James Simpson — November 6, 2013
Excerpt (pertaining to illegal immigration)
- Obamacare provides millions of dollars to leftwing community organizers, including ACORN descendants. A radical illegal alien is running the NYC Obamacare “navigator” program.
- Rather than provide healthcare, the Obamacare websiteis being used to boost low-income Democrat voter registration. Election integrity activists have called it “The biggest voter registration fraud scheme in history.” The Soros-funded Demos has bragged that Obamacare exchanges will register “68 million people to vote.”
· November 20, 2014 – 4:52 pm EST | 3 Comments
· By: JB Williams Right Side News House leaders have placed Obama on OFFICIAL NOTICE to stop the usurpation of Congress by violating the Constitution with illegal Executive amnesty. The North American Law Center (NALC), working in concert with numerous patriot groups across America, placed House Republicans on notice demanding that they use constitutional congressional power […]
Delusional Obama Declares Action Lawful, Not Amnesty; Republicans Promise Fight
By Joseph R. Carducci, November 21, 2014.
So, after months of talking about how he was going to act alone, going so far as to use his pen and phone, our feckless President Obama has laid out his plan for granting amnesty. Of course, Obama needed to justify this plan and try to fool at least some of the voters in this country. To that end, he declared his plan is NOT amnesty…and that it is perfectly legal.
Obama Does a 360, Declares Unilateral Action
This still flies directly in the face of six years of Obama insisting he didn’t have the authority to unilaterally change the immigration laws without the consent of Congress. I suppose that he is still hearing that mandate from those non-voters; maybe they were the ones who told him to go ahead and act on this now.
Honestly, though, this is probably simply how the most arrogant President in history gets his revenge. He has been reportedly furious ever since the Democrats endured their tidal wave of defeat in the midterms earlier this month. This is how Obama strikes back; by picking a political fight. He doesn’t think that the Republicans have the political will to do anything about this new plan, or he thinks they don’t have enough tools or power to do so. Maybe he thinks they won’t actually block his nominees…or that such a political battle would go badly for the Republicans? Then again, maybe he just doesn’t even care?
Obama Claims Authority to Act Alone
So, if this new plan of Obama’s isn’t amnesty, then what exactly is it? He tried to justify this by claiming, “there are actions I have the legal authority to take as President…that will help make our immigration system more fair and just.” Perhaps, but certainly not by going behind the back of Congress; not that this is really anything new for Obama…he has never been much for working together with Congress.
Even when Congress was held by the Democrats for the first two years of his Presidency, Obama seemed not to care about doing any type of immigration reform deal. Undoubtedly, this was something he could have had. Even up until he started simply not enforcing immigration laws and allowing a huge and constant flow of illegals over our southern border, he probably could have been able to get some type of deal.
Plan Could Be Devastating For Economy
That deal, probably wouldn’t have looked like his new plan. This calls for the fast tracking of green cards in order to make illegals eligible for numerous government welfare and other handout programs. That’s just what our country needs right about now, as our national debt is about to blast through the $18 trillion mark. That would be bad enough, but Obama’s plan also calls for the issuance of five million new work permits for those illegals living inside the United States.
Hopefully, the new Republicans in Congress are ready to stand up to this challenge. Hopefully, they will also be able to find a few more reasonably minded Democrats (yes, I know this might be difficult) to go along with them. This is more than just bad policy, it is a direct challenge to the Constitution. Even Constitutional Law professors and other liberals don’t agree with Obama’s action.
If Obama gets away with this, he will have changed the make-up of executive power and authority for years to come. Future generations will refer to this ‘plan’ and how Congress and the voters react to it as a pivotal moment in history. It was at least encouraging last night to hear some of the Republican leadership making statements to fight this and take all legal actions to prevent it from happening.
What do YOU think? Will the Republicans mount a vigorous challenge? Will it be enough to stop the new amnesty plan from really being implemented?
Bobby Jindal: GOP Must Do Everything to Stop Obama’s Amnesty Plan
Sunday, 16 Nov 2014 10:20 AM
More ways to share…
Tell my politician
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says Republicans should do everything within their power to stop President Barack Obama from taking executive action to grant amnesty to up to 5 million illegal immigrants.
When asked Sunday on "Meet the Press" whether that included shutting down the government, Jindal replied, "I don’t think the president should shut down the government to try to break the Constitution."
Host Chuck Todd said that sounded like he would favor a standoff that could possibly shut down the government, but Jindal stuck to his assertion that it would be Obama shutting down the government if he and Republicans in Congress can’t reach an agreement.
Turning to Jindal’s own possible presidential aspirations in 2016, Todd noted that the governor suffers low approval numbers in his own state.
Jindal said he’s never been concerned with polls, and was elected to make "generational changes" in Louisiana.
He noted he has cut the state budget 26 percent, cut the number of state employees by 34 percent and overseen the growth of Louisiana’s private sector economy at double the rate of the national economy.
Jindal has said he won’t decide on a presidential run until next year, but that if he does it would be because "I believe in our country."
"The American Dream is at jeopardy," he said. "This president has defined the American Dream as more dependence on the government."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/bobby-jindal-gop-amnesty-obama/2014/11/16/id/607626/#ixzz3JIQ1Mp5q
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Amnesty and Impeachment
Absent the credible threat of impeachment, Obama will pardon millions of illegal aliens.
November 8, 2014 4:00 AM By Andrew C. McCarthy
There is high anxiety over President Obama’s impending unilateral amnesty order for millions of illegal aliens. How many millions? The estimates vary. On the low end, 3 to 8 million, assuming some correlation to the potential beneficiaries of the president’s already existing amnesty decrees (including DACA or Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals). On the high end, as many as 9 to 34 million, factoring in likely categorical expansions of amnesty and their ramifications over the next several years.
The anxiety stems from a remorseless truth that no one — most especially Mr. Obama’s most ardent detractors — wants to confront. It is the truth I have addressed, to much groaning and teeth-gnashing, in Faithless Execution, my recent book on presidential lawlessness.
It is this: The nation overwhelmingly objects to Obama’s immigration lawlessness, but it has no stomach for the only effective counter to it — the plausible threat of impeachment.
To hear the demagogue-in-chief tell it, the controversy over how to deal with the approximately 12 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S. is a Manichean debate between enlightened humanitarians and vulgar xenophobes. (To be fair to the president, he is far from alone in peddling this smear.) But objections to Obama’s reckless immigration policies — indeed, to his policies in general, as this week’s historic election reaffirmed — cut across party and philosophical lines.
To be sure, the most intense protest is heard in “restrictionist” circles and among those for whom rule-of-law and national-security concerns trump sympathy for the plight of legions of decent but unlawfully present non-citizens (some of whom were brought here as children and are blameless for their illegal status). There are also, however, many enthusiasts of immigration amnesty — the euphemism is legislative “reform” — who recognize that the president’s sweeping, dictatorial approach is angering the public. That damages not just the cause but the career prospects of those who’ve made the cause their own.
