DHS: Illegal Aliens in Same-Sex ‘Marriages’ Will be Granted Reprieval from Deportation

Via The Associated Press:

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The Department of Homeland Security is planning to issue a policy memo stating that illegal immigrants with American same-sex partners are eligible to have their deportations put on hold under a federal program designed to focus resources away from low-priority cases.

The move had been sought by gay rights activists and their allies in Congress before Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced plans for the policy Thursday in a letter to 84 Democratic lawmakers.

“It will mark the very first time that lesbian and gay couples have been recognized within immigration policy for relief,” said Steve Ralls, the spokesman for Immigration Equality, an advocacy group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender immigrants.

The Democratic lawmakers addressed in Napolitano’s letter pressed the agency to inform Immigration and Customs Enforcement field offices that bi-national gay couples in long-term relationships have family ties that should be considered as grounds for deferring a foreign citizen’s removal from the U.S.

“I have directed ICE to disseminate written guidance to the field that the interpretation of the phrase ‘family relationships’ includes long-term, same-sex partners,” Napolitano wrote, adding that the decision to grant reprieves still would be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The instructions do not mean that foreigners who are married to Americans of the same sex will be eligible for green cards or citizenship, as are immigrants with opposite sex spouses. The Obama administration is continuing to enforce a 1996 law that prohibits the government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even as it opposes it in court and takes gay relationships into account when evaluating deportation cases.

The Williams Institute, a think tank, estimates that as of 2010 there were about 29,000 same-sex couples nationwide comprised of a U.S citizen and a citizen of another country.

The policy guidance expected to go out next week will reference a memo ICE Director John Morton issued last year advising the agency’s officers and lawyers to review pending deportation cases to determine which ones should be top priority and which ones might be shelved, Napolitano said.

Government attorneys weigh factors such as a person’s criminal record, family ties and community relations in making their decisions.

ICE officials said at the time that long-term same-sex relationships could be included under the family ties criteria, but advocates and House Democrats led by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wanted that determination put into writing.

Obama Family Cost Taxpayers $1.4 Billion in 2011

Via The Daily Caller:

Taxpayers spent $1.4 billion dollars on everything from staffing, housing, flying and entertaining President Obama and his family last year, according to the author of a new book on taxpayer-funded presidential perks.

In comparison, British taxpayers spent just $57.8 million on the royal family.

Author Robert Keith Gray writes in “Presidential Perks Gone Royal” that Obama isn’t the only president to have taken advantage of the expensive trappings of his office. But the amount of money spent on the first family, he argues, has risen tremendously under the Obama administration and needs to be reined in.

Gray told The Daily Caller that the $1.4 billion spent on the Obama family last year is the “total cost of the presidency,” factoring the cost of the “biggest staff in history at the highest wages ever,” a 50 percent increase in the numbers of appointed czars and an Air Force One “running with the frequency of a scheduled air line.”

“The most concerning thing, I think, is the use of taxpayer funds to actually abet his re-election,” Gray, who worked in the Eisenhower administration and for other Republican presidents, said in an interview with TheDC on Wednesday.

“The press has been so slow in picking up on this extraordinary increase in the president’s expenses,” Gray told TheDC.

Specifically, Gray said taxpayer dollars are subsidizing Obama’s re-election effort when he uses Air Force One to jet across the country campaigning.

[…]

CONTINUE READING

Holder Made Back-Door Deal to Block Anti-White Discrimination Suit from Going to Supreme Court

Via The Washington Times:

Four Republican lawmakers have accused the Justice Department of inappropriately striking a deal with city officials in St. Paul, Minn., to drop an appeal in a Supreme Court civil rights case in exchange for the federal government abandoning its support for a separate lawsuit against the city.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., Sen. Charles E. Grassley (Iowa) and three House members said that Justice officials struck a quid pro quo in February with St. Paul officials to withdraw a housing discrimination case before the Supreme Court in exchange for Justice declining to intervene in an unrelated False Claims Act case against the city.

The lawmakers said they found out about the alleged deal during a private briefing with Justice officials.

