. TheDHS shouldenforcethelawsoftheUnitedStates-notbreakthem.” 13-cr-00441 US v Nava-Martinez USDC Southern District of TX.
Obama’s argument that he has prosecutorial discretion not to deport millions of illegals, is as reasonable and sae as an argument of a district attorney, who states that he will use a prosecutorial discretion and will not prosecute all thieves, robbers, burglars and rapists because he wants to concentrate on other crimes. Such dereliction of duty and violation of an oath of office to defend and protect the Constitution, represents treason against the constitution and violation of civil rights of victims of crimes under the color of authority, which is a criminal offense in itself punishable by incarceration. When millions of illegals are illegally shielded from deportation and given permits, this represents a Clear violation of civil rights of the taxpayers under 18 USC 242, as these taxpayers are deprived of their due process right under 5th and 14th Amendment of the US Constitution, they are deprived of millions of taxpayer dollars without any due process and in case of the plaintiff herein, she was not only deprived of her taxpayer dollars, but also of her health.
Obama does not have either constitutional authority or a congressional consent to violate current immigration laws or change current immigration laws or make up immigration laws for millions of people. As such, Obama and secretaries of departments, who are following his orders, cannot show any harm if the stay is granted, as they never had any authority to either issue or implemental an unlawful executive orders in the first place.
REQUESTED STAY BENEFITS PUBLIC POLICY AND PUBLIC INTERESTS
Jeff Sessions, incoming Chair of Senate Budget Committee, as well as former US Attorney and former Attorney General of Alabama best described the benefit of such a stay for the public in general:
“On Election Day, Americans roared in protest against the President’s open-borders extremism. They rallied behind candidates who will defend the rule of law and put the needs of American workers and families first.
Exit polls were unequivocal. More than 3 in 4 voters cited immigration as an important factor in their vote, believed that U.S. workers should get priority for jobs, and opposed the President’s plans for executive amnesty. These voters were right and just in their demands.
But President Obama made clear that he would attempt to void the election results—and our laws—by moving forward with his executive amnesty decree.
This decree would operate much like his unlawful “Deferred Action”: conferring work permits, photo IDs, and Social Security numbers to millions of individuals illegally present in the U.S.—allowing them to take jobs and benefits directly from struggling American workers. It is a scheme the Congress has explicitly refused to pass.
The President will arrogate to himself the sole and absolute power to decide who can work in the U.S., who can live in the U.S., and who can claim benefits in the U.S.—by the millions. His actions will wipe out the immigration protections to which every single American citizen is lawfully entitled. And his actions will ensure—as law enforcement officers have cried out in repeated warnings—a “tidal wave” of new illegal immigration.
He must be stopped…. Obama’s immigration orders will have a crushing impact on the jobs, wages, schools, hospitals, police departments, and communities of our constituents. The consequences will be swift, profound, and catastrophic…. We cannot yield to open borders. We cannot let one executive edict erase the immigration laws of an entire nation. If we believe America is a sovereign country, with enforceable boundaries, and a duty to protect its own people, then we have no choice but to fight and to win.” https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/no-surrender-on-immigration-112766.html#ixzz3ItGrXYUV
Prayer for relief:
1. Order to defendant Obama to produce a true and correct copy of the Presidential executive order, which allegedly was issued on November 20, 2014 and signed by Defendant Obama on November 21, 2014, which grants legal status and work permits to as many as five million illegal aliens and which was issued without any congressional authorization.
2. Order of STAY to Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security, defendant herein, from issuance of any work permits, visas or any other identification, immigration and legal status documents to any and all illegal aliens until alleged executive order, authorizing such actions, is produced to the court by the Defendant Obama and deemed by the court as valid, legal and constitutional.
3. Order of STAY to be issued to Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health an human Services, defendant herein, instructing her to stay issuance of Social Security cards to any and all illegal aliens until this court receives the executive order in question and deems it valid, legal and constitutional.
- A declaratory order that any and all grants of amnesty, legal status, Social Security cards and work permits by the President without congressional authorization, are null and void, illegal and unconstitutional.
5. Permanent Injunction barring President Obama from issuing any orders legalizing illegal aliens, granting Social Security cards and work permits to illegal aliens without express Congressional authorization.
