Backlash: Obama Regime’s Decision to Release Illegal Immigrant Prisoners Infuriates Republican Lawmakers


Via Bakersfield Now

The Regime’s decision to release illegal immigrants who were in detention awaiting deportation, has spawned a “furious backlash” from some members of Congress, the Washington Times reports:

Department officials have described the move as a cost-savings measure required by the budget sequesters, but two years ago one top official testified to Congress that detaining immigrants is usually cheaper than releasing them.

As the questions build, so does pressure on Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano, who has not yet answered the requests, signed by dozens of Senate and House members, to detail who exactly has been released, why they were being held in the first place, and who gave final approval.

“It is frankly irresponsible that your agency chose releasing detained immigrants as its first effort to control spending,” a group of 37 House Republicans, led by Reps. Matt Salmon of Arizona and Duncan Hunter of California, said in a letter Friday.

On Monday, Sen. Daniel Coats, the ranking Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee that oversees immigration, took to the Senate floor to say the department cannot duck his questions. He speculated that the release has already spurred a new wave of illegal immigration.

“I can see the traffickers pitching this to tens or hundreds of thousands of people, taking their money, getting them across the border, breaching the fence or tunneling under the fence or climbing over the fence,” Mr. Coats said.

An internal ICE memo obtained and released last week by the HouseJudiciary Committee found that the agency contemplated releasing 1,000 immigrants a week — far more than the several hundred it said it released.

On Fox News, Saturday, Congressman Steven King (R-IA) said that he would like to get ICE Chief, John Morton to appear before the House Judiciary  committee to explain the prison releases.


(Photo: CBS 2)

 A memo, sent by Morton to field office directors and all special agents last December, provides guidance on when they should issue detainers against illegal immigrants charged with crimes. Although Regime officials have been saying that the released detainees were only guilty of minor infractions, this memo gives you a good idea of how dangerous the 10 percent of illegals who are  incarcerated while awaiting their deportation hearings, are.
The list of persons subject to ICE holds includes:

  • persons charged with felonies
  • persons with three or more prior misdemeanor convictions
  • persons charged with assault, DWI, unlawful flight from the scene of an accident
  • drug distribution or trafficking
  • sexual abuse or exploitation

Illegals are not detained if they’ve only been charged with minor misdemeanors or traffic violations.

A person charged with misdemeanor drug possession, with no allegation of distribution or trafficking, is also not subject to an ICE detainer.

On Fox News’  Justice with Jeanine, last Saturday, Pinal County Sheriff, Paul Babeu noted that among those released were criminals who had been “convicted not just charged – convicted for weapons violations, drug smuggling, (these are cartel members, these are narcotic traffickers!), drug dealers, these are people who have been in fights,  and aggravated assaults against police officers…. How in the world can you say these are low risk, non criminal detainees?!  These are the worst of the worst. These are people who have been convicted of child molestation! We have people who have been released, I’ve been told by ICE agents, who have been  charged with man-slaughter.”

Pirro brought up the whistleblowers who want to come forward and expose what’s going on. But Babeu said several memos have been sent out to ICE agents about the prisoner releases –  anyone who talks about it “outside our agency shall be disciplined up to and including termination, creating an atmosphere of fear and intimidation.”  He said, “these federal agents, who swore an oath to protect our country, are being intimidated from doing the right thing.”


Below is the correct audio for the incredible first hour of the Kris Kobach Show on KCMO, March 3, that I wanted to post, last week.. 

I had instructed my dear husband to grab the first eleven minutes of the first hour, so I could post it. (I can’t do it on Windows Movie-Maker) and he took the entire second hour – (which I didn’t even listen to, so I don’t even know what was on there). So I told him when I noticed it the next DAY, that I need the first eleven minutes of the first hour, and he immediately leaped into action (not). A week later, here it is. Stale news, I know. Oh, it’s the entire hour, instead of eleven minutes, again, too.

Most of the first hour was spent talking about ICE’s shocking and “bizarre” decision to release illegal immigrant prisoners:

Scaring us by releasing illegal immigrant criminals — “REALLY, Mr. President? Really?!” Kobach thundered.“This is a brazen abuse of power”, he said. “They crossed the line.”

“This is impeachment stuff!”

“You do not release dangerous criminals to make a point…”

Keep in mind, as you hear the air raid sirens,  that the sequester had just gone into effect a few days, before.