So, on immigration, the president has managed to unite much of the country . . . against him — who says he’s divisive? Nevertheless, Obama made clear again this week that he intends to push ahead with massive amnesty by executive order. Further infuriating the public with his cynicism, he has strategically but quite openly delayed his directive until after the election, as if to say, “The rubes are too stupid to grasp what I’m doing even when I make no secret of it!”
As Faithless Execution recounts, the delegates at the 1787 Philadelphia convention included impeachment in the Constitution because they believed it to be “indispensible” (as Madison put it) to preventing the abuse of executive power. Congressional authority to remove a president would be a decisive check. Still, the Framers reckoned it would rarely be invoked.
To turn back most instances of executive overreach, less drastic remedies would do the trick. The ballot box, for one: The Framers high-mindedly assumed that an imperious, corrupt, or incompetent candidate would not be elected, much less reelected. In addition, the power of the purse would enable Congress to cut off the funds a president would need to carry out reckless or lawless enterprises; and requiring Senate approval of presidential appointments would give lawmakers additional leverage to bend the president into compliance with the law and the public will.
But here’s the problem: Obama has no more elections to worry about; and, other than impeachment, the rest of the arsenal designed by the Framers is impotent when it comes to most of his immigration scheme.
That scheme implicates three closely related but importantly distinct considerations: the lawless status of the aliens in question; non-enforcement of the immigration laws against them; and the conferral of legal status on them. On the first two, the president’s power to forgive law-breaking and refrain from law-enforcement is plenary. The abuse of these powers is essentially irresistible . . . except by impeachment. As for the third consideration, even though the president has no direct power to confer legal status or benefits (e.g., work permits) on aliens, that technical deficiency could be overcome by the abusive exploitation of the aforementioned powers he undeniably has.
I acknowledge in Faithless Execution that to refrain from invoking impeachment as the credible threat the Framers intended it to be is a rational political choice. My point is that it is a choice fraught with consequences. We have to face those consequences. We don’t get to avoid them by being reasonable, moderate people who recoil from the I-word. Nor, in the matter of illegal immigration, is there any funding cut or loopy congressional lawsuit that can dissuade this president. There is either a credible threat of impeachment or a transformational mass-amnesty. That’s it.
Executive Order Confusion
The public debate over Obama’s anticipated amnesty proclamation has wrongly focused on executive orders. So sullied has this term become that it is now a standard talking–point of Obama apologists that he has issued fewer such directives than his predecessors. It is a red herring.
There is nothing wrong in principle with an executive order — no more than there is with a statute. Congressional laws are problematic only when they exceed Congress’s powers in violation of the Constitution. Same with executive orders: The president’s powers are broad, the executive branch through which he exercises them is extensive, and there is consequently nothing improper in his issuance of executive orders to manage the conduct of legitimate executive functions — just as there is nothing invalid in Congress’s enactment of statutes consistent with its capacious constitutional authorities or a court’s issuing rulings within its proper jurisdiction.
Executive orders are offensive only when the president employs them to usurp the powers of the other branches — in particular, the legislative authority of Congress. If the president issued an executive order directing the IRS to collect taxes on a rate-schedule he unilaterally prescribed, that would be a serious violation of law. The fact that there was only one such executive order rather than, say, 500 would be quite beside the point.
With that backdrop, let’s go back to our three considerations in the immigration context.
1. Lawless Status of the Aliens.
The Constitution vests the president with “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States.” It is an awesome power — wholly unreviewable and nearly limitless — although one explicit limit is crucial, and we’ll get to it in due course.
Any offense against federal law is subject to pardon, and the Supreme Court has held since the Civil War that pardons remove “any of the penalties and disabilities” that would flow from a conviction. In fact, nothing in the Constitution prevents a president from pardoning his own law-breaking. The pardon power does not apply prospectively — the president may not license future law-breaking. But once the law has been broken, the president can pardon the offense; there is no need for an investigation to have occurred, much less a prosecution or conviction.
Pardons, moreover, need neither be individualized nor actually sought by the person to be pardoned. As George Mason law professor James Pfiffner recounts in the Heritage Foundation’s excellent Guide to The Constitution, President Washington granted a blanket amnesty to collaborators in the Whiskey Rebellion; Presidents Lincoln and Johnson pardoned pro-Confederacy seditionists. On his first day in office in 1977, President Carter fulfilled a campaign promise by pardoning hundreds of thousands of Vietnam draft evaders.
It is occasionally claimed that illegal immigration is beyond the pardon power because it is “civil” wrong not a criminal offense. This contention is largely incorrect, and it rests on a dubious assumption. Illegal entry into the United States is a criminal offense, albeit a misdemeanor. Reentry after deportation is a felony. And illegal aliens often commit various crimes to sustain their unlawful presence in our country. It is certainly true that an alien’s being unlawfully present in the United States — for example, overstaying a visa or remaining here after illegally entering — is a civil violation, not a criminal one, but it is serious enough to render an alien deportable. The Constitution, in any event, enables a president to pardon federal “Offenses” — it does not say criminal offenses. While it is a reasonable deduction that the Framers’ use of the word “offense” was meant to imply crimes, not civil wrongs, why should we assume that federal courts now stacked with Obama-appointed judges would see it that way? Why should the word offense be any less “organic” than, say, the term equal protection of the laws? Besides, the point of a blanket pardon would not be to confer lawful status on the aliens, something the president has no power to do. The point, as we shall see, would be to pave the way for the courts to finish the job.
Thus, fully within his constitutional authority, President Obama could, right this minute and without any congressional approval, pardon every illegal alien in the United States — indeed, every illegal alien anywhere who has been deported after violating federal law. He could do it by executive order and, while outrageous and condemnable, it would indisputably be within his Article II power. (As I have been pointing out since before Obama’s 2008 election, his longtime friendship with former terrorist Bill Ayers is rooted in their shared radical notions about the American criminal-justice system — which Ayers, in a book Obama gushingly endorsed, condemned as the racist equivalent of Apartheid South Africa. If I were in Congress right now, I’d be asking the Justice Department a lot of questions about preparations for pardons in Obama’s last two years. If you’re a convict not named Dinesh D’Souza or Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, I imagine you’ve got a shot.)
