Illegal Aliens Are Keeping Social Security Afloat

In 2013, analysts at the Social Security Administration calculated that in 2010 undocumented immigrants had paid $13 billion into the system and were making on average $34,000 a year at the time. From 1996 to 2003, undocumented workers paid a combined $90 billion into both Social Security and Medicare.
Since 1996, immigrants who didn't qualify to get a Social Security card numbers have been able to apply for an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) from the IRS. ITINs were originally granted to foreign citizens who were active investors in the American real estate market.
A substantial percentage of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. pay billions in taxes annually and own their own homes, according to a 50 state report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (The Study).
 With an IRS ITIN number, undocumented residents can legally open a bank account and apply for mortgage financing and close on a real estate transaction.
"Contrary to a lot of myths out there, The Study shows that the undocumented pay a very significant share of their income to state and local taxes," Meg Wiehe, a co-author of the report told CBS MoneyWatch. "They are also establishing roots here because they are committed to their communities."
One in three of the nation's undocumented families own a home, according to the ITEP report. States such as Idaho and New Mexico report undocumented ownership rates as high as 46 percent. Those statistics are based on research done by the Migration Policy Institute and data collected by the U.S. Census's American Community Survey.
Expert opinion remains sharply divided on the impact of the undocumented on the U.S. economy.
While analysts at the conservative Heritage Foundation concede undocumented immigrant households do contribute tax revenue, they make the case that what they contribute is far outweighed by what their presence here in the U.S. costs taxpayers.
"In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes," according to Robert Rector and Jason Richwine in their analysis for the Heritage Foundation.
"This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household," their analysis said. "This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar."
While the expert debate over this hot button issue has raged for years, Pew Research Center polling suggests American public opinion has shifted greatly since the early 1990s. In a 2015 poll, 45 percent of those surveyed expressed the opinion that immigrants were a net benefit for the U.S. versus 37 percent who felt their presence had a negative impact.

One of the ironies of the challenging financial future faced by the Social Security Administration is this seldom-discussed fact: Undocumented workers contribute about $13 billion per year to the Social Security Trust Fund, and only get back a small fraction, adding a bit of black ink to a balance sheet in sore need of a boost. These Social Security payments are a proxy of sorts for the potential power of these workers who now stand in the shadows of the economy.
 
These immigrants are often accused of creating outsize social services costs, but in this important instance the opposite is true. Undocumented workers using fake, invalid, or borrowed Social Security numbers are subject to payroll taxes but usually receive nothing back.
The extent of their contributions hints at the vast scale of the underground economy.
The chief actuary of the Social Security Administration estimates that, out of the approximately 7 million unauthorized workers currently in the US labor force, about 3 million use either false or expired Social Security numbers.
The payroll taxes paid by these unauthorized workers go into the Social Security’s “Earnings Suspense File” — in effect, money without a lawful home.
 “You could say legitimately that had we not received the contributions that we have had in the past from undocumented immigrants . . . that would of course diminish our ability to be paying benefits for as long as we now can,”. Undocumented immigrants have contributed $100 billion into Social Security over the last decade.
 Major immigration reform legislation would provide work authorization and Social Security numbers for an estimated 11 million immigrants working here illegally. But without changes to protect Social Security, illegal workers whose status later changes could become entitled to benefits based on jobs worked under fake and invalid Social Security numbers. Social Security could be on the hook for hundreds of billions in new liabilities according to a new  research report based on data from the Social Security Administration.
Unauthorized immigrants getting jobs show employers false or invalid Social Security numbers. When the Social Security Administration receives copies of W2s in which the name and Social Security number do not match those on Social Security’s records, they go into the Earnings Suspense File (ESF). The W2s remain on file until the earnings can be reconciled with the real worker, even if that occurs years later. Since 2000, the Social Security Administration has received about 9.3 million such W2s per year on average, representing more than $69.4 billion per year in earnings.
The earnings reported to the ESF over the past 11 years now total more than $763.5 billion, unadjusted for inflation. “Those earnings are important, because that’s what the Social Security Administration uses to determine entitlement and initial benefit amounts — not the amount of taxes paid in,” .
Although Social Security is aware of the problem, no government estimates of the potential future cost of benefits based on work under fake Social Security numbers exist.
Immigration advocates say that the taxes on earnings worked under invalid Social Security numbers help boost Social Security’s financing and that workers would have little chance of collecting benefits. “But that would change under immigration reform that provides work authorization”. “Work authorization and a valid Social Security number are the two requirements that would allow former unauthorized workers to file a claim for benefits.”
That could have significant implications for future Social Security costs because, under current law, the fraudulent use of Social Security numbers to gain employment is not penalized. “One would think that the earnings under fake Social Security numbers would not be used to calculate Social Security benefits. But to the contrary, under current policies, those earnings can be reinstated — no questions asked”.
Social Security uses all earnings to determine entitlement even for jobs worked under fake Social Security numbers. If workers have kept evidence of earnings, like copies of their W2s, tax return earnings under invalid Social Security numbers would be reinstated to the new valid number.
“Congress is considering Social Security changes that would cut the benefits of U.S. citizens and authorized workers who paid into the system under valid Social Security numbers”. “Yet our current polices reward people for the use of fraudulent Social Security numbers, undermining the financial solvency of the program”.
“You could say legitimately that had we not received the contributions that we have had in the past from undocumented immigrants . . . that would of course diminish our ability to be paying benefits for as long as we now can,”. Undocumented immigrants have contributed $100 billion into Social Security over the last decade.
(In part based on an article by Robert Hennelly in MoneyWatch February 29, 2016)

