What a tragedy it would be if Democrats made good on their threat and decided DACA was so important that they must shut down the federal government over it.
Kurt Schlichter writes: What a tragedy it would be if Democrats made good on their threat and decided DACA was so important that they must shut down the federal government over it. Please don’t! Why, I’d be heartbroken if the government did less and a bunch of foreigners didn’t get rewarded for ignoring our laws. I think this is just the right hill for the Democrats to choose to fight to the death on, and I encourage them to do so. Throw us right in that briar patch, because you are smart and savvy and there’s no way a big dummy like Trump could beat you and make you look like fools.
You remember DACA? It’s an acronym that stands for “That Thing Democrats Want To Use To Fill The Voter Rolls With Foreigners And GOP Donors Want To Use To Get More Serfs To Work For Peanuts While Actual Americans Get Shafted And Called ‘Racist’ If They Dare Complain.” The Democrats desperately want DACA because you Normal people have let them down and voted for your own interests rather than in the way Nancy Pelosi instructed you. Bad, bad electorate! You definitely need to be replaced.
The GOP wants it because its big money donors want it because you actual Americans demand to be treated with respect by your employers and, well, paying Americans what they’re worth is bad for business. And the Senate GOP Sissy Caucus of sanctimonious twits wants it because it gives them a chance to pose and preen and pretend to have the moral high ground over those wicked evil bad bad bad Republicans who want to do what actual Republican voters want done instead of being guided by the eccentric moral compass that Jeff Flake keeps inside himself right next to his head.
The “Schumerhole” controversy arose because Donald Trump indicated that giving Big Amnesty everything it wanted, and in return allowing him to totally alienate his base, was a bad deal. Read the rest of this entry »
Obama: Rule of Law, Due Process, Constitutional Fidelity, and Separation of Powers ‘Sets Our Country Back’Posted: June 23, 2016
President Obama said Thursday that the Supreme Court’s 4-4 decision that will block his 2014 executive actions on immigration “sets our country back,” and is “heartbreaking” for the millions of illegal immigrants still in the country.
“Today’s decision is frustrating to those who seek to grow our economy and bring a rationality to our immigration system, and to allow people to come out of the shadows,” he said at the White House.
The 4-4 tie left in place a lower court ruling that found against Obama’s actions. But Obama cast the ruling as one that showed the Supreme Court was “unable to reach a decision,” and argued that it’s more evidence that the Senate needs to consider his nominee for the high court, Merrick Garland, so that the court cannot deadlock again.
“This is part of the consequence of the Republican failure so far to give a hearing to Mr. Merrick Garland,” Obama said.
Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation’s capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.
“We cover what we are allowed to cover. And when policy decisions and presidents are inaccessible and don’t take questions from the press on a regular basis, I think they reap what they sow.”
The journalist, who retired in August after a 40-year career, revealed to C-SPAN’s Brian Lamb: “I have seen in the last year Barack Obama really angry twice. Both were off-the-record times. One, profanity-laced where he thought the press was making too much of scandals that he did not think were scandals.” [MP3 audio here.]
She explained, “And I don’t find him apologetic. But I find him willing to stand up to the press and look them in the eye, even though it was off the record and just give us hell.”
“Before I walked out the door on September 10, I was a strong voice for complaining that this particular administration has been more opaque than any I have covered about what the President does in the Oval Office everyday…”
After Lamb wondered if the President had a point, she chided, “We cover what we are allowed to cover. And when policy decisions and presidents are inaccessible and don’t take questions from the press on a regular basis, I think they reap what they sow.”
Despite Obama’s apparent rage against the press, he hasn’t had much to complain about. The Media Research Center documented how journalists covered-up his failures and scandals.
Earlier in the hour-long C-SPAN interview, which aired on Sunday night, but was recorded in October, Compton slammed the “opaque” administration:
ANN COMPTON: Before I walked out the door on September 10, I was a strong voice for complaining that this particular administration has been more opaque than any I have covered about what the President does in the Oval Office everyday. He is far less accessible on photo-ops with meetings. Even some meetings on the record, meeting in the Roosevelt room with financial leaders from, from Wall Street or on issues with environmental groups, or with issues with environmental groups, with public opinion leaders, I think most presidents have been far more forthcoming than the second Obama term, in terms of what the President is doing every day and we almost never get photo-ops.
She added that it’s fine for the White House to take its own photographs, but “those same elements should not be blocked from the White House press corps.”
Interestingly, on Compton’s last day in August, the President called on her for a final question. She chose to ask about the police shooting in Ferguson, not the concerns she expressed to C-SPAN. Read the rest of this entry »
For The Daily Caller, White House Correspondent Neil Munro writes: President Obama once declared that an influx of illegal immigrants will harm “the wages of blue-collar
Americans” and “put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”
“Obama now presides over a very porous southern border, and he’s allowed 130,000 Central American migrants across since October 2013.”
“[T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border—a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before,” then-Senator Obama wrote in his 2006 autobiography, “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.”
”Not all these fears are irrational,” he wrote.
“Via executive order, he is also about to provide work permits to at least 3 million illegal immigrants, allowing them to compete against the very Americans — black, white, Latino and Asian — who he once said would be harmed by such a move.”
[Read the rest at The Daily Caller]
“If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole—especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan—it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”
“The guest worker provision of the bill troubled me. it was essentially a sop to big business, a means for them to employ immigrants without granting them citizenship rights—indeed, a means for business to gain the benefits of outsourcing without having to locate their operations overseas.”