“We were shocked to learn during this briefing and in subsequent document examination that Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez, over the objections of career Justice Department attorneys, enticed the city to drop its lawsuit that Mr. Perez did not want decided by the Supreme Court,” wrote Grassley and Reps. Darrell Issa (Calif.), Lamar Smith (Tex.) and Patrick T. McHenry (N.C.).

Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said in a statement that “the resolution reached in these cases was in the best interests of the United States and consistent with the Department’s practice in reaching global settlements.”

“The decision was appropriate and made following an examination of the relevant facts, law and policy considerations at issue,” she added.

St. Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing said that the primary reason that the city dismissed its petition to the Supreme Court in Magner v. Gallagher was “to preserve 40 years of civil rights law.”

But Grewing also said that the Justice Department’s decision not to intervene in two lawsuits against the city was a factor. “When the city dismissed the Magner petition, the Department of Justice declined to intervene — and thus not oppose the city — in those two lawsuits,” she said in a statement.

Grewing added that the secondary reason for dismissing the petition on the eve of oral arguments was “to avoid conflict with the federal government in two pending lawsuits against the city that the city considered to be without merit.”

Justice’s decision not to be involved did not end the two lawsuits. One of them was brought by a businessman charging that St. Paul had falsely certified that it was using federal money to create jobs for low-income workers of all races when it was focused only on employing minorities.

In early October 2011, career lawyers from the Justice’s fraud section recommended that the federal government join the lawsuit, characterizing the city’s behavior as a “particularly egregious example” of false certifications, according to congressional investigators.

But in the letter, the lawmakers charged that Perez “bargained away a valid case of fraud against American taxpayers” to persuade St. Paul to drop its appeal in the civil rights case.

Perez could not be reached to comment, but a DOJ official said St. Paul officials raised a separate housing-related case with Perez when he was discussing the department’s concerns about the possible consequences of the Supreme Court case.

After the city officials brought up the businessman’s lawsuit, Perez consulted with the department’s ethics officials and was advised that there were no concerns, the Justice official said.

It is unclear whether Justice would have become involved in the lawsuit against the city in the end because the department does not intervene in almost 80 percent of false-claim civil cases, the Justice official said.

Former Obama Official Advocates ‘Death Panels’

Via The New York Times – Op Ed:

Well, maybe not death panels, exactly, but unless we start allocating health care resources more prudently — rationing, by its proper name — the exploding cost of Medicare will swamp the federal budget.

But in the pantheon of toxic issues — the famous “third rails” of American politics — none stands taller than overtly acknowledging that elderly Americans are not entitled to every conceivable medical procedure or pharmaceutical.

Most notably, President Obama’s estimable Affordable Care Act regrettably includes severe restrictions on any reduction in Medicare services or increase in fees to beneficiaries. In 2009, Sarah Palin’s rant about death panels even forced elimination from the bill of a provision to offer end-of-life consultations.

Now, three years on, the Republican vice-presidential nominee, Paul D. Ryan, has offered his latest ambitious plan for addressing the Medicare problem. But like Mr. Obama’s, it holds limited promise for containing the program’s escalating costs within sensible boundaries.

The Obama and Ryan plans are not without common ground; both propose an identical formula for capping the growth in Medicare spending per beneficiary. And both dip into the same toolbox (particularly lower payments to providers) to achieve a reduction of nearly $1 trillion in Medicare expenditures over the next decade from projected levels.

That’s where the agreement ends. Mr. Ryan believes that meeting the goal over the long term requires introducing more competition into Medicare through vouchers to purchase private insurance.

But Ryan’s approach was rendered toothless when the issue’s brutal politics forced him to retreat from his initial tough plan to simply cap the growth in government spending on Medicare and stick the inevitable overage onto beneficiaries. Under his revised plan, private insurers would be required to offer the same level of benefits as traditional Medicare, meaning that any savings would have to come from unidentified efficiencies (the ever-popular “waste, fraud and abuse”).

If the cap was breached — as it almost certainly would eventually be — Mr. Ryan blithely says, “Congress would be required to intervene.” Fat chance; Congress regularly does the opposite when it rolls back caps on payments to doctors and hospitals.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama’s hopes for sustained cost containment are pinned on a to-be-determined mix of squeezing reimbursements, embracing a selection of the creative ideas that have spewed forth from health care policy wonks and scouring the globe for innovations.