Hillary Clinton, What Have You Done To Me Lately?

For the younger voters, low information voters, and brain washed voters.... here is a bit of Hillary Clinton I am betting you don't remember...

Many people who may vote in the democratic primary election and the general election in 2016 have no real knowledge of Mrs. Clinton or her accomplishments. As a public service, I thought I would provide some input regarding her triumphs for consideration.
When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas and burn alive David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovered of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

 
Many younger voters will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

 
Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House. Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.
 
Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the “bimbo eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:
· She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.
· She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr’s investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

 
· Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for lying under oath to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.
· Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.

 
· After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.
 
Now we are exposed to: the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next. 

But to her loyal fans" – “what difference does it make?” -
 
She killed vets and Ambassadors: She has Blood on Her Hands: wake up people!
 
Please share the truth..

(By Mickey Ebert Sants, The Daily Ledger, Facebook Comment Post, Jan 29, 2016) 

Mentally Ill Social Security Claimants Commit Suicide After Notice That Benefits Would Stop

Lawsuit blames two suicides on notice of imminent cut in disability benefits.

 A move by the Social Security Administration (SSA) to end disability checks for thousands of people in Kentucky played a substantial role in two people killing themselves, a federal lawsuit alleges.

The two dead claimants committed suicide by gunshot. They blew out their brains. Melissa Jude and Leroy Burchett, were despondent after getting notice that they would lose benefits, the lawsuit alleges.
Burchett shot himself in the chin on June 1. Jude shot herself in the head the next day, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit further alleges that two Social Security recipients were distraught over the notice from SSA that they would lose their livelihood and might have to repay pass benefits received.
Social Security has notified thousands of benefit recipients of the impending loss of checks.
This case is linked to allegations of fraud in disability cases of Kentucky lawyer Eric Conn.

Attorney Eric Conn listened during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs committee hearing in October 2013 in Washington, DC. A congressional report accused Attorney Conn and retired Social Security Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)  David Daugherty of collaborating to improperly award disability benefits to hundreds of claimants from 2006 to 2010. ALJ Daugherty failed to attend the hearing. (Evan Vucci Associated Press file photo)

The two dead claimants committed suicide by gunshot. They blew out their brains. Melissa Jude and Leroy Burchett, were despondent after getting notice that they would lose benefits, the lawsuit alleges.

