Wrath of Dagon

CAIR is a Muslim Brotherhood front, like it or not. CIS numbers in those charts are from ICE.

As I explained earlier, Obama started counting people turned back at the border as deportations, which they weren't counted as before. The actual interior deportations declined dramatically: http://cis.org/ICE-deportations-hit-10-yr-low?platform=hootsuite

Pretty interesting new Styx video: http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/118530-styx-shards-of-darkness-making-of-a-goblin-video.html Not sure how I feel about the humor though, but at least it should help with the somewhat morbid atmosphere of the last game.

ICE and Border Patrol are just going to do what they're doing already, except without all the constraints Obama put on them.

If you as much as pick up an eagle feather in a zoo you could be facing a long prison term. But to the illegals no rules apply, at least until now. The laws about illegally entering the country are all there, there's nothing for Congress to do. Same as alien travel, the President is already authorized to deny visas as he sees fit. There are no "roadblocks" if you're here legally. Legalizing all the illegals without solving the illegal entry problem first will only reward the lawbreakers, and encourage others to break the law. Edit: We're really not all living in the same country any more: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/22/chicago-moving-to-name-street-after-faln-terrorist-oscar-lopez-rivera/

The priority is still on deporting criminals, so there is no mass deportation. No one is automatically immune now, that's true, but that's what the law says. Edit: Apparently expedited removal applies only to illegals who've been here less than 2 years, and to criminals presumably.

Where did they get the millions number? And actually enforcing the law is myopic now, because anti-law groups might sue?

A fantastic poem: https://americanliterature.com/author/rudyard-kipling/poem/the-last-suttee You have to read the explanation on top for it to make any sense though (scroll at the bottom).

It wasn't just one line, as the National Review link you provide explains. Especially instructive is what Rhodes said about the main stream reporters and how easy it is to fool them. Yes, it got quite a bit of play in right wing media, but how many people actually heard of it compared to the Sweden brouhaha? Yet the former is orders of magnitude more important than the latter, and was a deliberate, well thought out and carried out strategy of deception, instead of an off-hand remark that's actually completely true, once the media initial wild misinterpretation has been put to bed. Also btw, talk about not-qualified political people running the entire foreign policy.

No, Rhodes admitted to the deception himself in that article, and then crickets in the main stream media. No fiery editorials, no angry tweets, it's like they rolled over and played dead, hoping Obama would stroke their tummy.

Nonsense, Obama could get away with anything, even openly admitting lying to and manipulating the press and Congress: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/17/editorial-ben-rhodes-must-account-for-lies-about-i/

There was nothing ridiculous about it. One infected person came in, two people got infected from him and will possibly suffer life time consequences, although both fortunately survived. Find the details of Doctors Without Borders dying in spite of taking all possible precautions to see how extremely dangerous that disease is. If it turned out to be more infectious in the early stages, there'd be an infection in the US no one could stop, so we really dodged the bullet that time.

You're the one who claimed Obama would be "crucified", I simply pointed out that wasn't true, but true to form you then blame me for moral equivalency. As for your ps, see my edit to my previous answer.

Refusing to follow or enforce the law, letting foreign nationals potentially infected with Ebola into the US, and setting Iran on a path to nuclear weapons, while simultaneously enabling and subsidizing their terrorism activities. That's just off the top of my head though. Oh, yeah, I forgot, withdrawing from Iraq and throwing away all we did there, opening the way for IS.

Obama told deliberate provable lies and never got called on it because he was the Messiah to the media. Edit: Also needs to be noted Trump wasn't giving a speech on the subject of Swedish immigration and crime. He made an extemporaneous remark on what he saw the night before. Here's a more balanced story from AP: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-comments-put-focus-swedens-embrace-immigrants-204602185.html

Speaking of healthcare, this will determine the course of the American politics over the next few years more than anything: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/22/morici-republicans-coming-short-obamacare-repeal-replace/

again you alter what trump said so it fits what you believe trump menat. and even then, what trump meant were that he watched a fox new bit 'bout a documentary referencing swedish crime rates. again, you cannot possibly explain away how asinine it is for a world leader to reference a fox news bit as a policy driver. the President has potential access to more information than any of us can imagine, but instead of having the state department or intelligence look into the claims by the documentary guy, trump instead repeats as if such stuff is fact. ... the fact you are even arguing this is mind boggling. you are defending the President's use o' a random fox news segment as his source for a claim regarding refugee violence. am getting brain freeze sensation simple reflecting 'pon that reality. 1% ain't contradictory at all. the number of refugees is still small compared to the total population. duh. HA! Good Fun! ps breitbart citing breitbart. ha Really, you think he's going to have the State Department and the CIA investigate Swedish crime rates before he makes an off-hand remark in a political speech? Politicians have always relied on news reports to make their points, this is some kind of new standard you came up with.

I dont hate Trump, its counterintuitive to hate a new president of any country. Objective criticism is fine, I have seen some very good decisions by the Trump presidency around foreign policy but he has made some questionable domestic political decisions. But its far too early to write him off I can answer the link though, I'm confused by the point the link is making? Trump is neither of those options, I can see positive in both options but neither is ideal for me. But I dont get the spurious comparisons or what is the expected outcome of answering the questions? It's just for Trump haters to see if they'd hate him just as much if one or the other alternative is true. It's meant to point out to people that may be the reason they state for hating Trump isn't the real reason. More on the Milo controversy: http://thedeclination.com/the-media-strikes-back-milo-lies-and-videotape/ It's clear what he said though, why defend him? https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/02/20/some-breitbart-employees-set-to-walk-if-milo-not-fired/

They're not linking to it as proof, they're linking so you can read more if you want to without having to repeat themselves in every article. It's commonly done on the web.

Two thought experiments to try: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2017/02/trump-haters-please-do-these-2-thought.html

Thanks, but deleting all cookies causes other problems. And Washington Compost isn't worth it. Some real facts: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/02/21/ten-topics-swedens-multicultural-utopia-massively-failing/ How crime statistics are manipulated: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/04/claim-coverup-immigration-crime-sweden/ So the best WaPo could've said is that the facts are in dispute, not that Trump lied, especially when events immediately prove him right. But it's not surprising because all the self proclaimed "fact checkers" are Democrats, so of course they find that Republicans mostly lie and Democrats are mostly truthful.

Trump wasn't talking about overall crime rates, he was talking about immigrant crime. And I can't see your stupid article any more because it's behind a paywall, but I seem to remember they made a ridiculous claim that only 1% of crime was due to immigrants, which is completely contradicted by charts in my link. Not to mention the article contradicts itself as I pointed out.

You're misrepresenting what I said, but I know you don't argue honestly. I'm selectively quoting? I'm quoting your own link, and how is that quote different from what Trump said? Yet WaPo is claiming Trump lied? Even though Trump was quoting the report he saw? How is that a lie, the most they could say the report was wrong.

The very first fact check is a lie. Crime is up in Sweden, not down, especially in immigrant areas like Malmo. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/02/we-should-practice-truth-statistics-even-when-it-hurts you didn't bother to read the full wp story regarding that particular fact check, did you? the option to do so was available. just clicky the link. you can do it. HA! Good Fun! Even the longer article contradicted its own lies And why is Malmo's police chief talking about a "rising spiral of violence"? There have been 52 hand grenade attacks there just in 2016! And this is to say nothing about the immigrant riots that just happened. Kessler, who does "fact checking" for WaPo, is a known partisan liar that's been caught many times before.

The very first fact check is a lie. Crime is up in Sweden, not down, especially in immigrant areas like Malmo. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/02/we-should-practice-truth-statistics-even-when-it-hurts