6. Permanent injunction barring Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security and Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services from issuing any identification and/or immigration documents to illegals aliens pursuant to executive orders, which were not authorized by the US Congress.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Dr. Orly Taitz, ESQ
11.24.2014
[1]
Video and Transcript: Obama’s immigration speech
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-obamas-immigration-speech/2014/11/20/14ba8042-7117-11e4-893f-86bd390a3340_story.html
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release November 20, 2014
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Immigration
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/20/remarks-president-address-nation-immigration
Obama’s Speech: NBC’s New York Station Thumbs Nose At Network And Carries POTUS; Other Stations Follow Suit
https://deadline.com/2014/11/obama-immigration-primetime-speech-tv-networks-1201291124/
Comments
21 Responses to “Press release: Judge to rule on petition ordering Obama to produce the executive order, which cannot be found and the court to rule on constitutionality on Obama’s immigration order”
Leave a Reply
EVIDENCE AGAINST OBAMA — YouTube Indiana Trial of Obama !
Petition the White House to institute Edward Snowden, National Whistleblower – Patriots against Government Corruption Day
OrlyTaitzEsq.comTAITZ REPORT
Official Facebook
IMPORTANT NOTICES – PLEASE READ!
Historic DVD Now Available!
DVD of the historic trial in GA and DVD of a historic testimony in NH, where evidence was provided showing Obama using a forged birth certificate and a stolen social security number. The DVDs are in a beautiful commemorative case with personal autographs from attorney Dr. Orly Taitz $22.50 each +$2.50 for shipping and handling.
---------
To order these DVDs, donate $25.00 by credit card on the website RunOrlyRun.com and email orly.taitz@gmail.com with you name and address. Or send a $25.00 check with your name and address to: Orly Taitz for US Senate 2012, 29839 Santa Margarita ste 100, RSM, CA 92688.
Advertisement / Sponsors
29839 Sta Margarita Pkwy,
Ste 100
Rancho Sta Margarita, CA 92688
orly.taitz @gmail. com
(949) 766-7687
--------------------------------------
Videography by Barbara Rosenfeld
--------------------------------------
Bumper Sticker
$9.99 thru PayPal--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------Orly Taitz Photo Collections
November 25th, 2014 @ 8:04 am
Does RMinNC have this right? People have been scouring the Internet in search of Obama’s Executive Order on Immigration, with no joy. They have been unable to find a copy of the Executive Order because NO such Executive Order actually exists.
Amnesty by Executive Action?
The American people were given the FALSE impression that Barack Obama was signing an EXECUTIVE ORDER providing amnesty for an estimated 4 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States.
Presidential Executive Orders are designed for emergency circumstances wherein there is no time for congressional action, the circumstance falls under the legal authority of the Oval Office, and the order is designed to carry out the duties of the Federal government under the U.S. Constitution and existing U.S. laws.
In the case of Obama’s recent Executive Action, THE ACTION IS NOT WITHIN THE LEGAL AUTHORITY OF THE OVAL OFFICE, it is not the result of any emergency circumstance of the United States, and it is not designed to carry out the sworn duties of the Federal government under the United States Constitution or U.S. laws. In fact, it is designed to subvert the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws governing immigration and naturalization.
As a result, Barack Obama did NOT issue an Executive Order. Instead, he used what is called EXECUTIVE ACTION, which has no force of law behind it, whatsoever. In doing so, Obama acted under “the color of office” to openly subvert and circumvent U.S. law.
November 25th, 2014 @ 8:38 am
Doesn’t this just delay your case?
November 25th, 2014 @ 10:03 am
no
November 25th, 2014 @ 11:35 am
Well, from what I see on the Federal Register Web Page ( https://www.federalregister.gov/executive-orders/barack-obama/2014 ) There is a lag of three to eight days between the signing of an Executive Order and the publication of it.
November 25th, 2014 @ 1:31 pm
Very well done Orly. Keep the heat on. It is on the record now. Your website makes that record available around the world. The hackers and liberal office holders can never extinguish all the copies. You are doing what the politicians can’t or won’t do because of co-opted voter bases, many of whom never new what hit them until it was too late to stop. Thanks to our biased media who misinformed and covered up for their personal agendas.
November 25th, 2014 @ 3:13 pm
Cant wait to find out what the Benghazzi probe results in?
LETS PLAY ORLYJEOPARDY…
Hopefully it will come out before Christmas holiday since Issa was too busy on too many committees…
Alex I take “What I want for Christmas is who said “Stand down 3 times..”
The question is a daily double: Look at these three photos and name the 3 who possibly said stand down…
What is “Bilary Clinton, Valarie J. and Barry Soetorah?
You advance to the Bonus Round..
https://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/John-Boehner-Benghazi-terrorist-attacks/2014/11/25/id/609477/
House Speaker John Boehner has vowed to go ahead with a special panel to probe the Benghazi attacks even though a new Republican-led report claims there was no attempt at a cover-up by the White House.
