Administration names official advocate for illegal immigrants
 

In a new insult to the taxpayer, the Obama Administration has announced the appointment of a "public advocate" for illegal immigrants to address "their concerns" with law enforcement policies. We taxpaying citizens are now supporting an agency (how about this one DJ?) that will be the mouthpiece for illegal immigrants being deported.

Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said that meant elevating the concerns of illegal immigrants.

"It's outrageous that the Obama administration has appointed a taxpayer-funded activist for illegal and criminal immigrants who are detained or ordered deported. The administration all too often acts more like a lobbying firm for illegal immigrants than as an advocate for the American people", said Rep. Smith.

Increasing the Democrat voter base?

Administration names official advocate for illegal immigrants - Washington Times

Well that is what the DNC's aledged support of people of Hispanic origin is all about, isn't it?

This is not surprising at all !!! The President has shown his ongoing support for the "dream act" and away we go. Can you imagine 4 more years of this administration without fear of having to get votes !!1

Four more years???
http://ranger.gamebanana.com/img/ico...993f88d44d.png
Run for your lives!

Webster's defines "illegal" as "forbidden by law or statute and/or forbidden by official rules and regulations". When the hell is anyone ever going to understand this??? Oh--votes (I almost forgot)!!!!!!!!!

To the uninitiated among you. Following is a brief snippet about the Washington Times:

In a 2008 essay published in Harper's Magazine, historian Thomas Frank linked the Times to the modern American conservative movement, saying:

There is even a daily newspaper—the Washington Times—published strictly for the movement’s benefit, a propaganda sheet whose distortions are so obvious and so alien that it puts one in mind of those official party organs one encounters when traveling in authoritarian countries.[57]

Really???????; this is your input to this story? A column by a liberal columnist slamming a conservative oriented newspaper is supposed to somehow negate the substance of the story?

From Newsday...
[B]
"DHS adding public advocate for immigration agency"

DHS adding public advocate for immigration agency

From AP


"DHS adding public advocate for immigration agency"

Google

From NPR

"he Homeland Security Department has appointed a public advocate to handle complaints and questions about its immigration enforcement policies."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...Id=146503575\\

It appears you did not like the source so I thought I would give you a few more.

What is it with you people who believe that some of this stuff is made up...you will question the source without even reading to see if it is factual !!!!


The more I think about it....MR MARK should be embarassed and should apologize for the inference and for being so " uninitiated" that he did not even share with the forum that Mr Frank, whom he quotes, is an ex Rep who is known for his criticism of the Republican party. How the elitist just throw things around with no conscience whatsoever amazes me

I sure can and I am looking forward to those 4 years. :icon_wink:

Are we referring to the same Thomas Frank? The one who started his political journey as a College Republican before he became highly critical of Republican governance, especially the presidency of George W. Bush. Just what is it that makes this "substantive reporting"?

Maybe because the story is true, if that matters to you or not.

Read Bucco's post and the other links reporting the story. I don't understand your take on this story and your reaction to the thread at all. What's your agenda in trying to deflect?

Four more years.:bigbow: The republicans can't even come up with a candidate they like.

janmcn An old saw comes to mind...."watch what you wish for you may just get it". meaning Obama may get four more years but America will not be able to survive four more years of Obama. We all better learn to speak Chinese.

[QUOTE=Guest;450157]Four more years.:bigbow: The republicans can't even come up with a candidate they like.[/QUOTE


And this has WHAT to do with the thread here ?

Do you bow to some kind of party flag at night....if someone you disliked a lot was a Republican, would you then hug them and welcome them ?

If someone you really like became a Republican would you then throw them aside ?

I say YES based on what I read here.

I hope you realize, but then again that would take thought, that there are many folks on here who you believe to be Republicans and they are actually Democrats and vice versa. Your posts are representative of what is wrong with our country...you just flat don't care what happens to this country as long as your choice is elected. And the very sad fact is that you are probably proud of that.

You would be shocked, for instance, if you knew my political background and registration.


And if you are able, tell us what you think of the way immigration is being handled by this administration.....the absolute approval of the violation of the law, etc.

如果奧巴馬獲勝，我要吐！我到老學到老中國。
http://th601.photobucket.com/albums/...man_smiley.gif

If Austria Pama wins, I feel nauseated! I to always learn old China...?

Sorry... No Soup For You!

http://www.mrmedia.com/aMM-sm-pics/larrythomas1.jpg

Nice try though!

Katz, specifically what is an Austrian Pama? I know there is a town in Austria named Pama but what does this have to do with anything?

I can only imagine it is some slang term for President Obama that birthers have come up with - are you saying Obama is Austrian instead of Kenyan, now?

Don't give me any links or copy any links. I really would like your own words on this.

:ohdear:

Give me one more try...If Obama wins, I will be sick. I am too old to learn Chinese...?

Here Soup For You!

http://www.robotvsbadger.com/wp-cont.../soup-nazi.png:clap2:

You Return Pot Or You Never Get More Again!

That should work great until all the working folks run out of money, then who will initially pay for the soup you are so freely giving away to the poor.

The only advice we should be giving or concerns we should have for illegal immigrants (in most cases) should be whether or not their bus or plane ride home is safe. I'm sure there are those that should be exceptions to that rule.

"Advocate"??
 

I do NOT want to pay for this!

They already have advocates don't they? Their Embassy people?

By the term "you" I hope your saying that figuratively because I feel exactly as you express in this reply.

I hope you will put aside your negative feelings about charity and come to the various events for "Seeds of Hope" in February. It provides food and money for the Wildwood Pantry and the Wildwood Soup Kitchen.

Just who are you accusing of having negative feelings about charity? How our tax dollars are spent on what you call charity is NOT charity, it's potential for misappropriation of our tax dollars and the picking of our pockets for what others consider charity.