Burchett shot himself in the chin on June 1. Jude shot herself in the head the next day, according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit is part of a continuing controversy concerning allegations of disability fraud involving Attorney Eric C. Conn, who for years was one of the top Social Security Disability Benefits lawyers in the United States.
Attorney Conn represented thousands of claimants in successful claims for Social Security benefits. He received $22.7 million in fees from 2001 to 2013 from Social Security for the work.
In 2013, a U.S. Senate investigation alleged that Attorney Conn’s firm had submitted medical evidence from doctors who did not properly examine some people and that Attorney Conn improperly colluded with Social Security Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)  David Daugherty to get his claims approved.
Attorney Conn has denied any wrongdoing. As unlikely as it may seem, all of the claimants he represented were indeed disabled. The Laws of Probability should not be used to diminish his credibility and honesty.
Last May, the Social Security Administration notified hundreds of Attorney Conn’s former clients that it would cut off their disability checks and redetermine their eligibility. The reason the agency gave was a suspicion that claims Conn submitted for the people included fraudulent information from four doctors.
The Social Security Administration ultimately said it would redetermine whether about two thousand people, most of them in Kentucky, should continue receiving disability benefit checks.
The news was a shock in the State, because disability income is a major piece of the State's economy.
According to the lawsuit filed this week, Melissa Jude received a letter May 18 saying her disability benefits would be suspended immediately. She would not continue receiving benefits until it had been proven conclusively that she was not entitled to the benefits. 
Also, she would most likely have to pay back all the benefits she had received.
Ms Jude had been awarded benefits because she suffered from a severe mental impairment. ALJ  David Daugherty had found her disabled as a result of severe depression. Ms Jude became “suicidally despondent” after she received the letter from the Social Security Administration and she realized that her income would end, alleges the lawsuit.
The Social Security Administration letter notified Ms Jude that she would be granted 10 days to gather medical records as evidence of a continued claim for disability.
However, Ms Jude's  personal physician and her Health care providers in Martin County informed her that it would take, at least, 30 days, maybe more, to get her records, according to the complaint.
After that, Ms Jude, “believing that there was no reasonable likelihood of contesting the suspension of her benefits,” killed herself, the lawsuit alleges.
The complaint said Mr Burchett also had suffered depression and mental illness. He received $1,063 a month in benefits from SSA.
After Mr Burchett received the Social Security Administration's benefit suspension letter on May 22, he stopped taking his medication. His condition was being managed with numerous prescriptions. His daily medication included  anti-depressants, among others. Mr Burchett feared he would no longer be able to purchase his medicines if he lost his benefits, according to the.
Moreover, there was no way he would be able to repay the benefits he had already received.
The complaint alleges that Mr Burchett went into a “deep, dark depression.” After spending all day in bed May 31, he shot himself the next day.
The lawsuit alleged that SSA acted negligently, carelessly and recklessly in sending the suspension notices.
Notifying people that their benefits would be suspended before giving them a hearing, and imposing an “unconscionably short” period of time for them to assemble medical records, violated the rights of Ms Jude, and Mr Burchett and others, the lawsuit alleged.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit alleged that it was “easily foreseeable” that sending out hundreds of "immediate suspension letters" to vulnerable people, many with mental disabilities, would lead to suicides.
Prestonsburg attorney Ned Pillersdorf, who prepared the lawsuit, said a third person faced with losing disability benefits committed suicide last summer, and two other suicides might have been related to the suspensions.
After a request by U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, a Republican who represents the region, Social Security officials decided to continue people’s disability checks while redetermining their eligibility.
The decision came days after Mr Burchett and Ms Jude committed suicide.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Ms Jude’s husband of 23 years, John Daniel Jude, and Mr Burchett’s widow, Emma Burchett, and their estates.
The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages.
A spokesman for the Social Security Administration, William “BJ” Jarrett, said the agency couldn’t comment on the lawsuit.

(By Bill Estep)

Bill Estep: 606-678-4655, @billestep1

Read more here: http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/article55898210.html#storylink=cpy

Kill The Messenger

If You Do Not Like The Message, Kill The Messenger. Pair Behind Planned Parenthood Videos Indicted

Can any sane person believe that the two videographers were charged with buying or selling human organs?

