Obama to Tell SCOTUS That He has the Power to Make Illegals Eligible for “Earned-Benefit” Programs, Like Social Security

th (8)Did you know that there is a case in front of the United States States Supreme Court, in which President Barack Hussein Obama is arguing that he has the Constitutional Power to tell millions of illegal aliens, who are violating the laws of our Sovereign Nation, that he will not enforce that law against them now, in order for them to continue to violate that law in the future and that he will enable them to be eligible for federal benefit programs for which they are not currently eligible, because they are, in fact, breaking our laws?

Well, through his mouthpiece, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, that is exactly what Obama is  telling the Supreme Court exactly this right now.

Terrence P. Jeffrey, writing for CNSNews.com, reports that

…The solicitor general calls what Obama is doing “prosecutorial discretion.”

He argues that under this particular type of “prosecutorial discretion,” the executive can make millions of people in this country illegally, eligible for Social Security, disability and Medicare.

On April 18, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case. Entitled United States v. Texas, it pits President Obama against not only the Lone Star State, but also a majority of the states, which have joined in the litigation against the administration.

At issue is the policy the administration calls Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which would allow aliens in this country illegally who are parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents to stay in the United States.

“The Executive Branch unilaterally created a program — known as DAPA — that contravenes Congress’s complex statutory framework for determining when an alien may lawfully enter, remain in, and work in the country,” the attorney general and solicitor general of Texas explained in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the states seeking to block the policy.

“DAPA would deem over four million unlawfully present aliens as ‘lawfully present’ and eligible for work authorization,” says the Texas brief. “And ‘lawful presence’ is an immigration classification established by Congress that is necessary for valuable benefits, such as Medicare and Social Security.”

In the administration’s brief, the solicitor general admits that the president’s DAPA program does not convert people illegally in the United States into legal immigrants. He further asserts that the administration at any time can decide to go ahead and remove these aliens from the country.

“Deferred action does not confer lawful immigration status or provide any defense to removal,” he says. “An alien with deferred action remains removable at any time and DHS has absolute discretion to revoke deferred action unilaterally, without notice or process.”

Despite this, he argues, the administration can authorize aliens here illegally on “deferred action” to legally work in the United States.

“Without the ability to work lawfully, individuals with deferred action would have no way to lawfully make ends meet while present here,” says the administration’s brief.

Nonetheless, the solicitor general stresses that “deferred action” does not make an illegal immigrant eligible for federal welfare.

“In general,” he says, “only ‘qualified’ aliens are eligible to participate in federal public benefit programs, and deferred action does not make an alien ‘qualified.’… Aliens with deferred action thus cannot receive food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, temporary aid for needy families, and many other federal benefits.”

But, he says, aliens here illegally with deferred action will be eligible for “earned-benefit programs.”

“A non-qualified alien is not categorically barred, however, from participating in certain federal earned-benefit programs associated with lawfully working in the United States — the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs — so long as the alien is ‘lawfully present in the United States as determined by the (Secretary),'” says the solicitor general.

The “secretary” here is the secretary of Homeland Security.

“An alien with deferred action is considered ‘lawfully present’ for these purposes,” says the solicitor general.

So, as explained to the Supreme Court by Obama’s solicitor general, when DHS grants an alien here illegally “deferred action” under the president’s DAPA policy, that alien is not given “lawful immigration status” and can be removed from the country “at any time.” However, according to the solicitor general, that alien will be authorized to work in the United States and will be “considered ‘lawfully present'” for purposes of being eligible for “the Social Security retirement and disability, Medicare, and railroad-worker programs.”

The U.S. Constitution imposes this straightforward mandate on the president: “(H)e shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

When the Supreme Court agreed in January to hear U.S. v. Texas, it made a telling request. It asked the parties to argue whether Obama’s DAPA policy “violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.”

So, you ask, what is the “Take Care Clause”?