2. Non-enforcement of the Immigration Laws
As I explain in Faithless Execution, while the Constitution grants much raw power to the president, it also constrains its exercise by placing limits on the legitimate uses of executive authority. A textbook example of illegitimate exercise of a legitimate power is Obama’s abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
Prosecution is an awesome executive power. The Framers realized that, throughout history, the joinder in a single official or governing body of the powers to make law and to prosecute was the road to tyranny. So they took pains to separate legislative and prosecutorial authority. The executive branch was given plenary authority over federal law-enforcement: It is entirely up to the president and his Justice Department subordinates to decide what offenses and offenders will be investigated and prosecuted. Congress can try to pressure and prod, but it has no ability to coerce the Justice Department to enforce laws. (It is worth noting that the just-described sweep of the pardon power similarly reflects the Framers’ purposes to divide law-making from law-enforcement and to check potential legislative overreach.)
Pre-Obama, prosecutorial discretion was understood as an unremarkable resource-allocation doctrine specific to the criminal law. Enforcement resources are finite. It is neither possible nor desirable to prosecute every single violation of law. Therefore, policymakers, prosecutors, and police must exercise judgment about which violations merit attention and which ones can be overlooked. Mind you, the overlooking does not excuse the law-breaking; it is simply a concession to reality — there are more pressing threats to society than pot-smoking, petty fraud, etc.
Obama, however, has contorted prosecutorial discretion into a license to ignore, “waive,” rewrite, and otherwise violate congressional statutes — including laws such as the Affordable Care Act that are far afield from criminal-law enforcement. In sum, “prosecutorial discretion” has become the camouflage for Obama’s usurpation of the powers to write and conclusively interpret the law — powers the Constitution vests in Congress and the courts.
Faithless Execution outlines a litany of Obama-administration directives that the immigration laws go unenforced. In combination, they already amount to a large-scale amnesty. This, like abuse of the pardon power, can rightly be described as outrageous and condemnable. But, once again, such executive orders are indisputably within the president’s Article II power in the sense that neither Congress nor the courts can compel him to enforce the law.
3. Conferral of Legal Status
Under the Constitution, the power to determine the qualifications for American citizenship is legislative. Obviously, Congress’s prescriptions must be signed by the president to become law (unless lawmakers have the numbers to override a veto). The president, however, has absolutely no authority to confer legal status or positive benefits (e.g., work permits) on aliens who are in the United States illegally. If the president attempts to do this by executive order — and, as Faithless Execution recounts, Obama has already done it, albeit on smaller scales than what is now being contemplated — that would patently exceed his authority, in violation of both the Constitution and statutory law.
But it is never that simple, is it? Let’s say Obama pardoned some millions of illegal aliens. The effect of a pardon is to expunge a violation of the law and its attendant effects. In the eyes of the law, it is as if the offense never happened.
Well, the legal and moral case against conferring legal status on illegal aliens is that doing so would excuse their law-breaking, encourage more law-breaking, and give the lawbreakers an unfair preference over aliens who have tried to immigrate lawfully. But a pardon would thrust us into a legal fiction in which we’d have to pretend that the aliens had never broken our immigration laws in the first place. What, then, would remain of the rationale for complaining about the preference given law-breakers over law-abiding aliens? Or for continuing to saddle the aliens with illegal status? Anyone want to bet me on how the nearly 400 judges Obama will have put on the federal bench by 2017 would come out on those questions?
If the president refuses to enforce the immigration laws and grants something close to a blanket amnesty, we will be on an inexorable course toward citizenship — and, crucially, voting rights — for millions of illegal aliens, also known as Democrats waiting to happen. It is the Left’s dream of a permanent, unassimilated, post-American governing majority.
Is that where we are headed?
Abuse of Power and Impeachment
As we noted earlier, the president’s pardon power is nearly limitless. There is a single exception, explicit in the Constitution’s Article II, Section 2: “Cases of Impeachment.”
The president can prevent incarceration and other legal punishments for any unlawful acts; but he cannot prevent impeachment — his own or any other official’s — based on the abuses of power that flow from those acts. Impeachment is a political remedy, not a legal one. It is about the removal of political power because of breaches of the public trust, not legal prosecution and punishment. Indeed, the Framers considered narrowing the pardon power to prevent the president from granting amnesty for his own lawlessness; they opted against it precisely because they believed the specter of impeachment would be sufficient disincentive.
As we’ve seen, the president’s pardon and prosecutorial powers are formidable. They do not, however, exist in a vacuum. They exist in a constitutional framework wherein the president’s core duties are to execute the laws faithfully and preserve our system of government. The fact that an act is within a president’s vast lawful power does not make it a faithful, constitutionally legitimate use of that power. As Faithless Execution elaborates, an act need not be criminal or indictable in order to be impeachable. There is far more to fiduciary responsibility than acting within the margins of technical legality.
To offer an analogy, a judge who sentenced a defendant to 20 years’ imprisonment for handing someone a single marijuana cigarette would be imposing a legal sentence (i.e., within the governing statute) but would demonstrate himself unfit to be a judge. Likewise, lawmakers have the power to impose a 100 percent tax on income, but doing so would be an intolerable abuse of power. Similarly, a president who uses the pardon power and prosecutorial discretion as pretexts for usurping Congress’s power to make immigration law, for encouraging law-breaking, and for remaking the country in a manner that imperils the economic and security interests of American citizens, commits grievous impeachable offenses.
To be blunt, there is no real power-of-the-purse check on the president’s pardon power. Congress could threaten to withhold funds necessary for other Obama agenda items in an effort to discourage a blanket amnesty — although it would not be a very credible threat with the soon-to-be Senate majority leader having already pledged to refrain from using Congress’s control of the purse-strings as leverage. But let’s face it: While many of his abuses of power cannot happen without congressional funding, the president doesn’t need a dime to pardon people. He doesn’t even need his phone — just his pen.
The only real check on the pardon power is impeachment.
At this point, would a credible threat of impeachment be much of a check on this president’s designs? I’m not sure. Obama’s stated goal is fundamental transformation of the nation, and a blanket amnesty would accomplish that. From his standpoint, it might be worth the risk. Plus, even if the amnesty suddenly ignited public sentiment for the president’s removal from office (a dubious supposition), nothing in Washington happens quickly. Obama would still have many months if not most of the rest of his term to abuse his awesome powers (including by issuing additional pardons) in transformational ways.
But I do know this: Absent a credible threat of impeachment, President Obama cannot and will not be stopped from granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens, who will in short order be awarded citizenship and voting rights. You can call that a plea for impeachment if you’d like. I call it a statement of fact.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment. Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks. He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. He is currently a columnist for National Review.
- Article: The Point of Impeachment 11/15/14
- The Corner: Amnesty and Impeachment . . . Cont’d 11/12/14
11:51 AM, Nov 14, 2014 • By DANIEL HALPER
Senator Jeff Sessions wants Congress to stop the "president’s unlawful executive amnesty." And he believes that’s precisely why "Voters sent Congress a Republican majority."