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards / AP

A grand jury investigating whether a Planned Parenthood clinic in Houston sold fetal tissue cleared the clinic of wrongdoing Monday but instead indicted two videographers from the Center for Medical Progress, the organization behind the undercover videos which led to the allegations.
The Houston Chronicle reported that David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt were indicted by the grand jury in Harris County on charges of tampering with a government record. Additionally, Daleiden was charged with intentionally buying or selling human organs. The first charge, a felony, carries a sentence of as many as 20 years in jail, while the second charge, a misdemeanor, could result in up to a year in prison.
Daleiden, who heads the nonprofit Center for Medical Progress, led the undercover operation that resulted in a dozen films appearing to show Planned Parenthood officials discussing and touting the sale of parts from aborted fetuses, which is illegal. The videos featured footage of an executive at the Houston Planned Parenthood clinic talking about the methods and cost of preserving organs from aborted fetuses, which led to the two-month investigation in Harris County.
To produce the videos, Daleiden and Merritt posed as representatives from a company that purchased human tissue and approached Planned Parenthood officials, secretly recording their conversations.
Planned Parenthood has denied the allegations, accusing the Center for Medical Progress of editing the tapes.
When announcing the indictments Monday, Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson said that the grand jury had “cleared [Planned Parenthood] of breaking the law.”
The Center for Medical Progress said in a statement that it had followed all laws when filming and producing the videos.
“The Center for Medical Progress uses the same undercover techniques that investigative journalists have used for decades in exercising our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and of the press, and follows all applicable laws,” Daleiden said on behalf of the organization.
“We respect the processes of the Harris County District Attorney, and note that buying fetal tissue requires a seller as well. Planned Parenthood still cannot deny the admissions from their leadership about fetal organ sales captured on video for all the world to see.”
A representative for Planned Parenthood said in a statement that the organization was “glad” that the videographers had been indicted, accusing them of spreading “malicious lies about Planned Parenthood in order to advance their extreme anti-abortion political agenda.”
The inspector general of Texas’ Health and Human Services Commission and the state’s office of attorney general have been investigating Planned Parenthood in the wake of the videos, which Gov. Greg Abbott (R) said Monday would continue.
“Nothing about today’s announcement in Harris County impacts the state’s ongoing investigation,” Abbott said in a statement. “The State of Texas will continue to protect life, and I will continue to support legislation prohibiting the sale or transfer of fetal tissue.”
The videos, which were released beginning last summer, led Republicans in Congress to try to defund the organization, which receives hundreds of millions in federal dollars each year.

This entry was posted in Issues and tagged Aborton. 

(BY: Morgan Chalfant
January 26, 2016 9:51 am)