Sign White House Petition to Place “Drone Strike Medal” Below the Purple Heart. (Video)


A new Distinguished Warfare Medal medal, (dubbed the “drone strike medal”) was announced by former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta last month,  and according to the Army Times, “will be awarded to pilots of unmanned aircraft, offensive cyberwar experts or others who are directly involved in combat operations, but who are not physically in theater and facing the physical risks that warfare historically entails.

Gateway Pundit reports:

Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) has introduced legislation to require that the Purple Heart occupy a position of precedence above the new Distinguished Warfare Medal. The bipartisan bill has 42 cosponsors including a few Democrats.

The VFW also immediately came out in opposition of the placement of the medal, saying in a statement:

We believe it is very important to properly recognize all who serve and excel, but the new medal could spark internal debate and deteriorate morale as it leapfrogs more than a dozen current medals and ribbons – to include valor and combat injury awards.

Action Needed:  Bills have been introduced in both the House (H.R. 833) and the Senate (S. 470) and have the strong support of the VFW.  Contact your Representatives and Senators today and urge them to support H.R. 833 and S. 470 –  legislation that would prohibut DOD from placing the Distinguished Warfare Medal higher in precedent than the Purple Heart.

Tell them that medals that are earned for valor or wounds in combat must outrank any new medals earned in the rear for combat support.

Via the  Army Times

A petition posted on the White House website Thursday asks the administration to lower the precedence of the Distinguished Warfare Medal.

The medal, which will be awarded to pilots of unmanned aircraft, offensive cyberwar experts or others who are directly involved in combat operations, but who are not physically in theater and facing the physical risks that warfare historically entails.

“Under no circumstance should a medal that is designed to honor a pilot, that is controlling a drone via remote control, thousands of miles away from the theater of operation, rank above a medal that involves a soldier being in the line of fire on the ground,” the petition reads. “This is an injustice to those who have served and risked their lives and this should not be allowed to move forward as planned.”

The new medal will rank just below the Distinguished Flying Cross. It will have precedence over — and be worn on a uniform ahead of — the Bronze Star with Valor device, awarded to troops for specific heroic acts performed under fire in combat.

The petitioner, John Evans appeared on the Keith Larson radio show on Feb 25, 2013 to talk about his petition.

At last count, the petition had 81,790 signatures with 18,210 more to go to reach 100,000 before the March 16 deadline.


When I refreshed the page, it had 81,786 signatures. How does that happen?

I refreshed again, and it was 81,783.


Nevermind, I was reading the numbers backwards!

Monday Catch-Up: Exciting News for Conservatives


Some exciting news for conservative SC voters broke, today: conservative blogger, GayPatriot, aka Bruce Carroll is seriously mulling a run for Senator Graham’s Senate seat.

Ben Howe of Red State reported: South Carolina to have first openly gay Republican Senator?

…today comes news that conservative blogger and activist, Bruce Carroll, is exploring a run against Senator Graham and he’s not being cagey about it. Carroll told me, “I was inspired by Sen Rand Paul’s ardent defense of the Constitution last week. It made me conclude that Senator Graham is out of step with his state’s voters on a variety of issues.” He went on to say that, “Sen. Graham has lost touch with his state. That’s why I’m looking into how I can be a part of the effort to bring him home from Washington, DC.”

Carroll is also an openly gay conservative that sat on the board of directors for the group GOProud, currently best known for its long standing spat with CPAC over the ACU’s decision to deny GOProud sponsorship of the conference. Carroll says he is resigning his post with the organization in favor of pursuing this effort:

In the interest of transparency and honesty, I informed my fellow GOProud board members that I could not dedicate time to the organization while I seriously considered the effort it might take to challenge Senator Graham in the 2014 Primary.

Lisa De Pasquale, Board Chairman of GOProud, told me of Carroll’s potential run, “I am thrilled by our beloved GayPatriot’s annoucement about his future plans. GOProud’s loss could be South Carolina’s gain!”

At the Conversation, Lisa gushed, “let me be the first to say this is FABULOUS news.”

At The Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty noted that Carroll faces an uphill battle should he decide to run:

However, the difficulty of beating Graham in a primary should not be underestimated, as Shawn Drury notes:

Last month, Winthrop University published a poll that showed Graham with an approval/disapproval rating of 71.6/17.4 among Republicans. Among all voters it was 58.4/41.6. Those poll numbers came out after the Club For Growth named Graham its top target in 2014.