To Mr. Obama’s credit, his plan has more teeth than Mr. Ryan’s; if his Independent Payment Advisory Board comes up with savings, Congress must accept either them or vote for an equivalent package. The problem is, the advisory board can’t propose reducing benefits (a k a rationing) or raising fees (another form of rationing), without which the spending target looms impossibly large.

That’s the view of the bipartisan Medicare trustees, whose 2012 report stated: “Actual future Medicare expenditures are likely to exceed the intermediate projections shown in this report, possibly by quite large amounts.”

To be sure, health care cost increases have moderated, in part because of the recession and in part because Medicare has been tightening its reimbursements. But those thumbscrews can’t be tightened forever; Medicare reimbursement rates are already well below those of private providers.

Let’s not forget that with the elderly population growing rapidly, even if cost increases for each beneficiary can be contained, Medicare would still claim a rising share of the American economy.

Medicare needs to take a cue from Willie Sutton, who reportedly said he robbed banks because that’s where the money was. The big money in Medicare is not to be found in Mr. Ryan’s competition or Mr. Obama’s innovation, but in reducing the cost of treating people in the last year of life, which consumes more than a quarter of the program’s budget.

No one wants to lose an aging parent. And with price out of the equation, it’s natural for patients and their families to try every treatment, regardless of expense or efficacy. But that imposes an enormous societal cost that few other nations have been willing to bear. Many countries whose health care systems are regularly extolled — including Canada, Australia and New Zealand — have systems for rationing care.

Take Britain, which provides universal coverage with spending at proportionately almost half of American levels. Its National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence uses a complex quality-adjusted life year system to put an explicit value (up to about $48,000 per year) on a treatment’s ability to extend life.

At the least, the Independent Payment Advisory Board should be allowed to offer changes in services and costs. We may shrink from such stomach-wrenching choices, but they are inescapable.

Steven Rattner, a contributing opinion writer, was a counselor to the Treasury secretary in the Obama administration.

Federal Voting Assistance Office Provided Wrong Deadline for Military Ballots – Thousands of Soldiers Robbed of Vote

Via The MacIver Institute:

[Madison, Wisc…] Despite assurances to the contrary, the Federal Voting Assistance Program website still is publishing an incorrect deadline for the return of military ballots in Wisconsin. As a result of this error, thousands of Wisconsin servicemen and women could be disenfranchised in this key swing state this November.

The FVAP website incorrectly stated ballots must be returned by November 16. The actual deadline is 4 p.m. November 9. Any military ballots received in that intervening week would not have been counted by local and state election officials.

MacIver News Service contacted the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board about the error on Tuesday and requested comment.

“All Wisconsin absentee ballots are due by 4 p.m. the Friday after the election. The FVAP site was incorrect,” said Reid Magney, GAB spokesman in an emailed response to the inquiry.

As of 7:15pm central, parts of the website’s Wisconsin section still contained the incorrect November 16 date.

See top grey box in this screenshot from the website (click graphic to enlarge).

https://i1.wp.com/www.maciverinstitute.com/Screen%20shot%202012-09-25%20at%207.14.38%20PM.png

Ballots must be postmarked no later than Election Day, which in 2012 is Tuesday, November 6.

According to their website, The FVAP provides U.S. citizens worldwide a broad range of non-partisan information and assistance to facilitate their participation in the democratic process – regardless of where they work or live. The FVAP also administers the Federal responsibilities of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which designates armed forces recruiting offices nationwide as voter registration agencies allowing eligible U.S. citizens to apply for voter registration, or apply to change voter registration data.

This is not the first issue with military voting to arise in Wisconsin.