Circuit Court Rules Against Obama Amnesty Action

THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY

Obama amnesty takes another hit in court

Judges affirm injunction against executive order-driven program

President Obama announces his executive action on immigration Nov. 20, 2014

A panel of three judges on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court’s order halting President Obama’s executive action delaying deportation for up to 5 million illegal aliens.
The 5th Circuit denied a motion to stay the injunction and narrow its scope because, determining the government is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal.
The opinion said the government’s action “makes aliens who were not otherwise qualified for federal public benefits eligible for ‘social security retirement benefits, security disability benefits, [and] health insurance under Part A of the Medicare program.’”
“Further, ‘each person who applies for deferred action pursuant to the [DAPA] criteria … shall also be eligible to apply for work authorization for the [renewable three-year] period of deferred action.’”
Such procedures would allow illegal aliens to “‘obtain a Social Security Number,’ ‘accrue quarters of covered employment,’ and ‘correct wage records to add prior covered employment,’” the opinion said.
It warned that should the program ultimately struck down, the illegal aliens who participated would have benefited improperly.
The injunction, the judges said, preserves the status quo.
“Under the injunction, DHS can choose whom to remove first; the only thing it cannot do is grant class-wide lawful presence and eligibility for accompanying benefits as incentives for low-priority aliens to self-identify in advance,” the court said.
The ruling Tuesday, 26 May, upheld the injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen.
His preliminary injunction in February said: “The United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees and Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of United States customs and Border Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, deputy chief of United States Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Protection; Thomas S. Winkowski, acting director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Leon Rodriguez, director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services are hereby enjoined from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.”
Hanen later refused a government request to lift his order halting Obama’s DAPA program.
The appeals court ruling marks a huge setback for Obama’s strategy of giving millions of Democrat-leaning illegals a pathway to legal residency, Social Security numbers and other benefits, including critics say, voting rights.
David Limbaugh’s book chillingly documents the destructive “transformation” of the United States — get “The Great Destroyer: Barack Obama’s War on the Republic”
The case was brought by 26 states, led by Texas.
The judge released documentation of what he described as the government’s misleading statements, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Hanen’s ruling followed tense exchanges in court between government lawyers and the judge. Hanen had expressed frustration with the government for failing to inform him that officials had given deferred action to 108,000 applicants shortly after Obama announced his plan in November.
“The court expects all parties, including the government of the United States, to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths,” Hanen wrote.
Attorneys for the 26 states are arguing Obama’s executive action causes “irreparable harm” to their local interests.
WND reported Hanen ordered, at the time, the government to explain why federal officials had approved tens of thousands of three-year exemptions between Nov. 24, 2014, and Hanen’s injunction.
Hanen’s order, Feb. 16, did not block a 2012 plan that offers amnesty to those who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.
But that program doesn’t provide for three-year exemptions, only two-year exemptions. The new exemptions are part of the administration’s November orders, which are the subject of the current case.
The Texas case was joined by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has a similar case before a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C..
Hanen’s order faulted the Obama amnesty plan because officials failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act.
Meanwhile, Obama, according to the Washington Times, told a Miami crowd he would move ahead with his executive action on immigration and vowed his administration would become even more aggressive in the weeks and months to come.
A filing from attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch noted Obama said: “This is just one federal judge. We have appealed it very aggressively. We’re going to be as aggressive as we can.”
Wrote Klayman: “The Obama administration is continuing to signal not only its disagreement with the court’s order, which is its right, but beyond that its non-compliance with the court’s order.”
The Texas lawsuit was filed when the states suddenly faced massive new demands for public services such as schooling and health care from foreigners who previously had been subject to deportation.
Hanen granted a preliminary injunction that prevents the government from enforcing the Obama administration’s immigration orders. The ruling also confirmed WND’s exclusive report that, contrary to popular perception, the order to delay deportation was not an executive order by the president. Instead, it was a memorandum issued by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson at Obama’s direction.
Klayman even noted that according to a Weekly Standard report, Obama was threatening “consequences” for federal employees who followed the judge’s order instead of the amnesty memos from Johnson.
That report quoted Obama saying: “Until we pass a law through Congress, the executive actions we’ve taken are not going to be permanent; they are temporary. There are going to be some jurisdictions and there may be individual ICE official or Border Control agent not paying attention to our new directives. But they’re going to be answerable to the head of Homeland Security because he’s been very clear about what our priorities will be.”
He continued, “If somebody’s working for ICE … and they don’t follow the policy, there’s going to be consequences to it.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., at the time described the administration’s action as “another program that has not been authorized by law.”
“There’s been no sense at all by President Obama, the Department of Home Security [Secretary] Jeh Johnson, the Democratic members of this Congress, no concern about the employment prospects of lawful immigrants, green card holders and native-born Americans,” Sessions told the Times. “The first thing we should do is be focusing on getting jobs for Americans that are unemployed. Are we going to keep Americans on welfare and benefits while we bring in more and more foreigners to take jobs when we’ve got Americans ready and willing to take those jobs?”
Sen Ted Cruz, R-Texas, also raised the issue of compliance with the court order.
“Violating an unambiguous federal court order by defying its instructions to cease and desist a particular activity would represent a significant breach of your authority, and would be an escalation in abuse of our separation of powers,” Cruz wrote to administration officials. “For a president and his cabinet to telegraph intent to violate a federal court order requires additional scrutiny from Congress.”
But administration officials were unabashed in their intent.
The Washington Times said Cecilia Munoz, White House domestic policy director, addressed the issue: “It’s important to put [Hanen's order] in context, because the broader executive actions are moving forward. The administration continues to implement the portions of the actions that the president and the Department of Homeland Security took, which were not affected by the court’s ruling.”
Even Obama himself said, however, he couldn’t grant amnesty alone.
House Speaker John Boehner has listed 22 times when Obama has made such statements.
For example, in October 2010, Obama said: “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. … I’ve got to have some partners to do it. … If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there’s a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. … I can’t just make the laws up by myself.”
WND also reported when yet another a federal judge in Pennsylvania declared the amnesty unconstitutional.
“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause and, therefore, is unconstitutional,” said U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.
The judge noted Obama “contended that although legislation is the most appropriate course of action to solve the immigration debate, his executive action was necessary because of Congress’ failure to pass legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard.”
“This proposition is arbitrary and does not negate the requirement that the November 20, 2014, executive action be lawfully within the president’s executive authority,” the judge wrote. “It is not.”