10:19 AM, Nov 14, 2014 • By MICHAEL WARREN
Matthew Continetti, writing at the Washington Free Beacon, offers Congress a path for fighting against President Obama’s plans to amnesty millions of illegal immigrants through executive order:
PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — The fate of a little-noticed ballot measure in strongly Democratic Oregon serves as a warning to President Barack Obama and his party about the political perils of immigration policy.
Watch Rachel Campos-Duffy with the Libre Initiave
This entry was posted in Constitution, Politics.
By Rick Moran Bio
November 14, 2014 – 2:35 pm
Agents working for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency have already been suffering from low morale. Now they have to contend with illegal aliens taunting them about amnesty.
Jessica Vaughn, Director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration, wrote about the tremendous stress ICE agents are under trying to deal with an immigration system that President Obama has deliberately sabotaged:
The president’s gradual, calculated dismantling of our immigration system has caused morale to plummet in the agencies of the Department of Homeland Security. Career immigration officials have courageously objected in public, and sometimes resorted to lawsuits to draw attention to the administration’s subversion of the law. In denial about their principled objections to his scheme, now the president is hoping to stifle their voices by offering them a pay increase as part of this outrageous plan. His assumption that they are motivated by money shows just how little respect he has for the men and women who have devoted their careers to public service in immigration.
Vaughn told the website Secrets about the low morale among ICE agents:
She said that officers are concerned that illegals with criminal records are being released under Obama’s policies, and that some immigrants taunt the officers, believing that the policies protect them.
“Some have told me that illegal alien criminals they have arrested have even taunted them, saying they know the ICE officers can’t do anything to them because of Obama administration policies,” Vaughan told Secrets.
The officers have raised the issues at “town hall” meetings with their superiors.
However, she said, top Homeland officials believe the issue is more about poor pay, not working conditions or the president’s policies. As a result, the White House is considering a pay raise as part of the president’s amnesty plan to some 5 million illegals.
“Clearly the administration is trying to triangulate at best, or more likely thinks that it can just dangle the prospects of a pay raise if they would stop objecting to administration non-enforcement policies,” said Vaughan. “I sincerely doubt anyone will fall for it, but it does reveal what he thinks of them,” she added.
This is not just a matter of “deferred action” on deportations. It is the systematic breakdown of immigration law and procedures. Most of these agents have served proudly, upholding the law while trying to act humanely toward illegal aliens. That’s how they’re trained. But when criminals who’ve committed serious crimes are let loose; when agents don’t even know what the law is supposed to be anymore; when their efforts to keep us safe are stymied by higher ups — it’s a heavy weight to carry when no one is listening to their warnings.
No matter who gets elected as our next president, this is going to be a mess that will take years to clean up.
Nov. 10, 2014
<img width="16" height="16" src="cid:image002.png
Barack Obama’s immigration executive order is just around the corner, and it has many people already poised for opposition. That includes many of the nation’s sheriffs. Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson of Bristol County, Massachusetts, sent a letter to call on his fellow sheriffs to march on DC on Dec. 10 to oppose Obama’s plan. Hodgson wrote, “Never before in our nation’s history has it been so important for the American sheriffs to stand united and speak with one voice to secure our nation’s borders.” His goal is to bring 200 sheriffs to DC with him. He also told National Review, “We don’t need people to sit down there in Washington and sort of intellectualize what they think is the right thing to do without listening to the people who are dealing with these problems day-in and day-out and know the problems intimately.”
US Senator Exposes ZIP Codes Where Criminal Illegals Were Released By Obama Administration – Conservative Hideout 2.0
EXCLUSIVE: List of 134 Cities Where Violent, Criminal Illegal Aliens Were Sent After Release by Obama DHS
According to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of DHS, 36,007 criminal illegal aliens were released into the United States in 2013. Responding to a request by Sen. Chuck Grassley, ICE provided a list of ZIP codes — not cities and states — where criminal illegals, many convicted of violent offenses including murder, rape and kidnapping, have been dumped by the administration.
I wrote a small script to convert the ZIPs into cities and states, the results of which are below. Please make sure that your families, friends, colleagues and other acquaintances are aware of these locations. Better safe than sorry.
Eighty percent of voters polled on Election Day say new jobs should go to Americans and legal immigrants, not to illegal immigrants, including the potential beneficiaries of President Barack Obama’s planned executive amnesty, says an election-day poll of 806 voters.
The new telephone survey of 806 voters matches other data showing that most Americans strongly oppose Obama immigration policies, and that many members of his base and that many Latinos also oppose his immigration policies.
Seventy-four percent of respondents in the election-day poll say the president “should work with Congress rather than around Congress on immigration … [and] 80 percent want new jobs created by the economy to go to American workers and legal immigrants already in the country,” said the memo.
Each year, 4.3 million Americans turn 18, and face competition for jobs from roughly 10 million unemployed Americans, 11 million illegal immigrants, plus the annual inflow of 1.1 million new legal immigrants and 70,000 guest workers.
“Now people are asking ‘What’s fair to the rest of us? What’s fair to the high school graduates and college students who is looking for a job? What is fair to the union guy who can’t find unemployment? What’s fair to the business owners?” Conway said.
“It is just a fact that this president doesn’t seem in interested in collaboration,” Conway said. “He’s more interested in confrontation than collaboration, in stirring the pot and stoking fears,” she said.
Columnist David Harsanyi writes, “In his post-midterm press conference [Wednesday], President Barack Obama reaffirmed his commitment to taking executive action on immigration, ‘before the end of the year.’ Obama argued that most Americans desire reform and consequently he has an imperative to act.” However, that has huge consequences for constitutional government. Harsanyi argues, “Obama has basically admitted again that he believes the president – if he’s passionate enough about a certain issue – is free to craft legislation. And by consistently equating his forthcoming executive action with bills passed by Congress, Obama acknowledges the purpose of his unilateral moves is to enact new policies or pressure Republicans into giving him what he wants. Which is a big problem if you care about the Constitution.” We certainly do care about it. The problem is Obama doesn’t – unless you define “caring” as “shredding.” More…
This is not to say that you didn’t show discipline in making the election a referendum on six years of Barack Obama. You exercised adult supervision over the choice of candidates. You didn’t allow yourself to go down the byways of gender and other identity politics.
It showed: A gain of probably nine Senate seats, the largest Republican House majority in more than 80 years, and astonishing gubernatorial victories, including Massachusetts, Maryland and Illinois, the bluest of the blue, giving lie to the Democrats’ excuse that they lost because the game was played on Republican turf.
The defeat – “a massacre,” The Economist called it – marks the final collapse of Obamaism, a species of left liberalism so intrusive, so incompetently executed and ultimately so unpopular that it will be seen as a parenthesis in American political history. Notwithstanding Obama’s awkward denials at his next-day news conference, he himself defined the election when he insisted just last month that “these [i.e. his] policies are on the ballot – every single one of them.”