For the first time since 1946, the Primary election was held in August here. Previously, primaries for state office and the President were held in September.
State officials changed the law to move it to the second Tuesday in August this year so Wisconsin could comply with a federal law that is supposed to ensure military and overseas voters enough time to vote by absentee ballot.
Even so, during the Presidential Primary, the GAB had to get a “federal consent decree” to allow more time for military ballots to be counted after 65 clerks failed to send out absentee ballots to military voters in time.
One Afghan War Veteran told MNS 10 days (the time between the postmark and delivery deadlines originally listed on the FVAP site) is more than enough time for mail to get from Afghanistan to Wisconsin. However, it is highly unlikely for a letter to get from there to here in a mere 3 days, which is what would need to happen if a military voter sent his ballot in on Election Day.

DHS Hiding Immigrant Welfare Data from Public Access

Via The Daily Caller:

Four powerful Republican senators are demanding answers to questions they posited to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in early August regarding the apparent watering down of immigration regulations which prohibit those seeking residency or citizenship from being primarily reliant on welfare, or a public charge.

The Department of Homeland Security missed the Aug. 20 deadline and has yet to respond. Also addressed in the initial letter was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The State Department did respond, claiming that the majority of the inquiry fell under the purview of DHS.

In a letter sent to Napolitano Tuesday, and obtained by The Daily Caller, the ranking members of the Senate Finance, Agriculture, Budget, and Judiciary Committees —- Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, Kansas Republican Sen. Pat Roberts, Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions and Iowa Republican Chuck Grassley respectively — requested answers to their initial questions, specifically pertaining to why participation in a majority of welfare programs fails to disqualify immigrants who apply for admission or status adjustments.

“Your failure to respond to our oversight request is deeply troubling, and suggests that your Department is attempting to conceal information from the American people,” the senators wrote.

The four demanded that the Department offer all the data they requested back on Aug. 6 — an explanation about how the watered down approach fits congressional intent, the number of aliens denied admittance due to being a dependency risk, the number that became a public charge once admitted, the number admitted even though they were a dependency risk because the applicant offered an affidavit of support, and if the answers are unavailable, why the agencies do not track the data.

In their most recent letter, the senators also ask for the number of applications received each year.

A GOP senate staffer noted to TheDC that the information should be readily available and easy to provide.

“It has long been a sound principle of immigration law that those who seek citizenship in this country ought to be financially self-sufficient,” the senators wrote in their initial Aug. 6 request. “We were thus shocked to discover that both the State Department and DHS exclude reliance on almost all governmental welfare programs when evaluating whether an alien is likely to become a public charge. Your agencies apply a cramped interpretation of the law in this regard, considering reliance on only two of nearly 80 federal welfare programs as evidence of likelihood of becoming a public charge: Supplemental Social Security Income (SSI) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).”

They further noted that agency guidelines prohibit consideration of food stamp benefits, Medicaid, child-care benefits, energy assistance, WIC payments, educational assistance and more when analyzing applications for citizenship and status changes.

“Indeed, under your interpretation, an able-bodied immigrant of working age could receive the bulk of his or her income in the form of federal welfare and still not be deemed a ‘public charge,’” they wrote on Aug. 6.

The State Department did not offer an explanation of the approach but did offer a response to two of the data requests, in a response to the senators Sept. 17.

According to the letter from the State Department — obtained by TheDC — from 2001 to 2011 118,004 immigrants and 11,233 nonimmigrants, or those seeking temporary admission, were denied visas based on INA 212 (a)(4), the regulation which prohibits admission of aliens likely to “at any time become a public charge.”

Of the 118,004 immigrant visa applications denied under the regulation, 113,087 were able to overcome the ineligibility finding and obtain visas based on an affidavit of support by a sponsor. Of the 11,233 nonimmigrants denied based on the public charge risk, 1,974 were granted a visa based on an affidavit of support.

More Evidence Suggests ‘Anti-Muslim’ Video Blamed for Middle-East Violence was False Flag Perpetrated by Islamic Extremists

Via Front Page Mag:

When it comes to the film Innocence of Muslims, our government and the media use a narrative mired in contradictions and false statements provided by the filmmaker, who himself is an untrustworthy source.

If we stick to what can be proven we might obtain the possibility that terror supporters produced the film. Muhammad Al Dura and Paliwood are two cases in point, showing the type of stunts used by Palestinian terrorists.

