It needs to be recognized by the president and by you and others in the administration
that when the president says that he's going to set a time limit and then consider taking
actions himself, which many of us read to be the president again repeating, I have a
pen and a cell phone and if you don't act, I will.
that that makes doing immigration reform harder not easier.
Because those who may like what the President decides to do administratively, Have less reason to negotiate the hard decisions to be made about how to enforce our immigration laws in the future.
And those who do not agree with the President's position on immigration reform say, why should we negotiate if we can't trust the President to enforce the laws as they exist?
House Representative Bob Goodlatte has received information from inside President Barack Obama's administration detailing plans to ship non-U.S.
citizens with Ebola into the United States to receive treatment.
If you are concerned about this problem spreading, and this is a deadly disease, that we're even concerned about the great health care workers when they come back not spreading it, we certainly shouldn't be bringing in the patients.
Goodlatte, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Jay Johnson.
I love this country.
I care about the safety of our people.
I believe in public service.
And I remain loyal to you, Mr. President.
And Secretary of State John Kerry requesting any information on the plans.
But those requests have gone unanswered.
The White House also denied Goodlatte's request to impose a temporary ban on non-U.S.
citizens traveling to the United States from the three African countries hardest hit by Ebola.
Don't panic.
The news hit this morning, a Texas nurse who treated an infected patient tested positive for Ebola.
And in California, a sick passenger on a flight from JFK to Los Angeles triggered an Ebola scare.
In Boston, a man is in isolation at the hospital after complaining of Ebola-like symptoms.
That common sense request was not only denied, President Obama claims it won't make a difference.
If we institute a travel ban instead of the protocols that we put in place now, History shows that there is a likelihood of increased avoidance.
And as a consequence, we could end up having more cases rather than less.
The Obama administration has already illustrated their preference to dangerously instigate an unyielding socialist position over the safety of American citizens.
In 2013, Immigration and Customs Enforcement released into the United States 2,200 illegals, 629 of which that have criminal records ranging from repeated drunk driving offenses to aggravated felony drug, sexual abuse, and homicide charges.
No one on that list was charged or convicted with murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, were they?
They were not.
Was anyone charged or convicted of illicit trafficking in a controlled substance?
There were some with drug offenses.
The individual I mentioned earlier who is 68 and a lawful parent resident.
Were any of them involved in child pornography?
Not of the ones that I am aware of that were released, no.
So of the 2,228, you can testify that none of them were involved in child pornography?
To the best of my knowledge, I can testify the answer is no.
Well, to the best of your knowledge just means that you don't have any knowledge.
That information was leaked to the public only after USA Today made a Freedom of Information Act request.
Although 418 charges of child sexual molestation and rape in North Carolina in one month alone went heavily unreported.
As Obama waits until after the midterm elections to open the floodgates, what is driving the Obama administration's recklessness?
Look no further than Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama, John P. Holdren.
Holdren is the author of Ecoscience, the textbook that advocates putting drugs in the water supply to sterilize people, mandatory forced abortions, and a tyrannical eco-fascist dictatorship run by a planetary regime.
Holdren's radical solutions to overpopulation are routinely discussed in the halls of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Sciences has published a shocking report which envisages a Chinese-style global one-child policy as the only means of reversing climate change and reducing global population to a sustainable number of one to two billion people.
The white paper entitled, Human Population Reduction Is Not A Quick Fix For Environmental Problems, authored by the University of Adelaide's Corey Bradshaw and Barry Brooke, even entertains the impact of world wars and global pandemics that wipe out 6 billion people.
As potential methods of combating the threat posed to the environment by overpopulation.
Under one scenario, a global pandemic wipes out 6 billion people from the year 2041 onwards, resulting in the planet's population being reduced to 5.1 billion by the year 2100.
However, this reduction of 2 billion people compared to current figures is not sufficient to accomplish the level of human culling desired by the authors.
Who note that even future events that rival or plausibly exceed past societal cataclysms cannot guarantee small future population sizes without additional measures such as fertility control.
The paper is edited by Stanford University's Paul R. Ehrlich, a perennial advocate of population reduction whose dire proclamations about environmental catastrophes as a result of overpopulation have been proven wildly inaccurate time and time again.
This will confuse you because how can then the total population grow like this if the children doesn't increase?