Obama Just Had His Hand Slapped Hard By Fed Judge Who Blocks This ‘Inexplicable’ Overreach

Calling the Environmental Protection Agency’s latest effort to extend its control over virtually all U.S. waterways “inexplicable, arbitrary and devoid of reasoned process,” a federal judge has just blocked another attempt by President Obama to bypass Congress.

The Washington Times reports that Judge Ralph Erickson has issued a temporary injunction that prevents the EPA “from claiming oversight of millions of acres of land that contain small bodies of water.”

Critics of the EPA initiative have argued that the far-reaching new rule would give Obama’s official environmental activists vast new powers that would threaten water rights and usage by untold numbers of individuals, including farmers.

The Times article notes the critics’ argument that “the EPA would control lands near ditches with no possible connection to the rivers and lakes that the [original] law was designed to protect.”

The judge in North Dakota who blocked the EPA’s sweeping new rule agreed with critics, supporting his injunction with strong words that slap down what many see as yet another power grab by the Obama administration:

The rule asserts jurisdiction over waters that are remote and intermittent waters. No evidence actually points to how these intermittent and remote wetlands have any nexus to a navigable-in-fact water.

Thirteen states had sued to block the EPA from implementing its new water rule. Immediately after the federal judge hit the brakes on the agency’s action, the EPA put out a statement saying it would honor the judge’s order only in the states that had taken the administration to court. The remaining thirty-seven states, said the EPA, would see the sweeping changes to water regulations go into effect right away.

The Washington Times reports:

“In all other respects, the rule is effective on August 28,” the agency said in a statement. “The agencies [EPA and Army Corps of Engineers] are evaluating these orders and considering next steps in the litigation.’”

As the Times points out, this action by the federal judge in North Dakota is “the latest in a long list” of federal rulings challenging Obama’s authority to expand the reach and power of the executive branch.

Western Journalism has reported extensively on the actions of the federal court in Texas that put a halt, at least temporarily, to Obama’s executive amnesty orders for illegal immigrants. That case is working its way through the judicial system, as are many others alleging presidential overreach.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Sheriff Arpaio Just Got A Setback From A Federal Court In His Attempt To Stop Obama’s Amnesty

In a ruling that focused on procedure and not policy, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona can’t sue the Obama administration to halt Obama’s amnesty on deporting illegal immigrants.

The ruling marks a legal victory for the federal government, but it is a very scant one because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia didn’t rule on the actual substance of the president’s tentative amnesty program. Instead, the court said Arpaio didn’t prove Maricopa County was harmed by the amnesty and thus had no legal standing to sue.

Arpaio fought back against Obama’s amnesty, announced in November 2014, and claimed the administration’s deferred-deportation program — allowing up to 5 million immigrants to stay in the country — would serve as a magnet for others to cross from Mexico into his jurisdiction. He said illegal immigrants would stay in his area and commit crimes.

Although Arpaio’s challenge to Obama suffered a setback, other challenges are moving forward. The amnesty program was put on hold by a federal judge in Texas. An appeals court in New Orleans is grappling with an appeal in that case. The judges in that case, in an earlier ruling, had found Texas and 25 other states did have standing to sue because the amnesty would add potentially hundreds of thousands of new people able to seek driver’s licenses or other public benefits, which are quantifiable costs.

Larry Klayman, who is representing Arpaio, said the sheriff will not give up the fight and plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“This is costing the taxpayers — the people of Maricopa County — extra money to house criminals that should be sent back to wherever they came from,” he said.

“I’m confident this Supreme Court — which is largely conservative in nature — will agree with us, consolidate the two decisions and rule that Obama’s executive amnesty is unconstitutional,” he added.

h/t: The Washington Times

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

She Was Killed As She Slept In Her Own Bed. Identity Of Her Suspected Killers Will Outrage You

Mirta Rivera, a 41-year-old nurse in Lawrence, Mass., was asleep in her apartment on July 4th when a shot rang out and a bullet came flying through the ceiling of her bedroom. Rivera was killed as she lay in her bed.

Now, police say the fatal shot came from an upstairs apartment occupied by two illegal immigrants who should not have been in the United States — two Dominican Republic nationals who had previously been caught for sneaking into the country and ordered to leave.

Lara-Calmona, 38, was deported in April 2012 and arrested for re-entering the country last November, the records show.

Lara-Mejia, 35, was nabbed crossing the border in August 2013 and ordered deported in April 2014, but had remained in the country illegally.