They were, and America spoke. But it was a negative judgment, not an endorsement of the GOP. The prize for winning is nothing but the opportunity for Republicans to show that they can govern – the opportunity to seize the national agenda. …
Final memo to the GOP: That would be naked impeachment bait. Don’t take it. Use the power of the purse to defund it. Pledge immediate repeal if Republicans take the White House in 2017. Denounce it as both unconstitutional and bad policy. But don’t let it overwhelm and overtake the GOP agenda. That’s exactly what Obama wants. It is his only way to regain the initiative.
The 2014 election has given the GOP the rare opportunity to retroactively redeem its brand. The conventional perception, incessantly repeated by Democrats and the media, is that Washington dysfunction is the work of the Party of No. Expose the real agent of do-nothing. Show that with Harry Reid no longer able to consign House-passed legislation to oblivion, Congress can actually work.
"Have you met Joe Biden, is my response to that," Gowdy replied. "So, no. Nobody’s discussing impeachment except pundits and commentators. First of all, impeachment is a punishment; it’s not a remedy. Second of all, the only people who want us to talk about impeachment are the president’s allies."
While Republican leaders have dismissed talk of impeachment, at least one member, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), is open to it. He said this week that impeachment "would be a consideration," if Obama moves ahead on executive action.
But for all the debate over Keystone politics and the election tsunami, it was the lingering promise of executive action to reduce deportations that’s sparked the greatest intrigue – and most threatened to shake-up Congress in the lame duck and beyond.
The announcement has thrilled Democrats, infuriated Republicans and relaunched a debate over executive power that’s already spun talk of new lawsuits against the White House, new chatter of impeaching the president and new threats of another government shutdown – issues that are sure to reverberate right through the 2016 presidential election.
In 2012, the Homeland Security Department (DHS) adopted a program – the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative – which provides two-year work visas to qualified illegal immigrants brought to the country as children. Multiple news outlets this week have reported that Obama is now eying what is essentially an expansion of that program to include a much broader swath of the illegal immigrant community, including parents of kids who are U.S. citizens, legal residents or DACA beneficiaries.
“I indicated to Speaker Boehner several months ago that, if in fact Congress failed to act, I would use all the lawful authority that I possess to try to make the system work better,” Obama said Friday during a visit to Burma. "That’s going to happen before the end of the year."
In the eyes of Republicans, such unilateral changes represent an abuse of executive authority and trampling on the separation of powers outlined by the Constitution. And the warnings from GOP leaders have been terse.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said executive action would "poison the well" of bipartisanship heading into the 114th Congress; Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky) said such moves would be like “waving a red flag in front of a bull;” and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is lobbying fellow Republicans to sink any long-term government spending package that doesn’t include language to defund any new lenient policies Obama adopts – a position that potentially sets up a game of government-shutdown chicken with Obama.
"Voters sent Congress a Republican majority to protect them — and their borders — from the president’s unlawful executive amnesty," Sessions said Friday. "A long-term funding bill that does not deal with President Obama’s unconstitutional overreach, adopted before a single newly elected Republican is sworn-in, would be to acquiesce to the president’s unlawful action."
Across the aisle, the view is very different. In the eyes of Obama and the Democrats, the president has not only the clear legal authority to expand DACA to more immigrants, but also the advantage of precedent set by every administration over the last half century.
To make their case, Reps. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) have compiled a list of unilateral immigration reforms under presidents as diverse Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.
"They [Republicans] are saying to the president, ‘Don’t use your executive authority.’ Suppose he turned to us, and said, ‘Don’t use your legislative authority,’" Pelosi, the House minority leaders, said Thursday. "That’s what presidents do. They have executive authority."
Stephen Legomsky, who was the chief counsel at the DHS’ Citizenship and Immigration Services branch when the agency launched DACA, agreed. He argued that, on the statutory level, the power of the president to defer action has been written into federal immigration law for more than 25 years. As for the broader constitutional question, he said Congress’s perennial underfunding of immigration enforcement efforts leaves the president "no practical alternative" but to ignore many cases.
"Every single year Congress knowingly – I would emphasize knowingly – appropriates for immigration enforcement a level of resources that it knows will enable the administration to go after no more than about 4 percent of the entire undocumented population," Legomsky, now a professor at the Washington University School of Law, said Friday by phone.
Legomsky said the legal arguments behind the moves Obama is reportedly weighing are identical to those that governed the crafting of DACA. But because millions more people are expected to benefit – and because everyone is anticipating the changes – officials are being particularly careful this time around.
"It’s … an indication that they know that, whether it’s legal or not, their critics will accuse them of doing something that was illegal," he said. "They’re savvy enough to know that those criticisms will be coming."
Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) took those criticisms a step beyond the government spending debate Friday, arguing that, if Obama adopts the changes reported in the press, it would be an impeachable offense.
Congress, Obama prepare for immigration battle
President Obama must act on immigration reform now, or risk losing the Latino electorate’s support for Democrats in 2016
Democratic Party loyalist Rep. Luis Gutierrez predicts a ‘civil war’ in the Democratic Party if the President is not ‘broad and generous in using his executive power’ to halt immigrant deportations soon
After the overwhelming Republican victory in the midterm elections one is left to wonder if "representative democracy" means anything any more. Because something is clear: Despite their electoral triumph, the GOP does not represent the interests of the majority of Americans, that is, workers, minorities, women and, of course, immigrants.
For President Obama, what the Republican victory means is two years of even greater obstacles to advance his agenda, which could render the rest of his Presidency nearly irrelevant. That’s why it is now or never for him to do the right thing and act on immigration if he wants to save his legacy.
Obama, who promised to take action after the elections and before the end of the year, ran out of time and excuses not to take the much-ballyhooed executive measures that, supposedly, will help millions of undocumented workers.
Now, more than ever, he has to fulfill his promises to act on immigration on his own. Otherwise, the Democratic Party will see a redefinition of its relation with Hispanics and should not expect the all-important Latino vote to be there for them for the 2016 presidential election.
"Obama said that he wants to wait until December to see if Congress sends him a bill"" said Ángela Fernández, executive director of the Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights. "There is no real reason to wait because we all know that any bill coming from the Republicans will be about enforcement and will not help the immigrant community. People are fed up and if Obama doesn’t act, Latinos will seek alternatives to the Democratic Party."
At this stage of the game immigrants and their supporters do not trust Obama. And who can blame them? After all, he set a deportation record by expelling over 2 million people and reneged of his "firm" promise to exercise his executive prerogative at the end of the summer. Instead, he postponed taking action until the end of the year solely for electoral reasons, a wrongheaded political maneuver that backfired spectacularly.