Boehner said a select committee headed by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina will still investigate the terror attacks in Libya on Sept. 11, 2012, that killed Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, according to The Wall Street Journal.
“The American people still have far too many questions about what happened that night and why,” Boehner said in a statement. “I look forward to the definitive report Chairman Gowdy and the select committee will present to the American people.”
November 25th, 2014 @ 3:43 pm
BONUS ROUND OF ORLY JEOPARDY
Alex I wager all..
Based on breaking events, name the person who told Gov Nixon to stand down Natl Guard Troops…
Do do do do do do do. Do do do do do da do do do. Do do do do do do do. Do. Do do do. Do. Do do.
Contestant Number One:
Gov Nixon: What is Barry Soetorah.
Contestant Number Two:
Grand Jury: What is Barry Soetorah.
Contestant Number Three:
Eric Holder: What is we still have the opportunity for federal charges. This is not over…
BREAKING NEWS:
OFFICIAL: OBAMA ORDERED NATIONAL GUARD STAND-DOWN DURING FERGUSON RIOTS
Missouri Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder makes stunning claim
https://www.infowars.com/did-obama-order-national-guard-to-stand-down-during-ferguson-riots/
November 25th, 2014 @ 5:11 pm
Soebarkah & Holder ordered Governor Nixon to keep the National Guard out of Ferguson last night. Why? The only logical answer is that they wanted what happened last night to occur.
November 25th, 2014 @ 6:46 pm
Orly, I hope the force will be with you.
This was only the beginning; look what is coming next:
Obamacare offers U.S. firms $3,000 incentive to hire illegals over native-born workers
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/25/obama-amnesty-obamacare-clash-businesses-have-3000/
November 25th, 2014 @ 8:13 pm
Fact sheet ..immigration accountability executive action.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/20/fact-sheet-immigration-accountability-executive-action
November 25th, 2014 @ 9:12 pm
President Obama’s executive action on immigration is making headlines, but do you know what an executive action is?
The president’s decisions on immigration are making headlines all over the country. Before we get to the details of the president’s immigration plan, lets clear something up.
You’ve heard the terms executive order and executive action being thrown around. They are NOT the same thing. An executive order is a legally binding order given by the President. The order has the same legal weight as laws passed by Congress. Executive orders have been used by every executive since George Washington.
But executive actions are informal proposals or moves by the president. Most carry no legal weight. Those that do carry legal weight, like these immigration actions, can be undone by legislation passes by congress. Executive actions are not very common in most presidencies.
https://www.wfmynews2.com/story/news/local/2-wants-to-know/2014/11/21/2wtk-executive-order-action-immigration/19364547/
November 26th, 2014 @ 6:39 am
I see the NY Times now issued a correction at the bottom stating:
“Correction: November 26, 2014
An article on Monday about reaction in Silicon Valley to President Obama’s immigration policy misstated the legal authority Mr. Obama used to propose changes on immigration. They are executive actions, not an executive order. The error was repeated in the headline.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/technology/workers-in-silicon-valley-weigh-in-on-obamas-immigration-order.html?_r=0
November 26th, 2014 @ 7:10 am
Nor can the judge rule on the constitutionality of something you claim doesn’t exist
November 26th, 2014 @ 7:28 am
Mrs. Taitz, Obama/Soetoro NEVER Issued an Executive Order… On November 21st, HE DID Issue TWO MEMOs’ to All Government Agencies Dealing With HIS Immigration Wish List.
Here Is The White House Web Site Listing These Actions, The Guy Is A Criminal, Hands Down.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions
November 26th, 2014 @ 8:13 am
I think he tried to make the people think there was an executive order to get the leaders of ICE and other agencies to execute what he wanted done and if confronted there would not be any “wrong doing ” on his part that would justify impeacment for treason
November 26th, 2014 @ 8:26 am
well, first, we need to know if this executive order exists
November 26th, 2014 @ 8:28 am
a memo is not a law
what is the legal basis for
November 26th, 2014 @ 8:49 am
well, 6 days passed
November 26th, 2014 @ 8:50 am
you are right. As always, he covers his behind from criminal prosecution while using others to do his dirty job
November 30th, 2014 @ 2:16 pm
https://www.nationalreview.com/media-blog/337949/executive-order-vs-executive-action-and-media-hypocrisy-greg-pollowitz
September 2nd, 2015 @ 4:04 am
Guys, I found this awesome mobile real estate app that runs all the metrics for properties and tells you which properties are a good buy and which ones are not. It is called realbench, just go to google and search for REALBENCH REAL ESTATE APPLICATION it will be the first result to come up, or go to the apple store (iPhone) or google play (other phones) and type REALBENCH.