The Boston Herald reports on the shocking case that “critics say illustrates a revolving immigration door with dangerous consequences.” Both suspects in the random shooting death of Rivera, a grandmother, “were charged with trafficking heroin and cocaine after police said they found drugs as well as a ‘clear and obvious’ rifle bullet hole in Lara-Mejia’s second-floor bedroom, according to police records,” says the newspaper account.

Western Journalism has been reporting on a similar case that’s focused an intense national spotlight back on illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, and criminal illegals who return to America after being deported. That tragic shooting death in San Francisco — which occurred just days before the July 4th killing of the Massachusetts woman — involved Mexican national Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, charged with the random murder of Kate Steinle as she walked with her father on a popular pier.

Regarding the Massachusetts killing that could be pinned on the two illegal immigrants, Fox News reports on the reaction of an expert from the Center for Immigration Studies:

“’This has been happening all over the country for several years,’ said Dan Cadman, a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and a retired federal immigration official. ‘I hope the American public is stirred up and angry about it.’”

In Connecticut, meanwhile, Fox News says there’s another pending murder case in which an illegal immigrant is charged with the stabbing death of a 25-year-old woman:

In Norwich, Conn., Jean Jacques, 40, a Haitian illegal immigrant who got out of prison in January after serving 17 years for attempted murder, has been charged with stabbing Casey Chadwick, 25, to death and stuffing her in a closet last month. Jacques’ prison file was marked “Detainer: Immigration,” according to the Norwich Bulletin.

What is your perspective on illegal immigration in the US? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Scott Walker Gets Confronted By Angry Illegal Immigrant – Has The Perfect Response

Republican presidential candidate Scott Walker was cornered during a campaign stop in Iowa recently, giving him an unexpected opportunity to weigh in on the immigration issue. While Donald Trump has earned both scorn and praise for his brash denunciation of illegal immigration, the Wisconsin governor remained calm in his encounter with members of an illegal family accusing him of blocking Barack Obama’s immigration reform.

“I’m governor,” he clarified. “I don’t have anything to do with the federal government.”

Addressing the general subject, however, Walker did make it clear he does not support Obama’s executive action.

“For us,” he said, “we’re a nation of laws; and, unfortunately, the president last year – after saying 22 times before last year that he couldn’t make the law himself, he said he wasn’t emperor and he was the president of the United States and he could not change the law – he decided to change the law even though the courts announced he can’t do that.”

He went on to insist that he sympathizes with the family and others like it, noting his concern is “exactly why we need to go forward with putting in place a logical system.”

As president, Walker said he would push for an immigration system that focused on “securing the borders, as I’ve said many times before, [and] putting in place a system that enforces the law.”

Obama, Walker charged, failed to act on the pressing border issue – even during his first two years with a Democrat majority in Congress. Instead, he opted to do what he repeatedly stated he was not constitutionally allowed to do.

“No man or woman is above the law in this country,” he reiterated.

When asked by one reporter whether he would deport the family standing before him, Walker replied: “That’s not what I said.”

Some conservatives embraced the remarks by a candidate for whom immigration has been a thorny issue. Others, however, felt the mere fact that a family of illegals felt comfortable exposing their crime to a presidential candidate was indicative of a much larger problem.

“If I went on national TV and claimed I broke Federal and State laws,” one reader wrote on TheBlaze, “and stated the exact nature of my lawlessness I would expect to be arrested the same or the next day.”

Illegal immigrants, the critic noted, “have no such fear and use their lawlessness as political talking points to sway politicians to kowtow to them for votes.”

Should America be a nation of laws or executive amnesty? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Fist Fight Nearly Breaks Out Over Trump On Fox News- ‘I’d Knock You Out Right Now…’

It was more like a segment of the infamously tense and turbulent Jerry Springer Show than a few minutes from The Five on Fox News. Yes, the panelists on The Five can toss some zingers, but Monday’s episode appeared to be on the brink of a few fists being thrown as well.

During a raucous discussion of illegal immigration and the tough, no-nonsense stand taken by presidential contender Donald Trump, the war of words between Eric Bolling and Geraldo Rivera became so heated that co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle called on-air for the control room to cut quickly to a commercial break.

By clicking on the video above, you can see for yourself how the emotions quickly got out of hand. Bolling and Rivera, sitting next to one another, really went at it with accusations and a stunning in-your-face challenge. The segment begins with Jesse Watters accusing Rivera of exploiting the death of Kate Steinle, the young woman shot dead on a San Francisco pier, allegedly by a repeat-offender illegal immigrant.

h/t: TheBlaze

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth