The Vicious Snake

On a tip from Ed Kilbane

Love him or hate him he's dead right on this issue!

Video 232

The Vicious Snake

Barry's immigration plan appears to be in trouble after Supreme Court hearing

This is pretty much going the way I thought but you never know about Roberts. If Scalia was still around it would have been over and done with. 

I'm not a big fan of Trump but if he gets in I hope he lives up to his hype of deporting illegals instead of giving them drivers license's, and everything else under the sun, which is totally insane. Liberals love illegals. Why anyone would WANT to embrace people who come to America illegally I never quite understood? One thing for sure a vote for Killary or the Socialist is a vote for illegals in spades.

The SC judges are supposed to be impartial. Anyone really believe Sotomayor is going to vote against illegals...or Barry for that matter?

-----------------------------

President Obama's far-reaching plan to ease life for millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally ran into solid conservative opposition at the Supreme Court on Monday, putting its fate in doubt.

The administration’s supporters were left to hope that justices — evenly divided between Republican and Democratic appointees since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia — might dismiss the Texas case on a legal technicality by finding the state of Texas cannot show it would be sufficiently harmed by the president’s program.

But the comments and questions during Monday’s argument suggested the court’s four conservatives probably would side with Texas and 25 other Republican-led states, while the four liberals would vote to uphold Obama’s plan.

If so, the 4-4 split would be a defeat for the administration, keeping in place a federal judge’s order that has blocked the plan from taking effect.

At issue is whether the president has the authority to temporarily remove the threat of deportation and offer a work permit to more than 4 million immigrant parents of children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Obama’s lawyers argued that U.S. immigration laws give the chief executive broad leeway in deciding whom to deport, including the authority to take no action against millions of working immigrants who have families here and no serious criminal records.

(I agree... in Mexico)

But in the opening minutes of arguments Monday, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said Obama’s order appeared to go further by in effect changing the law and reclassifying millions of immigrants so that they may stay and work legally in the U.S.

Roberts asked the president’s attorney whether there were any limits to executive authority when it comes to deportation. “Could the president grant deferred removal to every unlawfully present alien in the United States?” Roberts asked.

No, replied U.S. Solicitor Gen. Donald Verrilli Jr., noting that the law still calls for arresting criminals.

“OK. So not criminals. Who else?” Roberts continued.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. interjected to say that, under the administration’s legal theory, a future president might decide unilaterally on an “open borders” policy, regardless of what Congress decided.

Verrilli disagreed. “That’s a million miles from where we are now,” he said.

Kennedy, whose vote is seen as crucial for the administration, leaned forward. “Well, it’s 4 million people from where we are now,” he said. “What we’re doing is defining the limits of discretion. And it seems to me that is a legislative, not executive, act.”

Allowing the president to take the lead in defining which immigrants can stay is “backward,” Kennedy said. “The president is setting the policy and Congress is executing it. That’s just upside down.”

The sharp exchange served notice that the court’s conservatives are unlikely to uphold Obama’s order as being within his executive authority.

The administration’s fallback argument is that the case should be dismissed because Texas suffered no injury and therefore has no standing to sue. The state has complained it must shoulder the cost of issuing driver’s licenses to the immigrants.

Roberts, who has been skeptical of granting standing to states to challenge federal policies, said Texas looked to have a real complaint. “Texas says: Our injury is we have to give driver’s license here, and that costs us money,” the chief justice told Verrilli.

Standing is sometimes a wild card in cases over which the justices are deeply divided.

In 2004, eight justices were split over whether public schools could have students recite the phrase “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Scalia had recused himself, and a tie vote would have affirmed the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that the practice was unconstitutional. Instead, the justices defused the controversy by deciding that Michael Newdow, the father who sued on his daughter’s behalf, did not have standing.

The most important recent test of a state’s standing came in 2007 when Massachusetts, California and a coalition of “blue states” sued the George W. Bush administration for failing to take action on climate change under the Clean Air Act. By a 5-4 vote, the court’s liberals, joined by Kennedy, upheld the state’s claim on the theory that rising seas could damage their coastlines.