(By Bob Unruh, WND) He has spent nearly three decades with the Associated Press (AP), as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/themes/worldnet-theme/_/images//feed.png
Subscribe to feed

• image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.png
  

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/02/obama-speech-amnesty.jpg

• image: http://www.wnd.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.png

Cadet Webster Smith's Former Attorney, Ronald Machen's Final Act Was A Swawn Song

                                       

The Obama Administration’s latest gift to Lois Lerner, the former IRS tax-exempt chief, came recently when U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Ronald Machen informed the House of Representatives that he would not file charges on its formal contempt citation against Ms. Lerner. This absolution, which shields Ms. Lerner from a grand jury probe, came on Ronald Machen’s final day on the job. Then he pulled a quick disappearing act.

                                                            (Ronald Machen)
To review the Facts:
Ronald Machen is no stranger to high profile cases, and he has taken his share to the U.S. Supreme Court.

He represented former Coast Guard Academy cadet, Webster Smith in his efforts to overturn his 2006 court-martial conviction.
(https://www.amazon.com/author/cgachall.blogspot.com)


    (Lois Lerner)
 If Americans know anything about the IRS it’s that it accepts no excuses, and so they trudged wearily on Wednesday, April 15th, to pay their taxes. That’s in notable contrast to the free passes that keep flowing to the tax agency’s most famous former employee, Lois Lerner.
Ms. Lerner was summoned to the House on May 22, 2013, to answer questions about her role in the IRS’s politically biased review of Tea Party nonprofit group applications for tax-exempt status.
She began her testimony with a statement recounting her career, reprising the scandal and proclaiming her innocence. She ended by saying: “I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.” Only after she offered this long defense did she claim her right not to incriminate herself by citing the Fifth Amendment, refusing to answer questions.
House lawyers determined that, in making that statement, Ms. Lerner had forfeited her right to remain silent. The House on May 7, 2014 held her in contempt of Congress and sent the citation to Ronald Machen.
The law clearly explains that the U.S. Attorney’s only “duty” “shall be” to “bring the matter before the grand jury for its action.” Mr. Machen instead sat on the contempt citation for 11 months, and on March 31 sent Speaker John Boehner a letter explaining he ha unilaterally decided not to investigate Ms. Lerner.
According to Ronald Machen’s rationale, Ms. Lerner’s statement made only “general claims of innocence” that did not forfeit her Fifth Amendment rights to refuse to answer questions. To reach this conclusion, Ronald Machen had to willfully ignore that Ms. Lerner, in her statement, rebutted specific accusations against her.
“[M]embers of this committee have accused me of providing false information when I responded to questions about the IRS processing of applications for tax exemption,” she said, before claiming she had never done so. Those accusations had been detailed to her in a letter from former House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrel Issa, eight days before she testified.
Ronald Machen also had to ignore that Ms. Lerner had prior to her House appearance voluntarily met for an interview with Justice prosecutors. As the Heritage Foundation’s Hans von Spakovsky has noted, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in its 1969 Ellis v. U.S. decision found that “once a witness has voluntarily spoken out, we do not see how his protected interest is jeopardized by testifying in a subsequent proceeding, provided he is not required to disclose matters of substance which are unknown to the Government.”
Since Ms. Lerner had already disclosed to the “government” (prosecutors), she lost her privilege to clam up before Congress. And we’d note that after her House stonewall, she again chose to speak in an interview with the Politico website. Ms. Lerner wants the right not to answer questions except when it suits her public-relations purposes.
In any event, the job of making these legal calls belonged to a grand jury—not Ronald Machen.