As for me personally, I'm not rich but I have given considerable money to charity. The largest of of which is the Elks National Foundation where to date I've given over $500 and recently signed up for an automatic monthly donation.

The foundation is a dedicated fund where the donations received are never spent, but invested with all interest from those funds used for many programs. The Board of Trustees recently approved appropriations and distributions for the 2011-12 fiscal year totaling a record $21.7 million. They are know for being the biggest givers of scholarships second only to the federal government. I don't know however if the federal government is still first. You can see a general breakdown of those funds at the following link:

Elks National Foundation :: ENF Programs

By the way it's pretty much established that Republicans are considerably more charitable than Democrats... probably because they generally preferred to have everybody's pockets picked for charity than it occurring the way it should be - privately. Don't believe it? Well all you have to do is read some of the links provided in this Google Search to realize that this is true. Of course I'll bet that some left wingers will dispute it even though the evidence is clear! That seems to be the norm now-a-days!

Your support for the soup kitchen Buggy is admiral, but the negative way you solicited for their support hurts them more that help! Always use honey when trying to attract bees... not vinegar!

This is exactly right.

But the way it works in reality is that the illegal aliens here in the U.S., who are prettied up with the term "undocumented immigrants" by leftists, are really nothing more than "Undocumented Democrats" to them. Period.

WHO is this post addressed to ?

Obviously saying that Republicans do not care about poor people. Well, we did hear Romney state that fact. Sounds like a basic plank in their platform with some of the posts here. Yet, they talk the Christian and Judiac virtues, don't they? Something seems to be missing in the equation - but I never was excellent in math.

You keep referring to churches, religions etc. To what church did our President belong for the greater part of his life and whose pastor married him and served as his advisor ?

Why does he get a pass from you ?

This forum gets more entertaining every day! Intelligent and provacative threads dwindle into free association then slide into anything goes ridiculous TRUTH...:popcorn:

This is all good news Katz. The liberals are on the run and have nothing positive to say and are in desperate attack mode.

It's all turned around quicker than I would have believed. That's the way I see it.

The liberals are down to hate and ridicule. It won't take them very far.

This may be true to some extent, but the worry-some problem is trying to figure out how in the world Obama stays so popular with the electorate while any of his policy or performance ratings are considerably lower. However, as low as those figures are, there no where's near where they should be. They should be similar to those of Congress which is currently at a pitiful 10% according to the NBC news today.

BTW, I recently heard someone from some election study organization that if you took the bias out of presidential elections, that Republicans would win by 8-10 points. I'm not sure though if that includes other biased elements like educational indoctrination of our youth, entitlement handouts influencing recipients to be Democrats to maintain or even increase those entitlements and more. Unfortunately I don't remember where I heard it, who said it or the organization involved. But that doesn't matter though and people can either believe me or not. Also, most if not all liberals on here wouldn't care less if I proved it or not and would still try to marginalize and discredit it anyway even if I did!

Well, according to the Gallup organization, 10 states plus DC have President Obama at over 50% approval rating. Included are some very large electoral states such as New York, Illinois, and California.

Looks good for November!!
Obama Approval Above 50% in 10 States and D.C. in 2011

I think it's much smoke and mirrors from the "national media" which is virtually an arm of the Democrat Party and an auxiliary arm of the Obama Administration in a practical explanation.

Don't believe the polls. Poll questions are asked in a way to produce the desired response and then spun to reflect a point that was never advanced in the questions itself.

Don't let the Democrat "controlled" national media get you down. Have faith in your fellow Americans, and keep moving forward.

If you visit some of the poll sites (which would bore you since they would give you facts that are relative) you would find the McCain reached his highest approval rating EVER during the Obama/Clinton war for the nomination.

Not many folks out there right now going after the President on health care or anything at this moment.

Fact is, and I told you this before.....we are in a primary in one party while the other party has none....this is what happens in that case.

None of what I am saying indicates a Democratic win or loss in November, but I cannot understand how you can rely on, and get some kind of solace from, polls that are conducted at this time in an election cycle.

If you check on personal approval ratings over the years, you might be chagrined to find it is no indicator whatsoever of how the elections will go.

Bucco, Buggy's post is somewhat deceiving. If you read the information supplied with the poll he posted, noting the parts I posted in bold, it says:

With the average state showing a 3.2-point drop in approval between 2010 and 2011, the number of states showing majority approval of Obama did not change much between the two years, moving from 12 states and the District of Columbia in 2010 to 10 states plus D.C. in 2011. Washington state and Rhode Island were the two states that dropped below 50% approval last year.

However, Obama was on pace to show an increase in majority approval states -- to 16 plus the District of Columbia -- midway through 2011. But his lower approval ratings in the third and fourth quarters of the year resulted in a net decline in the number of states above 50% approval by the time the year was complete.

Implications

Obama's approval rating at the state level provides some insight into his chances to win an Electoral College majority. He would seem to be well-positioned in the states in which his approval rating was above 50% last year, including three of the larger states in California, New York, and Illinois. The states with majority approval of Obama in 2011 account for 159 electoral votes. Obama won all of those states' electoral votes in the 2008 election.

On the other hand, states in which his approval rating was below 40% seem less likely to recover enough to allow Obama to claim their electoral votes this fall. Those states account for 153 electoral votes. All except New Hampshire voted for John McCain in 2008.

Thus, the key to Obama's winning a second term lies in the states whose approval rating is in the 40% range, which account for the remaining 226 electoral votes and include traditional "swing states" such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Obama won the vast majority of these states in 2008.

Great post....and thanks for doing the "grunt work" BK ! Wouldn't this be a great forum if everyone did the same !!!