Roberts dissented in that case, but he mentioned the ruling twice Monday. “We said in Massachusetts vs. EPA that we have a special solicitude for claims of the states,” he said, a comment that suggested he was not ready to throw out the Texas case on standing.

Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, joined Verrilli in support of Obama’s order, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA. He said he was there on behalf of three Texas mothers who seek “relief from the daily fear they will be separated from their families and detained or removed from their homes.”

Arguing on the other side, Texas Solicitor Gen. Scott Keller called Obama’s order an “unprecedented unlawful assertion of executive power” and potentially “one of the largest changes in immigration policy in our nation’s history.”

He ran into sharp questions from the court’s liberal justices. They steadily defended the president’s executive action and said it was consistent with past presidents who extended relief to large groups of immigrants.

“We still go back to the basic problem: 11.3 million people,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Congress has not appropriated the money to arrest and deport millions of otherwise law-abiding immigrants, she said, so it makes sense to allow some of them to work legally and raise families.

The justices will meet this week to discuss the case and vote on whether to affirm or reverse the lower court. A decision is likely to be announced in June.

Barry's immigration plan appears to be in trouble after Supreme Court hearing

Look who's talking about "coming clean"

IRS Urges Americans: Come Clean Now, Before We Read Panama Papers

What a f-ing joke!

----------------------------------------------------

IRS and Treasury officials have taken part in two global meetings on the Panama Papers to plan how to use the huge trove of leaked documents to catch criminals, U.S. officials revealed to NBC News.

In a statement to NBC News, the IRS acknowledged participating in a "special project meeting" of JITSIC, the Joint International Tax Shelter Information and Collaboration network, with their counterparts from around the world in Paris last week.

The IRS also encouraged any U.S. citizens and companies that may have money in offshore accounts to contact the agency now before any possible illegal activity on their part is identified.

According to media reports, the data about more than 214,000 offshore companies listed by Panamanian law firm contain information on potentially thousands of U.S. citizens and firms that have at least an indirect connection to offshore accounts affiliated with Mossack Fonseca.

Look who's talking about "coming clean"

Saudis Warn US: Pass 9/11 Lawsuit Bill and We'll Sell American Assets

I addressed this in a previous post but my blood is still boiling.

Where do you suppose the Saudi's got $750 billion to buy our treasury securities?

Hope the day will come when electric cars become truly viable and these ragheads can then choke on their sand and oil. This is a wake-up call people... fracking and the Keystone pipeline are imperative to our nation's security!

Oh, and Barry's response was to release 9 more Gitmo prisoners to the Saudi's. He's set to visit Saudi Arabia on Wednesday. He'll probably give the Saudi foreign minister the Larry Sinclair "special" before he leaves.

------------------------------------------

Saudi Arabia warned the U.S. that it will sell American assets worth hundreds of billions of dollars if Congress passes a bill allowing the kingdom to be held accountable for any role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir said last month that the kingdom would sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets before they could be frozen by the courts if the bill is passed, The New York Times reported.

The Senate bill establishes that a 1976 law giving foreign nations immunity from U.S. lawsuits should not apply in cases where nations have a role in terrorist attacks that kill Americans on U.S. soil.

The Obama administration has been lobbying against the bipartisan bill, saying it could put Americans at legal risk overseas. Democratic presidential candidates Bernie Sander and Hillary Clinton have publicly voiced support for the bill ahead of Tuesday's primary election.

Obama is set to visit Saudi Arabia on Wednesday.

Efforts by families of 9/11 victims to hold members of the Saudi royal family, Saudi banks, and charities liable for charges of financial support for terrorism have largely failed because of the 1976 law.

An unnamed source close to the government said al-Jubeir warned against the bill but didn’t specify what action would be taken, The Financial Times reported.

“The mood is bad,” a source said. “There is a sense that after all the co-operation on counter-terrorism, America just wants to get their hands on the money.”