The distrust runs so deep that not even Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Il), a Democratic Party loyalist and the number one proponent of immigration reform in the House, is convinced the President will be true to his word.
"This problem we are seeing politically is nothing next to the civil war that would be created in the Democratic Party if the President is not broad and generous in using his executive power," he said, referring to the disappointment of Latinos feel about Obama and the Democrats. "(If that happens) Latinos are not going to be deciding between voting or not voting, but if they stay (or not) in the Democratic Party."
Secure borders likely would have stopped the shooting deaths of two California sheriff’s deputies on Friday because the suspect would not have been allowed into the country, Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio told Fox News Channel. [Full Story]
Illegal immigrants charged with violent crimes and serious felonies were among the hundreds of criminals the Obama administration released from jails across the country in February 2013, newly released documents show.
According to records obtained by USA Today, the government released inmates charged with offenses ranging from kidnapping and sexual assault to drug trafficking, armed assault, and homicide.
The evidence contradicts previous assurances by the administration that the 617 criminals who were released as part of a cost-cutting exercise were low-risk offenders charged with misdemeanors "or other criminals whose prior conviction did not pose a violent threat to public safety," USA Today reported.
"Discretionary releases made by ICE were of low-level offenders. However, the releases involving individuals with more significant criminal histories were, by and large, dictated by special circumstances outside of the agency’s control," ICE spokeswoman Gillian Christensen told USA Today.
The new records obtained by the newspaper from a Freedom of Information Act request outlined previously undisclosed details about the alleged crimes of specific detainees. One person in Texas was charged with aggravated kidnapping and sexual assault of a child.
Another illegal immigrant from Florida was facing charges of conspiracy to commit homicide, according to USA Today.
Two Massachusetts detainees had been charged with aggravated assault using a weapon, while another illegal immigrant from Colorado was being held on a sexual assault charge.
The Obama administration released more than 2,200 illegal immigrants from jail between Feb. 9 and March 1, 2013, as part of an effort to cut the number of prisoners due to the budget-sequester funding cuts. The detainees had been awaiting deportation or immigration hearings in a court, and the administration did not give advance notice it would be freeing them.
The releases triggered a furor in Congress and hearings with lawmakers who grilled then-ICE director John Morton.
According to USA Today, Virginia GOP Rep. J. Randy Forbes asked Morton directly, "No one on that list has been charged or convicted with murder, rape, or sexual abuse of a minor, were they?"
Morton, who subsequently resigned, answered, "They were not."
Former White House spokesman Jay Carney had also described the criminals as "low-risk, noncriminal detainees," USA Today reported.
Meanwhile, Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma demanded a formal investigation by the inspector general.
The internal audit, which concluded in August 2014, concluded that ICE broke the law in releasing the criminal illegal migrants.
"It is baffling how an agency charged with homeland security and immigration enforcement would knowingly release hundreds of illegals with criminal histories. In this single action, ICE undermined its own credibility, the rule of law, and the safety of Americans and local law enforcement," Coburn said when the audit was released.
He added, "This report provides more evidence that our nation’s immigration laws are being flagrantly disregarded. Americans need to be assured the problems within ICE that led to the dangerous release of illegal aliens will be fixed, and DHS and ICE will never again violate the law by releasing known criminals into our streets."
McCain said it is "deeply troubling that ICE would knowingly release thousands of undocumented immigrant detainees — many with prior criminal records — into our streets, while publicly downplaying the danger they posed," USA Today reported.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/Illegal-immigrants-obama-administration/2014/10/23/id/602647/#ixzz3HOtthF3Q
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Not content with the total bias and domination of the news networks, CNN, and the nation’s leading newspapers, the Democrats on the Federal Election Commission have moved to assert federal control over Internet political speech…. [Full Story]
The resolution follows hearings held last week by Chairman Ed Royce (R- Calif.) of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. At those hearings, Royce announced that Mexican doctors had confirmed Tahmooressi is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, which he said opened the door to a “humanitarian release” very soon.
Good for Rep. Royce and his fellow Republican, Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon, chairman of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. Both men have visited Tahmooressi in recent months, and whatever political progress has been made toward this Marine’s release is largely because of their efforts.
Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden refused a personal entreaty from his former Senate colleague, John McCain, to ask the president to raise Tahmooressi’s plight with President Nieto during a meeting in June.
He says he crossed into Mexico by mistake after making a wrong turn out of a parking lot. He was thrown into prison when Mexican officers discovered three weapons he had in his car — weapons he owned legally in the US but that are prohibited in Mexico.
Democrats hope to see a drastic change in White House staffing in hopes of saving the presidency of Barack Obama, The Hill Reports.
Presidents typically announce staff changes halfway through their second terms, but with Obama’s poll numbers in the cellar and his agenda facing a bleak outlook as Republicans aim to control both houses of Congress, critics within his own party are calling for change.
To say that Obama needs a dramatic change isn’t debatable, the strategist said.
"The general consensus that the president is surrounded by people who do him more harm than good because they are more focused on pleasing him than they are challenging him or proposing a different course," the person told The Hill.
"And those guys could, they could speak really frankly to him," Fenn told The Hill. "How does he put people in the White House with serious political chops?"
Even if he did, Obama might not listen.
Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Vice President Joe Biden both have sway on Capitol Hill, but Obama himself is loathe to engage.
"If staffers close to the president haven’t been ousted yet, they’re likely not going anywhere unless there is additional policy failures," Hudak said.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.Newsmax.com/Newsfront/democrats-press-shakeup-at/2014/10/12/id/600142/#ixzz3FzAEyeP2
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
"[Obama] wants to stack the deck so that no Republican or conservative can ever win an election," Morris told "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV.
Story continues below video.
Morris — author with Eileen McGann of the new book, "Power Grab: Obama’s Dangerous Plan for a One Party Nation," published by Humanix Books — said the president’s plan is not about persuading Americans by traditional means, which "would be legit."
"It’s by bringing in millions of immigrants to screw up the voter rolls and by massive photo fraud with no photo ID so that he can use ACORN volunteers to produce artificial results," Morris said.
"It’s getting everybody into a labor union whether they like it or not, to help control their votes.
"And the most insidious part is Obamacare; to give everybody healthcare, food stamps, disability and Medicaid so that they all have skin in the game and something to lose if the Democrats lose."
Morris, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton, said the United States has been a one-party nation in the past.
"The Democratic Party held power for only 16 years between 1860 and 1932 – a 72-year period. That’s the kind of thing that he wants to do here," he said.
Morris also believes Obama wants industries such as those that produce solid fuels like coal to be under the government’s thumb.
"He wants to make it impossible for a private sector business to operate without the government’s explicit approval," Morris said.
"That means corruption, campaign contributions, not siding with the other side politically, that the EPA … has the life and death of your company in its hands."