. . . no South Carolina Senator who served a full term has lost a re-election campaign since Coleman Bease in 1930.

Being the incumbent is not a small advantage, chiefly when it comes to raising money, something that Graham is very good at. Before he’s even officially declared that he’ll seek re-election Graham has at least $4.4 million in his campaign coffers.

In other positive political news today, Javier Manjarres Launches HISPOLITICA: Join the Conversation:

The Shark Tank is proud to invite you to Hispolitica. Javier envisioned Hispolitica as a place where a legitimate conversation about Hispanics in America can happen…without the narrative filters imposed by mainstream or Hispanic media.

The Club For Growth: The Salmon Rule:

Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05) is laying down the gauntlet.  In an op-ed published this morning in the Washington Times, Salmon is pledging to vote against House leadership’s rules.

From this point forward, I will vote against the rule for bills that increase spending without offsetting spending cuts and encourage my other conservative colleagues to do the same. Similarly, if House leadership brings any more bills to the floor without first securing the support from the majority of the GOP conference, I will take the same action. If enough of my conservative colleagues in the House join me, we can unilaterally put an end to the growth of government that is moving us closer to Greece-like fiscal calamities.

This should be called “The Salmon Rule” from now on.  And let’s hope that his conservative colleagues join him in this pledge.  In fact, the timing of this op-ed couldn’t have been better.  Because in The Hill newspaper over the weekend, leadership is still willing to break the “Hastert Rule” – the idea that the House should only pass bills that have the support of a majority of House Republicans.


House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Sunday would not rule out passage of bills without the support of a majority of the chamber’s Republicans, saying only that Speaker Boehner (R-Ohio) was committed to finding GOP support for major legislation.

House GOP leadership has recently violated the “Hastert rule,” named after former Republican Speaker Dennis Hastert (Ill.), which requires bills coming to the floor to have support from the majority of GOP members.

If you support Salmon, tweet this with the hashtag, #TheSalmonRule.

WatchdogWire – Oregon: Ginny Burdick claims victimhood, intimidation while employing professional tracker:

Senator Ginny Burdick (D-Portland) has been in the news this week for claiming that a citizen journalist’s video shot near her home is creepy and intended to intimidate her. The irony in this claim is that her legislative chief of staff is the former paid director of opposition research for the Democratic Party of Oregon.

Jeff Fisher has been very open about his tracking and opposition research activities as a paid Democrat operative. His LinkedIn page publicly lists the following qualifications for future employers:

Joel Pollak at The Conversation has been doing some cipherin’: Michelle’s B-Day Bash = 3 years of White House Tours:

Following the example of the inestimable Charles Krauthammer, who calculated that President Barack Obama’s $1 million golf trip with Tiger Woods would pay for a full year of White House tours (at $18,000 per week), I decided to calculate the cost of First Lady Michelle Obama’s upcoming Beyoncé/Adele bash in White House Tour units (WHOTs).

Tom Blumer, PJ Media: Our Petty, Country-Be-Damned President:

Sometimes, the smallest things can be the most revealing.

On Tuesday, the nation — or at least the part that’s still paying attention — learned that President Barack Obama’s administration, in what can only be seen as an incredibly petty and virulently vindictive response to spending “cuts” imposed by sequestration (properly described in most cases as “reductions in projected spending increases”), decided to cancel all tours of the White House beginning March 9.

As a result, to name just one of what are surely many examples, sixth graders at an Iowa elementary school which had received approval to take a March 16 tour learned, barring what would seem to be a quixotic effort to change White House minds via Facebook, that it’s not going to happen. They’re reportedly going to make their trip to Washington anyway, because, according to the school’s principal, it’s an important opportunity for them to “find out more about how the government works.” They’ve clearly already learned quite a bit.

So have we.

The tours are run by volunteers. According to an estimate worked up by ABC News on Wednesday, the White House will save $18,000 per week by not utilizing 30 Secret Service agents during the tours. Even that savings figure is suspect, as original reports about the tours’ cancellation claimed that “Uniformed Division Officers assigned to the public tours will be reassigned to other security posts,” which “will reduce overtime costs as well as potential furloughs that could have been required.”

Even if the estimated $936,000 in annual savings ($18,000 times 52 weeks) really occurs, the cancelled tours of what Michelle Obama still calls the People’s House, but which should now be renamed Barack’s Barracks, could have been completely avoided if her husband, knowing that sequestration loomed, hadn’t spent over $1 million on a golf weekend with Tiger Woods in mid-February. A 10 percent less expensive outing would have enabled the tours to continue for another five or six weeks, which would have minimized the last-minute disappointment thousands of children and adults are now experiencing. But why would we expect Mrs. Obama to think of such things, when the tab for just three of her vacations also tops $1 million?

The only conceivable conclusion to draw from all of this is that Barack Obama and his administration don’t give a damn about any suffering their deliberately destructive and disruptive decisions will cause if they believe that they can exploit the related pain for political gain.

Kurt Schlichter, Townhall: Is Obama Down For the Count?

We always knew that Obama has a glass jaw, that he can’t take a punch. But it’s a little surprising that he’s started staggering around the ring so soon after November, his approval numbers bleeding away, desperately counting the seconds until the bell rings at election time in 2014 to save him from further pummeling.

It’s also hilarious.

On paper he’s a bruiser. This is a guy who won a knockout reelection bout even though the economy was in the toilet. He hit the GOP with an uppercut over the Fiscal Cliff. He’s got an awestruck media in his corner that is so enamored of him that after his speeches they need cigarettes and cuddling.

And his most powerful asset is the fact that his opponent is the GOP, an organization whose recent track record of success compares unfavorably with that of the French Army of 1941.

And yet now he’s losing. Big time.

We always knew that Obama has a glass jaw, that he can’t take a punch. But it’s a little surprising that he’s started staggering around the ring so soon after November.

Watt’s Up With That: A bridge in the climate debate – How to green the world’s deserts and reverse climate change:

To encapsulate the idea presented, I’ll borrow from a widely used TV commercial and say:

Beef, it’s what’s for climate

You can call me crazy for saying that after you watch this presentation. A BIG hattip to Mark Steward Young for bringing this to my attention.

 “Desertification is a fancy word for land that is turning to desert,” begins Allan Savory in this quietly powerful talk. And terrifyingly, it’s happening to about two-thirds of the world’s grasslands, accelerating climate change and causing traditional grazing societies to descend into social chaos. Savory has devoted his life to stopping it. He now believes — and his work so far shows — that a surprising factor can protect grasslands and even reclaim degraded land that was once desert.

Protein Wisdom: “Lawmakers eye new taxes on guns, ammo in latest wave of legislation”:

t some point, we need to just start recalling these people for violating their Constitutional oaths. And if that doesn’t work, we need en masse simply to refuse to comply with these illegitimate laws. It really is that simple. Fox News:

If you can’t ban ‘em, tax ‘em.Lawmakers looking to more tightly regulate firearms in the wake of the Newtown school shooting and other massacres are moving at the state and federal levels to introduce new taxes on firearms and ammunition.

The proposals range from the modest — a proposed 5 percent tax in New Jersey — to the steep — a proposed 50 percent ammo tax in Maryland. The bills follow efforts to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and expand background checks, measures that have had mixed success at the state level.

The taxes — much like so-called “sin taxes,” like those on cigarettes — serve a dual purpose. They can deter buyers, while using the extra revenue for favored programs. In this case, the sponsors want to direct the money toward mental health services, police training and victims’ treatment.

But firearms groups say a “sin tax” on firearms wrongly punishes law-abiding gun owners.

“If anything, gun owners ought to be getting a tax rebate for helping reduce crime,” said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

He said the purpose of the taxes is to “frustrate and limit the exercise of the Second Amendment.” While noting some of the revenue from these taxes and fees would go to victims’ services, Keane said those paying the tax are mostly not those responsible for gun crime.

The Conversation: Organizing For Access: Obama To Speak at OFA’s Founding Summit, This Wednesday:

The Hill reported Obama will be speaking to the group at their “founder’s Summit” this Wednesday, and the price tag to attend the event is $50,000.

The president will address the advocacy group’s “founder’s summit,” a two-day event for donors and supporters at a Washington-area hotel.

According to The New York Times, donors will pay $50,000 to attend the event, and other speakers will include OFA Chairman and former Obama campaign manager Jim Messina, as well as Jon Carson, the group’s executive director and former director of the White House Office of Public Engagement.