— Senator Barack Obama, 2006
If these feel like the words of one of Obama’s opponents, it’s because they’re the exact argument that the president’s critics have been making as he now rushes to announce a sweeping executive order that would give work permits to millions of illegal immigrants in the country. Read the rest of this entry »
THE HAMMER: to Bret Baier on Special Report
“The reason Obama has waited is because, according to his own words which he has said repeatedly for six years, he is not allowed under the constitution to do what he’s now proposing to do. He has said this over and over again. He’s said I’d like to do all these things, but under the constitution, I do not write the laws. If any of this is true, this is a wholesale canceling of a law passed by Congress. If it is to be canceled, if it is to be reformed, it has to be done.”
“This is a constitutionally odious proposal. He knows it and he admitted it himself. As a matter of policy, I think it’s a terrible idea. I’m not against legalization, but I am against legalization before you’ve done anything serious about controlling the border. Otherwise this is an advertisement to the whole world, particularly Latin America where it’s easy to get across the border, that you come into America illegally. It’s up to you, we do not control our borders. And then if you wait long enough and you make strong enough case and there’s enough pressure, we will legalize you.”
“He’s waited [to do this] because it’s illegal. If they were a Republican who is in the White House and says I waited and waited, I demanded abolition of the capital gains tax and the Congress wouldn’t do it, so i’m ordering the IRS: no collection of capital gains. If congress wants to pass a law to override that, I invite that. You would be up here as everybody would and say this is unconstitutional, it is an impeachable offense. That’s what he’s doing. He himself has admitted that year after year up till now, with two years left, all the elections behind him. He doesn’t care.”
“I know there are some folks who wish I could just bypass Congress. I can’t.”
Neil Munro reports: 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.
“Voters overwhelmingly prefer an immigration system that protects American workers,” says a memo released with the poll by Kellyanne Conway, founder of the polling company.
“Members of Congress should feel confident that voters will support actions using the power of the purse to protect American workers from Obama’s executive amnesty threat.”
“The question of fairness is usually about ‘what’s fair to the illegal immigrants.”
“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?”
— Kellyanne Conway, founder of the polling company
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. Read the rest of this entry »
A revealing admission. And further proof that this administration was never about serving the public interest, statesmanship, or governing. The U.S. government has been politicized and subverted to the point where it’s little more than a fundraising and election-rigging machine. One that commands an Army, Navy, Air force, Marines, an EPA, an IRS, ICE, labor department, Federal Reserve, Treasury, and countless law enforcement and regulatory agencies, a rose garden, and endless golfing vacations. And enjoys its own taxpayer-funded, state-of-the-art luxury fundraising airplane.
“…you would have seen Republican candidates do more to make the immigration issue central to their campaign. And in the event that they were successful in their campaign, the concern would be that they would cite their opposition to immigration reform as a reason to their success.”
Here’s a bonus “headline of the day” from Breitbart.com
And here’s some bonus questions. What makes Obama think the GOP can’t campaign on executive amnesty? And did he really think delaying it would prevent his party from losing the Senate? That’s the risk of being political, unpopular, and short-sighted.
From National Review Online:
White House press secretary Josh Earnest bluntly admitted on Wednesday that the reason President Obama chose to delay executive amnesty for illegal immigrants was so Republicans would not be able to campaign on the issue during the midterms. Read the rest of this entry »
[VIDEO] Immigration Policy and Preventative Measures Down Under: ‘If You Come the Wrong Way, You Will Never Get to Stay’Posted: August 5, 2014
“It is controversial, but it is working.”
The idea at the heart of this policy is not controversial. In fact, it’s one that the majority of the American public already supports. And is supported even more passionately by new U.S. citizens, those who immigrated here legally. It’s the enforcement apparatus required that’s controversial.
“These people that were coming were seen as queue-jumpers, and it’s not fair to the genuine refugees.”
Exactly. What about those who waited in line, and followed the rules? Many feel betrayed, and resent that their respect for the process is being undermined by pro-amnesty activists. Not just radical groups protesting at the border, but pro-amnesty activists in all three branches of government. Often the loudest voices are the ones with the most questionable motives.
[Check out Nick Adams’s book “The American Boomerang: How the World’s Greatest ‘Turnaround’ Nation Will Do It Again” at Amazon.com]
From The Corner:
Australian-born political commentator Nick Adams joined Bill O’Reilly to share his country’s approach towards illegal immigration. Part of the policy includes the national Navy physically intercepting boats of immigrants trying to enter the country illegally and denying them the ability to land on Australian shores.
A moat? Nations like Japan, and Australia, have a natural geographical protection–surrounded by deep water–from millions of immigrants crossing borders illegally to “live in the shadows”. The U.S. Mexico border is 1,989 long.
Though, to be fair, as critics of the pro-border control argument remind us, the majority of the U.S.’s illegal immigrants don’t enter by crossing borders illegally. They do it by applying for temporary visas, then violate their visas by overstaying. Then exploiting pro-amnesty sentiment to justify never returning to their native residence. Or, you know–not unlike getting distracted and neglecting to get a haircut–being busy, and forgetting to return home for ten or twenty years when the visa is up.
President Obama obviously can’t be trusted
The House Republican leadership has been confronted by devilishly difficult tactical choices over the years. But what to do on the issue of immigration right now isn’t one of them. The correct course is easy and eminently achievable: Do nothing.
“Only 3 percent cited immigration as the biggest problem facing the country”
The old Reagan catchphrase calling for non-action — don’t just do something, stand there — has never been more apt. Yet the House leadership is about to roll out a set of immigration principles reportedly including an amnesty for illegal aliens, and presumably will follow up with a push to pass them through the House. This is legislative strategy as unforced error.