Morris said the recent IRS scandal — in which agency officials allegedly targeted conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status — was "designed to intimidate the activist and donor base so the Republican Party becomes a minor sideshow, not the main event."
And the president would also like to seize control of the World Wide Web, according to Morris.
"His whole goal here is to regulate the Internet and if possible, to allow international regulation of the Internet so some of the dictatorial countries can make their views heard," he said.
"He’s afraid of the Internet because he controls the media. If all we hear is the New York Times and the Washington Post, ABC, CBS and NBC and the L.A. Times and USA Today, that’s great.
"But once you get into this other stuff like Newsmax TV, FOX News, talk radio, Internet stuff, Drudge Report, WND.com, he gets nervous because he can’t control that and he wants to exercise the control."
Morris alleged that the Commander-in-Chief "bends over backwards" to appeal to Muslims by arguing that ISIS is not an Islamic State.
"What does the ‘I’ stand for? Ice cream? One of the reasons he does that is because he wants the Islamic vote," Morris said.
"His relatively pro-Muslim policy is a response to a domestic voting trend. Jews are three percent of the vote in this country and Muslims are two percent.
"If he can get it up to three, four, five or six and make it an 80-20 voting block for him, that’s pretty important. In terms of foreign policy and running the government, that’s not what he’s good at. What he’s good at is the correlation of forces to set up a political movement that takes over. That’s what he’s good at."
And with one-party control, Obama can reduce the Republican Party to an "infinite, yapping dog that’s on the side" while the Democratic Party is in control, according to Morris.
"The other thing is his scheme to kill the Electoral College. He is getting state legislatures around the country quietly to pass bills saying we will respect the winner of the popular vote and give him our electoral votes regardless of our own state votes. You can win by voter fraud," he said.
"He wants to transform this country fundamentally and permanently. I would not assume that Hillary Clinton is going to depart from this game plan very much."
Morris said Obama has "exterminated" the conservative wing of the Democratic Party.
"I’m a dodo bird. I used to be a conservative Democrat, I still would be if it existed," Morris said.
"But you’re either a [Nancy] Pelosi, Hillary [Clinton], Obama Democrat or you’re a Republican. So I’m a Republican."
At the end of the 18th century, there were two great Western revolutions – the American and the French. Americans opted for the freedom of the individual, and divinely endowed absolute rights and values.
A quite different French version sought equality of result. French firebrands saw laws less as absolute, but instead as useful to the degree that they contributed to supposed social justice and coerced redistribution. They ended up not with a Bill of Rights and separation of powers, but instead with mass executions and Napoleonic tyranny.
Suddenly, once-nonpartisan federal bureaucracies have become catalysts for fundamentally transforming America. Often-ideological bureaucrats have forgotten their original mission. NASA might do better to ensure that our astronauts are independent of Vladimir Putin’s Russian rockets rather than claiming that its primary mission is to reach out to the Muslim community.
Intelligence directors vie with one another to please superiors with fatuous but politically correct analysis. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper assured us that the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was largely secular. CIA Director John Brennan once termed a now-emerging Islamic caliphate as “absurd.” Former Director of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano once warned that returning veterans and right-wingers were the chief domestic terrorist threats, not Islamic jihadists.
The IRS has lost its nonpartisan reputation by hounding perceived ideological enemies. It no longer abides by the historic standards – transparency, rapid submission of documents, honesty – that it demands from those it audits.
The role of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement once was to enforce federal statutes established by Congress and signed by the president. Border patrol agents were not supposed to become agents of social change to nullify settled laws by noncompliance.
Almost immediately it was clear that the 2012 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was a preplanned attack by an al-Qaeda terrorist affiliate. But that truth did not fit the re-election narrative that al-Qaeda was on the run.
In response, public servants such as U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton fabricated preferable scenarios – in service supposedly to a good cause. Suddenly, right-wing video maker Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was to be blamed. He alone had incited ordinary Libyans to spontaneously riot – a useful teachable moment for the administration to muzzle such reactionary firebrands.
The Justice Department was supposed to be blind in matters of class, race, gender and religion. Yet, under Attorney General Eric Holder, if selective non-enforcement of elements of the Affordable Care Act, immigration statutes or conduct at voting precincts might further perceptions of social justice, then the law was often ignored.
Why would the Federal Aviation Administration shut down flights to Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv – the most secure in the world – because of one stray rocket? Hamas leadership hailed the Obama administration’s move as proof that their aerial barrages were shutting off Israel from the Western world.
In contrast, the FAA has not yet stopped U.S. flights to and from Liberia and other West African countries, the source of the Ebola virus epidemic. Is it more dangerous for Americans to have open travel to and from Israel, or to and from Liberia?
An intruder bounded onto the White House grounds, entered the White House and bowled over a Secret Service agent. A former felon, fully armed, climbed into an elevator with the president of the United States. Shots were fired at the White House. Agents were caught soliciting prostitutes while on duty in South America.
Official stories change to fit larger agendas. One day the White House has full confidence in Secret Service Director Julia Pierson, the next day she is gone. One day leaving Iraq was the president’s stellar achievement, the next day someone else did it. We are at war and not at war with the Islamic State – both a manageable problem of some jayvees and an existential threat. The Free Syrian Army is both a fantasy and plagued by amateurs and yet the linchpin of our new strategy on the ground against the Islamic State.
Obama’s poll numbers dropped below those of former President George W. Bush. By the end of Bush’s term, focus groups were telling pollsters they despised the very four-letter word B-U-S-H. When John McCain faced Obama in 2008, Democrats gleefully slammed McCain’s quest as the “third Bush term.”
In practically anointing Obama, our “watchdog” media ignored a thin resume full of red flags. So in four years, Obama shoots from unknown state lawmaker, with little private sector and no executive experience, to president – all in a nanosecond by political standards.
Look at Obama’s rise. By his own admission, he is an indifferent student who somehow finds himself at Harvard Law. Co-members elect Obama president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review publication, where, oddly, he publishes nothing, at least not under his name.
He becomes a Chicago “community organizer,” whose achievements appear to be holding lots of meetings and yelling at government to do more. He may have helped get asbestos removed from a lower-class housing complex. Or he may or may not have had a hand in it being removed after Obama left town for law school. Hard to say.
Former fugitive and still unrepentant domestic-terrorist-turned-government-paid-professor Bill Ayers co-writes a proposal to the Annenberg Foundation. It brings a $49.2 million education award to “improve” Chicago public schools. Just three years out of law school, Obama is asked to chair the newly formed Chicago Annenberg Challenge board. Money spent includes hundreds of thousands of dollars given in grants to Ayers’ Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform and Chicago School Reform Collaborative projects.