So lets examine facts instead of the filmmaker’s fiction:

Court documents reveal that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the producer of the movie Innocence of Muslims, partnered in a scheme with Eiad Salameh, my first cousin.

Eiad is a Muslim terror supporter and is not an Egyptian Copt.

He comes from Beit Sahour, Bethlehem and is well known by the FBI and the Arab community as a conduit for Middle Easterners who can obtain authentic, legitimate identifications, from passports to credit cards including many nationalities. He then places these identifications in the hands of dubious characters to use for fraudulent purposes.

In fact, I revealed Eiad Salameh way before this whole fiasco erupted—in 2008, and the first knowledge of Eiad and Nakoula was revealed on September 14, 2012 by the Smoking Gun, which provided court documents that prove these two connected in 2009 in a major financial scheme.

The narrative that circulates in the media fails to answer crucial questions behind the mystery of this film.

For example, to date, no one has stepped forward or can confirm for certain that whoever holds an identity by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, is even that man. He, after all, held several identifications, including Muslim names. He could have easily presented a valid I.D. when he was arrested, yet he was likely not the man in that I.D.

Such a claim isn’t easily dismissed; if an Egyptian by the name of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula is blamed for angering over a billion Muslims, it would not be that difficult to find the entire family in Egypt, including brothers, cousins, aunts, siblings, wife, wives, ex-wives, mistresses, pet names and all. Especially since Egypt sparked all the riots that spanned over 30 some nations.

In the Middle East you are known by your clan, yet Egypt cannot produce this man’s family and background?

Besides this, why would Nakoula, who claims to be a religious Coptic activist, have extensive connections with Eiad, a man who I know hates Copts and is well-known to be the best schemer the Middle East has produced and has contacts with terror networks?

This terror connection is not void of evidence. The Daily Beast reported regarding Nakoula’s arrest (emphasis added):

“The bust came around the time the feds were launching Operation Mountain Express, which would become a huge investigation into pseudoephedrine-dealing involving numerous people of a Middle Eastern background. The authorities initially insisted there were no links to terrorism, but suddenly switched and decided that a chunk of the money was going to Hizbullah.”

The Eiad-Nakoula connection was likely terror related.

Nakoula first presented himself as an Israeli Jew, a thing Eiad also did for years. He fraudulently holds an authentic Israeli passport.

To date, no one has produced proof to authenticate Nakoula, yet evidence shows with 100% certainty that both my cousin Eiad and Nakoula had multiple fraudulent identifications, as we showed in our detailed report, which includes valid court records, a U.S. Trustee report, credit report and our correspondence with Canadian intelligence.

How is it possible that these two strange bedfellows would snuggle up together? On the one hand, we have an Egyptian-Coptic-anti-Muslim-activist-fundamentalist-Christian turned Meth-dealer and on the other hand, we have a Muslim-Palestinian scam-artist-terrorist.

Some might counter that these two only had a fling; after all, Nakoula was simply a runner for Eiad in 2009.

What has never been disclosed until now is that the two were linked for at least a decade from the year 2000, and not only in an involvement in 2009.

Nakoula had used “P.J. Tobacco” and Eiad was linked to a tobacco smuggling operation into Syria in 2001 by using a fictitious name A&M Trading, as revealed in the U.S. Trustee report in 2001. Nakoula used M&A Trading in 2009 with his pseudoephedrine dealings.

He simply switched letters; A&M became M&A.

Nakoula used Eiad’s last name “Erwin Salameh” portraying himself as Eiad’s brother.

We also ascertained from our contact in the IBC that Eiad was also involved with someone with a last name “Tanas” and Nakoula had used the name “Thomas J. Tanas.”

Both clans “Nakoula” and “Tanas” exist in Eiad’s village in Beit Sahour, Bethlehem. It is still the little town of Bethlehem as it was in biblical times.

Now let’s examine his motives.

I obtained the Sawa radio interview in Arabic of this supposed Nakoula. He was asked, “What is your position on the Jewish and the Christian faiths?” Nakoula responded, “I have no calling for these religions.” He continued to state that he was an author of several anti-Islam books (written in Arabic) refusing to give the titles of his books.

Yet, if court documents give his legal name as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, I found no books under that name. Nothing. And neither was anyone able to produce any.

