They support illegal immigration
They support criminals
They produce fake news
Hillary, Barkley, and Obama take the wrong road.
Remember Kate Steinle? Did Democrats try to get the illegal off the hook?
#1 of 3
#2 of 3
#3 of 3
Drain the swamp!
HUME: And -- and remember this, Chris, the triumph of ObamaCare is this coverage for pre-existing conditions, which basically defeats the whole idea of insurance, which is -- for example, in the automobile insurance market, if you could wait till you had a wreck and then buy insurance and have the repairs cover, that's comparable to what we're doing herePre-existing conditions drive Obamacare prices up.
HUME: The idea of insurance is that you purchase it to guard against risks and things that may occur in the future. It's not that you purchase the coverage after you’re already sick.
Your search - Obama "others smarter than he" Michelle "others smarter than she" - did not match any documents, images, videos, news, shopping, or more
Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorneys General under President Clinton and Attorneys General under President Obama, said that the Director's decision "was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season." Holder concluded that the Director "broke with these fundamental principles" and "negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI".
When you get down to it, we’re told that the argument here is about health insurance and the costs, the deductibles and the premiums and the copays, but that’s not it. Health care long ago ceased to have anything to do with insurance. And when you’re talking about preexisting conditions, we’re not talking insurance.Healthcare provided by law: http://goluckydonald.blogspot.com/2017/03/pre-existing-conditions.html (not insurance)
Asked about Orrick’s ruling Wednesday, Trump averred that he is “never surprised by the 9th Circuit”, reinforcing an early morning tweet in which he declared that it “has a bad record of being overturned (close to 80 percent)”. Under normal procedures, the district court judge’s ruling would have to be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which would rule before it could be brought to the Supreme Court. Addressing reporters earlier, Priebus said, “The idea that an agency can’t put in some reasonable restrictions on how some of these monies are spent is something that will be overturned eventually”.
It looks, then, like Judge Orrick has not inflicted a defeat on President Trump after all. The Republican-controlled Texas House approved a strict ban on them on Thursday, which would see funding withheld from county and local governments in Texas which support sanctuary measures and would jail police chiefs and other officials who don’t help to enforce immigration law
The Justice Department said in a statement that it would comply with all existing laws in regards to sanctuary cities.
Statement on Sanctuary Cities RulingToday, the rule of law suffered another blow, as an unelected judge unilaterally rewrote immigration policy for our Nation. Federal law explicitly states that “a Federal, State or Local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” 8 U.S.C. 1373(a). That means, according to Congress, a city that prohibits its officials from providing information to federal immigration authorities -- a sanctuary city -- is violating the law. Sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, block their jails from turning over criminal aliens to Federal authorities for deportation. These cities are engaged in the dangerous and unlawful nullification of Federal law in an attempt to erase our borders.
Once again, a single district judge -- this time in San Francisco -- has ignored Federal immigration law to set a new immigration policy for the entire country. This decision occurred in the same sanctuary city that released the 5-time deported illegal immigrant who gunned down innocent Kate Steinle in her father's arms. San Francisco, and cities like it, are putting the well-being of criminal aliens before the safety of our citizens, and those city officials who authored these policies have the blood of dead Americans on their hands. This San Francisco judge's erroneous ruling is a gift to the criminal gang and cartel element in our country, empowering the worst kind of human trafficking and sex trafficking, and putting thousands of innocent lives at risk.
This case is yet one more example of egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge. Today’s ruling undermines faith in our legal system and raises serious questions about circuit shopping. But we are confident we will ultimately prevail in the Supreme Court, just as we will prevail in our lawful efforts to impose immigration restrictions necessary to keep terrorists out of the United States.
In the meantime, we will pursue all legal remedies to the sanctuary city threat that imperils our citizens, and continue our efforts to ramp up enforcement to remove the criminal and gang element from our country. Ultimately, this is a fight between sovereignty and open borders, between the rule of law and lawlessness, and between hardworking Americans and those who would undermine their safety and freedom