At the event, the president and OFA officials are hoping to rally supporters for efforts on the president’s gun control, immigration and budget initiatives.

Michelle Malkin: Attention, parents: Common Core opt-out form now available:

Courtesy of Truth in American Education, you can now exercise your parental rights to protect your children from the nationalized Common Core racket. Download, print, Facebook, tweet, and share the opt-out form. The revolt is growing. Make your voice and your choice heard.

Twitchy: Boom! #AskFLOTUS hashtag hijack: Michelle Obama asks for questions; Happy warriors deliver:

Michelle Obama announced via her Twitter feed that she’d be taking questions this morning at 11:05 a.m. EST on her always-absurd “Let’s move” campaign.

Ask, and ye shall receive. Since they are givers, happy warriors got the questions rolling early. Let’s move? Let’s move toward truth and accountability.

And so it began, kicking off with questions about Benghazi. Yes, once again Twitter users are doing the job that most in the media won’t do.

Townhall: BREAKING: Judge Slaps Down Bloomberg Big Gulp Ban:

Nanny state- 0

Liberty – 1

Great news New Yorkers! You can still order that large soda with your pizza. New York Supreme Court Judge Milton Tingling has struck down New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “big gulp” ban on large sugary drinks. According to Fox News, the judge called Bloomberg’s ban “arbitrary and capricious.” The arbitrary and capricious regulations were supposed to go into effect tomorrow.

Caught on Tape: Jan Schakowsky: Assault Weapons “Absolutely” Just the Beginning

The Marxists Dems in control of the party can never be honest and up front about what they’re trying to do – whether it be moving from a free market driven health care system to a government run healthcare system, or a ban on only certain, dangerous high-powered assault weapons (that only dangerous gun nuts own) to a complete ban on guns – they have to lie about their goals, lest the general public catch on. Because Americans are reasonable people, they will generally allow small, incremental infringements on their freedoms if they think it’s for the common good. Although he would later deny it, before he was president, Obama was caught on tape at least a couple of times,  advocating for a single-payer system.

In true “never let a crisis go to waste” form, left-wing Dems tried to use the financial crisis of 2008 as a springboard to reach their single-payer goals…. In 2009, Jan Schakowsky was caught admitting as much:

Schakowsky tells her Health Care for America Now audience: “And next to me was a guy from the insurance company who argued against the public health insurance option, saying it wouldn’t let private insurance compete. That a public option will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer. My single-payer friends, he was right. The man was right.”

What they got instead was an untenable, budget-busting concoction that subsidizes private health insurance companies as well as hospitals and pharmaceutical companies by forcing healthy people to buy health insurance. But everyone knows they would have gone with a single-payer system if they could have gotten away with it.

Now, we see the same dynamic at work with their assaults on the 2nd Amendment. Using the Sandyhook horror as a springboard, left-wing Dems all across the nation are introducing legislation that would incrementally take away our gun rights. Starting with what they call “assault weapons” like the highly popular AR-15 rifles millions of law-abiding Americans own, the ultimate goal is to take away all of our guns. Once again, leave it to one of Congress’s most left-leaning Dems, Jan Schakowsky to admit as much.

Via Joel Pollack of Big Government, Jan Schakowsky, apparently not knowing who she was talking to,  honestly responded to questions posed by conservative journalist, Jason Mattera.

One poignant exchange was as follows:

Schakowsky: We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.

Mattera: So the assault weapons ban is just the beginning?

Schakowsky: Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns. We have, in Illinois, the Council Against Handgun… something [Violence]. Yeah, I’m a member of that. So, absolutely.

In another exchange, Schakowsky proposed allowances for states and municipalities to ban guns–though such laws have been repeatedly rejected by the Supreme Court:

Mattera: We’ll never get a handgun ban with the Second Amendment as stated.

Schakowsky: I don’t know. I don’t know that we can’t. And there may be an allowance, once again, for communities–I have communities in my district that prohibited handguns within their borders. The rights of municipalities and states to view that as a sensible way to keep people safe–I don’t think it’s precluded.

Gun rights advocate John Lott has alleged that when he was a state Senator, Obama told him, “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

We’ll see how much success they’ll have in reaching their ultimate goal, this time around.