The media’s narrative has nothing, and this supposed Nakoula was proven a liar a hundred times over.

Yet the media purports that the man is a Christian activist Copt. All this man’s claims were proven lies, except this one is believed?

Even what his friend stated to the court — that Nakoula is “a God-fearing man whose first priority is his family” — contradicts what he said in Arabic; he is not interested in Christianity or Judaism and is possibly a Muslim.

So who funded the film? Nakoula claimed that he produced the film with money ($50,000 to $60,000) that came from his wife’s family in Egypt.

None of this has been proven.

What has been proven is that he embezzled millions with Eiad. The money must have come from these scandalous operations, which our government finally admitted is linked to terrorist activity.

Whoever made this film claimed Jews funded him and that he was a Copt, and obviously intended to do harm to his real enemies—Israel and the Copts.

Both Copts and Israel are Eiad’s ardent enemies.

Now to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that the feds were complicit: the Justice Department lawyers and federal agents, despite Nakoula’s two previous offenses, defended Nakoula and gave several excuses to Judge Snyder and pushed for leniency, all because he supposedly promised to help them catch Eiad:

[H]e [Nakoula] has implicated Mr. Salamay [aka Salameh] there is no question that Mr. Salamay at some point is gonna be indicted if he hasn’t already been… we all know what’s gonna happen. Salamay is gonna get arrested some day and based on the debriefing information turned over he is gonna enter a guilty plea, or if he doesn’t, then Mr. Nakoula is going to be called in to testify…” [see sentencing transcript].

If the feds were indeed looking to catch Eiad, he had in fact been doing his shenanigans for three decades, warrants were issued, his location was known and no arrests were ever made, in thirty some years.

The evidence compounds. Eiad was not, however, immune in Canada and was finally caught and locked up there in January 2011. We have emails from the Intelligence Bureau in Canada (IBC) who wrote us. The Canadians wanted to keep Eiad in custody as long as it took to extradite him to the United States, yet the U.S. refused for seven months to take him and preferred to fly him to Palestine.

On July 15th, 2011, the Canadians wrote me: “He is awaiting deportation to Palestine, unless the US hurry up and indict him…” The feds never responded to the Canadian’s last appeal and within a few days, Eiad was sent to Palestine.

I realize that people might try to shoot holes in what we are saying, yet, the media has very little evidence to prove its narrative, while we present many validated facts.

The results of this entire fiasco will not be the apprehension of terrorists, but the continual chipping away at the First Amendment.

Unfortunately, many Americans still practice self-blame. The film was made in the U.S., a nation that is not used to schemes like Muhammad Al Dura or what was shown in Paliwood.

Welcome to Paliwood II.

Obamacare Increases Insurance for Average Middle-Class Families by $3,000

Via Investor’s Business Daily:

During his first run for president, Barack Obama made one very specific promise to voters: He would cut health insurance premiums for families by $2,500, and do so in his first term.

But it turns out that family premiums have increased by more than $3,000 since Obama’s vow, according to the latest annual Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey.

Premiums for employer-provided family coverage rose $3,065 — 24% — from 2008 to 2012, the Kaiser survey found. Even if you start counting in 2009, premiums have climbed $2,370.

[…]

CONTINUE READING

Developing: Obama Campaign Advertising Solicitation for Actors to Fill ‘Town Hall’ Audience

Via Gulagbound:

What are you doing, October 14th?  Would you like to be a  “town hall meeting” shill for Barack Obama?  According to this official casting notice in Nielsen’s Back Stage site, you still have time to apply and/or audition.

Here is the link to the live listing in the Back Stage casting call.

Here are elements of screen shots of this notice, taken betwen the hours of 1:00 and 2:00 am CT, today (10/8).  We will pan out, as we go.  You should be able to click twice, to enlarge the wider (and condensed) shots.

A bit bigger, for more context:

And bigger yet, to see the page’s header:

After the last one he had, who could be surprised that they have decided to be more careful for the next?

Not much need be reported, the pictures being worth their 1K words.  It checks out, according to investigators clicking in.

[…]

CONTINUE READING