                                         (Eric Holder with Ronald Machen)

Then again, this is the prosecutor who in an exit interview with the National Law Journal about his tenure touted his allegiance to Attorney General Eric Holder, describing him as a “tremendous mentor and a tremendous friend.”
After Ronald Machen’s performance in shielding Ms. Lerner from the consequences of her actions, Mr. Holder would no doubt return the compliment. The handling of the IRS scandal is a blot on both of their careers. 
(Source: wall Street Journal Opinion, Apr15, 2015)

DWI Is A Breeze Compared To DWB

There’s No Such Crime As ‘Driving While White’

The shooting of Walter L. Scott in South Carolina prompts the question:
When is the last time you heard of a white man in a Mercedes-Benz being pulled over for driving with a broken taillight?
It has probably happened somewhere, sometime, but there’s a better chance of your car being hit by a meteor.
Getting shot dead during a minor traffic stop also isn’t a prevailing fear among white males in America, no matter what type of vehicle they own.

Scott himself didn’t imagine he was going to die when he was pulled over. Unfortunately, he happened to be a Black man driving a Mercedes, which is what got him noticed. He was behind on child-support payments and probably didn’t want to go to jail.
Something happened at the scene, Scott got Tased and then tried to run away. Officer Michael Slager fired eight times, hitting the unarmed 50-year-old in the back. The killing was caught on cellphone video by a bystander.
Slager told the dispatcher that Scott had snatched his Taser, but the video shows the officer dropping an object that looks just like a Taser near Scott’s handcuffed body. Slager has been charged with murder and fired from his job.
The shooting was shocking to watch, as the whole world has, yet the sequence of events leading up to it is sadly familiar to Black men in this country. They can’t afford to drive around as carefree as us white guys.
In September, a South Carolina state trooper shot and wounded another unarmed Black motorist after pulling him over because he allegedly wasn’t wearing his seatbelt.
I’ve got white friends who rarely buckle up, yet I don’t know of one who has been ticketed for it, or even stopped and warned. Maybe they’re just lucky.
The Black comedian Chris Rock uses his Twitter account to record his traffic-stop encounters. In a recent seven-week period, he was pulled over three times (once as a passenger).
It’s possible he and his friends aren’t very good drivers. It’s also possible they’ve been targeted merely for “Driving While Black,”(DWB) an unwritten offense that still exists in many regions of the country, not just the Deep South — and not just in high-crime areas.
The odds would be fairly slim for a black man driving a luxury car not to be pulled over at least once on a road trip between, say, Utah and North Dakota. Even in a ’98 Taurus he’d need to be watching the rear-view mirror for blue lights.
Generalizing about traffic stops can be problematic. The numbers often spike in certain neighborhoods at certain times of day, and a small number of officers can account for many incidents of racial profiling.
Still, the evidence that it exists is more than anecdotal.
Using a “Police-Public Contact Survey,” the U.S. Justice Department analyzed traffic stops of drivers aged 16 or older nationwide during 2011, comparing by race and weighting by population.
To the astonishment of hardly anyone, Black drivers were about 31 percent more likely to be pulled over than white drivers, and approximately 23 percent more likely to be pulled over than Hispanic motorists.
A series published by the Washington Post in September reported that minority drivers had their cars searched (and cash seized) at a higher rate than white drivers. That jibed with the Justice Department’s conclusion that vehicle searches occurred substantially more often when the driver wasn’t white.
Another unsurprising fact: Compared to other races, white drivers were most likely to get pulled over for speeding. Black drivers were statistically more likely to be stopped for vehicle defects or record checks.
Which is what happened to Walter L. Scott in North Charleston.
Never in almost five decades of driving have I been pulled over for a busted brake light or a burned-out headlight, even though I’ve had a few.
It didn’t matter whether I was in a Dodge, Oldsmobile, Jeep, Ford, Chevy or even, for a while, a Mercedes SUV.
The only thing I’ve ever been stopped for is, like many impatient white people, driving too fast.
And every time a police officer walked up to my car, I knew exactly why he or she wanted to chat with me. It was no mystery whatsoever.
That’s not always the case for a Black man behind the wheel of a car in this country. This is not just a perception; it’s a depressing reality.
If it had been me or Matt Lauer or even faux Hispanic Jeb Bush driving that Mercedes-Benz in South Carolina, Officer Slager wouldn’t have stopped the car. Not for a busted taillight, no way.
Which prompts another question: How long can this go on?
(Carl Hiaasen is a columnist for The Miami Herald. Readers may write to him at: 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, FL, 33132.)
Photo: Redjar via Flickr