Secretary of State John Kerry said earlier this year that the legislation could "expose the United States of America to lawsuits and take away our sovereign immunity and create a terrible precedent," CNN reported.

The Saudi Arabia government hasn’t been formally implicated in the 9/11 attacks, though suspicions persist. 

Some, including Saudi officials, have called for 28 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission Report to be released, CNN reported. The pages have so far been kept confidential to protect the government’s ability to gather intelligence on terrorist suspects.

Edwin M. Truman, a fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told The New York Times that al-Jubeir’s warning is likely an empty threat. 

“The only way they could punish us is by punishing themselves,” he said, noting that selling off the assets would be difficult and could cause global economic turmoil.

Saudis Warn US: Pass 9/11 Lawsuit Bill and We'll Sell American Assets

Notorious "slaver" Andrew Jackson to be removed from the $20 bill and replaced by a prominent woman

Well... if this keeps up both George W and Thomas J are going the way of the Dodo bird since they both owned slaves. How can you apply the same standards of today with the norm of the 18th and 19th-century?

I'll give you an example:

Bathing attire in the 1800's 

Today

--------------------------------------------------

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will announce this week that Alexander Hamilton will remain on the $10 bill and Andrew Jackson will be pushed off the $20 note in favor of a woman from American history, CNN said Saturday.

The announcement will come around a year after an online petition called for Jackson to be replaced with a woman, and ten months after Lew announced he wanted to replace Hamilton instead.

But support for the Founding Father to stay picked up steam thanks to the hit Broadway musical 'Hamilton', and now a government source tells CNN that Jackson will get the push instead.

 

Trailing off: Andrew Jackson is to be replaced on the $20 bill with a woman representing the fight for racial equality, an insider source told CNN. The backs of the $5 and $10 bills will also be changed

Announcement: Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew (pictured) originally wanted to replace Alexander Hamilton on the $10 bill, but Jackson's negative history with Native Americans led to public pressure to replace him

Rather than removing Hamilton from the $10 bill, the rear of the note will instead feature a mural depicting women's suffrage.

And Jackson will be ousted in favor of a woman representing the fight for racial equality, the source said. 

But don't expect to be trading in your old notes any time soon - creating a counterfeit-proof bank note requires input from the U.S. Secret Service, the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve. 

That means the new $20 note won't be issued until 2030 - at the earliest. 

'The blue security ribbon on the $100 note took over 15 years to develop,' CNN's source said. 'This level of technology is why our counterfeiting remains at less than .01% of currency in circulation.

'We should not expedite the issuance of any currency for political purposes.' 

Really... AJ's been on the $20 bill since 1928 so what the fuck are they changing it for? 

 Political purposes or political correctness? 

Same shit if you ask me.

(I was kind of hoping for Hillary in handcuffs)

As well as the $10 and $20 bills, the $5 bill will also see changes. Abraham Lincoln will remain on the front, but the rear will show a selection of notable historical moments that have taken place at the Lincoln Memorial. 

Contenders: Civil rights fighter Rosa Parks (left) and slave savior Harriet Tubman (right) were both finalists in an unofficial poll on who should replace Jackson.

You didn't really think it was gonna be Betsy Ross did you? 

No names for the $20 bill's new arrival have been given at this stage.

However, the website that hosted the original petition, Womenon20s.org, held a poll in which its users voted for Harriet Tubman, the 19th-century ex-slave who risked her life to smuggle 300 other slaves to freedom, to take Jackson's place.

Another figure who made it to the final round of voting was Rosa Parks, who famously fought for an end to racial segregation. 

Jackson was originally selected for replacement by the petition because of his Indian Removal Act, which forced Native Americans out of their territories, and led to the Trail of Tears. 

US bills have not featured a woman as a central image since the first First Lady, Martha Washington, appeared on the $1 silver certificate from 1891-1896.

Notorious "slaver" Andrew Jackson to be removed from the $20 bill and replaced by a prominent woman