Obama runs for state senator, and somehow manages to kick off his other principal rivals over their alleged signature-gathering violations. He serves as an indifferent state lawmaker, voting “present” numerous times.
As candidate, he survives scandals – or rather, would-be scandals – that would have torpedoed the chances of a typical pol. Tony Rezko, Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright – are all overlooked or minimized in importance by our Obama-for-president media.
Elected, Obama pursues – and succeeds in signing into law – a left-wing agenda more ambitious than any in modern history. His record: $1 trillion “stimulus”; $150 billion spent, per “60 Minutes,” on “green tech” with nothing to show for it; higher taxes on “the rich”; Dodd-Frank, the financial regulations bill that does nothing to address the cause of the Wall Street/housing meltdown; an EPA unleashed on coal; and the creation of a brand-new entitlement program – Obamacare.
To pass Obamacare, Obama made a number of broken promises including, but not limited to: “If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor”; Obamacare will “bend down” the “cost curve”; Obamacare will save the “typical family … $2,500 a year”; and Obamacare will reduce the deficit over the next 10 years – a projection the Congressional Budget Office says it can no longer stand by.
Obama’s supporters, like former President Jimmy Carter, blame Obama opposition on “a belief among many white people, not just in the South but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country.” Actors James Earl Jones, Morgan Freeman and Samuel L. Jackson publicly call the tea party, an important part of the GOP base, “racist.”
So Obama’s post-election narrative becomes: “It isn’t the leftist agenda that triggers GOP opposition. Nor is it Obama’s growth-retarding policies that have produced the worst recovery since the Great Depression. No, what drives Republican opposition? Racism!
Leftist pundits like CNN’s Roland Martin urged Obama to "go gangsta” and make “recess” appointments. Now, Congress said it was not “in recess” and thus the President could not make any “recess” appointments. Obama did anyway. Why not take extra, possibly illegal, measures to achieve results? Why not use expansive executive orders, ignore deadlines and unilaterally waive statutory requirements? After all, we’re dealing with racists here!
But in a stunning 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court said Obama overreached in making the recess appointments. Congress, said the court, not the President, determines its rules. Congress, said the court, not Obama, decides when it is in recess.
House Republicans say they intend to sue Obama, arguing abuse of separation of powers. Respected left-wing legal scholar, Jonathan Turley, who twice voted for Obama, encourages a lawsuit. “What’s emerging,” Turley said, “is an imperial presidency. … Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.”
The White House press office has on several occasions made changes to media reports produced by journalists in the press pool, demanding adjustments as a condition of distributing the articles to press outlets more widely, according to The Washington Post.
The White House press pool is a rotating selection of professional reporters who attend events covering the president, and produce reports that are distributed for use more widely.
As part of the protocol, copy is sent to the White House press office for review. The White House then disseminates the stories via email to thousands of journalists and government officials.
According to the Post, most of the interference by the White House involves minor changes to spelling or small fact corrections, but it has on occasion taken issue with certain details that are being reported, in some cases demanding they be removed from reports entirely.
"Journalists who cover the White House say Obama’s press aides have demanded — and received — changes in press-pool reports before the reports have been disseminated to other journalists. They say the White House has used its unusual role as the distributor of the reports as leverage to steer coverage in a more favorable direction," the Post reported.
"While the overwhelming majority of pool reports pass through the White House without delay or amendment, some have been flagged by the administration’s press staff, which has demanded changes as a condition of distributing them."
In one instance, a pool reporter covered a presidential trip on Air Force One to California in 2012. As part of the coverage, the reporter included mention of the president presenting a birthday dessert to a reporter and asking her to make a wish, "preferably one that had something to do with the number 270," in reference to the minimum number of electoral college votes the president needed to win re-election.
The story was flagged by a press aide who insisted that details of the president’s comments were off the record and would not be included in the distributed story. The reporter appealed the decision to then-press secretary Jay Carney, who gave approval, but the report was ultimately sent too late for reporters to use.
"My view is the White House has no right to touch a pool report," Tom DeFrank, contributing editor of the National Journal, told the Post. "It’s none of their business. If they want to challenge something by putting out a statement of their own, that’s their right. It’s also their prerogative to jawbone a reporter, which often happens. But they have no right to alter a pool report unilaterally."
The interferences have prompted the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) to consider revising its procedure for pool reporting.
"The independence of the print pool reports is of utmost importance to us," Christie Parsons, the WHCA’s president, told the Post. "Our expectation is that the White House puts out the pool report and asks questions later."
Parsons said she was assured by White House Press Secretary John Earnest that this would be the practice, and the White House reinforced the view that it will work cooperatively with reporters.
"We value the role of the independent press pool, which provides timely, extensive, and important coverage of the president and his activities while at the White House and around the world," White House deputy press secretary Eric Schultz told the Post.
"That is why, at the request of the White House Correspondents Association, the White House has distributed 20,000 pool reports in the past six years, and we will continue to offer that facilitation for journalists as they work to chronicle the presidency."
The report comes after numerous complaints by journalists that the Obama White House has systematically restricted reporter access, hindering the freedom of the press.
In Shakespeare’s King Henry V, the king must decide the fate of a drunken soldier who berated him in public: lèse-majesté, a crime technically punishable by death. Henry decides to pardon him despite the sanctimonious pleas of three traitors to execute him, or at least punish him severely. The King warns and counsels them,
U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, an Obama appointee, should have pondered King Henry’s advice before he demanded jail time for conservative author Dinesh D’Souza. Campaign finance laws that do not apply to everybody should apply to nobody, while laws that apply to some must apply to all. D’Souza’s felony conviction makes it necessary to bring up Barack Obama’s own participation in equally illegal fundraising practices during his 2007 and 2008 campaigns.
3. A prize
A YouTube video by Barack Obama himself proves unequivocally that he not only knew about, but participated in, such a fundraising scheme. He says very clearly that four people who donate money (payment of consideration) will be selected (element of chance) to be flown in to have dinner with him, at his expense (prize). WorldNet Daily reported that the Obama camp modified these promotions to allow people to enter without donating money, but only after complaints from at least one law enforcement agency.
Christina, Haile, Margaret, and Michael each made a small online donation, and we flew them across the country for some good food and good conversation.
What I enjoyed most about this dinner was the opportunity to listen to the stories and concerns of ordinary Americans in a relaxed environment. Out on the campaign trail, there isn’t always time for that kind of interaction.
Last week we started planning our second dinner, and on Friday evening at 6:42 pm, a woman named Dorothy Unruh of Lakewood, Colorado made a donation.
I’m pleased to announce that Dorothy will be one of my guests for the second dinner. You could join us if you make a small donation before 11:59 pm tonight, July 31st:
…If you make a donation by 11:59 pm tonight, Tuesday, July 31st, you could join us for dinner very soon:
We’ll pay for your trip and the meal