According to Heritage.org,

The Take Care Clause (also known as the Faithful Execution Clause) is best read as a duty that qualifies the President’s executive power. By virtue of his executive power, the President may execute the lawful and control the lawful execution of others. Under the Take Care Clause, however, the President must exercise his law-execution power to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

So, by giving an individual, who has broken our laws, by entering our Sovereign Nation illegally, Federal benefits, reserved to provide for the welfare of actual American Citizens, Obama is “taking care” of dutifully executing our Nation’s Laws?

Sure, he is.

And Rosie O’Donnell has a “bikini body”. (Let that image settle in for a moment.)

Is breaking into our country, something that should be rewarded?

No.

What makes the current influx of illegal immigrants exempt from the rules and regulations that every other generation of immigrants to this country had to abide by in order to become legal citizens of the greatest nation in the world? By being here illegally, they are not entitled to the same rights as natural-born or naturalized American citizens.

And, yet, even as I write this, they are in our hospitals, taking advantage of our charity and the finest health care system in the world, and driving our streets, with either forged drivers licenses or those obtained from states who have acquiesced and given them to these “undocumented workers”.

This is in no way a human rights issue. Freedom is God-given, and with freedom comes responsibility. With citizenship comes responsibility, like paying taxes and making your own way.

My concerns about all of Obama’s, the Democrats’ and the Vichy Republicans’ coddling of the illegal aliens and the often-proposed “Path to Citizenship” business, can be divided into three bullet points. (Hey, I’m a Former VP of Marketing. What do you expect?)

1. Patriotism – Will these new “citizens” be willing to fly our flag above theirs? Will they be willing, if called upon, to serve in our Armed Forces, at home or abroad? Will they love this country, more than the one they left?

2. Loyalty – When these “new Americans” achieve the right to vote, are they all going to vote Democrat, so that they can receive more FREE STUFF? Is the Republican Party shooting themselves in both feet by pushing an outcome which will simply add new Democratic Voters? As I asked in the first point, will they honestly embrace our sovereign nation as their new home? Or, will they remain loyal to Mexico?

3.  Immigration – Are we rewarding illegal behavior, while at the same time, insulting all of the brave souls who have come here legally, seeking a better life for themselves and their families?

I understand that people want a better life for themselves and their children.  We are all immigrants in this land, except for American Indians, and they got here by crossing the Bering Straight.  But there is a huge difference between immigrating here legally and sneaking in illegally, between assimilating into an existing culture, and insisting on replacing a country’s existing culture with that of the country you left.

I’m all for assisting anyone in becoming a legal citizen of the United States, if that is their wish.  But, it must be done the right way, and they must accept responsibility for their illegal entry, show a willingness to learn our language, and embrace our American way of life, including respecting the American Flag.

Like the rest of his Far Left Brothers and Sisters, Barack Hussein Obama exhibits the symptoms of a disease that I’ve noticed that most of the Far Left exhibit: Narcissistic-Reality-Denial-Over-Educated-Beyond-Their-Intelligence Syndrome. The patient tends to rely on his self-assumed superior intellect, denying the reality of the world around him to the point of forsaking both his allegiance to and concern for the people of the country that has provided him with both his livelihood and his well-being.

This syndrome seems to be extremely pernicious in academic and political figures. The patient actually believes that he is an expert on everything, to the point where he can write and distribute instructional theses to seasoned professionals while lecturing them in a didactic manner.

The only treatment for Narcissistic-Reality-Denial-Over-Educated-Beyond-Their-Intelligence Syndrome at this time is “refudiation” and isolation. The people who are being affected by these individuals must, in a clear and over-whelming manner, let the patient know that they do not accept their attitude or actions and put them in a “time-out”.

In Obama’s Case, Americans must send a clear rejection of his Presidency, when we vote in a new President of the United States of America, this November.

Y’know…at the rate that this educated-beyond-his-intelligence, imperious, golf-playing, gum-smacking buffoon keeps obviously running our nation into the ground, I fully expect him, one day soon, to respond to an economic question at one of his almost non-existent press conferences by answering:

Let them eat arugula!

Until He Comes,

KJ

Presidential Debate #1 – Mitt Rocks! Preezy Looks Queasy

Oh, wow! I just watched the worst one-on-one political Massacre since the Ronald Reagan Presidential Debates. In the parlance of professional wrestling: It was a squash match.

Obama looked like he really did not want to be there last night. He remembered his talking points okay, but, he had no fire. He just smirked a lot, as if, somehow this whole thing was beneath a suuuuper-genius like himself.

Even poor old Mr. PBS himself, Jim Lehrer, could not save his bacon last night. However, that did not stop him from trying. At least a couple of times, Lehrer was obviously trying to coach Obama, and it seemed as if Obama was given a lot longer than 2 minutes to answer the questions asked.

Obama was on defense the entire evening.

Gov. Romney, on the other hand, was flawless. He looked presidential and seemed totally prepared. He was respectful, friendly, and merciless. Romney was a Human Jackhammer, riveting him on every point with deadly accuracy.

From the get-go in last night’s debate, it was apparent that the 44th President of the United States of America was waaay out of his league.

By the time the evening was done, Obama looked like one would expect Pee Wee Herman to look after a Hell in a Cell Cage Match with the Undertaker.

TheHill.com summarized the debate in the following manner:

Mitt Romney came out firing on President Obama in the opening minutes of the presidential debate, drawing sharp contrasts with the president’s economic plan and accusing him of misleading the public on Romney’s own plan.

Romney peppered his attacks with memorable phrases, claiming Obama’s policies were “trickle-down government” and that the president was instituting an “economy tax” on the middle class.

“The president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years ago, that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more — if you will, trickle-down government — would work. That’s not the right answer for America,” the GOP nominee said.

Obama responded by slamming Romney’s economic plan, saying the GOP nominee hadn’t explained how he’d pay for his proposed tax cuts.

“Governor Romney’s central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts — that’s another trillion dollars — and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn’t asked for. That’s $8 trillion. How we pay for that, reduce the deficit, and make the investments that we need to make, without dumping those costs onto middle-class Americans, I think is one of the central questions of this campaign,” he said.

Romney charged back that the president was misrepresenting his plan.

“I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about,” he said.

“I’ve got 5 boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true but just keep repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it,” he added.

Economic issues dominated the first 45 minutes of the president debate, the first showdown between the two contenders.

There was a noticeable contrast in the candidate’s demeanor: Romney was much more animated and punchy than the president, who came off as subdued, tentative and at times irritable.

Romney, who has narrowly trailed Obama in recent polls, seemed to be looking to shake up the race with a strong attack on Obama’s record, talking directly to the president as he spoke.

He repeatedly attacked Obama’s record: among his charges were that Obama was instituting an “economy tax.”

“The people who are having the hard time right now are middle-income Americans,” he argued. “Under the president’s policies, middle-income Americans have been buried. They’re just being crushed. Middle-income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This is a — this is a tax in and of itself. I’ll call it the economy tax. It’s been crushing.”

Obama fired back: “I believe that we do best when the middle class is doing well. And by giving them those tax cuts, they had a little more money in their pocket, and so maybe they can buy a new car. They are certainly in a better position to weather the extraordinary recession that we went through. They can buy a computer for their kid who’s going off to college, which means they’re spending more money, businesses have more customers, businesses make more profits, and then hire more workers.”

Romney also charged Obama with doubling the federal debt.

“The president said he’d cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it. Trillion-dollar deficits for the last four years. The president’s put it in place as much public debt — almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined,” he said.

Obama replied: “When I walked into the Oval Office, I had more than a trillion-dollar deficit greeting me. And we know where it came from: two wars that were paid for on a credit card; two tax cuts that were not paid for; and a whole bunch of programs that were not paid for; and then a massive economic crisis.”

Dr. Charles Krauthammer on Fox News said that Romney “won by two knockouts” and Obama “phoned it in”.

I agree.

Pride goeth before the fall.